Chronos in Column XII of the Derveni Papyrus*

Abstract

Abstract In this paper, I would like to question two of the principles which have governed some interpretations of the theogony commented on in the Derveni papyrus. The first is formulated by Jeffrey S. Rusten (1985: 122) in terms which admittedly are more cautious than the practice of certain commentators: The events of the Derveni Theogony (although not its individual verses) can be assumed to be largely identical with those in the later poem ascribed to Orpheus (called the Rhapsodies) which the Neoplatonists Proclus and Damascius quote and summarize at length. Therefore the fragments of these poems have considerable (although not absolute) authority for reconstructing the text of the poem which the commentator had before him. The second principle, which takes the preceding one for granted, is rarely stated but is implied by a well-known practice:1 the word-forward comparison between the theogony commented on in the Derveni papyrus and the one found in the version of the Rhapsodies. Until now, these principles have never been questioned. Here I would like to demonstrate on the basis of a specific example that the second principle of interpretation cannot be accepted, for only textual comparisons applying to more than one word and clearly definable narrative comparisons can justify resorting to the Rhapsodies to give an account of the theogony commented on in the Derveni papyrus.