Saturday, June 29, 2013

The Builder of the Stoas?

While recently reading Stephen Mitchell's piece "Festivals, Games, and Civic Life in Roman Asia Minor" in the Stephen Mitchell, The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 80, (1990), pp. 183-193, we stumbled upon a translation by Michael Wörrle of the great inscription commissioned by Demosthenes of Oenoanda detailing his establishment of games in Oenoanda.

While the whole inscription and Mitchell's comments on it are fascinating, the thing that really caught our eye was in the second section of the inscription where Demosthenes, a wealthy citizen, details his donations in the past to the city. The second section begins:

"II When Claudius Capito Rubrianus was high priest of the emperors on 24 Artemisios (25 July), I C Iulius Demosthenes, son of Apollonius, of the Fabian tribe, prytanis and secretary of the council of the Oenoandians, as I have loved my dearest homeland since earliest youth, and have not only maintained, but thoroughly surpassed the generosity of my ancestors towards it, in the annual subsidies which I made to ensure fair prices in the market and providing a boundless supply of {...} to the magistrates, and as I have constructed a food market with three stoas facing it, two with one and one with two storeys, and have spent more than 15000 denarii on this and the purchase of the houses which were removed to make way for this building, and as I wish.....[it goes on to talk of the funding of the games]". 

This passage is interesting to us for its relating of the construction of this food market. As we have noted elsewhere, there was speculation as to the function of the so-called Esplanade, with speculation that it was more accurately an Upper Agora. What exactly does Demosthenes mean here? He constructed this market comprised with three stoas (the market being the whole complex) or he constructed a market in the midst of three existing stoas? To us it sounds like he constructed the three stoas and thus created a whole ensemble in which the food market functioned. Having read the extant research on the Upper and Lower Agoras, it sounds more like the Upper Agora he is speaking off for the Lower Agora does not appear to be surrounded by three stoas but rather by one stoa and a mix of other buildings.  


Another Map of Lycia

Fragment 40

This very badly damaged piece was found on the north side of the dividing wall. It had not been documented before Kalinka wrote it up.

5    ……
     υ πρω

     τι]νές των φιλο[σο'φων
     κα'ι μάλιστα οί π[ερί Σω
     κράτη ν, τό δ[έ φυσιο-
     λογειν [κ]α\ [τα μετε'ω-
5    ρα πολυπραγμ[ονεΐν
      περιττόν φ[ασιν είναι
      και [ου-
     δ' άξιουσιν τ[ών τοιού-
     των έπ[ιμελεΐσθαι
 10  τι

The source here is Ernst Kalinka and Rudolf Heberdey, L'inscription philosophique d'Oenoanda in the Bulletin de correspondance hellénique. Volume 21, 1897. pp. 379.

Fragment 39

This fragment (not found by Usener or Cousin) is particularly badly damaged.

    χαταγε[λώ] και εΐδ[ία τους
    παραδεδθ[χέ[νο]υς [η]μ.εΐν
    Οπό σου λόγους των [φα]σ-
     κ]ο'ντων τους .ησ... και
5   ολ]ον τόν κό[σ]μο[ν] άναι-
     ......ρούντων ν]έων. . . .ολι
     ..................ησθαι μ[έν] της
     ..................ταύτ[η]ς καί εις
10 ...........................ον λο'γον
     ................M [A] iS ουν
     όπως μη [α]λ[δ]οι δμοϋ μο'-
     νος τήν γην................... ναι

The source here is Ernst Kalinka and Rudolf Heberdey, L'inscription philosophique d'Oenoanda in the Bulletin de correspondance hellénique. Volume 21, 1897. pp. 379. 

Sunday, April 28, 2013

The Destruction of the Inscription - Motivations?

I am tempted to refer to the Inscription as one of the wonders of the late antique world but clearly from the lack of reference to it by anyone in the ancient world, it was not exactly a "must see" on the path of ancient world globetrottersStill it seems a prodigious work looking back over the intervening millennia. We have no records of any other inscription in stone that was so voluminous. As a work in stone, non-scupltural, the only other major work we can think of is the enormous map of ancient Rome (the Forma Urbis) which adorned the walls of the Temple of Peace in Rome.   

