No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Two New Fragments of Diogenes of Oenoanda
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 December 2013
Extract
HK = R. Heberdey and E. Kalinka, ‘Die philosophische Inschrift von Oinoanda’ in BCH xxi (1897) 346–443.
William = J. William, Diogenis Oenoandensis fragmenta (Leipzig 1907).
Chilton = C. W. Chilton, Diogenis Oenoandensis fragmenta (Leipzig 1967).
Smith A = M. F. Smith, ‘Fragments of Diogenes of Oenoanda discovered and rediscovered’ in AJA lxxiv (1970) 51–62.
Smith B = M. F. Smith, ‘New fragments of Diogenes of Oenoanda’ in AJA lxxv (1971) 357–89.
fr. = fragment of Diogenes' inscription. Numbers are those of Chilton, unless otherwise indicated.
NF = new fragment(s) of Diogenes' inscription. NF 1–4 are in Smith A; 5–16 in Smith B; 17–18 in this article.
In May 1971 I revisited the Lycian city of Oenoanda, in search of fragments of the philosophical inscription of the Epicurean Diogenes. In 1968–69–70 I had rediscovered forty-five of the fragments found in the nineteenth century, and discovered sixteen new stones bearing about 800 words of text.
My latest investigation of the site yielded just two more new fragments, the texts of which are given infra, and though it is possible that a few more blocks of the inscription may be found without excavation, I have now searched the central part of the city systematically and thoroughly, and I should be surprised if I have overlooked many fragments lying on the surface. At the same time I am confident that a proper excavation of the site would be richly rewarded.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1972
References
1 Under NF 18, ‘Position’, I have used HK's numbers, not only because reference is made there to physical features of stones illustrated by HK, but also because Chilton's numbers relate not to individual stones, but to continuous passages which are sometimes inscribed on two or more blocks.
2 I wish to record my gratitude to the University College of North Wales, Bangor, for allowing me to be absent for part of the Summer Term, 1971, and for making a generous grant towards the cost of the expedition.
3 It may be pointed out, however, that the site is frequently visited by local people with their goats, sheep, cattle and camels, and by woodmen and hunters, and it is always possible for an inscribed block to be revealed through the moving of a stone or the removal of a bush or tree.
4 I am grateful to Mr D. Madge, Senior Technician in the Faculty of Arts at Bangor, for photographing the ‘squeezes’ of NF 17 and 18.
5 See infra.
6 I have explained elsewhere (Smith B 376) how Diogenes' quotation of already known Epicurean maxims is very useful in indicating the relative positions of ethical fragments and the extent of gaps in the text.
7 See Smith B 381–2.
8 For another possible indication that NF 17 stood near the end of the section on pain, see note infra on line 15.
9 See Smith B 381, 384.
10 See Smith B 381.
11 See Smith B 381, 384.
12 Smith B 382. In the same place I was perhaps a little rash to state that ‘the maxim which begins on NF 14, whether quoted from Ep. ad Men. or not, dealt with frugality and therefore with desire’, and to say that this might be taken as suggesting that the section on desires closely followed NF 14; for the Ep. ad Men. passage deals not only with desire, but also with pain: indeed, it well illustrates a point which I made in the same section of the same article—that, for an Epicurean at any rate, discussion of pain almost inevitably involves discussion of desire, and vice versa. Since I wrote the article, Kleve, K., reviewing Chilton in Gnomon xlii (1970) 619Google Scholar, has argued that there seems to be a correspondence between the content of the maxims and that of the columns inscribed above them. But this is not invariably the case (see Smith B 382).
13 For the ‘esplanade’ and ‘great wall’, see Smith A 52, Smith B 357–8.
14 In the old age treatise, as in other sections of the inscription, the stonemasons carve the occasional letter unusually small. For the reason (or reasons) for these unusually small letters, see Smith B 361, under NF 5, col. I, 10.
15 56.
16 The statement in OCD 2 (1970) 348 that the letter ‘is now accepted as Diogenes’ own' is incorrect: cf. Chilton 79, and to his list of those who have favoured the Epicurean authorship of the letter add Brink, K. O. in OCD 1 (1949) 285Google Scholar.
17 Cf. fr. 2, col. II, 7–12, fr. 16, col. I, 3–4, fr. 50, lines 4–8.
18 This is not the place to discuss in detail the controversy as to whether the passage is, as William (xvi–xvii) supposes, an introduction to the physics treatise, or, as others assume, to the physics and ethical treatises or the entire inscription. One point, however, may be noted. This is that Philippson, R. E. (‘Diogenes von Oinoanda’ in PW Suppl. v [1931] 156Google Scholar) rejects William's theory on the ground that the fragments of the passage (HK frr. 57–9), unlike the physics fragments, are punctuated with paragraphai. But no paragraphai are visible on HK fr. 58, which bears 5 columns (one incomplete) of generally well preserved text, whereas in those parts of the inscription where paragraphai certainly occur we never find even two consecutive columns without a single paragraphe; as for HK fr. 59, which is a 3-column block, the one paragraphe recorded by HK is drawn only tentatively, and damage to the stone may have misled them; again, HK fr. 57, on which HK record three paragraphai, has much superficial damage (see my photograph in Hermathena cx [1970] 64), and HK may well have been deceived. The height of HK frr. 57–9 shows that they were in the same course as the physics treatise, and it is natural to assume that they were meant to introduce it, although Diogenes does explain in them the purpose of the whole inscription. It is improbable that they were intended to introduce the ethical treatise as well as the physics, for the ethical treatise has its own introductory passage (frr. 24–5).
19 I have not rediscovered HK frr. 2, 26.
20 See Smith B 389.
21 It is natural that the lowest stones should have stood at the top of the inscription, the tallest at the bottom; it is natural, too, that stones placed well above eye level should have been inscribed with larger letters than those placed at or near eye level.
22 For the possibility that the inscription was carved on two walls, see Smith B 366.
23 Cf. Smith B 380.