Πρωτεσίλαος (fr. 41)

197

λιτευόμενος Καλλιστράτω καί πολλάκις ύπ’ αυτού χρήμασι μετατιθέμενος
είώθει λέγειν προς τον δήμος· 'Ο μεν άνήρ εχθρός, τό δε τής πόλεως νικάτω
συμφέρον. Scholtz 1996 discusses this fragment at length, and although he
suggests that the interpretation may be debatable, there is no real doubt that
Melanopus is described as anointing Callistratus’ feet (i. e. taking bribes from
him; see on 3). Whether this fragment satirized an on-going political relation-
ship or alludes to a particular event is uncertain. If the latter, one possibility
is that it involved dealings between Athens and Egypt. This is supported by
the allusion at D. 24.127 to the apparently infamous incident when Melanopus
παρεπρεσβεύσατ’ εις Α’ίγθπτον, adds point to the mention of Egyptian per-
fume in 2, and fits well with Callistratus’ concern with foreign policy and
advocacy of a shifting series of alliances for Athens. For Athens’ relationship
with Egypt, cf. above on Poleis.
The fragment consists of several clauses dependent on a noun in the dative.
Whether the satire of the political relationship was merely a passing jibe
depends on the subject (i. e. Melanopus or someone mentioned in the main
clause of the sentence) of αλείφει in 3. Equally uncertain is the use to which
the perfumed oil (1) was put in the main clause (omitted in the fragment quot-
ed by Athenaeus). The possibility must remain open that the overall context
is unrelated to political satire, but that mention of perfumed oil created the
opportunity for a quick joke at the expense of contemporary politicians.
1 μύρω A mixture of perfume (which provided the scent) and oil (which
provided the medium); cf. Thphr. Od. 15-20; Olson-Sens 1999 on Matro fr.
1.105-6 (SH 534); Olson-Sens 2000 on Archestr. fr. 60.3 (SH192). Perfumed oil
is not to be confused with an unguent; cf. X. An. 4.4.13 where, in the absence
of oil, the men use a χρϊμα instead, in this case pig-fat or the like.
παρά Πέρωνος Peron (PAA 772900) was apparently a seller of perfume
in the earlier part of the fourth century and was well-known enough to be
mentioned at least four times in comedy (also Antiph. fr. 37; Theopomp. Com.
frr. 1; 17 [both omitted at LGPNII s. v.; all four are given together at Ath.
15.689e-90a]* * * * * 82). Scholtz 1996. 73 n. 20, following Long 1986. 79-80, suggests
that Peron was non-Athenian; LGPNII s. v. includes him as possibly Athenian.

Plutarch’s language strongly suggests that Melanopus was bribed repeatedly, but
whatever the truth of the matter, his contention is almost certainly derived from
contemporary political slander, e. g. from attacks by comic poets, as here; the
phrase ό μέν άνήρ εχθρός, τό δέ τής πόλεως νικάτω συμφέρον may originate in a
similar source.
82 Athenaeus may have found the four fragments (all we know of Peron) together in
the same source, e. g. a work on komdidoumenoi.