Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T10:38:47.267Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Part I - Blended Bodies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 July 2023

Maria Gerolemou
Affiliation:
Center for Hellenic Studies, Washington
George Kazantzidis
Affiliation:
University of Patras, Greece
Get access

Summary

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2023

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Benveniste, E. 1971. ‘The Notion of “Rhythm” in Its Linguistic Expression’, in E. Benveniste, Problems in General Linguistics (Florida), 281–9.Google Scholar
Clarke, M. 1997/8. ‘πινύσκω and Its Cognates: A Note on Simonides, Fr. 508 Page’, Glotta, 74: 135–42.Google Scholar
Edwards, M. 1991. The Iliad: A Commentary. Volume v. Books 17–20 (Cambridge).Google Scholar
Frontisi-Ducroux, F. 2002. ‘“Avec son diaphragme visionnaire: Ἰδυίῃσι πραπίδεσσι”, Iliade xviii, 481. À propos du bouclier d’Achille’, Revue des études grecques, 115: 463–84.Google Scholar
Gerber, D. E. 1982. Pindar’s Olympian One: A Commentary (Toronto).Google Scholar
Howie, J. G. 1983. ‘The Revision of Myth in Pindar Olympian One: The Death and Revival of Pelops (25–27, 36–66)’, Papers of the Liverpool Latin Seminar, 4: 277313.Google Scholar
Hubbard, T. 1987. ‘The Cooking of Pelops: Pindar and the Process of Mythological Revisionism’, Helios, 11: 321.Google Scholar
Karvouni, M. 1999. ‘Demas: The Human Body as a Tectonic Construct’, in Pérez-Gómez, A. and Parcell, S., eds., Intervals in the Philosophy of Architecture (Montreal), 103–24.Google Scholar
Köhnken, A. 1974. ‘Pindar as Innovator: Poseidon Hippios and the Relevance of the Pelops Story in Olympian 1’, Classical Quarterly, 24: 199206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Köhnken, A. 1983. ‘Time and Event in Pindar O. 1.25–33’, Classical Antiquity, 2: 6676.Google Scholar
Kowalzig, B. 2013. ‘Broken Rhythms in Plato’s Laws: Materialising Social Time in the Chorus’, in Peponi, A.-E. (ed.), Performance and Culture in Plato’s Laws (Cambridge), 171211.Google Scholar
Kurke, L. 2015. ‘Pindar’s Material Imaginary: Dedications and Politics in Olympian 7’. UCL Housman Lecture.Google Scholar
Langdon, S. 2008. Art and Identity in Dark Age Greece (Cambridge).Google Scholar
Lissarrague, F. 1990. The Aesthetics of the Greek Banquet: Images of Wine and Ritual, transl. A. Szegedy-Maszak (Princeton, NJ).Google Scholar
Neer, R. 2002. Style and Politics in Athenian Vase-Painting (Cambridge).Google Scholar
Onians, R. B. 1988. The Origins of European Thought: About the Body, the Mind, the Soul, the World, Time and Fate (Cambridge).Google Scholar
Papalexandrou, N. 2005. The Visual Poetics of Power: Warriors, Youths, and Tripods in Early Greece (Lanham, MD).Google Scholar
Payne, H. 1971. Necrocorinthia: A Study of Corinthian Art in the Archaic Period (College Park, PA).Google Scholar
Petersen, E. A. H. 1917. Rhythmus. Abhandlungen der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen. Philologisch-historische Klasse 16.5 (Göttingen).Google Scholar
Pollitt, J. J. 1974. The Ancient View of Greek Art: Criticism, History, and Terminology (New Haven, CT).Google Scholar
