Greek Lexicographical Notes: A Critical Supplement to the Greek-English Lexicon of Liddell-Scott-Jones

Name: Greek Lexicographical Notes: A Critical Supplement to the Greek-English Lexicon of Liddell-Scott-Jones
Author: Robert Renehan

Greek Lexicographical Notes: A Critical Supplement to the Greek-English Lexicon of Liddell-Scott-Jones is a work by Robert Renehan (1975).

Core claims

Renehan’s work demonstrates that the standard lexicographical infrastructure of classical scholarship — Liddell-Scott-Jones — contains systematic errors and omissions that distort not just philological accuracy but the interpretive foundations upon which all psychological, philosophical, and mythological readings of Greek texts depend.
The book exposes how lexicography is never a neutral act of cataloguing but an interpretive decision about what a word can mean, making every uncorrected LSJ entry a silent boundary on the imaginative range available to readers of Greek thought from Heraclitus to Plotinus.
Renehan’s method — returning to primary attestations and refusing to inherit received glosses — enacts at the philological level precisely what depth psychology demands at the psychological level: the refusal to accept surface presentations as final, and the discipline to trace each phenomenon back to its actual source.

How does Renehan’s method of exposing phantom meanings in LSJ parallel Hillman’s project in Re-Visioning Psychology of seeing through the “fantasies objectified” in psychological theory — and where might corrected Greek definitions actually alter Hillman’s archetypal readings?
Given that Edinger’s The Psyche in Antiquity depends on standard translations of Presocratic fragments, which of his key interpretations of Heraclitus or Empedocles might need revision if the underlying Greek vocabulary were reassessed through Renehan’s corrections?
López-Pedraza’s Hermes and His Children relies heavily on Kerényi’s etymological work connecting numphe to water, madness, and initiation — how does Renehan’s insistence on returning to primary attestations challenge or deepen the etymological foundations of archetypal mythology?