So if Diogenes' inscription was scarcely a tourist draw then seemingly the Oinoandans must have become blasé about this enormous diatribe that they passed on a daily basis as they scurried about doing their shopping and other business in the "upper" agora. We all know the sensation of the "same old, same old".

We don't really know how the ancients felt about the works of art that were around them. Certainly the inscription would have been familiar, something that had always been there, and as we know familiarity breeds contempt.

So at some stage the contempt or disinterest reached a point at which the inscription did not have enough advocates to resist its destruction. Whether this destruction was an expedient to gain building materials after the town had retreated to the other side of the Great Wall or whether a religiously inspired claque decided to expunge a competing "lifestyle option" from public view is unknown and may never be known. What is clear is that it was not demolished solely to build the wall (if that indeed was the reason) for while some pieces were embedded in the wall the vast bulk ended up scattered over a very wide area. In fact their distribution looks more like the debris field from an explosion rather than a focussed reusing of spolia.  

It may very well be that the stoa with the inscription was looked at for its building material value more than anything else. However, it merits looking at the views of the early Christians towards Epicurianism to see whether there was something in the inscription that caused it to be dismembered so completely. 

While Epicurianism had its scientific elements which did not clash with Christianity (which at an early date did not come freighted with dedicated flat-earthism) it had enough in ideas of ethics and views on the afterlife (or lack thereof) which made it potentially an annoyance to the burgeoning Christianity of Constantinian times. The history of disputations is long with Christians on the State-sanctioned high ground. The target was the specifically Epicurean denial of divine providence and after-life and affirmation of pleasure as the supreme good and of materialistic atomism.  

The main website on Epicurianism gives a comprehensive survey of attacks by the Early Fathers and their literary camp followers. We shall not reiterate all this except to quote: "By the mid-2nd century A.D., the Christian movement had become secure enough so that it could aspire to win converts from more educated circles. Certain church leaders began to seriously engage themselves intellectually against Greek philosophy, often in the form of written apologias against “pagans” and rival Christians. These works routinely included attacks on Epicureanism, as shown by Tatian's Address to the Greeks, Justin the Martyr's Hortatory Address to the Greeks and On the Resurrection, and Irenaeus of Lyon's Against the Heretics.

Two significant anti-Epicurean themes emerged in these early apologias: first, Justin and Tatian mocked Greek philosophers as being hopelessly disputatious with one another, taking their disagreements as evidence that human intellect could not arrive at definite conclusions about reality (a somewhat ironic charge in view of the emerging factionalism of the Christians themselves)".

Tertullian then moved in for the attack and several decades later, Origen wrote Contra Celsum in reply to Celsus (who had Epicurian leanings), and Lactantius included lengthy arguments specifically against Epicureanism in The Divine Institutes. With Lactantius it became manifest that Christians were no longer content to argue for their position on the grounds of faith alone, but were beginning to embrace Platonic arguments in favor of divine providence, accusing Epicurus of falsehood in not recognizing the role of divine intelligence in ordering the cosmos; and also Platonist criticisms of Epicurus's ethics. 

With this mood in general circulation (and official favour) it would have been fairly easy to have declared the Inscription as anathema for either philosophical or building material needs and do the deed of destroying the work of Diogenes. 

The Hellenistic Agora - Excavation and Identification

The Esplanade is the misnomer that has long been applied to the older of the two agoras in Oenoanda. The older, Hellenistic, agora lies more to the north than the smaller Roman agora. It also lies outside the so-called Great Wall. It is surmised by many that the stoa in which Diogenes set up his great inscription was located here.

Little work has been done on the older agora. Part of the problem is the various stones that have been put in the road of excavation work over the years by the Turkish authorities. Another problem is "where does one start" with such an extensive site and so limited opportunities. Most efforts in recent decades have been directed towards locating pieces of the inscription and recording and preserving them that the context of the city in which they were first displayed has had to take second place.

In 2007, the German Archaeological Institute team got approval to work on the area. They then returned in 2008 and the report of that year's efforts are hereThe main task was mapping and investigation of the site of the north stoa with a priority being the measurement and documentation of the four remaining entablature fragments.

