νῆστις ὀσμή
(Phryn. PS 91.3)

D. General commentary

Phrynichus’ lemma concerns an expression denoting someone who has not been eating for a long time (perhaps because of poverty) and has bad breath as a result. νῆστις ὀσμή is an abusive expression (one of the many in the PS, see below) whose literary source is unknown, though it is possibly comic. Other puns based on νῆστις or its derivations are found in comedy: Ath. 7.307dAth. 7.307d, dealing with the proverb κεστρεὺςκεστρεύς νηστεύει (‘the mullet starves’), cites many comic occurrences of the expression κεστρεὺς νῆστις, which stands for ‘mullet’ but can also be ironically said of starving flatterers (see Orth 2013, 192; Maggio 2018–2019, 122–3, with further bibliography). Moreover, although the adjectival use of νῆστις is very well attested in prose and poetry (Maggio 2018–2019, 104–5), the occurrence of νῆστις as a modification of an abstract noun is unusual. Aeschylean examples strongly suggest that it was perceived as poetic, see C.1 (πνοαὶ […] νήστιδες), C.2 (νῆστιν […] νόσον), C.3 (νήστιδες […] φρενῶν ἰατρομάντεις), C.4 (νῆστις […] λιμός), and C.5 (νήστισιν ᾀκείαις). Incidentally, there is no need to consider the Aeschylean instances of νῆστις as an ‘active use’, pace Schuursma (1932, 14, 50), Groeneboom (1944, 157–8), and Garvie (1986, 107). As Fraenkel (1950 vol. 2, 116) states, ‘it seems more appropriate […] with […] privative expressions […] to recognize the neutral use, which should not be related to any particular voice of the verb: ‘that which is characterized by the lack of anything to eat’’. Fraenkel’s statement can be extended to many other cases of the so-called enallage adiectivi, cf. Williger (1928, passim).

To understand how νῆστις ὀσμή might have arisen in comic or abusive contexts, it is worth considering comparanda for expressions indicating smell in other contexts. One of them is Simon. fr. 133 PMG (= fr. 323 Poltera)Simon. fr. 133 PMG (= fr. 323 Poltera) φύξιμοςφύξιμος ὀδμή, an ambiguous syntagm which could mean either ‘a (good) smell to flee to’ or ‘a (bad) smell to flee from’ (see Poltera 1997, 200–1; Poltera 2008, 570). There is also Nic. Ther. 54 φύξιμον ὀδμήν ‘repellent stench’, probably an imitation of Simonides’ φύξιμος ὀδμή, as Overduin (2015, 207) notes, but the text is uncertain. Alongside the Aeschylean instances above, these comparanda lend credibility to the idea that νῆστις ὀσμή had the flavour of parody, possibly being recognisable as tragic parody, and that it was employed in a lost comic text.

Due to epitomisation, it is not easy to see why Phrynichus engaged with νῆστις ὀσμή. Other entries of the PS deal with the two words separately, and with related terms: on the plural forms of νῆστις see PS 91.5–6Phryn. PS 91.5–6; ὄζειὄζω κνίσης (‘smells of fat’) at PS 92.18Phryn. PS 92.18, and ῥινώλεθρος ὀσμή (‘a nose-destroying smell’) at PS 106.11–2Phryn. PS 106.11–2; cf. ὄζειν ἐτῶν (‘to smell like years’) at PS 92.3–4Phryn. PS 91.5–6. Some of these lemmas may originally have been part of one onomastically structured entry. Nevertheless, νῆστις ὀσμή is probably best understood alongside the many other abusive expressions related to eating, drinking, famine, and gluttony (frequently associated with flattery) which are found in the PS: cf. Αἴτνη ἄνθρωπος (‘a man who is an Etna’) at PS 39.1Phryn. PS 39.1, γαστροχάρυβδις (‘with a Charybdis of a belly’) at PS 59.13Phryn. PS 59.13, δειπνοπίθηκος (‘a dinner monkey’) at PS 61.22Phryn. PS 61.22, ἰχθυολύμης ἄνθρωπος (‘a man who is a fish plague’) at PS 76.3Phryn. PS 76.3, κενὰ τῆς γνάθου πολλὰ χωρία (‘many gaps in his teeth’) at PS 78.23Phryn. PS 78.23, κατὰ κοιλίαν νοσεῖ (‘one whose belly has a morbid craving [for food]’) at PS 79.16Phryn. PS 79.16, κνισοτηρητής (‘fat hunter’) at PS 84.20Phryn. PS 84.20, λιμοκόλακες (‘starving flatterers’) at PS 86.3Phryn. PS 86.3, ὀνογάστρις ἄνθρωπος (‘a man who has a donkey stomach’) at PS 94.15Phryn. PS 94.15 and ποντοφάρυξ (‘whirlpool’) at PS 101.13Phryn. PS 101.13. Such expressions would have provided fodder for invective, a major branch of rhetoric which every speaker was expected to master. However the PS often describes apparently abusive terms as inoffensive, suggesting uses for them outside of invective, as Phrynichus indicates in the following entries:

