Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T06:08:47.561Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 March 2024

K. Scarlett Kingsley
K. Scarlett Kingsley
Affiliation:
Agnes Scott College, Decatur
Get access

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.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Herodotus and the Presocratics
Inquiry and Intellectual Culture in the Fifth Century BCE
 , pp. 221 - 246
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2024

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

Adkins, A. (1972), “Truth, kosmos, and aretē in the Homeric poems,” CQ 22: 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agut-Labordère, D. (2005), “Le sens du Décret de Cambyse,” Transeuphratène 29: 9–16.Google Scholar
Alonso-Núñez, J. M. (2003), “Herodotos’ conception of historical space and the beginnings of universal history,” in Derow, P. and Parker, R. (eds.), Herodotus and His World: Essays from a Conference in Memory of George Forrest (Oxford, Oxford University Press): 145–52.Google Scholar
Althoff, J. (1993), “Herodot und die griechische Medizin,” Antike Naturwissenschaft und ihre Rezeption 3: 1–16.Google Scholar
Altmeyer, M. (2001), Unzeitgemäßes Denken bei Sophokles (Hermes Einzelschriften no. 85) (Stuttgart, F. Steiner).Google Scholar
Alvarez Salas, O. (2007), “I frammenti ‘filosofici’ di Epicarmo: una rivisitazione,” SIFC 4: 23–72.Google Scholar
Aly, W. (1929), Formprobleme der frühen griechischen Prosa (Philologus Suppl. 21.3) (Leipzig, Dieterich’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung).Google Scholar
Andolfi, I. (2017), “An ambiguous literary genre: The origins of early Greek mythography,” Mnemosyne 70: 183–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Apfel, L. J. (2011), The Advent of Pluralism: Diversity and Conflict in the Age of Sophocles (Oxford, Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Apffel, H. (1957), “Die Verfassungsdebatte bei Herodot (3, 80–82)” (PhD diss., University of Erlangen-Nürnberg).Google Scholar
Armayor, O. K. (1978), “Did Herodotus ever go to the Black Sea?” HSPh 82: 68–72.Google Scholar
Armayor, O. K. (1985), Herodotus’ Autopsy of the Fayoum. Lake Moeris and the Labyrinth of Egypt (Amsterdam, J. C. Gieben).Google Scholar
Atack, C. (2019), “Tradition and innovation in the kosmos–polis analogy,” in Horky, P. S. (ed.), Cosmos in the Ancient World (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press): 164–87.Google Scholar
Aurell, J. (2015), “Rethinking historical genres in the twenty-first century,” Rethinking History 19: 145–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Backhaus, W. (1976), “Der Hellenen-Barbaren-Gegensatz und die hippokratische Schrift Περὶ ἀέρων, ὑδάτων, τόπων,” Historia 25: 170–85.Google Scholar
Badian, E. (1994), “Herodotus on Alexander I of Macedon: A study guide in some subtle silences,” in Hornblower, S. (ed.), Greek Historiography (Oxford, Oxford University Press): 107–30.Google Scholar
Bailey, D. T. J. (2008), “Excavating Dissoi Logoi 4,” OSAPh 35 (2008): 249–64.Google Scholar
Bakker, E. J. (2002), “The making of history: Herodotus’ Histories Apodexis,” in Bakker, E. J., De Jong, I. J. F., and van Wees, H. (eds.), Brill’s Companion to Herodotus (Leiden; Boston, Brill): 3–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balcer, J. M. (1987), Herodotus & Bisitun: Problems in Ancient Persian Historiography (Stuttgart, Steiner Verlag Wiesbaden).Google Scholar
Balot, R. (2014), Courage in the Democratic Polis: Ideology and Critique in Classical Athens (Oxford, Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baltussen, H. (2007), “Playing the Pythagorean: Ion’s Triagmos,” in Jennings, V. and Katsaros, A. (eds.), The World of Ion of Chios (Mnemosyne Suppl. no. 288) (Leiden; Boston, Brill): 293–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bandini, M., and Dorion, L.-A. (2000), Xénophon: Mémorables. Tome I: Introduction générale et Livre I (Paris, Belles Lettres).Google Scholar
Baragwanath, E. (2008), Motivation and Narrative in Herodotus (Oxford, Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baragwanath, E., and de Bakker, M., eds. (2012), Myth, Truth, and Narrative in Herodotus (Oxford, Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barker, E. (2009), Entering the Agon: Dissent and Authority in Homer, Historiography, and Tragedy (Oxford, Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barker, E. (2021), “On space, place, and form in Herodotus’ Histories,” Histos 15: 88–130.Google Scholar
Barnes, J. (1979), The Presocratic Philosophers, 2 vols. (London; Boston, MA, Routledge & Kegan Paul).Google Scholar
Barney, R. (2006), “The sophistic movement,” in Louise, M. L. and Pellegrin, P. (eds.), A Companion to Ancient Philosophy (Malden, MA; Oxford, Blackwell): 77–97.Google Scholar
Barth, H. (1964), “Einwirkungen der vorsokratischen Philosophie auf die Herausbildung der historiographischen Methoden Herodots,” in Diesner, H.-J. (ed.), Neue Beiträge zur Geschichte der Alten Welt I (Berlin, Akademie-Verlag): 173–83.Google Scholar
Bastianini, G., and Caizzi, F. D. (1989), “Antipho,” in Corpus dei papiri filosofici greci e latini, I.1 (Florence, L. S. Olschki): 176–236.Google Scholar
Beardslee, J. W. (1918), “The Use of ΦΥΣΙΣ in Fifth-Century Literature” (PhD diss., University of Chicago).Google Scholar
Beck, I. (1971), Die Ringkomposition bei Herodot und ihre Bedeutung für die Beweistechnik (Spudasmata no. 25) (Hildesheim; New York, G. Olms).Google Scholar
Becker, A., and Scholz, P. (2004), Dissoi Logoi. Zweierlei Ansichten: ein sophistischer Traktat; Text, Übersetzung, Kommentar (Berlin, Akademie Verlag).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, O. (1937), Das Bild des Weges und verwandte Vorstellungen im frühgriechischen Denken (Hermes Einzelschriften no. 4) (Berlin, Weidmann).Google Scholar
Beekes, R. S. P. (2010), Etymological Dictionary of Greek, 2 vols. (Leiden; Boston, MA, Brill).Google Scholar
Benardete, S. (1969), Herodotean Inquiries (The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff).Google Scholar
Benardete, S. (1977), “The grammar of being,” Review of Metaphysics 30: 486–96.Google Scholar
Benveniste, É. (1948), Noms d’agent et noms d’action en indo-européen (Paris, Adrien-Maisonneuve).Google Scholar
Bergk, T. (1883), “Über die Echtheit der Διαλέξεις,” in Bergk, T. (ed.), Fünf Abhandlungen zur Geschichte der griechischen Philosophie und Astronomie (Leipzig, Fues’s Verlag [R. Reisland]): 117–38.Google Scholar
Berkel, T. A. van (2013), “Made to measure: Protagoras’ Metron,” in van Ophuijsen, J. M., van Raalte, M., and Stork, P. (eds.), Protagoras of Abdera: The Man, His Measure (Leiden; Boston, MA, Brill): 37–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernardini, M. L. (2016), “L’Antiope di Euripide: l’intellettuale fra tradizione sapienziale e nuove istanze politico-culturali,” Prometheus 42: 32–60.Google Scholar
Berns, G. (1973), “Nomos and physis (An Interpretation of Euripides’ Hippolytos),” Hermes 101: 165–87.Google Scholar
Bertelli, L. (2001), “Hecataeus: From genealogy to historiography,” in Luraghi, N. (ed.), The Historian’s Craft in the Age of Herodotus (Oxford, Oxford University Press): 67–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Betegh, G. (2016), “Archelaus on cosmogony and the origins of social institutions,” OSAPh 51: 1–40.Google Scholar
Bett, R. (1989), “The sophists and relativism,” Phronesis 34: 139–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bichler, R. (2004), “Herodotus’ ethnography: Examples and principles,” in Karageorghis, V. and Taifacos, I. (eds.), The World of Herodotus. Proceedings of an International Conference. Nicosia, September 18–21, 2003 (Nicosia, Foundation Anastasios G. Leventis): 91–112.Google Scholar
Bicknell, P. J. (1967), “Parmenides’ refutation of motion and an implication,” Phronesis 12: 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Billings, J. (2021), The Philosophical Stage: Drama and Dialectic in Classical Athens (Princeton, Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
Bloomer, W. M. (1993), “The superlative ‘nomoi’ of Herodotus’s ‘Histories,’” ClAnt 12: 30–50.Google Scholar
Blösel, W. (2001), “The Herodotean picture of Themistocles,” in Luraghi, N. (ed.), The Historian’s Craft in the Age of Herodotus (Oxford, Oxford University Press): 179–97.Google Scholar
Blundell, M. W. (1987), “The moral character of Odysseus in Philoctetes,” GRBS 28: 307–29.Google Scholar
Boedeker, D. (1987), “The two faces of Demaratus,” Arethusa 20: 185–201.Google Scholar
Boedeker, D. (2000), “Herodotus’s genre(s),” in Depew, M. and Obbink, D. (eds.), Matrices of Genre: Authors, Canons, and Society (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press): 97–114.Google Scholar
Boeder, H. (1959), “Der frühgriechische Wortgebrauch von Logos und Aletheia,” ABG 4: 94.Google Scholar
Bonazzi, M., and Schorn, S., eds. (2016), Bios philosophos: Philosophy in Ancient Greek Biography (Turnhout, Brepols).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borza, E. N. (1990), In the Shadow of Olympus: The Emergence of Macedon (Princeton, Princeton University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bosak-Schroeder, C. (2020), Other Natures: Environmental Encounters with Ancient Greek Ethnography (Oakland, University of California Press).Google Scholar
Bowie, E. L. (2001), “Ancestors of historiography in early Greek elegiac and iambic poetry?,” in Luraghi, N. (ed.), The Historian’s Craft in the Age of Herodotus (Oxford, Oxford University Press): 45–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowie, E. L. (2010), “Historical narrative in archaic and early classical Greek elegy,” in Konstan, D. and Raaflaub, K. A. (eds.), Epic and History (Chichester; Malden, MA, Wiley-Blackwell): 145–66.Google Scholar
Bowra, C. M. (1964), Pindar (Oxford, Clarendon Press).Google Scholar
Brandenburg, D. (1976), Medizinisches bei Herodot: Eine literaturhistorische Studie zur antiken Heilkunde (Berlin, Hessling).Google Scholar
Brannan, P. T. (1969), “Herodotus and history: The constitutional debate preceding Darius’ accession,” Traditio 19: 427–38.Google Scholar
Branscombe, D. (2013), Textual Rivals: Self-Presentation in Herodotus’ Histories (Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bremer, D. (1989), “Von der Physis zur Natur: Eine griechische Konzeption und ihr Schicksal,” ZPhF 43: 241–64.Google Scholar
Briant, P. (2002), From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire (Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns).Google Scholar
