The Cambridge Greek Lexicon

One after known I checked that final list and suddenly the realisation hit me we reached it and quite literally by wrote down in tears of joy. Welcome to Lesky, a podcast on new ideas in ancient Greek studies. I'm your host, Johanna Hanning, and I'm a class assistant at Brown University. I'm just freshly back from the meetings in Philadelphia, so that was the Society of Classical Studies in the Archaeological Institute of America Annual Meetings. On Sunday, I was part of a great workshop that reflected on the concept and state of what I think of as big books about classical antiquity. Those kinds of high profile, ambitious books, which often, but not always, take a narrative approach to a big topic in the field, in which there are usually pitched to an audience beyond the profession. That workshop featured presentations by Rob Tempio, the ancient world publisher at Princeton University Press, as well as by some once-in-future authors of big books. In Wittmarsch, Regis Professor of Greek at Cambridge in Lesky Podcast alum, Danelle Pedia-Peralta, Associate Professor of Classics at Princeton, and Rachel Kauser, Professor of Greek and Roman art in Archaeology at Brooklyn College in the CUNY Graduate Center, and another Lesky Podcast alum. It was great to see so many people turn up for the workshop on the Sunday afternoon of the meetings, and I certainly left wanting to keep thinking about the sorts of issues that were raised. I'm also excited to get to work one day on a big book of my own. Speaking of big books, this episode is about a big book, or actually a big box set of two books. That's big in a different kind of way. On April 22, 2021, Cambridge University Press published the new Cambridge Greek Lexicon, a staggering work of classical scholarship and lexiconography that was more than two decades in the making. The two volumes of the CGL run to over 1,500 pages, and as you'll be hearing here in my conversation with the editor-in-chief, James Diggle, the lexicon improves upon the L.S.J. in several important ways. This conversation was a bit of a personal one for me, since I owe the opportunity that I had to study classics at Cambridge in particular at Queen's College, which I loved, largely to James. As you'll hear, I also remember speaking to James several times during my years in Cambridge, so 2006 to '10, about his work on the lexicon. Even though James showed an incredible amount of commitment to the project, sometimes his accounts of the work reminded me of Thomas Hardy's famous poem Little and Scott, which Hardy wrote upon the completion of that lexicon back in 1843. I'll read just a part of it here from the beginning so you get a sense of what I mean. Well, though it seems beyond our dreams said Little to Scott, we've really got to the very end, all inked and penned, blotless and fair without turning a hair, this sultry summer day, AD, 1800 and 43. I've often I own belched many a moan at undertaking it, and dreamt for saking it. Yes, on to pie when the end loom nigh, and friends said, "You've as good as done, I almost wished we'd not be gone." Even now, if people only knew my sinkings as we slowly drew along through Kappa Lambda Moo, they'd be concerned at my misgiving and goes on from there. Happily, of course, the Cambridge Greek lexicon, under James's stewardship, also reached its own finishing line, and the celebration around his publication was also considerable. And I've put some links in the show notes to some of the original publication events and high profile reviews. I can only imagine how much two particular lines of that hearty poem must also have resonated with James when he reached the end. So in the poem, after Scott speaks, we then hear this response. Little replied, "Well, that's past now. The job's done. Thank God anyhow." Silly poetry aside, I am delighted to be able to share with you this conversation with the editor-in-chief of a much more recent monument of classical scholarship, Professor James Diggle. James Diggle, C-B-E-F-B-A, is Professor Emeritus of Greek and Latin at the University of Cambridge and a Fellow of Queens College, where he was director of studies and classics for over 40 years. His publications include The Faeathon of Euripides, and that was a Cambridge Orange from 1970. The three volume Oxford Classical Text of Euripides, which appeared between 1981 and 1994. Studies on the Text of Euripides from 1981. The textual tradition of Euripides is a Restys from 1991. Euripidea, collected essays from 1994. Tragey-Corom, Greikorom, Fragmenta Selecta from 1998. A Cambridge Orange of The Frastis' characters from 2004 and a green and yellow of the same text from 2022. James Diggle was University Orator at Cambridge for 11 years and has published a selection of his speeches. He is also a joint editor of the classical papers of A.E. Houseman, joint author of Odysseus Unbound, the search for Homer's Ithaca, and was, of course, editor-in-chief of the Cambridge Greek lexicon. Just another quick note that as ever, I've put a few references in the show notes. So now I'd like to welcome into the Lesky James Diggle. The next voice you'll be hearing is his. The lexicon was the brainchild of John Chadwick, who for many years was my colleague in Cambridge. John Chadwick is best known for his work on the Linear B script, that is Mycenaean Greek. But as a young man, he served for six years on the editorial staff of the Oxford Latin Dictionary, and towards the end of his life he returned to lexicon graphy. In his final work, lexicographic or griker, published in 1996, he demonstrated some of the inadequacies in Little and Scots, Greek English lexicon. He did this by examining about 80 words and showing how the job could have been done so much better. And it was he, John Chadwick, who persuaded the