Power, T. 2011. ‘Cyberchorus: Pindar’s Κηληδόνες and the Aura of the Artificial’, in Athanassaki, L. and Bowie, E., eds., Archaic and Classical Choral Song: Performance, Politics and Dissemination (Berlin), 67114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenmeyer, P. A. 2018. The Language of Ruins: Greek and Latin Inscriptions on the Memnon Colossus (Oxford).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutherford, I. 2001. Pindar’s Paeans: A Reading of the Fragments with a Survey of the Genre (Oxford).Google Scholar
Starobinski, J. 1975. ‘The Inside and the Outside’, The Hudson Review, 28: 333–51.Google Scholar
Steiner, D. T. 1998. ‘Moving Images: Fifth-Century Victory Monuments and the Athlete’s Allure’, Classical Antiquity, 17: 123–49.Google Scholar
Steiner, D. T. 2001. Images in Mind: Statues in Archaic and Classical Greek Literature and Thought (Princeton, NJ).Google Scholar
Steiner, D. T. 2013. ‘The Priority of Pots: Pandora’s Pithos Re-viewed’, Mètis, 11: 207–34.Google Scholar
Steiner, D. T. 2014. ‘From the Demonic to the Divine: Cauldrons, Choral Dancers and Encounters with the Gods’, in Estienne, S., Huet, V., Lissarrague, F. and Prost, F., eds., Figures de dieux: Construire le divin en images (Rennes), 155–74.Google Scholar
Steiner, D. T. 2021. Choral Constructions in Greek Culture: The Idea of the Chorus in the Poetry, Art and Social Practices of the Archaic and Early Classical Periods (Cambridge).Google Scholar
Topper, K. 2007. ‘Perseus, the Maiden Medusa and the Imagery of Abduction’, Hesperia, 76: 73105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Topper, K. 2010. ‘Maidens, Fillies and the Death of Medusa on a Seventh-Century Pithos’, Journal of Hellenic Studies, 130: 119.Google Scholar
Uhlig, A. 2020. ‘Birth by Hammer: Pandora and Somatic Construction’, in Dyer, J. and Surtees, A., eds., Exploring Gender Diversity in the Ancient World (Edinburgh), 5466.Google Scholar
Walsh, D. 2009. Distorted Ideals in Greek Vase-Painting: The World of Mythological Burlesque (Cambridge).Google Scholar
Weiss, N. A. 2016. ‘The Choral Architecture of Pindar’s Eight Paean’, Transactions of the American Philological Association, 146: 237–55.Google Scholar
Zeitlin, F. 1996. Playing the Other: Gender and Society in Classical Greek Literature (Chicago).Google Scholar

References

Abrams, J. Z. 1998. Judaism and Disability: Portrayals in Ancient Texts from the Tanach through the Bavli (Washington, DC).Google Scholar
Acton, P. 2014. Poiesis: Manufacturing in Classical Athens (Oxford).Google Scholar
Avalos, H., Melcher, S., and Schipper, J., eds. 2007. This Abled Body: Rethinking Disabilities in Biblical Studies (Atlanta).Google Scholar
Brandon, R. 2004. ‘Myth and Metallurgy: Some Cross-Cultural Reflections on the Social Identity of Smiths’, in Andren, A., Jennbery, K., and Raudvere, C., eds., Old Norse Religion in Long-Term Perspectives: Origins, Changes, and Interactions (Lund), 99103.Google Scholar
Berryman, S. 2009. The Mechanical Hypothesis in Ancient Natural Greek Philosophy (Cambridge).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bliquez, L. J. 1996. ‘Prosthetics in Classical Antiquity: Greek, Etruscan, and Roman Prosthetics’, Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, ii 37.3: 2640–76.Google Scholar