The laserscan (covering around 25,000m2) of the zone is shown below:

As can be seen the open central area of the agora is trapezoidal with a north stoa, a south stoa and a wall running along the west side. The investigators also focussed on a Byzantine church some 200 metres southwest of the agora where it appeared many elements of the north stoa had been reused, in particular doric columns of which many pieces were to be found. 

The photo below shows a vista of the ruins of the north stoa:

As can be noted excavation has been minimal and the ongoing problem of the vegetation on the site obstructs progress. Its not that it is dense vegetation but rather than it is all over the site and in many cases damages what is left of the ruins and hinders getting a cogent view of how things were arranged in ancient days. 

In the 2009 season, the team returned and focused on identifying the form and function of the structures surrounding the space. The structural record comprises the Doric Pseudoperipteral building (MK2) in the north-west corner and, proceeding clockwise from it, the North Stoa, which was severely disturbed by later installations; the public building in the north-east corner corresponding to the Doric building; the smaller-roomed building at the eastern point of entry to the Esplanade; the late classical Portico with its architectural remains, extending across the entire southern flank of the central space; and finally the massive defensive wall blocking off the Esplanade from the southern part of the city. Also included in the structural record was the adjacent area beyond the barrier wall with large areas of collapse debris and with the east wall of the Antonine baths (which were documented originally by J. J. Coulton). His map of the Esplanade is shown below. The baths are marked MK1. This map was published in Oinoanda: The Doric Building (Mk 2) in Anatolian Studies, Vol. 32 (1982), pp. 45-59 and was prepared nearly thirty years earlier though. 

Coulton's take on the Esplanade is that: "A stadium here has been suggested, but there is no positive evidence to support such an identification. The length is indeed inadequate, for no running track is likely to have started further west than the sets of status bases at the west end of the Esplanade, and although the buildings blocking the east end after about 85 m. are in their present state late, the level terrace first narrows and then ends not far beyond them; the available space for a running track can not have been more than about 120 metres, as opposed to 177.6 metres for 600 Roman feet of 0.296 metres. If the agonistic inscriptions are to be taken as significant of the function of the Esplanade, it may rather be identified as a gymnasium. That would be a suitable location for the Epicurean inscription of Diogenes which was probably set up somewhere in the area, and would also account for the siting of the two bath buildings to the west and south-west".

Back to the Germans, who in the 2011 season, reported that an important contribution was made by numerous architectural members that were found in the debris of collapsed masonry on the south-east slope of the so-called Martin’s Hill. Specifically they were pieces of a Doric entablature which could possibly have originated in the upper storey of the North Stoa of the Esplanade, after which, having been reused in another structure, they ended up in the place where they were found. A number of architectural members from a diminutive but elaborate Ionic edifice – also of limestone and mixed up with the Doric members among the aforementioned debris – may for their part have belonged to a heroon that could have crowned the plateau-like rock outcrop on Martin’s Hill, forming a highly prominent feature in the urban landscape.

Clearly now the task required is some site clearance on a large scale. Technology alone will not suffice for the lack of earth-moving on the site.  

Wednesday, March 6, 2013

Scripta Privata

Some authors, notably Martin Ferguson Smith (MFS), use the nomenclature scripta privata to group together a miscellaneous collection of pieces of text that appear to come from works that were not part of the main treatises or the maxims (or the Letter to Antipater). This nomenclature was created by William in his pioneering work: Fragmenta. Ordinavit et Explicavit Iohannes William; Johannes, William, Teubner 1907 ISBN 10: 1173108513.

Writing in 1972, MFS  states that, "The scripta privata comprise HK fr. 3 (=Chilton fr. 49), HK fr. 2 (=Chilton fr. 50), HKfr. 26 (=Chilton fr. 51), HKfrr. 21-4 (=Chilton frr. 52-3),' and NF 3". To this group he also wanted to add NF18, which was one of the subjects of his piece at that time.

These scripta privata were an odd assortment and include works such as Letter to Mother (a work attributed to Epicurus, rather than Diogenes), Letter to (a) Friend(s) (termed  epistula ad amicos data by William) and a will written by Diogenes. 