faculty board of classics in Cambridge in 1997 to oversee a project to revise the intermediate edition of Little and Scots lexicon. So what is Little and Scots? The original lexicon was published in 1843. It's been continuously revised. The last edition, the ninth, was published in sections between 1925 and 1940. Revised and augmented throughout. As the title page has it by Henry Stewart Jones. Hence the acronym by which the lexicon is generally known, L-S-J. Meanwhile in 1889, an abridged version was published, known as the Intermediate lexicon. This was based on the seventh edition of Little and Scots which have been published seven years earlier in 1882. Now this intermediate lexicon has been continuously imprinted for over 130 years, but it's never being revised. And yet it has remained the lexicon most commonly used by students in English schools and universities. There is also still in winter smaller abridged edition based on an even earlier edition of Little and Scots. So you've got a family of three, those little little, middle little and farther little, sometimes known as great Scott. So in 1997, John Chadwick proposed to the Faculty Board of Classics that it short overseer project to revise the Intermediate lexicon. The Faculty Board agreed and in the following year established the Greek lexicon project with financial support from John Chadwick and other sources. Former pupil of his was appointed its initial editor. And I was asked to chair an advisory committee. And it was hoped that the project might be completed within five years. This remember was 1998. So here's an important question. Why did a project? designed to be competed by one person in five years. Take 24 years. For some reason, occupy six full-time editors, as well as necessitating the raising of huge financial support and which for a group many years took over my life. I come back to that question in a moment before I answer it. I'd like us to consider how you might go about producing a new dictionary, not just a dictionary of Greek, but of any language. There are two ways. The most economical way, let's call it Plan A, is to base yourself on what has gone before and then correct and supplemented. This was the method of Lidlund Scott and of the subsequent revisions of it. The first edition of Lidlund Scott of 1843 was based on France Passols, Hans Werther Bucher der Grieśsenschwarker of 1831. Which itself drew on Johann Schneider's Grieśsenschwarker of the Erther Buch of 1805 to 19? And here we see one of the weaknesses of this kind of dictionary making and hence a weakness of LSD. If you base yourself on your predecessors, the structure of an article may remain unchanged, old material, maybe taken on trust and not reexamine, supplementary material is apt to be added piecemeal, translations sometimes live on in English that has become antiquated. The other way, Plan B, is to start again from scratch. First, gather your own material by reading the texts of fresh and to the material on slips of paper and then put the slips in order. This was the method of Dr. Johnson, whose dictionary of the English language was the product of his own Inaidied Reading. Though he needed six helpers to copy the quotations, he'd marked in his books. And it took him eight years. This was the method of the Oxford Latin dictionary which employed in all 17 editors over a period of 35 years. Above all, this was the method of the Oxford English dictionary which employed an army of volunteers and took 70 years. So now it's time to return to my question. Why did we take 24 years? Because as soon as work began, it became clear that the plan as originally conceived was unworkable. The intermediate lexicon of 1889 was even less satisfactory than we and John Chadwick had imagined. It could not be revised. Plan A, it would have to be completely rewritten. Plan B. Following John Chadwick's sudden death in 1998, the Faculty Board of Classics agreed that we should compile a new and independent lexicon. This would still be a intermediate size and designed primarily to meet the needs of modern students. But it would also be designed to be of interest to scholars. Insofar as it will be based upon a fresh reading of the Greek texts and on principles differing from those of Little Lover Scott. - Well, thank you very much, James, for that presentation. It's a fascinating story and also tells us a lot about sort of issues with methodology and lexiconography in general. I was wondering, what principle did you decide which authors the new lexicon was to cover? How did you determine the chronological range and which authors would make it into the limiter into the definitions? - From home to Plutarch, we cover pretty well every word in the literature that survives. There are some exceptions. For example, for some authors, we don't cover their fragments. And for some authors, it was works of voluminous. We cover only the parts which students are likely to encounter. For example, take Aristotle. We cover only the neiconchian and udemian ethics, the poetic, the politics, the rhetoric, and the constitution of Athens. For Plutarch, we cover the lives, but not the moralia. To have included the whole of a new testament, in addition to gospels and acts which we do cover, would have entailed the inclusion of a great amount of often difficult material which was best left to be covered by the specialized New Testament lexica, which are already in existence. And we don't include epigraphic material or documentary of biorye. We had to have an eye to cost, the availability of time, and the need to produce the kind of lexicon that would be of the greatest benefit to students, affordability, serviceability, and portability. These were our watchwords. I think we've achieved all three. One of the main points that it seems that the lexicon differs