The extant columns of the Derveni Papyrus contain only the upper third to half of their original height. Since the Author writes in part in a form that soon became (and still is) standard—citation of a brief passage followed by a commentary that frequently repeats words from the citation before or the one to follow—we can often detect a poetic word in the prose commentary that echoes in part the now-lost lemma/citation. These provide one-word fragments such as those which we are all too familiar from the fragments of other poets, where the word is fairly secure even if we cannot be sure that, now accommodated to the citator’s own sentence, the precise morphological case, person, etc., has been reproduced. When the embedded poetic word picks up a lemma only partially legible, it may help in its constitution. In these cases, it seems proper, however unusual, to make use of half-brackets, which are normally found when a completely separate author with his own manuscript tradition (e.g. Athenaeus or Plutarch) cites a passage that is also found on a papyrus. The Author’s practice of repeating words from the lemma in his commentary satisfies the essential idea behind the use of half-brackets. Although I do not present a complete survey (let alone a commentary) of these isolated fragments, as does Betegh (103–105), I refer to many of them in the commentary.

With the prefix OP attached, the fragments are numbered as they are by Kouremenos in KPT 21, except for the first one, which comes from Bernabé. In parentheses are their locations within the Derveni Papyrus. Concordances with Betegh and Bernabé are made difficult because each editor makes different joins between lines quoted separately in the papyrus.

OP3 F (P.Derv. col. 7)

[φθέγξομαι οἷς θέμις ἐστι· θ]⌞ύρας δ’ ἐπίθε⌟[σθε βέβηλοι]

OP1 (P.Derv. col. 8.2)

[ο]ἳ Διὸς ἐξεγ̣έ̣νοντο [μεγασθεν]έος βασιλῆ̣ος

OP2 (P.Derv. col. 8.4–5)

OP4–OP5 (P.Derv. col. 11.1, 11.10)

OP6 (P.Derv. col. 12.2)

ὡς ἂν̣ ἔ̣[χοι κά]τα καλὸν ἕδ̣ος νιφόεντος Ὀλύμπου

OP7 (P.Derv. col. 13.1)

OP8 (P.Derv. col. 13.4)

OP9 (P.Derv. col. 14.5)

OP10 (P.Derv. col. 14.6)

OP11 (P.Derv. col. 15.6)

OP12 (P.Derv. col. 15.13–15)

OP 13 –OP 14

OP13 (P.Derv. col. 16.3–6)

OP14 (P.Derv. col. 16.14)

OP15 (P.Derv. col. 18.12–13)

OP16 (P.Derv. col. 17.12)

OP17 (P.Derv. col. 18)

OP18 (P.Derv. col. 19.10)

OP19 (P.Derv. col. 21.5–7)

OP20 (P.Derv. col. 23)

OP21 (P.Derv. col. 23.11)

OP22 (P.Derv. col. 24.3)

OP23 (P.Derv. col. 25.14)

OP24 (P.Derv. col. 26)

In a lost transition between the end of column 6 (on sacrifices, prayers, and souls) and the beginning of column 7, the Author turns to extensive quotation and commentary on a “sound and orthodox” hymn of Orpheus—ὕ]μνον̣ [ὑγ]ι̣ῆ καὶ θεμ[ι]τ̣ὰ λέγοντα (sc. Ὀρφέα)—which he characterizes as wholly holy: [Ὀρφεὺ]ς̣ … [μεγ]άλα̣ ἱερ[ολογ]ε̣ῖ̣ται μὲν οὖν καὶ ἀ̣[πὸ το]ῦ πρώτου [καὶ] μέχρι <τ>οῦ̣ [τελε]υτ̣α̣ί̣ου ῥήματος (7.5–8). (The nature and quality of the Author’s interpretations need not concern us.) {234|235}

OP3 F [φθέγξομαι οἷς θέμις ἐστι· θ]⌞ύρας δ’ ἐπίθε⌟[σθε βέβηλοι]

The Author continues his introduction (see above) to the discussion and exegesis of Orpheus by saying [θ]ύ̣ρ̣ας γὰρ ἐπιθέσ[θ]ε ὁ [κελ]εύσας τοῖ̣[ς | ὠσὶ]ν αὐτ[ούς]—see Janko 2008:39 for the text—which Burkert recognized as the formulaic line end at the beginning of several religious poems. Cf. e.g. Plato Symposium 218b (Alcibiades): οἱ δὲ οἰκέται, καὶ εἴ τις ἄλλος ἐστὶν βέβηλός τε καὶ ἄγροικος, πύλας πάνυ μεγάλας τοῖς ὠσὶν ἐπίθεσθε. That covering one’s ears hinders hearing hardly needs a classical parallel, but it may be that Odysseus’ description of the wax put in his crew’s ears so that they would not hear the Sirens alludes to something similar in the episode in the early Argonautica, where, as we saw above, Orpheus helped the crew sail past the Sirens; cf. Odyssey 12.177 ἑτάροισιν ἐπ’ οὔατα πᾶσιν ἄλειψα [sc. κηρόν], 199–200 αἶψ’ ἀπὸ κηρὸν ἕλοντο ἐμοὶ ἐρίηρες ἑταῖροι, | ὅν σφιν ἐπ’ ὠσὶν ἄλειψ’, ἐμέ τ’ ἐκ δεσμῶν ἀνέλυσαν. Either word for “ear” could well have appeared in the line following 3 F, but in both Clement of Alexandria Protrepticus 7.74.4 and Ps.-Justinus Martyr, Cohortatio ad gentes p. 15 C Morel (both of whom attribute the verses to Orpheus) we find φθέγξομαι οἷς θέμις ἐστί· θύρας δ’ ἐπίθεσθε βέβηλοι | πάντες ὁμῶς.

There are, however, two possible first halves to this line, (i) the one printed above and ἀείσω ξυνετοῖσι (attributed to Orpheus by Cyril of Alexandria Contra Julianum 1.35, but to Pythagoras by others), both of which are in accord with what the Author says after the above: οὔτι νομο[θετεῖν φη[σιν τοῖς] πολλοῖς […ca. 14… τὴ]ν ἀκοὴν [ἁγνεύο]ντας …. See further Santamaría 2012:55–56.

[ο]ἳ Διὸς ἐξεγ ̣ έ ̣ νοντο: = Iliad 5.637 (of mortals); cf. Homeric Hymn to the Dioscuri 17.2 οἳ Ζηνὸς Ὀλυμπίου ἐξεγένοντο; and often in early epic in this sense, most notably in Hesiod’s genealogical poems; cf. Theogony 106 οἳ Γῆς ἐξεγένοντο καὶ Οὐρανοῦ ἀστερόεντος; Bernabé (2007a:102–103) notes the emphasis laid on Zeus at this early point in the poem. Xenophanes B 33 begins the process of using the verb to indicate coming into being, while still maintaining its earlier biological sense:

—a process which Empedocles B 59 continues to develop:

It remained for Parmenides B 10.1–3 to apply it solely to inanimate substances:

If, as has been suggested, the Author quotes the lines in the order of the poem, this early reference to Zeus demonstrates his importance here.

