MARCO ANTONIO SANTAMARA

C RITICAL N OTES

TO THE

O RPHIC P OEM

OF THE

D ERVENI P APYRUS

aus: Zeitschrift fr Papyrologie und Epigraphik 182 (2012) 5576

Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn

55

C R I T ICA L N OT ES

TO T H E

O R PH IC P OEM

OF T H E

D ERV EN I PA PY RUS *

1. Aim of the article

One of the features of the Derveni Papyrus that make it such a valuable document is that it transmits part of
the most ancient Orphic poem we know. After the brilliant and imaginative exempli gratia reconstruction
of M. L. West, the first critical reconstruction of the poem was published by A. Bernab at the beginning
of his monumental edition of the Orphicorum et Orphicis similium testimonia et fragmenta (20042007a).
Thanks to the generosity of K. Tsantsanoglou, Bernab was able to know the readings of the papyrus in
the passages where the Orphic poem was cited or paraphrased before the publication of the editio princeps
of the papyrus in 2006 by Th. Kouremenos, G. M. Parssoglou and K. Tsantsanoglou (KPT). This paper
focuses on the first verses of the Orphic poem of Derveni (OPD) and has the aim of discussing or supporting some of the textual proposals made by scholars regarding the text and order of these verses and of
offering and justifying new conjectures1.
2. The Orphic (OF 3)2
In the programmatic column VII, the commentator (whom I shall call the DC) reflects on the nature of
Orpheus poem, which intended to express important things through riddles ([ ][] [],
67). This implies that for most people these verses are mysterious, whereas the DC considers himself able
to understand their deep meaning and to explain it.
In lines 910 the editio princeps has the text: ] [ ], with Burkerts
supplements3, who saw for the first time that these words echo the exhortation , ,
the end of the characteristic with which many Orphic poems began. Janko (2008, 39) has been
able to place two strips of papyrus (I 7 and I 55) in this point and reads: [] [], a quotation in direct speech.
It is most probable that it was also the first verse of the OPD. For the first part of this or
there were two variants: (OF 1a) and (OF 1b)4.
Which one was in the OPD? West (1983, 83, 114) prefers the first and points out: What remains of the
exegesis perhaps suits it better than the other version. Burkert (1999, 80) has the same opinion Io canter
per quelli che sanno5. Calame (2011, 8) seems to assume that OF 1a stood at the beginning of the OPD,
because he speaks of ladresse aux seuls auditeurs capables de comprendre and quotes the passages in
which the DC refers to the ignoramuses6. Other scholars prefer OF 1b, such as Riedweg (1993, 47: vielleicht) and Tsantsanoglou (1997, 125126), who thinks that in col. VII the DC is alluding to OF 1b, but it
would be the first verse of another Orphic poem, a secret one, not of the one commented in the DP. Bernab
* This article has been written within the framework of two research projects supported by the Spanish Ministerio de
Economa y Competitividad: FFI2010-17047 and FF12010-18589. I am very grateful to Alberto Bernab, Luc Brisson, Miguel
Herrero, Ana Isabel Jimnez San Cristbal, Raquel Martn and Jrgen Hammerstaedt for having read the article and offering
valuable observations.
1 On the OPD see the important articles by Bernab 2002 and 2007b, Burkert 2005 and Sider 2011 and the chapters 3
(reconstruction) and 4 (interpretation) of Betegh 2004.
2 OF refers to the Orphic fragments in the standard edition of A. Bernab 200420052007a.
3 In Anonymous 1982, 3; cf. West 1983, 82.
4 On this formula, see Bernab 1996, Bremmer 2011, Calame 2011 and Graf 2011.
5 Cf. Burkert 2005, 50: la forma metrica irregolare e arcaica di , usata da Teognide e Saffo, potrebbe essere indizio
di originalit.
6 Cf. p. 9: Cest Orphe lui-mme qui ne parle que pour ceux qui savent. Ces destinataires pourront tre identifis
avec des initis. Dans cette mesure, la formule performative initiale qui correspond dsormais au OF 1 pourrait constituer
lincipit de la version de la cosmo-thogonie orphique commente dans le Papyrus de Derveni.

56

M. A. Santamara

(2002, 101; 2003, 35; 2007b, 100) also prefers OF 1b and includes it in OF 3, the first verse of his reconstruction of the OPD (2004, 14). He is followed by Graf (2011, 14). Sider (2011, 18) chooses OF 1b, but says
that both variants are possible7.
In my opinion, it is more likely that the OPD began with OF 1a, since the DC does not cease to contrast the superior knowledge of with the ignorance of or the 8.
The reference to seems to be echoing , they who know because they have been
taught in the initiation and are intended by the author of the poem as his ideal addressees, as opposed to
the . In col. XXV 13, the words [ ][][] (sc. ) [][] seem a
paraphrase of the expression , which conveys Orpheus intention to sing only to the initiates, not to all people. Therefore, the DC has apparently found in the poem itself a basis for his dichotomy
between the wise and the ignorant9.
Bernab (2002, 101 n. 51) prefers OF 1b and thinks that the DC relates ] (col. VII 10) to
, arguing (2004, 14) that this word and [..] [] [] [ (col. VII 2) melius cum
congruunt. Graf (2011, 1415) claims also that the phrase [] [ makes it virtually certain that the OPD opened with OF 1b. Let us examine these expressions. The participle
probably has as its subject and and as its objects. According to the DC, the contents of
the poem are righteous10, and this quality derives no doubt from Orpheus authority, who was the son of a
Muse. Therefore must not necessarily have any relation to a possible in the first verse, which
refers to the right that some people the initiates have to hear the poem. Regarding ], we have
to bear in mind that it is very difficult to read and we cannot be sure that it is correct. If it is, it should be
understood more as an explanation of the verb (or even ) than as an allusion to . The
capacity of belongs to Orpheus and has no relation to a possible in verse 1, which would
allude to a quality of the addresses. Moreover, in OF 6.4 the poet uses the same expression as in OF 1b
(dative + + verb ): [ . . . . . . ]. refers to Zeus actions,
which will lead him to seize supreme power. These are legitimate, approved by destiny. Maybe the appearance of this expression in OF 6.4 makes it unlikely that the poet used it just a few verses above in reference
to the initiates, who are authorized to hear the poem, clearly another much less important level of .
In line 4 Tsantsanoglou (1997, 121) conjectured [ ] [] []
[]. West and Struck, independently, thought of [ ] 11. If OF 1a was the first
verse of the OPD, as seems likely, another reading can be proposed: [] : it is a
composition for those who understand. Cf. Eur. IT 10911092: /
. For the absence of article: (Gal. De compos. medicam. 13.958.7
Khn; cf. An in arter. nat. 4.720.5 Khn);
(Epiph. Pan. 1.258.2); ,
(Porph. Contra Christ. fr. 54.7). The DC seems to contrast the with
7 Bremmer 2011, 23 considers that there is no decisive argument to establish the priority between the two versions.
8 Contraposition: col. IX 23: [] [] ; 5: []; col. XXIII 13: []

, ; 5: . The ignorant: col. V 6: [;

col. XII 5: ] ; col. XVIII 56: ; 14: [, ]
; col. XX 2: and col. XXVI 8: . About this opposition,
see Brisson 2010.
9 The antiquity of the colon is guaranteed for its echo in Pindar, O. 2.8385:
, in reference to his verses; in Bacchylides, 3.85: , and probably in Heraclitus, fr. 34 DK:
. The reference of Plato Symp. 218b seems also to presuppose this variant (pace
Tsantsanoglou 1997, 125126). In the words
, the verb seems to be echoing . Moreover, when Alcibiades orders the servants, the profane and the coarse () to put doors to their ears, he seems to want to make clearer the opposition /,
because is a more natural opposite to than .
10 For Tsantsanoglou 1997, 118, 125 it means that it is allowable for them to be heard or read by non-initiated people,
because they are not .
11 Struck 2004, 31: [ ]; see 33 n. 36 about Wests proposal. The integration is accepted by Janko 2008, 3940.

Critical Notes to the Orphic Poem of the Derveni Papyrus

57

the generality of men (), for whom the poem is enigmatic, not understandable, because they do
not possess its keys12. These contraries reflect the ones that were probably in the first verse of the poem:
and .
After referring to the Orphic that stood at the beginning of the poem, the DC refers to the following verse, with the words: ] [] [ (line 14). The next line contained presumably the
second verse of the poem, whereof only some letters remain: ]....[.][ . No word is easily recognizable.
3. Zeus, father of gods (OF 4)
In col. VIII 2, the DC quotes a verse of programmatic nature that speaks of the birth of the gods from
Zeus13:
] [] (OF 4)
The edition of the DP in ZPE 1982 includes the conjecture [], which has been adopted by nearly
all the scholars. This reading has the problem that it implies a hiatus between - and - for this
reason, Janko (2002, 16) proposed []14, but is rather rare and applied only to mortals or
objects15, as Sider (2011, 19) points out; [] (Simm. fr. 1.11 Powell: ;
Opp. Hal. 541: ; Act. Apost. 27.16:
) would also be possible, but has the same problem. Another argument against [] and
[] is that they are not used in archaic epic16. Janko also mentions [] and quotes
Orph. A. 323: ; the epithet is applied to Zeus in Il. 13.54, 19.355, 21.184, Od. 8.289,
Hes. Th. 4, Op. 416 or fr. 25.33 M.W., but it is said to be too short by Kouremenos (KPT, 175), and problematic because of the hiatus. Sider (2011, 19) prefers [], usually applied to gods: Zeus (Pi. fr.
57*.1 M.; B. 3.6768, Q. S. 2.140), Athena (Alc. fr. 87c.1 PMG), Apollo (A. Eu. 61) or Poseidon (Pi. O. 1.25;
Ar. Nu. 566). In archaic epic it only appears in Hes. fr. 136.1 M.W.: ][-. This epithet may be
echoed in ring-composition in OF 16.2, where Zeus is said to have contrived the big strength of Oceanus
( )17. Sider also mentions [], which is preferable for me. It is
used in h.Merc. 464 as an epithet of Apollo (same sedes metrica). In Homer we find this formula six times:
(f. ex. Il. 1.466 same sedes metrica as []: Hes. fr. 316.1 M.W.;
Antim. fr. 21.3 Matthews; A. R. 1.394; Q. S. 11.64; Orph. A. 322). Quintus of Smyrna (5.143) calls Odysseus
, also in genitive and in the same metrical position as in OF 4: 18.
Taking into account the vision of the OPD about Zeus, is more suitable than to
describe him. In fact, the poet leaves aside the physical abilities of the god and his strength19 and insists
on his intellectual qualities (, OF 10.3), indispensable for his mental recreation of the universe (OF
16.12: [ / ; 18.1: ] [ ][ ]). So, an emphasis on Zeus intelligence at the beginning of the poem is more consistent with the rest of its content, given that the strength
of the god is hardly mentioned (only in OF 5.2).
12 See (XVIII 23); o [, ] (XVIII 14).
13 These gods were no doubt mentioned in the previous verse, which is lost. Wests proposals in 1983, 114 for vv. 24 are
very attractive: [ ,] / [ ,] / [
], although the reference to Night in this proem seems unlikely.
14 Brisson 2003, 21 n. 21 and Jourdan 2003, 8 and n. 1 accept it.
15 Pi. N. 3.1617: ; fr. 131b.1 M.: ; A. R. 1.543:
. I have not found more examples.
16 Only the participle in Od. 22.368 (hapax).
17 I owe this observation to Miguel Herrero.
18 Sophocles, in the well-known choral song of the Antigone, applies the adjective to man to celebrate the achievements
of his mind: / (348349). Is Sophocles describing men with a typical divine epithet?
19 In OF 5, he receives the strength from his father, probably implying a peaceful transmission of power ([ ]
/ [] {}[][), in contrast to Hesiods Theogony: (Zeus) (73);
/ (490491); (Cronus)
(496); (853858); () (882).

