Reginald Walter Macan, Herodotus, The Seventh, Eighth, & Ninth Books with Introduction and Commentary

---

---

οὗτος ἐμιμέετο Μελάμποδα, ‘Teisamenos was copying Melampûs.’ The story of Melampûs here is a digression within a digression, but may be of the same date in the composition of Hdt.'s work as the story of Teisamenos; see, however, below, and Introduction, § 9. ‘Teisamenos did but follow the example of Melampûs’ (Hdt. is great on plagiarists; so Kleisthenes of Athens copied his grandfather of Sikyon, 5. 67) ‘with a difference.’ ὡς εἰκάσαι βασιληίην τε καὶ πολιητίην αἰτεομένους (cp. App. Crit.), ‘if we may compare men together who were demanding respectively kingship and citizenship’ Melampûs was even more exigeant than Teisamenos. Melampûs had still reputed descendants in Greece; a descendant of his was with Leonidas at Thermopylai, cp. 7. 221. His death perhaps created the vacancy filled by the Eleian. Hdt. gives the name of the father of Melampûs as Amytheon, 2. 49 (i.e. Ἀμυθάων), and if the patronymic always proved the earliest notice, that passage would be of earlier composition than this, and this digression on Melampûs (probably) of later composition (third hand) than the digression on Teisamenos (second hand) in which it is embedded. Amythaon apparently belongs (in Homer) to the south Thessalian cyele; his mother is Tyro, his father Krethens, his brothers are Aison and Pheres, the Poseidonian Peliasand Nelens are his uterine brethren, Od. 11. 253 ff. A part of Elis was named Ἀμυθαονία, Steph. B. sub v. (‘perhaps the territory of Triphylian Pylos,’ Hirschfeld ap. Pauly. Wissowa i. 2014). Amythaon himself has been traced to a chthonian source, as ‘a personification of Hades’ (cp. Wernicke, ibid.). Melampûs is the μάντις ἀμύμων who won the daughter of Nelens ‘for his brother,’ Od. 11. 291, a story more fnlly set forth Od. 15 226 ff., where Pylos is given as his proper home, whence he passes to Argos, ναιἐμεναι πολλοῖσιν ἀνάσσοντ᾽ Ἀργείοισιν, without the process being further explained — which, however, hardly proves that ‘Homer’ did not ‘know’ the explanation.

Diodoros 4. 68 gives the story in rationalized form; Apollodoros 2. 2. 2 more clearly supplies the part played by the women, in the first instance the daughters of Proitos; Pausamas 2. 18. 4 adds the duration of the dynasties. Five kings succeeded Bias (in four generations) and six sncceeded Melampûs (in six generations, down to Amphilochos; cp. 7. 91 supra), i.e. the dynasty or Melampûs outlasted that of Bias, while the native dynasty of the house of Anaxagoras, son of Argos, outlasted both the others, but was displaced by Orestes, son of Agamemnon.

The connexion with the Dionysiac orgies ascribed to Melampûs in 2. 49 does not at first sight square with the therapeutic agency here ascribed to him; but the diviner may possibly have cast out Beelzebub by the aid of Beelzebub on homoeopathic prineiples.

---

ὑποστάντες, not understanding, but ‘undergoing,’ undertaking, agreeing to, cp. δίκας ὑποστῆναι c. 94 infra.

προτείνεσθαι (bis) may be used of a proposal from either side; cp. 7. 160.

---

ἤισαν δώσοντες, daturn erant, Stein (or rather datum ibant?). But here, in view of ἀπιόντων just before, ἤισαν is not to be taken as a mere auxiliary, but means ‘they went,’ to Pylos, a second time.

ὁρέων ... τετραμμένους = γνοὺς τετραμμένους c. 33 supra; otherwise it might have been taken in a more literal and physical sense.

---

Βίαντι. Bias is not actually named in Homer, and the winning of a bride for ‘his brother’ (Od. 15. 237) is all that is ascribed to Melampûs in this connexion. That Saga is told in Pausan. 4. 36. 3 and more fully by Apollodoros 1. 9. 12 (from which place it appears that the cunning of ‘Blackfoot’ was of more value than the strength of ‘Bias’).

---

τὸ τριτημόριον τῆς βασιληίης. He had demanded τὸ ἥμισυ, in the first instance, for himself; the other half— as ‘goes without saying’—to be left to the native king (i.e. Anaxagoras). How much did he now demand for his brother? How much did he keep for himself? How much was he asking for in all? If he was to have one-half and his brother one-third, he was asking now for five-sixths, which is hardly credible, especially as his demand was granted. He may have been demanding still one-half for himself and one-third of the remaining half for his brother, i.e. one-sixth of the whole for his brother, their shares amounting together to twothirds of the whole. Schweighaeuser takes it in this sense. The ancient authorities all take the division as into three equal thirds. (So Diodor., Pausan., Schol. to Pindar, Nem. 9. 30.) There is this much to be urged for the second alternative: (a) nothing is said by Hdt. of the withdrawal of the previous condition; (b) it corresponds more nearly with the relative duration of the two dynasties, in Pausanias six and four generations respectively; (c) the diviner would presumably keep the lion's share for himself. (The proportions would then have been Melampûs one-half, Anaxagoras one-third, Bias one-sixth.)

---

ἀπειληθέντες ἐς στεινόν. στεινόν must be properly an adjective; the substantive is στεῖνος: cp. c. 13 supra. Fer ἀπειλ. cp. 8. 109, and cp. κατειλημένοι c. 31 supra.