Breitwieser, R., ed. 2012. Behinderungen und Beeinträchtigungen/Disability and Impairment in Antiquity (Oxford).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bremmer, J. N. 2010. ‘Hephaestus Sweats or How to Construct an Ambivalent God’, in Bremmer, J. N. and Erskine, A., eds., The Gods of Ancient Greece: Identities and Transformations (Edinburgh), 193208.Google Scholar
Brennan, M. 2016. ‘Lame Hephaestus’, Annual of the British School at Athens, 111: 163–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brommer, F. 1978. Hephaestus: Der Schmiedegott in der antiken Kunst (Mainz).Google Scholar
Brule, P. 2006. ‘Bâtons et bâton du mâle, adulte, citoyen’, in Bodiou, L., Frère, D., and Mehl, V., eds., L’expression des corps: gestes, attitudes, regards dans l’iconographie antique (Rennes), 7583.Google Scholar
Capdeville, G. 1995. Volcanus: recherches comparistes sur les origins du culte de Vulcain (Rome).Google Scholar
Clynes, M. E. and Kline, N. S.. 1960. ‘Cyborgs and Space’, Astronautics, September, 26–7, 74–6.Google Scholar
Cokayne, K. 2003. Experiencing Old Age in Ancient Rome (London).Google Scholar
Couvret, S. 1994. ‘L’homme au bâton: statique et statut dans la céramique attique’, Metis, 9–10: 257–81.Google Scholar
Craddock, P. T. 1976. ‘The Composition of the Copper Alloys Used by the Greek, Etruscan and Roman Civilizations 1: The Greeks before the Archaic Period’, Journal of Archaeological Science, 3.2: 93113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craddock, P. T. 1977. ‘The Composition of the Copper Alloys Used by the Greek, Etruscan and Roman Civilizations 2. The Archaic, Classical and Hellenistic Greeks’, Journal of Archaeological Science, 4.2: 103–23.Google Scholar
Dasen, V. 1993. Dwarfs in Ancient Egypt and Greece (Oxford).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Ciantis, C. 2005. ‘The Return of Hephaestus: Reconstructing the Fragmented Mythos of the Maker’. Unpublished PhD thesis, Pacifica Graduate Institute. Available online: www.academia.edu/749603/The_Return_of_Hephaestus_Reconstructing_the_Fragmented_Mythos_of_the_Maker (accessed October 2018).Google Scholar
Delcourt, M. 1957. Héphaistos ou la legend du magician (Paris).Google Scholar
Detienne, M. and Vernant, J.-P.. 1974. Les ruses de l’intelligence: la mètis des Grecs (Paris).Google Scholar
Devecka, M. 2013. ‘Did the Ancient Greeks Believe in Their Robots?’, Cambridge Classical Journal, 59: 5269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dillery, J. 2005. ‘Chresmologues and Manteis: Independent Diviners and the Problem of Authority’, in Jonston, S. L. and Struck, P. T., eds., Mantikê: Studies in Ancient Divination (Leiden), 167232.Google Scholar
Draycott, J. 2015. ‘The Lived Experience of Disability in Antiquity: A Case Study from Roman Egypt’, Greece & Rome, 62.2: 189205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Draycott, J. 2018a. Prostheses in Antiquity (London).Google Scholar
Draycott, J. 2018b. ‘Introduction’, in Draycott, J., ed., Prostheses in Antiquity (London), 128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Draycott, J. (in preparation). ‘Staff or Stick? Cane or Crutch? Mobility Aids in Ancient Greece and Rome’, in I. Bonati, ed., Words of Medicine: Technical Terminology in Material and Textual Evidence from the Greco-Roman World (Berlin).Google Scholar
Edwards, M. L. 1997. ‘Constructions of Physical Disability in the Ancient Greek World: The Community Concept’ in Mitchell, D. and Snyder, S., eds., The Body and Physical Difference: Discourses of Disability (Ann Arbor, MI), 3550.Google Scholar