from the L.S.J. is that in the definitions, there aren't references to specific passages with quotations of specific passages in Greek, you know, eliminating examples. Was it for similar reasons that you made the choice, not to do that, or what lay behind that? Yes, we don't give references to specific passages, such as Euripides Medea 243. Instead, we use author abbreviations alone, such as A for E-scarters, S for Sophocles, E for Euripides. And were appropriate, we use collective labels, such as trash, and trash, for tragedy, in a word or usage is found in all three of those authors. And although we do give some illustrative Greek quotations, we don't give them in the way that Lidl and Scott do. The reason is this, if you quote a single specific passage to illustrate a word or usage, you run the risk by being so selective of giving a partial or distorted picture by omitting specific references and quotations, we gain a great deal of additional space from material or more helpful kind. We can refer to a much wider range of passages. And we can give more information about the context. Well, that's very helpful and interesting. Could I ask whether once you had, once you come to terms with plan B, that plan B was the way to go? Were these decisions about not including quotations or the chronological and authorial scope of the lexicon, were those ones that you made in which you held to or did some of these principles evolve over the 24 years? Yes, we did mix of modifications which we went along. And it may be that we made some mistakes. For example, we decided at the beginning that we'll include polybias. Polybias can be a rather tiresome author. There are a lot of words and lexutions until Libya's that don't occur elsewhere. And polybias has the extremely tiresome habit of using polybias. compound verbs in the sense of simple verbs and even worse double compound verbs in the sense of simple verbs and once you've decided to include everything in bilibius you've just got to include these sometimes not especially useful forms. Other certain authors it would have been good to include if we had had room for example we had to exclude the Greek anthology because once again in the Greek anthology however important and interesting much of it is there are awful lot of words that occur only once and they would again have taken up a very great amount of space. Well you mentioned using these slips to compile the definitions could you maybe walk me through the process of what it what it looked like so you have a word maybe a difficult one and we could come back to the question of which words were most difficult so say poe-o so this is this is the task of someone to produce the entry for that how do they begin and what do these slips look like and how are they filed do you mind just walking me a little bit through the process of work? Other two perhaps parts of this question I mean if you are asking about working methods then how do you set about reading the whole of Greek literature well fortunately it's easier nowadays than it used to be well very fortunate in the initial stages getting the help of the pursuist project of a based at Tufts University in Massachusetts and with their help we compiled a great database containing all the texts that we were going to use accompanied by translations and this is an almost a helpful but eventually it was overtaken by an even greater help that is the Thessaurous linguaic like I based it at Irvine so for the first time in the history of lexicography you had all the material at your fingertips literally your fingertips that is the press of a computer button in the old days when you wanted to read an author's works or find out what was occurred in North you had to laboriously look through existing published lexica but the availability of resources like the the T.O.G. enormously speeded the task in fact it wouldn't have been possible without that kind of mechanical aid so and that's the first part of my answer to your question Joanna if you are also asking about how we organize the material on the page you know what we put in the different entries how they're constituted made up we don't organize entries in the same way as little in scott we don't organize them according to chronological or grammatical criteria as L.S.J. normally does to put it another way we don't automatically start with Homer or with the active voice before getting on to the middle or passive or put constructions with the accusative before constructions with the generative or dative instead we organize entries according to meaning we aim to show the developing senses of words and the relationships between those senses so we begin with the root sense of a word and this root sense may well not appear in the earliest author who uses that word but in a later author and then in numbered sections we trace its different applications in the different contexts in which it appears and for some longer entries especially verbs we give an introductory summary to show the reasoning behind the grouping or sequence of the numbered sections and were necessary we give explanatory definitional phrases in addition to translations you may ask what's the difference between a definition and a translation a definition describes the general sense of a word and it may be applicable to that word in a variety of contexts a translation reflects the meaning of the word in a specific context on the page we make a visual distinction between these two by giving the definition in Roman font the translation in bold it might be helpful if I give you an example please just one one word let's find a word that would be familiar to everybody let's take the word police well everybody knows that police means city but actually it means a good deal more than city are a article for police runs to six