χολάς, χόλιξ
(Moer. χ 12, Phryn. Ecl. 282, Phryn. PS 125.3–4, Phryn. PS 126.5–7)

D. General commentary

Moeris attributes χολάδες to ‘old Attic’ and the feminine χόλικες ‘guts’ to ‘middle Attic’ (see below). He further proscribes the masculine χόλικες as typical of the ‘Greek speakers’, as does Phrynichus (A.2, A.3). Unlike [Ammon.] 517 (B.1), Moeris apparently establishes an implicit equivalence between χολάδες and χόλικες (see also B.7 and B.8). Indeed, such an equivalence must be etymologically founded, though it eludes further clarification: Furnée (1972, 140) favours a pre-Greek origin for both terms, based on the oscillations exhibited by other (possibly) related forms, see Hsch. γ 106 γάλλια· ἔντερα (‘γάλλια: Entrails’), Hsch. γ 769 γόλα· ἔντερα. Μακεδόνες (‘γόλα: Entrails. Macedonians’), Hsch. κ 440 καλίνδινα· ἔντερα ... Κύπριοι (‘καλίνδινα: Entrails … Cyprians’) (further information in EDG s.v. χολάδες). However, χολάδες and χόλικες have different contextual meanings as well as different areas of use. χολάδες ‘entrails, guts’ occurs almost exclusively in poetryPoetic language – particularly epic poetry: Hom. Il. 4.526 (= 21.181; see C.1), h.Merc. 123, Antim. fr. 47.2 Matthews, Babr. 1.1.10, Q.S. 11.204, Triph. 628, Blemyom. 20, Arg.Orph. 964. The singular χολάς, instead, is a technical termTechnical language in Arist. HA τὸ δὲ <κοῖλον> κοινὸν ὑποχονδρίου καὶ λαγόνος χολάς ‘the hollowed part common to the abdomen and the flank is the gut cavity' (Transl. Peck 1965, 49, slightly adapted; see also Aret. SD 2.9.1.2, who uses the plural as a technical term referring to one of the intestines). Regarding χολλάδες, Phrynichus (A.4) either simply considered it an alternative form of χολάδες or treated it as a different word, perhaps misled by its contextual meaning: unlike χολάδες, χολλάδες is found in comedyComedy (see C.2 and C.3), used to refer to to a fat man’s paunch. Moreover, the geminatedGemination /l/ is due to ‘popular pronunciation’, according to GEW s.v. χολάδες: all these data suggest that χολλάδες was an expressive form of the unusual χολάδες.

χόλικες is typically used to refer to ‘(stuffed) intestines’, in particular, those of cattle – a dish considered to be a delicacy (see Orth 2017, 497 with bibliography). Its occurrences are primarily comic: see Pherecr. fr. 113.15, Ar. Eq. 1179, V. 1144, Pax 717, Ra. 576, fr. 83, fr. 702, Anaxandr. fr. 42.39, Dioxipp. fr. 1.2, Eub. fr. 63.4. In Ar. Pax 717 (C.4) the feminine form is attested: this is the locus classicus on which Moeris’ Atticist prescription (A.1) is based.

A major issue in Moeris’ entry is that of the subdivision of the Attic dialect into chronological phases. ‘Proto-Attic’ here is represented by a Homeric quotation: this is consistent with other entries in Moeris’ lexicon and likely implies that Homer was regarded as an Attic speaker (see entries ἱδρῶ, κυκεῶ, Ἀπόλλω, τυφῶ, ἥρῳ, οἶσε, ἐντέλλω, ἐπισκήπτω, ἐπιτέλλω). A ‘middle Attic’ dialect is not otherwise attested in Moeris, though he refers several times to a δευτέρα Ἀτθίς – that is, a ‘second Attic dialect’, likely denoting 4th–3rd century Attic authors: see Moer. δ 29Moer. δ 29, ζ 8Moer. ζ 8 and π 79Moer. π 79. This two-stage periodisation of the Attic dialect was well known to ancient scholars at least since Aristarchus, although the chronological criteria that underpin it are not clear (see Wendel 1932, 2503; Mejer 1981, 458; Cassio 1993, 36 n. 2; Cassio 2000, 154; Schironi 2018, 621–2). Be that as it may, ‘middle Attic’ finds a parallel in Eust. in Od. 2.74.25–8Eust. in Od. 2.74.25–8: τὸ δὲ καὶ προδηλωθὲν ἔα […] διαλελύσθαι δοκεῖ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἦ, οὗ μνήμη καὶ παρὰ Αἰλίῳ Διονυσίῳ, εἰπόντι ὡς Ἴωνες μὲν ἔα φασὶν, Ἀττικοὶ δὲ ἦ μονοσυλλάβως, οἱ δὲ μέσοι σὺν τῷ νυ, οἷον, ἐπειδὴ μεστὸς ἦν, ἀνεπαυόμην. τὸ δὲ τρίτον οὐδέ ποτέ φησιν ἄνευ τοῦ νυ ‘The aforementioned ἔα […] seems to be an uncontracted form from ἦ, which Aelius Dionysius also mentions (η 1), stating that Ionians say ἔα, while users of Attic [say] ἦ, with only one syllable – on the other hand, users of middle [Attic say ἦ] with ν, as in ‘ἐπειδὴ μεστὸς ἦν, ἀνεπαυόμην’ (Ar. Pl. 695)’. Interestingly, Aelius Dionysius treats Aristophanes as representative of ‘middle Attic’, as does Moeris. Therefore, it is at least possible that Moer. χ 12 (A.1) depends on Aelius Dionysius (the latter being one of Moeris’ sources, see Hansen 1998, 42–6). Wendel (1932, 2503–4), meanwhile, believed the tripartition of the Attic dialect found in Moeris to be ‘secondary’, if not attributable to Moeris himself: note, however, that Wendel was evidently unaware of the aforementioned Ael.Dion. η 1Ael.Dion. η 1.

