I just finished Book 1 of the Histories. I was surprised by the size of the vocabulary. It seems to me that Herodotus uses a fair amount of synonyms. It would not be surprising if he avoided using the same words in close proximity in the text, but generally it seems that synonyms occur fairly far apart. (Unfortunately I didn’t record examples while I was reading.)
I’m wondering if the synonyms are due to the wide variety of sources that Herodotus uses – that is to say that he preserves the words that his sources use. Otherwise are there nuances in the meaning of seeming synonyms that I’m not picked up on?
I’m going to read Book 5 now. I figure I might as well take advantage of the familiarity I have now with Ionic. I’m also curious to see how more recent events are recorded versus the somewhat mythic past of Book 1.
Congratulations on finishing book 1! It’s an interesting idea, Herodotus taking over the vocabulary of his sources, but to my mind Herodotus’ language is consistently all his own. It’s far from uniform in style, but it tends to be distinctively Herodotean, or so it seems to me. And I’m really not sure about synonyms. Are they truly synonymous, I wonder? Offer some examples?
Thanks, Michael! I’m having a hard time finding examples now. As I start on Book 5, I’ll keep track of examples. Certainly Herodotus has a number of words which mean conquer or subdue, but given how often the event happens, he may simply opt for some variety.
The word that got me thinking about the question is ἐπεραιώθη in 1.209.1:
Ἐπείτε δὲ ἐπεραιώθη τὸν Ἀράξεα
That struck me because there’s a lot of river crossings in Book 1. As far as I recall, Herodotus always uses διαβαίω and here out of the blue he uses a new word. Looking for examples in Powell, I realized that he uses διαβαίω in the previous chapter (1.208)
ὡς αὐτοῦ διαβησομένου ἐπ’ ἐκείνην
Chapters 208 and 209 are part of the same story, so my thought that maybe Herodotus preserves the vocabulary of his sources is not supported by this example. Forms of διαβαίω and διάβασις are used a number of times in 208, so variety may well be the reason.
Excellent, Mark, yes, I was thinking the Greek lexicon is not like the English with its anglosaxon and french words coexisting, but I agree διαβαινω and περαιω might well qualify as synonyms in such contexts, though I guess each of them retains its root sense of going vs. beyond, and I still doubt that the variation is simply for the sake of variety.
My use of the word “synonym” isn’t really accurate. I was referring to words which have a sense, generally a secondary sense, which is virtually the same as for other words. It seems to me that this occurs particularly with middle verbs. Generally I use the little LSJ when I’m reading, only consulting the big one when I want more details, so I may be missing some nuances.
I would guess that you would say that verbs often do have metaphorical senses which are very similar to others, but that the base meaning of the verb colors the metaphorical sense. I should probably spend more time looking at the examples that the big LSJ provides.
As a side note, it seems to me that usually Herodotus and Greek writing in general is not as adverse to repetition as English and doesn’t resort as often to synonyms to avoid it.
If it’s synonyms we’re after, we don’t have to go further than κορεσω and πλησω, cf. Herodotus’ bloodthirsty Tomyris tale, απληστε etc. But as to alliteration, the Greeks could be surprisingly insensitive to it. I really don’t see any significance in the recurrence of επε at the beginning of Hdt.1.129, and if there is I wouldn’t call it a “device,” a term I despise. And I agree “elegant variation” is unknown to Greek, unlike French.
Thanks, Paul & Michael. I had not noticed the alliteration, Paul. Ruling out repetition and word retained from a source (my two guesses), and given that Herodotus uses that verb only twice in the Histories, I’m inclined to accept alliteration as a possible explanation.
Michael, I didn’t say I thought the alliteration has any particular significance, just that I thought that it might be factor. I think I agree with you that ”device” isn’t a very good term, especially here, because it implies the alliteration conveys some intention or other on the part of the author.
But I might be influenced by my native Finnish, which uses alliteration a lot and often not for any particular reason.
OK Paul, I didn’t say you said you thought the alliteration had any particular significance, and I’m pretty sure it doesn’t myself. But then there’s the Big Beautiful Bill.