Technical Ekphrasis in Greek and Roman Science and Literature The Written Machine between Alexandria and Rome
Book contents
- Technical Ekphrasis in Greek and Roman Science and Literature
- Technical Ekphrasis in Greek and Roman Science and Literature
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Book part
- Introduction: The Written Machine
- Chapter 1 Genres: Texts and Artifacts
- Chapter 2 Cultural Contexts
- Chapter 3 The Ekphrastic Complex
- Chapter 4 Diagram and Artifact
- Chapter 5 Description and Instruction
- Chapter 6 Knowledge and Artifact
- Chapter 7 Conclusion: The Limits of Description
- Bibliography
- Texts Consulted
- General Index
- Index Locorum
- References
Bibliography
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 March 2016
Book contents
- Technical Ekphrasis in Greek and Roman Science and Literature
- Technical Ekphrasis in Greek and Roman Science and Literature
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Book part
- Introduction: The Written Machine
- Chapter 1 Genres: Texts and Artifacts
- Chapter 2 Cultural Contexts
- Chapter 3 The Ekphrastic Complex
- Chapter 4 Diagram and Artifact
- Chapter 5 Description and Instruction
- Chapter 6 Knowledge and Artifact
- Chapter 7 Conclusion: The Limits of Description
- Bibliography
- Texts Consulted
- General Index
- Index Locorum
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Technical Ekphrasis in Greek and Roman Science and LiteratureThe Written Machine between Alexandria and Rome, pp. 307 - 325Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2016
References
Ager, S. L., and Faber, R. (eds.) (2013) Belonging and isolation in the Hellenistic world. Toronto.Google Scholar
Albrecht, M. von, and Schmeling, G. L. (1997) A history of Roman literature: from Livius Andronicus to Boethius: with special regard to its influence on world literature. Leiden; New York.Google Scholar
Alexander, L. (1993) The preface to Luke’s Gospel: literary convention and social context in Luke 1.1–4 and Acts 1.1. Cambridge; New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Apollodorus (2010) Apollodorus Mechanicus, Siege-matters = Poliorketika. Whitehead, D., ed. Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Archimedes, and Eutocius, (2004) The works of Archimedes: translated into English, together with Eutocius’ commentaries, with commentary and critical edition of the diagrams. Netz, R., ed. Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aristotle, (2000) Problemi meccanici. Bottecchia Dehò, M. E., ed. Soveria Mannelli (Catanzaro).Google Scholar
Asper, M. (2001) “Dionysios (Heron, Def. 14. 3) und die Datierung Herons von Alexandria.” Hermes 129(1): 135–7.Google Scholar
Asper, M. (2007) Griechische Wissenschaftstexte: Formen, Funktionen, Differenzierungsgeschichten. Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Asper, M. (2009) “Science and fiction in Callimachus.” In Harder, A., Wakker, G. C., and Regtuit, R. F. (eds.), Nature and science in Hellenistic poetry. Leuven: 1–18.Google Scholar
Athenaeus, (2004) On machines = Peri mēchanēmatōn. Whitehead, D. and Blyth, P. H., trans. Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Aujac, G. (1993) La sphère: instrument au service de la découverte du monde: d’Autolycos de Pitanè à Jean de Sacrobosco. Caen.Google Scholar
Bal, M. (1991) Reading “Rembrandt”: beyond the word-image opposition: the Northrop Frye lectures in literary theory. Cambridge; New York.Google Scholar
Balbus, (1848) “Expositio et ratio omnium mensurarum.” In Lachmann, K. (ed.), Die Schriften der römischen Feldmesser (vol. i). Berlin: 91–108.Google Scholar
Balbus, (1996) Présentation systematique de toutes les figures. Guillaumin, J.-Y., trans. Naples.Google Scholar
Barnes, J. (1975) “Aristotle’s theory of demonstration.” In Barnes, J., Schofield, M., and Sorabji, R. (eds.), Articles on Aristotle (vol. i). London: 65–87.Google Scholar
Bauer, J. M., and Herder, P. M. (2009) “Designing socio-technical systems.” In Meijers, A. (ed.), Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences. Amsterdam; London; Boston: 601–30.Google Scholar
Baumann, M. (2011) Bilder schreiben: virtuose ekphrasis in Philostrats Eikones. Berlin; New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baxandall, M. (1985) Patterns of intention: on the historical explanation of pictures. New Haven.Google Scholar
Beagon, M. (1992) Roman nature: the thought of Pliny the Elder. Oxford; New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergmann, B. (2007) “A painted garland: weaving words and images in the House of the Epigrams in Pompeii.” In Newby, Z. and Leader-Newby, R. E. (eds.), Art and inscriptions in the ancient world. Cambridge; New York: 60–101.Google Scholar
Berryman, S. (2003) “Ancient automata and mechanical explanation.” Phronesis 48(4): 344–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berryman, S. (2007) “The imitation of life in ancient Greek philosophy.” In Riskin, J. (ed.), Genesis redux: essays in the history and philosophy of artificial life. Chicago: 35–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berryman, S. (2009) The mechanical hypothesis in ancient Greek natural philosophy. Cambridge; New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berthelot, M., and Ruelle, C.-E. (eds.) (1888) Collection des anciens alchimistes grecs. Paris.Google Scholar
Bing, P. (2002) “The un-read Muse? Inscribed epigram and its readers in antiquity.” In Regtuit, R. F., Harder, M. A., and Wakker, G. C. (eds.), Hellenistic epigrams. Sterling, VA: 39–66.Google Scholar
Blyth, P. H. (1992) “Apollodorus of Damascus and the Poliorcetica.” Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 33(2): 127–58.Google Scholar
Boehm, G., and Pfotenhauer, H. (eds.) (1995) Beschreibungskunst, Kunstbeschreibung: Ekphrasis von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart. Munich.Google Scholar
Bömer, F. (1953) “Der Commentarius: Zur Vorgeschichte und literarischen Form der Schriften Caesars.” Hermes 81(2): 210–50.Google Scholar
Bowersock, G. W. (1989) “Philostratus and the Second Sophistic.” In Easterling, P. E., and Knox, B. M. W. (eds.), The Cambridge history of classical literature (vol. i). Cambridge: 95–8.Google Scholar
Brodersen, K. (1992) Reiseführer zu den sieben Weltwundern: Philon von Byzanz und andere antike Texte. Frankfurt am Main.Google Scholar
Bruun, C. (1991) The water supply of ancient Rome: a study of Roman imperial administration. Helsinki.Google Scholar
Bunge, M. (1979) “Philosophical inputs and outputs of technology.” In Doner, D. B., and Bugliarello, G. (eds.), The history and philosophy of technology. Chicago: 262–81.Google Scholar
Büssing, H. (1984) “Optische Korrekturen: Vitruvs Empfehlungen verglichen mit der attischen Architektur des 5. Jhs. v. Chr.” In Wesenberg, B. (ed.), Vitruv-Kolloquium des Deutschen Archäologen-Verbandes e.V., durchgeführt an der Technischen Hochschule Darmstadt, 17. bis 18. Juni 1982. Darmstadt: 27–40.Google Scholar