Bringmann, K. (1976), “Die Verfassungsdebatte bei Herodot 3,80–82 und Dareios’ Aufstieg zur Königsherrschaft,” Hermes 104: 266–79.Google Scholar
Brown, L. (1994), “The verb ‘to be’ in Greek philosophy: Some remarks,” in Everson, S. (ed.), Language. Companions to Ancient Thought, vol. III (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press): 212–36.Google Scholar
Brown, T. S. (1982), “Herodotus’ portrait of Cambyses,” Historia 31: 387–403.Google Scholar
Bryan, J. (2012), Likeness and Likelihood in the Presocratics and Plato (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Bucci, O. (1975), “Elementi processuali nell antico diritto iranico,” RIDA 22: 11–25.Google Scholar
Burkert, W. (1960), “Platon oder Pythagoras? Zum Ursprung des Wortes ‘Philosophie,’” Hermes 88: 159–77.Google Scholar
Burkert, W. (1999), “The logic of cosmogony,” in Buxton, R. G. A. (ed.), From Myth to Reason? Studies in the Development of Greek Thought (Oxford, Oxford University Press): 87–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnyeat, M. F. (1976), “Protagoras and self-refutation in later Greek philosophy,” PhR 85: 44–69.Google Scholar
Burton, A. (1972), Diodorus Siculus. Book I: A Commentary (Leiden, Brill).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cairns, D. L. (1996), “Hybris, dishonour, and thinking big,” JHS 116: 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caizzi, F. D. (1999), “Protagoras and Antiphon,” in Long, A. A. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Early Greek Philosophy (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press): 311–31.Google Scholar
Calame, C. (1986), “Nature humaine et environnement: le racisme bien tempéré d’Hippocrate,” in Bérard, C. et al. (eds.), Sciences et Racisme (Lausanne, Payot): 75–99.Google Scholar
Cartledge, P. (2007), “Democracy, origins of: Contribution to a debate,” in Raaflaub, K. A., Ober, J., and Wallace, R. W. (eds.), Origins of the Democracy in Ancient Greece (Berkeley, University of California Press): 155–69.Google Scholar
Cartledge, P., and Greenwood, E. (2002), “Herodotus as critic: Truth, fiction, polarity,” in Bakker, E. J., de Jong, I. J. F., and van Wees, H. (eds.), Brill’s Companion to Herodotus (Leiden; Boston, Brill): 351–71.Google Scholar
Casali, S. (1998), “Ovid’s Canace and Euripides’ Aeolus: Two notes on Heroides 11,” Mnemosyne 6: 700–10.Google Scholar
Cherubin, W. R. (2009), “Alētheia from poetry into philosophy: Homer to Parmenides,” in Wians, W. R. (ed.), Logos and Muthos: Philosophical Essays in Greek Literature (Albany, SUNY Press): 51–72.Google Scholar
Cherubin, W. R. (2017), “Mortals lay down trusting to be true,” Epoché: A Journal for the History of Philosophy 21: 251–71.Google Scholar
Chiasson, C. C. (1982), “Tragic diction in Herodotus: Some possibilities,” Phoenix 36: 156–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chiasson, C. C. (2001), “Scythian androgyny and environmental determinism in Herodotus and the Hippocratic πϵρὶ ἀϵ́ρων ὑδάτων τóπων,” SyllClass 12: 33–73.Google Scholar
Chiasson, C. C. (2003), “Herodotus’ use of Attic tragedy in the Lydian Logos,” ClAnt 22: 5–35.Google Scholar
Chiasson, C. C. (2012), “Myth and truth in Herodotus’ Cyrus Logos,” in Baragwanath, E. and de Bakker, M. (eds.), Myth, Truth, and Narrative in Herodotus (Oxford, Oxford University Press): 213–32.Google Scholar
Christ, M. (1994), “Herodotean kings and historical inquiry,” ClAnt 13: 167–202.Google Scholar
Christ, M. (2012), The Limits of Altruism in Democratic Athens (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, K. (2008), Making Time for the Past: Local History and the Polis (Oxford; Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, K. (2018), Shaping the Geography of Empire: Man and Nature in Herodotus’ Histories (Oxford, Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Classen, J. (1863), Zur Geschichte des Wortes Natur (Frankfurt am Main, Sauerländer).Google Scholar
Clay, J. (1972), “The Planktai and moly: Divine naming and knowing in Homer,” Hermes 100: 127–31.Google Scholar
Clements, A. (2014), Aristophanes’ Thesmophoriazusae: Philosophizing Theatre and the Politics of Perception in Late Fifth-Century Athens (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cochrane, C. N. (1929), Thucydides and the Science of History (Oxford, Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Cole, T. (1983), “Archaic truth,” QUCC 13: 7–28.Google Scholar
Collard, C., Cropp, M. J., and Gibert, J., eds. (2004), Euripides. Selected Fragmentary Plays 2. (Oxford, Aris & Phillips).Google Scholar
Conley, T. M. (1985), “Dating the so-called Dissoi Logoi: A cautionary note,” AncPhil 5: 59–65.Google Scholar
Connor, W. R. (1971), The New Politicians of Fifth-Century Athens (Princeton, Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
Connor, W. R. (1984), Thucydides (Princeton, Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
Connor, W. R. (1986), “Greek rhetoric and the transition from orality,” Ph&Rh 19: 38–65.Google Scholar
Consigny, S. (1992), “The styles of Gorgias,” RSQ 22: 43–53.Google Scholar
Corcella, A. (1984), Erodoto e l’Analogia (Palermo, Sellerio).Google Scholar
Cosgrove, M. R. (2014), “What are ‘true’ doxai worth to Parmenides? Essaying a fresh look at his cosmology,” OSAPh 46: 1–31.Google Scholar
Craik, E. M. (1980), “Sophokles and the sophists,” AC: 247–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crane, G. (1996), “The prosperity of tyrants: Bacchylides, Herodotus, and the contest for legitimacy,” Arethusa 29: 57–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crotty, K. (1982), Song and Action: The Victory Odes of Pindar (Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press).Google Scholar
Cruz-Uribe, E. (2003), “The invasion of Egypt by Cambyses,” Transeuphratène 25: 9–60.Google Scholar
Curd, P. (1998), The Legacy of Parmenides: Eleatic Monism and Later Presocratic Thought (Princeton, Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
Curd, P., and Graham, D. W., eds. (2008), The Oxford Handbook of Presocratic Philosophy (Oxford, Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Currie, B. (2021), Herodotus as Homeric Critic (Histos Suppl. 13) (Oxford, Edmonton and Tallahassee, Histos).Google Scholar
Daneš, J. (2019), “Only deceit can save us: Audience, war, and ethics in Sophocles’ Philoctetes,” CPh 114: 551–72.Google Scholar
Darbo-Peschanski, C. (1987), Le discours du particulier: essai sur l’enquête hérodotéenne (Paris, Seuil).Google Scholar
Darbo-Peschanski, C. (2007), L’Historia: commencement grecs (Paris, Gallimard).Google Scholar
Dawson, W. R., and Harvey, F. D. (1986), “Herodotus as a Medical Writer,” BICS 33: 87–96.Google ScholarPubMed
de Heer, C. (1969), Μάκαρ – εὐδαίμων – ὄλβιος – εὐτυχής. A Study of the Semantic Field Denoting Happiness in Ancient Greek to the End of the 5th Century B.C. (Amsterdam, Adolf M. Hakkert).Google Scholar
de Jong, I. J. F. (1999), “Aspects narratologiques des ‘Histoires’ d’Hérodote,” Lalies 19: 217–75.Google Scholar
De Jong, I. J. F. (2002), “Narrative unity and units,” in Bakker, E. J., de Jong, I. J. F., and van Wees, H. (eds.), Brill’s Companion to Herodotus (Leiden; Boston, Brill): 243–66.Google Scholar
De Jong, I. J. F. (2004), “Herodotus,” in de Jong, I. J. F., Nünlist, R., and Bowie, A. M. (eds.), Narrators, Narratees, and Narratives in Ancient Greek Literature (Mnemosyne Suppl. 257) (Leiden; Boston, Brill): 101–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Jong, I. J. F. (2012), “The Helen logos and Herodotus’ fingerprint,” in Baragwanath, E. and de Bakker, M. (eds.), Myth, Truth and Narrative in Herodotus (Oxford, Oxford University Press): 127–42.Google Scholar
de Romilly, J. (1992), The Great Sophists in Periclean Athens, trans. J. Lloyd (Oxford; New York, Clarendon Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delebecque, E. (1957), Essai sur la vie de Xénophon (Paris, Les Belles Lettres).Google Scholar
Demand, N. D. (1987), “Herodotus’ encomium of Athens: Science or rhetoric?,” AJPh 108: 746–58.Google Scholar
Demont, P. (2022), “Herodotus (and Protagoras) on the foresight of the divine (3.107–110),” Syllogos 1: 46–64.Google Scholar
Demos, M. (1994), “Callicles’ quotation of Pindar in the Gorgias,” HSCPh 96: 85–107.Google Scholar
Denyer, N. (2008), Plato: Protagoras (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Detienne, M. (1960), “La notion mythique d’Ἀλήθεια,” REG 73: 27–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Detienne, M. (1996), The Masters of Truth in Archaic Greece, trans. J. Lloyd (New York, Zone Books [French orig. 1967]).Google Scholar
Dewald, C. (1981), “Women and culture in Herodotus’ Histories,” Women’s Studies 8: 93–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewald, C. (1987), “Narrative surface and authorial voice in Herodotus’ ‘Histories,’” Arethusa 20: 147–70.Google Scholar
Dewald, C. (1999), “The figured stage: Focalizing the initial narratives of Herodotus and Thucydides,” in Falkner, T. M., Felson, N., and Konstan, D. (eds.), Contextualizing Classics: Ideology, Performance, Dialogue: Essays in Honor of John J. Peradotto (Lanham, MD, Rowman & Littlefield): 221–52.Google Scholar
Dewald, C. (2002), “‘I didn’t give my own genealogy’: Herodotus and the authorial persona,” in Bakker, E. J., de Jong, I. J. F., and van Wees, H. (eds.), Brill’s Companion to Herodotus (Leiden, Brill): 267–89.Google Scholar
Diels, H. (1890), “Ein gefälschtes Pythagorasbuch,” AGPh 3: 451–72.Google Scholar
Diels, H., ed. (1907), Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker: griechisch und deutsch, vol. II.1., 2nd ed. (Berlin, Weidmann).Google Scholar
Dihle, A. (1962), “Herodot und die Sophistik,” Philologus 106: 207–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dihle, A. (1981), “Die Verschiedenheit der Sitten als Argument ethischer Theorie,” in Kerferd, G. B. (ed.), The Sophists and Their Legacy (Hermes Einzelschriften 44) (Wiesbaden, Steiner): 54–63.Google Scholar
Dodds, E. R. (1951), The Greeks and the Irrational (Berkeley; Los Angeles, University of California Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dodds, E. R. (1959), Gorgias (Oxford, Clarendon Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donadoni, S. (1947), “Erodoto, Plutarco e l’Egitto,” Belfagor 2: 203–8.Google Scholar
Dover, K. J. (1968), Clouds: Edited with Introduction and Commentary (Oxford, Clarendon Press).Google Scholar
Dupréel, E. (1921), “Les thèmes du ‘Protagoras’ et les ‘Dissoi Logoi,’” Revue néoscolastique de philosophie 23: 26–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dupréel, E. (1948), Les Sophistes – Protagoras, Gorgias, Prodicus, Hippias (Neuchâtel, Éditions du Griffon).Google Scholar
