BMCR 2008.10.10, Hector D'Agostino, Onomacriti testimonia et fragmenta

Hector D'Agostino, Onomacriti testimonia et fragmenta. Quaderni, 10.
Pisa/Roma:  Istituti Editoriali e Poligrafici Internazionali, 2007.
Pp. liii, 113.  ISBN 978-88-8147-461-5.  EUR 38.00 (pb).

Reviewed by Federico Condello, Universita\ di Bologna
([email protected])
Word count:  3675 words
-------------------------------
To read a print-formatted version of this review, see
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2008/2008-10-10.html
To comment on this review, see
http://www.bmcreview.org/2008/10/20081010.html
-------------------------------

Onomacritus' fragments and testimonia  have until now been available in
Kinkel (Epicorum Graecorum fragmenta, I, Lipsiae 1877), Kern
(Orphicorum fragmenta, Berolini 1922), Colli (La sapienza greca, II,
Milano 1978) and finally Bernabe/ (Poetae Epici Graeci, II/2,
Monachi-Lipsiae 2005). No one, up until now, has ever had the idea of
collecting Onomacritus' remains in one autonomous edition. No wonder,
since we are dealing with an ill-famed forger and interpolator:
therefore, his fragments are unrecognizable by definition, and the
ancient evidence about him is scarce, obscure and rarely reliable.
However, the times are ripe for regarding archaic forgery as a
particular kind of authorship in the context of a general tendency
towards pseudepigraphy, double or multiple attributions, and the
continuous readaptation of traditional material. So, if the forgery is
only a peculiar form of what Foucault defined fonction-auteur,[[1]]
Onomacritus too is somehow an author, if not an auctoritas.
Consequently, Ettore D'Agostino can rightly dedicate his energy to
Onomacritus as a leading figure of the late-archaic age. His volume
provides a terse Introduction (pp. XI-XXXII); a large bibliography (pp.
XXXIII-XLVII); a collection of Testimonia vitae atque artis (pp. 1-7),
Operum fragmenta (pp. 9-13), and Testimonia dubia (pp. 15-17); finally,
an Italian translation (pp. 23-29) and a wide commentary (pp. 31-113)
of both testimonia and fragments.

In his Introduction, D'Agostino discusses the notorious problems of
chronology, reconstructs the few ascertainable facts of Onomacritus'
life, and scrutinizes the ancient evidence about the titles of his
poetic works (two in the Suda, <greek>*)ORFE/WS TELETAI/</greek> and
<greek>*)ORFE/WS XRHSMOI/</greek>, and one in the Stromata of Clement,
which uses the vague circumlocution <greek>OI( A)NAFERO/MENOI EI)S
*MOUSAI=ON XRHSMOI/</greek>). Above all,  D'Agostino is interested in
clarifying the widespread phenomenon of pseudepigraphy with regard to
Orphica and Homerica.[[2]] He is firmly persuaded that Onomacritus was
at the same time an editor-redactor used to the practice of
<greek>E)MPOIEI=N</greek>, an original author and a
<greek>MA/NTIS</greek>. In particular,  D'Agostino believes that
Onomacritus distinguished himself among the four members of the group
which worked, according to Tzetzes, at the Athenian edition of Homer;
in the same political context, and with the same political protectors,
he specialized in collecting, reworking and reciting ancient oracular
utterances. In his argumentation, D'Agostino offers some remarkable
examples of prudence and ars nesciendi. We cannot affirm for sure that
Onomacritus worked under Peisistratus: only Hipparchus and the late
Peisistratids of Hdt. VII 6,2-5 (= T 1) are expressly linked with him
in the ancient evidence (p. XII). We cannot assume that Onomacritus was
a member of some Attic clan, particularly of the
<greek>*LUKOMI/DAI</greek> (so Boehme, in several publications), nor
can we speculate about his political and diplomatic activity (pp.
XVf.). The boundaries of his work on Homer (and perhaps on Hesiod) are
uncertain, and we can neither isolate reliable examples of Onomacritean
interpolations, nor establish any clear-cut distinction between
interpolation, recreation and creation (pp. XVIII-XXI, and passim).
Finally, we cannot believe that a rhapsodic edition could break off the
oral tradition and provide an unalterable canon for posterity (p.
XXVI). So much caution deserves praise. In spite of this, D'Agostino
sometimes seems inclined to accept as a matter of fact the ancient
accounts about Onomacritus, and to consider some vague and often late
claims as unquestionable proof for his reconstruction. A clear example
of this attitude is the reliability attributed to Clement of Alexandria
(about Onomacritus as a professional seer) and to Tzetzes (about the
activity of the four Peisistratean editors of Homer: see below).