Callebat, L. (1994) “Rhétorique et architecture dans le ‘De Architectura’ de Vitruve.” In Gros, Pierre (ed.), Le projet de Vitruve: objet, destinataires et réception du De architectura. Rome: 31–46.Google Scholar
Campbell, D. B. (2011) “Ancient catapults: some hypotheses reexamined.” Hesperia 80(4): 677–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, J. B. (2000) The writings of the Roman land surveyors: introduction, text, translation and commentary. London.Google Scholar
Cantor, M. (1968) Die römischen Agrimensoren und ihre Stellung in der Geschichte der Feldmesskunst: eine historisch-mathematische Untersuchung. Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
Catamo, M., Lanciano, N., Locher, K., Lombardero, M., and Valdes, M. (2000) “Fifteen further Greco-Roman sundials from the Mediterranean area and Sudan.” Journal for the History of Astronomy 31: 203–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Catullus, (1990) Catullus: a commentary. Fordyce, C. J., ed. Oxford; New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caws, P. (1979) “Praxis and techne.” In Doner, D. B., and Bugliarello, G. (eds.), The history and philosophy of technology. Chicago: 227–38.Google Scholar
Chouquer, G., and Favory, F. (2001) L’arpentage romain: histoire des textes, droit, techniques. Paris.Google Scholar
Clarke, K. (1999) Between geography and history: Hellenistic constructions of the Roman world. Oxford.Google Scholar
Coarelli, F. (1992) “Le plan de via Anicia: un nouveau fragment de la Forma Marmorea de Rome.” In Hinard, F., and Royo, M. (eds.), Rome: l’espace urbain et ses reprèsentations. Paris; Tours: 429–56.Google Scholar
Conso, D., Gonzalès, A., and Guillaumin, J.-Y. (2006) Les vocabulaires techniques des arpenteurs romains: actes du colloque international, Besançon, 19–21 septembre 2002. Besançon.Google Scholar
Coulton, J. J. (1977) Ancient Greek architects at work: problems of structure and design. Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
Coxhead, M. A. (2012) “A close examination of the pseudo-Aristotelian Mechanical Problems: the homology between mechanics and poetry as technē.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 43(2): 300–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Creese, D. E. (2010) The monochord in ancient Greek harmonic science. Cambridge; New York.Google Scholar
Cuomo, S. (2000) Pappus of Alexandria and the mathematics of late antiquity. Cambridge; New York.Google Scholar
Cuomo, S. (2002) “The machine and the city: Hero of Alexandria’s Belopoeica.” In Tuplin, C., and Rihll, T. E. (eds.), Science and mathematics in ancient Greek culture. Oxford; New York: 165–77.Google Scholar
Cuomo, S. (2007) Technology and culture in Greek and Roman antiquity. Cambridge; New York.Google Scholar
Cuomo, S. (2011) “A Roman engineer’s tales.” The Journal of Roman Studies 101: 143–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Damerow, P., Renn, J., Rieger, S., and Weinig, P. (2002) “Mechanical knowledge and Pompeian balances.” In Castagnetti, G. (ed.), Homo faber: studies on nature, technology, and science at the time of Pompeii. Rome: 93–108.Google Scholar
Dean-Jones, L. (2003) “Literacy and the charlatan in ancient Greek medicine.” In Yunis, H. (ed.), Written texts and the rise of literate culture in ancient Greece. Cambridge; New York: 97–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deinlein, B. (1975) Das römische Sachbuch. Friedrich-Alexander-Universität, Erlangen-Nürnberg.Google Scholar
De Jong, J. J. (1989) “Greek mathematics, Hellenistic architecture and Vitruvius’ De architectura.” In Geertman, H., and de Jong, J. J. (eds.), Munus non ingratum: proceedings of the international symposium on Vitruvius’ De architectura and the Hellenistic and Republican architecture, Leiden, 20–23 January 1987. Leiden: 100–13.Google Scholar
DeLaine, J. (1996) “De aquis suis? The ‘Commentarius’ of Frontinus.” In Nicolet, C. (ed.), Les littératures techniques dans l’antiquité romaine. Geneva: 117–45.Google Scholar
de Solla Price, D. J. (1974) Gears from the Greeks: the Antikythera mechanism, a calendar computer from ca. 80 B.C. Philadelphia.Google Scholar
de Solla Price, D. J. (1980) “Philosophical mechanism and mechanical philosophy: some notes toward a philosophy of scientific instruments.” Annali dell’istituto e museo di storia della scienza de Firenze: 75–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diederich, S. (2007) Römische Agrarhandbücher zwischen Fachwissenschaft, Literatur und Ideologie. Berlin; New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diels, H. (1893) “Über das physikalische System des Straton.” In Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (vol. xii). Berlin: 101–27.Google Scholar
Dilke, O. A. W. (1971) The Roman land surveyors: an introduction to the agrimensores. Newton Abbot.Google Scholar
Drachmann, A. G. (1954) “The plane astrolabe and the anaphoric clock.” Centaurus 3: 183–9.Google Scholar
Drachmann, A. G. (1963) The mechanical technology of Greek and Roman antiquity: a study of the literary sources. Copenhagen; Madison.Google Scholar
Drachmann, A. G. (1973) “The crank in Graeco-Roman antiquity.” In Teich, M., and Young, R. (eds.), Changing perspectives in the history of science: essays in honour of Joseph Needham. London: 33–51.Google Scholar
Dunsch, B. (2012) “Arte rates reguntur: nautical handbooks in antiquity?” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 43(2): 270–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elsner, J. (1995) Art and the Roman viewer: the transformation of art from the pagan world to Christianity. Cambridge; New York.Google Scholar
Elsner, J. (2001) “Introduction: the genres of ekphrasis.” Ramus: critical studies in Greek and Roman literature. 31(1/2): 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elsner, J. (2009) “A Protean corpus.” In Bowie, E., and Elsner, J. (eds.), Philostratus. Cambridge; New York: 3–18.Google Scholar
Evans, H. B. (1994) Water distribution in ancient Rome: the evidence of Frontinus. Ann Arbor.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, J. (1999) “The material culture of Greek astronomy.” Journal for the History of Astronomy 30: 237–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, J. (2004) “The astrologer’s apparatus: a picture of professional practice in Greco-Roman Egypt.” Journal for the History of Astronomy 35: 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faber, R. (1995) “Vergil Eclogue 3.37, Theocritus 1 and Hellenistic ekphrasis.” The American Journal of Philology 116(3): 411–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fantuzzi, M., and Hunter, R. L. (2004) Tradition and innovation in Hellenistic poetry. Cambridge, England; New York.Google Scholar