Ehrenberg, V. (1923), “Anfänge des griechischen Naturrechts,” Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 35: 119–43 (repr. in Polis und Imperium [Zürich; Stuttgart, Artemis Verlag, 1965]: 359–79).Google Scholar
Ehrenberg, V. (1947), “Polypragmosyne: A study in Greek politics,” JHS: 46–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erbse, H. (1960–1), “Anmerkungen zu Herodot,” Glotta 39: 215–30.Google Scholar
Erbse, H. (1992), Studien zum Verständnis Herodots (Berlin; New York, De Gruyter).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, J. A. S. (1961), “The dream of Xerxes and the ‘nomoi’ of the Persians,” CJ 57: 109–11 (repr. in The Beginnings of History: Herodotus and the Persian Wars [Campbellville, ON, Edgar Kent]: 123–28).Google Scholar
Evans, J. A. S. (1965), “Despotes nomos,” Athenaeum 43: 142–53 (repr. in The Beginnings of History: Herodotus and the Persian Wars [Campbellville, ON, Edgar Kent]: 129–42).Google Scholar
Evans, J. A. S. (1968), “Father of history or father of lies: The reputation of Herodotus,” CJ 64: 11–17.Google Scholar
Evans, J. A. S. (1979), “Herodotus and Athens: Encomium,” AC 48: 112–18.Google Scholar
Evans, J. A. S. (1981), “Notes on the debate of the Persian grandees in Herodotus 3,80–82,” QUCC: 79–84 (repr. The Beginnings of History: Herodotus and the Persian Wars [Campbellville, ON, Edgar Kent]: 77–83).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, J. A. S. (1991), Herodotus, Explorer of the Past: Three Essays (Princeton, Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
Evans, J. A. S. (2006), The Beginnings of History: Herodotus and the Persian Wars (Campbellville, ON, Edgar Kent).Google Scholar
Falus, R. (1977), “Hérodote III 108–109,” AAntHung 25: 371–76.Google Scholar
Farrar, C. (1988), The Origins of Democratic Thinking: The Invention of Politics in Classical Athens (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farrell, J. (2003), “Classical genre in theory and practice,” New Literary History 34: 383–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fearn, D. (2007), “Narrating ambiguity: Murder and Macedonian allegiance (5.17–22),” in Irwin, E. and Greenwood, E. (eds.), Reading Herodotus. A Study of the Logoi in Book 5 of Herodotus’ Histories (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press): 98–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fehling, D. (1989), Herodotus and His “Sources”: Citation, Invention and Narrative Art, trans. J. G. Howie (Liverpool, Cairns [German orig. 1971]).Google Scholar
Ferrill, A. (1987), “Herodotus on tyranny,” Historia 27: 385–98.Google Scholar
Figueira, T., and Soares, C., eds. (2020), Ethnicity and Identity in Herodotus (London; New York, Routledge).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finglass, P. J. (2018), “Sophocles’ Oedipus and Herodotus’ Periander,” in Bowie, E. (ed.), Herodotus – Narrator, Scientist, Historian (Berlin; Boston, De Gruyter): 59–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, N. R. E. (1991), Hybris: A Study in the Values of Honour and Shame in Ancient Greece (Warminster, Aris & Phillips).Google Scholar
Flory, S. (1987), The Archaic Smile of Herodotus (Detroit, Wayne State University Press).Google Scholar
Flower, M. A. (2006), “Herodotus and Persia,” in Dewald, C. and Marincola, J. (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Herodotus (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press): 274–89.Google Scholar
Folit-Weinberg, B. (2022), Homer, Parmenides, and the Road to Demonstration (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, A. (1992), Homer: The Poetry of the Past (Ithaca, Cornell University Press).Google Scholar
Ford, A. (2001), “Sophists without rhetoric: The arts of speech in fifth-century Athens,” in Too, Y. L. (ed.), Education in Greek and Roman Antiquity (Leiden; Boston, Brill): 85–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fornara, C. W. (1971), Herodotus: An Interpretative Essay (Oxford, Clarendon Press).Google Scholar
Fornara, C. W. (1983), The Nature of History in Ancient Greece and Rome (Berkeley, University of California Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forsdyke, S. (2001), “Athenian democratic ideology and Herodotus’ Histories,” AJPh 122: 329–58.Google Scholar
Forsdyke, S. (2006), “Herodotus, political history and political thought,” in Dewald, C. and Marincola, J. (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Herodotus (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press): 224–41.Google Scholar
Fowler, R. L. (1996), “Herodotus and his contemporaries,” JHS 116: 62–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, R. L. (2001), “Early historiē and literacy,” in Luraghi, N. (ed.), The Historian’s Craft in the Age of Herodotus (Oxford, Oxford University Press): 95–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, R. L. (2006), “Herodotus and his prose predecessors,” in Dewald, C., and Marincola, J. (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Herodotus (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press): 29–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, M. (2007), Cicero’s Philosophy of History (Oxford, Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frank, B. (2014), “Hérodote présocratique,” in Reig, M. and Riu, X. (eds.), Drama, Philosophy, Politics in Ancient Greece: Contexts and Receptions (Barcelona, Universitat de Barcelona): 39–60.Google Scholar
Fränkel, H. (1925), “Xenophanesstudien,” Hermes 60: 174–92.Google Scholar
Fränkel, H. (1955), Wege und Formen frühgriechischen Denkens (Munich, Beck).Google Scholar
Fränkel, H. (1993), “Xenophanes’ empiricism and his critique of knowledge,” in Mourelatos, A. P. D. (ed.), The Pre-Socratics: A Collection of Critical Essays (Princeton, Princeton University Press): 118–32.Google Scholar
Frede, M. (2008), Η αρχαία ελληνική φιλοσοφία: όψεις της ιστορίας και της ιστοριογραφίας της (Athens, Ekkremes).Google Scholar
Froidefond, C. (1971), Le Mirage égyptien dans la littérature grecque d’Homère à Aristote (Aix-en-Provence, Ophrys).Google Scholar
Frow, J. (2005), Genre (Abingdon; New York, Routledge).Google Scholar
Furley, D. J. (1981), “Antiphon’s case against justice,” in Kerferd, G. B. (ed.), The Sophists and Their Legacy (Hermes Einzelschriften 44) (Wiesbaden, Steiner): 81–91.Google Scholar
Furth, M. (1991), “A ‘philosophical hero’? Anaxagoras and the Eleatics,” OSAPh 9: 95–129.Google Scholar
Futre Pinheiro, M., and Montiglio, S., eds. (2015), Philosophy and the Ancient Novel (Ancient Narrative Suppl. no. 20) (Eelde, Barkhuis).Google Scholar
Galinksy, G. K. (1972), The Herakles Theme: The Adaptations of the Hero in Literature from Homer to the Twentieth Century (Oxford, Blackwell).Google Scholar
Gallop, D. (1984), Parmenides of Elea: Fragments: A Text and Translation with an Introduction (Phoenix Supplementary no. 17) (Toronto, University of Toronto Press).Google Scholar
Gammie, J. (1986), “Herodotus on kings and tyrants: Objective historiography or conventional portraiture?,” JNES 45: 171–95.Google Scholar
Genette, G. (1997), Palimpsests: Literature in the Second Degree (Lincoln, University of Nebraska Press).Google Scholar
Gera, D. L. (1993), Xenophon’s Cyropaedia: Style, Genre, and Literary Technique (Oxford, Clarendon Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gera, D. L. (2000), “Two thought experiments in the Dissoi Logoi,” AJPh 121: 21–45.Google Scholar
Gigante, M. (1953), “Epicarmo, Pseudo-Epicarmo e Platone,” PP 30: 161–75.Google Scholar
Gigante, M. (1956), Nomos Basileus (Naples, Glaux).Google Scholar
Gill, C. (1980), “Bow, oracle, and epiphany in Sophocles’ Philoctetes,” G&R 27: 137–46.Google Scholar
Giorgini, G. (1993), La città e il tiranno: Il concetto di tirannide nella Grecia del VII–IV secolo a.C. (Milan, Giuffrè Editore).Google Scholar
Giraudeau, M. (1984), Les notions juridiques et sociales chez Hérodote: études sur le vocabulaire (Paris, De Boccard).Google Scholar
Goldhill, S. (1997), “The audience of Athenian tragedy,” in Easterling, P. E. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Greek Tragedy (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press): 54–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldhill, S. (2002), The Invention of Prose (Greece & Rome: New Surveys in the Classics, no. 32) (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Gomme, A. W. (1954), The Greek Attitude to Poetry and History (Berkeley, University of California Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gorman, R. J., and Gorman, V. B. (2014), Corrupting Luxury in Ancient Greek Literature (Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, J. (1989), Herodotus (London, Weidenfeld and Nicolson).Google Scholar
Graham, D. W. (2003), “Philosophy on the Nile: Herodotus and Ionian research,” Apeiron 36: 291–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granger, H. (2007), “Poetry and prose: Xenophanes of Colophon,” TAPhA 137: 403–33.Google Scholar
Gray, V. (2002), “Short stories in Herodotus’ Histories,” in Bakker, E. J., De Jong, I. J. F., and van Wees, H. (eds.), Brill’s Companion to Herodotus (Leiden, Brill): 291–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grensemann, H. (1979), “Das 24. Kapitel von De aeribus aquis locis und die Einheit der Schrift,” Hermes 107: 423–41.Google Scholar
Grethlein, J. (2009), “How not to do history: Xerxes in Herodotus’ ‘Histories,’” AJPh 130: 195–218.Google Scholar
Griffin, J. (2006), “Herodotus and tragedy,” in Dewald, C. and Marincola, J. (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Herodotus (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press): 46–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grote, G. (1846–56), A History of Greece: From the Earliest Period to the Close of the Generation Contemporary with Alexander the Great (London, John Murray).Google Scholar
Gruen, E. S. (2011), Rethinking the Other in Antiquity (Princeton, Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
Guthrie, W. K. C. (1962), A History of Greek Philosophy. Vol. I: The Earlier Presocratics and the Pythagoreans (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Guthrie, W. K. C. (1965), A History of Greek Philosophy. Vol. II: The Presocratic Tradition from Parmenides to Democritus (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Guthrie, W. K. C. (1969), A History of Greek Philosophy. Vol. III: The Fifth-Century Enlightenment (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Halliwell, S. (2012), Between Ecstasy and Truth: Interpretations of Greek Poetics from Homer to Longinus (Oxford, Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Handley, E. W. (1985), “Thucydides,” in Easterling, P. E. and Knox, B. M. W. (eds.), The Cambridge History of Classical Literature: Volume 1, Greek Literature (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press): 441–55.Google Scholar
