παροψίς
(Phryn. Ecl. 147, Phryn. PS 103.10–1, Poll. 6.56, Poll. 10.87–8, Moer. π 15)

D. General commentary

The noun παροψίς (‘side dish’, ‘vessel’, ‘sauce’) draws the Atticists’ attention for semantic reasons. The point of contention is whether the use of the word to mean ‘vessel’ is good Attic. Phrynichus (A.1, A.2) rejects this meaning as non-Attic and Moeris (A.5) records it as typical of ‘users of Greek’. Pollux (A.4) qualifies this meaning as common usage and defends it, thus appearing more permissive in its application in this sense. As shown by the passages collected in C., the noun παροψίς was widely used by 5th- and 4th-century comic poets, often with an unclear meaning. It was such ambiguous occurrences that attracted the attention of Alexandrian scholars (B.1) and the Atticists. In what follows, after a historical-linguistic section, we shall provide a survey of the classical attestations, focusing first on the meanings that παροψίς appears to take in comedy, then moving on to the erudite discussions of the word.

The feminine noun παροψίς is a prepositional governing compound with the neuter noun ὄψον as its second constituent (DELG s.v. ὄψον). Τhe prepositional first constituent παρ- conveys the idea of proximity, specifically a ‘side’ position (Schwyzer, Debrunner 1950, 492–3); it thus designates something on the side of or collateral to the ὄψον. For the etymology of ὄψον, Taillardat (DELG Suppl., followed by Beekes, EDG s.v. ὄψον) suggests a derivation from a root noun *ὄψ, which conveys the notion of ‘besides’ (cf. ὀψέ, ‘late’), thus substantiating the idea of the ‘supplementary’ nature of the ὄψον as an accompaniment to the bread (see e.g. already Od. 3.479–80, where ὄψον, bread, and wine appear as the three main components of a meal, and cf. Pl. R. 585b.12, X. Mem. 3.14.2). However, ὄψα are also mentioned without reference to bread, even in early texts (Il. 9.489, Od. 5.267, 6.77). In classical times, ὄψον denotes the most elaborate part of the menu, the focus of the comic cook’s creativity (see e.g. Alex. frr. 115, 153). The term can denote a delicacy in general (cf. e.g. Mnesim. fr. 3.6), although an ὄψον often consists of fish (e.g. Alex. fr. 47.6, Arched. fr. 2.3, Macho 28 Gow), and the meaning of the word soon specialises in this sense (note, for instance, that the noun can be used to designate the fish market, cf. e.g. Ar. frr. 258, 557.1); see Gow (1965, 65), Mastellari (2020, 368–9), and entry ἰχθῦς, δρῦς. However, ὄψον can refer to meat dishes too (e.g. Alex. frr. 115.15–6, 20–1, 129.1–2), and more rarely to other foods (e.g. soup, cheese, eggs; cf. e.g. Ar. fr. 23, Hp. Mul. 2.110 [= 8.236.14–7 Littré]).

The noun παροψίς is first attested in 5th-century drama; it appears mainly in comedy, once in Philoxenus’ Deipnon (see below), and its only occurrence in classical prose is in Xenophon (C.8). In classical times, the meaning ‘vessel’, ‘serving dish’ (with which the Atticist lexica take issue) is clearly attested only in Antiph. fr. 61 (C.2), where the speaker refers to tassel hyacinths being served ἐν παροψίδι, ‘in a bowl’; for this fragment see Olson (2023, 239–40). In post-classical sources, where the meaning of the noun as ‘food’ or ‘dainty’ is rare (cf. e.g. Procop. Goth. 8.19.17), its sense as ‘vessel’ is widely attested. It occurs in NT Ev.Matt. 23.25 (C.10), in numerous imperial and later sources that engage with this Gospel passage (e.g. Clem.Al. Paed. 9.48.1.2, Gregory of Nyssa MPG 8,1.74.2, Gregory of Nazianzus Apologetica MPG 35.480.9), but also in pagan imperial texts, cf. e.g. Ath. 9.366a: ὁρῶ γὰρ ἐν παροψίσι περιφερόμενον μετὰ τῶν κωλεῶν (‘for I see it [i.e. some mustard] served in sauce-dishes along with the hams’), Plu. De vitando aere alieno 828a: ἐκπώματ’ ἔχεις, παροψίδας ἀργυρᾶς, λεκανίδας (‘you have cups, silver saucers, dishes’).