Phrynichus’ and Moeris’ appraisals of the masculine χόλικες raise an apparent problem: Phrynichus states that the form is unlearned (ἀμαθές) and typical of ‘the many’ (οἱ πολλοί), while Moeris attributes it to Greek speakers, as in other instances of oscillation between masculine and feminine genders treated in his lexicon (see Moer. β 9Moer. β 9, β 23Moer. β 23, λ 9Moer. λ 9, υ 5Moer. υ 5, φ 22Moer. φ 22: differences in gender in tandem with changes in meaning, metaplasms etc., as is the case with Moer. α 15Moer. α 15, α 16Moer. α 16, β 22Moer. β 22, δ 34Moer. δ 34, σ 41Moer. σ 41, φ 4Moer. φ 4, ψ 2Moer. ψ 2, are not taken into account here). The different treatments of Phrynichus and Moeris need not contradict one another: Ἕλληνες, οἱ πολλοί and ἀμαθές are common Atticist labels for those who do not speak Attic (see Matthaios 2015, 291, with further bibliography). Nonetheless, Moeris’ judgement may have been more nuanced than Phrynichus’: in fact, Moeris mostly uses Ἕλληνες, ἙλληνικόνἙλληνικός and cognates as labels to indicate the written koine, the learned language of his own times, as Maidhof (1912, 319–38) pointed out (see also Swain 1996, 51–2; Dettori 2022). Moeris may thus have marked the masculine χόλικες as a form alien to Attic but admissible in learned koine. Unfortunately, however, we cannot go any further, in the absence of any certain attestation of the masculine form of χόλικες, a word that does not occur in any extant sources besides comedy, as noted above.

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

Whereas χόλικες is not attested outside lexica and erudite sources, the rare χολάδες is found in Byzantine poetry as well as in high-level prose. It is best explained as a Homeric reminiscence (see C.1): see Paul.Sil. AP 6.81.1–2 ἀντιβίων τε | πολλάκις ἐγχείην γευσαμένην χολάδων ‘The spear that often tasted the entrails of the foes’ (Transl. Paton 1916, 343, slightly adapted); Constantinus Manasses Breviarium chronicum 6458–9 ὁ βασιλεὺς δ’ ἐπέτετο πλευροκοπῶν, διώκων | καὶ δορατίοις νύγμασι χέων ἐχθρῶν χολάδας ‘And the emperor followed smiting the ribs, chasing, scattering the entrails of the enemies with lance strokes’; Nicetas Choniates Historia 71.13 van Dieten τὰς χολάδας τοῦ χαλκοῦ διεκχέοντος ‘the bronze (i.e., the arms) scattered the entrails’ (cf. also Nicetas Choniates Historia 574.4 van Dieten). Moreover, χολάδες may serve as a kind of learned alternative to the more common ἔντεραἔντερον (‘intestines’, ‘entrails’). In this respect, see Georgius Pisides’ De vita humana 39–40 (τίς δολιχὸν χολάδεσσι καὶ ἀγκύλον ἔργον ἑλίξας | ἤπατος αἱμοτόκοιο τόνους πυρόεντας ἀνάπτει; ‘Who wound the long and curving work of intestines, and kindles the fiery tendons of the blood-engendering liver?’ transl. Whitby 2014, 439), a ‘rewriting’ of Georgius Pisides’ Hexameron 632–3, where τῶν ἐντέρων is found (cf. Gonnelli 1991, 126). See also Michael Psellus, who uses the word in a poem called Ὀνομασία τῶν μελῶν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, i.e., ‘Naming of human limbs’ (61.6: τὰ ἔντερα χολάδας τε, γαστέραν τὴν κοιλίαν ‘And the intestines [are called] χολάδες, the stomach γαστήρ’), and Constantinus Manasses Carmen morale 133–5 ἀνὴρ καὶ γάρ τις μανικός, θυμώδης, τιγρολέων | πρῶτον χολάδας τὰς αὐτοῦ […] | […] συμφλέξας καὶ τεφρώσας ‘A frenzied, fierce man, a beast that is tiger and lion at the same time, once he has burned to ashes his entrails etc.’.

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

N/A