Faulkner, W. (1994) “Conceptualizing knowledge used in innovation: a second look at the science–technology distinction and industrial innovation.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 19(4): 425–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Federspiel, M. (1991) “Sur la definition euclidienne de la droite.” In Vuillemin, J., and Rāshid, R. (eds.), Mathèmatiques et philosophie de l’antiquitè à l’age classique: hommage à Jules Vuillemin. Paris: 115–30.Google Scholar
Feke, J. (2014) “Meta-mathematical rhetoric: Hero and Ptolemy against the philosophers.” Historia Mathematica 41(3): 261–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleury, P. (1990) “Les textes techniques de l’antiquité: sources, études et perspectives.” Euphrosyne 18: 359–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleury, P. (1994) “Le De architectura et les traités de mécanique ancienne.” In Gros, Pierre (ed.), Le projet de Vitruve: objet, destinataires et réception du De architectura. Rome: 187–212.Google Scholar
Fleury, P. (1996) “Traités de mécanique et textes sur les machines.” In Nicolet, C. (ed.), Les littératures techniques dans l’antiquité romaine. Geneva: 45–76.Google Scholar
Fögen, T. (2000) Patrii sermonis egestas: Einstellungen lateinischer Autoren zu ihrer Muttersprache: ein Beitrag zum Sprachbewusstsein in der römischen Antike. Munich.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleury, P. (2003) “Metasprachliche Reflexionen antiker Autoren zu den Charakteristika von Fachtexten und Fachsprachen.” In Horster, M., and Reitz, C. (eds.), Antike Fachschriftsteller: literarischer Diskurs und sozialer Kontext. Wiesbaden: 31–60.Google Scholar
Fögen, T. (2004) “Zur Transformation griechischer Wissensbestände durch römische Fachschriftsteller.” In Hassler, G., and Volkmann, G. (eds.), History of linguistics in texts and concepts. Münster: 433–54.Google Scholar
Fögen, T. (2009) Wissen, Kommunikation und Selbstdarstellung: zur Struktur und Charakteristik römischer Fachtexte der frühen Kaiserzeit. Munich.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Folkerts, M. (1992) “Mathematische Probleme im Corpus agrimensorum.” In Behrends, O., and Capogrossi Colognesi, L. (eds.), Die römische Feldmesskunst: interdisziplinäre Beiträge zu ihrer Bedeutung für die zivilisationsgeschichte Roms. Göttingen: 311–36.Google Scholar
Forbes, R. J. (1950) Metallurgy in antiquity: a notebook for archaeologists and technologists. Leiden.Google Scholar
Fowler, D. H. (1995) “Further arithmetical tables.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 105: 225–8.Google Scholar
Fowler, D. P. (1991) “Narrate and describe: the problem of ekphrasis.” The Journal of Roman Studies 81: 25–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, D. (1999) The mathematics of Plato’s Academy: a new reconstruction. (2nd edn.). Oxford; New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, D., and Taisbak, C. (1999) “Did Euclid’s circles have two kinds of radius?” Historia Mathematica 26(4): 361–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeth, T., Bitsakis, Y., Jones, A., and Steele, J. M. (2008) “Calendars with Olympiad display and eclipse prediction on the Antikythera Mechanism.” Nature 454(7204): 614–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Freeth, T., Bitsakis, Y., Moussas, X., Seiradakis, J. H., Tselikas, A., Mangou, H., Zafeiropoulou, M., Hadland, R., Bate, D., Ramsey, A., Allen, M., Crawley, A., Hockley, P., Malzbender, T., Gelb, D., Ambrisco, W., and Edmunds, M. G. (2006) “Decoding the ancient Greek astronomical calculator known as the Antikythera Mechanism.” Nature 444(7119): 587–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Freeth, T., and Jones, A. (2012) “The cosmos in the Antikythera mechanism.” ISAW Papers 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuhrmann, M. (1960) Das systematische Lehrbuch: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Wissenschaften in der Antike. Göttingen.Google Scholar
Furley, D. J. (1989) Cosmic problems: essays on Greek and Roman philosophy of nature. Cambridge; New York.Google Scholar
Gale, M. (2004) “The story of us: a narratological analysis of Lucretius’ De rerum natura.” In Gale, M. (ed.), Latin epic and didactic poetry: genre, tradition and individuality. Swansea; Oakville, CN: 49–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallagher, R. L. (2001) “Metaphor in Cicero’s ‘De re publica.’” The Classical Quarterly 51(2): 509–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gatzemeier, M. (1970) Die Naturphilosophie des Straton von Lampsakos. Meisenheim am Glan.Google Scholar
Gee, E. (2000) Ovid, Aratus, and Augustus: astronomy in Ovid’s Fasti. Cambridge; New York.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. (2003) “Prototypes in dynamic meaning construal.” In Gavins, J., and Steen, G. (eds.), Cognitive poetics in practice. London; New York: 27–40.Google Scholar
Gibson, R. K. (1998) “Didactic poetry as ‘popular’ form: a study of imperatival expressions in Latin didactic verse and prose.” In Atherton, C. (ed.), Form and content in didactic poetry. Bari: 67–98.Google Scholar
Goldhill, S. (1994) “The naïve and knowing eye: ekphrasis and the culture of viewing in the Hellenistic world.” In Goldhill, S., and Osborne, R. (eds.), Art and text in ancient Greek culture. Cambridge; New York: 197–223.Google Scholar
Goldhill, S. (2001) “The erotic eye: visual stimulation and cultural conflict.” In Goldhill, S. (ed.), Being Greek under Rome: cultural identity, the Second Sophistic and the development of empire. Cambridge; New York: 154–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldhill, S. (2007) “What is ekphrasis for?” Classical Philology 102(1): 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldhill, S., and Osborne, R. (eds.) (1994) Art and text in ancient Greek culture. Cambridge; New York.Google Scholar
Gombrich, E. H. (1960) Art and illusion: a study in the psychology of pictorial representation. New York.Google Scholar
Graf, F. (1995) “Ekphrasis: die Entstehung der Gattung in der Antike.” In Boehm, G., and Pfotenhauer, H. (eds.), Beschreibungskunst, Kunstbeschreibung: Ekphrasis von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart. Munich: 143–55.Google Scholar
Gros, P. (1994) “Munus non ingratum: le traité vitruvien et la notion de service.” In Gros, P. (ed.), Le projet de Vitruve: objet, destinataires et réception du De architectura. Rome: 75–90.Google Scholar
Gros, P. (1996) “Les illustrations du De architectura de Vitruve: histoire d’un malentendu.” In Nicolet, C., and Gros, P. (eds.), Les littératures techniques dans l’antiquité romaine. Geneva: 19–44.Google Scholar
Gros, P. (2006) “Introduction générale.” In Vitruve et la tradition des traités d’architecture: fabrica et ratiocinatio: recueil d’études. Rome: 399–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guillaumin, J.-Y. (1994) “Géométrie grecque et agrimensorique romaine: la science comme justification d’une idéologie.” Dialogues d’histoire ancienne 20(2): 279–95.Google Scholar
