Paraskevaides has demonstrated the importance and scope of synonymy as a factor in Homeric formulaic diction, but in some cases more can be said about a given pair of “synonyms” than that they are either metrically different (and thus functional synonyms) or metrically equivalent (and thus a violation of economy). In other words, I will suggest that some of Paraskevaides’ alleged synonyms are, on closer inspection, not synonyms. The consequence of this is that in the case of metrically equivalent pairs the case for functional (i.e. formulaic) synonymy is strengthened: when two metrically equivalent expressions can be shown to have a different meaning, they cease to be a violation of the “law” of economy, which can only be favorable to the notion of functional synonymy. In the present chapter I present a representative instance of this phenomenon.

The case to be discussed is the subject of the previous chapter, the set of dative expressions for “spear.” This formulaic set, which in itself is based on functional synonymy, displays a number of metrically identical pairs. My argument to the effect that this duplication is motivated by various differences in meaning primarily applies, of course, to the expressions themselves, but in its general orientation it is applicable, it is to be hoped, to other aspects of Homeric diction.

The system of singular dative epithet-expressions for “spear” can be presented as follows, after Paraskevaides (1984:26):

In this passage, one and the same spear is referred to three times in succession, twice with δουρὶ, once with ἔγχος. This shows that the two words are synonymous in the sense that they may be used indiscriminately from a referential point of view. The interchangeability of the two lexemes lies at the basis of the datives being part of a formulaic system that in the previous Chapter is discussed as a case of “peripheral semantics.” It is on account of their function within this system that δουρί and ἔγχεϊ have their specific function in Homeric verse.

The metrical diversity displayed by the list cited above may be motivated by the formulaic purpose of the system of which the expressions are a part. But the list contains a number of metrically and prosodically identical pairs. The two main words form such a pair by the addition of metrically different epithets (ὀξέϊ δουρὶ ‘with the sharp spear’ vs. ἔγχεϊ μακρῷ ‘with the long lance’); furthermore, every instance of χαλκῷ ‘with bronze’ with epithet is consistently matched by an equivalent expression containing δουρὶ or ἔγχεϊ. Thus beside ὀξέϊ χαλκῷ ‘with the sharp bronze’ we have the two expressions just mentioned (ὀξέϊ δουρὶ and ἔγχεϊ μακρῷ (all three begin with a vowel); beside νηλέϊ χαλκῷ ‘with merciless bronze’ we have δουρὶ φαεινῷ ‘with the shining spear’ (both begin with consonant); and, finally, beside ταναήκεϊ χαλκῷ ‘with the sharpened bronze’ we have χαλκήρεϊ δουρὶ ‘with the bronze spear’. When we view the list as a formulaic system, that is, as a group of synonymous expressions conveying the idea “with the spear,” these pairs are mere duplicates and, as such, violations of the law of economy. This is the way they are treated by Paraskevaides (1984:23).

But Paraskevaides’ analysis is not immune to criticism, and in what follows, I challenge his view, offering some considerations on synonymy and metrical equivalence in Homer. These fall into three parts, covering three aspects of synonymy in Homer. The diachronic aspect (section 1) applies to the pair ὀξέϊ δουρὶ vs. ἔγχεϊ μακρῷ. It consists in the insight that two alleged synonyms may still be different in the diachronic dimension. The synchronic usage in Homer may reflect this former difference, in spite of the interchangeability of the expressions on other grounds.

Then follows the discussion of the semantic aspect (section 2), which applies to cases in which two allegedly synonymous expressions turn out, under closer investigation, not to be synonymous at all. The case here is ὀξέϊ δουρὶ vs. ὀξέϊ χαλκῷ. On the basis of a linguistic examination of the contexts in which they occur it can be shown that the two expressions conform to entirely different distributional patterns.

The poetic aspect (section 3), finally, lies in the significant addition of an epithet to a nuclear noun. The specific value of the epithet may preclude the equivalence in meaning of two allegedly synonymous expressions. This section will be concerned with the difference between νηλέϊ χαλκῷ and δουρὶ φαεινῷ.

It should be stressed that these three aspects of synonymy are not necessarily distinct, in that the presence of one of them excludes the other two. For example, the preservation of an older, metrically equivalent form may be motivated by semantic or poetic factors, and a semantic difference between two metrically equivalent expressions may be put to poetic use. The three aspects merely represent three vantage points from which to describe synonymy in Homer beyond the confines of formal analysis.

We saw that δόρυ and ἔγχος are functional synonyms in the Homeric diction. But on this basis, the co-occurrence of ὀξέϊ δουρὶ and ἔγχεϊ μακρῷ would be entirely dysfunctional and would disrupt the economy of the system: both expressions have exactly the same metrical form and localization (at the end of the verse, after the bucolic diaeresis).

Ὀξέϊ δουρὶ and ἔγχεϊ μακρῷ seem to be wholly interchangeable in the following pair, where they are used as periphery to one and the same verb of wounding:

We now turn to the discussion of the meaning of ὀξέϊ (ταναήκεϊ) χαλκῷ ‘with the sharp(ened) bronze’ with respect to that of ὀξέϊ (χαλκήρεϊ) δουρὶ ‘with the sharp (bronze) spear’ and ἔγχεϊ μακρῷ ‘with the long lance’. Of course, χαλκός ‘bronze’ may come to mean “spear” only by a possible metonymical extension of its meaning; there are cases where the use of χαλκός is irrelevant for our purposes. At Iliad XXIII 118, for example, it is used to refer to an axe, and it may also just denote the bronze of which the spear point is made (Iliad X 135; XIV 12; XV 482). In these cases, obviously, even the alleged synonymy of χαλκός and the corresponding δουρὶ- or ἔγχεϊ-expression is ruled out.

But in the cases where the reference to a spear is not ruled out, an investigation of the contexts suggests that ὀξέϊ (ταναήκεϊ) χαλκῷ and ὀξέϊ (χαλκήρεϊ) δουρὶ are used under entirely different circumstances. ὀξέϊ χαλκῷ typically combines with predicates that denote states, such as (medio-) passive participles, for instance:

The verbs of the δουρὶ-expressions, by contrast, denote less “time-stable” phenomena, such as actions (consisting of killing, thrusting, hitting, or throwing), rather than states, for example:

Another typical environment for ὀξέϊ (ταναήκεϊ) χαλκῷ is the following generic (“iterative”) sentence, which does not refer to a particular killing:

Returning, after this linguistic investigation, to the system of dative expressions for “spear” (see the list on p. #), we have to conclude that on account of their different distributional patterns the χαλκῷ-expressions in fact do not belong to this system at all; they form a mini-system of their own. To realize that the χαλκῷ-expressions are not synonymous with the δουρὶ-expressions, but have a different function in the language, enhances the economy of the system in Parry’s sense, since a number of violations have disappeared. In the new χαλκῷ-subsystem, metrical diversity is realized by the choice of different epithets (ὀξέϊ, ταναήκεϊ, νηλέϊ). Metrical-prosodic considerations, however, are not always sufficient to account for the presence of these epithets, as appears from the use of νηλέϊ to which we now turn.

The first example (Iliad XII 427) is less transitive because the agent of the act is not expressed and also because the subject is unspecified; in the second example, we have again a conditional environment. In these cases, then, the reasons for using νηλέϊ χαλκῷ instead of its metrical and prosodic doublet δουρὶ φαεινῷ seem to be the same as those for preferring ὀξέϊ χαλκῷ to ὀξέϊ δουρὶ in the less transitive contexts cited earlier.

In a similar way, νηλέϊ χαλκῷ may add an overtone of menace and imminent terror to the context that would be absent if the more neutral δουρὶ φαεινῷ were used, for example:

One might argue here that νηλέϊ χαλκῷ is used, not because of the epithet νηλέϊ, but because of χαλκῷ, in view of the nonfactual context (in the case of XIII 501 and XVI 761 the spear-expression occurs within the complement of ἵεντ᾿ ‘they wished to…’, and in the case of XIII 551–553 the context is negated, as complement of οὐδὲ δύναντο ‘they could not …’). It is true that these contexts are different from factual contexts like “He killed/hit him with the spear,” but that does not mean that νηλέϊ χαλκῷ is a mere prosodic alternative to ὀξέϊ χαλκῷ. Again, the difference between δουρὶ φαεινῷ and νηλέϊ χαλκῷ lies both in the opposition between “pitiless” and “shining” no less than between “spear” and “bronze.” Besides, νηλέϊ χαλκῷ is sometimes used in factual contexts that seem to be the domain of the δουρὶ-expressions:

The force of the epithet νηλέϊ as opposed to that of φαεινῷ, is particularly suited to the gruesome detail in which the hit is described, which is another way of saying that νηλέϊ χαλκῷ is not just a prosodic alternative to ὀξέϊ χαλκῷ, or a doublet of δουρὶ φαεινῷ.

Insofar as the preceding discussion of the “doublets” in the system for “spear” in the dative has implications beyond that system, it shows that the issue of synonymy in Homeric diction involves more factors than metrical-prosodic ones only. The Parryan approach to synonymy is functional insofar as it is concerned with the similarity in function of two or more expressions with different metrical forms. But to the extent that this similarity is subservient to a system, the Parryan approach had better be called structuralist, in that the emphasis is on the function of expressions within the system to which they belong rather than to their actual contexts.