A Concise Anglo-Saxon dictionary (MART: The Medieval Academy Reprints for Teaching)

The dictionary is helpful if the words you are looking for are listed. I understand that to have a dictionary of every version of the old english language is not feasible but why list a word with a "see [such and such a word]" if the word you are trying to see is not listed?

the book arrived in perfect condition from the seller. There are a few organizational issues that are easily resolved (the placement of words starting in eth, etc). not all words and meanings are there, so if you have a glossary for a text you're working on in practice, use it in coordination.

This dictionary comes in handy for looking up that word in your Old English readings. The first copyright is over a hundred years old and it is still being reprinted and at such an accessible and reasonable price. Bravo to the author, J. R. Clark-Hall!

Originally published in 1894, revised in 1916, and enlarged in 1931,
this dictionary saw its fourth edition in 1960, which is reprinted here.
This reprint will surely be of great value for in-depth studies
of Anglo-Saxon by readers who have already got some introduction
to the language. It contains a wealth of lexical materials, part of
which is not so easily accessible from other sources. I have given it
only four stars because it lacks some important essentials of a
high standard dictionary: Compound and derived words are hardly
analyzed, grammatical information is minimal, there is no hint to
pronunciation, and there is no English - Anglo-Saxon index. Although
as a rule there is a clear rendering into Modern English, one will
also note that some words are only translated into Latin. So I see
the dictionary as a very valuable source of knowledge about Anglo-Saxon,
but difficult to use without prior introduction into basic facts of the
language.

I haven't anything to add to these reviews, except to offer some clarification on this dictionary's exclusive use of "eth" (ð) and never "thorn" (þ). Several reviewers have complained about this as a defect in the dictionary, so it is worth pointing out that in Old English the eth and thorn characters are used interchangeably. The phonetic quality of each is determined not by the character used, but by its placement in the word. For instance, at the beginning or end of a word, it is voiceless, but it is voiced when falling between other voiced sounds. (Here the other reviewers were, perhaps, confusing things with Old Norse, in which eth does always = voiced "th," and thorn = its voiceless counterpart.)


Now, one may say that the dictionary editors might have been more charitable by standardizing the eth and thorn characters, one each for voiced and voiceless "th" (as some editors do) to aid in pronunciation, and that would be a fair statement; on the other hand, it would be equally fair to assert that students of (or even dabblers in) Old English are expected to be able to tell the difference without the editors' help. In any case, it is highly erroneous to say (as one reviewer did) that this dictionary "screws up" the usage of thorn and eth.