Gutzwiller, K. (2002) “Art’s echo: the tradition of Hellenistic ecphrastic epigram.” In Regtuit, R. F., Wakker, G. C., and Harder, M. A. (eds.), Hellenistic epigrams. Sterling, VA: 85–112.Google Scholar
Hall, J. J. (1983) “Was rapid scientific and technical progress possible in antiquity?” Apeiron 17: 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hannah, R. (2008) “Timekeeping.” In Oleson, J. P. (ed.), Oxford handbook of engineering and technology in the classical world. Oxford; New York: 740–58.Google Scholar
Hanson, N. R. (1958) Patterns of discovery: an inquiry into the conceptual foundations of science. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Haselberger, L. (1999) “Curvature: the evidence of Didyma.” In Haselberger, L. (ed.), Appearance and essence: refinements of classical architecture – curvature: Proceedings of the Second Williams Symposium on Classical Architecture Held at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, April 2–4, 1993. Philadelphia: 173–84.Google Scholar
Heffernan, J. A. W. (1991) “Ekphrasis and representation.” New Literary History 22(2): 297–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heffernan, J. A. W. (1993) Museum of words: the poetics of ekphrasis from Homer to Ashbery. Chicago.Google Scholar
Heffernan, J. A. W. (1999) “Speaking for pictures: the rhetoric of art criticism.” Word & Image 15(1): 119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heliodorus, Damianus, and Geminus (1897) Damianos Schrift über Optik: mit Auszügen aus Geminos: Griechisch und Deutsch. Schöne, R., ed. Berlin.Google Scholar
Hermogenes, (2005) Invention and method: two rhetorical treatises from the Hermogenic corpus. Kennedy, G. A., trans., Rabe, H., ed. Atlanta.Google Scholar
Hero, (1995) “Heron of Alexandria’s On automaton-making.” Murphy, S., trans. History of Technology 17: 1–44.Google Scholar
Hero, (1997) Les Pneumatiques d’Héron d’Alexandrie. Argoud, G., and Guillaumin, J.-Y., eds. Saint-Étienne.Google Scholar
Hero, (2003) Erone di Alessandria: le radici filosofico-matematiche della tecnologia applicata: definitiones: testo, traduzione e commento. Giardina, G. R., ed. Catania.Google Scholar
Byzantius, Heron (1909) “De strategematibus.” In Schneider, R. (ed.), Griechische Poliorketiker (vol. i). Berlin: 4–80.Google Scholar
Herrmann, A., and Breidenbach, W. (1952) Das delische Problem (die Verdoppelung des Würfels). Leipzig.Google Scholar
Hesberg, H. (1984) “Römische Grundrißpläne auf Marmor.” In Deutsches Archäologisches Institut (ed.), Bauplanung und Bautheorie der Antike. Berlin: 120–33.Google Scholar
Hindle, B., and Lubar, S. D. (1986) Engines of change: the American industrial revolution, 1790–1860. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Hine, H. M. (2009) “Subjectivity and objectivity in Latin scientific and technical literature.” In Taub, L. C., and Doody, A. (eds.), Authorial voices in Greco-Roman technical writing. Trier: 13–30.Google Scholar
Hine, H. M. (2011) “‘Discite … Agricolae’: modes of instruction in Latin prose agricultural writing from Cato to Pliny the Elder.” Classical Quarterly 61(2): 624–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodder, I. (2012) Entangled: an archaeology of the relationships between humans and things. Malden, MA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horster, M. (2003) “Literarische Elite? Der soziale Kontext römischer Fachschriftsteller.” In Horster, M., and Reitz, C. (eds.), Antike Fachschriftsteller: literarischer Diskurs und sozialer Kontext. Wiesbaden: 176–97.Google Scholar
Houkes, W. (2009) “The nature of technological knowledge.” In Meijers, A. (ed.), Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences. Amsterdam; London; Boston: 309–50.Google Scholar
Hovgaard, W. (1926) “The arsenal in Piraeus and the ancient building rules.” Isis 8(1): 12–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Høyrup, J. (1997) “A note on water-clocks and on the authority of texts.” Archiv für Orientforschung 44/45: 192–4.Google Scholar
Hyde, W. W. (1938) “The recent discovery of an inscribed water-organ at Budapest.” Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 69: 392–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyginus, and Frontinus, (2005) Les arpenteurs romains, vol. i: Hygin le Gromatique; Frontin. Guillaumin, J.-Y., trans. Paris.Google Scholar
Jacob, C. (1998) “La bibliothèque, la carte et le traité: les formes de l’accumulation du savoir à Alexandrie.” In Argoud, G., and Guillaumin, J.-Y. (eds.), Sciences exactes et sciences appliquées à Alexandrie. Saint-Étienne: 19–37.Google Scholar
Jones, A. (2009) “Mathematics, science, and medicine in the papyri.” In Bagnall, R. S. (ed.), The Oxford handbook of papyrology. Oxford; New York: 338–57.Google Scholar
Kenney, E. J., and Clausen, W. V. (eds.) (1996) The Cambridge history of classical literature (vol. ii). Cambridge.Google Scholar
Keyser, P. T. (1988) “Suetonius Nero 41.2 and the date of Heron Mechanicus of Alexandria.” Classical Philology 83: 218–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keyser, P. T. (1998) “Orreries, the date of [Plato] Letter II, and Eudoros of Alexandria.” Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 80(3): 241–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keyser, P. T., and Irby-Massie, G. L. (2008) The encyclopedia of ancient natural scientists: the Greek tradition and its many heirs. London; New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koelb, J. H. (2007) The poetics of description: imagined places in European literature. New York.Google Scholar
Kogge, W. (2012) “Empeiría: vom Verlust der Erfahrungshaltigkeit des ‘Wissens’ und vom Versuch, sie als ‘implizites Wissen’ wieder zu gewinnen.” In Loenhoff, J. (ed.), Implizites Wissen: epistemologische und handlungstheoretische Perspektiven. Weilerswist: 31–48.Google Scholar
Koller, D., Trimble, J., Najbjerg, T., Gelfand, N., and Levoy, M. (2006) “Fragments of the city: Stanford’s digital Forma Urbis Romae project.” In Haselberger, L., and Humphrey, J. W. (eds.), Imaging ancient Rome: documentation, visualization, imagination: Proceedings of the Third Williams Symposium on Classical Architecture, Held at the American Academy in Rome, the British School at Rome, and the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Rome, on May 20–23, 2004. Portsmouth, RI: 237–52.Google Scholar
König, A. (2007) “Knowledge and power in Frontinus’ On aqueducts.” In König, J., and Whitmarsh, T. (eds.), Ordering knowledge in the Roman empire. Cambridge; New York: 177–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
König, J., and Whitmarsh, T. (2007a) Ordering knowledge in the Roman empire. Cambridge; New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
