198

Πρωτεσίλαος (fr. 41)

The two fragments of Theopompus attest to nothing except that he was men-
tioned; this fragment and that of Antiphanes add little more. The only reason
to consider Peron a non-citizen is the unprovable assertion that perfumers
are most likely foreign. There is no reason to assume that he is meant to be
included in the intricacies of the relation between Melanopus and Callistratus,
particularly if he is not a citizen, other than the fact that his name occurs with
theirs here. He is probably mentioned simply as a well-known perfume-seller
to add a degree of realism and to make the jibe at Melanopus more concrete;
less likely, he may have some connection with the context to which the lost
main clause of this fragment belongs.
ούπερ Partitive genitive.
άπέδοτο The subject is Peron.
2 Μελανώπω Μελάνωπος Λάχητος Αίξωνεύς; PA 9788; PAA 638765;
Develin 1989 #1933; LGPNII s. v. 7; grandson of the eponym of Plato’s Laches.
The known dates of his public career range between 372/1 BC (envoy to Sparta;
X. HG. 6.3.2) and possibly as late as 355/4 BC (strategos; D.24.12-13; IGII2150.5
[restored]83). Aside from Plu. Dem. 13.3 (quoted in the Introduction to this
play), the known dealings between Melanopus and Callistratus are confined
to both men taking part in an embassy to Sparta in 372/1 BC (X. HG 6.3.2-3)
and the prosecution of Melanopus by Callistratus for defrauding the naopoioi
of three consecrated half-obols (Arist. Rh. 1.1374b25-7).
πολυτελούς Αιγυπτίου For Egyptian myrrh, cf. Thphr. Od. 30, 31 αχρω-
μάτιστα δέ των μέν πολυτελών Αιγύπτιον (sc. μύρον); Achae. TrGF 20 F 5; Pl.
Com. fr. 71.6-7; Antiph. fr. 105.2-3; Ephipp. fr. 8.1; Dexicr. fr. 1; Did. pp. 305-6
Schmidt; Dsc. 1.59.1. For πολυτελούς, cf. on fr. 31.1.
3 ω The perfumed oil bought by Melanopus.
αλείφει τούς πόδας The subject of the verb is almost certainly
Melanopus. Scholtz 1996. 70-2 discusses other possibilities in some detail,
but there is no other natural way to interpret the passage. His claim (71) that
there is no consensus on how to understand the passage overstates the matter;
in fact, only Kock expresses real doubt, and virtually every discussion of these
lines treats Melanopus as the subject of αλείφει.
Scholtz 1989. 73-7 establishes two facts crucial to understanding the con-
notations of this act. First, the anointer is invariably of lower social status
(or for some reason places him or herself in that role) than the person being
anointed, so Melanopus is satirized as the lackey of Callistratus. Second, the
act of anointing the feet frequently has sexual overtones (e. g. Cephisod. fr.

83 D. Lewis (ap. Develin 1989. 282 [strategoi for 355/4 BC]) expresses doubt that the
inscription should be dated this late.