– Phryn. PS 4.1–2Phryn. PS 4.1–2: ἄπλυτον (codd. : ἄπλατον Kock in CAF vol. 3, 556 : ἄπλετον Kock, accepted by de Borries 1911) πώγωνα· εἰ θέλοις ἀνεπαχθῶς σκῶψαί τινα πωγωνίαν (‘ἄπλυτον πώγωνα [‘unwashed beard’] [com. adesp. fr. *556]: If you want to tease a bearded man without being offensive’ [Transl. Favi, see entry ἄπλυτος πώγων]. For the evaluative ἀνεπαχθῶςἀνεπαχθῶς cf. also Phryn. PS 94.19–20Phryn. PS 94.19–20);

– Phryn. PS 6.18–9Phryn. PS 6.18–9: ἀνασπᾶν γνωμίδιον· κωμῳδικῶς εἴρηται, οἷον ἐκ βυθοῦ διανοίας <ἀν>άγειν (‘ἀνασπᾶν γνωμίδιον [‘to draw forth a bit of thought’]: It is a comic expression, something like ‘to bring up from the depth of one’s thought’); cf. Phot. α 1666 ἀνασπᾶν βούλευμα καὶ ἀνασπᾶν γνωμίδιον· κωμῳδικῶς εἴρηται, ἡ συμπλοκὴ ἁρμόζει συνουσίαις (‘ἀνασπᾶν βούλευμα καὶ ἀνασπᾶν γνωμίδιον [‘to draw forth a bit of purpose’ and ‘to draw forth a bit of thought’] [Ar. fr. 727]: it is comically said; such combination of words is suited to conversation’; cf. Phryn. PS 47.19–20Phryn. PS 47.19–20);

– Phryn. PS 21.12Phryn. PS 21.12: ἄνεμος καὶ ὄλεθρος ἄνθρωπος· Εὔπολις (‘ἄνεμος καὶ ὄλεθρος ἄνθρωπος [‘a person [is] wind and ruin’]: Eupolis [fr. 406]); cf. Σ^b α 1351 (= Phot. α 1801) ἄνεμος καὶ ὄλεθρος ἄνθρωπος· […] χρήσῃ δὲ τῷ λόγῳ, ὥς φησι Φρύνιχος, ἐν συνουσίᾳ (‘ἄνεμος καὶ ὄλεθρος ἄνθρωπος [‘a person [is] wind and ruin’] […] you should use the phrase in conversation, as Phrynichus says’; on this lemma, see further entry ἄνεμος καὶ ὄλεθρος ἄνθρωπος).

All these mocking phrases in the PS are said to be inoffensive and useful in conversation (ἐν συνουσίᾳ). This is not at all surprising: to take only one example, sharp exchanges are typical of the conversations between Cynulcus, Ulpian, and other learned banqueters in Athenaeus’Athenaeus Deipnosophists. They often kid each other by quoting ancient authors and in their squabbles ‘gluttony is used as a term of abuse’ (Wilkins 2000, 25). Congenial conversations of a similar tone and nature are not difficult to imagine; the euphemistic and (probably) parodic νῆστις ὀσμή would fit comfortably within this context.

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

N/A

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

N/A