Conversely, in many classical dramatic passages, the noun clearly denotes some type of food. For instance, in Achae. fr. 7 (see B.2), the παροψίδες mentioned are ‘boiled’, ‘smelling of fat’, and ‘chopped up’; in Pherecrates (C.9), they are said to owe their reputation to their condiments (see Franchini 2020, 299–300; cf. however F.1, F.2, F.3); in Nicopho fr. 22 (see B.2), a παροψίς is declared to beat a sausage (in terms of palatability, i.e. as a food; see Pellegrino 1998, 316, 332, Pellegrino 2013, 70). In other cases (notably Plato Comicus, C.3, Alexis, C.6, and Xenophon, C.8), although the meaning ‘vessel’ is admissible, ‘side dish’ remains the preferable interpretation. In Pl.Com. fr. 32 (C.3) bread and παροψίδες are mentioned together. Xenophon (C.8) also mentions παροψίδες alongside other foods, namely ‘sauces’ or ‘soups’ (ἐμβάμματα) and (more generally) βρώματα (‘foods’, ‘sustenance’). In Alexis (C.6), the speaker mentions a table ‘laden’ with ποικίλαι παροψίδες (ll. 2–3). Since the person referred to (the subject of εἶδε, l. 1) is said to be enraptured by the sight, it seems much more plausible that this is due to the many foods on the table (see Arnott 1996, 236), which are are either ‘of all sorts’, or ‘elaborate’, cf. ποικίλων (l. 2). In principle, this adjective might also refer to the craftsmanship of some vessels, although this seems less likely in this context. In several other comic fragments, παροψίς is used in similes or metaphoricallyMetaphors, applied to something presented as additional to and/or less important than something else (an idea, an action, a person), while often still being a source of some pleasure. In Pl.Com. fr. 43 (C.4), the term refers to something collateral to the sexual act (l. 4), most likely erotic preliminaries (see Pirrotta 2009, 120–1). A sexual metaphor is also found in Aristophanes (C.5): here the reference is to a woman’s seducer as a sexual partner who is secondary to the official one (see Bagordo 2022, 128–9). In Magn. fr. 1 (see B.2), some facts or events are described as ‘side dishes’ to the speaker’s troubles – namely, additions to a major object of concern, or possibly sources of solace (see Bagordo 2014, 92–3). An analogy of uncertain meaning is found in Sotades (C.7), where the speaker refers to himself/herself as a παροψίς, probably because the individual called Crobylus is paying more attention to a third person (who is ‘chewed on’ and savoured) than to him/her (who is hastily devoured). The nature of the relationship between the three people is unclear. One possibility is that Crobylus is angry at both and is thus said to be ‘eating’ them alive; see Kassel, Austin PCG vol. 7, 612 (differently Olson 2008, 193; see De Martin 2025, 303–8). Three other similes (in Metagenes, C.1, Pl.Com. fr. 190, see B.2, Pherecrates, C.9) seem to hinge on other features of παροψίδες, namely the small quantities in which they were served and their lesser inherent gastronomic interest. In Metagenes (C.1), ἐπεισόδια are assimilated to παροψίδες. It is unclear whether the noun ἐπεισόδιον here denotes an interlude, a scene, or an actual dramatic episode (for evaluations of these and other nuances, see Orth 2014, 468–71). In any case, these are all short sections of a play, which are either secondary to the main story line, or which together (and with other parts of the work) make up the dramatic whole. The comparison thus rests on the fact that παροψίδες were not the main course of the meal, and/or they consisted of small portions, and several of them were served together (as the use of the plural in most instances in C. shows, see in particular Achae. fr. 7, C.9). In Pl.Com. fr. 190 (see B.2) it is said that ‘other people’s things’ (i.e. women married to other men?), like παροψίδες, cannot satisfy anyone for long (see Pirrotta 2009, 367). In Pherecrates (C.9) an unspecified plural subject is compared to παροψίδες, most probably because it has no inherent merit but draws its name from some contextual conditions, just as side dishes derive their taste merely from the sauces or condiments with which they are served (see F.1). On the whole, in all these cases, the accent is placed on the smaller size or lesser value of the παροψίδες, or on their nature as accompaniments or additions. Thus, it appears more likely that the word signifies the food that was served (the ‘side dish’), distinct in quantity and substance from the ὄψον, rather than a vessel. For Athenaeus’ handling of most of these fragments (B.2) and his reference to a third meaning, that of ‘sauce’, see F.3.

