The Stoa of Diogenes

Alan Hall states "The stoa of Diogenes must have stood on the southern side of the Esplanade - an area which was either the early Agora or the exercise area for the gymnasium - and perhaps extended down the approach road from the later Agora. Secondly, it is clear that the stoa was taken down when the new defensive circuit was constructed around 270 A.D., and that its material was then used in new buildings across the northern half of the site, including the new defensive wall itself. And thirdly, it is evident that a great many more fragments lie close to the surface in this relatively restricted area". 

In the book, Epicureanism The Complete Guide edited by Paul Muljadi there is an essay by Guido Reale that states that the stoa consisted of a rectangular piazza surrounded by a portico, and furnished with statues. On one of the smaller sides was placed a portal, with perhaps Diogenes' mausoleum on the opposite side. On the two larger sides Diogenes inscribed a lengthy account of Epicurean doctrines.

Some dispute that the stoa was erected by Diogenes and may have been a pre-existing structure. Martin Ferguson Smith comments in his essay Two New Fragments of Diogenes of Oenoanda, The Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. 92 (1972), pp. 147-155 that : "The fact that Diogenes, an Epicurean, decided to have his work inscribed in a stoa must have greatly amused his contemporaries. But, although Diogenes, whose work is not without touches of humour, no doubt shared their amusement, he may have had a serious propagandist motive in choosing the stoa; for, although he must have decided upon it primarily because it just happened to contain the wall (or walls) best suited for the carving of the inscription, being spacious and in a public place, it is possible that his choice was influenced partly by a desire to emphasise the anti-Stoic character of his work by having it inscribed in a building of the same kind as that in which Zeno and his successors taught and from which their school derived its name: his verbal attacks on his chief philosophical opponents might seem all the more stinging and effective for being made almost literally on the Stoics' own ground. Moreover, he must have foreseen that news of an Epicurean stoa would spread far and wide, and that many ζενοι would thus be attracted to Oenoanda to see and read his work". 

Below can be seen a reconstruction by Nikolaus Koch of DAI, Istanbul (and Karlsruher IT) showing the two-storey North Stoa and the so-called Diogenes Stoa to the right. 

The stoa of Diogenes was dismantled in the second half of the third century CE to make room for a defensive wall; previously the site had been undefended.

More work is required to definitively position the stoa in the ruins of the city. This would require some, though not extensive, excavation. The shame is that so little work has been done at the city and often it has been thwarted by fluctuating interest from the authorities in permitting work by foreign archaeologists. 

The Theatre At Oinoanda

The theatre of the city is believed to date from the 2nd century BC and is located on the northern fringe of the city, build on a natural slope. It ended up outside the walls when the Great Wall separated off the area to be abandoned.   

It was originally Greek in style (i.e. open on the stage side), but had a scene building added in Roman times, probably the second half of the first century A.D.. The cavea, which was 55 metres in diameter, sat 2,000 and faced south. In shape it exceeded a semicircle and was somewhat horseshoe-shaped. It had only one maeniana, with at least 17 rows of seats in 11 cunei. 

The orchestra is 17.5 m in diameter, while the frons scenae was 25.5 x 5.75 m with five doorways.

The site map above is sourced from Building Mk1 at Oenoanda, Author(s): Roger Ling and Alan HallReviewed work(s):Source: Anatolian Studies, Vol. 31 (1981), pp. 31-53.

As can be seen from the accompanying pictures the theatre is not in exceptionally bad condition considering the vicissitudes of earthquakes and extended exposure (it snows at site in winter). The frons scenae would appear to have potential for some sort of reconstruction. 

Sources: Sear, Frank; “Roman theatres: an architectural study”. Oxford University Press, 2006. // Ciancio Rossetto, Paola; Giuseppina Pisani Sartorio (eds); Teatri Greci e Romani: alle origini del linguaggio rappresentato. Rome: SEAT, 1995. // Bean, George; “Lycian Turkey”. London, Ernst Benn, 1978. // Freely, John; “The Western Mediterranean coast of Turkey”. Istanbul, Matbaacilik ve Yayincilik A.S., 1997. // Yilmaz, Yasar; “Anadolu Antik Tiyatrolari”. Istanbul, Yem Yanin, 2010.

