¹ Fragment-numbers in this article are, unless otherwise indicated, those of M. F. Smith, Diogenes of Oinoanda: The Epicurean Inscription (Napoli, 1993). The fragment-numbers of Heberdey-Kalinka (n. 7) are used for nineteenth-century finds, when it is necessary to refer to individual stones, for the fragment-numbers in my edition refer to continuous passages, which may, as in the case of fr. 3, occupy more than one stone.

² William, J., Diogenis Oenoandensis fragmenta (Leipzig, 1907), xvi–xvii.Google Scholar

³ The work dealt with epistemology, as well as with physics, and the full title, partly preserved as fr. 1, was probably Epitome on sensation and nature (περ⋯ αἱσθήσεως [or -εων κα⋯ φύσεως ⋯πιτομή).

⁴ See Smith, Diogenes (n. 1), 84–5.

⁵ The scholars who disagree that frs. 2–3 introduce the Physics are listed in Smith, Diogenes (n. 1), 432, where their views are refuted in greater detail than here. To the list add: Clay, D., ‘The philosophical inscription of Diogenes of Oenoanda: new discoveries 1969–1983’, ANRWW 36.4 (Berlin and New York, 1990), 2446–559Google Scholar, 3231–2, at 2458; Laks, A., reviewing my 1993 edition in REG 107 (1994), 267–72Google Scholar, at 271–2, who queries my attribution of frs. 2–3 to the Physics, while disregarding the arguments for my view and omitting to mention that I regard the introduction to the Physics as an introduction also to the whole inscription.

⁶ Fragment 119, one of Diogenes'Ten-line-column Writings, which stood higher up in the inscription than the Physics and Ethics (which occupied the second-lowest and lowest courses respectively), contains part of an introduction which reiterated some points (e.g. philanthropy towards foreigners) made in the introductions to the Physics and Ethics, but two of its three columns are very fragmentary and it cannot assist with the present discussion.

⁷ Heberdey, R. and Kalinka, E., ‘Die philosophische Inschrift von Oinoanda’, BCH 21 (1897), 346–443.Google Scholar

⁸ The fragments were found by members of I'Ècole fran?aise d'Athénes—HK fr. 58 by M. Holleaux and P. Paris in 1884, HK fr. 57 by G. Cousin and C. Diehl in 1885, HK fr. 59 by Cousin in 1889. They were rediscovered by HK, of the Austrian Academy's Kleinasiatische Kommission in 1895, and by me in 1968.

⁹ The width of HK fr. 58 is 158 cm. In November 19971 recorded NF (= New Fragment) 126, which is 165 cm wide. NF 126, which, like HK fr. 58, belongs to the Physics, has been published by me in ‘Excavations at Oinoanda 1997: the new Epicurean texts', AS 48 (1998), 125–70 at 131–44.

¹⁰ For the reason why HK's numbers have been used in this paragraph, see n. 1. ” G. Cousin, ‘Inscriptions d'Oenoanda', BCH 16 (1892), 1–70 at 2–6, 34–7.

¹² Ibid., 62.

¹³ Usener, H., ‘Epikureische Schriften auf Stein’, RhM 47 (1892), 414–56 at 430–2.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Ibid., 419,430. So far as we know, the inscription contained only one Letter to Antipater.

¹⁵ HK (n. 7), 398–102.

¹⁶ HK(n.7),350.

¹⁷ William (n. 2).

¹⁸ William (n. 2), xvii.

¹⁹ Grilli, A., ‘I frammenti dell'epicureo Diogene da Enoanda’, in Alfieri, V. E. and Untersteiner, M. (edd.), Studi difilosofia greca: pubblicazione in onore di R. Mondolfo (Bari, 1950), 347–435Google Scholar at 360–2;Diogenis Oenoandensis fragmenta (Milano, 1960), 29–34,- C. W. Chilton, Diogenis Oenoandensis fragmenta (Leipzig, 1967), 1–6; id., Diogenes of Oenoanda: The Fragments (London, New York, and Toronto, 1971), 3–1,26. In the latter work (p. 26) Chilton indicates that he is not completely convinced about the traditional order of frs. 2–3, but finds the arguments for it ‘convincing enough in the present state of the text’. His tentative suggestion (p. 25) that HK fr. 57 (fr. 3.1) may have followed rather than preceded HK fr. 58 (fr. 3.II-VI) cannot be right, for there is a clear run-on from the end of fr. 3.1 into the beginning of fr. 3.II.

²⁰ Hoffman, G. N., Diogenes of Oenoanda: A Commentary (Dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1976), 74–6.Google Scholar

²¹ A. Casanova, I frammenti di Diogene d'Enoanda (Firenze, 1984), 82–95. On p. 50 he follows Chilton (see n. 19) in being less than certain that the traditional order of frs. 2–3 is correct, and thinks that ‘con ogni probabilitá l'incertezza potrá essere superata solo grazie ad un nuovo ritrovamento’.

²² Smith, Diogenes (n. 1), 147–52; Smith, M. F., The Philosophical Inscription of Diogenes of Oinoanda (Wien, 1996), 47–53.Google Scholar

²³ Ètienne, A. and O'meara, D., La philosophic èpicurienne sur pierre: les fragments de Diogene d'Oenoanda (Fribourg and Paris, 1996), 23–5.Google Scholar

²⁴ William (n. 2), 71, suggested that the passage went something like [⋯ρ⋯ν τοῖς ταῖς κενας τ⋯ς φυχ⋯ς δόξαις ⋯κολουθος κα⋯ μ⋯ ⋯κούοντους σώματος ⋯γκλήσεις]. I proposed, in Smith, Diogenes (n. 1), 147, —a modification of a proposal which I made in ‘Observations on the text of Diogenes of Oenoanda’, Hermathena 110 (1970), 52–78, at 54.