[μεγασθεν]έος, which is regularly applied to gods, is preferable; cf. Bacchylides 3.67–68 μεγασθενὴ[ς] Ζεύς, Aeschylus Εumenides 61 [Apollo], Aristo-phanes Clouds 566 and Pindar Olympian 1.25 [Poseidon], Quintus of Smyrna 2.140 Ζηνὶ μεγασθενέι. It also occurs five times in the Orphic hymns. Αnother possibility is [περιφραδ]έος (Apollo, Homeric Hymn to Hermes 464). [ἐρισθεν]έος, also suggested by Janko, is, with seven letters restored, said by Kouremenos to be too short, which suggests that a restoration of eight letters is possible. Αt 13.4 αἰθέρα ἔκθορ̣ε is an example of hiatus at the bucolic diaeresis after a short vowel; in the verse of a good poet, this might be thought of as vivid writing; more on this later.

βασιλῆ̣ος: Zeus is never called by this title in Homer, but he is in Hesiod and the hymns—a well-known fact, which also serves to remind us that, although Homer offers guidance whenever the text of Orpheus is in doubt, allowance should always be made for changes in metrics, vocabulary, and myth.

Between OP1 and OP2, the Author writes ὅπως δ’ ἄρχεται ἐν τῶ[ιδε δη]λοῖ, leaving the subject of the verb unclear. Tsantsanoglou and Parássoglou take it to {236|237} be τὰ νῦν ἐόντα, while Bernabé prefers Ζεύς, which is indeed strongly suggested by 2.1 Ζεὺς … ἀρχήν, although the phrase “how Zeus rules” is odd; an inceptive aorist would convey the thought better. “How Zeus begins” (Betegh) should allude to his birth, not, simpliciter, to the beginning of his rule. If the Author, in the manner of a textual commentor, worked his way through the Orphic poem in order, and OP2 followed directly on OP1, as has been argued by, among others, Betegh (105–108), it would seem that in this particular telling of the story the emphasis is on Zeus, but this cannot be determined.

For the words restored in half-brackets, see column 8.8–10. These lines may have come immediately after OP1; cf. West 1983:114, Betegh 109. This line and OP7 Ζεὺς μὲν ἐπεὶ δὴ̣ π̣ατρὸς ἑοῦ πάρα̣ [θ]έ̣σφατ’ ἀκούσα[ς] are, ignoring the different morphology of the penultimate words, the same except for the last words. There are some examples of this in Homer and other early epic; cf. B. Hainsworth, The Iliad: A Commentary III (Cambridge, 1993) 19–21; R. Janko, Homer, Hesiod, and the Hymns (Cambridge, 1982) 129–130. This near repetition, however, is especially reminiscent of Empedocles, who also plays with the idea of oral formulas, reworking his own lines so closely that editors frequently merge what I believe to be two (or more) distinct quotations into one fragment (as I hope to show in detail elsewhere). Cf. B 121.4, as quoted by most sources, Ἄτης ἂν λειμῶνα κατὰ σκότος ἠλάσκουσιν, and the same line as quoted by Proclus, Ἄτης ἐν λειμῶνι κατὰ σκότος ἱλάσκονται, where the appropriateness of ἄν(α) … ἠλάσκουσιν and ἐν … ἱλάσκονται argue against scribal error. For a more sophisticated example, compare also B 115.1, as quoted by Plutarch On Exile 607c, ἔστι τ(ι) ἀνάγκης χρῆμα, θεῶν ψήφισμα παλαιόν, with ἔστιν Ἀνάγκη, χρῆμα θεῶν, σφρήγισμα παλαιόν, as quoted by Simplicius On Aristotle’s Physics 1184.9–10 = Empedocles fr. 110 Bollack. This literary play with one’s own words/formulae was adopted by Lucretius; cf. e.g. 2.82 avius a vera longe ratione vagaris ~ 2.229 avius a vera longe ratione recedit; see further J. D. Minyard, Mode and Value in the De Rerum Natura: A Study in Lucretius’ Metrical Language (Wiesbaden, 1978) 44–45. It would be interesting to know whether Empedocles is at all indebted in his own near self-quotation to this Orphic poem. This discussion shows that Calame (1997:67n3) is on weak ground when he argues that OP2.1 should be altered to the reading of OP7.

µέν: “Emphaticum,” Bernabé 3.207 (citing Denniston, Greek Particles, 359– 361), but this cannot be sure and it remains quite possible that this clause was followed by one with δέ; see below. {237|238}

χείρεσσι ⌞λ⌟ά̣βεν: What I print is a simple combination of Rusten’s and Janko’s readings. The latter, followed by Bernabé, is surely right to regard the Author’s requoting this verse six lines later in a different word order as the equivalent of a separate quotation that calls for half-, not full, brackets; see the introductory paragraph, above. Π has scriptio plena elsewhere, if [ἡ δὲ] ἔχρησεν is correctly restored at col. 11.10, where there is space for three letters; note also 16.9 δὲ ἄρα (prose) and 24.3 μερόπεσσ(ι) ἐπ’. At 13.4 there is hiatus which for metrical reasons cannot be mitigated by elision: αἰθέρα ἔκθορε. The reason for choosing Rusten’s avoidance of elision is that λαβ- is most common in Homer among past indicatives (thirty-nine times), but the choice of this, ἐλαβ- (six times), or ἔλλαβ- (nineteen times) is determined in all places but one by metrical convenience, the exception, also at the midline caesura, being Iliad 8.116 ἐν χείρεσσι λάβ’, where no manuscript offers the variant χείρεσσ’ ἔλαβ’. The same words occur at 15.229, but here the verb is imperative; i.e. no temporal augment is possible. For elision of this word at the midline caesura, cf. Odyssey 19.356 δεξαμένη χείρεσσ’ | ὅτε κτλ., West, Greek Metre, 36.

δαίµον ̣ ⌞α⌟ κυδρόν: Gods can be glorious; cf. Hesiod Theogony 442 κυδρὴ θεὸς, Works and Days 257 (Dike), Odyssey 11.580, etc. (Hera), Homeric Hymn to Demeter 179 (Demeter), Homeric Hymn to Hermes 461 (Apollo), etc. In Orphic poetry, Eros receives this epithet, Orphic Argonautica 14. The problem is the syntax. As quoted, this phrase would seem to be the direct object of ἔλαβεν, which presents an odd picture, or perhaps a striking syllepsis, especially with the phrase “in his hands.” It is easy, though, to imagine that the Author, quoting whole lines, has truncated the grammar, so that (as my commas and translation indicate) ἔλαβεν takes only “rule and valor.” It is true that in “correcting” the word order, the Author again presents a text that on the surface allows δαίμονα to be another object, but once more he may be simply finishing the line but not the syntax. This was the view of Rusten and West, both of whom attempted to find from the Author himself the line containing the verb governing δαίμονα.

The Author quotes OP5 as a single line, but has anticipated it on line 1 of this column, which begins with … [τ]ῆς Νυκτός· «ἐξ ἀ[δύτοι]ο» δ’ αὐτὴν [λέγει] χρῆσ̣αι …. It is thus quite likely that the words ἐξ ἀδύτοιο immediately preceded OP5 (same phrase and same sedes at Iliad 5.512, Οrphic Argonautica 956; cf. Aristophanes The Knights 1015–1016 Ἀπόλλων ἴαχεν ἐξ ἀδύτοιο). Bernabé joins the two fragments, along with ZPE*’s ἡ δὲ. {238|239}

⌞Νύξ⌟: Night, as is clear from col. 11.1; see last lemma. Three letters are needed; hence, ἡ δέ in scriptio plena (= ἡ δ’ in meter) was restored by ZPE*, which is better than reading the repeated οἱ in West’s ἥ οἱ. The choice between ἡ δέ and Νύξ depends in large part on how one understands the line introducing OP5: τάδ’ [ἐν ἐχομέν]ωι (Janko or [ἐπὶ τούτ]ωι Ts.) λέγει·. If the Author is proceeding to a new point, an anaphoric ἡ δέ (or better, ἥδε) is appropriate; but if he, as often, cites a passage to illustrate a point made earlier (cf. his quoting Heraclitus in col. 4, or the way col. 8.1 and 8.3 lead respectively to the quoting of 8.2 and 8.4–5), then Νύξ seems more likely. Since, as reconstructed here, Νύξ is not the first word of the sentence, there is no need for a connecting particle in any case, since, as Calame (2010:20) notes, there is frequent asyndeton in this poem.

