Talk:Amphiaraus

Hypermnestra

As far as I can make out, it was referencing the wrong pre-existing Hypermnestra article for Amphiaraus' mother, so I changed the link.

The Clytidae

I removed the mention of the Clytidae, a clan of seers at Olympia who, according to Pausanias (6.17.6), claimed to be the descendants of a Clytius, who they claimed to be the son of Amphiaraus' son Alcmaeon (here). The clan and their claims have little notability, have little relevance for Amphiaraus, and are amply covered at both of our articles Alcmaeon and Clytius, so I don't think they warrant mentioning here as well. @Teishin: What do you think? Paul August ☎ 15:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

The family connection seems interesting to me. It connects Amphiaraus with the seer priests of one of the most important temples of the Greek world, and it underscores Amphiaraus' role as a seer and the importance of temples of Amphiaraus.Teishin (talk) 16:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@Teishin: It doesn't so much connect Amphiaraus with the priests, but rather is an attempt by the priests to connect themselves to Melampus (by way of Amphiaraus). The specific quoted claim is:

Of the stock of the sacred-tongued Clytidae I boast to be,

Their soothsayer, the scion of the god-like Melampodidae.

I'm still unconvinced it belongs here. Paul August ☎ 17:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I read that quote as a claim that the Clytidae belong to not just one but two great hereditary lineages of soothsayers. Teishin (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@Teishin: No, just one lineage: Clytius, son of Alcmaeon, son of Amphiaraus, son of Oicles, son of Antiphates, son of Melampus (See Hard, Table 13, p. 706). Paul August ☎ 18:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, good point, but by that I don't see the objection with connecting the Clytidae to Amphiaraus. The Clytidae would seem to be an important family legacy worth mentioning regarding any article about their forebears famous for forecasting. Teishin (talk) 18:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Paul August the expansion to the Family section you just made seems to me to be a great improvement. Making all of those connections explicit makes the article more rich and interesting. Teishin (talk) 22:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Paul August ☎ 22:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Mythology

hi, sorry, i am new to editing wikipedia, but there is a definite problem with footnote 19. the footnote describes itself as being a reference to Plutarch's Parallel Lives, VI. aside from the fact that there are multiple different ways that that massive work gets divided up, and aside from the fact that the link sends the reader to a website with a paywall, there is the real issue: that the reference is not in fact to Plutarch's Parallel Lives, but rather to Pseudo-Plutarch's Greek and Roman Parallel Stories, also known as the Minor Parallels. true, this work is sometimes included in scholarly editions of Plutarch's Moralia. but in any case, the reference is wrong and sent me for one on a wild goose chase.

here is a link to one english edition of the actual text in question : https://books.google.com/books?id=7ugIAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA248&dq=William+Watson+Goodwin+plutarch&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj3wc2dz6aPAxWZPDQIHUJpOd8Q6AF6BAgLEAM#v=onepage&q=amphiaraus&f=false

sorry, i don't know how to fix the footnote in the entry. Tutivilus (talk) 18:55, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Tutivilus, I've changed the link in that note to point to the Internet Archive's version of the same Loeb tome. I don't think there's necessarily an issue with the citation being to the Moralia, as the Greek and Roman Parallel Stories are part of the standard organisation of the Moralia followed by modern editions (on this, see Moralia#Books). (It's worth noting that Goodwin's translation, which you link in your comment, is similarly from an edition of the Moralia). That said, I do notice that earlier in the page another work included in the Moralia is cited directly (that is, with the title of the individual work given), so I've done the same here. – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:40, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

hi Michael Aurel,

thank you for the aid. my issue was not with the citation being to Moralia, but rather that the link was to a paywalled source, and the text of the link suggested that the citation was Parallel Lives, rather than Moralia. I agree with everything else, the text is regularly included in scholarly editions of Moralia.

thanks ! Tutivilus (talk) 18:25, 26 August 2025 (UTC)