As for the features of the food in question, several of these occurrences suggest that multiple παροψίδες of different sorts were commonly served together and consisted of small portions of food. From Arched. fr. 2.6–7 we understand that they could be eaten as appetizers before the main course was served. From Pherecrates (C.9) we infer that they may not always have consisted of ingredients of great value. This is indeed confirmed by other comic passages in which παροψίδες are mentioned (sometimes disdainfully, cf. Alex. fr. 263.2–5, Archestr. fr. 9 Olson–Sens) together with vegetables (cf. Antiph. fr. 225, Arched. fr. 2.6–7), especially tassel hyacinths (cf. Eub. fr. 6, Antiph. fr. 225.3, Archestr. fr. 9 Olson–Sens), and other humble foods (olives and cheese in Alex. fr. 263.2–5), and they are opposed to nutritious dishes (Eub. fr. 6, Alex. fr. 263). In two cases they are mentioned with bread, μᾶζα, cf. C.3 and Antiph. fr. 225.1–3 (and they are later defined as bread by several Atticist and erudite sources, see A.3, A.4, A.5, B.3, B.8). On the other hand, when served in abundance, they appear as a sign of luxury (cf. Philox. PMG 836b.4–5: παροψίσι τ’ ὀξυβάφων †πλήρεις† σύν τε χλιδῶσαι | παντοδαποῖσι τέχνας εὑρήμασι πρὸς βιοτάν, ‘and [tables] laden with shallow saucers with παροψίδες and revelling in all kinds of inventions of the art aimed at the enjoyment of life’, and C.6), and they may have consisted in refined preparations (cf. Dionys.Com. fr. 2.43).

Regarding the semantic relationship of the two meanings ‘side dish’ and ‘vessel’, since the former is much better attested early on, it is possible that the application of the noun extended from the food served to the specific plates used to serve it (see F.2). However, for metonymies concerning foods/drinks and vessels, the semantic extension is normally inverted (see, for instance, Xenarch. fr. 2.3: ἄκρατος ἐκποθεῖσα φιάλη παντελῶς, ‘an unmixed cup, drunk entirely’, namely ‘a cup of unmixed wine, drunk entirely’).

The earliest preserved reference to the meaning ‘vessel’ in the erudite sources is in a fragment of Didymus Chalcenterus (B.1), cited by Athenaeus (B.2), which is one of the two extant fragments of the work Περὶ παρεφθορυίας/διεφθορυίας λέξεως (On the Wrong Use of Words; cf. Schmidt 1854, 15–9). Athenaeus claims that Didymus mistakenly interpreted παροψίς as ‘vessel’ in Pherecrates (C.9); see F.2. After Antiphanes’ text (C.2), Didymus’ fragment is the second earliest attested occurrence overall of the meaning ‘vessel’, and it predates its earliest preserved koine attestation (in the New Testament, see C.10).