⌞Νὺξ⌟ ἔχρησεν: A violation of Meyer’s first law. West’s conjecture is metrically less likely, but cf. 8 ἔκθορε̌ πρῶτος.

οἱ: Almost certainly Zeus, although Rusten (1981:131f.) is hesitant; see next lemma.

θέ[µις]: θέμις normally derives from the gods and rarely applies to gods themselves; cf. Hesiod Theogony 396 τὸν δ’ ἔφαθ’, ὅστις ἄτιμος ὑπὸ Κρόνου ἠδ’ ἀγέραστος, | τιμῆς καὶ γεράων ἐπιβησέμεν, ἣ θέμις ἐστίν, but here it is generalized, unlike the Derveni restoration. See further H. Lloyd-Jones, The Justice of Zeus (Berkeley, 1971) 166n23, with bibliography. Athena can tell Ares what not to do («Ἆρες, ἔπισχε μένος κρατερὸν καὶ χεῖρας ἀάπτους· | οὐ γάρ τοι θέμις ἐστὶν ἀπὸ κλυτὰ τεύχεα δῦσαι | Ἡρακλέα κτείναντα,» [Hesiod] Shield of Heracles 446–448). Θέμις can come from Zeus or another god: υἷες Ἀχαιῶν …, οἵ τε θέμιστας πρὸς Διὸς εἰρύαται (Iliad 1.237–239); cf. [Hesiod] Shield of Heracles 22 ὅ οἱ Διόθεν θέμις ἦεν. But what is the supposed sense of the restoration here? That it is “right” for Zeus to accomplish these things; or that he “should” do so? The former is possible (Night to Zeus would be like Athena to Ares); the latter may seem too strong, but is probably correct: Zeus here is subject to the demands of fate, just as any mortal is. And a god’s “prophecy” may command rather than merely predict; cf. Thucydides 1.134.4 ὁ δὲ θεὸς ὁ ἐν Δελφοῖς τόν τε τάφον ὕστερον ἔχρησε τοῖς Λακεδαιμονίοις μετενεγκεῖν οὗπερ ἀπέθανε.

[ἐκτελέεσ]θ ̣ αι: The word to be supplied seems to have been paraphrased in the Author’s preceding sentence as ποῶσι, the best Homeric word for which is (ἐκ)τελέεσθαι: Iliad 7.353, 12.217; cf. [Hesiod] Shield of Heracles 21–22 = fr. 195. ἐκτελέσαι μέγα ἔργον, ὅ οἱ Διόθεν θέμις ἦεν—whereas neither ἀνύσασθαι nor ἀνύεσθαι occurs in early epic, and indeed the middle occurs only once, at Odyssey 16.373 (as either ἀνύσσεσθαι or ἀνῡ́σεσθαι), and then not again until Pindar Pythian 2.49; cf. V. Magnien Le futur grec (Paris, 1912) 1.111; and the middle is generally rare. See Santamaría (2012:59–60), who prefers my second suggestion, ἦν τελεέσθαι. {239|240}

ἂν ̣ ἔ ̣[χοι κά]τα: According to the papyrological description of Tsantsanoglou and Parássoglou, the restorations of West, Burkert, and Janko are inconsistent with the horizontal trace before the lacuna that could be the top only of Γ, Ε, Ζ, Ξ, Σ, or Τ. For tmesis with anastrophe when the preposition follows its verb, see H. W. Chandler, Greek Accentuation ² (Oxford, 1881) ¶¶922–923. Kouremenos compares Iliad 2.699 τότε δ’ ἤδη ἔχεν κάτα γαῖα μέλαινα, and Odyssey 9.6 ἢ ὅτ’ ἐϋφροσύνη μὲν ἔχῃ κάτα δῆμον ἅπαντα. ὡς ἄν + optative (or subjunctive) is normal in Homer and epic in general, often at the beginning of the line and always so in Orphic literature; cf. Orphic Hymn 87.12 ὡς ἂν ἔοι, 62.11, 63.13.

The usual sense of this verb in early poetry (and prose) is, in order of increasing metaphorical sense, (i) “hold down, cover,” (ii) “pervade,” (iii) “sup-press/control,” (iv) “rule” (which is a political overlap and extension of [iii]). E.g. (i) Odyssey 11.302 τοὺς ἄμφω ζωοὺς κατέχει φυσίζοος αἶα; cf. Iliad 3.243. (ii) Odyssey 13.269 νὺξ δὲ μάλα δνοφερὴ κάτεχ’ oὐρανόν. (iii) Bacchylides Dithyramb 3.28–29 [σ]ὺ δὲ βαρεῖαν κάτεχε μῆτιν; Theognis 602–603 τοιάδε καὶ Μάγνητας ἀπώλεσεν ἔργα καὶ ὕβρις, οἷα τὰ νῦν ἱερὴν τήνδε πόλιν κατέχει. (iv) Sophocles Antigone 609–610 (Ζεῦ,) δυνάστας | κατέχεις Ὀλύμπου | μαρμαρόεσσαν αἴγλαν; Euripides Hecuba 79–81 ὦ χθόνιοι θεοί, σώσατε παῖδ’ ἐμόν, | ὃς μόνος οἴκων ἄγκυρ’ ἔτ’ ἐμῶν | τὴν χιονώδη Θρήικην κατέχει; Orphic Hymn 2.6 κατέχεις οἴκους πάντων; cf. ibid. 18.4, 27.5. Kouremenos considers the use of the verb in the Antigone passage equivalent to that in the Derveni Papyrus. Note, however, that the statement quoted is in direct answer to the chorus’ own rhetorical question, τεάν, Ζεῦ, δύνασιν τίς ἀνδρῶν ὑπερβασία κατάσχοι; (604–605). That is, Sophocles’ sentence entails the political sense of κατέχω, which perhaps cannot be dated before the second half of the fifth century, thus perhaps too late for a poem that quickly (how quickly depends on when one dates the Author) came to be taken as a work of Orpheus. Sense (iii) is probably best here.

ἕδ ̣ ος νιφόεντος Ὀλύµπου: Cf., with Bernabé, Homeric Hymn to Heracles 15.7–8 (Zeus) κατὰ καλὸν ἕδος νιφόεντος Ὀλύμπου | ναίει; Apollonius of Rhodes 1.503–504 (Orpheus) ἤειδεν δ’ ὡς πρῶτον Ὀφίων Εὐρυνόμη τε | Ὠκεανὶς νιφόεντος ἔχον κράτος Οὐλύμποιο; Οrphic Hymn 15.7 ἕδος νιφόεντος Ὀλύμπου; Iliad 24.144 ἕδος Οὐλύμποιο, 18.615 Ὀλύμπου νιφόεντος; Hesiod Theogony 42 νιφόεντος Ὀλύμπου. I omit the parallels adduced where Olympus is the ἕδος of the gods. Note also Hesiod Theogony 117–118 Γαῖ’ εὐρύστερνος, πάντων ἕδος ἀσφαλὲς αἰεὶ | ἀθανάτων οἳ ἔχουσι κάρη νιφόεντος Ὀλύμπου (118 = 794 = Orphic Hymn 25.7 = 59.2). {240|241}

See above, on OP2.