58

M. A. Santamara
4. The oracle of the Night (OF 6)

After citing OF 4 in col. VIII 2, the DC quotes two more verses, which he introduces this way:
[ ]
[ ] []
[] [][ ][] [] . (OF 5)
It has been generally assumed that these verses followed OF 4, given that the DC cites the verses of the
Orphic poem in order. The basis for that assumption is that he usually introduces new verses with the
expression (), the following (verse)20, and if we read them in the order they are cited
they make good sense21. However, it cannot be taken for granted that the DC follows this principle scrupulously. Indeed, there is clear proof that he does not: in col. XIII 14 he cites OF 7 and then OF 8, verses
that cannot be together, but separated by one or more verses. It is significant that the DC introduces OF 8,
which does not follow OF 7, with the words (col. XIII 3)22. Similarly, before citing OF 5 he says [ ] (col. VIII 3), not , which indicates that it did not follow
OF 4, but came further on in the poem. The DC cites OF 5 not because it was next to OF 4, but to illustrate
how Zeus begins () to be king ( . [ ]). In fact,
OF 5 narrates the moment in which Zeus takes power from his father. In the next section I will argue that
OF 5.1 is a corrupted version of OF 7. The quotation of this last fragment in col. XIII 1 indicates that OF 5
should be placed between OF 6 (commented in cols. XXII) and OF 8 (cited in col. XIII 4).
Let us examine now the references to an oracle of Night in cols. X and XI. In the lost part of col. IX
the DC no doubt cited a verse that we can partially reconstruct thanks to his explanations of isolated words
in cols. X and XI. The DC says explicitly that the following verse ( [ ] , col. XI 9) was:
[. . .] [ . . . . . . . .],
and the following ( [ ] , col. XII 1):
[ ] .
In cols. X and XI we have the words , , [] and , which refer
to the prophesies that Night pronounces to Zeus. West (1983, 114) reconstructed the verses in this way:
[ (sc. ) , ]
[] 23
Bernab (2002, 103 and 2004, 1617) proposes this reconstruction (OF 6):
[
[] [] 24
[]
[ ] [ ]25
I think that the words analysed by the DC in cols. X and XI may belong to the same verse. In the commentary there are no traces of , so we can place [] at the end of the verse, and at the
beginning of the following line:
20 Col. XII 1: [ ] ; XIV 5: XV 5: ; XVI 1213: [
] ]; XXIII 10: .
21 See Betegh 2004, 105108 for the question of the order of the verses. I agree with his argumentation and conclusions:
the DC normally quotes the verses in order, but he can occasionally skip a verse or two (and even more). His basic intention
was to give a comprehensive, methodical explication of the poem.
22 Cf. Betegh 2004, 107: we should not take for granted that the author continues the exegesis with the explication of the
immediately following verse of the poem where he does not say so.
23 Cf. OF 112: .
24 This verse is reconstructed in this way in ZPE 1982, 4 n.
25 [ , [] and ] are proposals of Tsantsanoglou to Bernab per litt.

Critical Notes to the Orphic Poem of the Derveni Papyrus

59

[] []
[N]
To Zeus Night, the nurse of the gods, she who pronounces all the oracles,
[ from her sanctuary
prophesied everything
The phrase (or ) is already attested in the Iliad (5.512, end of verse) and usually
refers to a prophesy: (Theog. 808, end of verse); (Delphic oracle, ap. Hdt.
7.140.16); , , , / (Ar. Eq. 10151016);
(Tyrt. ap. D. S. 7.12.6.4; Ariston. Pae. in Apoll. 13 Powell, end of verse in both cases); Orph. A. 956
(end of verse; in the previous line: , cf. ).
The form appears in archaic epic poetry several times at the beginning of the verse (Il. 2.49,
22.302, Od. 9.552, 13.25, Hes. Th. 938). Interestingly enough, in epic poetry is sometimes followed by
a feminine participle, as in my reconstruction of OF 6.2: (Il. 2.49);
(Asius, fr. 1.3 Bernab); (Nonn. D. 5.108); (203);
(7.136); (13.553 = 16.240).
For the lacuna at the beginning of OF 6.4, Sider proposes [], which I accept, instead of [ ]
(ZPE), [ ] (Bernab) or [ ] (West).
The DC seems to paraphrase the sequence [] / [N] when he says: []
[26] , with the same order: + / + /. There is a
parallel in col. XIV 58, where he paraphrases the sequence (sc. ) / saying:
K . The infinitive is clearly reporting ,
so there is no need to suppose this form in the previous verse to 27.
Some parallels can be adduced with the same syntactic structure that I propose for OF 6:
/ (Theog. 707708);
(Hdt. 3.57.2); (6.136.2); ,

(Ephor. FGH n. 70 F 96.3034).
To complete the lacuna after [ (OF 6.4) several possibilities were considered: ]
West (1983, 114, followed by Jourdan 2003, 11), ] (Janko 2001, 23; 2002, 21), ]
or ] or ] or ] (Tsantsanoglou ap. Bernab 2004, 17) ]
is the form preferred by Bernab (2002, 103; 2004, 17), Betegh (2004, 24) and KPT (81).
Sider (2011, 12, 25) proposes ] (fort. ]). This last form is more likely to me,
because in archaic epic is normally followed by () or 28. Only twice we find without (), but in these cases no infinitive is used29. The form () is very common in Homer,
whereas as Sider points out neither nor occurs in early epic, and indeed the
middle occurs only once, at Od. 16.373. In this passage ( /
), the passive sense is very likely, as LSJ s. v. suggests. Sider also adduces a good parallel, referring to Heracles: , (Hes. fr. 195 = Sc. 21). The form
is very common in epic in some contexts about the future:

26 [] ZPE, Janko, Jourdan, Betegh, KPT and Bernab; is my integration, because the DC normally uses
when he repeats a verse or expression in reported speech: (col. XIV 8); []
[] (col. XVI 1); (col. XVII 6); [] (col. XIX 11).
27 The DC usually transforms personal verbs into infinitives: [] {}[][ (col. VIII 5)
[ (10); (col. XIV 5) (8); (col. XXIV 3)
(6).
28 Il. 2.73, 9.33, 276, 11.779, 14.386, 19.177, 23.44, 581, 652, Od. 3.45, 187, 9.268, 10.73, 11.451, 14.56, 130, 16.91, Hes. Th.
396, Sc. 447 with : Il. 9.134; imperfect: , Il. 11.808: , 16.796, Hes. Sc. 22.
29 , (Od. 24.286); (Hes. Op. 137).

60

M. A. Santamara

a desire about the future is uttered ( , Il. 1.204: Achilles wishes Agamemnon
to die);
a prediction is made ( , /
, Od. 1.200201: Athena, in the form of a man, predicts to Telemachus that his father is not
going to be away for long; , , Od. 3.226: Telemachus does not
expect Nestors words to be accomplished);
an omen is interpreted ( , Od. 2.156: the inhabitants
of Ithaca are surprised when they see two eagles fighting; Od. 15.172173 1.200201: Helen interprets an
omen involving an eagle and a goose as a sign that Odysseus is going to return to his fatherland).
Therefore, the verb fits well in this verse that describes Nights prophesy. It is a passive form
and alludes to the things that may be accomplished by Zeus, the implicit agent, according to destiny.
In epic the fulfilment of important things is often attributed to Zeus, for which the verb is
used: (Il. 1.5, Od. 11.297, Cypr. fr. 1.7 Bernab);
/ (Il. 10.104105); (Il. 15.593); /
(Il. 18.75); / (Il. 18.115116 =
22.365366); / (Od. 2.3334); , , /
(Od. 15.111112); (Od. 17.51);
(Hes. Th. 1002); / (Hes. Op. 564565)
(h.Cer. 323); (h.
Merc. 10).
In Hesiods Theogony, in a very similar context to the one we are dealing with, Cronus expresses with
great decision that he wants to accomplish the work that Rhea has proposed to her children: to defeat Uranus: , / (Th. 170171). It is also probable that the
phrase [ ] is further echoed in the DP, in col. XIX 1113 when Orpheus
is said to have called the air (i. e., Zeus) king because [ ] [ ]
[].
In col. XII 12 the DC introduces a new verse saying [ ]
[ ] (OF 6.5).
If he did not quote other verse(s) at the end of col. XI, we have to suppose that it followed OF 6.4, and in fact
it fits perfectly after it: the things that, according to Nights oracle, are going to be accomplished in favour
of Zeus, have as their objective his occupation of Olympus, that is, his ascent to supreme power in the world.
The reconstruction with optative + seems very likely and would indicate that this action is a possibility
and has not yet happened, so Zeus visit to Nights shrine must take place before Zeus seizure of power30. It
lends weight to my hypothesis that OF 5 goes after OF 6. Moreover, if OF 5.1 was before OF 6, the epithet
would be difficult to understand for the audience, who knew nothing about Nights prophecies.
It seems that Night revealed to Zeus the keys to take the strength from his father and to consolidate his
kingdom forever. In the Rhapsodies (OF 237) he asks Night two questions, how to obtain power over the
gods and how to act so that everything becomes a single thing and then everything again:
, , , , ,
;
.
30 That is Wests interpretation 1983, 86: She revealed to Zeus everything that he needed to do (?) in order to rule (?) on
the fair seat of snowy Olympus In obedience to her advice Zeus swallowed Protogonos; West (2008, 284), in his reconstruction of the Protogonos Theogony: Como Gea en Hesodo, (Noche) le cont (a Zeus) cmo derrocar a Crono. Brisson 2010,
2324 thinks the same. For Bernab 2002, 103, Zeus consults Night once he has seized power: Aprs stre empar du pouvoir,
Zeus se rend dans la grotte de la Nuit, laquelle lui indique, de manire prophtique, comment il devra exercer son pouvoir (cf.
2003, 3637); The verb [] only makes sense if it means how he would hold for ever, how he must act in order to keep
it (2007, 104105).