König, J., and Whitmarsh, T. (2007b) “Ordering knowledge.” In König, J., and Whitmarsh, T. (eds.), Ordering knowledge in the Roman empire. Cambridge; New York: 3–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Konstan, D. (1994) “Foreword: to the reader.” In Schiesaro, A., Mitsis, P., and Clay, J. S. (eds.), Mega nepios: il destinatario nell’epos didascalico. Pisa: 11–22.Google Scholar
Krenkel, W. (2003) “Sprache und Fachsprache.” In Horster, M., and Reitz, C. (eds.), Antike Fachschriftsteller: literarischer Diskurs und sozialer Kontext. Wiesbaden: 11–30.Google Scholar
Kronenberg, L. (2009) Allegories of farming from Greece and Rome: philosophical satire in Xenophon, Varro and Virgil. Cambridge; New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kusukawa, S. (2011) Picturing the book of nature: image, text, and argument in sixteenth- century human anatomy and medical botany. Chicago; London.Google Scholar
Laird, A. (1999) Powers of expression, expressions of power: speech presentation and Latin literature. Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2008) Cognitive grammar: a basic introduction. Oxford; New York; Auckland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latour, B. (1986) “Visualisation and cognition: drawing things together.” Knowledge and Society: Studies in the Sociology of Culture Past and Present 6: 1–40.Google Scholar
Lavan, L. (2007) “Explaining technological change: innovation, stagnation, recession and replacement.” In Lavan, L., Zanini, E., and Sarantis, A. C. (eds.), Technology in transition: A.D. 300–650. Leiden; Boston: xv–xl.Google Scholar
Leach, E. W. (1988) The rhetoric of space: literary and artistic representations of landscape in Republican and Augustan Rome. Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
Leader-Newby, R. E. (2007) “Inscribed mosaics in the late Roman Empire: perspectives from east and west.” In Newby, Z., and Leader-Newby, R. E. (eds.), Art and inscriptions in the ancient world. Cambridge; New York: 179–99.Google Scholar
Lehoux, D. (2007) Astronomy, weather, and calendars in the ancient world: parapegmata and related texts in classical and Near Eastern societies. Cambridge; New York.Google Scholar
Lehoux, D. (2012) What did the Romans know? An inquiry into science and worldmaking. Chicago.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehoux, D. (2013) “Seeing and unseeing, seen and unseen.” In Lehoux, D., Morrison, A. D., and Sharrock, A. (eds.), Lucretius: poetry, philosophy, science. Oxford; New York: 131–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lelgemann, D. (2010) Die Erfindung der Messkunst: angewandte Mathematik im antiken Griechenland. Darmstadt.Google Scholar
Leng, R. (2004) “Social character and pictorial style, and the grammar of technical illustration in craftsmen’s manuscripts in the late Middle Ages.” In Lefèvre, W. (ed.), Picturing machines 1400–1700. Cambridge, MA: 85–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, M. J. T. (2001) Surveying instruments of Greece and Rome. Cambridge; New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, M. J. T. (2007) “Antique engineering in the Byzantine world.” In Lavan, L., Zanini, E., and Sarantis, A. C. (eds.), Technology in transition: A.D. 300–650. Leiden; Boston: 367–78.Google Scholar
Lloyd, G. E. R. (1987) The revolutions of wisdom: studies in the claims and practice of ancient Greek science. Berkeley.Google Scholar
Long, P. O. (2001) Openness, secrecy, authorship: technical arts and the culture of knowledge from antiquity to the Renaissance. Baltimore.Google Scholar
Lukács, G. (1971) “Narrate or describe?” In Kahn, A. (trans.), Writer and critic, and other essays. New York: 110–48.Google Scholar
McEwen, I. K. (2003) Vitruvius: writing the body of architecture. Cambridge, MA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manieri, A. (1999) “Colori, suoni e profumi nelle ‘Imagines’: principi dell’estetica filostratea.” Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 63(3): 111–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Männlein-Robert, I. (2007) “Epigrams on art: voice and voicelessness in Hellenistic epigram.” In Bing, P., and Bruss, J. S. (eds.), Brill’s companion to Hellenistic epigram. Leiden; Boston: 251–71.Google Scholar
Martin, A., and Wiggs, C. L. (1996) “Neural correlates of category-specific knowledge.” Nature 379(6566): 649–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Masterson, M. (2004) “Status, pay, and pleasure in the ‘De architectura’ of Vitruvius.” The American Journal of Philology 125(3): 387–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meißner, B. (1999) Die technologische Fachliteratur der Antike: Struktur, Uberlieferung und Wirkung technischen Wissens in der Antike (ca. 400 v. Chr.–ca. 500 n. Chr.). Berlin.Google Scholar
Meißner, B. (2003) “Mündliche Vermittlung und schriftliche Unterweisung in der antiken Berufsausbildung.” In Horster, M., and Reitz, C. (eds.), Antike Fachschriftsteller: literarischer Diskurs und sozialer Kontext. Wiesbaden: 153–75.Google Scholar
Mendelsohn, E., and Elkana, Y. (eds.) (1981) Sciences and cultures: anthropological and historical studies of the sciences. Dordrecht; Boston.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitcham, C. (1994) Thinking through technology: the path between engineering and philosophy. Chicago.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, W. J. T. (1994) Picture theory: essays on verbal and visual representation. Chicago.Google Scholar
Mitchell, W. J. T. (2005) What do pictures want?: the lives and loves of images. Chicago.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mokyr, J. (1996) “Evolution and technological change: a new metaphor for economic history?” In Fox, R. (ed.), Technological change: methods and themes in the history of technology. Amsterdam: 63–83.Google Scholar
Netz, R. (1999) The shaping of deduction in Greek mathematics: a study in cognitive history. New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Netz, R. (2004) The transformation of mathematics in the early Mediterranean world: from problems to equations. New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Netz, R. (2009) Ludic proof: Greek mathematics and the Alexandrian aesthetic. New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neugebauer, O. (1947) “The water clock in Babylonian astronomy.” Isis 37(1/2): 37–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Newby, Z. (2009) “Absorption and erudition in Philostratus’ Imagines.” In Bowie, E., and Elsner, J. (eds.), Philostratus. Cambridge; New York: 322–42.Google Scholar
Newby, Z., and Leader-Newby, R. E. (eds.) (2007) Art and inscriptions in the ancient world. Cambridge; New York.Google Scholar
Nicolet, C. (1991) Space, geography, and politics in the early Roman empire. Ann Arbor.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicolet, C. (1996) “Introduction.” In Nicolet, C., and Gros, P. (eds.), Les littératures techniques dans l’antiquité romaine. Geneva: 1–17.Google Scholar
