Charybdis is a well-known sea monster in both the ancient and modern imaginations resulting from her prominent appearance in the Odyssey. Yet, in contrast to her counterpart across the strait, Scylla, she has been overlooked by modern scholars, and few have examined what makes her monstrous in the first place. This article will argue that Charybdis should be understood as monstrous as a result of her lack of corporeality, which, in turn, also results in an ontological uncertainty about whether or not she is even a natural phenomenon or, rather, a supernatural monster. The type of fear and unease that Charybdis’s unique form of monstrosity exerts on humans can, then, be best described with reference to Mark Fisher’s concept of “the eerie” as a failure of presence where we expect it to be.

This article examines the nicor (pl. nicoras) of Beowulf, a type of aquatic monster that appears elsewhere in Old English literature only in the Letter of Alexander to Aristotle and the Blickling Homily XVI. These beasts that attack Beowulf during his swimming contest with Breca and that surround the mere of Grendel and his mother are unfamiliar to modern scholars in terms of their precise nature, being assumed in previous scholarship to be generic water monsters, or hippopotamus-like beasts. Other scholarly suggestions for their underlying influence have been crocodiles and whales. I argue, however, that the nicoras can better be understood as having been influenced by the ancient traditions of the kētos (pl. kētē), the sea monster par excellence of Greco-Roman mythology, which also occupied a prominent place in the Christian imagination. The nicoras in these three Old English texts can be understood, like the dragon of Beowulf, as fantastical creatures that were primarily the product of discernible ancient traditions, rather than generic beasts or purely monstrous versions of real-world animals.

historical times and events in chronological order and somewhat brings the results of the previous chapters together. After a short selected bibliography and further readings, the book is completed by a general index and an index locorum both very useful.In general, this book cites the important passages on every topic Isocrates discussed, but the editing of each section varies heavily. Sometimes, there is a short and helpful introduction to Isocrates' key views on the topic, followed by quotes with contextualizing words from the author (see for example 'On sōphrosynē ', 47-49). But sometimes there is only a list of quotes without connection, context or order (see for instance 'On education and philosophy ', 78-83). Also, Mikalson often takes Isocrates' statements at face value, even to the point of leaving contradictions unadressed and contexts unmentioned, for example, in (seemingly) believing Isocrates' lamentations that his old age is weakening his writing abilities (33)(34)(35)(36) or in putting quotes from different texts (3.21 and 12.143, 151) that criticise and praise democracy for its choice of advisers next to each other (50). It is especially problematic when a quote is shortened beyond recognition or used in the wrong context. In the subchapter 'On good thinking (Φρá½¹νησις)' we find the quote: '"Men who think best and are most gentle differ from the beasts that are the most wild and most savage" (12.121)' (51). However, this is actually just a picture of comparison, as can even be seen in another section of this book: 'Athenian kings differed from their counterparts elsewhere "as much as the most thoughtful and gentle men differ from the wildest and most savage animals"' (118). At other times, passages are quoted in the wrong chronological context (12.196-97 in 137-38), statements that are specific to a certain encomium are used out of context (11.24-25 in 68 and 10.65 in 88) or a paraphrase from an earlier text is cited as direct speech (15.71 in 105).The frequent repetition of passages in different sections is noticeable, but unavoidable. Mikalson's translation is altogether good, but not without inaccuracies and other problems. For example, the ambiguous and for Isocrates very important word λá½¹γος is sometimes unsuitably translated as 'language' (see for example 83-84, 187) and is never transcribed or in any way discussed. It is a general problem of the book that Isocrates' texts are only presented in English translation, especially as Mikalson does not explain which edition of the Greek text he used and the book is aimed at 'classicists' (xix). In respect of the amount of quotes included, it seems indeed impossible to offer the original text as well. A translation is, however, always an interpretation.In summary, The Essential Isocrates gives a valuable first overview of Isocrates' oeuvre, especially for readers with limited to no knowledge of Greek. But more attention to detail, that is fewer quotes but with the Greek original included, paired with a better structure and more consistent pre...

No abstract

This article considers the depiction of the marine world and its mythical inhabitants in the Natural History of Pliny the Elder. Through an ecocritical reading of the text, whereby I consider Pliny's tendency to conceptualise Nature as a divinity and his consequential displacement of the traditionally anthropomorphic Greco-Roman gods, we can better understand the underlying factors in Pliny's selective inclusion of ideas. I argue that Pliny's divinisation of Nature, attributable to the influence of ancient Stoicism, has impacted his conception of the relationship between humans and Nature, an ideal centred around a post-anthropocentric framework. This, in turn, exerts a ripple effect onto the folkloric elements of the text. Both the anthropic figures of the sea (Nereids and Tritons) along with more bestial creatures (sea monsters) become dispossessed of traditionally divine attributes and associations with Poseidon/Neptune, leading to their representation in the Natural History as more 'naturalised' types of sea creatures.