The collection of Testimonia vitae atque artis is more inclusive than
those of Kinkel, Kern or Colli; but compared to Bernabe/, D'Agostino
only differs in the inclusion of the so-called Scholion Plautinum (= T
9d) among the testimonia alleged in Tzetzes' account about the
Peisistratean edition of Homer. However, in a separate section,
D'Agostino adds two entirely new testimonia dubia: Aristot. Pol. II 12,
1274a 22-31, where the mysterious Onomacritus of Locri, quoted in a
list of ancient lawgivers, is confidently identified with the Athenian
one;[[3]] and Thgn. 503-508, where the addressee of the elegy is an
unspecified Onomacritus. D'Agostino is generous in the selection of the
fragments as well: he comes back to the eight fragments collected by
Kinkel (five only in Kern, six in Bernabe/), including Hdt. VII 6 (= T
1), duplicated in two distinct fragments sine verbis (see below); and
sine verbis, of course, are all the fragments with the exception of fr.
8 (= 8 Kinkel, T 190 Kern, B 8 Colli, 845a F + 1118 T Bernabe/), i.e.
the well-known addition about Heracles' ghost in the Nekyia (Od. XI
602-604), together with the relative scholia.

The most conspicuous section of the book is the large commentary
devoted both to the testimonia and to the fragments. The treatment
offered by D'Agostino is a concise essay (with footnotes) on the single
text, more than a punctual commentary line by line; given also the
scarcity (and the vagueness) of the evidence, one has to make a kind of
cross-reading between the single treatments in order to obtain an
overall view of the arguments offered by D'Agostino So, the sections of
the commentary complete each other as the commentary in turn completes
and clears up the Introduction (and sometimes vice versa). From this
complex and somewhat intricate handling of the data the reader can draw
a complete description of Onomacritus' activity and works: too complete
and detailed, perhaps, but full of sharp and stimulating observations.
Some examples: the treatment that D'Agostino devotes to the relation
between Arist. fr. 7a-b R. (= 26 and 27 G.), Phlp. In An. 186,24 (= T
5) and Cic. de nat. deor. I 38,107 (pp. 47-51) is very convincing; and
D'Agostino expresses many balanced judgments in discussing the notices
offered by Plutarch (De Pyth. or. 25, 407b = T 8) or by the  Suda (III
564 A. = T 4, respectively pp. 58-60 and 44-46).

It seems appropriate to make some critical remarks on other aspects of
the commentary.

Pp. 34-36 (on Hdt. VII 6,2-5 = T 1): D'Agostino is utterly resolute in
asserting that Onomacritus was an authentic seer, and not a mere
editor, specialist or performer of ancient prophecies transmitted under
the name of Musaeus or Orpheus. This is possible, but not
well-grounded. Herodotus calls Onomacritus a
<greek>XRHSMOLO/GOS</greek>. What is that? D'Agostino translates
<<divinatore>> (p. 25; so Colli): a very rare and unusual latinism
perhaps intended to preserve the polisemy of the original. "Si puo\
escludere che il termine <greek>XRHSMOLO/GOS</greek>, nella pagina
erodotea, fosse caricato di una sfumatura spregiativa", writes
D'Agostino (p. 35); and that can be  accepted. But in three of the six
Herodotean occurences of the word, it  denotes a professional exegetes
of ancient prophecies (VII 142,3; 143,1; 143, 3); in I 62,4 Amphilytos
gives to Peisistratus the well-known prophecy about the net and the
tunas: was it an authentic Amphilytos prophecy, or a traditional
oracular utterance? Herodotus tells us only that Amphilytos expressed
it <greek>E)NQEA/ZWN</greek>; in VIII 96,2 the prophecy pronounced by
the <greek>XRHSMOLO/GOS</greek> Lysistratus is explicitly compared to
those of Baucis and Musaeus, but Herodotus adds that his prediction had
been forgotten by all the Greeks (<greek>E)LELH/QEE PA/NTAS TOU\S
*(/ELLHNAS</greek>): evidently, the reason was the scant authority of
Lysistratus (elsewhere unknown), who could have used or adapted a
traditional oracular response (the same prophecy, in Str. IX 1,21, is
attributed to Apollo[[4]]). Briefly, the Herodotean use of the term
says nothing about the professional qualification of Onomacritus, and
the only evidence about his status as seer remains the unreliable
Clement (see below).