The Atticist lexica take issue with this meaning. Phrynichus, in the Eclogue (A.1), states that, according to Attic usage, παροψίς denotes the food (in Phrynichus τὸ ὄψον), but not the vessel, which Attic users would call τρύβλιον (‘cup’, ‘bowl’) or λεκάριον (‘small plate’). The Praeparatio sophistica (A.2) adds that the word is used to mean ‘vessel’ by contemporary speakers. In Moeris (A.5) we read that ‘users of Attic’ (Ἀττικοί) employ παροψίς for a type of bread, ‘users of Greek’ (Ἕλληνες) for the vessel (on the label Ἀττικοί and Ἕλληνες in Moeris’ lexicon, see entry Moeris, Ἀττικιστής). We can therefore assume that the occurrence of the term in Antiphanes (C.2) with this meaning did not constitute valid evidence of its Attic usage for either Phrynichus or Moeris (see instead below for Pollux). On a different note, in the Praeparatio sophistica Phrynichus defines παροψίδες as elaborate dishes (A.2, τὰ ὄψα τὰ ποικίλως κεκαρυκευμένα). Another reference to the complexity of παροψίδες is found in Athenaeus, who says that in a fragment of Plato Comicus (C.3) the noun is used for an elaborate dish (ὄψου παρεσκευασμένου ποικίλου). Phrynichus’ definition may also be based on a specific use of παροψίς (possibly this very fragment of Plato?). We should note that already in Alexis (C.6) παροψίδες are qualified as ποικίλαι, although there the reference may well be to the variety of the side dishes served (cf., in modern Greek, ποικιλία, ‘variety’, used to denote a selection of appetisers).

Pollux (A.4) states that the noun is mostly used to denote some foods; he implies that ‘vessel’ is a meaning that παροψίς takes in common use, but does not proscribe it. Therefore, when he speaks of ‘the most widespread use’ of the noun (ἡ μὲν πλείστη χρῆσιςχρῆσις), he is actually referring to the one mostly commonly attested in chosen authors, those considered linguistically canonical; instead, when he mentions ‘customary meanings’ (τὰ συνήθη)συνήθεια, he hints at a more extensive and contemporary linguistic custom (on χρῆσις and συνήθεια in Pollux see Valente 2013). In what follows, Pollux explicitly refers to the ranking of ancient authors: he states that, even if a meaning is attested in ‘the less chosen authors’ (τῶν ἧττον κεκριμένων), he is willing to admit it, as long as it is documented. This is indeed the case with παροψίς: Pollux acknowledges the semantic ambiguity in Metagenes (C.1, but see above for the interpretation of this fragment), but cites Antiphanes (C.2) as a sure example of the meaning ‘vessel’. Thus, for Pollux, the recovery of one classical source is enough to uphold the usage under discussion, and it does not matter that the poet in question, Antiphanes, is not included in the restricted canon of ‘chosen’ authors of other Atticists, such as Phrynichus and Moeris. On this passage and on Pollux’s canon, see Bussès (2011, 76), Valente (2013, 156–8), and entries βελόνη, βελονοπώλης, ῥαφίς and Iulius Pollux, Ὀνομαστικόν (Onomasticon).