Critical Notes to the Orphic Poem of the Derveni Papyrus

61

The answers to both questions probably referred to Cronus defeat (cf. OF 219220) and to the swallowing
of Protogonos (OF 240241). Similarly, in the OPD, Zeus consultation to Night seems to have as a consequence two facts: he receives the strength from Cronus (OF 5) and he swallows the /- (OF 8).
5. Zeus takes the strength from his father (OF 5) and swallows the /- (OF 8)
Let us consider the relation of OF 5, 7 and 8:
OF 5 (col. VIII 45): [ ] []
[] [][31 ][] []
OF 7 (col. XIII 1): [] []
OF 8 (col. XIII 4): , .
For most scholars32, these fragments appeared in the poem in the same order as the DC cites them and
there were other verses between them. But some critics have proposed that OF 8 followed OF 5. Let us see
their considerations:
West (1983, 8586) affirmed that in OF 8 was an epithet of Protogonos, meaning reverend.
This adjective cannot stand in isolation, so this verse must have originally followed OF 5.2. However, the
DC read a faulty poem, in which these verses were in the order he cites them:
,
() (vv. 67 in his reconstruction)
and further:
, []
[], (vv. 12 and 14).
That led the DC to interpret as sexual organ. West conjectures that these verses in the original
poem were like this:
,
[] [ ] (vv. 67)
and further:
[ ] ,
,
(vv. 1214).
Due to the similarity of verses 6 and 12, 13 was copied instead of 7 (saut du mme au mme) and was omitted between 12 and 14. On the other hand, there was a further confusion: 12 was accidentally assimilated
to 6 and the words [ ] were substituted by , from 6. That resulted
in Zeus hearing a prophesy from his father.
These two mistakes in the process of copying seem unlikely, especially the second one, not to say that
Wests conjecture for v. 12 has no basis in the DP33.
Rusten (1984, 334), independently, thought that in the poem, OF 5 was followed by OF 8. For this
combination he offers several parallels from the Orphic Rhapsodies, according to which Zeus swallowed
() Protogonos (OF 240241), a god that is the first to be born ( ) and is called
31 In [][ - or - have to be suppressed for metrical reasons. Some scholars prefer
(West 1983, 84, 114; Janko 2002, 16; Jourdan 2003, 8; Brisson 2003, 21 n. 17) and others (Rusten 1984, 334;
1985, 126; Bernab 2002, 102; 2004, 15; 2007b, 103). The latter is more likely, as Sider (2011, 22) argues, because - is more
common in Homer in the aorist of indicative (39x) than - (6x); in Il. 8.116 we read , where no manuscript
offers .
32 F. ex. Bernab 2002, 102105; 2003, 3637; 2004, 1518; 2007b, 103107; Betegh 2004, 109112; Sider 2011, 2123.
33 For Rusten 1985, 125, Wests is a drastic solution. Bernab (2002, 102) states that il force substantiellement le text.
Kouremenos KTP, 22 says: It is preferable not to postulate such a baroque confusion.

62

M. A. Santamara

(OF 140.1), a similar expression to . Rusten thought later (1985, 125126)

that the original sequence was: OF 7 + 5.2 + 8:
,
,
,
Rusten claims that the DC himself altered OF 7 in 5.1 (or preferred the variant of OF 5.1). He changed the
end and introduced because he wanted to demonstrate how he (Zeus)
begins ( , col. VIII 3) and because the scene of Zeus hearing oracles from his father did not
suit his interpretation (cols. VIII 9 and XIII 2). But we can make an objection to his view: if the DC altered
OF 7 in OF 5.1 in col. VIII 4 it is not clear why he cited it correctly later, in col. XIII 1.
Calame (1997, 67 n. 3) also proposed to substitute OF 5.1 for 7. For him, the oracles refer to the word
of Night, not of Cronus. He does not explain how OF 7 was corrupted into 5.1.
Kouremenos (KPT, 2223) follows this line of interpretation and thinks that OF 5.1 is a misquotation
of 7. For the DC (col. VIII 710), OF 5.1 states not that Zeus hears his father but that he takes the power
(and the glorious demon) from his father. The DC quotes OF 5.1 but proceeds to interpret it as if he had
7 in mind, which suggests that [5.1] is nothing but a erroneous version of 7. For Kouremenos, the verb
in col. VIII 3 might have given rise to the misquotation [of instead of
] during copying; if so, in [5.2] was added to connect the erroneous with and
should be removed. He also adds that after quoting 7 in col. XIII the Derveni author proceeds to note
that he has already made clear in what sense , which means that 7 has already been commented upon and thus that has been quoted above too. The would be apodotic after , as in Od.
14.111112: , / 34.
I find Kouremenos explanation totally convincing. It seems that when the scribe was copying col. VIII
35 he read the sentence and under the influence of in line 3 and in line 5 he changed in
his memory for and wrote that, introducing a word very similar to
both phonetically and semantically, and very suitable in the context. He then introduced in the next
verse to connect with the previous word, so it should be removed, as Kouremenos thinks. The result
would be:
, [] [] (OF 7)
[] {} {}[][, ][] [] (OF 5.2)
, . (OF 8)
Zeus, when from his father, having heard the oracles,
the strength in his hands he took, the illustrious god,
the reverend one, he swallowed, who was the first to leap from the ether.
In the first verse, without is emphatic35 and has the function of stressing the importance of Zeus
in the actions that are narrated, as in the following passages:
(Il. 3.308) /
(Il. 13.347348; cf. 17.331); /
(Theog. 757758); /
(A. Supp. 12).
34 Kouremenos refers to Denniston 21954, 308309, who quotes, among other references:
, / (Od. 13.7879);
, / (Od. 18.134135). See:
/ (h.Merc. 105106). Cf. also LSJ s. v. B 3: freq. in apodosi,
after temporal conjs., Il. 1.494 [ / ], cf. 8.69 [
, / ], Od. 14.112 [ , /
]. Tsantsanoglou had made the same proposal ap. Bernab 2004, 16.
35 See Denniston 21954, 359.

Critical Notes to the Orphic Poem of the Derveni Papyrus

63

Five more arguments can be added to support this reconstruction:

a) The presence of meaning power is unparalleled in archaic epic, where always means
principle. The sense of power is not attested before Herodotus (f. ex. 1.6) and in poetry it appears for the
first time in tragedy, with a marked spatial connotation (S. OT 373).
b) When the DC paraphrases OF 5 in cols. VIII 78, 10 and IX, 34, he mentions the and the
that Zeus took from his father, but never the , which makes the presence of in OF 5.1
very doubtful36.
c) It seems that in OF 7 is a complement of , but in archaic epic
usually has a genitive without preposition as complement indicating the person that is heard. Only and
+ gen. are rarely used37. So, it must be complement of another verb in the following verse. If we accept
that 5.2 followed 7, would be complement of , which makes perfect sense: Zeus,
when from his father, having heard the prophecies, took the strength in his hands . This leaves no place
for an oracle from Cronus, as Calame pointed out (1997, 67 n. 3).
d) The two adjectives of after the combination of OF 5.2 and 8 appear together in several
passages of archaic poetry as epithets of gods and heroes: (Dike, Hes. Op. 257)38;
(Hera, h.Ven. 4244); (Athena, h.Hom.
28.13); (Dioscuroi, Alcm. fr. 2 ii and iv, 4 PMG) and (Polydeuces, i and iv, 7). These
parallels show that the union of with is very likely.
e) When in archaic epic is the epithet of a god it is very frequently at the beginning of
the verse in enjambment, as in the sequence OF 5.2 + 8: / (Il. 18.385386 = 424425)
/ (Od. 5.8788) / (Hes. Op. 300301) [
] / [ (Hes. fr. 43a.8990 M.W.) /
/ (h.Merc. 35); cf. Opp. Hal. 2.654655: / ; Q. S. 5.542543: /
.
Burkert (1987, 38 n. 57)39 states that Wests and Rustens combination of OF 5.2 and 8 involves imputing to the commentator a gross misunderstanding of the Greek text he had before his eyes in a complete
copy; he twice makes [] the object of , not of 40: []
[ ] [] [] (col. VIII 78) and:
[] [] [] [] []
[] (IX 24). But one has to bear in mind that the DC comments and interprets normally
only the verse or verses he has quoted, with no references to further elements from contiguous verses which
might complete the sentence. He enunciates this method explicitly in col. XIII 56:

[] 41 .
As he (sc. Orpheus) gives his whole composition an allegorical sense about facts, it is indispensable to speak about each verse in turn42.
36 n col. VIII 12 (Tsantsanoglou, Betegh, KPT) is possible instead of (Bernab), and the same in
col. IX 1: ] (Betegh, Bernab) is likelier than ] (Tsantsanoglou, Jourdan, Janko, KPT). According to KPT, 78 the
traces after the lacuna are compatible with the right-hand foot of , or the tip of the bottom stroke in c, , .
37 / , Od. 15.374375; / , Il. 6.524525.
38 Cited by West 1983, 85 n. 32.
39 See also Burkert 1999, 81; 2005, 5354.
40 Burkert is followed by Betegh 2004, 116117 and Scermino 2011, 6566.
41 The scribe has written , an error of anticipation due no doubt to the influence of the rough spirit of after
. Some editors have unduly kept this orthographical fault (Betegh 2004, 28; KPT 87; Burkert, ap. Janko 2002, 26 suggests:
; : Janko 2002, 26; Jourdan 2003, 13; Bernab 2007c, 79).
42 Many scholars have interpreted in this passage as word (LaksMost 1997, 15; Bernab 2002, 105; Brisson 2003,
23; Betegh 2004, 29; Torjussen 2005, 14; KPT, 133; verse: Casadess 1996, 82 n. 38; Janko 2001, 24; 2002, 27; Jourdan 2003,
13 Tortorelli 2006, 205; Bernab 2007c, 79; line: Rusten 1985, 133). In the DP, always means verse (cols. VIII 1, 6;
XII 1; XV 5; XVII 11; XXII 14; XXIII 1; XXIV 4; XXVI 2). For word the DC uses the term (VII 8; XXIII 8; XXVI 8),

64

M. A. Santamara

He always quotes complete verses, even though that involves cutting out a sentence and ignoring its full
meaning. For example, in col. XVI he quotes OF 12, which begins with the isolated genitive
. When he paraphrases OF 5 in VIII 78 his only intention is to offer a grammatical
analysis: in his (right) opinion, is in anastrophe and must be understood as complement of ,
not of . It seems that he adds only to report completely the verse he is
commenting43. In fact, in col. VIII 10 he paraphrases OF 5 with no allusion to the (
[ ]), which shows that for him it is not important. After all, he considers the literal
content of a verse or of a sentence meaningless, since it belongs to the superficial level, the only one the
ignorant understand (IX 24: [] [] []
[] [] [). The key for understanding the deep meaning that
Orpheus has hidden is not in full sentences or even verses, but in isolated words, and for this reason he
focuses on them (: col. X 110; : X 1113; : XI 24; : XI 59; : XII
310; : XII 1013; : XIII 713, etc.) or on expressions ( [ ] :
IX 10; : XIV 79). This is why he did not consider it necessary to quote the verse that followed
OF 5.2 to complete the sentence44.
On the other hand, the expression is strange. Burkert (2005, 54) gives this
parallel: ; (Pi. Pae. 6.130) Da dove hai preso il dimon del regno sulle
navi?, addressed to Aegina. In OF 5.2 would mean take the reign or the tutelar numen
of the reign. But in the verse of Pindar means only destiny, lot or position granted by fate. The
allusion to rule is in , ruling ships, not in . And how could destiny be taken in ones
hands?45 Besides, in archaic epic is an epithet of gods (usually goddesses), and does not accompany
abstract concepts as destiny or lot. Bernab46 thinks that refers to Cronus and that in
OF 5.2 there is a hendiadys: Zeus took in his arms the predicted rule and strength of the illustrious
daimon (2007b, 104; cf. 2007a, 16). But he offers no parallel of this figure in archaic epic. Moreover, it
would be strange that in a sentence there should be a reference to the same person in two different expressions: Zeus took from his father the predicted rule and the strength of his father. It would be a clumsy
expression, so the in OF 5.2 must be different from the father mentioned in the previous verse. And
the god Protogonos is the ideal candidate, as West and Rusten were the first to point out independently47.
6. An oracle from Cronus? (OF 7)
A consequence of assuming that OF 7 was followed by 5.2 is that in the first verse there is no allusion to
an oracle from Cronus, an episode many scholars have considered part of the poem48. But there are several
reasons to think that this episode had no place in the OPD49:
a) + genitive with is unparalleled in archaic epic.
b) An oracle by Cronus would reduplicate Nights prophecy unnecessarily.
c) It seems incompatible with Nights epithet , she who pronounces all the oracles,
in OF 6.2.
( 4) or (VII 3; XIX 9; proper name: XVII 7; XXI 7; XXII 10; XXIII 12). In col. XIII 8: , with
reference to , should be taken as generic neuter, not as (sc. ).
43 Cf. Sider 2011, 23: he may be simply finishing the line but not the syntax.
44 Cf. Rusten 1985, 133 n. 26: In this case might designate the separation of such coherent
words as [col. VIII 5] and [col. XIII 4].
45 Cf. Sider 2011, 23: As quoted, this phrase [ ] would seem to be the direct object of , which
presents an odd picture, or perhaps a striking syllepsis, especially with the phrase in his hands.
46 Bernab 2002, 102; 2003, 36; 2007b, 104; 2008, 298.
47 West 1983, 85; Rusten 1984.
48 Bernab 2002, 103104; 2003, 37; 2007a, 16; 2007b, 106107; Jourdan 2003, 5859; Burkert 2005, 52 and Sider 2011,
13.
49 Cf. Calame 1997, 67 n. 3.

Critical Notes to the Orphic Poem of the Derveni Papyrus

65

d) The DC interprets [] in OF 7 as an allusion to Nights prophecy, when, just after citing the
fragment in col. XIII 1, he says , ,
. He expresses in negative the literal meaning of the verse, which for him is not true.
e) Some testimonies about an episode of the Rhapsodies in which Cronus seems to give advice to Zeus
in his demiurgy have sometimes been adduced as a parallel50, but their content is not clear and the authors
who quote it do not mention any prophecy or oracle from Cronus.
7. The birth of the reverend one (OF 8)
The most difficult and controversial verse of the OPD is undoubtedly OF 8:
, .
The meaning of has been much debated: for some scholars it refers to Uranus phallus, and for
other scholars it is the reverend one, the god Protogonos51. I think the latter interpretation is the correct
one, but here I will only focus on the second part of the verse52. In it we find two rare phenomena: the hiatus
between and 53 and the accusative as complement of .
a) The hiatus is usually avoided in archaic epic, except in cases of correptio epica. Here the poet could
easily avoid it by changing the order of and , and choosing the form : *
. For this form, cf. Il. 21.539: , Hes. Th. 281: .
b) The accusative with is very odd, because the verb governs the genitive. It has
been interpreted in three ways54:
1) direct object of the verb: he swallowed the genitals of the god who first had ejaculated the brilliance
of the sky (Burkert 1987, 22)55; he ingested the penis that first procreated the ether (Janko 2001, 24 =
Bernab 2007b, 107)56.
2) direction: the reverend one he swallowed, who first sprang forth into the aither (West 1983, 85);
who was the first to leap forth into aither (Rusten 1985, 125 n. 9 = LaksMost 1997, 15 = Brisson 2003,
20)57; taking as phallus: swallowed down the phallus [of him] who first leapt up to the upper air
(Kirk, in KirkRavenSchofield 21983, 32)58.

50 OF 239. See Bernab 2002, 104; 2007b, 107 n. 27.

51 Uranus phallus: Burkert 1980, 32; 1987, 22, 38 n. 57; 1999, 8183; 2005, 5356; Kirk, in KirkRavenSchofield 21983,

3233; Bernab 1989, 168170; 2002, 105112; 2003, 3742; 2004, 1824; 2007a, 217218; 2007b, 107112; 2007c, 8085;
2008, 299301; Janko 2001, 24 and n. 123; 2002, 27, 33; Betegh 2004, 111123; Torjussen 2005, 1215; Tortorelli 2006, 205,
239; Ferella 2008, 195. Protogonos: West 1983, 8490; Rusten 1984; 1985, 125, esp. n. 9; Parker 1995, 490491; Casadess
1996, 8086; LaksMost 1997, 1516; Calame 1997, 67; Brisson 2003; Jourdan 2003, 5864; Sider 2006, 169; 2011, 2728;
Kouremenos, in KPT, 2328.
52 It is my intention to examine this problem thoroughly in another article.
53 It is also pointed out by Sider 2006, 170 n. 12, with the somehow subjective remark: hiatus which one might almost
want to praise as vividly expressing the breath taken before a leap.
54 See Scermino 2011, 6774 for a detailed analysis of the three interpretations.
55 See also Burkert 1999, 8081: Ingoi il fallo (del re) che aveva per primo eiaculato la brillantezza del cielo; 2005,
5455: Ingoi il fallo <del re primordiale> che per primo aveva eiaculato letere; Tortorelli 2006, 205: ingoi il fallo, di lui
che per primo sprizz fuori letere.
56 See also Bernab 1989, 168: devor los genitales (de Cielo), que haba eyaculado el primero el ter; 2002, 112: il
dvora le phallus (du Ciel), qui avait pralablement jacul lther; 2003, 37: se trag el pene (de Cielo), que haba eyaculado
primero el ter; 2007a, 20: qui primus aethera eiaculatus est. Janko 2002, 27: he swallowed the penis that first had egested
the ether.
57 See also Casadess 1996, 83: Zeus absorbi al venerable (sc. Metis/Protgono), el primero que salt al ter; Jourdan
2003, 13: le dieu que ses attributs rendaient vnrable, il lavala, celui qui, dans lther, jaillit le premier.
58 See also Torjussen 2005, 14: He [Zeus] swallowed the phallus of , who was the first to spring out into the aither;
Ferella 2008, 196: ingoi il pene di colui che per primo balz in direzione delletere.

66

M. A. Santamara

3) origin: object of the place left, not of the place arrived at (Edwards 1991, 207)59; out of the
aether (Tsantsanoglou, ap. LaksMost 1997, 15 n. 18); the reverend one he swallowed, who first sprung
out of the aither (KPT, 133); He gulped down the revered one, who was the first to spring from the aither
(Sider 2011, 13); taking as phallus: he swallowed the phallus [of him], who sprang from the aither
first (Betegh 2004, 29, 111).
Let us see the problems and advantages of each interpretation:
1) The first interpretation presents serious problems60, especially the meaning of , ejaculate or procreate, which is documented nowhere in the extant Greek literature. It always means leap out
or leap forth or even to be born. Burkert61 adduces Aeschylus fr. 15 Radt , procreating monsters, explained by Hesychius as , ( 814). In OF 260
describes the ejaculation of Uranus which gives birth to Aphrodite. The following remarks can be made:
in the fragment of Aeschylus has the unusual meaning of procreate, engender (= )62, not
ejaculate, and its direct object very rare refers to the creature. The verb means inseminate, impregnate and its direct object would refer to the female that becomes pregnant (LXX Le. 12.2);
is a hapax coined from , semen, and we can guess that its meaning can be inseminate or
ejaculate, as . Therefore, pace Hesychius, and cannot be considered as
synonyms of : impregnate (a female) is not the same as procreate (a creature). Furthermore, even
accepting that could convey the idea of ejaculating, it is not the same verb as 63, which
always means leap out or even to be born. The translation procreated the ether would imply that the
ether is engendered in a female, not ejaculated. OF 260 describes the ejaculation of Uranus penis, but the
verb means leap and has no direct object: / : to the
supreme father the generation of the foam leapt out. Burkert also argues that col. XIV 1 [] {}
[ ][] rephrases the sequence and shows that the accusative
is normal. These two adjectives would be an interpretation of and would function as the direct
object of 64. That indicates that is the object of . However, since there is only one
example of with accusative in Greek literature (AP 9.371.12), it is much more likely that {}
[ ][] is the subject of . Both adjectives describe in OF 8, which
refers to the reverend () Protogonos, the sun in the interpretation of the DC65. In fact, Empedocles
(fr. 21.3 DK) applies the same adjectives to the sun: 66 , and
Diogenes Laertius assigns the same idea to Heraclitus, using superlatives, like the DC:
67. Therefore, in col. XIV 1 the DC is clearly alluding to the
sun with two adjectives that were applied to it in presocratic tradition. He also says that
(that is, the sun), is separated from it ( ), where the reflexive
alludes to the subject of the lost main clause, probably the . The separation of the sun is clearly stated
in col. XV 35: []
59 Scermino 2011, 74: Si dovr dunque concludere in favore della traduzione di Edwards, che ora risulta veramente comprensibile ed accetabile sotto laspetto grammaticale.
60 See the brilliant refutations of Betegh 2004, 155156 and Scermino 2011, 6971.
61 Burkert 1987, 38 n. 57; 1999, 82; 2005, 5455.
62 Other example in Aesch. Eum. 658660: / / :
who engenders.
63 Scermino 2011, 70.
64 Most scholars follow this interpretation: Jourdan 2003, 64; Betegh 2004, 155, 234; KPT: 197198; Casadess 2011, 378.
65 Cf. Rusten 1985, 134, who translate: the sun (the ) was swallowed (separated from the rest of the creation [col.
XV 35]) lest the brightest and whitest parts become separated and leap away from it. For Ferella 2008, 196, the subject of
can be , and both adjectives can allude to the subject: (cos che il fallo) balz separato da se medesimo
come la cosa pi brillante e pi calda.
66 is the variant attested by Plutarch and Simplicius, as opposed to by Aristotle, preferred by Diels.
67 D. L. 9.10 = Heracl. A 1 DK. These texts of Empedocles and Diogenes Laertius are cited by Ferella 2008, 196, who
points out: I superlativi sono qui attributi del sole.

Critical Notes to the Orphic Poem of the Derveni Papyrus

67

: For when the sun is separated and confined in the middle, it (sc. , mind)
holds fast, having fixed them, both those above the sun and those below (trans. KPT, 134). All this makes
it very likely that the clause in col. XIV 12 alludes to the sun, not to the ether, which is never mentioned
by the DC in his commentary. Moreover, in col. XIV 1 cannot mean ejaculate, because it does
not describe a mythic event, but a physical process in which no personal gods are involved.
2) The problem of this interpretation is that is never documented with an accusative indicating direction. Rusten (1985, 125 n. 9) adduced as parallel the Homeric formula: , but in
archaic epic the accusative accompanies only this verb68, whose semantic implies direction, in contrast to , which implies provenance. To indicate direction, he could use the verb 69.
3) This interpretation has as a basis a single example in which has an accusative indicating the place that is abandoned: /
(AP 9.371.12)70.
The rarity of this syntactic use ( + acc.) and the hiatus between and strongly
suggest that there is a textual corruption in the verse. Following a proposal of Lamberton71, I think that
should be emended into , which would avoid the hiatus72. In archaic epic appears
in genitive in most of its uses and usually in the same sedes metrica as in OF 8: , 4x; , 8x;
, 16x, 13x in the same sedes metrica; , 8x73. The verb usually has a genitive indicating the place that is left: (Il. 16.427) [][ (Stes. S 105a.8, line 8)
(Ion Chius fr. 26.6 West); (S. OC 233); (Q. S. 1.676).
The verb often describes a birth, even in prose, and designates the source with genitive:
(AG 9.311.6);
(Philost. Im. 1.14.2); (Greg. Nys. Contra fatum 3.2, 44.5 McDonough)
(Them. 166d 2 Harduin). All these parallels make it probable that in OF 8 described the birth of Protogonos and that his origin was indicated with .
We have another possible trace of in the commentary of the DP. In fact, in col. XIV 2
is probably echoing the original genitive; the subjunctive shows that it is a subordinate
clause and that the reflexive refers to the subject of the main clause. This clause probably stated that
the - did something so that the sun (Protogonos in the poem), the brightest and hottest thing, leapt
away separate from itself or, in other words, so that it was created. It seems that for the DC is another
name for the - and the origin of the sun, which was created as a segregation thereof.
Although it is not strictly necessary to change to , all the parallels that I have presented
make it seem very likely that was originally in the OPD and was read in this form by the DC, but
was corrupted into by a copyist, perhaps as a result of an assimilation with ()- and a dissimilation with and .
8. The birth of Cronus (OF 9)
Once the DC has spoken of the birth of the sun in the beginning of col. XIV, which interprets the second
part of OF 8: , he speaks of the birth of Cronus from the sun and the earth:

68 Il. 13.837, 14.288, 15.686, 18.207, 214, 19.379; Hes. Th. 697.
69 As Scermino 2011, 67 points out.
70 Cited by Edwards 1991, 207 n. 14. But cf. Sider 2011, 29: Scaliger may have been right to conjecture
.
71 In LaksMost 1997, 15 n. 28.
72 Cf. Sider 2011, 29: Why not the more usual genitive, as in Homer and everywhere else? would also
avoid hiatus.
73 : Hom. 3x; Hes. 1x : Hom. 7x; Hes. 1x; : Hom. 9x, same sedes metrica: 8x; Hes. 1x, same sede
metrica: 1x; Hom. Hym. 6x; same sedes metrica: 4x : Hom. 6x; Hes. 2x.

68

M. A. Santamara

G74,
.

This is an extremely problematic statement. The use of shows that he is paraphrasing a verse of the
OPD about the birth of Cronus75. Apparently, he states that the poet made him a child of Sun and Earth,
but he must be making some kind of interpretation, because in the poem, as usual in Greek mythological
tradition, Cronus parents must have been Uranus and Ge (cf. in OF 10.23 the succession: ,
). Moreover, the DC speaks of the sun only in his allegorical explanations, as the deep
meaning which is hidden under the (that is, Protogonos or, according to some scholars, Uranus
phallus). It has been suggested that the Sun was already present in the poem76, as a result of the transformation of Uranus severed penis. In Greek and Latin poetry the lyre of Orpheus or the lock of Berenice can
be transformed in constellations77, but the conversion of an organ such as the penis into the Sun seems too
bizarre even for an Orphic poem, not to say that there it has no parallel in Greek mythology. Even if we
imagine that this transformation was narrated in the poem, it only could happen after Uranus penis was
cut by Cronus, so it is not possible that the poem said that Cronus was born from the Sun. And how could
Zeus devour the Sun and in consequence become pregnant? It also would be strange if Uranus penis was
not transformed into the sun, but was presented from the beginning as having a double nature of organ and
heavenly body. This allegorization of the phallus in the poem seems unlikely and could only be attributed
to the DC, who does not accept the literal meaning of the poem without carrying out his own interpretation.
Therefore, we cannot suppose that the Sun was mentioned in the poem and we have to accept that the DC,
contrarily to his normal use, mingles the two levels of meaning of the poem: the literal one (the allusions
to Cronus birth in the poem) and the allegorical one (in which the sun takes part).
Some scholars that think that the DC understands as Uranus phallus and interprets it as
the sun have argued that the sentence G
becomes clear if we substitute Sun by Uranus phallus, because it was the origin of Uranus paternity78.
However, it seems to me unlikely that the mention of Uranus in the poem as Cronus father could remind
the DC of Uranus phallus, and that he considered that this phallus in isolation (and not Uranus) fathered
Cronus.
West (1983, 88) suggests that the DC misunderstood an ambiguous pronoun. In the poem, this pronoun
would refer to Uranus, but he interpreted it as allusive to Protogonos (the sun, in his view). He offers the
reconstruction (1983, 114, vv. 1417):

74 G: ZPE, Bernab 2002, 109 2007a, 221; 2007b, 108; : Rusten 1985, 134;
Betegh 2004, 30, 122; G: Janko 2002, 28 and Jourdan 2003, 14, in my opinion the right transcription.
75 Pace Betegh 2004, 123: here is not to be taken as introducing a verbatim quotation, but as accompanying an
interpretative paraphrase. But the DC always uses to quote or paraphrase literal expressions of the poem, and these
are often followed by an explanation introduced by or , as here: [ (col. IX 13);
[] v (XIV 89); (XVII
6); [] (XIX 11). The DC speaks of , this, so called, Cronus, to distance
himself from the common meaning given to Cronus, the name of a god, whereas for him it is an allusion to a physical process.
76 Calame 2008, 858: Zeus absorbe al venerado, probablemente el miembro viril de Urano metamorfoseado en Sol que
brot saltando hacia el ter; Scermino 2011, 32: [l]immagine dellaidoion sospeso fra cielo e terra [suggested by Bernab
2008, 299] sembra inventata apposta per evocare una simbologia solare, tanto da far sospettare che essa potesse trovare un
suo spazio nel poema di Orfeo; 33: Si potrebbe dunque pensare che il fallo di Ouranos funzionasse come simbolo solare
gi nel pensiero mitico, e che la trasfigurazione del simbolo sessuale in chiave astronomica fosse parte integrante del poema
orfico; Betegh 2011, 223: It might well be the case that Ouranus phallus got assimilated to the sun already in the poem.
77 The lyre of Orpheus: Eratosth. Cat. 24, Manil. 1.324330, Ps.-Luc. Astr. 10 and more testimonies in OF 10741075.
The lock of Berenice: Call. fr. 110 Pf., Cat. 66.
78 Bernab 2002, 102; 2004, 20; 2007a, 221; 2007b, 108; 2007c, 88; Brisson 2003, 25; Jourdan 2003, 66; Scermino 2011,
8687.