Pp. 36-40: Lasus of Hermione, Herodotus reports in the same passage,
exposed a forgery by Onomacritus in the collection of Musaeus'
prophecies, and demonstrated that the prediction about the small
islands near Lemnos--destined to disappear beneath the waves--was a
fake. So our poor forger was banished by Hipparchus. D'Agostino has
valid arguments in suspecting some political manoeuvre behind this
strange philological querelle, and appropriately recalls the economic
interests of the Peisistratids in the coasts of the Chersonesos and in
the Black Sea area. Foreign policy apart, what can we think of the
controversy between Lasus and Onomacritus? Why did Onomacritus insert
in his collection such a dangerous prediction? How did Lasus succeed in
exposing the forgery? D'Agostino offers no explanations ("credo sia uno
sforzo vano cercare di determinare il procedimento che condusse Laso
alla scoperta dell'inserimento", p. 38), and seems to believe in the
good faith of Onomacritus, who wrote a prophecy ad hoc for no
particular reason (p. 38); besides, D'Agostino is persuaded that the
<greek>*MOUSAI/OU XRHSMOI/</greek> edited by Onomacritus gave rise to
the first written tradition of the prophecies, though this fixation was
neither definitive nor unchangeable (pp. 36f.). These assumptions,
however, may generate some inconsistencies in the reconstruction of the
events. If the prophecy was detrimental to the Peisistratean
propaganda, why did Onomacritus insert it in his collection? Was it
some kind of political betrayal? That was Hipparchus' judgment
according to D'Agostino (p. 39). But why did Onomacritus (or some other
performer, acting on the order of the tyrants) not simply suppress the
prophecy at the moment of his public performance, as he did at the
court of Xerxes according to Herodotus (<greek>EI) ME/N TI E)NE/OI
SFA/LMA FE/RON TW=| BARBA/RW|, TW=N ME\N E)/LEGE OU)DE/N</greek>)? I
see no more than three choices: either the insertion (and the
performance) of the prophecy was a real betrayal, inspired by some
enemies of Hipparchus (but why  would Onomacritus be so reckless?); or
the affair was the result of a conspiracy finalized to weed out
Onomacritus[[5]] (but why such complicated methods on the part of
Hipparchus?); or, Onomacritus  went wrong not by the creation of a new,
lethal prophecy, but by the inclusion in his collection (and probably
the public diffusion[[6]]) of a prophecy that appeared, perhaps
afterwards, a boomerang. Was this prophecy a traditional one that was
already circulating under the name of Musaeus? It could be, since all
the data suggest that the incriminated prophecy was not under the
direct control of Onomacritus, or at least not of Hipparchus, who
otherwise could have prevented or interrupted its circulation. If so,
we have to postulate some kind of canonization or (in Nagy's terms)
'textualization' of prophetic utterances, independent from Onomacritus.
And it cannot be excluded that Lasus based his accusation on some
anterior or parallel tradition (no matter whether oral or written) of
the same prophecies;[[7]] perhaps, the only way to eliminate an awkward
but well-known prediction was to find, and to eliminate, his supposed
forger and Onomacritus was the best candidate. All this is merely
hypothetical, of course; but it is difficult to avoid these or similar
hypotheses, if Herodotus' account is reliable; and all this is not
without consequences for our reconstruction of Onomacritus' activity
(see below, about Homer).