MFF claims that HK frr. 21-4 and almost certainly NF 3 belong to the Letter to Mother.

HK fr. 26 is the closing passage of
epistula ad amicos data. Diogenes addresses a friend, a certain Menneas, and mentions how well he was looked after by Karos and Dionysios on previous visits to Rhodes. MFF feels that he is addressing more than one friend though. He claims that it is possible, therefore, that NF I8 belongs to the same letter.

Another possibility for NF18, MFS claims, is that like HK fr. 2 It is part of Diogenes' will. At the beginning of the will, in which he announces that he is giving instructions. The actual instructions are not given in the extant passage, but presumably related to the setting up of the inscription in the event of the sick and aged Diogenes dying before it was completed. And therefore NF18 might be part of these instructions. 

Finally MFS turns around and states that, "However, it is much more probable that NF 18 belongs to the same writing as HK fr. 3, a short introductory fragment in which Diogenes mentions philanthropy towards foreigners, and refers to the demonstrations of physical and ethical matters which he has given 'in the places below'. 

At this point in 1972, the great flood of new pieces was yet to be found. Therefore I shall return at future postings to address extra pieces of these scripta privata that came to life and started to coalesce into a more cohesive whole. 

Saturday, February 16, 2013

Fragments 66 & 67

Fragments 66 & 67 (numbered 22 A & B by Cousin and 33 by Usener) are particularly interesting because they include two of the "maxims" across the bottom of the main text. 

Column 1
της ούσης κακόνου κ[αί
εκείνης, εγώ δε περί μ[έν
της αφροσύνης μετά μακ
ρόν ε'ρώ, περί δε των ά-
5          ρετών και της ηδονής
ηδη. εί μεν, ώ άνδρ[ε]ς,
το μεταζύ τούτων τε και
ημών προβεβλημένον
επίσκεψιν ειχεν, τί της
10        ευδαιμονίας ποιητικον,
έβούλοντο δ' ούτοι τας άρε-
τας λέγειν, δ δη και άλη-
θες έτύνχανεν, ούδεν
αλλ' έδει ποιεΐν, η τούτοις

συνο]μογνωμονουν -
τα μη] εχειν πράγματ
αε.π]ε ί δ,'ώς λέγω, το πρό-
β[λημ]α οΰ τοΰτο έστιν,
5          τ[ί τή]ς ευδαιμονίας ποι-
ητ[ι]κόν, τί δε το ευδαι-
μον[ε]ϊν έστιν, και ου κα
τά το [ε]σχατον ή φύσις
ημώ[ν ό]ρέγετα[ι, τ]ην
1 0       μεν [ή^δονην [όμουμα]ι και
νΰ[ν κ]αί άεί, πασιν" Ελλη-
σι κ[αί] βαρβάροις μέγα
έν[βο]ών, της άριστης
δια[γ]ωγη; ύπάρχειν τ[έ-

λος, τας δέ άρετας, τας
νυν άκαίρως υπό τού
των ένοχλουμένας,
( άπα γαρ της του ποιητικού
5          χώρας είς την του τέλους
μεταφέρονται ) τέλος
μεν ούδαμοΰ, ποιητ1--
κας δε του τέλους είναι.
τοΰτο τοίνυν δτι εστ' ά-
10        ληθές, ηδη λέγωμεν
ένθεν άρςάμενοι. ει
τις άρα ερωτησαι τινά,
καίπερ εΰήθους δντος
του ερωτήματος, τίς ίσ-

τιν, δν ώφελοϋσιν α[ί άρε-
ταί αύται, δηλονότι φή-
σει τον άνθρωπον. ο[ύ
δη γε των παριπταμέ-
5          νων τούτων οιωνών,
όπως πτησονται καλώς
η των άλλων ζώων έκασ
τουπ οιούνται την πρ[ό-
νοιαν, καταλιποΰ[σ]αι
10        την φύσιν, η σύνεισιν
και ύφ' ης γεγέννηντα[ι,
άλλα ταύτης ένεκα πρ[άτ-
τουσι πάντα και είσίν α[ί ά-
ρεταί. εκάστην ούν ο. .