Critical Notes to the Orphic Poem of the Derveni Papyrus

69

.
[ ] []79
[ ,]

For the second verse there is the parallel of: (Hes. Th. 45), and for the
third: (821) and [- (fr. 150.11 M.W.).
For Rusten (1985, 135), not only Protogonos, but also Uranus was interpreted by the DC as the sun
(135): Just as in physical terms produces , so in the poem Ouranos (= the sun) is made to
produce Kronos ( )80.
Other possible reconstructions of the verse have been proposed:
Janko (2002, 2627): [[ ] , .], to him by Earth
Kronos was born, who did a great deed. For this construction I have found two parallels: (sc.
) / (Od. 4.1112); (sc. )
(Hes. Th. 916). The problem is that it is not likely that the DC paraphrased it
saying: G, changing into and into G.
Kouremenos (KPT, 200) considers rather unlikely that the Derveni author would be so misled by
ambiguous pronouns as to lose sight of an elementary genealogical fact. He quotes Tsantsanoglous suggestion to complete OF 10.1: [ ,] . He considers it likely that
has a temporal sense, as in OF 10.3. So, OF 10.1 would speak of Cronus birth after the glorious and
reverend demon leapt forth out of the ether. The problem with this reconstruction is that in archaic poetry
never has a dative indicating the mother, but + gen. referring to the father or the mother81 or a
dative alluding to the father82. Moreover, after the birth of Protogonos described in OF 8 we would expect
a reference to the birth of Uranus and only then to the birth of Cronus.
I consider Wests explanation basically right, with the exception of the misunderstanding he ascribes to
the DC. Rather, he seems to have interpreted an initial as a reference to the sun (in the literal level Protogonos) because he followed his hermeneutical principle: [] (col. XIII
6). So, he analysed this verse in isolation and with extreme liberty to adapt it to his own physical conceptions (that the was originated by the sun), ignoring the previous verse in which the antecedent of
(Uranus) was made clear. The DC does something very similar in OF 10.3, where he interprets ,
whose antecedent is Uranus, with a temporal sense: [] ,
(col. XV 78), he says that the rule (of the Mind) takes places since this rule reigns. In this
sentence, is clearly the antecedent of and is neuter, whereas in the verse it is masculine.

79 This verse is not contradictory to OF 10.2, in which Uranus is called , son of Euphrone, the Night. In the
OPD, the first god to appear is Protogonos, as his very name indicates (like Chaos in Hes. Th. 116) and, as in the Rhapsodies,
Night must be his daughter (OF 147) and both must be the parents of Ge and Uranus (OF 148149). In archaic poetry, there are
more matronymics than patronymics derived from names of gods (the only usual patronymics are and
or ): , of Apollo (Hes. Sc. 479, fr. 51.3; h.Merc. 158, passim; Theog. 1120); (Hes. fr. 78);
, of Chiron (Hes. Th. 1002); , of Phoebe (Antimach. fr. 116.1); , f Pallas (, -,
h.Merc. 100); cf. (Hes. Sc. 229) or (Hes. Th. 526, 950, Sc. 467). Only in one case the matronymic is used because a person has no mother, of Tityus ( , Od. 7.324; , 11.576). Therefore,
the use of is no proof that Uranus has no father.
80 Rusten is followed by Janko 2002, 28.
81 Il. 15.641: ; 6.210: ,
. Hes. Th. 4546: , / ; 123:
; 894: .
82 Cf. Il. 24.497: ; Hes. Th. 933934: /
Il. 5.896: , ; Hes. Th. 309:
(sc. ) .

70

M. A. Santamara
9. The succession of Uranus, Cronus and Zeus in kinship (OF 10)

After referring to Cronus birth in col. XIV 23, the DC says (59):
.
, .
[] K ,
[]
.
For this reason, he says: who did a great deed. And in the (verse) after this one:
Uranus, son of Night, he who first reigned.
After he named Cronus the Mind that thrusts things against one another,
he says that he did a great deed to Uranus, for he was stripped of his kingship.
He mentions part of a verse, , who did a great deed, and quotes the following verse, as the
expression shows. indicates that it is the next verse, not just a verse which is further
on in the poem. His paraphrase is proof that he understood as the
object of 83, something impossible if in the text he read it were nominative. Therefore, some scholars
have emended rightly in my opinion into 84. It is likely that
the words came immediately before. Besides, in col. XV 5 the DC cites the following verse
( ), so the reconstruction of these verses (OF 10) would be:

, .
, .
who did a great deed
to Uranus, son of Euphrone, he who first reigned,
and from him in turn Cronus, and afterwards contriving Zeus.
10. Zeus and Metis (OF 11.1)
Further on in column XV, in lines 1315, the DC quotes at least two or three more verses (OF 11):
.[
.[
[

c. 13

] []
]. [

West (1983, 114) reconstructs the text of the first verse (OF 11.1) in this way:
[ ] [].
Janko (2001, 25) proposes: [ ], and is followed by Tortorelli (2006, 208). West
is followed by Casadess (1996, 81) and Bernab (2002, 114; 2003, 41; 2004, 22; 2007a, 225; 2007b, 110;
2007c, 92), who changes into : [ ] []. He is followed by Janko (2002, 30: .[..... .. .] or ]), Betegh (2004, 32, 124) and Sider (2011,
33). Meanwhile, Burkert (ap. Janko 2002, 30) proposes: [ (probably presupposing ]).
These reconstructions have to be revised on the basis of the palaeographical description of the editio
princeps (KPT, 91). According to the editors, before the lacuna there is an upright, coinciding with a vertical fiber; a serif-like turn to the left at its low end rules out ; probably . After the lacuna, the editors
read , and describe the trace of ink in this way: right-hand end of bottom wavy horizontal is also

83 Kouremenos: KPT, 199.

84 West 1983, 114; Janko 2002, 28; Jourdan 2003, 14; Kouremenos: KPT, 199; Tortorelli 2006, 206. Other scholars prefer
to keep the text of the papyrus: Rusten 1985, 134; Betegh 2004, 30, 122123; Bernab 2002, 108, cf. n. 81: nous ne savons pas
ce qui est perdu entre et 2007a, 21; 2007b, 110; Sider 2011, 30.

Critical Notes to the Orphic Poem of the Derveni Papyrus

71

possible85. For the word that is interrupted in the lacuna ([) a form of is nearly unavoidable,
as Burkert already suggested. The syllable - has to be long, so we have to suppose a consonant after .
The alternatives, such as , , or variants, are not very suitable to the context. So we
have to reconstruct [, [ or [. There is a good parallel to support these readings,
fr. 343.910 M.W. attributed to Hesiod: / , where refers to Metis,
mentioned in v. 6. It describes the same mythical episode narrated in Th. 886900, which no doubt has
inspired the OPD at this point. I propose the following reconstruction:
[ ] []
swallowed Metis and had royal dignity
The expression is normally the object of 86: (Hes. Th. 462);
/ (892893) (Delphic oracle ap. D. S. 8.29.1,
v. 3); (Delphic oracle ap. D. S. 3435.13.1, v. 1 = Posid. fr. 149.3 Theiler);
(Orac. Sib. 3.120); / (Greg. Naz. Carm. de
se ipso 44.328329 [37.1376.1011 Migne]); (OF 168.2). Cf. the similar expressions: (Hes. Op. 126); / (Orac.
Sib. 1.292). On the other hand, in archaic epic we find verses with a similar structure to OF 11.1 in my
reconstruction: (Od. 11.603);
(16.388) (4.284);
(h.Hom. 15.8), and, especially,
(Delphic oracle ap. D. S. 8.29.1, v. 3).
It is also possible to think, with Burkert, that the verbs are participles:
[ ] []
However, two participles in a verse seem to me unlikely. If is swallowed in OF 11.1, it has to be a
personification, as in Hesiod and in the Orphic Rhapsodies. In this latter poem, is another name
of Protogonos, the primeval god that is gulped down by Zeus (OF 139141, 240). If we are right in reconstructing a form of in OF 11.1, this identification happens to be already present in the OPD. This
leaves no room for Uranus phallus, because it is hard to assume that the Orphic poet thought that
was present in this organ and that Zeus became after he swallowed it.
The Orphic poet has probably taken from Hesiods Theogony the formula () ,
which is absent in the Homeric poems (where only is found, Il. 6.193). It is remarkable
that in the only two passages where Hesiod speaks of its conservation is linked with the
swallowing of gods: Cronus devours his children so that no one should shatter his royalty (459:
; 461462: / ), and for the same
reason Zeus swallows his spouse Metis (890: ; 892893: /
). The same scheme appears in OF 11, where Zeus, after swallowing Metis, can be sure to keep
() the royal rank and not to be dethroned.
According to some scholars87, OF 10 was followed by OF 11, quoted seven lines below in the same
column XV. The sequence makes good sense:
, , (OF 10.2)
, (OF 10.3)
[ ] [] (OF 11.1)

85 Cf. Tsantsanoglou ap. Bernab 2002, 113 n. 107: I do not exclude altogether .
86 As Sider 2011, 33 points out: It is therefore unlikely that a form of (West, Janko) is to be read here.
87 West 1983, 114; Bernab 2002, 113 n. 107; 2004, 22; 2007b, 110; Betegh 2004, 114.