Hankinson, R. J. (2001), Cause and Explanation in Ancient Greek Thought (Oxford, Clarendon Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, M. H. (1979), “Did the Athenian ecclesia legislate after 403/2 BC?,” GRBS 20 (1979): 27–53.Google Scholar
Hansen, M. H. (1989), Was Athens a Democracy? Popular Rule, Liberty, and Equality in Ancient and Modern Political Thought. Historisk-filosofiske Meddelelser, 59 (Copenhagen, The Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters).Google Scholar
Hardy, C. S. (1996), “Nomos and replaceability in the story of Intaphrenes and his wife,” TAPhA 126: 101–9.Google Scholar
Harrell, S. E. (2003),”Marvellous andreia: Politics, geography and ethnicity in Herodotus’ Histories,” in Rosen, R. M. and Sluiter, I. (eds.), Andreia: Studies in Manliness and Courage in Classical Antiquity (Leiden; Boston, Brill): 77–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, G. (1976), “Relativism and tolerance,” Ethics 86.2: 122–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, T. (2000), Divinity and History: The Religion of Herodotus (Oxford, Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Harrison, T. (2003), “The cause of things: Envy and the emotions in Herodotus’ Histories,” in Konstan, D. and Rutter, N. K. (eds.), Envy, Spite and Jealousy: The Rivalrous Emotions in Ancient Greece (Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press): 143–63.Google Scholar
Harrison, T. (2004), “Truth and lies in Herodotus’ ‘Histories,’” in Karageorghis, V. and Taifacos, I. (eds.), The World of Herodotus. Proceedings of an International Conference. Nicosia, September 18–21, 2003 (Nicosia, Foundation Anastasios G. Leventis): 255–62.Google Scholar
Harrison, T. (2019), “A Persian marriage feast in Macedon? (Herodotus 5.17–21),” CQ 69: 507–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartog, F. (1988), The Mirror of Herodotus: The Representation of the Other in the Writing of History, trans. J. Lloyd (Berkeley, University of California Press [French orig. 1980]).Google Scholar
Hartog, F. (2001), Memories of Odysseus: Frontier Tales from Ancient Greece (Chicago, University of Chicago Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Havelock, E. A. (1957), The Liberal Temper in Greek Politics (New Haven, Yale University Press; Toronto, Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Hedrick, C. W. (2000), “‘For anyone who wishes to see,’” Ancient World 31.2 (2000): 127–35.Google Scholar
Heinimann, F. (1945), Nomos und Physis: Herkunft und Bedeutung einer Antithese im griechischen Denken des 5. Jh. (Basel, F. Reinhardt).Google Scholar
Heitsch, E. (1962), “Die nicht-philosophische ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ,” Hermes 90: 24–37.Google Scholar
Heitsch, E. (1966), “Das Wissen des Xenophanes,” RhM 109: 193–235.Google Scholar
Herrmann, J. (1967), “Nomos bei Herodot und Thukydides,” in Conrad, H. et al. (eds.), Gedächtnisschrift H. Peters (Berlin; New York, Springer Verlag): 116–24.Google Scholar
Hesk, J. (2000), Deception and Democracy in Classical Athens (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heubeck, A., and Hoekstra, A. (1989), A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey: Books XVII–XXIV (Oxford, Clarendon Press).Google Scholar
Hinds, S. (1998), Allusion and Intertext: Dynamics of Appropriation in Roman Poetry (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Hollmann, A. (2011), The Master of Signs: Signs and the Interpretation of Signs in Herodotus’ Histories (Washington, DC, Center for Hellenic Studies).Google Scholar
Holmes, D. (2019), Philosophy, Poetry, and Power in Aristophanes’ Birds (Lanham, Lexington Books).Google Scholar
Holwerda, D. (1955), Commentatio de vocis quae est physis vi atque und praesertim in graecitate Aristotele anteriore (Groningen, Wolters).Google Scholar
Horky, P. S. (2020), “Anonymus Iamblichi, On Excellence: A lost defense of democracy,” in Wolfsdorf, D. C. (ed.), Early Greek Ethics (Oxford, Oxford University Press): 262–92.Google Scholar
Hornblower, S. (2004), Thucydides and Pindar: Historical Narrative and the World of Epinikian Poetry (Oxford, Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huffman, C. A. (2008), “Heraclitus’ critique of Pythagoras’ enquiry in Fragment 129,” OSAPh 35: 19–47.Google Scholar
Hülsz, E. (2013), “Heraclitus on Фύσις,” Epoché: A Journal for the History of Philosophy 17: 179–94.Google Scholar
Humphreys, S. (1987), “Law, custom and culture in Herodotus,” Arethusa 20: 211–20.Google Scholar
Hunter, V. J. (1982), Past and Process in Herodotus and Thucydides (Princeton, Princeton University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hussey, E. (1990), ‘The beginnings of epistemology: From Homer to Philolaus,” in Everson, S., (ed.), Epistemology. Companions to Ancient Thought, vol. I (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press): 11–38.Google Scholar
Immerwahr, H. R. (1956), “Aspects of historical causation in Herodotus,” TAPhA 87: 241–80.Google Scholar
Immerwahr, H. R. (1966), Form and Thought in Herodotus (Cleveland, Press of Western Reserve University).Google Scholar
Iordanoglou, D., and Lindqvist, J. (2018), “Double trouble: Reclaiming the Dissoi Logoi,” Eranos 109: 77–94.Google Scholar
Irwin, E. (2013), “To whom does Solon speak? Conceptions of happiness and ending life well in the later fifth century (Hdt. 1.29–33),” in Geus, K., Irwin, E., and Poiss, T. (eds.), Wege des Erzählens: Logos und Topos in den Historien (Frankfurt am Main, Peter Lang Verlag): 261–321.Google Scholar
Irwin, E., and Greenwood, E., eds. (2007), Reading Herodotus: A Study of the Logoi in Book 5 of Herodotus’ Histories (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irwin, T. (1995), Plato’s Ethics (New York, Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacoby, F. (1913), “Herodotos,” RE Suppl. II: 205–520.Google Scholar
Johann, H.-T. (1973), “Hippias von Elis und der Physis-Nomos-Gedanke,” Phronesis 18: 15–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, H. (1973), “Homeric nouns in -sis,” Glotta: 7–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, J. N. (1971), “Protagoras and relativism,” Southwestern Journal of Philosophy 2: 7–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jouanna, J. (1996), Airs, eaux, lieux (Paris, Les Belles Lettres).Google Scholar
Kahn, C. H. (1960), Anaximander and the Origins of Greek Cosmology (New York, Columbia University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahn, C. H. (1966), “The verb ‘to be’ and the concept of being,” Foundations of Language 2: 245–65.Google Scholar
Kahn, C. H. (1969), “The thesis of Parmenides,” RMeta 22: 700–24.Google Scholar
Kahn, C. H. (1973), The Verb “Be” in Ancient Greek (Dordrecht, D. Reidel) (repr. 2003, Indianapolis).Google Scholar
Kahn, C. H. (1979), The Art and Thought of Heraclitus (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Kahn, C. H. (1981), “The origins of social contract theory,” in Kerferd, G. (ed.), The Sophists and Their Legacy (Hermes Einzelschriften 44) (Wiesbaden, Steiner): 92–108.Google Scholar
Kahn, C. H. (1989), “The historical position of Anaxagoras,” in Boudouris, K. (ed.), Ionian Philosophy (Athens, International Association for Greek Philosophy): 203–10.Google Scholar
Kahn, C. H. (1996), Plato and the Socratic Dialogue: The Philosophical Use of a Literary Form (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Kahn, C. H. (2003), “Philosophy and the written word: Prose and poetry from Thales to Plato,” in Yunis, H. (ed.), Written Texts and the Rise of Literate Culture in Ancient Greece (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press): 139–61.Google Scholar
Kamtekar, R. (2009), “Knowing by likeness in Empedocles,” Phronesis: 215–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ker, J. (2000), “Solon’s ‘theôria’ and the end of the city,” ClAnt 19: 304–29.Google Scholar
Kerferd, G. B. (1981), The Sophistic Movement (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Kingsley, K. S. (2018), “Justifying violence in Herodotus’ Histories 3.38: Nomos, king of all, and Pindaric poetics,” in Bowie, E. (ed.), Herodotus – Narrator, Scientist, Historian (Berlin; New York, De Gruyter): 37–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kingsley, K. S., Monti, G., and Rood, T., eds. (2023), The Authoritative Historian: Tradition and Innovation in Ancient Historiography (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Kinzl, K. H. (1978), “ΔΗΜΟΚΡΑΤΙΑ,” Gymnasium 85: 117–27.Google Scholar
Kirk, G. S. (1954), Heraclitus: The Cosmic Fragments (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Kleinknecht, H. (1940), “Herodot und Athen, 7.139/8.140–44,” Hermes 75: 241–64.Google Scholar
Konstan, D. (1987), “Persuasion, Greeks and empire,” Arethusa 20: 59–73.Google Scholar
Konstantakos, I. M. (2016), “Cambyses and the sacred bull (Hdt. 3.27–29 and 3.64): History and legend,” in Liotsakis, V. and Farrington, S. T. (eds.), The Art of History: Literary Perspectives on Greek and Roman Historiography (Trends in Classics Suppl. 41) (Berlin; New York, De Gruyter): 37–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kouremenos, T., Parassoglou, G. M., and Tsantsanoglou, K., eds. (2006), The Derveni Papyrus. Edited with Introduction and Commentary (Studi e testi per il “Corpus dei papiri filosofici greci e latini,” vol. XIII) (Florence, Olschki).Google Scholar
Kranz, W. (1937), “Vorsokratisches IV,” Hermes 72: 223–32.Google Scholar
Kraus, C. S. (2013), “Is historia a genre?,” in Papanghelis, T. D., Harrison, S. J., and Frangoulidis, S. (eds.), Generic Interfaces in Latin Literature: Encounters, Interactions and Transformations (Trends in Classics Suppl. 20) (Berlin; New York, De Gruyter): 417–32.Google Scholar
Krischer, T. (1965), “Etumos und alêthês,” Philologus 109: 161–74.Google Scholar
Krischer, T. (1993), “Drei Definitionen des Glücks: Pindar, Herodot, Prodikos,” RhM 136: 213–22.Google Scholar
Kuch, H. (1995), “Narrative Strategie bei Herodot,” Eikasmos 6: 57–65.Google Scholar
Kuhrt, A. (2002), “Babylon,” in Bakker, E. J., Jong, I. J. F., and Wees, H. (eds.), Brill’s Companion to Herodotus (Leiden; Boston, Brill): 475–96.Google Scholar
Kurfess, C. (2014), “Verity’s intrepid heart: The variants in Parmenides, DK B 1.29 (and 8.4),” Apeiron 47: 81–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurke, L. (2011), Aesopic Conversations: Popular Tradition, Cultural Dialogue, and the Invention of Prose (Princeton, Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
Lachance, G. (2016), “Sur l’unité des Dissoi Logoi 1–5,” Phoenix 70: 290–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lachenaud, G. (1978), Mythologies, religion et philosophie de l’histoire dans Hérodote (Lille, Atelier reproduction des thèses Université de Lille III).Google Scholar
Laks, A. (2001), “Écriture, prose, et les débuts de la philosophie grecque,” Methodos 1: 131–51.Google Scholar
Laks, A. (2018), The Concept of Presocratic Philosophy: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Princeton, Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
Lanza, D. (1977), Il tiranno e il suo publico (Turin, Einaudi).Google Scholar
Lasagni, C. (2018), “‘For anyone who wishes to read up close ….’ A few thoughts revolving around the formula σκοπεῖν τῶι βουλομένωι in Attic inscriptions,” RFIC 146: 334–80.Google Scholar
Laskaris, J. (2002), The Art Is Long: On the Sacred Disease and the Scientific Tradition (Studies in Ancient Medicine 25) (Leiden; Boston, Brill).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lasserre, F. (1976), “Hérodote et Protagoras: le débat sur les constitutions,” MH 33: 65–84.Google Scholar
Lateiner, D. (1984), “Herodotean historiographical patterning: ‘The constitutional debate,’” QS 20: 257–84.Google Scholar
Lesher, J. H. (1985), “Limit, propriety, and transgression in the Histories of Herodotus,” in Jameson, M. H. (ed.), The Greek Historians. Papers Presented to A. E. Raubitschek (Saratoga; Anma Libri): 87–100.Google Scholar
Lateiner, D. (1986), “The empirical element in the methods of early Greek medical writers and Herodotus: A shared epistemological response,” Antichthon 20: 1–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lateiner, D. (1989), The Historical Method of Herodotus (Toronto, University of Toronto Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lateiner, D. (1990), “Deceptions and delusions in Herodotus,” CA 9: 230–46.Google Scholar
Lattimore, R. (1939), “The wise adviser in Herodotus,” CPh 34: 24–35.Google Scholar
Lebow, R. N. (2001), “Thucydides the Constructivist,” The American Political Science Review 95: 547–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, M.-K. (2005), Epistemology after Protagoras: Responses to Relativism in Plato, Aristotle, and Democritus (Oxford, Clarendon Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lesher, J. H. (1978), “Xenophanes’ skepticism,” Phronesis 23: 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lesher, J. H. (1984), “Parmenides’ critique of thinking: The Poludêris Elenchos of Fragment 7,” OSAPh 2: 1–30.Google Scholar
Lesher, J. H. (1992), Xenophanes of Colophon. Fragments. A Text and Translation with a Commentary (Phoenix Suppl. no. 30) (Toronto, University of Toronto Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lesher, J. H. (1994), “The emergence of philosophical interest in cognition,” OSAPh 12: 1–34.Google Scholar
Lesher, J. H. (1999), “Early interest in knowledge,” in Long, A. A. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Early Greek Philosophy (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press): 225–49.Google Scholar
Lesher, J. H. (2010), “Presocratic epistemology,” in Dancy, J., Sosa, E., and Steup, M. (eds.), A Companion to Epistemology2, (Chichester, Wiley-Blackwell): 606–9.Google Scholar
Lesky, G. (1957–8), Geschichte der griechischen Literature (Bern, Francke).Google Scholar
Levet, J.-P. (1976), Le vrai et le faux dans la pensée grecque archaique: étude de vocabulaire (Paris, Les Belles Lettres).Google Scholar
Levi, A. (1940), “On twofold statements,” AJPh 61: 292–306.Google Scholar
Lieshout, R. G. A. van (1970), “A dream on a kairos of history: An analysis of Herodotos Hist. VII.12–19, 47,” Mnemosyne 23: 225–49.Google Scholar
Lloyd, A. B. (1975), Herodotus, Book II: Introduction (Leiden, Brill).Google Scholar
Lloyd, A. B. (1988), “Herodotus on Cambyses: Some thoughts on recent work,” in Kuhrt, A. and Sancisi-Weerdenburg, H. (eds.), Achaemenid History III: Method and Theory (Leiden, Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten): 55–66.Google Scholar
Lloyd, A. B. (1990), “Herodotus on Egyptians and Libyans,” in Burkert, W., Nenci, G., and Reverdin, O. (eds.), Hérodote et les peuples non-grecs: neuf exposés suivi de discussions (Vandoeuvres-Genève, Fondation Hardt): 215–53.Google Scholar
Lloyd, A. B. (2002), “Egypt,” in Bakker, E. J., Jong, I. J. F., and Wees, H. (eds.), Brill’s Companion to Herodotus (Leiden; Boston, Brill): 413–35.Google Scholar
Lloyd, G. E. R. (1964), “Experiment in early Greek philosophy and medicine,” PCPS 190: 50–72.Google Scholar
Lloyd, G. E. R. (1966), Polarity and Analogy: Two Types of Argumentation in Early Greek Thought (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Lloyd, G. E. R. (1979), Magic, Reason and Experience (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Lloyd, G. E. R. (1987), The Revolutions of Wisdom: Studies in the Claims and Practice of Ancient Greek Science (Berkeley, University of California Press).Google Scholar
Lloyd-Jones, H. (1972), “Pindar Fr. 169,” HSCPh 76: 45–56.Google Scholar
Long, A. A. (1966), “Thinking and sense-perception in Empedocles: Mysticism or materialism?,” CQ 16: 256–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, A. A. (1999), “The scope of early Greek philosophy,” in Long, A. A. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Early Greek Philosophy (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press): 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lovejoy, A. O. (1909), “The meaning of Φύσις in the Greek physiologers,” PhR 18: 369–83.Google Scholar
Luraghi, N. ed. (2001a), The Historian’s Craft in the Age of Herodotus (Oxford, Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luraghi, N. (2001b), “Local knowledge in Herodotus’ Histories,” in Luraghi, N. (ed.), The Historian’s Craft in the Age of Herodotus (Oxford, Oxford University Press): 138–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luraghi, N. (2018), “Reading Herodotus during the Archidamian War,” QUCC 118: 11–44.Google Scholar
Luther, W. (1935), Wahrheit und Lüge im ältesten Griechentum (Leipzig, R. Noske).Google Scholar
Maass, E. (1887), “Herodot und Isokrates,” Hermes 22: 581–95.Google Scholar
Mann, J. E. (2012), Hippocrates, on the Art of Medicine (Leiden, Brill).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mansfeld, J. (1981), “Protagoras on epistemological obstacles and persons,” in Kerferd, G. B. (ed.), The Sophists and Their Legacy (Hermes Einzelschriften 44) (Wiesbaden, Steiner): 38–53.Google Scholar
Marcovich, M. (2001), Heraclitus: Greek Text with a Short Commentary (Sankt Augustin, Academia Verlag).Google Scholar
Marincola, J. (1987), “Herodotean narrative and the narrator’s presence,” Arethusa 20: 121–37.Google Scholar
Marincola, J. (1997), Authority and Tradition in Ancient Historiography (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marincola, J. (1999), “Genre, convention, and innovation in Greco-Roman historiography,” in Kraus, C. S. (ed.), The Limits of Historiography: Genre and Narrative in Ancient Historical Texts (Mnemosyne Suppl. 191) (Leiden; Boston, Brill): 281–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marincola, J. (2007a), “ἀλήθεια,” in Ampolo, C., Fantasia, U., and Porciani, L. (eds.), Lexicon Historiographicum Graecum et Latinum, vol. 2 (Pisa, Edizioni della Normale): 7–29.Google Scholar
Marincola, J. (2007b), “Odysseus and the historians,” SyllClass 18: 1–79.Google Scholar
Masaracchia, A. (1977), Erodoto: La Battaglia di Salamina: Libro VIII delle Storie (Milan, Fondazione Lorenzo Valla and Mondadori).Google Scholar
Maso, S. (2018), Dissoi Logoi. Edizione criticamente rivista, introduzione, traduzione, commento (Rome, Edizioni di storia e letteratura).Google Scholar
Mastronarde, D. J. (1994), Euripides: Phoenissae (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Matijašić, I. (2022), Herodotus – The Most Homeric Historian? (Histos Supplement 14) (Oxford, Edmonton, Tallahassee, Histos).Google Scholar
Matthen, M. (1983), “Greek ontology and the ‘is’ of truth,” Phronesis 28: 113–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mazzarino, S. (1966), Il pensiero storico classico, vol. I (Bari, Laterza).Google Scholar
McDonald, M. (1978), Terms for Happiness in Euripides (Göttingen, Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mcdowell, J. (1973), Plato: Theaetetus (Oxford, Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGlew, J. F. (1993), Tyranny and Political Culture in Ancient Greece (Ithaca, Cornell University Press).Google Scholar
Meyer, E. (1899), Herodots Geschichtswerk (Halle a.S., M. Niemeyer).Google Scholar
Michalowski, P. (1999), “Commemoration, writing, and genre in ancient Mesopotamia,” in Kraus, C. S. (ed.), The Limits of Historiography: Genre and Narrative in Ancient Historical Texts (Mnemosyne Suppl. 191) (Leiden; Boston, Brill): 69–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mikalson, J. D. (2003), Herodotus and Religion in the Persian Wars (Chapel Hill; London, University of North Carolina Press).Google Scholar
Millender, E. (2002a), “Herodotus and Spartan despotism,” in Powell, A. and Hodkinson, S. (eds.), Sparta: Beyond the Mirage (Swansea, Classical Press of Wales): 1–62.Google Scholar
Millender, E. (2002b), “Nomos Despotes: Spartan obedience and Athenian lawfulness in fifth-century thought,” in Gorman, V. B. and Robinson, E. W. (eds.), Oikistes: Studies in Constitutions, Colonies and Military Power in the Ancient World Offered in Honor of A. J. Graham (Leiden; Boston, Brill): 33–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, C. R. (2016), “Genre innovation: Evolution, emergence, or something else?,” The Journal of Media Innovations 3: 4–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, C. R. (2017), “Where do genres come from?,” in Miller, C. R. and Kelly, A. R. (eds.), Emerging Genres in New Media Environments (New York, Palgrave Macmillan-Springer): 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moeller, C. (1903), Die Medizin im Herodot: Für Mediziner und Philologen (Berlin, S. Karger).Google Scholar