Emery, P. B. 1999. ‘Old-Age Iconography in Archaic Greek Art’, Mediterranean Archaeology, 12: 1728.Google Scholar
Faraone, C. A. 1987. ‘Hephaestus the Magician and Near Eastern Parallels for Alcinous’ Watchdogs’, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 28.3: 257–80.Google Scholar
Faraone, C. A. 1992. Talismans and Trojan Horses: Guardian Statues in Ancient Greek Myth and Ritual (Oxford).Google Scholar
Finch, J. 2018. ‘The Complex Aspects of Experimental Archaeology: The Design of Working Models of Two Ancient Egyptian Great Toe Prostheses’ in Draycott, J., ed., Prostheses in Antiquity (London), 2948.Google Scholar
Fishbane, S. 2007. Deviancy in Early Rabbinic Literature: A Collection of Socio-Anthropological Essays (Leiden).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garland, R. 1994. ‘The Mockery of the Deformed and the Disabled in Graeco-Roman Culture’ in Jäkel, S. and Timonen, A., eds., Laughter Down the Centuries (Turku), 7184.Google Scholar
Garland, R. 1995, reissued 2010. The Eye of the Beholder: Deformity and Disability in the Graeco-Roman World (London).Google Scholar
George, M. 2006. ‘Social Identity and the Dignity of Work in Freedmen’s Reliefs’, in D’Ambra, E. and Metraux, G. P. R., eds., The Art of Citizens, Soldiers and Freedmen in the Roman World (Oxford), 1929.Google Scholar
Greene, E. M. 2019. ‘Metal Fittings on the Vindolanda Shoes: Footwear and Evidence for Podiatric Knowledge in the Roman World’ in Pickup, S. and Waite, S., eds., Shoes, Slippers, and Sandals: Feet and Footwear in Classical Antiquity (London), 328–42.Google Scholar
Griffith, M. 2006. ‘Horsepower and Donkeywork: Equids and the Ancient Greek Imagination. Part Two’, Classical Philology, 101.4: 307–58.Google Scholar
Grmek, M. D. and Gourevitch, D.. 1998. Les maladies dans l’art antique (Paris).Google Scholar
Halliwell, S. 2008. Greek Laughter: A Study of Cultural Psychology from Homer to Early Christianity (Cambridge).Google Scholar
Harper, M. 1987. ‘Possible Toxic Metal Exposure of Prehistoric Bronze Workers’, Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 44.10: 652–6.Google Scholar
Harris, W. V., ed. 2013. Mental Disorders in the Classical World (Leiden).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hedreen, G. 2004. ‘The Return of Hephaestus, Dionysiac Ritual and the Creation of a Visual Narrative’, Journal of Hellenic Studies, 124: 3864.Google Scholar
Hermary, A. and Jacquemin, A.. 1988. ‘Hephaestos’, Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae iv.1: 627–54.Google Scholar
Hughes, J. 2010. ‘Dissecting the Classics Hybrid’, in Rebay-Salisbury, K., Sorensen, M. L. S., and Hughes, J., eds., Body Parts and Bodies Whole: Changing Relations and Meanings (Oxford), 101–10.Google Scholar
Kalligeropoulos, D. and Vasileiadou, S.. 2008. ‘The Homeric Automata and Their Implementation’, in Paipetis, S., ed., Science and Technology in the Homeric Epics (Dordrecht), 7784.Google Scholar
Kelley, N. 2007. ‘Deformity and Disability in Greece and Rome’, in Avalos, H., Melcher, S., and Schipper, J., eds., This Abled Body: Rethinking Disabilities in Biblical Studies (Atlanta), 3145.Google Scholar
Krötzl, C., Mustakallio, M., and Kuuliala, J.. 2015. Infirmity in Antiquity and the Middle Ages: Social and Cultural Approaches to Health, Weakness and Care (Farnham).Google Scholar