Bernabé adds this line to OP4–OP5, which would indeed fit nicely, but the word ἀφα[ιρεῖ]ν in the sentence preceding the citation of CP6 suggests that another line or two was quoted in the lines lost after OP5. Furthermore, the two lines can be consecutive only if αἰδοῖον is neuter, arguments against which I lay out below.

Wild allegoresis is one thing; willful misreading something else. The Author, as Betegh (per litt.), emphasizes, must have understood the poem in this way. How could the Author, who presumably saw a complete poem, have gone so wrong? West (1983:85) thinks that his text was faulty. Perhaps the preceding line named Protogonos, which he took as an ordinary compound adjective, πρωτόγονος (as accented by editors) or, more likely, πρωτογόνος; cf. e.g. Orphic fr. 140 (cited several times by Damascius De principiis):

Cf. Orphic fr. 243.9 [sc. Ζεύς ἐστι] Μῆτις πρῶτος γενέτωρ. Damascius paraphrases as follows: Εἰ δὲ ὁ παρ’ Ὀρφεῖ πρωτογόνος [again, I print paroxytone] θεὸς ὁ πάντων σπέρμα φέρων τῶν θεῶν ἀπὸ τοῦ ὠοῦ πρῶτος ἐξέθορε. See further on OP13.1. It wouldn’t take a great leap of allegoretic skill to apply the meaning “that which is the primary progenitor” to aidoion understood as a noun = “penis.” For the paroxytone accentuation and the active meaning, see John Philoponus De vocabulis, recensio a π 20 πρωτογόνος· ἡ πρώτως τεκοῦσα παροξύνεται.

ὅς reads more easily in this one line with a masculine αἰδοῖον, but of course its antecedent could easily have been a genitive in the preceding line; Bernabé 1.19 suggests βασιλῆος or Οὐρανοῦ.

κατ̣έπινεν: Regularly used of the gulping down of solids, most notably and pertinently in Hesiod’s Theogony, of Cronus’ swallowing his children: 459 τοὺς μὲν κατέπινε μέγας Κρόνος, 467, 473.

αἰθέρα ἔκθορ̣ε: As in Hesiod, Aither, Chaos, and Chronos are early gods in Orphic cosmogonies. The aither from which the Orphic Phanes (who is nowhere named in the Derveni poem) derives is called “clouds” in later prose paraphrases; cf. Damascius De principiis 124 [I 317, 2–4 Ruelle] εἰς δὲ τὴν δευτέραν τελεῖν ἤτοι τὸ κυούμενον καὶ τὸ κύον ὠὸν τὸν θεόν, ἢ τὸν ἀργῆτα χιτῶνα, ἢ τὴν νεφέλην, ὅτι ἐκ τούτων ἐκθρώσκει ὁ Φάνης. Attempts to read αἰθέρα as a terminal accusative are thus misguided, as the parallels in Orphic texts show. Furthermore, … [ἐ]κ̣θό̣ρηι τὸν λαμ̣πρότατόν τε [καὶ θε]ρ̣μ̣ό[τ]ατον (col. 14.1) shows that the Author copied his exemplar correctly; i.e. αἰθέρα ἔκθορ̣ε cannot be considered an error on his part. Even if he read the accusative as direct object, there is no reason for us to follow him; cf. Bernabé 2007b:86–87.

Why not the more usual genitive, as in Homer (Iliad 10.94–95 κραδίη δέ μοι ἔξω | στηθέων ἐκθρῴσκει) and everywhere else? αἰθέρος ἔκθορε would also avoid hiatus. The only parallel (adduced by Kouremenos) is from an anonymous late epigram, Greek Anthology 9.371.1 δίκτυον ἐκθρῴσκοντα πολύπλοκον ἄρτι λαγωόν, where Scaliger may have been right to conjecture δικτύου … πολυπλόκου. It is possible that the hiatus was intentional, to make the leap vivid. And if we are willing to credit this Orphic bard with this bit of vivid writing, let us also note both that αἰθέρα and ἔκθορ̣ε each filling a dactylic foot gives the line what it is easy to call a jumpy aural effect, and that, although there is a midline break after ὅς, the line is in accord with Bulloch’s law, for which see A. W. Bulloch, “A Callimachean Refinement to the Greek Hexameter,” Classical Quarterly 20 (1970): 258–268. On this still vexed question, see Santamaría 2012:61–64 and Maria Scermino, “P. Derveni coll. XIII–XVI: Un mito, due frammenti, un rompicapo,” {242|243} in Papiri filosofici: Miscellanea di Studi VI. Studi e testi per il corpus dei papiri filosofici greci e latini (Florence, 2011) 55–90.

Between quoting these two lines, the Author says only τὸ δ’ ἐπὶ τούτῳ·, which lacks the ἐχόμενον he uses elsewhere that would make it explicit that OP10 followed immediately upon OP9, as West and Kouremenos believe, reading (see the apparatus criticus) Οὐρανὸν Εὐφρονίδην. The sense would now be Κρόνος μέγ’ ἔρεξεν Οὐρανόν, i.e. “Cronos greatly harmed Ouranos.” For ἔρεξεν as a euphemism (here for castration), see Burkert, Homo Necans (Berkeley, 1983) 3, who notes how this verb often substitutes for the act of killing in a sacrificial ritual; cf. Epicasta, ἣ μέγα ἔργον ἔρεξεν ἀϊδρείῃσι νόοιο | γημαμένη ᾧ υἷϊ (Odyssey 11.272–273), which conveys a similar sense of religious awe. For the double accusative construction that would be produced, cf. Iliad 3.354 ξεινοδόκον κακὰ ῥέξαι. Reading accusatives would furthermore account for what now looks like asyndeton in OP10, although, as Betegh (123n87) observes, this is not a major obstacle to retaining the nominatives; one can imagine that Οὐρανὸς Εὐφρονίδης is enjambed with a preceding nominative word or phrase. It would also be inept of Orpheus to link one ὅς-clause to another after only four words. On the whole, then, it seems best, or at any rate more cautious, to follow Π and retain the two nominatives.