Mogyorόdi, E. (2006), “Xenophanes’ epistemology and Parmenides’ quest for knowledge,” in Sassi, M. M. (ed.), La Costruzione del Discorso Filosofico nell’età dei Presocratici. The Construction of Philosophical Discourse in the Age of the Presocratics (Pisa, Edizioni della Normale): 123–60.Google Scholar
Moles, J. (1993), “Truth and untruth in Herodotus and Thucydides,” in Gill, C. and Wiseman, T. P. (eds.), Lies and Fiction in the Ancient World (Exeter, University of Exeter Press): 88–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Momigliano, A. (1958), “The place of Herodotus in the history of historiography,” History 43: 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montiglio, S. (2005), Wandering in Ancient Greek Culture (Chicago, University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar
Moore, C. (2020), Calling Philosophers Names: On the Origin of a Discipline (Princeton, Princeton University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, J. R., and Jones, M., eds. (2007), Philosophical Presences in the Ancient Novel (Eelde, Barkhuis).Google Scholar
Morrison, A. D. (2007), The Narrator in Archaic Greek and Hellenistic Poetry (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrison, J. S. (1941), “The place of Protagoras in Athenian public life (460–415 BC),” CQ 35: 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mourelatos, A. P. D. (2008), The Route of Parmenides: Revised and Expanded Edition; With a New Introduction, Three Supplemental Essays, and an Essay by Gregory Vlastos [orig. 1970], (Las Vegas, Parmenides Pub.).Google Scholar
Moulton, C. (1972), “Antiphon the sophist, On Truth,” TAPhA 103: 329–66.Google Scholar
Moyer, I. S. (2011), Egypt and the Limits of Hellenism (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mülke, C. (1996), “Ποίων δὲ κακῶν οὐκ αἴτιόϛ ἐστι: Euripides’ ‘Aiolos’ und der Geschwisterinzest im klassischen Athen,” ZPE 114: 37–55.Google Scholar
Müller, D. (1981), “Herodot – Vater des Empirismus? Mensch und Erkenntnis im Denken Herodots,” in Kurz, G., Müller, D., and Nicolai, W. (eds.), Gnomosyne. Menschliches Denken und Handeln in der frühgriechischen Literatur. Festschrift for Walter Marg zum 70. Geburtstag (Munich, Beck): 299–318.Google Scholar
Munslow, A. (2015), “Genres and history/historying,” Rethinking History 19: 158–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munson, R. V. (1988), “Artemisia in Herodotus,” ClAnt 7: 91–106.Google Scholar
Munson, R. V. (1991), “The madness of Cambyses (Hdt. 3.16–38),” Arethusa 24: 43–65.Google Scholar
Munson, R. V. (2001), Telling Wonders: Ethnographic and Political Discourse in the Work of Herodotus (Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, O. (1972), “Herodotus and Hellenistic culture,” CQ 22: 200–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, O. (2001), “Herodotus and oral history,” in Luraghi, N. (ed.), The Historian’s Craft in the Age of Herodotus (Oxford, Oxford University Press): 16–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myres, J. L. (1953), Herodotus Father of History (Oxford, Clarendon Press).Google Scholar
Naddaf, G. (2005), The Greek Concept of Nature (Albany, SUNY Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naddaf, G. (2012), “L’ἱστορία (historia) comme genre littéraire dans la pensée grecque archaïque,” in Brisson, L., Macé, A., and Therme, A.-L. (eds.), Lire les présocratiques (Quadrige manuels) (Paris, Presses universitaires de France): 61–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagy, G. (1990), Pindar’s Homer: The Lyric Possession of an Epic Past (Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nehamas, A. (1999), Virtues of Authenticity: Essays on Plato and Socrates (Princeton, Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
Nesselrath, H.-G. (2014), “Ancient comedy and historiography: Aristophanes meets Herodotus,” in Olson, S. D. (ed.), Ancient Comedy and Reception: Essays in Honor of Jeffrey Henderson (Berlin; Boston, De Gruyter): 51–61.Google Scholar
Nestle, W. (1902), “Untersuchungen über die philosophischen Quellen des Euripides,” Philologus Suppl. 8: 557–655.Google Scholar
Nestle, W. (1908), Herodots Verhältnis zur Philosophie und Sophistik (Stuttgart: Stuttgarter Vereinsbuchdruckerei).Google Scholar
Nestle, W. (1911), “Gab es eine ionische Sophistik?,” Philologus 70: 242–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nestle, W. (1941), Vom Mythos zum Logos. Die Selbstentfaltung des griechischen Denkens (Stuttgart, Kröner).Google Scholar
Nestle, W. (1942), Geschichte der griechischen Literatur, I. Von den Anfängen bis auf Alexander d. Gr.2 (Berlin, De Gruyter).Google Scholar
Nightingale, A. W. (1995), Genres in Dialogue: Plato and the Construct of Philosophy (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nightingale, A. W. (2001), “On wandering and wondering: Theôria in Greek philosophy and culture,” Arion: 9: 23–58.Google Scholar
Nightingale, A. W. (2004), Spectacles of Truth in Classical Greek Philosophy: Theoria in Its Cultural Context (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nill, M. (1985), Morality and Self-Interest in Protagoras, Antiphon, and Democritus (Leiden, Brill).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norwood, G. (1920), Greek Tragedy (London, John W. Luce & Co.).Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. (1976), “Consequences and character in Sophocles’ Philoctetes,” Ph&Lit 1: 25–53.Google Scholar
Olson, S. D. (1991), “Politics and the lost Euripidean Philoctetes,” Hesperia 60: 269–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osborne, C. (1998), “Was verse the default form for Presocratic philosophy?,” in Atherton, C. (ed.), Form and Content in Didactic Poetry (Bari, Levante): 23–35.Google Scholar
Ostwald, M. (1965), “Pindar, nomos, and Heracles: (Pindar, frg. 169 [Snell2]+POxy. no. 2450, frg. I),” HSCPh 69: 109–38.Google Scholar
Ostwald, M. (1969), Nomos and the Beginnings of the Athenian Democracy (Oxford, Clarendon Press).Google Scholar
Ostwald, M. (1986), From Popular Sovereignty to the Sovereignty of Law: Law, Society, and Politics in Fifth-Century Athens (Berkeley, University of California Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostwald, M. (1990), “Nomos and phusis in Antiphon’s Peri Alêtheias,” in Griffith, M. and Mastronarde, D. J. (eds.), Cabinet of the Muses: Essays in Honor of Thomas G. Rosenmeyer (Atlanta, Scholars Press): 293–306.Google Scholar
Owen, G. E. L. (1960), “Eleatic questions,” CQ 10: 84–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, D. L., ed. (1981), Further Greek Epigrams (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Palmer, J. A. (1999), Plato’s Reception of Parmenides (Oxford, Clarendon Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, J. A. (2009), Parmenides and Presocratic Philosophy (Oxford, Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papadis, D. (2005), “The concept of truth in Parmenides,” RPhA 23: 77–96.Google Scholar
Patzer, A. (1986), Der Sophist Hippias als Philosophiehistoriker (Freiburg, K. Alber).Google Scholar
Patzer, H. (1993), Physis: Grundlegung zu einer Geschichte des Wortes (Stuttgart, Steiner).Google Scholar
Pavese, C.O. (1968), “The new Heracles poem of Pindar,” HSCPh 72: 47–88.Google Scholar
Pavese, C.O. (1993), “On Pindar, fr. 169,” HSCPh 95: 143–57.Google Scholar
Payen, P. (1995), “Comment résister à la conquête? Temps, espace et récit chez Hérodote,” REG 108: 308–38.Google Scholar
Payen, P. (1997), Les îles nomades: conquérir et résister dans l’enquête d’Hérodote (Paris, Editions de l’Ecole des hautes études en sciences sociales).Google Scholar
Pearson, L. (1941), “Credulity and scepticism in Herodotus,” TAPhA 72: 335–55.Google Scholar
Pelling, C. B. R. (1991), “Thucydides’ Archidamus and Herodotus’ Artabanus,” in Flower, M. A. and Toher, M. (eds.), Georgica: Greek Studies in Honour of George Cawkwell (London, Institute of Classical Studies): 120–42.Google Scholar
Pelling, C. B. R. (1999), “Epilogue,” in Kraus, C., ed. The Limits of Historiography: Genre and Narrative in Ancient Historical Texts (Mnemosyne Suppl. 191) (Leiden; Boston, Brill): 325–60.Google Scholar
Pelling, C. B. R. (2002), “Speech and action: Herodotus’ debate on the constitution,” PCPhS 48: 123–58.Google Scholar
Pelling, C. B. R. (2006), “Educating Croesus: Talking and learning in Herodotus’ Lydian Logos,” ClAnt 25: 141–77.Google Scholar
Pelling, C. B. R. (2007), “Ion’s Epidemiai and Plutarch’s Ion,” in Jennings, V. and Katsaros, A. (eds.), The World of Ion of Chios (Mnemosyne Suppl. no. 288) (Leiden; Boston, Brill): 78–109.Google Scholar
Pelling, C. B. R. (2018), “Causes in competition: Herodotus and Hippocratics,” in Bowie, E. (ed.), Herodotus – Narrator, Scientist, Historian (Berlin; Boston, De Gruyter): 199–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pelling, C. B. R. (2019), Herodotus and the Question Why (Austin, University of Texas Press).Google Scholar
Pendrick, G. J. (2002), Antiphon the Sophist. The Fragments (Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries 39) (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Phillips, M. S. (2000), Society and Sentiment: Genres of Historical Writing in Britain, 1740–1820 (Princeton University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickard-Cambridge, A. W. (1962), Dithyramb, Tragedy and Comedy2, rev. T. B. L. Webster (Oxford, Clarendon Press).Google Scholar
Pippidi, D. M. (1960), “Sur la philosophie de l’histoire d’Hérodote,” Eirene 1: 75–92.Google Scholar
Podlecki, A. J. (1966), “Creon and Herodotus,” TAPhA 97: 359–71.Google Scholar
Pohlenz, M. (1937), Herodot, der erste Geschichtsschreiber des Abendlandes (Leipzig, Teubner).Google Scholar
Pohlenz, M. (1948), “Nomos,” Philologus 97: 135–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pohlenz, M. (1953), “Nomos und Physis,” Hermes 81: 418–438.Google Scholar
Poulakos, J. (1983), “Toward a sophistic definition of rhetoric,” Ph&Rh 16: 35–48.Google Scholar
Pratt, L. H. (1993), Lying and Poetry from Homer to Pindar: Falsehood and Deception in Archaic Greek Poetics (Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press).Google Scholar
Priestley, J. (2014), Herodotus and Hellenistic Culture: Literary Studies in the Reception of the Histories (Oxford, Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Provencal, V. L. (2015), Sophist Kings: Persians as Other in Herodotus (London; New York, Bloomsbury Academic).Google Scholar
Purves, A. (2010), Space and Time in Ancient Greek Narrative (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pütz, B. (2007), The Symposium and Komos in Aristophanes (Warminster, Aris & Phillips).Google Scholar