Laes, C. 2014. Beperkt? Gehandicapten in het Romeinse rijk (Leuven).Google Scholar
Laes, C., ed. 2017. Disability in Antiquity (London).Google Scholar
Laes, C. 2018. Disabilities and the Disabled in the Roman World: A Social and Cultural History (Cambridge).Google Scholar
Laes, C., Goodey, C., and Rose, M.. 2013. Disabilities in Roman Antiquity: Disparate Bodies a Capite ad Calcem (Leiden).Google Scholar
LaGrandeur, K. 2011. ‘The Persistent Peril of the Artificial Slave’, Science Fiction Studies, 38.2: 232–52.Google Scholar
Loebl, W. Y. and Nunn, J. F.. 1997. ‘Staffs as Walking Aids in Ancient Egypt and Palestine’, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 90.8: 450–4.Google Scholar
MacDonald, D. R. 2015. The Gospels and Homer: Imitations of Greek Epic in Mark and Luke-Acts (Lanham, MD).Google Scholar
Malten, L. 1912. ‘Hephaestus’, Jahrbuch des deutschen archäologischen Instituts, 27: 232–64.Google Scholar
Malten, L. 1913. ‘Hephaestus’, Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, 8: 311–66.Google Scholar
Mayor, A. 2014. The Amazons: Lives and Legends of Warrior Women across the Ancient World (Princeton, NJ).Google Scholar
Micheli, G. 1995. Le origini del concetto di macchina (Florence).Google Scholar
Michler, M. 1963. ‘Die Krüppelleiden in “De morbo sacro” und “De articulis”’, Sudhoffs Archiv, 45: 303–28.Google Scholar
Mitchell, A. 2013. ‘Disparate Bodies in Ancient Artefacts: The Function of Caricature and Pathological Grotesques among Roman Terracotta Figurines’, in Laes, C., Goodey, C. F., and Rose, M. L., eds., Disabilities in Roman Antiquity: Disparate Bodies a Capite ad Calcem (Leiden), 275–97.Google Scholar
Mitchell, A. 2017. ‘The Hellenistic Turn in Bodily Representations: Venting Anxiety in the Terracotta Figurines’, in Laes, C., ed., Disability in Antiquity (London), 182–96.Google Scholar
Newman, S. 2013. Writing Disability: A Critical History (Boulder, CO).Google Scholar
Nriagu, J. O. 1983. ‘Occupational Exposure to Lead in Ancient Times’, Science of the Total Environment, 31.2: 105–16.Google Scholar
Ohry, A. and Dolev, E.. 1982. ‘Disabilities and Handicapped People in the Bible’, Koroth, 8.5–6: 63–7.Google Scholar
Olyan, S. M. 2008. Disability in the Hebrew Bible: Interpreting Mental and Physical Differences (Cambridge).Google Scholar
Paipetis, S. A. 2010. The Unknown Technology of Homer (Dordrecht).Google Scholar
Roberts, C. and Manchester, K.. 2013. The Archaeology of Disease (Stroud).Google Scholar
Roberts, C., Knusel, C. J., and Race, L.. 2004. ‘A Foot Deformity from a Romano-British Cemetery at Gloucester, England, and the Current Evidence for Talipes in Palaeopathology’, International Journal of Osteoarchaeology, 14: 389403.Google Scholar
Rose, M. 2003, reissued 2013. The Staff of Oedipus: Transforming Disability in Ancient Greece (Ann Arbor, MI).Google Scholar
Rosner, E. 1955. ‘Die Lahmheit des Hephaestus’, Forschungen und Fortschritte, 29: 362–3.Google Scholar
Schiefsky, M. J. 2007. ‘Art and Nature in Ancient Mechanics’, in Bensaude-Vincent, B. and Newman, W. R., eds., The Artificial and the Natural: An Evolving Polarity (Cambridge, MA), 67108.Google Scholar
Trentin, L. 2015. The Hunchback in Hellenistic and Roman Art (London).Google Scholar
