κόλλοψ, κόλλαβος
(Phryn. Ecl. 164, Antiatt. κ 36, Thom.Mag. 202.3–4)

D. General commentary

The words κόλλοψ and κόλλαβος (both surely of pre-Greek origin and unknown etymology, see EDG s.vv.; Pöhlmann, Tichy 1982, 300−4) are the focus of two entries by Phrynichus (A.1) and the Antiatticist (A.2). The first is concerned with stating that κόλλοψ is the only appropriate word to indicate the tuning key of the lyre (i.e. the peg around which the string is fastened, and through which it is tightened to reach the required pitch. For the archaeological evidence concerning this part of the instrument, see Pöhlmann, Tichy 1982, 300−11). The Antiatticist entry refers to the same prescription (κόλλοψ against κόλλαβος for ‘peg of the lyre’) but also records a secondary meaning of κόλλοψ, as a metaphorMetaphors to indicate effeminate men. According to the Antiatticist, some unnamed scholars advised against this usage, however the lexicographer refutes this proscription based on a passage by Eubulus (C.5).

The number of occurrences of both κόλλοψ and κόλλαβος outside lexica, scholia, and grammatical works is low. Among the two forms, κόλλοψ has the older attestation: a line of the Odyssey (C.1) compares Odysseus’ dexterity in drawing the bow to the ability of a lyre-player to effortlessly tighten the string of his instrument around the peg (see Pöhlmann, Tichy 1982, 287). After Homer, κόλλοψ resurfaces in Aristophanes’ Wasps (C.2), where it indicates the tuning key of the lyre within a metaphor regarding anger (see e.g. Biles, Olson 2015, 265). The same meaning for κόλλοψ (tuning key) is also found in Plato, R. 531b.3. Remaining instances of the term in comedyComedy attest to a different sense, not considered by Atticist lexicography: in another fragment by Aristophanes (C.3), κόλλοψ indicates an edible part of the boar, most likely the rind (see Bagordo 2016, 230). The meaning of κόλλοψ in this context is confirmed through the many erudite sources that gloss κόλλοψ with τὸ παχὺ δέρμα or similar expressions (see B.1, B.3, B.6, B.7, B. 8, B.9, B.10, B.12), as well as by another Aristophanic fragment (C.4), in which κόλλοψ serves as comparison for Aeschylus’ ‘harshness’ (see B.9: Ἀριστοφάνης τὴν σκληρότητα Αἰσχύλου ἐνδεικνύμενός φησιν κτλ). The meaning implied in C.4 is therefore ‘I believe he is [harsh] like [boar] rind’ (see Bagordo 2016, 230). Comedy, however, attests to a semantic development for κόλλοψ, which apparently became an offensive nicknameAbuse (terms of) for passive homosexuals. This abusive sense is attested in Eubulus (C.5) and Diphilus (C.7), as well as in an epigram by Dioscorides (C.8). Verbs and adjectives linked to this meaning are also extant: consider the verb κολλοπεύωκολλοπεύω in Pl.Com. fr. 202.5 (κεκολλόπευκας· τοιγαροῦν ῥήτωρ ἔσῃ, ‘you have been a κόλλοψ: accordingly, you will be a public speaker’) and the compound κολλοποδιώκτηςκολλοποδιώκτης, ‘pursuer of κόλλοψ’ (C.9), preserved in the anonymous source quoted by Eustathius (B.12) and in a scholium to Clouds (B.11). Overall, the comic occurrences of κόλλοψ, κολλοπεύω, and κολλοποδιώκτης show that κόλλοψ was used as a generic slur for homosexualsHomosexuality, being applied both to adult men (see C.5, C.7) and to boys (C.8, C.9), referring to the passive nature of their activity, see B.11 (κολλοποδιώκτας ἐκάλουν […] τοὺς παιδεραστάς), B.7 and B.12. See also Hunter (1983, 99−100).

C.3 features not only κόλλοψ (‘boar rind’), but also κόλλαβος, as the name of a warm food that accompanies different cuts of meat (7–8 μετὰ κολλάβων | χλιαρῶν). The exact nature of the dish is clarified by another comic occurrence of κόλλαβος, i.e. Philyll. fr. 4 (αὐτὸς φέρων πάρειμι πυρῶν ἐκγόνους τριμήνων | γαλακτοχρῶτας κολλάβους θερμούς, ‘I myself come forward bringing the offspring of wheat ripened in three months, the warm, milk-coloured κόλλαβοι’). In these early attestations – i.e. C.3, Philyll. fr. 4 and, in all likelihood, also Ar. fr. 522 (λαμβάνετε κόλλαβον ἕκαστος) – κόλλαβος is the name of a type of bread (this meaning is also listed in Poll. 6.72Poll. 6.72. See also Orth 2015, 152).

