https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110666106-003 David N. Sedley 2 The Opening Lemmas of the Derveni Papyrus 1 Introduction In the twenty columns running from col. VII to the end (col. XXVI) the text partially preserved by the Derveni Papyrus takes the form of a running commentary, lemma by lemma, on a theogonic poem attributed to Orpheus. The first six columns, by contrast, along with any small fragments that may precede them in the sequence, have always been regarded as different in genre: not part of the commentary as such, but a critical interpretation of various religious practices and beliefs. As far as I am aware, no attempt has yet been made to call into question this seemingly unparalleled division of the text.1 In the later tradition, it is normal for a commentary to start with a prologue, but the material surviving from PDerv., cols. I–VI does not seem to be prefatory to the main content of the ensuing com- mentary.2 At least, any such view of its role would need to be proposed and 1 Cf. Laks/Most (1997) introduction, 5, for the observation that the relationship between the two parts of the papyrus is among the questions that have insufficiently engaged scholars. Two dec- ades later, that remains broadly true. 2 As noted by e.g. Frede (2007) 14. David N. Sedley, University of Cambridge Note: Warm thanks (although none of those named should be assumed to agree with my conten- tions) to Valeria Piano and Gábor Betegh for a constant and unfailingly rewarding interchange of ide- as; to Glenn Most for a searching critique of the penultimate draft; to André Laks, Radcliffe Edmonds and Richard Janko for invaluable discussions of various issues raised by the paper; to Valeria Piano also for her meticulous and generous advice on the viability of various restorations (reflecting her seminal work in Piano [2011]); to members of the audience at the September 2016 Trier conference for their questions and criticisms; and to Richard Janko for patiently filling in details of his newly emerging revised transcription, drawing on innovative photographic data, for which see now Janko (2016) and Kotwick (2017). I have chosen to use Janko’s transcription, the most recent full-scale revi- sion of the text, as my own starting point, while acutely aware that like all previous reconstructions it remains provisional (as Janko [2016], himself underlines), and must await the evaluation of schol- ars who unlike me have the full range of technical skills required. Where I present re-edited texts, my app. crit. records the authorship only of the restorations I adopt, since I cannot pronounce on which of the many other readings are still palaeographically likely or even possible. Very extensive information on past conjectures can be found in the app. crit. of Janko (2002), and in that of Piano (2016) 63–82. Authenticated | christian.vassallo@unical.it Download Date | 11/12/19 1:10 PM