Trentin, L. 2017. ‘The “Other Romans”: Deformed Bodies in the Visual Arts of Rome’, in Laes, C., ed., Disabilities in Antiquity (London), 233–47.Google Scholar
Van Leeuwen, J. 2016. The Aristotelian Mechanics: Text and Diagrams (Berlin).Google Scholar
Van Schaik, K. 2018. ‘Living Prostheses’, in Draycott, J., ed., Prostheses in Antiquity (London), 140–58.Google Scholar
Von Staden, H. 1990. ‘Incurability and Hopelessness: The Hippocratic Corpus’, in Potter, P., Maloney, G., and Désautels, J., eds., La maladie et les malades dans la Collection hippocratique: actes du vie Colloque international hippocratique (Québec, du 28 septembre au 3 octobre 1987) (Quebec), 75112.Google Scholar
Von Staden, H. 2007. ‘Physis and Technē in Greek Medicine’, in Bensaude-Vincent, B. and Newman, W. R., eds., The Artificial and the Natural: An Evolving Polarity (Cambridge, MA), 2150.Google Scholar
Wickkiser, B. 2008. Asklepios, Medicine, and the Politics of Healing in Fifth-Century Greece (Baltimore, MD).Google Scholar
Withington, E. T. 1928. Hippocrates: On Wounds in the Head. In the Surgery. On Fractures. On Joints. Mochlicon (Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
Ziskowski, A. 2012. ‘Clubfeet and Kypselids: Contextualising Corinthian Padded Dancers in the Archaic Period’, Annual of the British School at Athens, 111: 211–32.Google Scholar

References

Amato, E., ed. 2014. Procope de Gaza: Discoiurs et Fragments (Paris).Google Scholar
Bäbler, B. and Schomberg, A.. 2010. ‘Prokop: Die Kunstuhr in Gaza’, in Amato, E., ed., Rose di Gaza: gli scritti retorico-sofistici e le Epistole di Procopio di Gaza (Alessandria), 528–59.Google Scholar
Baldry, H. C. 1953. ‘The Idler’s Paradise in Attic Comedy’, G&R, 23: 4960.Google Scholar
Beacham, R. 2013. ‘Heron of Alexandria’s “Toy Theatre” Automaton: Reality, Allusion and Illusion’, in Reilly, K., ed., Theatre, Performance and Analogue Technology: Historical Interfaces and Intermedialities (Basingstoke), 1539.Google Scholar
Berryman, S. 2003. ‘Ancient Automata and Mechanical Explanation’, Phronesis, 48.4: 344–69.Google Scholar
Berryman, S. 2007. ‘Teleology without Tears: Aristotle and the Role of Mechanistic Conceptions of Organisms’, Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 37.3: 351–69.Google Scholar
Berryman, S. 2009. The Mechanical Hypothesis in Ancient Greek Natural Philosophy (Cambridge).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolzan, J. 2009. ‘Socratis et Socraticorum Epistolae: studi preliminari, traduzione, commento’. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Padua.Google Scholar
Brett, G. 1954. ‘The Automata in the Byzantine “Throne of Solomon”’, Speculum, 29.3: 477–87.Google Scholar
Butler, M. 1994. Mary Shelley: Frankenstein, or the Modern Prometheus. The 1818 Text (Oxford).Google Scholar
Cambiano, G. 1994. ‘Automaton’, Studi Storici, 35: 613–33.Google Scholar
Cameron, J. 1986. Aliens (20th Century Fox).Google Scholar
Campbell, D. B. 2003. Greek and Roman Siege Engines, 399 bc to ad 363 (Oxford).Google Scholar
Carra de Vaux, B. 1891. ‘Notice sur deux manuscrits arabes’, Journal Asiatique, 17: 287322.Google Scholar
Carra de Vaux, B. B., ed. 1902. Le Livre des appareils pneumatiques et des machines hydrauliques de Philon de Byzance édité d’apres les versions arabes d’Oxford et de Constantinople et traduit en français (Paris).Google Scholar