sections so we start off this is going to the root meaning of the word with section one and section one starts off with a definition so this definition is going to be in Roman font and the definition runs city settlement or fort built on high ground and then we come to the translations first of all introduce by the bracketed expression at Troy citadel acropolis in other words the root sense of police is not just city it's a city built on a hill it's a citadel or acropolis as so frequently in Homa and of course we then give the the author reference home and any others who use the word in that sense then we come on to section two here we don't actually need a definition we go straight to the translation in bold font city or town but then we come to section three and section three starts off with a very long definition Roman font city as a political entity in brackets characterized in the classical period by political and legal autonomy often with some degree of citizen participation in government close brackets so then we come to the translations in bold city state or just state and there's still more other section for to come and here again we start with a bracketed phrase reference to a person's originals or domicile followed by the translations native city home city and then we come to section five preface by the term gen meaning in a general sense definition inhabited region translations territory land and finally we come to a collective sense so in brackets collective reference to the occupants of a city close brackets and now the translations community citizen body thank you could I could I ask how I don't have it in front of me James but how long does that is that entry on the page how is it a column or so oh no after the the definitions and the the translations and the supplementary bracketed material that I gave you we don't need to take up very much more space which is simply going to be taken up by author tags and just calling up the entry at the moment and I can tell you exactly how much space it takes up on the page Yes, he responds, there we are. Yes, he takes up just over a third of a column. Well, that's a word that is so conceptually challenging, and one can imagine that defining city in an English dictionary also would be quite laborious. But I'm wondering, as it in terms of general categories, what did you find to be the most difficult kind of word to deal with? Verbs. Verbs are usually trickier than nose, especially if they're common verbs with lots of applications. Again, let me take an example. A verb that everybody knows. The verb echo, one of the commonest Greek verbs. The basic senses of echo are have and hold. Our entry for this verb runs to 55 sections. This doesn't mean it has 55 different meanings, only that it has that many different applications of its basic meanings. With a verb like this, you need to provide the reader with signposts to show how you've organized the material. The shoe that you've organized the material in groups of senses and that these groups follow logically one to another. So for many such verbs, we start with an introductory summary outlining the plan of the article. This introductory summary makes it easier for the reader to navigate through what can be a long and complex article. Little in Scott doesn't do this. The labyrinth of my NOS was more easily penetrable than many in article of L. S. Dre. It's interesting to think back. You presented this, the history, a bit of little in Scott's lexicon and the previous lexicon upon which it had been based. I'm curious about what kind of relationship maybe you developed with the corpora of the ancient lexocographers as you were working on this lexicon. Did you find yourself inspired by them or drawing upon them in any way? Did you find them insightful in any ways? Did you have any thoughts about how the ancient lexocographers had approached their projects given that you were actually doing the same thing in some ways? You're thinking of people like E. Sikias and Furti. Exactly. The compilers of dictionaries in ancient times. Why don't we gave much thought to them? Because I think their methods would have been very different. They would have done what we did, which is to read the whole Greek literature. Well, so further you go on, more you find the later lexocographers simply using the earlier lexocographers. In that respect, they would be following Plan A. That is supplementing and correcting amplifying and all that pre-existent material. But the initial stages, lexocographers would have had to work in the way we did. That is reading the material that they had inherited. Another question that I had was, I remember that you, when the lexicon first came out and it was very widely and very well-reviewed, there was some coverage in the press of, I don't know if it was a policy or a tendency of the new lexicon to translate some of these kind of racial terms from, you know, erosophonies into quite explicit English. Do you mind just saying a few words about that choice and about the reception that it received? I remember in particular there was some discussion of the translation of the word "hezdo", which incidentally survives exactly like that in modern Greek. Yes. Well, we use contemporary English, not just for some of the more risky words, but for all words. Let's take an example. If you were to look up in Lillian's Scott, the word "blow-tare", I know this is a word that's probably not familiar to all that many people. There's a word "blow-tare", a noun, and if you look up in Lillian's Scott, you'll find it translated as a kind of "slipper worn by fops". Well, we define it as a kind of simple footwear and translated as "slipper". This is what the beginning of the symposium, "socrates", is this where he is? Oh, he is, just wondering. Sorry, I'm, it's familiar