Among the later erudite sources, Thomas Magister (B.8) clearly follows Phrynichus’ proscription, while the case of Orus (B.3) is uncertain. If we accept Alpers’ addition of μόνον, Orus would acknowledge both meanings without making a distinction (as does Eustathius, B.7, who draws from the epitome of Ath. 9.367b, B.2). However, the entry as transmitted is sound, and would reflect Phrynichus’ doctrine (παροψίς· οὐ τὸ ἀγγεῖον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὄψον καὶ μᾶζα ποιά, ‘παροψίς: [it denotes] not the vessel, but both the prepared food and a kind of bread’). The phrase μᾶζα ποιά is also a conjecture by Alpers; if it is correct, Orus (B.3) conflates the definitions of Phrynichus and Moeris by qualifying the παροψίς as both a ‘prepared food’ (ὄψον) and a type of bread; so does also Thomas Magister (B.8). Instead, the entries devoted to παροψίς in Hesychius (B.4, B.5) and in the Suda (B.6, and cf. B.5) only refer to the meaning ‘vessel’. Peculiarities of Hsch. π 738 (B.4) are the spelling παραψίδες (for which cf. παραψίδιον, ‘small dish’, in PGM 10.2, 4th/5th century CE; cf. LSJ s.v.) and the unprecedented definition of the term as ‘big bowls’. Hsch. π 1001 (B.5) is the only case in which ὀξυβάφιον and ἐμβάφιον are used to define παροψίς (cf. Philox. PMG 836b.4 παροψίσι τ’ ὀξυβάφων), while in Τhomas Magister (B.8) we find the only occurrence of κύλιξ. The other terms used are ἀγγεῖον (A.1, A.4, B.1, B.2, B.3), τρύβλιον (A.1, B.4, B.7, B.8), λεκάριον (A.1, A.2), and σκεῦος (A.5, B.2, B.6).

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

N/A

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

(1)    Pherecr. fr. 157 (C.9)

We accept the prevailing interpretation of l. 2 of Pherecrates’ fragment, according to which the expression τὴν αἰτίαν ἔχειν here means ‘to be reputed’, ‘to have the reputation’ (cf. LSJ s.v. αἰτία I.3); for this reading see, among others, Casaubon (1621, 639), Kock (CAF vol. 1, 191), Urios-Aparisi (1992, 464–5), Cherubina in Canfora (2001 vol. 2, 922), Franchini (2020, 299, 301). Still, it should be noted that the meaning κατηγορεῖσθαι, ‘to be accused of’, contemplated by Casaubon (1621, 639) together with ‘dici’ and ‘nominari’, is much more common in classical times; cf. Urios-Aparisi (1992, 464), and the translation of ll. 1–2 by Olson (2008, 193): ‘By Zeus, they’re just like side-dishes (paropsides) – they’re held responsible for the sauce they’re in!’. The third line, as preserved, is corrupted: it is hypometric († – U U U – † – U –    – – U –) and presents an unexplained form, καλετας (with no accent in Athenaeus’ MS A, probably a sign that the scribe was aware that the text was corrupted; see Arnott 1996, 36, 437). Such problems affect the interpretation of the text and especially our understanding of the παροψίδες metaphor. Amendments have followed two main tracks, but neither has proved to be conclusive. The more economical option has been to see in καλετας a corruption of the aorist participle καλέσας, which is here substantivised. This was first argued by Fritzsche (1844–1845, 14), who then corrected ἀξιοῖ to ἐπαξιοῖ, and by Kaibel (1887, 304), who argued for αὐτοὺς δ’ ὁ καλέσας ἀξιοῖ (see also Adamus in Meineke, FGC vol. 1,1, 337). As Fritzsche claims, according to this scenario, the comparison would be between παροψίδες and parasites (to whom οὕς in Fritzsche and αὐτούς in Meineke refer), whom the host (ὁ καλέσας) considers of no value (τοῦ μηδενός). Cf. also Cherubina in Canfora (2001 vol. 2, 922). Meineke (1867, 162) instead suggested writing ἃς ὁ καλέσας ἐπαξιοῖ, with l. 3 thus apparently insisting on the scarce value of παροψίδες, even from the point of view of the host. With reference to Meineke’s solution, Urios-Aparisi (1992, 465) notes that ὁ καλέσας can be interpreted as ‘the one who calls (the παροψίδες in that way)’, but does not further clarify such a reading. The alternative route has been to emend οὓς ὁ καλετας ἀξιοῖ to οὕτω τὸ κάλλος ἀξιῶ, a solution proposed by van Herwerden (1855, 17) and followed by Kock (CAF vol. 1, 191) (compare Edmonds 1957–1961 vol. 1, 266: ὃ καλ<ὸν ἐκάλ>εσας ἀξιῶ τοῦ μηδενός). As Kock explains, the meaning of the fragment would be that beauty, in and of itself and without any inner goodness (‘boni mores’), is of little worth, just like παροψίδες, which, though improved by condiments, remain inherently of low quality.