72

M. A. Santamara

However, it is far-fetched that OF 10 should be followed by OF 11, because the DC introduces the latter
fragment with the words ] [] (col. XV 12), not () or 88. He
does the same in col. XIII 3, when he says before quoting OF 8. OF 7 and 8 are
separated by only three lines, but it is obvious that they are not consecutive. Therefore, it is probable that the
DC quotes OF 11, which was not immediately after OF 10, to explain why Orpheus called Zeus :
because he swallowed Metis89. Similarly, in col. VIII 45 he quotes OF 5, as it seems, to explain how Zeus
begins ( ) to be , as he is called in OF 4. The expression [ ] before
quoting OF 5 indicates that most probably it did not follow OF 4.
11. The mysterious sinews (OF 11.2)
After OF 11.1 we can read:
. [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .] [90
[
(OF 11.23)
In the papyrus, the quotations are normally marked with two paragraphoi () in the margin over the first
line and below the last one. The absence of a paragraphos marking the end of the quotation indicates that
both lines are verses. However, it is possible that the quotation ended in [ and that the copyist
omitted the second paragraphos, as he did in col. VIII 2 to mark the end of OF 4 and in col. XII 1 to mark
the beginning of OF 6.5. In fact, the DC normally quotes only one verse and in just two cases (apart from
OF 11) he quotes more (two: col. VIII 45 = OF 5; four: col. XVI 36 = OF 12). Therefore, it could be that
the poetic quotation ended in the second verse (OF 11.2). If we consider the following verse that is cited in
the papyrus (col. XVI 36), OF 12.1, it can be observed that the genitive depends on a lost substantive in
the preceding verse; can perfectly well be this missing substantive. The sequence makes good sense:
. [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .] [ (OF 11.1)
(OF 12.1)
(OF 12.2)
(he possesses in himself?) all the sinews
of Protogonos, the reverend king, and in him all the immortals
were generated, blessed gods and goddesses
OF 12.1 and the previous verses described the absorption of the faculties of Protogonos by Zeus, who is
going to recreate the world and needs his intelligence to contrive it, and his generative power to form it
in his insides. Some scholars supposed that the lost substantive in the previous verse to OF 12.1 could be
91, and in this context, may have this value. The Rhapsodies use similar expressions to describe
the acquisition of Protogonos strength after being swallowed (OF 241.1, 3):
[]

There is also the name of the god in genitive (, cf. OF 12.1: ) and the insistence
on his strength (, and , cf. OF 11.1: [), acquired by Zeus. It is even possible that in the Rhapsodies there was a version of OF 11, since a testimony of Proclus contains a similar
expression:
88 Bernab 2007a, 224 reconstructs ] [], following Burkert, but in the photograph can be read after
the lacuna.
89 Proclus offers the same explanation regarding the Rhapsodies: , , (sc. )
, (sc. ) , (In Plat. Tim. 1.312.10 = OF 240 III). Cf. Casadess
1996, 83. In the poem the relation between , and was obviously intentional (cf. Bernab 2007b, 112 and
2007c, 9495).
90 [ was first proposed by Janko 2002, 29 in the apparatus criticus (ut suspicor, vires adipiscitur, quod Urani
primogeniti , sc. penem et testes, devorat), followed by Bernab 2007a, 225 and 2007c, 92.
91 West 1983, 114: [ , ] Brisson 2003, 24 and Jourdan 2003, 74: .

Critical Notes to the Orphic Poem of the Derveni Papyrus

73

(in Plat. Cratyl. 62.3 Pasquali = OF 240 I), where is possibly a paraphrase of
. The verb can provide us with some clue about the verb on which depends. Its ending
is probably ], which points to a present or perfect tense indicating that Zeus still possesses Protogonos
capacities, as in OF 13: [ ] [] [.
But could the word , whose normal meaning is sinews, here mean strength? The term , ,
sinew, tendon, used mostly in plural, may be etymologically related to , strength92 (cf. Lat. uis; ac.
before vowel, probably , as Lat. uim instr. ), used only in epic and lyric. In OF 16.3 the Orphic poet
again uses this word in the plural: . In this latter verse the
plural is a stylistic variation of , strength, which is sometimes applied to rivers and other natural
things, such as the wind and the sun: (Il. 21.356, of Skamandros), , - (l. 15.383
17.739 Od. 9.71; 13.276; 19.186; Hes. Op. 518) and (Arat. 286); Pindar uses the expression
(fr. 70.1 M.), which he understood as strength of Achelous, as it is clear in fr. 52v.9 M.,
where he speaks of the . There are similar expressions involving the
Oceanus: (Il. 18.697 21.195) and in the previous verse of
the OPD (OF 16.1). The root - (strength) seems to be part of the name of the river god and of
, a stream on Delos93. The no doubt recall these phrases and have the connotation
of strength; on the other hand, the sinews function as a metonym of this quality, because they are sign
of physical vigour. I agree with DAlessio (2004, 24): It is plausible that the homophony between the
two words [ strength and sinew], and the structural role of sinews in the body, may have easily led
to a semantic overlap. He quotes a passage of Pindar (I. 8.5253) in which the poet says that Achilles has
cut out Troys sinews ( / ) and further on identifies the sinews as the strength () of
Memnon, Hector and the other heroes (5658)94. In conclusion, the literal meaning of sinews in OF 16.2
has a pronounced connotation of strength95.
In parallel with this verse, it is probable that in OF 11.2 also refers to the corporeal strength of
Protogonos, represented by sinews96. Zeus receives this power from the primeval god he has swallowed and
then he transfers it to Oceanus ( ) and to the river Achelous (). If Protogonos are generative for Zeus, who creates the gods, the rivers and fountains and the world in his insides, they are also
such for Achelous, who receives the from Zeus and thanks to them, as it seems, generates all the seas97.
92 As DAlessio 2004, 24 points out. Cf. Chantraine 1968, 469, for whom it is doubtful, and Beekes 2010, 599, who says:
We can compare the meaning tensile force in Skt. vyas-, which also means power, etc.. It is probable that from the accusative (cf. Lat. uim), a form was created and from it a declension in - (cf. acc. - gen. ).
93 In Hesychius ( 50) there is the gloss: , where must derive from , sinew. In Latin, the nerui
are linked with the physical strength: OLD s. v. neruus, 6 (pl.): the sinews as the seat of a persons strength and vigour, physical powers. In relation with uis: rupti uulnere nerui / deficiunt motumque negant uiresque uolandi (Ov. Met. 12.567568);
experietur consentientis senatus neruos atque uiris (Cic. Phil. 5.32); (uox) in certamine erecta totis uiribus et uelut omnibus
neruis intenditur (Quint. Inst. 11.3.63).
94 For West 1983, 92, who reads [], fastened in, the refer to the network of all fresh-water streams,
which is like the network of a bodys sinews. DAlessio 2004, 24 thinks that the are, at the same time, the gods sinews and
the springs that derive from him, but this interpretation is not clear to me. Cf. Kouremenos (KPT, 259): to say that Zeus placed
the sinews of Acheloios, the network of all-fresh water streams, within Okeanos would be rather bizarre.
95 Most scholars translate as sinews (West 1983, 92; LaksMost 1997, 20; Janko 2002, 47; Bernab 2002, 120 2003, 45;
Jourdan 2003, 23, 97; Betegh 2004, 49; Sider 2011, 16), but some as strength (Tsantsanoglou ap. LaksMost 1997, 20 n. 58:
and he placed therein the forceful silver-eddying Achelous; Janko 2001, 30 = Bernab 2007b, 120: he put in the might of
silver-swirling Achelos). As DAlessio 2004, 23 points out: Both translations are, in a way, correct. Cf. KPT, 138: and he
placed therein the sinews of (i. e. the mighty; or: the eddies of) silver-eddying Achelous.
96 If Zeus swallows Uranus penis, it would be strange that all his strength is in this organ, pace Janko 2002, 29: ut suspicor, vires adipiscitur, quod Urani primogeniti , sc. penem et testes, devorat; but can allude only to the penis; the
penis and the testes are designated by the plural .
97 OF 16.24 seems to be a reelaboration of Il. 21.194197: , /
, / / .
DAlessio 2004 has shown that v. 195 is an addition, so in the earlier version Achelous was considered the origin of all rivers,
seas, fountains and springs. The Orphic poet has divided these aquatic elements between Zeus, who creates rivers and fountains ( , OF 12.3) and Achelous, who creates seas ( [, OF 16.4).

74

M. A. Santamara

To conclude: there is no clear proof that OF 11.2 was followed by OF 12 (which is not introduced with
the phrase: or ), but the fit between [ and
and the support of some parallels from the OPD, from the epic tradition and from other Orphic
fragments and testimonies make it an attractive possibility.
12. A new reconstruction of the beginning of the Orphic poem of Derveni
I propose the following reconstruction of the first verses of the Orphic poem of Derveni (OF 312):

10

15

20

, [] [] ,
(col. VII 9 = OF 3)
]. ...[.][
(col. VII 15)
[
]?
(col. VIII 2 = OF 4)
[] [] .
[
]?
[] []o
(col. X 9, 11, col. XI 1 = OF 6.23)
[N] [ ],
(col. XI 1, 10 = OF 6.4)
[ ] .
(col. XII 2 = OF 6.5)
, [] [] (col. XIII 1 = OF 7 ~ col. VIII 4 = OF 5.1)
[] {} {}[][, ][] [] (col. VIII 5 = OF 5.2)
, .
(col. XIII 4 = OF 8)
[e.g.: ] [] (col. XII 8)
[e.g.: ,] (col. XIV 23 = OF 9; col. XIV 5 = OF 10.1)
, ,
(col. XIV 6 = OF 10.2)
, .
(col. XV 6 = OF 10.3)
[
]
[
]?
[ ] []
(col. XV 13 = OF 11.1)
. [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .] []
(col. XV 14 = OF 11.2)
,
(col. XVI 3 = OF 12.1)

(col. XVI 4 = OF 12.2)