to me. This was an reader's, and I was thinking it was. Oh, good, thanks for reminding me of that, Joanna. But here's another word. Again, some people will become across it. Crocodoss. You get it now, it's often used for example. Crocodoss, you know what? Crocodoss means. Well, according to Lillian's Scott, Crocodoss means a saffron-colored robe worn by gay women. Oh, I can't have any of that, can we? So we just, a definition, we don't actually give a translation, we just define it as a saffron gown, "brackets worn by women". But then, what about the words that brought a blush to Victorian cheeks? Lillian's Scott could have claimed in the words of Edward Gibbon, "My English is chased, and all life-centreous passages are left in the obscurity of a learned language." But we decided to spur no blushes. The verb you mentioned, Joanna, "hasador" translated by Lillian Scott as "Ease one's self. Do one's need." Well, we simply define it as "to defecate" and we translate it as "to shit". But then take a "ruder verb" bean-net or "you look at Lillian Scott for bean-net-o, you find it translated in Latin. Inire, co-eere, with the additional information that it refers to "illicit intercourse". It's not actually quite true. And even "ruder verb" "like hasador". Now "like hasdo" is translated by Lillian Scott as "to winch". Not quite sure what "to winch" means, but anyway, we define it as "to perform for later." And then we translate it by an expression which is so crude that I'd better leave it on the printed page. But here I can add a little anecdote. When the Lexing was about to be published, the Cambridge University Press put out a press release to the newspapers and the magazines and booksellers. And I added to this press release a paragraph explaining that we use "up to date contemporary English" and also that we extend this to the translation of words which "up to date contemporary translation of words which "up to date contemporary English" and also that we extend this to the translation of words which "up to date contemporary English" and also that we extend this to the translation of words which our predecessors would not have translated as explicitly as we do. And I gave that verb that you mentioned that I've just referred to myself as do as an example. Well, when the press got this press release, the first journalist to ring me up was a journalist from the Guardian newspaper. She was called Alison Flood, a well-known columnist. At the end of our interview, interview she said oh no you you say that you're using explicit language to translate some of the rooted terms and you mentioned this word K0 and then you mentioned another one like K0 oh like answer I said yes but you you don't actually translate that can you give me a translation of this verb I said well our translation unfortunately is an expression which I would never let pass my own lips so I think I'll have to refer you to the lexicon for the translation or that oh come on she said no come on you can you can't I mean what how do you translate it then I said getting more and more seriously I said well I rather not oh come on you must translate it how do you translate this verb then well this point I decided I better give in because otherwise I thought I got a four feet her good will so I found a compromise I said well look give me your email and I'll I email you the translation sorry did a few days later her column appeared in the Guardian newspaper and it appeared on to this banner headline big bold letters finally in all its nude glory ancient Greek to make scholars blush and this article by Alison flood in the Guardian it really opened the flood gates even the times headed its article on the lexicon nude Greek lexicon I really blow the piece of myself I must say because I deliberately dangled this bait knowing that it will be picked up by the journalist and yeah they felt they fell for it and so it was so it was well James this is all absolutely fascinating I I have to say though I'm I'm interested in it I think that maybe listeners will be what was your I guess I'm wondering what you're if you could share a little bit of your emotional arc working on the lexicon over 24 years I remember when I was a graduate student in Cambridge and sometimes I would see there was that there was a period in which you seemed a bit down and that was because you were mired I remember in the letter capa and with all those those verbs that begin kata and I I'm just wondering was there was there ever a point where you thought maybe we won't be able to finish it maybe maybe it is too much the choice to to go with plan B and then I guess on the other side of it what it was like to finally have this published in and in the world yes there were many occasions when I wondered whether we were ever going to finish the lexicon I mentioned that we started off with the just one editor as soon as we changed to plan B and decided that we would do something more ambitious that is compile a new lexicon we had to consider taking on more staff and so we appointed a second and then sometime later a third then a fourth and then eventually a fifth about halfway through all less than half through this process as the magnitude of the task even with increasing labor an increasing labor force became a parent I then decided that I'd got to add myself to the team not just as an advisor who have been reading everything that they had been writing but as a full-time editor so for 10 years or more I spent all my time working on the lexicon in the realization that if I didn't we would never finish and one problem that we had was finance and if you got five people working full-time on lexicon you know that's five salaries that's an awful lot of money I mean I excrued myself since I got my salary from other sources but you know at one period