Pp. 41f. (on Tatian. ad Graec. 41 = T 2): the well-known aim of the
Christian apologist is to establish that Moses was earlier than any
poet or wise man of Greece. In the text under discussion, Tatian writes
that "Orpheus was a contemporary of Heracles; above all [<greek>A)/LLWS
TE KAI\</greek>], they say that the works attributed to him have been
put together [or compiled, or arranged: <greek>SUNTETA/XQAI</greek>] by
Onomacritus of Athens, who flourished during the reign of the
Peisistratids, in the fiftieth Olympiad [= 580-577 BC, which involves a
considerable chronological mistake: see D'Agostino, p. XI]". The verb
<greek>SUNTETA/XQAI</greek> is very ambiguous: "elaborare", translates
D'Agostino (p. 25), who explains that "sembra esserci pieno accordo"
between Tatian and Clement (Strom. I 21,131 = T 3). Yet, the latter
writes that "the poems attributed to Orpheus are said to be by
Onomacritus": a much stronger assertion. D'Agostino tries to
demonstrate that the meaning of <greek>SUNTA/SSOMAI</greek> here is "to
write", "to compose", because "se Taziano avesse considerato Onomacrito
come 'ordinatore' avrebbe fallito nella propria argomentazione, perche/
non otterrebbe piu\ il risultato di abbassare al VI secolo l'epoca di
composizione delle opere di Orfeo" (p. 42 n. 8).[[8]] But in order to
demonstrate the priority of Moses, the contemporaneity of Orpheus and
Heracles is more than enough (see 41,1, where the same argument is
employed against Linus); Tatian is adding here a further argument (see
<greek>A)/LLWS TE KAI\</greek>): Orpheus' works were the object of a
later rearrangement by Onomacritus. From this point of view, the choice
of a term like <greek>SUNTA/SSOMAI</greek>  does not seem fortuitous;
D'Agostino himself admits it (p. 42), even if he minimizes the fact.
Consequently, Clement's account is probably a mere exaggeration of that
of Tatian, with which it shows many points of contact, beginning from
the chronological mistake about Peisistratus and his sons.[[9]]
D'Agostino seems persuaded that Clement represents a source partially
independent from Tatian and Herodotus (p. 41): this is  possible, but
not so likely.

P. 48 (on Phlp. In An. 186,24 = T 5): the mss. of Philoponus give the
expression <greek>E)N E)/PESI KATATEI=NAI</greek>. D'Agostino correctly
refutes the emendation <greek>KATAQEI=NAI</greek> (Cudworth), but
explains the verb as "imbrigliare" (p. 48, "to bridle") and translates
"costringere in versi" (p. 26, "to constrain"). Rather, "to stretch",
"to extend" (as elsewhere in literary terminology and in Philoponus
himself: see e.g. in APr 262,10), and therefore "to expand" the
original Orpheus' <greek>DO/GMATA</greek> ("furono tradotte estesamente
in versi epici" Colli). This is not a neutral description of
Onomacritus' rearrangement, and here a judgment about his forgeries
seems to be implied.

Pp. 56f. (on Clem. Al. Strom. I 21, 134, 2f. St. = T 7): Clement's list
of the most famous Greek seers is, according to D'Agostino, the crucial
test for asserting that Onomacritus was a real <greek>MA/NTIS</greek>.
In the author's words: "la notizia, pur nella sua concisione, riveste
un ruolo determinante nella ricostruzione dell'attivita\ di Onomacrito,
in quanto conferma inequivocabilmente la sua specificita\ di
divinatore" (p. 57, my italics). It is a pity that Clement quotes
Onomacritus in a catalogue of mythic seers, placing side by side the
Homeric Telemos (Od. IX 509) and Amphiaraos, the tragic Polyidos and
the legendary Iamos, and so on. I can see no other choice but to share
Eichhof's statement, quoted with disapproval by D'Agostino: "nec
audiendus Clemens Alexandrinus, qui eum cum priscis, heroicae adeo
aetatis vatibus confundit. De Onomacriti enim vaticiniis ipsius nomine
nihil nobis compertum est".[[10]] D'Agostino is a more lenient judge.