Fragment 3

Height is 0.385 metres, Width is 0.44 metres

TOYC EΠΙΔHMOYI...
TON ZΕΝΟΝ ΦΙΛΑ[N.
ΘΡΟΡΟΝ ΕΠΙCΤΑΜΕ
ΝΟC ΔΕ ΑΚΡΕΙΒΟC ΟΤΙ
ΤΗ ΓΝΟCΕΙ ΤΟΝ ΠΡΑ-
ΓMATON ON EN TAIC
YΠOKATO XOPAIC E
ΔHAOCA ΦYCIKON TE
AMA KAI ΠAΘHTIK[O]N 


The source here is Ernst Kalinka and Rudolf Heberdey, L'inscription philosophique d'Oenoanda in the Bulletin de correspondance hellénique. Volume 21, 1897. pp. 357.

Fragment 4

Found in the early foundation to the north of the Great Wall. Height is 0.37 metres, Width is 0.92 metres.  

ΔΗΜΟΙΠΡΟΚΕΙΤΑΙΚΑΙ
ΤΟΓΟΠΡΩΤΟΝΕΥΘΕΩC
ΕΚΕΙΝΟΕCΤΙΝ
ΕΙΜΕΝΤΙCΤΑCΑΜΑΥ
ΡΟCΕΙCΤΟΝΓΕΡΟΝΤΟΝ
ΤΥΦΛΟCΕΙCΛΕξΕΙC


CΥΜ......
CΥΝΤΕΛΟΥΝ.....

ΕΙCΥΜΒΑΙ...CΙΟ
ΤΑΤΟCΠΑΝΙΟΝ
ΤΙΒΟΥΛΟΜΕΝΟΥ
ΝΑ..ΑΡΒΑΙΝΟΙ
ΠΡΟCΤΟΥCΜΕ..
...KAIΓAPO...

The source here is Ernst Kalinka and Rudolf Heberdey, L'inscription philosophique d'Oenoanda in the Bulletin de correspondance hellénique. Volume 21, 1897. pp. 357.

Some Characteristics of the Text - Size Matters

Most jigsaw puzzles have pieces that are all roughly the same size but in the case of the myriad fragments of the Great Epicurean Inscription the peculiarities of each piece is one of the guides that researchers have used to work out what philosophical part of the document they belong too (e.g. ethics, physics). The two fundamental clues are the text size and the block size.

A key thing to remember is that the size of the lettering varies. The principal factor that determined it was the level at which the writing appeared on the wall of the stoa: those writings that were displayed at or near eye level were carved in smaller letters than those that were higher up. A second factor, which sometimes came into play, was the degree of emphasis that Diogenes wished to give to certain parts of the inscription: thus titles are carved in extra-large letters, and maxims – both the monolithic Maxims that probably occupied part of the third lowest course of the inscription, above the Physics, and the continuous line of maxims that underscored the whole inscription, running through the spacious margin below the columns of the Ethics – are carved in letters larger than those of the other writings that were displayed at or almost at the same level. 

Jurgen Hammerstaedt and Martin Ferguson Smith in their article "DIOGENES OF OINOANDA: THE DISCOVERIES OF 2008 (NF 142–167)" in the journal Epigraphica Anatolica 41 (2008) 1–37 note that "If one disregards the titles, with their exceptionally large letters, one can broadly distinguish three sizes of lettering, which in the descriptions that follow we call “small” (average c. 1.8–1.9 cm.), “medium” (c. 2.3–2.4 cm.), and “large” (c. 2.9–3.0 cm.)".

Also of relevance are the number of columns on each piece and more important the number of lines in each column.

For example the ethical treatise, the physics treatise, Letter to Dionysus and the Letter to Antipater, are all inscribed in letters averaging about 1.7-1.8 cm. They also have 14-line columns.

