Derkullide ̄s emphasizes the regularity of planetary motion, and rejects eccentrics and
epicycles introduced, he claims, by A and the mathematicians M
and K. P (in Remp. 2.24.6–15; 25.14–26) refers twice to Derkullide ̄s
regarding the nuptial number in Rep. 546a–d.
A Prol. 4 links Derkullide ̄s with T as developing the tetralogic division
of Plato’s dialogues. Derkullide ̄s, listed first in Albinus, was usually assumed to be the older
of the two. This supposition, together with the interpretation of V LL 7.37 as a
reference to the tetralogical division, has led scholars to date Derkullide ̄s to the 1st c. BCE.
Tarrant has shown both assumptions to be questionable, meaning Theo ̄n’s work is the
terminus ante quem, as given.
H. Tarrant, Thrasyllan Platonism (1983) 11–13, 72–84; DPA 2 (1994) 747–8, J. Dillon; BNP 4 (2004)
311 – 312, M. Baltes and M.-L. Lakmann.
Jan Opsomer
Derkullos (250 BCE – 50 CE?)
Lapidary author, considered authentic by Bidez and Schlereth, but fictive by Jacoby, who
distinguishes him from the homonymous historian from Argos. P-P, how-
ever, preserves some fragments from Derkullos’ On stones 1 (De fluu. 19.4 [1162D]), from On
mountains 3 (ibid. 1.4 [1150C] and 8.4 [1155B]), from Saturika 1 (ibid. 10.3 [1156C]) and from
Aitolika 3 (ibid. 22.5 [1164C]). His name is also mentioned in pseudo-Plutarch Parall. min.
17A (Ktiseis) and 38B (Italika) and in I “L,” Mens. 3.11 (p. 21 Wu.) in relation to
the lukhnis (ragged robin).
Ph.J. Maussac, “Annotationes in Plutarchum De fluviis,” in J. Hudson, Geographiae veteris scriptores Greci
minores 2 (1703) 15; Schlereth (1931) 113; Bidez (1935) 28–29, 31; FGrHist 288; De Lazzer (2000) 63;
De Lazzer (2003) 80–81.
Eugenio Amato
Derveni papyrus (400 – 300 BCE?)
Found in 1962 at Derveni near Thessalonike ̄ in the remains of a funeral pyre, the date and
authorship of the text is debated. (The pyre itself is dated late 4th to early 3rd c. BCE.)
Suggested authors are the Epigene ̄s of DK 36B2 (cf. perhaps P, Phaido ̄n 59b),
Euthuphro ̄n of Athens, S T, and Diagoras of Me ̄los, but the text
was most probably written by an unknown Orphic priest.
In the first extant columns, the author gives a rationalizing interpretation of certain ritual
practices. In the main part of the text, he expounds his cosmological theory as a running
commentary on a poem – attributed to the mythical poet Orpheus – treating successive
divine generations. The theory shows the inf luence of H E, A-
, D A, and A A. Stoic influence, also
suggested, would however require a significantly later dating.
The author identifies the poem’s different divine beings with various cosmic functions of
a divine Mind (cf. kosmos), the physical manifestation of which is air. The cosmogonic
processes are described as the dynamic interplay between intelligent air and fire’s brute
force. In the pre-cosmic stage, fire completely mingled with the other elements, and its
excessive heat did not let independent entities form. When Mind wanted to create the
present cosmic order, it removed much fire, forming the Sun from it. As the Sun would
DERKULLOS