Εὐφρονίδης: Cf. T. Corsten, Die Inschriften von Kios (Bonn, 1985) 21.6 (Late Hellenistic to early Imperial date) = Epigrammatum Anthologia, Appendix, ed. Cougny 4.49 Οὐρανὸς Εὐφρονίδης. Matronymics are unusual in Greek; cf. Apollo/Artemis Letoïdes, Cheiron Philyrides, Perseus Danaides, Ares Enyalios (< Enyo). Herakles is often called “the son of Alcmene,” although no single matronymic is used, except for Bacchylides 5.71 Ἀλκμή<ν>ιος θαυμαστὸς ἥρως. Musaeus is the son of Μήνη (Hermesianax fr. 7.15). And the Moliοně (dual) are called after their mother Molionē, according to Eustathius Commentarii ad Homeri Iliadem 3.319.4– 11 van der Valk. Cf. further Herodian Orthography 3.2.435 Τὰ εἰς δης μητρωνυμικὰ διὰ τοῦ ι γράφεται οἷον Λητωΐδης ὁ υἱὸς τῆς Λητοῦς, Δαναΐδης ὁ υἱὸς τῆς Δανάης, Φιλυρίδης ὁ υἱὸς Φιλύρας. ὅθεν Νιοβίδης ὁ τῆς Νιόβης. ὅθεν τὸ Φιλομηλείδης τὸ παρ’ Ὁμήρῳ οὐ λέγομεν εἶναι πατρωνυμικὸν οὐδὲ λέγομεν τὸν υἱὸν τῆς Φιλομήλας. ὄνομα κύριόν ἐστιν. εἰ γὰρ ἦν μητρωνυμικόν, διὰ τοῦ ι ὤφειλεν εἶναι· καὶ ὁ Διονύσιος λέγει ὅτι ἀπὸ μητέρων οὐ σχηματίζει πατρωνυμικὸν ὁ Ὅμηρος. W. R. Paton and E. L. Hicks, Inscriptions of Cos (Oxford, 1891) nos. 10 and 367 list citizens by both patronymic and matronymic. (Other cultures {243|244} assign matronymics more freely, such as Russians and Ashkenazi Jews; see B. O. Unbegaun, Russian Surnames [Oxford, 1972] 21–22, 105–108, 124–125, 342–344.) For Ouranos as son of Night in Orphic theology, cf. Alexander of Aphrodisias On Aristotle’s Metaphysics 821.11–12 κατ’ Ὀρφέα τὸ Χάος γέγονεν, εἶθ’ ὁ Ὠκεανός, τρίτον Νύξ, τέταρτον ὁ Οὐρανός, quoting the verse Οὐρανός, | ὃς πρῶτος βασίλευσε θεῶν μετὰ μητέρα Νύκτα.

Night might be given prominence by this matronymic because of her role as nurse in Orphic theology; cf. col. 10.11 τροφ[ὸν δὲ λέγων αὐ]τ̣ὴ̣ν̣ α̣ἰ̣ν̣ί̣[ζε]τ̣αι, which Kouremenos 184 reasonably combines with col. 10.9 πανοµφεύουσαν (a hapax, obviously repeated from a lost lemma) and with Proclus On Plato’s Cratylus 404b = 112 F θεῶν γὰρ τροφὸς ἀμβροσίη Νὺξ λέγεται (although not identified as an Orphic view by Proclus) to suggest that the missing line was —ᴗ πανομφεύουσα θεῶν τροφὸς ἀμβροσίη Νύξ (6 F). Santamaría suggests [Ζηνὶ] πανομφεύουσα ⌞θεῶν⌟ τρόφος ἐξ ἀ̣[δύτοι]ο. There is also the question, as Betegh (per litt.) points out, “whether Ouranos had a father at all.”

Night is euphemistically called euphrone as early as Hesiod Works and Days 560. Note also Heraclitus B 26, 57, 99, and, most interesting, 67, a fragment of Orphic-like polarities quoted by Hippolytus Refutation of All Heresies 9.10.8 ὁ θεὸς ἡμέρη εὐφρόνη, χειμὼν θέρος, πόλεμος εἰρήνη, κόρος λιμός. The word is then common in all three major tragedians, but to judge from its frequent occurrence in Hippocrates and Herodotus, euphrone became the usual word for “night” in Ionic (which includes Heraclitus).

βασίλευσεν: The aorist of this and similar verbs is often inceptive and must certainly be so in a genealogical narrative. With πρῶτος, the sense is that there was no king before Ouranos; that is, there was no hierarchy among the gods.

α ̣ ὖτις ^5½: A frequent sedes for this word in early epic, but the sense “in turn, next,” although frequent in Hesiod (especially, as here, in genealogies) and the Hymns, is not found in Homer; cf. LfgrE s.v. 3 b β. The alpha is dotted “because the foot of a right-hand oblique can be seen in the photograph and there is no other possibility of reading it” (Bernabé, per litt.).

µητίετα: The Author adduces the transparent meaning of this common early epic epithet of Zeus (thirty-five times) to argue that Orpheus equates Zeus with Nous, i.e. μῆτις. {244|245}

1 µῆτιν: Since these lines are cited in order to show that Zeus is Nous (see above), lower-case metis is probably preferable (so Bernabé and Betegh 162–163) to seeing a reference to the distinct deity Metis (as in ZPE*), who in Orphic texts is masculine and equated to Phanes and Zeus. And if this is indeed what the Author is doing, it is also likely that here at least he is adducing this passage from elsewhere in the poem.

βασιληίδα τιµ̣[ήν]: The kingly honor in question is the very one of being king; cf. Proclus On Plato’s Cratylus 105 μόνος ὁ Κρόνος, τὴν τετάρτην βασιλικὴν τάξιν κληρωσάμενος, παρὰ πάντας τοὺς ἄλλους ὑβριστικῶς δοκεῖ κατὰ τὸ μυθικὸν πρόσχημα προσδέχεσθαι καὶ ἐκ τοῦ Οὐρανοῦ τὸ σκῆπτρον καὶ μεταδιδόναι τῷ Διΐ· καὶ γὰρ ἡ Νὺξ παρ’ ἑκόντος αὐτὸ λαμβάνει τοῦ Φάνητος·

For this line end, always preceded by a form of ἔχειν (the simplex only), cf. Hesiod Theogony 462 ἐν ἀθανάτοις ἔχοι βασιληίδα τιμήν, Isyllus 64, and two oracles of Apollo (71.3, perhaps of the early fifth century, and 431.1 P-W), as well as in some later writers. It is therefore unlikely that a form of κατέχω (West, Janko) is to be read here.

2 – 3: Because no paragraphos is present in the left-hand margin and the poetic word ἶνας appears (as in OP21), it is likely that these two lines continue the poetic quotation, as noted by Ts.

This, the longest fragment in the papyrus, presenting no textual problems (two alternate readings in ZPE* can no longer be entertained), lays out the notion of a cosmic Zeus, who contains within himself all that was and all that is to be, as close parallels from other Orphic verses make clear, especially 243 and 245 F, which will be cited below. On the join between OP13 and OP14, see below.

1 πρωτογόνου: See above, where I argue that the sense is not the passive “protogenous” (an archaic English word), but the active “first progenitor.” Note 243.5 F Ζεὺς αὐτὸς ἁπάντων ἀρχιγένεθλος (where the immediate context strongly suggests an active meaning). {245|246}

βασιλέως: On the vexed question of who this is (which would take us beyond our immediate concern with the poetic text), see Betegh 118–119, who argues for Ouranos.

1 – 4 πάντες … ἄλ ̣ λα τε πάντα: A similar listing of Zeus-contained gods also appears in the parallel texts; see e.g. 241.5–9 F:

2 προσέφυν: For this third-person-plural form, see Odyssey 5.481 ἀλλή-λοισιν ἔφυν; Ρindar Ρythian 1.42 περίγλωσσοι τ’ ἔφυν. This verb usually indicates close/tight attachment of something that still retains its distinct nature; see Odyssey 12.433 (Odysseus holding on to the rock between Scylla and Charybdis) τῷ προσφὺς ἐχόμην. Aristotle uses it frequently of eggs and embryos attached to the womb, which seems an apt parallel; cf. Historia animalium 538a10 ἐν τῇ ὑστέρᾳ [sc. τὰ ᾠά] ἔχει καὶ προσπεφυκότα.