(2)    Did. 1 Coward–Prodi (B.1)

The text of Pherecrates, though corrupt (see F.1), seems to refer to the limited (cf. l. 3) inherent value of side dishes, which derive their merit from their condiments (ἡδύσματα). According to Athenaeus (B.2), DidymusDidymus instead claimed that Pherecrates was hinting at the ‘reputation’ of the vessels, derived from their contents (‘just like [the vessels called] παροψίδες, they derive their reputation from the sauces [they contain]’). An alternative scenario could be considered. Could Didymus have taken the word αἰτία (‘reputation’) to denote the ‘reason’ for which such vessels are called παροψίδες? Hypothetically, he could have interpreted ὥσπερ αἱ παροψίδες | τὴν αἰτίαν ἔχουσ’ ἀπὸ τῶν ἡδυσμάτων (ll. 1–2) as meaning ‘just as [the vessels called] παροψίδες derive the cause [of their name] from the sauces [they contain]’, namely the παροψίδες (‘side dishes’) served in them. Admittedly, when αἰτία is used in this sense, the syntactical construction is different, usually with the verb ἔχω followed by ὄνομα as its object, while αἰτία appears in a prepositional phrase: cf. Str. 10.1.3: ἡ νῆσος ἀπὸ τῆς αὐτῆς αἰτίας ἔσχε τοῦτο τοὔνομα (‘the island took its name from the same cause’), schol. Lyc. 1184a: Ἕλωρος δὲ ποταμὸς Σικελίας, (ANmt) ὅστις τὸ ὄνομα ἔσχε διὰ ταύτην τὴν αἰτίαν (Nm) (‘the Helorus is a Sicilian river that got its name for this reason’). Moreover, it may seem far-fetched to suggest that τοῦ ὀνόματος is implied in Pherecrates’ text. Nevertheless, one wonders whether the likely presence of a form of the verb καλέω in l. 3 (see F.1) might have encouraged Didymus to project such a reflection on the two meanings of παροψίς and their metonymic relationship onto the comic text.

(3)    Ath. 9.367b–368c (B.2)