Nicolet, C., and Gros, P. (eds.) (1996) Les littératures techniques dans l’antiquité romaine. Geneva.Google Scholar
Nightingale, P. (2009) “Tacit knowledge and engineering design.” In Meijers, A. (ed.), Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences. Amsterdam; London; Boston: 351–74.Google Scholar
Nutton, V. (1978) “The beneficial ideology.” In Garnsey, P., and Whittaker, C. R. (eds.), Imperialism in the ancient world: the Cambridge University Research Seminar in Ancient History. Cambridge; New York: 209–22.Google Scholar
Nutton, V. (2009) “Galen’s authorial voice: a preliminary enquiry.” In Taub, L. C., and Doody, A. (eds.), Authorial voices in Greco-Roman technical writing. Trier: 53–62.Google Scholar
Oleson, J. P. (1984) Greek and Roman mechanical water-lifting devices: the history of a technology. Toronto; Buffalo.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oleson, J. P. (1986) Bronze Age, Greek, and Roman technology: a select, annotated bibliography. New York.Google Scholar
Oleson, J. P. (2004) “Well pumps for dummies: was there a Roman tradition of popular, sub-literary engineering manuals?” In Minonzio, F. (ed.), Problemi di macchinismo in ambito Romano macchine idrauliche nella letteratura tecnica, nelle fonti storiografiche e nelle evidenze archeologiche di età imperiale. Como: 65–86.Google Scholar
Oleson, J. P. (2005) “Design, materials, and the process of innovation for Roman force pumps.” In Pollini, J. (ed.), Terra marique: studies in art history and marine archaeology in honor of Anna Marguerite McCann on the receipt of the gold medal of the Archaeological Institute of America. Oxford; Oakville: 211–31.Google Scholar
Owens, J. (1991) “Aristotle on the pure and applied sciences.” In Bowen, A. C. (ed.), Science and philosophy in classical Greece. New York: 31–42.Google Scholar
Panofsky, E., and Lavin, I. (1995) Meaning in the visual arts: views from the outside: a centennial commemoration of Erwin Panofsky (1892–1968). Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
Peirce, C. S. (1931) “Logical tracts No. 2.” In Hartshorne, C., Weiss, P., and Burks, A. W. (eds.), Collected papers (vol. iv). Cambridge: 418–509.Google Scholar
Perry, E. (2005) The aesthetics of emulation in the visual arts of ancient Rome. Cambridge; New York.Google Scholar
Perry, E. E. (2002) “Rhetoric, literary criticism, and the Roman aesthetics of artistic imitation.” Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome. Supplementary Volumes 1: 153–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petronōtīs, A. (1968) Bauritzlinien und andere Aufschnürungen am Unterbau griechischer Bauwerke in der Archaik und Klassik, eine Studie zur Baukunst und -technik der Hellenen. Munich.Google Scholar
Pfeiffer, R. (1968) History of classical scholarship from the beginnings to the end of the Hellenistic age. Oxford.Google Scholar
Philo, (1974) Pneumatica: the first treatise on experimental physics, western version and eastern version. Facsimile and transcript of the Latin manuscript, CLM 534, Bayer. Staatsbibliothek, Munich. Translation and illustrations of the Arabic manuscript, A.S. 3713, Aya-Sofya, Istanbul. Prager, F. D., trans. Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
Pijanowski, B. C., Villanueva-Rivera, L. J., Dumyahn, S. L., Farina, A., Krause, B. L., Napoletano, B. M., Gage, S. H., and Pieretti, N. (2011) “Soundscape ecology: the science of sound in the landscape.” BioScience 61(3): 203–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Platt, V. J. (2007) “‘Honour takes wing’: unstable images and anxious orators in the Greek tradition.” In Newby, Z., and Leader-Newby, R. E. (eds.), Art and inscriptions in the ancient world. Cambridge; New York: 247–71.Google Scholar
Platt, V. J. (2011) Facing the gods: epiphany and representation in Graeco-Roman art, literature and religion. Cambridge; New York.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. (1935) Logik der Forschung: zur Erkenntnistheorie der modernen Naturwissenschaft. Vienna.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Purcell, N. (1983) “The apparitores: a study in social mobility.” Papers of the British School at Rome 51: 125–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reay, B. (2005) “Agriculture, writing, and Cato’s aristocratic self-fashioning.” Classical Antiquity 24(2): 331–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rees, R. (1994) “Common sense in Catullus 64.” The American Journal of Philology 115(1): 75–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinhardt, T. (2011) “Galen on unsayable properties.” Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 40: 297–317.Google Scholar
Riggsby, A. (2007) “Guides to the wor(l)d.” In König, J., and Whitmarsh, T. (eds.), Ordering knowledge in the Roman empire. Cambridge; New York: 88–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Risselada, R. (1993) Imperatives and other directive expressions in Latin: a study in the pragmatics of a dead language. Amsterdam.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, M. (1989) The jeweled style: poetry and poetics in late antiquity. Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
Robillard, V. K., and Jongeneel, E. (eds.) (1998) Pictures into words: theoretical and descriptive approaches to ekphrasis. Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Roby, C. (2014) “Experiencing geometry in Roman surveyors’ texts.” Nuncius 29(1): 9–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenmeyer, P. A. (2001) Ancient epistolary fictions: the letter in Greek literature. Cambridge; New York.Google Scholar
Rowland, H. A. (1902) “Screw.” In The physical papers of Henry Augustus Rowland, Johns Hopkins University, 1876–1901: collected for publication by a committee of the faculty of the university. Baltimore: 506–11.Google Scholar
Saastamoinen, A. (2003) “The literary character of Frontinus’ De aquaeductu.” In Bruun, C., and Saastamoinen, A. (eds.), Technology, ideology, water: from Frontinus to the Renaissance and beyond: papers from a conference at the Institutum Romanum Finlandiae, May 19–20, 2000. Rome: 15–39.Google Scholar
Sachs, A. (1974) “Babylonian observational astronomy.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London: Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences 276(1257): 43–50.Google Scholar
Sager, J. C., and Dungworth, D. (1980) English special languages: principles and practice in science and technology. Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
Saito, K. (2009) “Reading Greek mathematics.” In Robson, E., and Stedall, J. A. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of the history of mathematics. Oxford; New York: 801–26.Google Scholar