Phrynichus’ concern, however, is to proscribe the use of κόλλαβος in the sense of ‘peg of the lyre’ and to prescribe κόλλοψ instead: this suggests that, some time before him, Greek speakers started confusing κόλλοψ and κόλλαβος, to the point that the second term became a synonymSynonyms of the first. The reason for this confusion is probably twofold. On the one hand, the meaning ‘animal rind’ of κόλλοψ began to be explained through a folk-etymologyPara-etymology from κόλλακόλλα (‘glue’) adopted also, in the Augustan period, by the Homeric scholar Aristonicus in his commentary to the Odyssey (see B.8, Pöhlmann, Tichy 1982, 290, 294. Cf. B.6, B.7, B.9, B.12 and EDG s.v. κόλλοψ). Collagen in animal skin, especially from bulls, was indeed used as glue in antiquity, see e.g. Dsc. De materia medica 3.87.1. On the other hand, the parallel meaning of κόλλοψ as ‘peg of the lyre’ was perceived as a derivation of the meaning ‘animal rind’, since this part of the musical instrument was believed to have been originally made of leather (see B.2, B.6, B.8, B.9, B.12. Some modern scholars have maintained that this was actually the case, but have later been disproved; see Pöhlmann, Tichy 1982, 288−9).

Consequently, the folk-etymology from κόλλα started being linked to κόλλοψ as ‘peg of the lyre’, and the assonance between κόλλα and κόλλαβος caused the latter to take up the meaning ‘lyre-key’ too. Apparently, this semantic shiftSemantic shift had already taken place at the time of Aristophanes of Byzantium (B.1), since – according to Eustathius (B.12), who preserves the fragment – the scholar wrote κόλλοπα […] φασὶ λέγεσθαι καὶ τὸν τῶν ὀργάνων κόλλαβον (‘they say that […] the κόλλαβος of the musical instruments is called κόλλοψ as well’; see also Pöhlmann, Tichy 1982, 289−90). After Aristophanes of Byzantium, Plutarch is the first author to unequivocally use κόλλαβος to indicate the peg of the lyre (see Plu. De animae procreatione in Timaeo 1030b.7: ὁ τοὺς ἐπιτρίτους καὶ ἡμιολίους καὶ διπλασίους λόγους ζητῶν ἐν τῷ ζυγῷ τῆς λύρας καὶ τῇ χελώνῃ καὶ τοῖς κολλάβοις γελοῖός ἐστι, ‘The one who seeks ratios of four to three and three to two and two to one in the crossbar of the lyre and in the sounding board and in the pegs is ludicrous’).

Moreover, just as κόλλοψ was also used to indicate a mechanical part in Arist. Mech. 852b.12 and 18, κόλλαβος shows a similar secondary meaning in Hero Aut. 30.2.5–6 (see Pöhlmann, Tichy 1982, 298). From the imperial age onwards, κόλλαβος is frequently used to name the key of string instruments (see e.g. Luc. DMar. 11.4), especially in technical literature on music and harmony (see e.g. Nicom. Harm. 6.1.68, Ptol. Harm. 2.16.24), and this is also the only meaning of κόλλαβος recorded in Timaeus’ Platonic lexicon (B.5). Nevertheless, there are cases in which the lyre-key is still called κόλλοψ in this period, in particular by Lucian (ITr. 10.13, Ind. 10.3): in these two passages, the choice of κόλλοψ instead of κόλλαβος might result from an intention to elevate the tone by using the word that Atticists like Phrynichus considered correct. The lexicographer’s preference for κόλλοψ against κόλλαβος in the sense of ‘lyre-key’ is easily understandable, given that κόλλοψ is the Homeric term for the peg of the lyre and is also attested in this meaning in Aristophanes, see C.1, C.2.

Whether the Antiatticist shared or contested Phrynichus’ opposition to κόλλαβος in the meaning ‘peg of the lyre’ is not fully clear. Indeed, the focus of the entry (A.2) is not on this sense, but on that of ‘effeminate’, which, according to the lexicographer, was rejected by some (κόλλοπας· φασὶ δεῖ<ν> κυρίως λέγειν τοὺς τῶν ὀργάνων […] οὐ τοὺς ἀνδρογύνους), but was instead acceptable to him in the light of the attestation in Eubulus (C.5), which he drew from his source Aristophanes of Byzantium (B.1, see below). The wording of the entry seems to imply that some Atticists explicitly forbade the abusive usage of κόλλοψ in relation to homosexuals: the reason for this proscription might be that the use was considered too vulgar, or that it was attested in authors – i.e. Eubulus and Diphilus – that were not regarded as reputable models of language, but were fully acceptable in the Antiatticist’s more inclusive canon. In fact, in the Antiatticist Eubulus is quoted eight more times to defend specific usages (see γ 7Antiatt. γ 7, 28Antiatt. γ 28 with entry ἀνατοιχέω, διατοιχέω, δ 39Antiatt. δ 39, κ 18Antiatt. κ 18, μ 27Antiatt. μ 27, 37Antiatt. μ 37, π 6Antiatt. π 6, τ 8Antiatt. τ 8) and Diphilus is even more represented (fourteen entries in total, among which see Antiatt. κ 6Antiatt. κ 6 with entry ᾄδω, κοκκύζω).