VI. "Ενεκα του θαρρεΐν ές ανθρώπων ην κατά φύσιν άγαθο'ν, έξ
ών άν ποτέ οιός τ'] η τοΰτο παρασχεν[χζίΰ$οίΐ.
VIII Ουδε μίαη δ]ο^ καθ' έαντην ^[ακόν άλλα τα τινών ηδονών ποιητικά πολλαπλασίους επιφέρει τας οχλήσεις τών ηδονών.

The source here is Ernst Kalinka and Rudolf Heberdey, L'inscription philosophique d'Oenoanda in the Bulletin de correspondance hellénique. Volume 21, 1897. pp. 415. 

Fragment 55

This looks like an introductory page if ever we saw one. Its location of the text in the centre of what would have been two or more slabs has the feel of an "opening slide" to the Great Inscription. 


The source here is Ernst Kalinka and Rudolf Heberdey, L'inscription philosophique d'Oenoanda in the Bulletin de correspondance hellénique. Volume 21, 1897. pp. 398. 

Fragments 7 & 8

These two pieces are interesting for they are divided across two blocks horizontally, which is not common in the Inscription. The first part is the upper block and was numbered 7 by Cousin  and 2 by Usener. Its height is 0.335 m, width is 0.68 m and thickness is 0.35m. Fragment 8 (according to Cousin) and 3 by Usener. Its height is 0.48m, width 0.75m and thickness is 0.36 m (Kalinka notes "unten 13cm hoch Spuren eines abgearbeiteten Profils").

ώσπερ του] έλέφαντός
Ιστι το ύπε]ρβραδυκεί-
νητον το]ΰ [σ]ώ{λατος.
άλλα τοΰτό] γε εΐ και κα-
5          ταγεινώσκ]ουσ,_ι] [/.οχθη-
ρον ………………..είναι γα]ρ
…………………………. ον
10        ………………………..παν.

και ό περί  των [ανθρώ
πωνδε , Ιπεί [κοινότη
τατίςνε ς πα[ριστα-
σι, τοιούτος λ[εγεται.
5          πρώτον ρ,εν ο[υν περί
τ] ων γε[ρό]ντων [ύπ]άρ-
χει λόγος, καθόλου
[Λεν γαρ ών ουκ εισιν
ορέξεις πραγμάτων,
1 0       περί τούτων ουδέ λΰ[παι γείνονται

The source here is Ernst Kalinka and Rudolf Heberdey, L'inscription philosophique d'Oenoanda in the Bulletin de correspondance hellénique. Volume 21, 1897. pp. 360.

Monday, January 28, 2013

Fragment 48

Again we have a piece of the puzzle in very good condition with a wide expanse of nearly undamaged text. It is alternatively numbered Cousin 13 and Usener 24. It has no breaks but does however have some illegible patches. 

Column 1

οντος χειμώνα.
φεύγΊοντες ει: επινό-
ησιν οΐκ:ηαάτων ήλθαν,
δ t ôc Ί δε των περιβολών,
5          ας έποιοΰντο τοις σώα|_χ-
<7jiv. είτε φύλλοις αυτά.
σ]*ε'ποντες εϊτε [ίοτα-
vatç είτε και δοοαΐς, άναι-
ροΰντες ηδη τα π:ρό,βα-
10         τα, εις ένΟύαησιν ίη-
θητων, στρεπτών τ.εν
ούπω, κατωτών δ' ίσως
η όποιωνοΰν. είτα όε
προβαίνων ό χρόνος
Column 2
ταϊς έπινοϊαι; αυτών
η των α.ετ' αύτοΰς ενε'-
βαλεν και τόν ίστόν.
εις ούν ούδεαίαν τέχνην,
5          ώ; ο]ΰδέ ταύτα?, ουτ' άλ-
λι ον τινά θεών ούτε
την Αθηναν χαραλτ^υ.-
π|_τ:έον" ~άσας γαρ εγέν-
νησαν αί γοείαι κοα πε-
10         ο'.τντώσε'.ς αετα τοΰ
χρόνου, και τών
φθόνγων δε ένεκεν ( λε'-
γω οε των τε ονοαατων
Column 3
και τών ρηγάτων, ών
το τας πρώτας
γης φύντες ,_άνθρω:-οι )
^.ήτε τόν Έρρη^ν παρα-
5          λααβάνωρ,εν ε·ς δ'.-
δασκαΓλ^ίαν, ώς φασίν
τίνες ( περιφανή; γαρ
αύτ[η] γε άδολετ/ία )
{Λητε τών φιλοσόφων
10         πιστεύωαΓειν τοϊς λέ-
γουσι κατά θε'σιν και
διδαχην ε~ ιτεΟηναι
τα ονόματα τοϊς -ράγ^;Λα·
σιν, ϊνα αυτών έ'χωσί_ι τηυ-
Column 4
α της προς [άλ;λι_ή]λους ένε
κα ραδίας άποδηλώσεως οι
άνθρωποι" γελοϊον γάρ
έστι, α,αλλον δε παν-
5          τος [γ]ελοίου γελοιότε-
ρον, προς τώ και το ά-
όύνα[τ_:ο[ν] αύτώ προσεΐ-
ναι, σ[υνα]γαγείν αε'ν
τίνα τα [το]σάδε πλήθη,
10         ένα τυν^άΐνοντα' ουδέ
γχρ πω [τότε] β[ασι]λ[έ]ες η-
σαν ούόέ αήν γ1 ρ]άααα-
τα, οπού γε t/,ηόε οί φθόν ·
γοι ( περί γάρ τούτων και