As noted above, similar Orphic verses spell out the meaning here, so that we can rule out “be born in addition”; cf. Hesychius π 3751 Hansen προσέφυ· προσεγένετο (for which in this sense, see LSJ s.v. 2). Orphism equates many gods and contains many stories of gods being swallowed by others, only to be reborn; that is, to regain their separate existence later. This fragment describes the time(s) when Zeus protogonos contains the others gods within himself. Cf. 243.7–10 F [Ζεύς] ἐν ᾧ τάδε πάντα κυκλεῖται … πάντα γὰρ ἐν μεγάλου Ζηνὸς τάδε σώματι κεῖται (~ 245.5 F πάντα γὰρ ἐν Ζηνὸς μεγάλῳ τάδε σώματι κεῖται), 241.2 F τῶν πάντων δέμας εἶχεν ἐνὶ γαστέρι κοίλῃ.

θεοὶ ἠδ ̣ ὲ θέαιναι: A variation of the epic formula (πάντες τε) θεοὶ πᾶσαί τε θέαιναι (Iliad 8.5, 20, 19.101, Odyssey 8.341, Ηomeric Hymn to Αpollo 311).

4 ἅ ̣ σσα τότ ’ ἦν γεγαῶτ ’: The list given at 241.5–9 F (see above) is likewise followed by ὅσσα τ’ ἔην γεγαῶτα. Τhe Orphic author may have been influenced by Ibycus, who alludes to the birth of the Moliones from a silver egg: τούς τε λευκίππους κόρους | τέκνα Μολιόνας κτάνον, | ἅλικας ἰσοκεφάλους ἑνιγυίους | ἀμφοτέρους γεγαῶτας ἐν ὠέῳ | ἀργυρέῳ (fr. 285 PMG).

The Author may introduce this line with the words [ἔτι δὲ ἐν τῶι ἐχ]ο̣μένωι, “and then in the following line,” which, if correctly restored, would indeed make for a nice fit with OP13. {246|247}

βασιλεὺς̣ πάντ̣[ων: Cf. Hesiod fr. 308.1 Μ-W αὐτὸς γὰρ πάντων βασιλεὺς; Corinna fr. 654.iii.13 PMG Δεὺς πατεὶ[ρ πάντω]ν βασιλεύς; and, most famously, Pindar fr. 169.1 Νόμος ὁ πάντων βασιλεὺς θνατῶν τε καὶ ἀθανάτων.

The first three words are (re)quoted ([λέ]γ̣ε̣ι) at col. 18.12–13. Since OP16 (on which see below) appears twice elsewhere in Orphic poetry preceded by this line, the Author’s statement (col. 17.6) that ὕστατον ἔφησεν ἔσεσθαι τοῦτον (hence the “will be” in the translation) strongly suggests that it did so here as well.

[ἀργικέραυνος]: Zeus’ epithet below, OP18, as well as three times in Homer (in the vocative), Pindar Olympian 8.3, Bacchylides 5.58 (by sure conjecture), and Cleanthes 1.32.

= 31.2 = 243.2 F.

Col. 18 begins ‵[τὴν δὲ Μοῖρα]ν φάμενος [δηλοῖ]′ τήνδ[ε γῆν] καὶ τἆλλα πάν[τ]α̣ εἶναι | ἐν τῶι ἀέρ̣ι̣ [πνε]ῦμα ἐόν. τοῦτ’ οὖν τὸ πνεῦμα Ὀρφεὺς | ὠνόμασεν Μοῖρα̣ν, which, as Μerkelbach (ZPE 1 [1967]: 24) saw, looks like a prose paraphrase of 31.5 F Ζεὺς πνοίη πάντων, comparing col. 19.1–4. Further supporting this is that Orpheus in the papyrus is cited for some of the same lines as are found in 31 F, as well as in the similar 243 F; see comm. on OP16 and OP18. Merkelbach (ibid.) completed the line with a conjecture that accounts for Mοῖρα, replicating the frequent asyndeton found in 31 and 243 F, but since Moira does not figure much in other Orphic verses, the second half cannot be as persuasive as the first. On the whole, though, Merkelbach’s line is more convincing than West’s [Ζεὺς πάντων τέλος αὐτὸς ἔχει, Ζεὺς] Μοῖρα [κραταιή].

ἀρχός: In Homer, exclusively of mortals; in Homeric Hymn to Hermes 292, Hermes is the ἀρχός of thieves; next again used of a god (Helios) by Pindar Olympian 7.71. Perhaps there is meant to be an echo here of 2 ἀρχήν, as suggested by Bernabé (2007a:104). {247|248}

Orpheus has clearly been joining several gods under the same name—Ἀφροδίτη Oὐρανία | καὶ Ζεὺς καὶ ἀφροδισιάζειν κ̣αὶ θόρνυσθαι καὶ Πειθὼ | καὶ Ἁρμονία τῶι αὐτῶι θεῶι ὄνομα κεῖται (col. 21.5–7)—but his syntax cannot be recovered and Kouremenos’ reconstructed line is best accepted only exempli gratia. This fragment number would be better served with the one word θόρνῃ (cf. col. 21.1 θόρ{ν}ηι δὲ λέγ[ων]), a hapax which the context clearly associates with other words (such as ἀφροδισιάζειν, col. 21.8) for sexual intercourse, a metaphorical sense of “jump” found elsewhere; cf. Nicander Theriaca 99 with schol. ad loc. θορνύντα· ὀχεύοντα. (Ts. [1997:19n53] tentatively suggested that θόρηι should be retained.)

As noted in the apparatus criticus, West, quite convincingly, puts together a verse from the poetic words embedded in the Author’s text. The subject is almost certainly Zeus, but in a context where one god goes under many names, I’ve left a blank in the translation.

εὐρὺ ῥέοντος: Ending the line likewise four times in Homer: Iliad 2.849, 16.288, 21.157, 186.

ἶνας … ἀργυ[ρ]οδίν̣ε̣⌞ω⌟: The Author not only sees veins within Acheloius literally (by means of allegoresis; see next lemma), he also seems to detect it in Orpheus’ words; that is, ἶνας ἀργυροδίνεω. This is shown by the Author’s unusual use of the demonstrative adjective, so that aurally τάσδ’ ἶνας ~ τὰς δίνας (col. 23.13)—unusual for him, that is; he uses the demonstrative pronoun often enough, but not the demonstrative adjective. Since the usual phrase is in the singular—cf. Iliad 21.356 ἲς ποταμοῖο, Pindar fr. 70 + *249b ἲς Ἀχελωΐου—something like this may have been in the mind of the poet as well as of the Author; cf. Kouremenos KPT 259. The adjective is used exclusively of rivers and quite often of Acheloius: Hesiod Theogony 340; Panyassis fr. 28.1 Matthews = 31.1 Bernabé; Callimachus Hymn to Demeter 13; Dionysius Periegetes 433, 1140.

Ἀχελωΐου: There are several fifth-century passages where “Acheloius” is used for water in general: Euripides Andromache 167, Bacchae 625, Hypsipyle fr. 753, fr. 365; Sophocles Athamas fr. 5; Achaeus Aithon 20 F 9 TrGF; Aristophanes Lysistrata 381 (water in a bucket, an inappropriate and hence intentionally pompous example); cf. Bond on Hypsipyle fr. 753 (p. 86). These can be regarded as simple metonymy, but as the adjective ἀργυροδίνεω shows (see below), Orpheus {248|249} is referring to Acheloius not only in his original role as river, but more specifically as the river that once seems to have had something of the same status as Oceanus. Cf. Servius on Vergil Georgics 1.8 = Orpheus F 154 Bernabé nam, sicut Orpheus docet et Aristophanes comicus et Ephorus historicus tradunt, Acheloon generaliter propter antiquitatem fluminis omnem aquam veteres vocabant; Ephorus ap. Macrobius Saturnalia 5.18.7 = FGrHist 70 F 20a τοῖς μὲν οὖν ἄλλοις ποταμοῖς οἱ πλησιόχωροι μόνοι θύουσιν, τὸν δὲ Ἀχελῷον μόνον πάντας ἀνθρώπους συμβέβηκεν τιμᾶν, οὐ τοῖς κοινοῖς ὀνόμασιν ἀντὶ τῶν ἰδίων <ὀνομάζοντες τοὺς ἄλλους ποταμούς, ἀλλὰ> τοῦ Ἀχελῴου τὴν ἰδίαν ἐπωνυμίαν ἐπὶ τὸ κοινὸν μετα-φέροντας. τὸ μὲν γὰρ ὕδωρ ὅλως, ὅπερ ἐστὶν κοινὸν ὄνομα, ἀπὸ τῆς ἰδίας ἐκείνου προσηγορίας Ἀχελῷον καλοῦμεν, τῶν δὲ ἄλλων ὀνομάτων τὰ κοινὰ πολλάκις ἀντὶ τῶν ἰδίων ὀνομάζομεν τοὺς μὲν Ἀθηναίους Ἴωνας, τοὺς δὲ Λακεδαιμονίους Πελοποννησίους ἀποκαλοῦντες. τούτου δὲ τοῦ ἀπορήματος οὐδὲν ἔχομεν αἰτιώτατον εἰπεῖν ἢ τοὺς ἐκ Δωδώνης χρησμούς· σχεδὸν γὰρ ἐν ἅπασιν αὐτοῖς προστάττειν ὁ θεὸς εἴωθεν Ἀχελῴῳ θύειν, ὥστε πολλοὶ νομίζοντες οὐ τὸν ποταμὸν τὸν διὰ τῆς Ἀκαρνανίας ῥέοντα, ἀλλὰ τὸ σύνολον ὕδωρ Ἀχελῷον ὑπὸ τοῦ χρησμοῦ καλεῖσθαι, μιμοῦνται τὰς τοῦ θεοῦ προσηγορίας. σημεῖον δὲ ὅτι πρὸς τὸ θεῖον ἀναφέροντες οὕτω λέγειν εἰώθαμεν· μάλιστα γὰρ τὸ ὕδωρ Ἀχελῷον προσαγορεύομεν ἐν τοῖς ὅρκοις καὶ ἐν ταῖς εὐχαῖς καὶ ἐν ταῖς θυσίαις, ἅπερ πάντα περὶ τοὺς θεούς. Note also schol. ad Iliad 21.195 (P.Oxy. 221 col. 9.21) Ἔφορος δ’ ἐν β´ [φησὶ] τὸ ἐν Δωδώνῃ μαντεῖον σχεδὸν ἐν ἅπασι τοῖς χρησμοῖς προστάττειν Ἀχελῴῳ θύειν, ὅθεν τοὺς Ἕλληνας πάν[τ]α̣[ς] πο̣τ̣α̣μ̣ὸν νομίζειν Ἀχελῷον; schol. ad Iliad 24.616b Erbse καὶ πᾶν ὕδωρ Ἀχελῷόν φασιν. See further Betegh 215–217. Note, however, Iliad 21.194–195, where Acheloius and Oceanus are distinguished (οὐδὲ … Ἀχελώιος … οὐδὲ … Ὠκεανός).

ἐγκ̣α̣τ̣[έλε]ξ̣’: Although the Author glosses this word (in the infinitive) as ἐ̣γ̣κ̣α̣τῶ̣[σ]α̣ι̣ (23.13), a hapax presumably meaning something like “push down in(to),” an unknown sense of ἐγκαταλέγω, it may be that Orpheus’ meaning is rather “assigned/allotted,” as in Hesychius ε 210 ἐγκεκλάρωται· ἐγκαταλέγει. The first word is found elsewhere only at Aelian Varia historia 8.1 (v.l. συγκεκ-), applied to Socrates’ daimonic voice. Moreover, the sense “assigned” for ἐγκατα-λέγειν is found nowhere else. Nonetheless, for all the tenuousness of these links, the meaning of this line may be something like “Zeus assigned the veins of Acheloius”; that is, with Acheloius = water in general—as the Author says and as D’Alessio has shown to be an early belief—“Zeus allotted each of the veins of water,” which now means that Zeus ordered the disposition of the earth’s various bodies of water (πάντες ποταμοὶ καὶ πᾶσα θάλασσα | καὶ πᾶσαι κρῆναι καὶ φρέατα μακρά, Iliad 21.196–197, introduced by ἐξ οὗ, whose reference D’Alessio shows is Acheloius, not Oceanus). {249|250}

Τhus the primary sense of ἶνας is indeed “sinews” or “veins,” not “strength,” although, as D’Alessio argues, the latter is not totally to be precluded from the semantic range of this word in poetic texts, especially given μέγα σθένος Ὠκεανοῖο (Iliad 18.607 = 21.195). Veins, though, are to be understood metaphorically as the various flowing bodies of water, all of which derive from Oceanus/Acheloius—in other words “the veins of Acheloius” is a kenning, as West saw, comparing Choerilus 2 TrGF γῆς φλέβας [sc. τοὺς ποταμούς]; cf. I. Wærn, ΓΗΣ ΟΣΤΕΑ: The Kenning in Pre-Christian Greek Poetry (Uppsala, 1951) 95–96. The image is spelled out in [Hippocrates] De Hebdomadibus c.6 1.22ff. Roscher aqua … fluminum imitatio est venae et qui in venis est sanguinis, a text dated ca. 60–30 BC by J. Mansfeld, The Pseudo-Hippocratic Tract Περὶ Ἑβδομάδων Ch. 1–11 and Greek Philosophy (Assen, 1970) 229–230. That is, the Author has taken the Homeric ἲς ποταμοῖο (Iliad 21.356), where the sense is “the river’s strength,” made it plural, and returned the metaphor to its original meaning. Note too that the Choerilus phrase is parallel only with φλέβες = ἶνες; the genitives are different. γῆς is possessive; Ἀχελῴου is the same to a certain extent (they are indeed his veins), but also and more so genitive of material; i.e. veins (consisting) of water.

Τhis sense seems preferable to that of LSJ s.v. 1 “build in,” for which they adduce Thucydides 1.93.2 πολλαί τε στῆλαι ἀπὸ σημάτων καὶ λίθοι εἰργασμένοι ἐγκατελέγησαν and (in the Suppl.) Callimachus Aetia fr. 64.7 Pf. (The Tomb of Simonides) πύργῳ δ’ ἐγκατέλεξεν ἐμὴν λίθον, where the reference (the embedding of carved stelae into other structures) is so close to Thucydides’ that one wonders whether there is an allusion here to Simonidean inscribed epigrams being used to build Themistocles’ Long Walls. See also Suda ε 77 Ἐγκατελέγησαν λίθοι: ἀντὶ τοῦ ἐγκατῳκοδομήθησαν.

Since immediately before adducing this line, the Author says the following of the moon: ὅσα δ[ὲ μ]ὴ κυκλοειδέα οὐχ οἷόν τε ἰσοµελῆ εἶναι, it seems almost certain that he found the hexametrical hapax ἰσομελῆ (though not necessarily in the accusative) in a nearby verse, which, context suggests, must apply to the moon. Merkelbach tentatively conjectured ἰσομελὴς δ’ ἄρ’ ὑπέρβαλεν ἄστρα σελήνη. For a moon with limbs, cf. Empedocles B 31, which refers to the γυῖα of the Sphere; see further Kouremenos (in KPT) ad loc., against Betegh 247–248, who prefers to take the “limbs” literally and have them refer to the horns of the moon. These do in fact figure in many lunar descriptions, but this epithet is largely meaningless, since the horns must needs always be equal. All that can differ is whether the line drawn through the points of the horn are upright or tilted; cf. Theophrastus De signis 27. {250|251}

This verse is introduced with the words δηλοῖ δὲ τόδε, which elsewhere in the papyrus assumes a poet as subject, most likely Orpheus, although in these cases the verb is fleshed out with ἐν τούτῳ/τούτοις. Kouremenos would thus seem to be justified in assuming τὸ ἔπος as subject here from the words of the Author immediately following: τοῦτο τὸ ἔπος δόξειεν ἄν τις ἄλλως ε<ἰ>ρῆσθαι.

ἥ: Selene, as the Author’s context makes clear. Elsewhere in Orphic literature, Zeus is either simply equated with Selene (Ζεὺς Ἥλιος ἠδὲ Σελήνη 31.6 F), or, in a descriptive passage on Zeus’ body reminiscent of the Metaphysical poets, the sun and the moon are his eyes, ὄμματα δ’ ἠέλιός τε καὶ ἀντιόωσα σελήνη (243.16 F). In another fragment, Selene is listed with fire, water, earth, heaven, Phanes, and night as the ἀθανάτων γεννήτορας (619 F). There is nothing so overtly theological or allegorical in this isolated line, but it could readily serve as a descriptive expansion in such a context. Cf. Hesiod Theogony 372 ἣ πάντεσσι ἐπιχθονίοισιν φαείνει.

ἐπ ’ ἀπείρονα γαῖαν: = Iliad 7.446; Odyssey 25.79, 17.386; Hesiod Theogony 187, Works and Days 487, fr. 43a.83 (same sedes); Iliad 24.342; Odyssey 1.98.

[αὐτ]ὰ̣ρ̣ [ἐ]π̣εὶ δ[ή: Twenty-eight times in Homer, and often in the Homeric Hymns.

νοῦς: The φρήν can be “turned” (of Zeus; Iliad 10.45), and can remember, learn, and experience various feelings, but, although there is no reason why the phren should not actively plan and execute, nowhere in early Greek literature does it actually do so. It is significant that the only time the nominative singular occurs in Homer (see above), it is the subject of a passive verb. The plural nominative is common in Homer, but whether steadfast or not, they do not serve in any executive role; note e.g. Iliad 1.103–104 = Odyssey 4.661 μένεος δὲ μέγα φρένες ἀμφιμέλαιναι πίμπλαντ’, 10.10 τρομέοντο δέ οἱ φρένες ἐντός. Elsewhere mental activity occurs in or in accord with one’s phren; cf. S. D. Sullivan, Psychological Activity in Homer (Ottawa, 1988) 188, “nowhere [sc. in Homer] will it be said that it is phrenes that make a choice.” The closest one finds in later literature are several passages where one’s own phren “makes” or “puts” a person in one or another state of mind; cf. Aeschylus Persians 769 φρένες γὰρ αὐτοῦ θυμὸν ᾠακοστρόφουν, Aristophanes Lysistrata 708–709. Νοte, though, Aeschylus Suppliants 598–599 ἔπος σπεῦσαί τι τῶν βούλιος φέρει φρήν; Euripides Iphigenia Among the Taurians 655 ἔτι γὰρ ἀμφίλογα δίδυμα μέμονε φρήν.

Nous, on the other hand, unlike phren, figures often in the Author’s text, sometimes suggesting that it was in an Orphic verse, most notably soon after quoting OP23: col. 26.1 μήτηρ ὁ Νο̣ῦ̣ς ἐστιν τῶν ἄλλων̣. Nous, furthermore, plays {251|252} an active role in the formation of the universe in Anaxagoras’ cosmology; cf. B 12 καὶ γνώμην γε περὶ παντὸς πᾶσαν ἴσχει καὶ ἰσχύει μέγιστον [sc. νοῦς]· καὶ ὅσα γε ψυχὴν ἔχει καὶ τὰ μείζω καὶ τὰ ἐλάσσω, πάντων νοῦς κρατεῖ. καὶ τῆς περιχωρήσιος τῆς συμπάσης νοῦς ἐκράτησεν, ὥστε περιχωρῆσαι τὴν ἀρχήν….καὶ τὰ συμμισγόμενά τε καὶ ἀποκρινόμενα καὶ διακρινόμενα πάντα ἔγνω νοῦς. καὶ ὁποῖα ἔμελλεν ἔσεσθαι καὶ ὁποῖα ἦν, ἅσσα νῦν μὴ ἔστι, καὶ ὅσα νῦν ἐστι καὶ ὁποῖα ἔσται, πάντα διεκόσμησε νοῦς, καὶ τὴν περιχώρησιν ταύτην, ἣν νῦν περὶ χωρέει τά τε ἄστρα καὶ ὁ ἥλιος καὶ ἡ σελήνη καὶ ὁ ἀὴρ καὶ ὁ αἰθὴρ οἱ ἀποκρινόμενοι; see also B 13. Note too Euripides Τrojan Women 886 Ζεὺς εἴτ’ ἀνάγκη φύσεος εἴτε νοῦς βροτῶν. This would provide yet another link between the Derveni Papyrus and Anaxagoras, and perhaps Diogenes of Apollonia as well; cf. W. Burkert, “Orpheus und die Vorsokratiker,” Antike und Abendland 14 (1968): 93–114; Janko 2002:3–4; A. Laks, Diogène d’Apollonie ² (Sankt Augustin, 2008) 269–274 (“À propos du papy-rus de Derveni”).

Normally one should not restore in violation of Naeke’s (or anybody’s) law, but this is acceptable here (whether with νοῦς with or φρήν) because in our small sample of Orphic verses in the papyrus we find 13.1 αἰδοίου|⁸, 16 Δ̣ιὸς δ’ ἐκ |⁸ (where ἐκ looks backward not forward), and 18 ἁπάντων|⁸.

µή]σατ̣[ο ἔ]ρ̣γ̣α̣: As in Iliad 10.289; Odyssey 3.261, 24.199, 24.444; Hesiod Theogony 166, 172.

As the apparatus criticus shows, this verse can be regarded only as a re-creation exempli gratia, however reasonable and attractive, and as such does not warrant much comment.

µιχθήµεναι ἐν φιλότητι: The preposition is not necessary, but cf. Iliad 2.232 μίσγεαι ἐν φιλότητι, 14.237 παραλέξομαι ἐν φιλότητι; Homeric Hymn to the Dioscuri 33.5 init. μιχθεῖσ’ ἐν φιλότητι. {252|}