Having taken a stance on the structure, plot, and interpretation of the poem commented on in the Derveni papyrus, let us now turn to the views of the Derveni author. Certainly the reconstruction of the Derveni author's own theory is not any easier than the reconstruction of the poem, but it is perhaps not impossible, and undoubtedly worth trying.

Apart from the lacunose nature of the papyrus, what makes the reconstruction so difficult is that the Derveni author does not explain his theory in a linear way, but distributes the elements of it in his exegetical remarks. In other words, the exposition is not governed by the internal logic of the theory, but we learn it piecemeal, always as the Derveni author finds some part of his own doctrine explanatory of the verses under consideration. This means that we are obliged to hop forward and backward in the text in our efforts to reassemble the disiecta membra of the Derveni author's own views on the cosmos and on the works of the cosmic divinity.

Moreover, as long as the Derveni author remains unidentified – and I have to say in advance that I do not find any of the existing hypotheses concerning the identification of the author convincing, nor can I propose anything better – the text will continue to be in a frustrating interpretative vacuum, where no immediate external help can be expected. Even if we can often doubt the fidelity and exactness of the evidence provided by later doxographers, the set of doxographical reports – the ‘A fragments’ – always offers a convenient starting-point for the interpretation and discussion of the Presocratic philosophers.