Pp. 67f. (on Tz. Proll. Com., pp. 30, 140-150 and 33, 22-31 Koster = T
9a and 9b): D'Agostino devotes many pages to the constellation of
unanimous (and interdependent) notices offered by Tzetzes, the Anonymus
Crameri and the Scholium Plautinum. This is not the place to resume the
never-ending discussion about the Peisistratean recensio of Homer; but
it is surprising how easily such a crucial problem is set aside, with
no more than eight lines (p. 67) asserting that there was "una
tradizione antica e ben radicata, attestante il coinvolgimento di
Pisistrato con i poemi omerici" ("vox totius antiquitatis", wrote Wolf,
and his exaggeration has been often condemned: see e.g. J.A. Scott, CPh
9, 1914, 397); the "ancient and deep-rooted tradition" is enough to
allow D'Agostino to declare Onomacritus "editore rapsodico di Omero"
(pp. XXIII-XXVII). This is, I think, an over-simplification that cannot
be easily admitted. Furthermore, the fact that three of the four
editors of Homer mentioned by Tzetzes (Orpheus of Croton, Zopyrus of
Heraclea, Onomacritus; the last name is lost) appear to be connected
whith Orphic or Pythagorean tradition suggests an ancient parallelism
between Homer and Orpheus. This parallelism arouses further suspicions
about the notice.[[11]] D'Agostino, however, finds this perfectly
natural (p. XXVI: "sembra rilevante il fatto che l'assemblaggio fosse
stato commissionato ad <greek>E)POPOIOI/</greek> esperti di testi
'sacri', i soli degni di accostarsi al 'sacro Omero'").

P. 71 (on S.E. P. III 30 = M. IX 361 = F 1): D'Agostino is very
confident in imagining (?) the exact subpartition of the work that he
chooses to call (but only "per convenzione", p. 71; see also pp. XVI
and 78) <greek>*)ORFE/WS TELETAI/</greek>, on the ground of the title
given by the Suda (= T 4). He thinks that the poem might have contained
a "sezione cosmo-teogonica", to which he assigns the notice offered by
Sextus about the Orphic <greek>A)RXAI/</greek>, as that about the
Charites offered by Paus. IX 35,5 (= F 2; see p. 73). All this is
highly speculative.

P. 93 (on Paus. I 22,7 = F 5): the hypothesis of placing in the proem
of the <greek>*MOUSAI/OU XRHSMOI/</greek> the lines known to Pausanias
-- where Musaeus obtains from Boreas the gift of flying, i.e. a typical
shamanic feat -- is very suggestive. The proem had perhaps an
autobiographical character, according to D'Agostino, who recalls the
<greek>*)ARIMA/SPEIA E)/PE</greek>.[[12]] An autobiographical prologue,
describing the initiation of the author in order to consecrate him as
wielding unquestionable auctoritas, would not be surprising: why not
quote Hesiod's Theogony? But we have to remember that the attribution
of the lines to Onomacritus is a mere conjecture of Pausanias
(<greek>DOKEI=N DE/ MOI PEPOI/HKEN AU)TA\ *)ONOMA/KRITOS</greek>), who
perhaps  was too suspicious about the crimes of our forger.

P. 95 (on Hdt. VII 6,2-5 = T 1 = F 6 + F 7): D'Agostino extracts two
distinct fragments from the Herodotean account, without offering any
further comment on this point. He attributes the first prediction
(about the islands near Lemnos: see above) to the <greek>*MOUSAI/OU
XRHSMOI/</greek>, but isolates the second one (about the bridge of
ships on the Hellespont) in an autonomous section of
<greek>XRHSMOI/</greek> ( = F 7). The choice is unmotivated. Is this an
attempt to ascribe to Onomacritus a personal prophecy, in order to
confirm that he was a real, independent seer? In fact, at p. 40
D'Agostino writes that "Onomacrito suggeri\ al Gran Re l'espediente del
ponte di navi per l'attraversamento dell'Ellesponto": this is a curious
overestimation of Onomacritus' influence. Nothing in the Herodotean
context justifies any distinction between the first and the second
prophecy: they both emanate from the authority of Musaeus, as is
evident from Herodotus' words (<greek>TA\ EU)TUXE/STATA E)KLEGO/MENOS
E)/LEGE, TO/N TE *(ELLH/SPONTON W(S ZEUXQH=NAI XREO\N EI)/H U(P'
A)NDRO\S *PE/RSEW</greek>).

