νίμμα, ἀπόνιπτρον
(Phryn. Ecl. 165)

D. General commentary

In the Eclogue (A.1), Phrynichus – followed by Thomas Magister (B.5) in the Byzantine age – prescribes the noun ἀπόνιπτρον (‘water used for washing’) instead of νίμμα. The latter is a deverbative noun built on the root of νίζω (< IE *neig^w- /nig^w-) with the addition of the suffixSuffixes -μα (< *-mn̥); see DELG, EDG s.v. νίζω. It was probably used in everyday language (on the semantic value of the suffix -μα in νίμμα, see below). Attestations of νίμμα in literary texts are quite scarce: it occurs as early as a fragment of the 4th-century playwright Dromon (C.2) transmitted by Athenaeus (B.1), on which see Orth (2020, 443–9). Apart from grammatical and lexicographical works – where νίμμα is sometimes recorded as a glossed term (B.2) or as the interpretamentum of other nouns (χέρνιψ ‘water for washing the hands’ in B.6) – the word is otherwise attested only in medical works of the imperial period (e.g. C.3, Ael.Prom. 89.1, Orib. 81.6), where it denotes facial washing for medical/aesthetic purposes. In the Byzantine period, the term is also used in some religious texts. It does not appear to be attested in documentary sources.

The noun ἀπόνιπτρον prescribed by Phrynichus is likewise built on the root of the verb νίζω, through the addition of the prefix ἀπο- and the instrumental suffix -τρον (see Chantraine 1933, 330–1). Its occurrences are even rarer than those of νίμμα, but, as Phrynichus reports (A.1), it is used by Aristophanes in a passage from the Acharnians (C.1); cf. Olson (2002, 233). The presence of ἀπόνιπτρον in another Aristophanic fragment preserved by Pollux (Poll. 7.167Poll. 7.167: καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ τοῦ λουτροῦ λούτριον, ὡς Ἀριστοφάνης ἐν Ἥρωσιν ‘μήτ’ ἀπόνιπτρον θύραζ’ ἐκχεῖτε μὴ δὲ λούτριον’, ‘and the water of the bath [is called] λούτριον, as Aristophanes [says] in Heroes (fr. 319)Ar. fr. 319: ‘do not pour either water used for washing (ἀπόνιπτρον) or for bathing outside’’) was eliminated by Kassel and Austin through their emendation of the first part of the fragment (see PCG vol. 3,2, 177). They emended μήτ’ ἀπόνιπτρον to μηδὲ ποδάνιπτρον, following Seidler (1818, 12), who had proposed μήτε ποδάνιπτρον. This correction is supported by comparison with another passage of Pollux’s Onomasticon (10.78Poll. 10.78: τὸ δὲ ἀπ' αὐτοῦ ὕδωρ νίπτρον ἢ λούτριον ἢ ποδάνιπτρον, ὡς ἐν Ἥρωσιν Ἀριστοφάνης λέγει, ‘the water [poured] from it (i.e. the ποδανιπτήρ, ‘vessel for washing the feet’) [is called] νίπτρον or λούτριον or ποδάνιπτρον, as Aristophanes says in Heroes (fr. 319)’); see also Imperio (2023, 62–3). Apart from C.1, ἀπόνιπτρον is, therefore, only recorded in grammatical and lexicographical sources; in particular, in Athenaeus (B.1), Hesychius (B.3), and Eustathius (B.4) it is glossed with the additional synonym ἀπόνιμμα. For the latter term, Athenaeus (and Eustathius, who depends on his Epitome) record a particular Attic usage, referring to water used in rituals honouring the bodies of the dead or purifying individuals under a curse. Finally, the simplex noun νίπτροννίπτρον meaning ‘water for washing (the hands)’ is attested in Philox.Leuc. 836b.40 PMG, quoted by Athenaeus in the same passage (9.409e) as the fragment of Dromon (C.2), and in a fragment of Plato Comicus likewise quoted by Athenaeus (fr. 71.3, in Ath. 15.665b, where νίπτρον is, however, a correction by Casaubon for λίτρον); for the term related to the washing of the feet, cf. also Poll. 7.40Poll. 7.40 and 10.78, quoted above.

The reason for Phrynichus’ proscription of νίμμα certainly lies in the absence of the term from the works of canonical authors. At the same time, however, it is not clear from the surviving literary and documentary sources how widespread the noun actually was in the spoken language of the koine, despite Phrynichus’ attribution of νίμμα to the ‘mass’ (ὁ πολύς). As noted above, νίμμα is in fact attested quite rarely. By contrast, ἀπόνιπτρον is accepted by Phrynichus because of its use by Aristophanes and by the authors ἀμφ’ αὐτόν, an expression that in this context probably refers in general to the poets of the Old Comedy in general; see Tribulato (2024, 80). Phrynichus’ prescription was revived in the 14th century by Thomas Magister (B.5), who not only contrasts the nouns νίμμα and ἀπόνιπτρον but also prescribes the prefixed verb ἀπονίψασθαιἀπονίζω (‘to wash oneself clean’, inf. aor. m.-p.) against the simplex νίψασθαινίζω. Furthermore, he dwells on the semantic distinction between the expressions ὕδωρ κατὰ χειρὸς δέξασθαι and ἀπονίψασθαι, which he understands as referring respectively to hand-washing before and after a meal, citing a passage from Aristophanes’ Wasps as evidence (for discussion of the two expressions, see also Ath. 9.410c–d).

One may ask whether, in addition to reasons related to the literary canon, Phrynichus’ rejection of νίμμα was also motivated by morphological or semantic factors. From a morphological point of view, the treatment of nouns ending in -μα by the Atticist lexicographers is far from uniform, although such nouns often attracted their attention; see AGP vol. 2, Nominal morphology, forthcoming, and the entries ἄκουσμα, ἀκρόαμα; ῥάπισμα, and ὑπάλλαγμα. The suffix of νίμμα, therefore, cannot in itself account for Phrynichus’ proscription. From a semanticSemantics standpoint, however, it may be observed that the ‘instrument – i.e. water – which serves to wash (away) something’ is more correctly expressed by the deverbative noun constructed with the suffix -τρον-τρον (ἀπόνιπτρον), whereas the suffix -μα of νίμμα indicates the object or the result of the action expressed by the original verb (‘that which has been washed (away)’; see Chantraine 1933, 182–3). From this perspective, even the noun ἀπόνιμμα, used by Athenaeus (B.1), Hesychius (B.3), and Eustathius (B.4) to explain ἀπόνιπτρον, is not employed with strict semantic precision. However, its frequency is indicative of the extent to which the derivative in -μα meaning ‘water for washing’ had become established in koine Greek. Phrynichus’ proscription of νίμμα was therefore probably intended to counter the spread of the noun ending in -μα to indicate the ‘instrument used for washing’, for which a synonym was available, namely ἀπόνιπτρον, which was an excellent alternative given its use by a canonical author such as Aristophanes. As for the Attic use of ἀπόνιμμα in ritual contexts mentioned by Athenaeus (B.1) and Eustathius (B.4), in this case the term properly denotes the ceremony itself and thus (the result of) the cleansing action (cf. the fragments attributed to Cleidemus and Dorotheus cited by Athenaeus in 9.410a–b). This is a context in which the derivative in -μα is entirely appropriate. It is perhaps for this reason that Phrynichus does not contrast ἀπόνιπτρον with ἀπόνιμμα, but rather with the simplex νίμμα in the instrumental sense first attested in Dromon’s fragment (C.2). Subsequently, ἀπόνιμμα came to be perceived as equivalent to νίμμα, as is evident from B.1, B.3, and B.4.

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

N/A

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

N/A