previous next

[323] τυμβοχόης, so Krates read, while Ar. made the word “τυμβοχοῆσ᾽” (for -“ῆσαι”, aor. infin.). The question is of course one of interpretation only, not of MS. tradition. It seems clear that Ar. is wrong, and the only difficulty is to understand how he came to adopt an explanation which seems so perverse. “τυμβοχόη” it is true does not recur in Greek, while “τυμβοχοέειν” is used by Herodotos; but the formation is quite regular (cf. “οἰνοχόη”), and the verb implies the subst. Against “τυμβοχοῆσ᾽” it must be objected (1) that the -“αι” of the aor. infin. is nowhere else elided; (2) that the constr. “τυμβοχοῆσαί μιν” is very harsh, and cannot be supported by “νέκταρ οἰνοχοεύειν”, where the acc. is cognate. (Herod. uses the word without an object.) On the other hand the constr. “χρεώ μιν ἔσται” with gen. is sufficiently attested by Od. 4.634ἐμὲ δὲ χρεὼ γίνεται αὐτῆς,9.607οὔ τί με ταύτης χρεὼ τιμῆς. θάπτωσιν” may mean ‘perform funeral rites,’ setting up a “σῆμα”, even in the absence of the body. Such a cenotaph is not mentioned in H., but naturally follows from the importance attached to the formalities of burial, and is hinted at in 22.512-14, Od. 1.291. But it is equally possible to regard “ὅτε μιν θάπτωσιν” as covered by the negative; ‘he will need no mound at his burial, because he will have no burial’ (Monro).

Creative Commons License
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.

hide References (4 total)
  • Commentary references from this page (4):
hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: