| Title | Exegesis in the Derveni Papyrus |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2004 |
| Published in | Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1 |
| Pages | 37-50 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Betegh, Gábor |
| Editor(s) | Adamson, Peter , Baltussen, Han , Stone, Martin W. F. |
| Translator(s) |
| The text of the Derveni papyrus has often been labeled ‘a commentary’, or a hypomnema and its unidentified author has habitually been called ‘the Derveni commentator.’ The roll, which was found among the remains of the funeral pyre of a Macedonian tomb, has been dated to the last third of the fourth century BC on the basis of the archeological evidence. Moreover, there is an overriding consensus among scholars that the text was composed sometime around the end of the Presocratic period.1 Given this early dating of the text, it appears to be most significant for our knowledge of the early, pre-Hellenistic phase of the commentary tradition. Indeed, if both the dating and the above characterization is correct, the Derveni text is probably the earliest surviving specimen of this genre, and certainly the earliest document providing first-hand evidence of sufficient length for direct textual analysis.Alas, things with the Derveni papyrus are never so clear-cut. Most importantly, it is not entirely evident whether it is legitimate to call the whole text a ‘commentary’ at all, and, if so, with what qualifications. This is the basic question that I shall try to examine in this paper. I shall tackle the issue by breaking it down into two, more or less independent, sets of problems. The first of the two is largely formal and relatively simple. It amounts to asking whether or not the Derveni text, or more precisely what has survived of it, conforms with certain formal and structural features that we normally expect from a commentary. The second set of problems is considerably more complex. To put it bluntly, I shall ask why the Derveni author set out in the first place to interpret the object of his exegesis. This question thus pertains to both the author’s cognitive and pragmatic attitude towards the object of his interpretative enterprise, and, closely related to these, to the specific cultural and sociological context in which the author pursues his exegesis. It is also in this second part that I shall try to present a sympathetic rendering of the so-called ‘allegorical’ method of the Derveni author. [Introduction, p. 37] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/GJjS0gyR2rIo9Cj |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1007","_score":null,"_ignored":["booksection.book.abstract.keyword"],"_source":{"id":1007,"authors_free":[{"id":1516,"entry_id":1007,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":398,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Betegh, G\u00e1bor","free_first_name":"G\u00e1bor","free_last_name":"Betegh","norm_person":{"id":398,"first_name":"G\u00e1bor","last_name":"Betegh","full_name":"Betegh, G\u00e1bor","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140805044","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2329,"entry_id":1007,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":98,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Adamson, Peter","free_first_name":"Peter","free_last_name":"Adamson","norm_person":{"id":98,"first_name":"Peter","last_name":"Adamson","full_name":"Adamson, Peter","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139896104","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2330,"entry_id":1007,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2331,"entry_id":1007,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":111,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","free_first_name":"Martin W. F.","free_last_name":"Stone","norm_person":{"id":111,"first_name":"Martin W. F.","last_name":"Stone","full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132001543","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Exegesis in the Derveni Papyrus","main_title":{"title":"Exegesis in the Derveni Papyrus"},"abstract":"The text of the Derveni papyrus has often been labeled \u2018a commentary\u2019, or a hypomnema \r\nand its unidentified author has habitually been called \u2018the Derveni commentator.\u2019 The roll, \r\nwhich was found among the remains of the funeral pyre of a Macedonian tomb, has been \r\ndated to the last third of the fourth century BC on the basis of the archeological evidence. \r\nMoreover, there is an overriding consensus among scholars that the text was composed \r\nsometime around the end of the Presocratic period.1 Given this early dating of the text, it \r\nappears to be most significant for our knowledge of the early, pre-Hellenistic phase of the \r\ncommentary tradition. Indeed, if both the dating and the above characterization is correct, \r\nthe Derveni text is probably the earliest surviving specimen of this genre, and certainly the \r\nearliest document providing first-hand evidence of sufficient length for direct textual \r\nanalysis.Alas, things with the Derveni papyrus are never so clear-cut. Most importantly, it is not \r\nentirely evident whether it is legitimate to call the whole text a \u2018commentary\u2019 at all, and, if \r\nso, with what qualifications. This is the basic question that I shall try to examine in this \r\npaper. I shall tackle the issue by breaking it down into two, more or less independent, sets \r\nof problems. The first of the two is largely formal and relatively simple. It amounts to \r\nasking whether or not the Derveni text, or more precisely what has survived of it, \r\nconforms with certain formal and structural features that we normally expect from a \r\ncommentary. The second set of problems is considerably more complex. To put it bluntly, \r\nI shall ask why the Derveni author set out in the first place to interpret the object of his \r\nexegesis. This question thus pertains to both the author\u2019s cognitive and pragmatic attitude \r\ntowards the object of his interpretative enterprise, and, closely related to these, to the \r\nspecific cultural and sociological context in which the author pursues his exegesis. It is \r\nalso in this second part that I shall try to present a sympathetic rendering of the so-called \r\n\u2018allegorical\u2019 method of the Derveni author. [Introduction, p. 37]","btype":2,"date":"2004","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/GJjS0gyR2rIo9Cj","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":398,"full_name":"Betegh, G\u00e1bor","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":98,"full_name":"Adamson, Peter","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":111,"full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1007,"section_of":233,"pages":"37-50","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":233,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Adamson\/Baltussen\/Stone2004","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2004","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2004","abstract":"This two volume Supplement to the Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies represents the proceedings of a conference held at the Institute on 27-29 June, 2002 in honour of Richard Sorabji. These volumes, which are intended to build on the massive achievement of Professor Sorabji\u2019s Ancient Commentators on Aristotle series, focus on the commentary as a vehicle of philosophical and scientific thought. Volume One deals with the Greek tradition, including one paper on Byzantine philosophy and one on the Latin author Calcidius, who is very close to the late Greek tradition in outlook. The volume begins with an overview of the tradition of commenting on Aristotle and of the study of this tradition in the modern era. It concludes with an up-to-date bibliography of scholarship devoted to the commentators.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/AV77iy4WOXfGTHR","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":233,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies","series":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies (BICS)","volume":"Supplement 83.1","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":{"id":1007,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin Commentaries","volume":"38","issue":"1","pages":"37-50"}},"sort":[2004]}
| Title | Exegesis in the Derveni Papyrus |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2004 |
| Published in | Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1 |
| Pages | 37-50 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Betegh, Gábor |
| Editor(s) | Adamson, Peter , Baltussen, Han , Stone, Martin W. F. |
| Translator(s) |
The text of the Derveni papyrus has often been labeled ‘a commentary’, or a hypomnema and its unidentified author has habitually been called ‘the Derveni commentator.’ The roll, which was found among the remains of the funeral pyre of a Macedonian tomb, has been dated to the last third of the fourth century BC on the basis of the archeological evidence. Moreover, there is an overriding consensus among scholars that the text was composed sometime around the end of the Presocratic period.1 Given this early dating of the text, it appears to be most significant for our knowledge of the early, pre-Hellenistic phase of the commentary tradition. Indeed, if both the dating and the above characterization is correct, the Derveni text is probably the earliest surviving specimen of this genre, and certainly the earliest document providing first-hand evidence of sufficient length for direct textual analysis.Alas, things with the Derveni papyrus are never so clear-cut. Most importantly, it is not entirely evident whether it is legitimate to call the whole text a ‘commentary’ at all, and, if so, with what qualifications. This is the basic question that I shall try to examine in this paper. I shall tackle the issue by breaking it down into two, more or less independent, sets of problems. The first of the two is largely formal and relatively simple. It amounts to asking whether or not the Derveni text, or more precisely what has survived of it, conforms with certain formal and structural features that we normally expect from a commentary. The second set of problems is considerably more complex. To put it bluntly, I shall ask why the Derveni author set out in the first place to interpret the object of his exegesis. This question thus pertains to both the author’s cognitive and pragmatic attitude towards the object of his interpretative enterprise, and, closely related to these, to the specific cultural and sociological context in which the author pursues his exegesis. It is also in this second part that I shall try to present a sympathetic rendering of the so-called ‘allegorical’ method of the Derveni author. [Introduction, p. 37] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/GJjS0gyR2rIo9Cj |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1007","_score":null,"_ignored":["booksection.book.abstract.keyword"],"_source":{"id":1007,"authors_free":[{"id":1516,"entry_id":1007,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":398,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Betegh, G\u00e1bor","free_first_name":"G\u00e1bor","free_last_name":"Betegh","norm_person":{"id":398,"first_name":"G\u00e1bor","last_name":"Betegh","full_name":"Betegh, G\u00e1bor","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140805044","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2329,"entry_id":1007,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":98,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Adamson, Peter","free_first_name":"Peter","free_last_name":"Adamson","norm_person":{"id":98,"first_name":"Peter","last_name":"Adamson","full_name":"Adamson, Peter","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139896104","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2330,"entry_id":1007,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2331,"entry_id":1007,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":111,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","free_first_name":"Martin W. F.","free_last_name":"Stone","norm_person":{"id":111,"first_name":"Martin W. F.","last_name":"Stone","full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132001543","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Exegesis in the Derveni Papyrus","main_title":{"title":"Exegesis in the Derveni Papyrus"},"abstract":"The text of the Derveni papyrus has often been labeled \u2018a commentary\u2019, or a hypomnema \r\nand its unidentified author has habitually been called \u2018the Derveni commentator.\u2019 The roll, \r\nwhich was found among the remains of the funeral pyre of a Macedonian tomb, has been \r\ndated to the last third of the fourth century BC on the basis of the archeological evidence. \r\nMoreover, there is an overriding consensus among scholars that the text was composed \r\nsometime around the end of the Presocratic period.1 Given this early dating of the text, it \r\nappears to be most significant for our knowledge of the early, pre-Hellenistic phase of the \r\ncommentary tradition. Indeed, if both the dating and the above characterization is correct, \r\nthe Derveni text is probably the earliest surviving specimen of this genre, and certainly the \r\nearliest document providing first-hand evidence of sufficient length for direct textual \r\nanalysis.Alas, things with the Derveni papyrus are never so clear-cut. Most importantly, it is not \r\nentirely evident whether it is legitimate to call the whole text a \u2018commentary\u2019 at all, and, if \r\nso, with what qualifications. This is the basic question that I shall try to examine in this \r\npaper. I shall tackle the issue by breaking it down into two, more or less independent, sets \r\nof problems. The first of the two is largely formal and relatively simple. It amounts to \r\nasking whether or not the Derveni text, or more precisely what has survived of it, \r\nconforms with certain formal and structural features that we normally expect from a \r\ncommentary. The second set of problems is considerably more complex. To put it bluntly, \r\nI shall ask why the Derveni author set out in the first place to interpret the object of his \r\nexegesis. This question thus pertains to both the author\u2019s cognitive and pragmatic attitude \r\ntowards the object of his interpretative enterprise, and, closely related to these, to the \r\nspecific cultural and sociological context in which the author pursues his exegesis. It is \r\nalso in this second part that I shall try to present a sympathetic rendering of the so-called \r\n\u2018allegorical\u2019 method of the Derveni author. [Introduction, p. 37]","btype":2,"date":"2004","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/GJjS0gyR2rIo9Cj","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":398,"full_name":"Betegh, G\u00e1bor","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":98,"full_name":"Adamson, Peter","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":111,"full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1007,"section_of":233,"pages":"37-50","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":233,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Adamson\/Baltussen\/Stone2004","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2004","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2004","abstract":"This two volume Supplement to the Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies represents the proceedings of a conference held at the Institute on 27-29 June, 2002 in honour of Richard Sorabji. These volumes, which are intended to build on the massive achievement of Professor Sorabji\u2019s Ancient Commentators on Aristotle series, focus on the commentary as a vehicle of philosophical and scientific thought. Volume One deals with the Greek tradition, including one paper on Byzantine philosophy and one on the Latin author Calcidius, who is very close to the late Greek tradition in outlook. The volume begins with an overview of the tradition of commenting on Aristotle and of the study of this tradition in the modern era. It concludes with an up-to-date bibliography of scholarship devoted to the commentators.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/AV77iy4WOXfGTHR","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":233,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies","series":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies (BICS)","volume":"Supplement 83.1","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":{"id":1007,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin Commentaries","volume":"38","issue":"1","pages":"37-50"}},"sort":["Exegesis in the Derveni Papyrus"]}