Pp. 95-106 (on Od. XI 602-604): D'Agostino offers a complete discussion
of the problems raised, from antiquity until now, by the amazing
interpolation about Heracles' apotheosis. He provides an accurate
examination of the scholia and we can agree with his conclusion that
all three lines must be included in an hypothetical insertion by
Onomacritus (p. 104), who seems to have supported the Peisistratean
propaganda about Heracles' cults. But somehow eluded is the key
question that we can express with the words of Cassio: "if a dead
Heracles proved 'embarrassing' in view of this new state of affairs, in
theory the problem might easily have been solved by simply excising the
whole episode; but it was impossible in practice, because the audience
expected it. The awkward interpolation shows at the same time the need
to assert the importance of the new cult and the impossibility to do
away with a traditional and unalterable episode involving the dead
Heracles".[[13]] Here we can recognize a problem not different from
that posed by the Herodotean notice on Onomacritus' oracular
interpolations (see above): why was the episode not simply omitted, if
Onomacritus or the Peisistratids had a real editorial control on the
text? Why should he have produced such complicated rearrangements if
the episode was not in some way traditional and canonical? Perhaps the
answer is implicit in the hypothesis formulated by D'Agostino at pp.
105f.: Onomacritus intended not only to correct an embarrassing mention
of Heracles' death, but also to insert a magnification of Heracles'
apotheosis ("l'aggiunta aveva il fine specifico di propagandare la
divinizzazione di Eracle"). From this point of view, perhaps, the
traditional episode gave the only or the best occasion for inserting
such a celebration. However, the impression remains that this awkward
and tortuous correction is not easy to explain in the context of a
systematic editorial operation like that imagined by Tzetzes and
accepted by D'Agostino.[[14]]

Pp. 110f. (on Aristot. Pol. II 12,6-8, 1274a 22-31 = T dubium 1):
D'Agostino is not the first to suppose that the mysterious Onomacritus
of Locri mentioned by Aristoteles has to be identified with our
Onomacritus of Athens; and the allusion to the <greek>TE/XNH
MANTIKE/</greek> strengthens this supposition. D'Agostino is not the
first, but the most convinced (in addition to the opinions discussed at
pp. 107f. and 109f., see Bergk on Thgn. 503). Nevertheless, the
expression <greek>*LOKRO\N O)/NTA KAI\ E)PIDHMOU=NTA</greek> belongs to
the unknown source of Aristoteles, and this detail (as all the rest)
can only be an invention intended to create a link between the Sicilian
lawgivers and their Greek  colleagues. Perhaps this invention  has some
historical ground (a journey during the banishment from Athens? A
generic relation with the Orphic circles of Sicily?). Everything is
possible, but we know too many parochial appropriations of literary
celebrities (from Tyrtaeus to Theognis) not to be suspicious.

Pp. 112f. (on Thgn. 503-508 = T dubium 2): the addressee of the
pseudo-Theognidean elegy is an indeterminate Onomacritus. "I
commentatori, all'unanimita\", says D'Agostino, "tendono ad escludere
che il personaggio in questione possa identificarsi con il cresmologo
attivo ad Atene" (p. 112;  this is not entirely exact: see E. Harrison,
Studies in Theognis, Cambridge 1902, 297-299 and Campbell, ad loc.). I
see no evidence pro or contra his identification with Onomacritus of
Athens. "<greek>*)ONOMA/KRITOS</greek> e\ nome molto raro, in Attica
come in tutto il resto del mondo greco", writes D'Agostino (p. 113).
The name is not so rare (three independent occurrences in
Fraser-Matthews, two others collected by J.K. Davies: see D'Agostino,
p. XIII n. 16). Of course, if we identify the Onomacritus of
Aristoteles and that of Theognis with the Athenian one, the rarity of
the name is assured, but this reasoning runs the risk of being
circular. Here, as elsewhere, more prudence would be welcome.

