No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Eight New Fragments of Diogenes of Oenoanda1
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 December 2013
Extract
All but one of the previously unpublished fragments of Diogenes' inscription presented in this article were discovered at Oenoanda by members of a British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara team in the summer of 1977. The exception is NF 108, which (see under NF 108, Discovery) was recorded by an Austrian epigraphist a mere seventy-five summers earlier.
In 1977 the aims were to carry forward the topographical and epigraphical survey begun in 1974 and continued in 1975 and (in a very limited way) 1976, to study the architecture of the city, and to make plans for a major excavation of the site. The work was again carried out with the kind permission and encouragement of the Eski Eserler ve Müzeler Genel Müdürlüǧü in Ankara and with generous financial support from the British Academy, and it is a pleasure to express sincere gratitude to both bodies.
The members of the team were: Mr. A. S. Hall (Director), Mr. R. P. Harper (Assistant Director), Dr. J. J. Coulton, Dr. R. J. Ling, Dr. Lesley Ling, and three student-members of the Department of Land Surveying, North-East London Polytechnic—Messrs. David Chapman, Simon Dykes, and David Howarth. The representative of the Turkish Government, as in 1974 and 1976, was Bay Osman Özbek.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The British Institute at Ankara 1979
References
2 For reports of the survey, see Hall, A. S., “The Oenoanda Survey: 1974–76”, AS XXVI (1976) 191–197Google Scholar, and “Results of a Survey at Oenoanda, North Lycia, 1974–77”, TAD (forthcoming). Hall gives a brief account of the 1977 season in the Twenty-Ninth Annual Report of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara (1977) 11–12.
3 I am grateful to Mr. Douglas Madge, photographic technician in the Faculty of Arts at Bangor, for photographing the squeezes.
4 I must also thank Mr. Harper for supplying three photographs.
5 This figure includes not only words which are completely preserved, but also words which are partly preserved and whose identity seems certain. I have not included maxims quoted in the fifteenth line of the ethical treatise, many of these being Κύριαι Δόξαι of Epicurus already known from Diogenes Laertius.
6 This figure includes NF 108.
7 NF 107–114 contain about 130 words.
8 We have probably recovered between a fifth and a quarter of Diogenes' two main treatises, the Physics and Ethics. See Smith L.
9 Cf. HK 375 on HK fr. 30: “gefunden unter Trümmern am S West Ende eines viereckigen Säulenhofes S von der grossen Mauer”. Their descriptions of the location of the other two fragments are less precise: of HK fr. 50 they say “gefunden unter Trümmern an der Südmauer eines viereckigen Säulenhofes S. der grossen Mauer”, and of HK fr. 10 “gefunden in den Trümmern eines viereckigen Säulenhofes S der grossen Mauer”.
10 Dr. C. W. Chilton, as well, as Mr. Hall, kindly gave me a photograph of NF 107. (Dr. Chilton visited Oenoanda during the 1977 season.)
11 For the identification of Dionysius as one of the addressees of the second letter, see Smith L on NF 58.
12 See also NF 58, where Dionysius is addressed.
13 Phld., Rhet. I 89–90 SudhausGoogle Scholar.
14 I have discussed Diogenes' date in a paper “Oenoanda and its Philosophical Inscription” read at l'Institut français d'études anatoliennes, İstanbul, in October 1977 and unpublished at the time of writing. Diogenes probably set up his inscription under Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, or Marcus Aurelius.
15 The Letter to Pythocles may not be the work of Epicurus himself, but see Bailey, C., Epicurus: The Extant Remains (Oxford, 1926) 275Google Scholar.
16 On the common Epicurean practice of addressing individuals, see Smith, M. F., Lucretius, De Rerum Natura (London and Cambridge, Mass., 1975) xliiGoogle Scholar.
17 A. Barigazzi, who has re-edited NF 18 in Prometheus III (1977) 110–111Google Scholar, believes that it immediately preceded fr. 49.
18 Fr. 2.II.7–12, 16.I.3–4, 55.I.
19 Fr. 50.4–11, 51.I.10–II.4, NF 23.II.
20 Plut., Mor. 1090eGoogle Scholar, NF 7. For NF 7 see Clay, D. in GRBS XIV (1973) 49–59Google Scholar, Barigazzi, A. in Prometheus I (1975) 99–116Google Scholar, A. Laks and C. Millot in Bollack-Laks 322–326, Grilli, A. in Rivista Critica di Storia della Filosofia I (1978) 117–119Google Scholar.