The discussion of the noun παροψίς is found at the beginning of the ninth book of the Deipnosophists. In Ath. 9.366a–b, Ulpian states that he sees mustard and flavoured salt served in παροψίδες (here clearly ‘vessels’, ‘serving dishes’). A little further on (Ath. 9.367b–368c), Zoilus and Leonides offer an overview of passages where the term is used, discussing its meanings (‘side dish’, ‘vessel’, ‘sauce’). However, the passages cited as examples of the second and third uses (‘vessel’ and ‘sauce’) do not always seem to match the meaning that they are meant to attest. In Ath. 9.367b–d, the noun is regarded as a word denoting a dish. It is said that in Pl.Com. fr. 32 (C.3) it refers to an elaborate dish (ἐπὶ μὲν γὰρ ὄψου παρεσκευασμένου ποικίλου, 9.367b; cf. A.2, and see D.), and then that it means παρόψημα, ‘side dish’ (a noun not attested before Athenaeus, but see παροψημάτιον in Pollux, A.3) in Pl.Com. frr. 43 (C.4). Then Pl.Com. fr. 190 (see B.2) and Ar. fr. 191 (C.5) are cited. In 9.367e–368a, the meaning ‘vessel’ (σκεῦος) is discussed, and the texts cited are Antiph. fr. 61 (C.2), Alex. fr. 89 (C.6), Magn. fr. 1 (see B.2), Achae. fr. 7 (see B.2), Sotad.Com. fr. 3 (C.7), and, as an ambiguous occurrence, X. Cyr. 1.3.4 (C.8; ἀμφιβόλως δ’ εἴρηται τὸ παρὰ τῷ Ξενοφῶντι […]). However, as shown above, C.2 (Antiphanes’ fragment) is the only passage, among these and among all classical occurrences of the term, in which this use is documented. In 9.368b–c Athenaeus apparently deals with a third meaning, ἥδυσμα, namely ‘sauce’ or ‘relish’, or possibly ‘seasoning’. He cites Pherecr. fr. 157 (C.9, together with Didymus’ comment on it, B.1; see F.2), Nicopho fr. 22 (see B.2), and again Aristophanes’ fragment (C.5) and Pl.Com. fr. 32 (C.3). Interestingly, in Pherecrates’ passage (l. 2) we find the very term that Athenaeus has just used to gloss παροψίς, ἥδυσμα. Surely, then, παροψίς and ἥδυσμα cannot be synonyms in this fragment. However, we could allow the meaning ‘sauces’ for παροψίδες here if we translate ll. 1–2 as ‘by Zeus, they’re just like sauces – they derive their reputation from the spices (ἀπὸ τῶν ἡδυσμάτων) [that are in them]’, since ἥδυσμα, in the plural, can mean ‘aromatics’, ‘spices’ (see LSJ s.v.). For this interpretation, see Urios-Aparisi (1992, 463–4); more questionably, Valente (2013, 157) states that it is παροψίδες which must mean ‘spices’ or ‘aromatics’. Yet, the well-attested meaning ‘side dish’ fits just as well in this context: ‘by Zeus, they’re just like side dishes – they derive their reputation from the sauces [they are served with]/the spices [that are in them]’. We know from other classical sources about the humble nature of side dishes (see D.), and the point in Pherecrates would be that παροψίδες are made interesting solely by what is used to garnish or season them. Intending παροψίς as ‘sauce’ would not improve our understanding of Nicopho fr. 22 (see B.2) and Pl.Com. fr. 32 (C.3) either, where the usual meaning of ‘side dish’ would fit well enough. Above all, in Aristophanes (C.5) παροψίς is used figuratively with the sense of ‘side dish’ to refer to a ‘secondary lover’ (see D.). Bagordo (2014, 92) concludes that the meaning ‘sauce’ is unfounded and was merely inferred from Pherecrates’ passage (C.9), where the word ἥδυσμα occurs. However, that παροψίς could designate a sauce or condiment is confirmed by Pollux: in A.3 the term is cited in a list of nouns denoting sauces, and it is said that it can be a type of ζωμός (‘sauce’; see also A.4). Thus, Athenaeus’ interpretation of C.9, Nicopho fr. 22, C.5, and C.3 may rest on a contemporary use of the term to denote, in a synecdoche, a particular kind of παροψίδες, namely some sauces. These comments on παροψίς meaning ἥδυσμα could also be interpreted as Athenaeus’ reaction to Didymus’ reading of Pherecrates (see F.2). Didymus interpreted l. 2 to mean that the vessels called παροψίδες derive their reputation/good name/name (αἰτία, see F.2) from the sauces they contain (ἡδύσματα). In response, Athenaeus may wish to stress that, rather, the παροψίδες mentioned by Pherecrates are not vessels but ἡδύσματα themselves (i.e. some kind of food). His choice of ἥδυσμα as a gloss for παροψίς (possibly also encouraged, as noted, by the fact that some παροψίδες could be sauces) complicates the interpretation for us readers, since the term appears in Pherecrates’ text together with παροψίς, and therefore the two cannot be synonyms in this context. Ultimately, Athenaeus may not be intending to discuss a third, more specific sense of παροψίς here, but may simply be opposing Didymus’ interpretation of Pherecrates. This would also better explain why he cites C.5 and C.3, despite having already established that, in these fragments, παροψίς means ‘side dish’.