To sum up, D'Agostino's book offers a broad reexamination of the
evidence, a well-informed outline of previous studies, and several
penetrating observations on many points. Obviously, there are not a few
controversial questions that  invite dissent, and one happens to feel
nostalgic for the skepticism of Linforth or West. This does not,
however, compromise the usefulness of the book.

------------------
Notes:


1.   See M. Foucault, "Qu'est-ce qu'un auteur?" in Dits et e/crits
1954-1988, I, Paris 1994, 789-821.

2.   D'Agostino's methodological background is clearly recognizable in
the lines of inquiry that emerged from the very interesting book edited
eight years ago by G. Cerri: Autori vari, La letteratura pseudepigrafa
nella cultura greca e romana. Atti di un Incontro di studi (Napoli,
15-17 gennaio 1998), Napoli 2000.

3.   The thesis is discussed in E. D'Agostino, "Onomacrito ateniese o
locro?" AION(filol)  23, 2001, 27-39. "Dubium mihi videtur," writes
Bernabe/ (p. 528).

4.   See also D. Asheri-P. Vannicelli in Erodoto, Le storie. Libro
VIII. La vittoria di Temistocle, Milano 2003, 297f. for the transmitted
<greek>FRI/COUSI</greek> (<greek>FRU/COUSI</greek> Kuhn, edd.) and for
the possibile rearrangement of a previous ill-omened response. On
Lysistratus' prophecy, with regard to the obscure sources of Herodotus,
see e.g. L. Maurizio, "Delphic Oracles as Oral Performances:
Authenticity and Historical Evidence", ClassAnt 16/2, 1997, 308-334:
327f.

5.   So e.g. G.A. Privitera, Laso di Ermione nella cultura ateniese e
nella tradizione storiografica, Roma 1965, 48 n. 0: "difficilmente
Ipparco avrebbe permesso lo scandalo e Laso l'avrebbe suscitato, se
Onomacrito avesse ancora goduto il favore della corte. Dietro la sophia
di Laso vi fu, probabilmente, una manovra della corte, decisa a
sbarazzarsi dell'indovino".

6.   That Lasus' accusation took place during a public performance is
the opinion of G. Nagy (Pindar's Homer. The Lyric Possession of an Epic
Past, Baltimore-London 1990, 172f.) and of S.R. Slings ("Literature in
Athens, 566-510 BC," in H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg [ed. by], Peisistratos
and the Tyranny. A Reappraisal of the Evidence, Amsterdam 2004, 57-77:
71). This hypothesis cannot change the main points of the question.

7.   This was the coherent hypothesis of K. Kere/nyi, "Die Muenzen des
Onomakritos," in Mythos. Scripta in honorem Marii Untersteiner, Genova
1970, 171-178: 172.

8.   So also M.-J. Lagrange, Les myste\res: l'Orphisme, Paris 1937, 23
n. 4.

9.   So I.M. Linforth, The Arts of Orpheus, Berkeley 1941, 351f. The
situation is not different if Tatian and Clement depend on a common
source (so Colli, ad l.).

10.   C. Eichhoff, "De Onomacrito Atheniensi commentatio I," Programm
womit zu der oeffentlichen Pruefung der Zoeglinge des Gymnasiums zu
Elberfeld, Elberfeld 1840, 3-16: 6.

11.   See the observations of M.L. West, The Orphic Poems, Oxford 1983,
249-251.

12.   Here D'Agostino develops the opinions of Giovanni Cerri about the
narrative structure of Onomacritus' poem: see G. Cerri, "L'Odissea
epicorica di Itaca", Mediterraneo antico 5, 2002, 149-184: 176.

13.   A.C. Cassio, "Early Editions of Greek Epics and Homeric Textual
Criticism in the Sixth and Fifth Centuries BC," in  Autori vari, Omero
tremila anni dopo. Atti del Congresso di Genova, 6-8 luglio 2000, a c.
di F. Montanari, Roma 2002, 105-136: 116 n. 52.

14.   On the question see also A. Aloni, Da Pilo a Sigeo. Poemi cantori
e scrivani al tempo dei Tiranni, Alessandria 2006, 20-22.