Meanwhile the treatise on Old Age, is inscribed in letters whose usual height is 2.5-3.1 cm. This treatise, which was carved in 18-line columns, occupied the top three courses of the inscription. The blocks in the topmost course (A) have a height of 31.5–34 cm., five lines, an upper margin 7–9 cm. tall, and no lower margin; those in the second course (B) have a height of 36–39 cm., seven or eight lines, and no margin above or below; and those in the third and lowest course (C) have a height of 45–50 cm., between four and six lines, no margin above, but a lower margin, 21–25 cm. tall, that includes, at the bottom, a scored band 10–14 cm tall.

Then there is the Letter to Mother

And the Letter to a Friend(s) - epistula ad amicos data - 

The Will of Diogenes

The Introduction

The Ethical Maxims

The Monolithic Maxims: Probably composed by Diogenes himself, almost certainly stood in the third course from the bottom of the inscription, immediately above the Physics, sharing the course with the Letter to Antipater and Letter to Dionysius. Characteristics of these blocks were: Height 58 cm., Upper margin 8 cm., lower margin 8 cm., left margin 1.8 cm. Letters “medium”. Although the order of the Maxims is not known, it is likely that those concerned with physics preceded those concerned with ethics, this being the orthodox Epicurean order.

Of the ten Maxims that are complete, one occupies nine lines, two occupy ten, and seven occupy

eleven.

Some as yet unclassified text is known as Ten-line-column (TLC) Writings. These are carved on blocks 38–41.5 cm. high and occupied the central course of the inscription, that is to say the fourth from the top and fourth from the bottom, with the three courses carrying Old Age above and the Fourteen-line-column Letters (to Antipater and Dionysius), Maxims, Physics, and Ethics below. Some of the TLC Writings are the work of Diogenes, others are attributed to Epicurus.

While the discussion of positioning of the texts may seem arcane, it is something that is crucial to working out the layout for an eventual mass reconstruction if substantially all of the pieces are eventually recovered.

The thought process is displayed when Martin Ferguson Smith comments with regards to the fragment known as NF 18 that the block is inscribed with largish letters, and, assuming that it belongs to the same writing as HK fr. 3, it will have been about 0.38-0.39 m. high and almost certainly had 10 lines of text and little or no margin above or below. He reasons that a block with these features would have stood high up in the inscription, but not at the very highest level, for, although its lowness and largish letters are indicative of a position high up on the wall of the stoa, there are stones which are less tall (0.335-0.34 m.) and bear larger letters, and a fragment with no upper margin is unlikely to have stood in the topmost course. 

He therefore deduces that, almost certainly, NF 18 was in the third course of the inscription, immediately above the course containing the physics treatise. In this connection, it should be remembered that in HK fr. 3, lines 6-7 Diogenes refers to the proofs of physical and ethical matters which he has given 'in the places below'.

Why a Stoa?

The opposing philosophical school to the Epicureans was the Stoics. Why then did Diogenes decide to expose his great work to public view in that favorite venue of his philosophical opponents?

Martin Ferguson Smith opines that" "the fact that Diogenes, an Epicurean, decided to have his work inscribed in a stoa must have greatly amused his contemporaries. But, although Diogenes, whose work is not without touches of humour, no doubt shared their amusement, he may have had a serious propagandist motive in choosing the stoa; for, although he must have decided upon it primarily because it just happened to contain the wall (or walls) best suited for the carving of the inscription, being spacious and in a public place, it is possible that his choice was influenced partly by a desire to emphasise the anti-Stoic character of his work by having it inscribed in a building of the same kind as that in which Zeno and his successors taught and from which their school derived its name: his verbal attacks on his chief philosophical opponents might seem all the more stinging and effective for being made almost literally on the Stoics' own ground. Moreover, he must have foreseen that news of an Epicurean stoa would spread far and wide, and that many ξενοι would thus be attracted to Oenoanda to see and read his work".

The Format of the Inscription

Here we have  a hypothetical reconstruction of the left part of the Diogenes inscription using empty, uninscribed blocks as placeholders according to Konrad Berner.

Here we can see the seven courses of the inscription on the stoa wall. The Ten-line-column (TLC) Writings occupied the central course of the inscription, that is to say the fourth from the top and fourth from the bottom, with the three courses carrying Old Age above and the Fourteen-line-column Letters (to Antipater and Dionysius), Maxims, Physics, and Ethics below.