21 On the French work at Oenoanda, see Smith J.
22 I had written to the Kleinasiatische Kommission after noticing that Hall 191 n. 7 referred to an Austrian expedition in 1902. Hall had the advantage of possessing duplicates of the Vienna schedae relating to Oenoanda, which Professor G. E. Bean had lent to him.
23 I wish to record my gratitude to Professor Dr. Fritz Schachermeyr, Director of the Kleinasiatische Kommission; to Dr. Maresch and Dr. Georg Rehrenböck for locating the inscriptions and dealing with my inquiries; and to Professor Terence B. Mitford for kindly examining the relevant Skizzenbuch when he was in Vienna early in 1978 and for sending me information about its contents. It is sad to have to add that Professor Mitford, whose constant encouragement and warm friendship have been of great help to me in connexion with my work on Diogenes' inscription, died on 8 November, 1978.
24 According to HK, both HK fr. 39, a fragment of the Letter to Antipater, and HK fr. 75, an ethical fragment, are 56 cm. high, but my measurements for these two fragments are 58 cm. and 61 cm. respectively.
25 HK fr. 29 has nine lines, HK fr. 27 and NF 82 ten, HK fr. 28, NF 45 and 81 eleven. No maxim-bearing stone carries more than one column: it is just possible that letter-traces are visible near the left edge of NF 45 (see Smith H 304), but these are probably illusory.
26 It will be noticed that the average height of the letters of NF 109 is slightly less than usual.
27 The wide variation in the height of the lower margin is only partly accounted for by the variation in the number of lines, for the three 11-line fragments have lower margins of widely varying heights: 4·5–5 cm. (HK fr. 28), 8 cm. (NF 45—a fragment which also has a line empty between lines 7 and 8), and 10 cm. (NF 81). HK fr. 30, a maxim-bearing fragment which is broken above, has a lower margin about 4·5 cm. high, and it is reasonable to assume that it carried at least 11 lines (see below, under HK fr. 30).
28 Smith F 48.
29 See Smith F 31.
30 For a diagram illustrating the likely arrangement of the inscription, see Smith L fig. 1.
31 “Diogenes of Oenoanda, New Fragment 24”, AJP XCIX (1978) 329–331Google Scholar.
32 The Letter to Dionysius and a writing which I have called the Ethical Supplement. On the latter, see Smith L.
33 Barigazzi, A., “Sui nuovi frammenti di Diogene di Enoanda”, Prometheus III (1977) 2, 4Google Scholar suggests προσ/ομοι ‹οῦ› ται—an unnecessary alteration of a certain reading which gives excellent sense.
34 Epic, studied, probably after 322 B.C. (see Smith F 33–34 and n. 74), under the Democritean philosopher Nausiphanes of Teos.
35 Cf. Lucr. 4.733–734, Cic., DND 1.38.106Google Scholar.
36 The other group-A fragments are HK fr. 6, 7, 9, NF 48, 49, 93, 113.
37 Epic., Sent. 33Google Scholar. Cf. Sent. 31, 32, 35.
38 The existence of the frieze and the space above shows that Diogenes, despite the vast extent of his inscription, had more wall-space than he needed. However, the precise significance of the scoring is not certain. Hitherto it seems to have been assumed that the scoring itself was intended as a decorative border, marking off the text of the writings above it from the writings below. This is possible, but the scoring is very rough and irregular and one imagines that it would not have looked very neat and attractive. One wonders, therefore, if the scoring was not done rather in preparation for the application of a stucco moulding.
39 Cf. Chilton, C. W., “An Epicurean View of Protagoras: a Note on Diogenes of Oenoanda Fragment XII (W)”, Phronesis VII (1962) 106Google Scholar; Guthrie, W. K. C., A History of Greek Philosophy III (Cambridge, 1969) 234Google Scholar.
40 See HK 393, William 19–20, Grilli A 382, Grilli B 50–51, Chilton A 24, Chilton B 56–57. Also the following articles: Grilli, A., “Osservazioni al testo di Diogene da Enoanda”, La Parola del Passato XV (1960) 141–143Google Scholar; Chilton, C. W. in Phronesis VII (1962) 105–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar (title of article given in preceding note); Grilli, A., “Problemi del testo di Diogene d'Enoanda”, Paideia XXVI (1971) 175–177Google Scholar; Caizzi, F. D., “La tradizione protagorea ed un frammento di Diogene di Enoanda”, Riv. Fil. CIV (1976) 435–442Google Scholar.
41 I am again indebted to Dr. Chilton for giving me a photograph of the stone itself.
42 It should be noted that there is a break in the series of YF numbers (163–169, 171–173): because of an error in identifying one stone as a Diogenes fragment, the number 170 was not allocated during the 1977 season.