(col. XVI 5 = OF 12.3)
, .
(col. XVI 6 = OF 12.4)
1 , West : , Bernab 4 [] malui (iam Sider) :
[] ZPE : [] Janko : [] Sider 6 [] conieci : [] Tsantsanoglou :
[] West | West ex OF 112: | []
ZPE 7 [N] Sider : [ ] ZPE : [ ] West : [ ] Bernab | [] ZPE | ] malui (iam
Sider) : ] Tsantsanoglou (uel ] uel ] uel ]), Bernab :
] Sider 8 [ ] Tsantsanoglou : [ ] West : [ ] Janko 2001 :
[ ] Janko 2002 ([ ] iam Burkert) 9 [] : [] [] e
col. XIII 1 (OF 7) huc traxit Rusten 10 {} seclusi (iam Kouremenos, KPT 23) | [][ :
{}[][ Rusten : {} [][ West 11 : Lamberton 1213
exempli gratia West 14 : West 18 [
] conieci : [ ZPE : [ ] West : [ ]
Janko 2001 : [ ] Bernab : .[...........] uel ] Janko 2002 :
[ Burkert | [] ZPE 19 [] Janko

Sigla
ZPE: Anonymous 1982

Critical Notes to the Orphic Poem of the Derveni Papyrus

10

15

20

75

I shall sing for the ones who understand, shut the doors, ye profane.
[
]
[
]?
who were born from Zeus, the (very thoughtful) king.
[
]?
To Zeus, Night, she who pronounces all the oracles, the nurse of the gods,
[ from her sanctuary
prophesied everything that was right for him (to be accomplished)
to occupy the beautiful seat of the snow-covered Olympus.
Zeus, when from his father, having heard the oracles,
the strength in his hands he took, the illustrious god,
the reverend one, he swallowed, who was the first to leap from the ether.
(This one gave birth to Gaia and large Uranus,
and the huge Gaia bore him Cronus), who did a great deed
to Uranus, son of Euphrone, he who first reigned,
and from him in turn Cronus, and afterwards contriving Zeus.
(
)
(
)?
(Zeus) swallowed Metis and had royal dignity
(he possesses in himself?) all the forces
of Protogonos, the reverend king, and in him all the immortals
were generated, blessed gods and goddesses,
and rivers and lovely springs and everything else,
that had then been born, and he himself became alone.
Bibliography

Anonymous, 1982. Der orphische Papyrus von Derveni, ZPE 47, after p. 300.
Beekes, R. 2010. Etymological Dictionary of Greek, III, LeidenBoston.
Bernab, A. 1989. Generaciones de dioses y sucesin interrumpida. El mito hitita de Kumarbi, la Teogona de Hesodo y el Papiro de Derveni, AOr 7: 159179.
, 1996. La frmula rfica cerrad las puertas, profanos. Del profano religioso al profano en la materia, Ilu. Revista
de ciencias de las religiones 1: 1337.
, 2002. La thogonie orphique du Papyrus de Derveni, Kernos 15: 91129.
, 2003. Hieros logos. Poesa rfica sobre los dioses, el alma y el ms all, Madrid.
, 200420052007a. Poetae Epici Graeci. Testimonia et fragmenta. Pars. II: Orphicorum et Orphicis similium
testimonia et fragmenta, fasc. 1 et 2, Monachii et Lipsiae; fasc. 3, Berolini et Novi Eboraci.
, 2007b. The Derveni Theogony: Many Questions and Some Answers, HSCPh 103: 99135.
, 2007c. Autour de linterpretation des colonnes XIIIXVI du Papyrus de Derveni, Rhizai. A Journal for Ancient
Philosophy and Science, vol. IV n. 1: 77103.
, 2008. Teogonas rficas, in BernabCasadess, 291324.
Bernab, A. Casadess, F. (eds.) 2008. Orfeo y la tradicin rfica: un reencuentro, Madrid.
Betegh, G., 2004: The Derveni Papyrus. Cosmology, Theology, and Interpretation, Cambridge.
, 2011. The Great Tablet from Thurii (OF 492), in HerreroJimnezLujnMartnSantamaraTorallas,
219225.
Bremmer, J. N. 2011. The Place of Performance of Orphic Poetry (OF 1), in HerreroJimnezLujnMartnSantamaraTorallas, 16.
Brisson, L. 2003. Sky, Sex and Sun. The Meaning of / in the Derveni Papyrus, ZPE 142: 111.
, 2010. Lopposition profanes / initis dans le Papyrus de Derveni, in . Rebillard C. Sotinel (eds.), Les frontires
du Profane dans lAntiquit tardive, cole Franaise de Rome, Roma, 2135.
Burkert, W. 1980. Neue Funde zur Orphik, Informationen zum altsprachlichen Unterricht 2, Graz 2741.
, 1987. Oriental and Greek Mythology: The Meeting of Parallels, in J. Bremmer (ed.), Interpretations of Greek
Mythology, LondonSydney, 1040.

76

M. A. Santamara

, 1999. Da Omero ai Magi. La tradizione orientale nella cultura greca, Venezia.

, 2005. La teogonia originale di Orfeo secondo il Papiro di Derveni, in G. Guidorizzi M. Melotti (eds.), Orfeo e
le sue metamorfosi, Roma, 4664.
Calame, C. 1997. Figures of Sexuality and Initiatory Transition in the Derveni Theogony and its Commentary, in
LaksMost, 6580.
, 2008. El discurso rfico: Prcticas de escritura oral, in BernabCasadess, 841867.
, 2011. Lcriture de la voix enchanteresse dOrphe (OF 1), in HerreroJimnezLujnMartnSantamara
Torallas, 711.
Casadess, F. 1996. Metis, el nous, el aire y Zeus en el papiro de Derveni, Faventia 18: 7588.
, 2011. The Castration of Uranus and its Physical Consequences in the Derveni Papyrus (cols. XIII and XIV) and
the First Stoic Philosophers, in HerreroJimnezLujnMartnSantamaraTorallas, 377383.
Chantraine, P. 1968. Dictionnaire tymologique de la langue grecque, Paris.
DAlessio, G. B., 2004. Textual Fluctuations and Cosmic Streams: Ocean and Acheloios, JHS 124: 1637.
Denniston, J. D. 21954. The Greek Particles, Oxford.
Edwards, M. J. 1991. Notes on the Derveni Commentator, ZPE 86: 203211.
Ferella, Ch. 2008. Il Papiro di Derveni e le teogonie orfiche, SCO 54: 187212.
Graf, F. 2011. Exclusive Singing (OF 1a/b), in HerreroJimnezLujnMartnSantamaraTorallas, 1316.
Herrero de Juregui, M. Jimnez San Cristbal, A. I. Lujn Martnez, E. R. Martn Hernndez, R. Santamara
lvarez, M. A. Torallas Tovar, S. (eds.) 2011. Tracing Orpheus. Studies of Orphic Fragments in honour of
Alberto Bernab, BerlinBoston.
Janko, R. 2001. The Derveni Papyrus (Diagoras of Melos, Apopyrgizontes logoi?): A New Translation, CPh 96: 132.
, 2002. The Derveni Papyrus: an Interim Text, ZPE 141: 162.
, 2008. Reconstructing (again) the Opening of the Derveni Papyrus, ZPE 166: 3751.
Jourdan, F. 2003. Le papyrus de Derveni, Paris.
Kirk, G. S. Raven, J. E. Schofield, M. 1983. The Presocratic Philosophers, 2nd ed., Cambridge.
Kouremenos, Th. Parssoglou, G. M. Tsantsanoglou, K. 2006. The Derveni Papyrus. Edited with Introduction
and Commentary. Studi e testi per il Corpus dei papiri filosofici greci e latini, vol. 13, Firenze.
Laks, A. Most, G. W. (eds.) 1997. Studies on the Derveni Papyrus, Oxford.
, 1997. A Provisional Translation of the Derveni Papyrus, in LaksMost, 922.
LSJ: Liddell, H. G. Scott, R. Jones, H. S. et alii, 91996. Greek English Lexicon, edition with revised Supplement,
Oxford.
OLD: Glare, P. G. W., 1982. Oxford Latin Dictionary, Oxford.
Parker, R., 1995. Early Orphism, in A. Powell (ed.), The Greek World, London, 483510.
Riedweg, Ch. 1993. Jdisch-hellenistische Imitation eines orphischen Hieros Logos, Tbingen.
Rusten, J. S. 1984. Phanes-Eros in the Theogony of Orpheus (PDerveni col. IX 4), Atti del XVII Congresso Internazionale di Papirologia, Napoli, 333335.
, 1985. Interim Notes on the Papyrus from Derveni, HSCPh 89: 121140.
Scermino, M. 2011. P. Derveni coll. XIIIXVI: un mito, due frammenti, un rompicapo, in Papiri Filosofici. Miscellanea di Studi, VI, Studi e testi per il corpus dei papiri filosofici greci e latini, Firenze, 5590.
Sider, D., 2006. Review of Betegh 2004, CPh 101, 165171.
, 2011. The Orphic Poem of the Derveni Papyrus, in I. Papadopoulou L. Muellner (eds.), Proceedings of the
Derveni Papyrus Conference, Classics@: An Online Journal 5 (http://chs.harvard.edu/wa/pageR?tn=
ArticleWrapper&bdc=12&mn=3865).
Struck, P. 2004. Birth of the Symbol: Ancient Readers at the Limits of Their Texts, Princeton.
Tortorelli Ghidini, M. 2006. Figli della Terra e del Cielo Stellato, Napoli.
Torjussen, S. 2005. Phanes and Dionysos in the Derveni Theogony, Symbolae Osloenses 80: 722.
Tsantsanoglou, K. 1997. The First Columns of the Derveni Papyrus and their Religious Significance, in LaksMost,
93128.
West, M. L. 1983. The Orphic Poems, Oxford.
, 2008. Los poemas rficos y la tradicin hesidica, in BernabCasadess, 279289.

Marco Antonio Santamara Universidad de Salamanca, Departamento de Filologa Clsica e Indoeuropeo. Facultad de Filologa, Pl. Anaya, s/n 37001 Salamanca (Spain)
masanta@usal.es