The Derveni Papyrus ("Diagoras of Melos, Apopyrgizontes Logoi?"): A New Translation

Abstract

THE DERVENI PAPYRUS (DIAGORAS OF MELOS, APOPYRGIZONTES LOGOI?): A NEW TRANSLATION RICHARD JANKO I. THE AIM AND OUTLOOK OF THE DERVENI AUTHOR HE DERVENI PAPYRUS, our oldest surviving Greek manuscript, was discovered in the remains of a funeral pyre1 almost forty years ago, in January 1962. Along with other bizarre and astounding material, it offers an allegorical interpretation of a cosmogonic poem ascribed to Orpheus. It is a text of capital importance for understanding the religious and philosophical crisis of the late fifth century B.C.E., when polytheism was challenged by monotheism and pantheism. The papyrus' final publication is still awaited, although the difficult and painstaking work of putting together the over 200 carbonized fragments, recovered by the use of static electricity, appears, according to what has been published, to be largely complete.2 Meanwhile, considerably more can be done to interpret what is already known of the papyrus, especially since the recent publication of a greatly improved text of its opening.3 The excellent supplements there offered prove that this text is a work of the sophistic enlightenment, by clarifying its attitude to mystery cult and traditional Greek religion in general.4 In offering a translation based on my own restorations of the original Greek, I shall argue three propositions, which are wholly independent of each other:

Extra‐Ordinary People:MystaiandMagoi, Magicians and Orphics in the Derveni Papyrus

“…Janko (2001) claims, however, that "the Derveni papyrus is the work, not of a seer (as Tsantsanoglou inclines to believe), but of a sophist," and he seems to argue (in Janko 1997) that physicist and hierophant are separate categories, as if a thinker who theorized about cosmology could not also perform rituals and interpret oracles. Janko (2005) sees the Socrates in Aristophanes' Clouds, or even Plato himself, as a better parallel than Empedokles, but Obbink (1997) has remarked upon the Derveni author's focus upon cult and ritual practice as a significant difference from Plato. Again, the mainstream contemporaries of the Derveni author would have been unlikely to distinguish between sophists, physicists, seers, and initiators, however vociferously certain practitioners among these marginal groups might have tried to distinguish themselves from one another.…”

“…Betegh 2004 is the most recent of the interim texts (cf. Anonymous 1982, Janko 2002, which draws not only on the previous ones, but also on the readings of the papyrus in Bernabé 2004b, which were vetted by Tsantsanoglou. For the ritual specialist, cf.…”

“…Burkert (1968 and1970) first raised the issue of the Derveni author's philosophical theories, and much scholarship has followed in his wake. Proposed authors for the papyrus include Stesimbrotus (Burkert 1986), Metrodorus of Lampsacus (Ricciardi Apicella 1980), Epigenes (Edwards 1991, first suggested by Kapsomenos [1964-65]), the Euthyphro known from the Platonic dialogues (Kahn 1973(Kahn , 1986(Kahn , 1997, Diogenes of Apollonia (Janko 1997) or Diagoras of Melos (Janko 1997 and. As Kouremenos (2006, 59) notes, "attempting to identify the Derveni author in the light of the available evidence seems to be an exercise of rather low epistemic value.…”

What Is Presocratic Philosophy?

“…Almost all the Presocratics seemed to have something to say about embryology, and fragments of Diogenes and Empedocles show a keen interest in the structures of the body; the overlap between ancient philosophy and ancient medicine is of growing interest to scholars of early Greek thought (Longrigg 1963, van der Eijk 2008. Recent discoveries, such as the Derveni Papyrus (Betegh 2004, Kouremenos et al 2006, Janko 2001, Laks and Most 1997, show that interest in and knowledge of the early philosophers was not necessarily limited to a small audience of rationalistic intellectuals. They passed on many of what later became the basic concerns of philosophy to Plato and Aristotle, and ultimately to the whole tradition of Western philosophical thought.…”

Note interpretative e testuali alla col. XXII del Papiro di Derveni

“…Terzo problema è l'asindeto fra πάντες ταὐτά e κρατιστεύοντες. Gli (11) «Greed» (Laks-Most 1997, p. 20 = 2016Obbink 1994Obbink , p. 122 = 1997Janko 2001Janko , p. 29 = 2002Betegh 2004(a), p. 47;McKirahan 2010, p. 466;Tsantsanoglou, Parássoglou 2006, p. 137;Rangos 2007, p. 39), «convoitise» (Jourdan 2003, p. 22); «avidità» (Tortorelli Ghidini 2006, p. 223). La Piano passa dall'«avidità» della traduzione (2016(b), p. 118 n. 120) alla «cieca avidità» della parafrasi (2016(b), p. 121), con un'inutile enfasi che radicalizza il concetto e quindi aggrava il fraintendimento.…”