The source here is Ernst Kalinka and Rudolf Heberdey, L'inscription philosophique d'Oenoanda in the Bulletin de correspondance hellénique. Volume 21, 1897. pp. 390.

Sunday, January 27, 2013

A Note on Kalinka and Heberdey

As we start to delve into the inscription the easiest point of departure is Ernst Kalinka and Rudolf Heberdey, L'inscription philosophique d'Oenoanda in the Bulletin de correspondance hellénique. Volume 21, 1897.

This provides images of the previously documented pieces that they were able to rediscover on their trip to the site. It also provides some conjectural reconstruction of missing parts but in a very limited way. The attraction of starting with their text though is that they had, in a sense, the low hanging fruit at their disposal. By this I mean that they were working with the most obvious pieces of the puzzle and they have thus the biggest harvest of large pieces with multi-column text in fairly good condition. This is not to say that unbroken, undamaged panels do not await discovery but after the long hiatus in the first 70 years after the initial documentation it has been less easy to find some of the complete or near complete blocks like those that early epigraphists found lying around.  

Fragment 45

Again we have a piece of the puzzle in fairly good condition with a wide expanse of nearly undamaged text. It is alternatively numbered Cousin 9 and Usener 21. It is missing a chunk excised from the top which only effects the first line of two columns. Its does however have some illegible patches, particularly at the bottom right and mid-left. 

Column 1

ναι φέρουσ[ιν, ουδέ κατά, την
αύτην άπ[α]ντες [δ]ε[ι]νοΰν-
ται ίδέ]αν, άλλ' οί μέν αύ-
τ]ών άλλήλοις συναντώ-
5          σ]ιν,οί δ' ου, και οί μέν τον όρ-
θον εως τινός περαιοΰ-
σι[ν] δρόμον, λοξόν δ' έτε
ροι, ώσπερ ό ήλιος και ή σ
ελήνη, οί δ[ε] τον αύτοΰ κύ-
10         κλον στρέφονται, καθά-
περ η άρκτος, ετι δ' οί μεν
ύψηλην ζώνην φέρον
ται, οί δ' αυ ταπεινην, και
γαρ τοΰτ' άγνοοΰσιν οί

Column 2

λοί, τον γοΰ]ν ηλιον ύπο-
λαρ.βάνουσιν ούτως ε
ίναι ταττεινον, ώσ~ερ φαί
νεται, [Λ7) οντα ούτως τα-
5          πεινόν. ει γαρ ην ούτως, έν
πυρίζεσΟαι την γην έδει
και τα έ~'
αύτης ττάντα <(πρ
ποάγ[λατα. την ούνάπό-
φασιν όρώαεν αύτοΰ τα-
10         πεινην, αλλ' b'/l αυτόν.
χλ[η]ν τοΰτο μεν παρενβε-
βλησθω, χερί
δ' ανατολών η δη λέγω-
αεν και δύτεων και των