²⁵ λύπη like ⋯λγηδών, can be physical or mental pain. In the only other place where Diogenes uses the word (fr. 149.11.18), he is speaking of desires: καθόλου μ⋯ν γ⋯ρ ὧν οὔb.kappa; εἱσιν ⋯ρ⋯ξεις πραγμάτων, περ⋯ τούτων οὐδ⋯ λ⋯[π]αι τυνχάνσιν.

²⁶ If I am right in suspecting that just one column is missing, the stone which carried it will have had fairly broad margins left and right, for fr. 3. VI runs to the right edge of HK fr. 58 and fr. 2.1 begins at the left edge of HK fr. 59.

²⁷ Smith, Diogenes (n. 1), 149–50.

²⁸ William (n. 2), 4.

²⁹ Smith, The Philosophical Inscription (n. 22), 51.

³⁰ It would be better to say ‘the inscription’ rather than ‘the treatise’ in this context.

³¹ D. N. Sedley in Smith, Diogenes (n. 1), 437.

³² Laks (n. 5), 271, writes: ‘La teneur de la premiére raison nous est en grande partie conservee, par le dèbut du fr. 2, et surtout par la “reprise”, explicitement designee comme telle (fr. 2.II.4-III.2). Le motif est ici la pitiè qu'inspire á un horame de bien (fr. 2.H.11–13) le spectacle d'individus dilapidant le temps dont ils disposent en raison de l'emprise qu'exercent sur eux les desirs superflus.’ However, since fr. 2 followed fr. 3, Laks's comments lose their validity.

³³ The three columns of fr. 30 were probably cols. VIII-X of the Ethics. (For the calculation, see Smith, Diogenes [n. 1], 476–8.) Of the columns which preceded, three, probably cols. H-IV of the epitome, are preserved, or partly preserved, in fr. 29. So, if in fr. 30.IH.6–7 Diogenes is referring to an appeal made earlier in the Ethics, that appeal will have been either in col. I or, much more probably, somewhere in cols. V-VII.

³⁴ See fr. 43.1.8–10, a passage of the Ethics, in which the Physics is called ‘the writing before this one’.

³⁵ Epic. Pyth. 85. Pythocles is urged to study carefully not only the content of this letter, but also that of the Letter to Herodotus.

³⁶ In Smith, The Philosophical Inscription (n. 22), 49,1 present a much more cautious text.

³⁷ See also e.g. fr. 3.III.6–8.

³⁸ Smith, ‘Observations’ (n. 24), 55.

³⁹ It may be noted that, while Epicurus uses φιλοσοφία and φιλοσοφεῖν in the Letter to Menoeceus (122 quater, 132), which is concerned with ethics, he uses φυσιογία and φυσιολογεῖν in the Letter to Herodotus (37 bis, 78) and Letter to Pythocles (85, 86), which are concerned with physics.

⁴⁰ The text in Smith, The Philosophical Inscription (n. 22), 51, is the same, except that there I do not admit [ὑπέρ] in 11.13–14.

⁴¹ Laks (n. 5), 272.

⁴² HK (n. 7), 401.

⁴³ William (n. 2), 5.

⁴⁴ Chilton, Diog. Oen. fragmenta (n. 19), 4;Diogenes of Oenoanda (n. 19), 3.

⁴⁵ Clay (n. 5), 2457.

⁴⁶ Ètienne and O'Meara (n. 23), 24.

⁴⁷ Casanova (n. 21), 91.

⁴⁸ Grilli, Diog. Oen. fragmenta (n. 11), 9, respects the punctuation-space in II.9, taking δι⋯ τ⋯ γ⋯ρας with what follows, but has no punctuation in II. 12. Hoffman (n. 20), 75, does the same. The punctuation-space in II.9 was shown by Cousin (n. 11), 3, and observed by Usener (n. 13), 431, S. N. Dragumis, ‘Συμμικτά: ⋯πιγραφικ⋯ φροντίσματα’ 3rd series, 11 (1893), cols. 165–9 at col. 166, and H. van Herwerden, ‘Διορθο⋯ται ⋯ διογ⋯νους φιλοσόεου ’Eπικουρείου ⋯ξ Оἱνονδων πρòς ’Aντίπατρον ⋯πιστολ’’, Sylloge commentationum quam viro clarissimo Constantino Conto obtulerunt philologi Batavi (Leiden, 1893), 31–9 at 32, but, although Usener, Dragumis, and van Herwerden, working independently, successfully restored most of II.9–11 (σιά… ⋯ναλύειν), and van H. restored [⋯πò τ]ο⋯ ζ⋯ν in 11.12 as well, they were impeded by some inaccuracies in Cousin's copy and did not restore, or did not restore correctly, either what preceded or what followed. One of Cousin's mistakes was to fail to show the punctuation-space in 11.12. The spaces in both II.9 and 11.12 were later to be shown in the drawing of HK (n. 7), 400.

⁴⁹ See Smith, ‘Excavations’ (n. 9). The British investigations at Oinoanda in 1968–94, which more than doubled the number of known fragments of Diogenes’ inscription, did not involve excavation.

⁵⁰ I warmly thank CQ's anonymous referee, whose constructive criticisms enabled me to make several significant improvements to this article.