Raaflaub, K. A. (1987), “Herodotus’ political thought and the meaning of history,” Arethusa 20: 221–48.Google Scholar
Raaflaub, K. A. (2002), “Philosophy, science, politics: Herodotus and the intellectual trends of his time,” in Bakker, E. J., Jong, I. J. F., and Wees, H. (eds.), Brill’s Companion to Herodotus (Leiden; Boston, Brill): 149–86.Google Scholar
Raaflaub, K. A. (2004), The Discovery of Freedom in Ancient Greece, trans. R. Franciscono (Chicago, University of Chicago Press [German orig. 1985]).Google Scholar
Racine, F. (2016), “Herodotus’ reputation in Latin literature from Cicero to the 12th Century,” in Priestley, J. and Zali, V. (eds.), Brill’s Companion to the Reception of Herodotus in Antiquity and Beyond (Leiden; Boston, Brill): 193–212.Google Scholar
Ramage, E. (1961), “An early trace of Socratic dialogue,” AJPh 82: 418–24.Google Scholar
Rathmann, M. (2016), Diodor und seine “Bibliotheke”: Weltgeschichte aus der Provinz (Berlin, De Gruyter).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redfield, J. (1985), “Herodotus the tourist,” CP 80: 97–118.Google Scholar
Reesor, M. E. (1987), “The Truth of Antiphon the Sophist,” Apeiron 20: 203–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinhold, M. (1985), “Human nature as cause in ancient historiography,” in Eadie, J. W. and Ober, J. (eds.), The Craft of the Ancient Historian: Essays in Honor of Chester G. Starr (Lanham, MD, University Press of America): 21–40.Google Scholar
Reinhold, M. (2002), Studies in Classical History and Society (Oxford, Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reitzenstein, R. (1898), “Literarhistorische Kleinigkeiten,” Philologus 57: 42–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rengakos, A. (2006), “Homer and the historians: The influence of epic narrative technique on Herodotus and Thucydides,” in Grange, B., Bakker, E. J., Montanari, F. (eds.), La poésie épique grecque: métamorphoses d’un genre littéraire (Vandoeuvres-Genève, Fondation Hardt): 183–209.Google Scholar
Rescher, N. (1991), “Thought experimentation in Presocratic philosophy,” in Horowitz, T. and Massey, G. J. (eds.), Thought Experiments in Science and Philosophy (Savage, MD, Rowman & Littlefield): 31–41.Google Scholar
Riemann, A. (1967), “Das herodoteische Geschichtswerk in der Antike” (PhD diss., Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich).Google Scholar
Robinson, T. M. (1979), Contrasting Arguments: An Edition of the Dissoi Logoi (New York, Arno Press).Google Scholar
Robinson, T. M. (2003), “Protagoras, the Protagoras and the Dissoi Logoi,” in Havlíček, A. and Karfík, F. (eds.), Plato’s Protagoras. Proceedings of the Third Symposium Platonicum Pragense (Prague, OIKOYMENH): 233–45.Google Scholar
Rodríguez-Noriega Guillén, L. (2012), “On Epicharmus’ literary and philosophical background,” in Bosher, K. (ed.), Theater Outside Athens (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press): 76–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roisman, H. M. (1997), “The appropriation of a son: Sophocles’ Philoctetes,” GRBS 38: 127–71.Google Scholar
Rood, T. (2006), “Herodotus and foreign lands,” in Dewald, C. and Marincola, J. (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Herodotus (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press): 290–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rood, T. (2020), “From ethnography to history: Herodotean and Thucydidean traditions in the development of Greek historiography,” in Harrison, T. and Skinner, J. (eds.), Herodotus in the Long Nineteenth Century (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press): 20–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rood, T., and Kingsley, K. S., (in press), Land, Wealth, and Empire in Herodotus: Reading the End of the Histories (Oxford, Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Rose, P. W. (1976), “Sophocles’ Philoctetes and the teachings of the sophists,” HSCPh 80: 49–105.Google Scholar
Rossellini, M., and Saïd, S. (1978), “Usages de femmes et autres nomoi chez les ‘sauvages’ d’Hérodote: essai de lecture structurale,” ASNP 8: 949–1005.Google Scholar
Rosen, S. (1988), The Quarrel between Philosophy and Poetry: Studies in Ancient Thought (New York, Routledge and Kegan Paul).Google Scholar
Rosenmeyer, T. G. (1985), “Ancient literary genres: A mirage?,” Yearbook of Comparative and General Literature 34: 74–84.Google Scholar
Rossetti, L. (2017), Un altro Parmenide I. Il sapere peri physeos. Parmenide e l’irrazionale (Bologna, Diogene Multimedia).Google Scholar
Rostagni, A. (1922), “Un nuovo capitulo nella storia della retorica e della sofistica,” SIFC 2: 148–201.Google Scholar
Rutherford, R. B. (1995), The Art of Plato: Ten Essays in Platonic Interpretation (London, Duckworth).Google Scholar
Rutherford, R. B. (2001), Pindar’s Paeans: A Reading of the Fragments with a Survey of the Genre (Oxford, Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Ruzicka, S. (2012), Trouble in the West: Egypt and the Persian Empire, 525–332 BC (Oxford, Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, K. (2018), “Diodoros of Sicily and the Hellenistic mind,” in Hau, L. I., Meeus, A., and Sheridan, B. (eds.), Diodoros of Sicily: Historiographical Theory and Practice in the “Bibliotheke” (Studia Hellenistica 58) (Leuven, Peeters): 43–64.Google Scholar
Saïd, S. (2002), “Herodotus and tragedy,” in Bakker, E. J., de Jong, I. J. F., and van Wees, H. (eds.), Brill’s Companion to Herodotus (Leiden; Boston, Brill): 117–47.Google Scholar
Sassi, M. M. (2018), The Beginnings of Philosophy in Greece (Princeton, Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
Sattler, B. (2020), The Concept of Motion in Ancient Greek Thought (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scaife, R. (1989), “Alexander I in the Histories of Herodotus,” Hermes 117: 129–37.Google Scholar
Scanlon, T. F. (1994), “Echoes of Herodotus in Thucydides: Self-sufficiency, admiration, and law,” Historia 43: 143–76.Google Scholar
Scardino, C. (2007), Gestaltung und Funktion der Reden bei Herodot und Thukydides (Berlin, De Gruyter).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schelske, O. (2016), “Herodots ‘Metahistory’ im Kontext von Sophistik und Rhetorik,” Gymnasium 123: 25–44.Google Scholar
Schepens, G. (1980), L’ ‘autopsie’ dans la méthode des historiens grecs du Ve siècle avant J.-C. (Brussels; Koninklijke Academie).Google Scholar
Schepens, G. (2007), “History and historia: Inquiry in the Greek historians,” in Marincola, J. (ed.), A Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography, vol. I (Malden, MA; Oxford, Blackwell): 39–55.Google Scholar
Schiappa, E. (1991a), Protagoras and Logos: A Study in Greek Philosophy and Rhetoric (Columbia, University of South Carolina Press).Google Scholar
Schiappa, E. (1991b), “Sophistic rhetoric: Oasis or mirage?” Rhetoric Review 10: 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiappa, E. (2005), “Dissoi Logoi,” in Ballif, M. and Moran, M. G. (eds.), Classical Rhetorics and Rhetoricians: Critical Studies and Sources (Westport, CT, Praeger): 146–8.Google Scholar
Schiefsky, M. (2005), Hippocrates On Ancient Medicine: Translated with Introduction and Commentary (Leiden; Boston, Brill).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlosser, J. A. (2020), Herodotus in the Anthropocene (Chicago, University of Chicago Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmalzriedt, E. (1970), Peri physeos. Zur Frühgeschichte der Buchtitel (Munich, Fink).Google Scholar
Schofield, M. (2007), “The noble lie,” in Ferrari, G. R. F. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Plato’s Republic (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press): 138–64.Google Scholar
Schröder, O. (1917), “Νóμος ὁ πάντων βασιλεύς,” Philologus 74, 195–204.Google Scholar
Schwabl, H. (1969), “Herodot als Historiker und Erzähler,” Gymnasium 76: 253–72.Google Scholar
Schwartz, E. (1890), Quaestiones Herodotae (Rostock, Typis Academicis Alderianis).Google Scholar
Schwartz, E. (1891), Quaestiones Ionicae (Rostock, Typis Academicis Alderianis).Google Scholar
Scodel, R. (2009), “The persuasions of Philoctetes,” in Cousland, J. C. R. and Hume, J. R. (eds.), The Play of Texts and Fragments: Essays in Honour of Martin Cropp (Leiden; Boston, Brill): 49–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal, C. P. (1962), “Gorgias and the psychology of the logos,” HSCPh 66: 99–155.Google Scholar
Sergueenkova, V. (2016), “Counting the past in Herodotus’ Histories,” JHS 136: 121–31.Google Scholar
Sewell-Rutter, N. J. (2007), Guilt by Descent: Moral Inheritance and Decision Making in Greek Tragedy (Oxford, Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheets, G. A. (1993), Herodotus, Book I (Bryn Mawr; Dept. of Greek, Bryn Mawr College).Google Scholar
Sinclair, T. A. (1951), A History of Greek Political Thought (London).Google Scholar
Sisko, J. E. (2003), “Anaxagoras’ Parmenidean cosmology: Worlds within worlds within the One,” Apeiron 36: 87–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skinner, J. (2012), The Invention of Greek Ethnography: from Homer to Herodotus (Oxford, Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skinner, J. (2018), “Herodotus and his world,” in Harrison, T. and Irwin, E. (eds.), Interpreting Herodotus (Oxford, Oxford University Press): 187–222.Google Scholar
Sluiter, I. (2000), “The dialectics of genre: Some aspects of secondary literature and genre in antiquity,” in Depew, M. and Obbink, D. (eds.), Matrices of Genre: Authors, Canons, and Society (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press): 183–203.Google Scholar
Snell, B. (1976 [orig. 1944]), “Die Nachrichten über die Lehren des Thales und die Anfänge der griechischen Philosophie- und Literaturgeschichte,” in Classen, C.-J. (ed.), Sophistik (Darmstadt, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft): 478–90.Google Scholar
Sprague, R. K. (1968), “Dissoi Logoi or Dialexeis,” Mind 77: 155–67.Google Scholar
Starr, C. (1968), “Ideas of truth in early Greece,” PP 23: 348–59.Google Scholar
Stier, H. E. (1928), “NOMOS BASILEUS,” Philologus 83: 225–58.Google Scholar
Stroheker, K. F. (1953–4), “Zu den Anfängen der monarchischen Theorie in der Sophistik,” Historia 2: 381–412.Google Scholar
Taylor, A. E. (1911), Varia Socratica: First Series (Oxford, Parker & Co.).Google Scholar
Taylor, C. C. W. (2007), “Nomos and phusis in Democritus and Plato,” Social Philosophy and Policy 24: 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tell, H. (2014), Plato’s Counterfeit Sophists (Washington, DC, Center for Hellenic Studies).Google Scholar