Saito, K. (2012) “Traditions of the diagram, tradition of the text: a case study.” Synthese 186(1): 7–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sallmann, K. (1984) “Bildungsvorgaben des Fachschriftstellers: Bemerkungen zur Pädagogik Vitruvs.” In Wesenberg, B., and Archäologen-Verband, Deutscher (eds.), Vitruv-Kolloquium des deutschen Archäologen-Verbandes e.V., durchgeführt an der Technischen Hochschule Darmstadt, 17. bis 18. Juni 1982. Darmstadt: 11–26.Google Scholar
Santini, C. (1990) “Le praefationes dei gromatici.” In Santini, C., and Scivoletto, N. (eds.), Prefazioni, prologhi, proemi di opere tecnico-scientifiche latine. Rome: 135–48.Google Scholar
Schaldach, K. (1998) Römische Sonnenuhren: eine Einführung in die antike Gnomonik. Thun.Google Scholar
Scheidel, W. (1996) “Finances, figures and fiction.” The Classical Quarterly 46(1): 222–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schellenberg, H. M. (2008) “Anmerkungen zu Heron von Alexandria und zu seinem Werk über den Geschützbau.” In Schellenberg, H. M., Hirschmann, V.-E., and Krieckhaus, A. (eds.), A Roman miscellany: essays in honour of Anthony R. Birley on his seventieth birthday. Gdańsk: 92–130.Google Scholar
Schiefsky, M. (2005) “Technical terminology in Greco-Roman treatises on artillery construction.” In Fögen, T. (ed.), Antike Fachtexte = Ancient technical texts. Berlin; New York: 253–70.Google Scholar
Schiefsky, M. (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: 67–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiefsky, M. (2008) “Theory and practice in Heron’s Mechanics.” In Laird, W. R., and Roux, S. (eds.), Mechanics and natural philosophy before the scientific revolution. Dordrecht; London: 15–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schironi, F. (2010) “Technical languages: science and medicine.” In Bakker, E. J. (ed.), A companion to the ancient Greek language. Chichester; Malden, MA: 338–53.Google Scholar
Schlachter, A. (1927) Der Globus, seine Entstehung und Verwendung in der Antike nach den literarischen Quellen und den Darstellungen in der Kunst. Leipzig; Berlin.Google Scholar
Schneider, R. (1906) “Herons Cheiroballistra.” Deutsches Archäologisches Institut: Römische Abteilung 21: 142–68.Google Scholar
Scholz, B. (1998) “Sub oculos subiectio: Quintilian on ekphrasis and enargeia.” In Robillard, V. K., and Jongeneel, E. (eds.), Pictures into words: theoretical and descriptive approaches to ekphrasis. Amsterdam: 73–99.Google Scholar
Schrijvers, P. H. (1989) “Vitruve et la vie intellectuelle de son temps.” In Geertman, H., and Jong, J. J. de (eds.), Munus non ingratum: proceedings of the international symposium on Vitruvius’ De architectura and the Hellenistic and Republican architecture, Leiden, 20–23 January 1987. Leiden: 13–21.Google Scholar
Schürmann, A. (2002) “Pneumatics on stage in Pompeii: ancient automatic devices and their social context.” In Castagnetti, G. (ed.), Homo faber: studies on nature, technology, and science at the time of Pompeii. Rome: 35–56.Google Scholar
Schütz, M. (1990) “Zur Sonnenuhr des Augustus auf dem Marsfeld.” Gymnasium 97: 432–57.Google Scholar
Shapin, S., and Schaffer, S. (1985) Leviathan and the air-pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the experimental life: including a translation of Thomas Hobbes, Dialogus physicus de natura aeris by Simon Schaffer. Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
Sidoli, N., and Saito, K. (2012) “Diagrams and arguments in ancient Greek mathematics: lessons drawn from comparisons of the manuscript diagrams with those in modern critical editions.” In Chemla, K. (ed.), The history of mathematical proof in ancient traditions. Cambridge: 135–62.Google Scholar
Sinding, M. (2002) “After definitions: genre, categories, and cognitive science.” Genre 35(2): 181–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorabji, R. (1988) Matter, space and motion: theories in antiquity and their sequel. Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
Spatharakis, I. (2004) The illustrations of the Cynegetica in Venice: codex Marcianus Graecus Z 139. Leiden.Google Scholar
Squire, M. (2007) “The motto in the grotto: inscribing illustration and illustrating inscription at Sperlonga.” In Newby, Z., and Leader-Newby, R. E. (eds.), Art and inscriptions in the ancient world. Cambridge; New York: 102–27.Google Scholar
Squire, M. (2010) “Making Myron’s cow moo? Ecphrastic epigram and the poetics of simulation.” American Journal of Philology 131(4): 589–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Standage, T. (2002) The mechanical Turk: the true story of the chess-playing machine that fooled the world. London.Google Scholar
Steiner, W. (1988) Pictures of romance: form against context in painting and literature. Chicago.Google Scholar
Stewart, A. (1998) “Nuggets: mining the texts again.” American Journal of Archaeology 102(2): 271–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Straub, H. (1949) Die Geschichte der Bauingenieurkunst: ein Überblick von der Antike bis in die Neuzeit. Basel.Google Scholar
Stückelberger, A. (1994) Bild und Wort: das illustrierte Fachbuch in der antiken Naturwissenschaft, Medizin und Technik. Mainz am Rhein.Google Scholar
Stückelberger, A. (1998) “Vom anatomischen Atlas des Aristoteles zum geographischen Atlas des Ptolemaios: Beobachtungen zu wissenschaftlichen Bilddokumentationen.” In Kullmann, W., Althoff, J., and Asper, M. (eds.), Gattungen wissenschaftlicher Literatur in der Antike. Tübingen: 287–307.Google Scholar
Swetnam-Burland, M. (2010) “Aegyptus redacta: the Egyptian obelisk in the Augustan Campus Martius.” The Art Bulletin 92(3): 135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanner, J. (2005) The invention of art history in ancient Greece: religion, society and artistic rationalisation. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Taub, L. C. (1993) Ptolemy’s universe: the natural philosophical and ethical foundations of Ptolemy’s astronomy. Chicago.Google Scholar
Taub, L. C. (2002) “Instruments of Alexandrian astronomy: the uses of the equinoctial rings.” In Tuplin, C., and Rihll, T. E. (eds.), Science and mathematics in ancient Greek culture. Oxford; New York: 133–49.Google Scholar
Taub, L. C. (2008) “Eratosthenes sends greetings to King Ptolemy.” In Dauben, J. W. (ed.), Mathematics celestial and terrestrial: Festschrift für Menso Folkerts zum 65. Geburtstag. Halle (Saale); Stuttgart: 285–302.Google Scholar
Taub, L. C., and Doody, A. (eds.) (2009) Authorial voices in Greco-Roman technical writing. Trier.Google Scholar
Thomas, E. (1995) “Zum Zeugniswert griechischer Beischriften auf römischen Wandgemälden der späten Republik und frühen Kaiserzeit.” Mededelingen van het Nederlands Instituut te Rome 54: 110–23.Google Scholar
Thomasson, A. L. (2009) “Artefacts in metaphysics.” In Meijers, A. (ed.), Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences. Amsterdam; London; Boston: 191–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toneatto, L. (1994) Codices artis mensoriae: i manoscritti degli antichi opuscoli latini d’agrimensura (V–XIX sec.). Spoleto.Google Scholar
