The traditional ἐκκεκηρῦχθαι τάφῳ can be explained only by supplying “λέγω” or the like. But in 196 “κρύψαι” and “ἐφαγνίσαι” depended on “κηρύξας ἔχω” in 192 (I have proclaimed to the people). It would be intolerably awkward to communicate the second part of the proclamation in an oblique form with the principal verb unexpressed: —‘（I tell you that) it has been proclaimed.’ The choice lies between (1) Musgrave's ἐκκεκήρυκται τάφῳ, and (2) Nauck's ἐκκεκηρῦχθαι λέγω. In favour of (1) remark:—（a) τάφῳ is not, indeed, necessary with κτερίζειν, which can be used absolutely; as Il. 11.455 “αὐτὰρ ἐπεί κε θάνω, κτεριοῦσί με δῖοι Ἀχαιοί”, ‘will give me funeral honours’: but, as the main point is that a “τάφος” is given to one brother and refused to the other, the addition of τάφῳ to the more general term κτερίζειν is plainly desirable here. (b) The misplacement of μήτε is due to the thought of κωκῦσαι having come only after τάφῳ had been uttered (“μήτε κτερίζειν μήτε” having been preferred to “μὴ κτερίζειν μηδέ”), and is not bolder than (e.g.) the misplacement of “τε” in Ph. 1411 f. “αὐδὴν τὴν Ἡρακλέους ι ἀκοῇ τε κλύειν λεύσσειν τ᾽ ὄψιν”. (c) The MS. error may have arisen from a reminiscence of “ἐκκεκηρῦχθαι” in 27. The line of Carneades ( L. Diog. 4. 64), “τοῦτον σχολῆς τῆσδ᾽ ἐκκεκηρῦχθαι λέγω”, is no argument for λέγω in the text of Sophocles. What could the parodist have made of τάφῳ? The tragic solemnity of the decree was the point of the parody, which uses ἐκκεκ. in a different sense from the poet's (‘I proclaim that he is banished from this school’: see on 27).
This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.