Cuomo, S. 2007. Technology and Culture in Greek and Roman Antiquity (Cambridge).Google Scholar
Diels, H. 1917. ‘Über die von Prokop beschriebene Kunstuhr von Gaza’, Abhandlungen der königlich preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse, 26.7: 139.Google Scholar
Drachmann, A. G. 1948. Ktesibios, Philon and Heron: A Study in Pneumatics (Copenhagen).Google Scholar
Drachmann, A. G. 1963. The Mechanical Technology of Greek and Roman Antiquity: A Study of the Literary Sources (London).Google Scholar
Faraone, C. A. 1987. ‘Hephaestus the Magician and Near Eastern Parallels for Alcinous’ Watchdogs’, GRBS, 28.3: 257–80.Google Scholar
Freeth, T., Bitsakis, Y., Moussas, X. et al. 2006. ‘Decoding the Ancient Greek Astronomical Calculator Known as the Antikythera Mechanism’, Nature, 444: 587–91.Google Scholar
Freeth, T., Jones, A., Steele, J. M. and Bitsakis, Y.. 2008. ‘Calendars with Olympiad Display and Eclipse Prediction on the Antikythera Mechanism’, Nature, 454: 614–17.Google Scholar
Grillo, F. 2018. ‘An Edition, Translation and Commentary on Hero of Alexandria’s Automata’. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Glasgow.Google Scholar
Hercher, R., ed. 1873. Epistolographoi hellenikoi: Epistolographi graeci, recensuit, recognovit, adnotatione critica et indicibus instruxit Rudolphus Hercher; accedunt Francisci Boissonadii ad Synesium notae ineditae (Paris).Google Scholar
Hill, D. R., ed. 1976. On the Construction of Water-Clocks: Kitāb Arshimı̄das fı̄ ‘amal al-binkamāt, Turner and Devereux Occasional Papers 4 (London).Google Scholar
Huffman, C. 2005. Archytas of Tarentum: Pythagorean, Philosopher and Mathematician King (Cambridge).Google Scholar
Keenan-Jones, D., Ruffell, Isabel A. and McGookin, E.. 2016. ‘Taking a Bearing on Hero’s Anti-crane and Its Un-windlass: The Relationship between Hero of Alexandria’s Mobile Automaton and Greco-Roman Construction Machinery’, in DeLaine, J., Camporeale, S. and Pizzo, A., eds., Arqueología de la construcción V: Man-Made Materials, Engineering and Infrastructure, Anejos de Archivo Español de Arqueología 77 (Mérida), 167–84.Google Scholar
Keyser, P. T. 2014. ‘Kallixeinos of Rhodes’, BNJ, 627.Google Scholar
Lendle, O. 1983. Texte und Untersuchungen zum technischen Bereich der antiken Poliorketik (Wiesbaden).Google Scholar
Lewis, M. J. T. 1997. Mill-Stone and Hammer: The Origins of Water Power (Hull).Google Scholar
Marsden, E. W. 1971. Greek and Roman Artillery: Technical Treatises (Oxford).Google Scholar
Marshall, C. W. 2003. ‘Sophocles’ Nauplius and Heron of Alexandria’s Mechanical Theatre’, in Sommerstein, A. H., ed., Shards from Kolonos: Studies in Sophoclean Fragments (Bari), 261–79.Google Scholar
Mayor, A. 2018. Gods and Robots (Princeton).Google Scholar
Nation, T. 1978–81. Blake’s 7 (BBC).Google Scholar
Noble, J. V. and de Solla Price, D. J.. 1968. ‘The Water Clock in the Tower of the Winds’, AJA, 72.4: 345–55.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. C. 1976. ‘The Text of Aristotle’s De Motu Animalium’, HSPh, 80: 111–59.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. C. 1978. Aristotle’s De motu animalium: Text with Translation, Commentary, and Interpretive Essays (Princeton).Google Scholar