Column 3 

εφεξής, έκ[ε]ϊνο προθέντες,
ότι τον ζητοΰντα τι περί
των άδηλων, αν βλέπη τους
του δυνατού τρόπους πλεί-
5          ονας, περί τοΰδέ τίνος
μόνον τολμηρον καταπο-
φαίνεσθαι. μάντεως γαρ
ααλλόν έστιν το τοιούτον
η ά[ν]δρος σοφοΰ. το μέντοι
10         λέγειν πάντας μεν ενδε
χομένους, πιθανώτερον
δ' είναι τόνδε τοΰδε ορθώς
έχει. ενδέχεται τοιγαρ-
ουν τον ηλιον άνθρακώ-

Column 4

δη τινά κύκλον [είναι και
λεπτον άκρως [ύπο σφοδρών
πνευμάτων α!ω[ρούμενον
πηγής τε επέχ[οντα τό-
5          π[ο]ν τοΰ μέν ά[πιόντος
εξ αύτοΰ πυρο[ς, τοΰ δε συν-
ρέοντος έκ τοΰ [σύμπαν
τοκςατά μεικ[οάς τινας
συνκρίσεις, δια [δε την
10         πολυμιγ[είαν αύτοΰ και έ-
παρκεϊν αύ[τό τοΰτο πέφυ-
κε τώ κόσμω [παντί. . ……
χοντος ενε………………..

The source here is Ernst Kalinka and Rudolf Heberdey, L'inscription philosophique d'Oenoanda in the Bulletin de correspondance hellénique. Volume 21, 1897. pp. 386.

Fragments 37 & 38

Fragments 37 & 38 fit together quite obviously. While 37 is almost pristine, fragment 38 is broken off on its right side. These fragments are otherwise known as Cousin 4 and Usener 16.

Column 1

έστιν δια τε το έν τοΐς
πράγμασι ποικίλως ά-
στατον και το έμον ε-
ξωθε γήρας, τα περί ά-
5          πειρίας κόζμων, ώς ηξί-
ωσας, απέστειλα σοι. συν-
τυχία δε του πράγματ
οςάγα θη κέ/ρησαι*
πριν η γαρ έλθεϊν σου
10         την έπιστολην Θεο-
δωρίδας ό Λΐνδιος,
εταίρος ημών, δν ούκ ά-
γνοεϊς, αρχόμενος ετι
του φιλοσοφείν, τον

Column 2

αύτον επ[ρ]αττεν λό-
γον. έναρ[θ]ρότερος
δ' ούτος έγ[ε]ίνετο δια
το έν άμφι οϊ]ν ημεϊν
5          παρουσι στ[ρ]ε'φεσθαι.
αί γαρ εξ ά[λ]λήλων
συνκαταθ[ε'σε]ις τε
και άντιφ[άσει]ς ετι δ'
ερωτήσεις άκρειβεσ-
10         τέραν έπ[οΐο]υντο
του ζητ[ου]αε'νου
την ερε[υν]αν. δια τοΰ-
το ούν, Άν[τ]ίπατρε,
την διάλε[ςι]ν εκεί

Column 3
νην απέστειλα σοι, ίν[α
δη το ίσον γένηται τώ
κάν παρών αυτός
ομοίως Θεοδωρίδα
5          τα μεν ώμολόγεις, οίς
δ' έπηπόρεις, και προσ-
επυνθάνου. εστίν
δε αύτη τοιαυτηνεί τί
να την άρχην έχουσα'
10         ώ Διόγενες, ό Θεο-
δωρίδας εΐπεν, ότι
μεν αληθές έστιν
το Επικουρώ περί α
πειρίας κόσμων

Column 4

[ταβληθέν δόγμα κτλ.]
5          δρ.,……………………….
κ α……………………….
10         μα………………………
οίον[εί (?)……………
τι έν γέ|_νει (?)……….
ρας περί [α. . …………

The source here is Ernst Kalinka and Rudolf Heberdey, L'inscription philosophique d'Oenoanda in the Bulletin de correspondance hellénique. Volume 21, 1897. pp. 377.