Tueller, M. A. (2008) Look who’s talking: innovations in voice and identity in Hellenistic epigram. Leuven; Dudley, MA.Google Scholar
Turner, M. (1991) Reading minds: the study of English in the age of cognitive science. Princeton, NJ.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tybjerg, K. (2000) Doing philosophy with machines: Hero of Alexandria’s rhetoric of mechanics in relation to the contemporary philosophy. Ph.D. diss., University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Tybjerg, K. (2003) “Wonder-making and philosophical wonder in Hero of Alexandria.” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 34: 443–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tybjerg, K. (2004) “Hero of Alexandria’s mechanical geometry.” Apeiron 37: 29–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tybjerg, K. (2012) “‘Senses and hands to the same degree as thought’: Ole Rømer’s mechanical astronomy.” Centaurus 54(1): 77–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tybout, R. A. (1989) “Die Perspektive bei Vitruv: zwei Überlieferungen von scaenographia.” In Geertman, H., and Jong, J. J. de (eds.), Munus non ingratum: proceedings of the international symposium on Vitruvius’ De architectura and the Hellenistic and Republican architecture, Leiden, 20–23 January 1987. Leiden: 55–68.Google Scholar
Ulrich, R. (2008) “Representations of technical processes.” In Oleson, J. P. (ed.), Oxford handbook of engineering and technology in the classical world. Oxford; New York: 37–68.Google Scholar
Universitè Strasbourg and Centre de recherche sur le Proche-Orient et la Grèce antiques (eds.) (1985) Le dessin d’architecture dans les sociètès antiques: actes du colloque de Strasbourg, 26–28 janvier 1984. Leiden.Google Scholar
Untermann, M. (1983) “Neues zur Skeuothek des Philon.” In Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, A.-R. (ed.), Bauplanung und Bautheorie der Antike. Berlin: 81–6.Google Scholar
Usener, S. (1994) Isokrates, Platon und ihr Publikum: Hörer und Leser von Literatur im 4. Jahrhundert v. Chr. Tübingen.Google Scholar
Valenzani, R. S. (2007) “Public and private building activity in late antique Rome.” In Lavan, L., Zanini, E., and Sarantis, A. C. (eds.), Technology in transition: A.D. 300–650. Leiden; Boston: 435–49.Google Scholar
Van der Eijk, P. (1997) “Towards a rhetoric of ancient scientific discourse: some formal characteristics of Greek medical and philosophical texts.” In Bakker, E. J. (ed.), Grammar as interpretation: Greek literature in its linguistic contexts. Leiden; New York: 72–129.Google Scholar
Van Leeuwen, J. (2014) “Thinking and learning from diagrams in the Aristotelian Mechanics.” Nuncius 29(1): 53–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vázquez Buján, M. E. (1994) Tradición e innovación de la medicina latina de la antigüedad y de la alta edad media: actas del IV coloquio internacional sobre los “textos médicos latinos antiguos.” Santiago de Compostela.Google Scholar
Vincenti, W. G. (1990) What engineers know and how they know it: analytical studies from aeronautical history. Baltimore.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vitrac, B. (2010) “Héron d’Alexandrie et le corpus métrologique: état des lieux.” In Géométrie(s), pratiques d’arpentage et enseignement: quels liens et dans quel contexte? Paris.Google Scholar
Vitruvius, (1969) De l’architecture. Fleury, P., and Callebat, L., eds. (vol. X). Paris.Google Scholar
Volk, K. (2002) The poetics of Latin didactic: Lucretius, Vergil, Ovid, Manilius. Oxford; New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Von Staden, H. (1994) “Author and authority: Celsus on the construction of a scientific self.” In Vázquez Buján, M. E. (ed.), Tradición e innovación de la medicina latina de la antigüedad y de la alta edad media: actas del IV coloquio internacional sobre los “textos médicos latinos antiguos.” Santiago de Compostela: 103–17.Google Scholar
Von Staden, H. (1996) “Body and machine: interactions between medicine, mechanics, and philosophy in early Alexandria.” In J. Paul Getty Center for the History of Art and the Humanities (ed.), Alexandria and Alexandrianism. Malibu, CA: 85–106.Google Scholar
Von Staden, H. (1998) “Andréas de Caryste et Philon de Byzance: médecine et mécanique à Alexandrie.” In Argoud, G., and Guillaumin, J.-Y. (eds.), Sciences exactes et sciences appliquées à Alexandrie. Saint-Étienne: 147–72.Google Scholar
Walker, A. D. (1993) “Enargeia and the spectator in Greek historiography.” Transactions of the American Philological Association 123: 353–77.Google Scholar
Webb, R. (1999) “Ekphrasis ancient and modern: the invention of a genre.” Word and Image 15(1): 7–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webb, R. (2006) “The Imagines as a fictional text: ekphrasis, apatê, and illusion.” In Costantini, M., Graziani, F., and Rolet, S. (eds.), Le défi de l’art: Philostrate, Callistrate et l’image sophistique. Rennes: 113–36.Google Scholar
Webb, R. (2009) Ekphrasis, imagination and persuasion in ancient rhetorical theory and practice. Farnham, Surrey; Burlington, VT.Google Scholar
Weitzmann, K. (1947) Illustrations in roll and codex: a study of the origin and method of text illustration. Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
Wescher, C. (1867) Poliorcétique des Grecs: traités theoriques: récits historiques. Paris.Google Scholar
White, K. D. (1979) “Harvesting machines, Palladius and technology in the later Roman empire.” British Archaeological Reports: 39–45.Google Scholar
White, L., Jr (1980) “Technological development in the transition from antiquity to the Middle Ages.” In Gabba, E. (ed.), Tecnologia, economia e società nel mondo romano: atti del convegno di como, 27/28/29 settembre 1979. Como: 235–51.Google Scholar
Whitehouse, H. (2007) “Drawing a fine line in Oxyrhynchus.” In Bowman, A., Coles, R., Gonis, N., and Parsons, P. (eds.), Oxyrhynchus: a city and its texts. London: 296–306.Google Scholar
Wolkenhauer, A. (2011) Sonne und Mond, Kalender und Uhr: Studien zur Darstellung und poetischen Reflexion der Zeitordnung in der römischen Literatur. Berlin; New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, M. T. (2003) “Epicyclic gearing and the Antikythera Mechanism part I.” Antiquarian Horology 27: 270–9.Google Scholar
Wright, M. T. (2005) “Epicyclic gearing and the Antikythera Mechanism part II.” Antiquarian Horology 29(1): 51–63.Google Scholar
Yacobi, T. (1995) “Pictorial models and narrative ekphrasis.” Poetics Today 16(4): 599–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zanker, G. (1981) “Enargeia in the ancient criticism of poetry.” Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 124(3/4): 297–311.Google Scholar
Zanker, G. (1987) Realism in Alexandrian poetry: a literature and its audience. London; Wolfboro, NH.Google Scholar