The series has published an average of one volume per year over the last 5 years.
The most successful Companion volumes focus on authors, genres or themes on whom or on which there has been recent scholarly attention that has provoked new perspectives and new questions on which there is ample scope for debate. Ideally, Companions look backwards at a history of scholarship that might include the very emergence of a field, and forwards to future questions and lines of enquiry. Successful Companions regularly raise explicit questions about the boundaries of genres or themes, but it is hard to put together a coherent volume on a field that is as yet poorly defined.
The aim of a Companion is not to be exhaustive, but to give a lively sense of current debates, and to encourage participation in future debates. Editors should commission and curate articles that offer the target, graduate-level audience insight into the most pertinent questions that are and should be asked about the author, genre or theme on which the volume is focused. Editors should frame the volume with an introduction and sections that make these questions explicit, and they should make every effort to ensure that individual essays are participating in conversations that are shared across the volume. It is therefore important to insert cross-references where articles complement each other or where they disagree with one another.
Pherecydes of Syros’ work is difficult to understand because of its fragmentary nature. A previously unexplored perspective on his work is to analyze how it was understood and used in Ptolemaic Alexandria, particularly by Eratosthenes and Callimachus. Eratosthenes’ distinction between Pherecydes of Syros and Pherecydes of Athens (DL 1.119) has been used as a key piece of evidence that those two authors are, in fact, distinct. However, there has been little discussion of Eratosthenes’ interest in these authors outside of that statement. Callimachus’ interest in Pherecydes has also been ignored by both scholars of Pherecydes and scholars of Alexandrian poetry (except for brief references). Through this examination, I argue that Pherecydes of Syros was an important figure in discussions about the development of prose in Ptolemaic Alexandria.
The article argues that the Odyssean hapax
A little over a century ago, it was discovered that Athanasius’ Life of Antony echoes Porphyry’s Life of Pythagoras in two different passages, and scholars have since debated the implications of this clear intertextual linkage. Building on these initial findings, the present article adduces a previously undiscovered third echo of the Porphyrian Life and argues that Athanasius deploys this intertext in order simultaneously to subvert Porphyry’s idealized portraiture of Pythagoras and to elevate his own hagiographic protagonist Antony.
This paper discusses the convention of off-stage cries deployed in Greek tragedy and satyr play chiefly to represent violent events. Unlike other studies dedicated to this topic, it is primarily focused on the cries themselves and to a lesser extent on their context, both dramatic and theatrical. Using the familiar distinction between word and action, it begins with a simple question: how exactly does an off-stage cry represent a violent event taking place within? Examined first as textual phenomena the voices from within are found to acquire their meaning through the discourse of the characters, and not as cries per se. The performative approach, however, also brings their auditory dimension into perspective. Although the evidence is mostly circumstantial, its cumulative weight does suggest that the vocal qualities of the off-stage cries could endow them with meanings unaccounted for in the textual perspective.
Ancient Philosophy, Ancient History, Ancient Religion, Greek and Roman Literature, Epigraphy & Papyrology, Archeology
This e-book collection is part of Brill's Humanities and Social Sciences E-Book collection.
The list of titles per collection can be found here.