Telὸ, M. (2010), “Embodying the tragic father(s): Autobiography and intertextuality in Aristophanes,” ClAnt: 278–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thesleff, H. (1966), “Scientific and technical style in early Greek prose,” Arctos 4: 89–113.Google Scholar
Thimme, O. (1935), “ΦΥΣΙΣ ΤΡΟΠΟΣ ΗΘΟΣ: Semasiologische Untersuchung über die Auffassung des menschlichen Wesens ‘Charakters’ in der älteren griechischen Literatur” (PhD diss., University of Göttingen).Google Scholar
Thomas, R. (1989), Oral Tradition and Written Record in Classical Athens (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, R. (1993), “Performance and written publication in Herodotus and the sophistic generation,” in Kullmann, W. and Althoff, J. (eds.), Vermittlung und Tradierung von Wissen in der griechischen Kultur (Tübingen, G. Narr): 225–44.Google Scholar
Thomas, R. (2000), Herodotus in Context: Ethnography, Science and the Art of Persuasion (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Thomas, R. (2003), “Prose performance texts: Epideixis and written publication in the late fifth and early fourth centuries,” in Yunis, H. (ed.), Written Texts and the Rise of Literate Culture in Ancient Greece (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press): 162–88.Google Scholar
Thomas, R. (2004), “Herodotus, Ionia, and the Athenian Empire,” in Karageorghis, V. and Taifacos, I. (eds.), The World of Herodotus. Proceedings of an International Conference Held at the Foundation Anastasios G. Leventis, Nicosia, September 18–21, 2003 (Nicosia, Foundation Anastasios G. Leventis): 27–43.Google Scholar
Thomas, R. (2017), “Thucydides and his intellectual milieu,” in Balot, R., Forsdyke, S., and Foster, E. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Thucydides (Oxford, Oxford University Press): 567–86.Google Scholar
Thomas, R. (2018), “Truth and authority in Herodotus’ narrative: False stories and true stories,” in Bowie, E. (ed.), Herodotus – Narrator, Scientist, Historian (Berlin; Boston, De Gruyter): 265–84.Google Scholar
Thomas, R. (2019), Polis Histories, Collective Memories and the Greek World (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, N. (1996), Herodotus and the Origins of the Political Community: Arion’s Leap (New Haven, Yale University Press).Google Scholar
Todorov, T. (1976), “The origin of genres,” New Literary History 8: 159–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Too, M.-K. (2005), Epistemology after Protagoras: Responses to Relativism in Plato, Aristotle, and Democritus (Oxford, Clarendon Press).Google Scholar
Tor, S. (2017), Mortal and Divine in Early Greek Epistemology: A Study of Hesiod, Xenophanes, and Parmenides (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trapp, M. (2007), “What is this Philosophia anyway?,” in Morgan, J. R. and Jones, M. (eds.), Philosophical Presences in the Ancient Novel (Ancient Narrative Suppl. 10) (Eelde, Barkhuis): 1–22.Google Scholar
Trepanier, S. (2004), Empedocles: An Interpretation (New York, Routledge).Google Scholar
Untersteiner, M. (1954), Sofisti. Testimonianze e Frammenti, Introduzione, traduzione e commento, vol. III (Florence, La Nuova Italia).Google Scholar
Untersteiner, M. (1996), I sofisti. Presentazione di Fernanda Decleva Caizzi (Milan, B. Mondadori).Google Scholar
Valckenaer, L. C. (1767), Diatribe in Euripidis perditorum dramatum reliquias (Leiden, apud Ioann. Luzak & Ioann. le Mair).Google Scholar
van der Eijk, P. (2002), “The role of medicine in the formation of early Greek thought,” in Curd, P. and Graham, D. W. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Presocratic Philosophy (Oxford, Oxford University Press): 385–412.Google Scholar
van Wees, H. (2002), “Herodotus and the past,” in Bakker, E. J., de Jong, I. J. F., and van Wees, H. (eds.), Brill’s Companion to Herodotus (Leiden; Boston, Brill): 321–50.Google Scholar
Vasunia, P. (2001), Gift of the Nile: Hellenizing Egypt from Aeschylus to Alexander (Berkeley, University of California Press).Google Scholar
Vatri, A. (2017), Orality and Performance in Classical Attic Prose: A Linguistic Approach (Oxford, Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veazie, W. B. (1921), “The word ΦΥΣΙΣ,” AGPh 33: 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verdin, H. (1971), De Historisch-Kritische Methode van Herodotus (Brussels, Paleis der Academiën).Google Scholar
Verdin, H. (1982), “Hérodote et la politique expansionniste des Achéménides. Notes sur Hdt. VII 8,” in Quaegebeur, J. (ed.), Studia Paulo Naster Oblata II. Orientalia Antiqua (Leuven, Departement Oriëntalistiek): 327–36.Google Scholar
Vernant, J.-P. (1983), Myth and Thought among the Greeks (London; Boston, Routledge & Kegan Paul).Google Scholar
Versenyi, L. (1962), “Protagoras’ man-measure fragment,” AJPh: 178–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vlastos, G. (1946), “Parmenides’ theory of knowledge,” TAPhA 77: 66–77.Google Scholar
Vlastos, G. (1953), “Isonomia,” AJPh 74: 337–66.Google Scholar
Walbank, F. (1972), Polybius (Berkeley, University of California Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walter, U. (2017), “‘Schlechte Zeugen sind für die Menschen Augen und Ohren derjenigen, die Barbaren-Seelen haben’: Heraklit und Herodot, zusammengedacht,” in Fantino, E., Muss, U., Schubert, C., and Sier, K. (eds.), Heraklit im Kontext (Studia Praesocratica 8) (Berlin; Boston, De Gruyter): 151–70.Google Scholar
Wardman, A. E. (1960), “Myth in Greek historiography,” Historia 9: 403–13.Google Scholar
Wardy, R. (2019), “Who is a Presocratic philosopher?,” Ápeiron: Estudios de filosofía 11: 45–64.Google Scholar
Warren, J. (2007), Presocratics (Stocksfield, Acumen).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wasmuth, M. (2021), “Negotiating cross-regional authority: The acceptance of Cambyses as Egyptian pharaoh as means of constructing elite identity,” in Agut-Labordère, D., Boucharlat, R., Joannès, F., Kuhrt, A., and Stolper, M. W. (eds.), Achemenet. Vingt ans après: études offertes à Pierre Briant à l’occasion des vingt ans du Programme Achemenet (Leuven, Peeters): 429–45.Google Scholar
Waters, K. H. (1971), Herodotus on Tyrants and Despots. A Study in Objectivity (Wiesbaden, F. Steiner).Google Scholar
Weber, E. (1897), “Δισσοὶ Λόγοι: Eine Ausgabe der sogenannten Διαλέξειϛ,” in Philologisch-historische Beiträge C. Wachsmuth zum 60. Geburtstag überreicht (Leipzig, Teubner): 33–51.Google Scholar
Węcowski, M. (2004), “The hedgehog and the fox: Form and meaning in the prologue of Herodotus,” JHS 124: 143–64.Google Scholar
Wells, S. (2014), “Genres as species and spaces: Literary and rhetorical genre in the anatomy of melancholy,” Philosophy & Rhetoric 47: 113–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West, S. (1985), “Herodotus’ epigraphical interests,” CQ: 278–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West, S. (2002), “Scythia,” in Bakker, E. J., de Jong, I. J. F., and van Wees, H. (eds.), Brill’s Companion to Herodotus (Leiden; Boston, Brill): 437–56.Google Scholar
West, S. (2004), “Herodotus and lyric poetry,” Letras Clássicas 8: 79–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West, S. (2007), “Herodotus lyricorum studiosus,” Palamedes 2: 109–30.Google Scholar
Wheeler, E. L. (1988), Stratagem and the Vocabulary of Military Trickery (Leiden; New York, Brill).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitmarsh, T. (2005), “The Greek novel: Titles and genre,” AJPh: 587–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitmarsh, T. (2013), Beyond the Second Sophistic: Adventures in Greek Postclassicism (Berkeley, University of California Press).Google Scholar
Wilgaux, J. (2011), “Consubstantiality, incest, and kinship in ancient Greece,” in Rawson, B. (ed.), A Companion to Families in the Greek and Roman Worlds (Malden; Oxford; Chichester, Wiley-Blackwell): 217–30.Google Scholar
Wilson, N. G. (2015), Herodotea: Studies on the Text of Herodotus (Oxford, Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winton, R. (2000), “Herodotus, Thucydides and the sophists,” in Rowe, C. J. and Schofield, M. (eds.), The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Political Thought (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press): 89–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfsdorf, D. (2020), “On the unity of the Dissoi Logoi,” in Wolfsdorf, D. C. (ed.), Early Greek Ethics (Oxford, Oxford University Press): 293–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, C. (2016), “‘I am going to say …’: A sign on the road of Herodotus’ logos,” CQ 66: 13–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodruff, P. (1999), “Rhetoric and relativism: Protagoras and Gorgias,” in Long, A. A. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Early Greek Philosophy (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press): 290–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, M. R. (1981), Empedocles, the Extant Fragments (New Haven, Yale University Press).Google Scholar
Xian, R. (2020), “The Cyrus anecdote in Herodotus 9.122,” CQ 70: 16–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zali, V. (2013), “Themistocles’ exhortation before Salamis: On Herodotus 8.83,” GRBS 53: 461–85.Google Scholar
Zali, V. (2015), The Shape of Herodotean Rhetoric: A Study of the Speeches in Herodotus’ Histories with Special Attention to Books 5–9 (Leiden; Boston, Brill).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeller, E. (1856–68), Die Philosophie der Griechen in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung (Tübingen, O. R. Reisland).Google Scholar
Zilioli, U. (2012), Protagoras and the Challenge of Relativism: Plato’s Subtlest Enemy (Aldershot; Burlington, Ashgate).Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org 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.

  • References
  • K. Scarlett Kingsley, Agnes Scott College, Decatur
  • Book: Herodotus and the Presocratics
  • Online publication: 07 March 2024
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009338530.012
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.

  • References
  • K. Scarlett Kingsley, Agnes Scott College, Decatur
  • Book: Herodotus and the Presocratics
  • Online publication: 07 March 2024
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009338530.012
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.

  • References
  • K. Scarlett Kingsley, Agnes Scott College, Decatur
  • Book: Herodotus and the Presocratics
  • Online publication: 07 March 2024
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009338530.012
Available formats
×