there were five people working full time so finance became a problem we were extremely fortunate in receiving financial support from individuals and from institutions but the longer we went on the more money was needed so this wasn't an added burden on on top of the work that had to be done in fact three years from the end of the project when we had almost run out of money and didn't have much prospect of getting more we had to reuse the workforce from five plus me to one plus me I said to the faculty board I can do it if I got one assistant and we kept on a young man who was really the best of them all and for three years we were very heavily in tandem that was probably the happiest of all the time that I had spent on the lexicon we got on perfectly and we made reasonably rapid progress towards the end and I can remember we gradually as we were going through the proofs which was a long long process and we were eliminating mistakes and getting back revises and eliminating the mistakes in those revises and then getting back the revises of the revises and so on and gradually we whittled it down to a handful of words that needed to be checked one afternoon I checked that final list and suddenly the realization hit me we've reached the end and quite literally I broke down in tears of joy. Well thank you James so much for sharing that what has been your experience of it since it's been out what other kinds of responses have you received to it besides the journalist looking for a good hook or who found their good hook in the the bait that you dangled where have you sort of seen it being used in the wild or yeah how has it been? Well I think it has been generally well received it certainly sold very well the initial print run of 4000 copies was sold out in 10 weeks and so the press immediately printed another 5000 copies which are selling very well because an incentive to sales was that the press were able to keep the price down to an extremely reasonable figure I can remember when we first started discussing this with the press 20 years before the end of the project we decided that we ought to aim to make it to the lexicon that could be afforded by students by undergraduates and I can remember we were talking at that time about 60 pounds as being a possibly affordable price for undergraduates you know 20 years before it was published and in the end it was published at 65 pounds and it's amazing that the press were able to keep the price down to that I think that they don't very clever calculation they recognize that if it was affordable it would it would sell and they judged they judged correctly well naturally we've had lots of reactions not only reviews in journals and and the press but also from individual users and I have to say it's extremely heartening it's been very very heartening to me to you know get letters from users saying how much they have enjoyed and appreciated it. Well it's also very beautifully produced I have to say I think I mentioned to you that we're all using it in my Greek prose composition class and I think that's the the size of the two volumes and the layout on the page it's very handsome it's very very user friendly and it's really great I think to see students going back to using physical dictionaries to flipping the pages and seeing Lema ta next to the ones that they were looking for I think that this is this is really a wonderful thing. Yes I think that the printers and the press did a wonderful job. We did spend a lot of time and effort designing the page and also the Greek font. We got in a font designer to create a special designer, Greek font for us. And if you look at the page, you'll find that there is a great variety of type faces. I mean the limiter, the Greek words, that we're defining and translating. They appear in bold Greek. I'd mentioned definitions of peover in Roman and that translations appear in bold English. But in addition to that, we have an italic font which is used to convey certain types of information. So there is a very great variety in the appearance of the text on the page. And this is particularly helpful in the longer articles. It helps you to see what is the status or the function of a particular part of that article. The presentation is very clean. Is the Greek font that was developed is that one that's available now to people or is that then kept by the people? No, I don't think it is. It was specially designed for us by an expert. It's actually Greek but it's in the base of this country. Oh right. Okay. Well, I think that the topic of CUP's history with Greek fonts is a very interesting one for another episode. Well, thank you James. I was wondering if traditionally I've been ending the podcast with a word association game which in some ways is ironically a bit challenging after a discussion of lexiconography. But I was wondering if you would be willing to to indulge me in that. Yes, I'll fire in. Okay. All right. Well, if you just tell me the first thing that comes to mind in light in the light of our discussion. I guess I'll come back to one that I mentioned earlier, which is Kappa. Kappa kangaroo. Fair enough. L.S.J. L.S.J. dictionaries. Okay. Lexiconography. Hard work. Harmless drudges. That's right. Samuel Johnson defined lexiconography as a harmless drudge. We certainly drudged. That's wonderful. Well, in seeing as you are the one on the line here, I can't resist but ask your rippides. Oh, I'll put classical text. And finally, Cambridge Greek lexicon. I think to be proud of. Well, that was wonderful. Thank you so much, James. I really appreciate it. And it's just wonderful, wonderful resource to have, especially for students. So thank you for all of your work on over many years on it. It's a great pleasure, Joanna. Thanks. We look forward to you joining us again soon here in the Lesky.