Whether the unspecified subject of φασί in the Antiatticist should be identified with Phrynichus is, of course, highly speculative. The lexicographer did not approve of Eubulus (see Ecl. 315Phryn. Ecl. 315) and mentioned Diphilus only twice in the Praeparatio, where his range of acceptable authors less strict (see PS 60.14–8Phryn. PS 60.14–8 and fr. *8Phryn. PS fr. *8; a third occurrence is in fr. *135Phryn. PS fr. *135, which is only conjecturally ascribed to Phrynichus). Still, this hypothesis supposes a high degree of epitomisation for the entry of the Eclogue dedicated to κόλλοψ and κόλλαβος, in which the abusive sense of κόλλοψ is completely absent. Regardless of the identification of the subject of φασί in A.2, it must be noted that the reference to Eubulus’ Antiope(C.5) clearly shows the dependence of this entry of the Antiatticist on Aristophanes of Byzantium’s discussion of κόλλοψ and κόλλαβος (B.1), originally included in his work On words suspected of not having been said by the ancients. The relationship between the Antiatticist and this treatise has long been acknowledged (see Slater 1987, XVI–XVII, Tosi 1997, Valente 2015, 31–5).

In dealing with κόλλοψ, Aristophanes of Byzantium reports the stance of other unnamed scholars, who said ‘that the thick skin and the κόλλαβος of the musical instruments are called κόλλοψ’ (κόλλοπα τὸ παχὺ δέρμα φασὶ λέγεσθαι καὶ τὸν τῶν ὀργάνων κόλλαβον). Nothing in the wording suggests that the observation of Aristophanes’ predecessors had a prescriptive nature. Moreover, the phrase παρατιθέμενοι Ὅμηρον καὶ ἄλλους τινάς (‘adducing as comparison Homer and others’) places what comes before in a context of descriptive lexicographical enquiry.

This investigation was likely sparked by the comic occurrences in which the meaning of κόλλοψ is not immediately clear, such as C.2 and C.4, and the unnamed Hellenistic scholars solved the problem by comparing similar passages to others in which the sense of κόλλοψ was unequivocal, such as C.1, as far as the meaning ‘peg of the lyre’ is concerned, and – one could speculate – C.3 with regard to the meaning ‘boar rind’. To this, Aristophanes of Byzantium added a further meaning of κόλλοψ that he found attested in other authors (ἕτεροι), namely that of ‘passive homosexual’, for which he adduced the passage of Eubulus (C.5), already discussed above. Whether this observation should be understood as Aristophanes’ response to other scholars who rejected the scoptic usage of κόλλοψ (as seems to be implied by the entry of the Antiatticist, A.2) or rather as a simple addition to their conclusions, cannot be determined with certainty. On the whole, it seems more plausible that the rejection of the abusive meaning of κόλλοψ originated in the context of prescriptive Atticism, rather than before Aristophanes of Byzantium (see Tosi 1997, 176, followed by Valente 2015, 33).

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

Phrynichus’ proscription of κόλλαβος in favour of κόλλοψ for the meaning ‘peg of the lyre’ is reflected in late antique and early Byzantine authors (see Thdt. Eran. 187.30, Eus. PE 14.13.7, Phlp. in Arith.Intr. 110.14, Ascl. in Introd. 2.39, Arethas Scripta minora 21.204.205), whereas κόλλαβος in this sense seemingly comes back later in the Byzantine era (after Iambl. VP 26.118 and Ath. Al. Expositiones in Psalmos MPG 27.548.43, see Theodorus Prodromus Carmen ad Manuelem I imperatorem 110, Gr.Ant. Epitaphii 5.151.30, Gennadius Scholarius Grammatica 2.461.20). Finally, the Geoponica (19.6.3) preserve the only late occurrence of κόλλοψ in the meaning of ‘boar rind’.

Neither κόλλοψ nor κόλλαβος have continuations in Modern Greek.

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

N/A