Orelli, J. K. 1815. Socratis et Socraticorum, Pythagorae et Pythagoreorum quae feruntur epistolae: graece / … recensuit notis … et suis illustravit, versionem Latinam, … dissertationes … adjecit Io. Conradus Orellius (Leipzig).Google Scholar
Pellegrino, M. 2000. Utopie e immagini gastronomiche nei frammenti dell’Archaia (Bologna).Google Scholar
Prager, F. D., ed.1974. Philo of Byzantium: Pneumatica, The First Treatise on Experimental Physics: Western Version and Eastern Version (Wiesbaden).Google Scholar
Prou, V. 1884. ‘Les théâtres d’automates en grèce au iie siècle avant l’ère chrétienne d’après les ΑϒΤΟΜΑΤΟΠΟΙΙΚΑ d’Héron d’Alexandrie’, Mémoires présentés par divers savants a l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres de l’Institut de France, 9.2: 117274.Google Scholar
Rehm, A. 1937. ‘Antike Automobile’, Philologus, 92: 317–30.Google Scholar
Rice, E. E. 1983. The Grand Procession of Ptolemy Philadelphus (Oxford).Google Scholar
Robertson, M. 1977. ‘The Death of Talos’, JHS, 97: 158–60.Google Scholar
Roby, C. A. 2016. Technical Ekphrasis in Greek and Roman Science and Literature: The Written Machine between Alexandria and Rome (Cambridge).Google Scholar
Rose, V., ed. 1870. Anecdota Graeca et Graecolatina: Mitteilungen aus Handschriften zur Geschichte des griechischen Wissenschaft, vol. 2 (Berlin).Google Scholar
Ruffell, I. A. 2000. ‘The World Turned Upside Down: Utopia and Utopianism in the Fragments of Old Comedy’, in Wilkins, J. and Harvey, D., eds., The Rivals of Aristophanes: Studies in Athenian Old Comedy (London), 473506.Google Scholar
Ruffell, I. A. 2014. ‘Character Types’, in Revermann, M., ed., The Cambridge Companion to Greek Comedy (Cambridge), 147–67.Google Scholar
Ruffell, I. A. 2016. ‘Tragedy and Fictionality’, in Ruffell, Isabel A. and Hau, L. I., eds., Truth and History in the Ancient World: Pluralising the Past (London), 3254.Google Scholar
Schiefsky, M. J. 2005. ‘Technical Terminology in Greco-Roman Treatises on Artillery Construction’, in Fögen, T., ed., Antike Fachtexte. Ancient Technical Texts (Berlin), 253–70.Google Scholar
Schmidt, W. 1904. ‘Aus der antiken mechanik’, Neue Jahrbücher für das Klassische Altertum, Geschichte und Deutsche Literatur und für Pädagogik, 13: 329–51.Google Scholar
Schmidt, W., Nix, L., Schöne, H. and Heiberg, J. L., eds. 1899–1914. Heronis Alexandrini opera omnia quae supersunt (Leipzig).Google Scholar
Schomberg, A. 2008. ‘Ancient Water Technology between Hellenistic Innovation and Arabic Tradition’, Syria, 85: 119–28.Google Scholar
Schürmann, A. 1991. Griechische Mechanik und antike Gesellschaft: Studien zur staatlichen Förderung einer technischen Wissenschaft (Stuttgart).Google Scholar
Simms, D. L. 1995. ‘Archimedes the Engineer’, HTechn, 17: 45111.Google Scholar
Sykutris, J. 1933. Die Briefe des Sokrates und der Sokratiker (Paderborn).Google Scholar
Taplin, O. 1977. The Stagecraft of Aeschylus (Oxford).Google Scholar
Tybjerg, K. 2003. ‘Wonder-Making and Philosophical Wonder in Hero of Alexandria’, SHPS, 34.3: 443–66.Google Scholar
Wiedemann, E. and Hauser, F.. 1918. ‘Uhr des Archimedes und zwei andere Vorrichtungen’, Nova acta academiae caesareae leopoldino-carolinae Germanicae naturae curiosorum, 103.2: 159202.Google Scholar
Wiles, D. 1991. Masks of Menander: Sign and Meaning in Greek and Roman Performance (Cambridge).Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×