New ideas and inventions that affect social life cannot thrive unless they are somehow embedded in the society for which they are intended. Innovation will always be connected somehow—both in the ways it is communicated and perceived, and in terms of content—to what people know, believe, want, value, and can understand. This is true even of radical, pathbreaking, ‘revolutionary’ ideas and insights. This phenomenon of ‘anchoring’ is central to the new research agenda of the Dutch classicists.

In Classical Antiquity, one way in which this ‘anchoring’ is realized is through narratives of inventors and inventions, a rich genre providing a social biography for the accoutrements of human life. Writing, seafaring, building houses, making sacrifice to the gods: there is a great concern with establishing the pedigree of these phenomena, which are often associated with specific ‘culture heroes’, gods, and other inventors, who act as ‘Agents of Change’. Sometimes we find ideas about collective invention, for instance of language and speech. There are also a few instances of women inventors. Stories of the prôtoi heuretai help to structure and anchor the past of a group. Today we can still identify modern ‘myths of invention’, featuring for instance (stereotypical) inventors, lone wolves and geniuses, and epics of endurance, sudden insights and serendipity. Modern narratives of invention thus also have a recognizable discourse of their own.

A particularly fruitful anchoring topos is to use the inspiration of nature: artis natura magistra. This is particularly obvious in stories of technological inventions, as when the bones of a fish inspire the invention of the comb. On the other hand, human technology and cultural advances can also be perceived as a threat to the natural order: humankind trespasses on the domain of the gods, and hubristically exceeds its natural limits.
This nexus of ideas deserves in-depth exploration in the context of our Anchoring Innovation program. We invite structured PhD proposals with ideas on the discourse, themes, scenarios, and cognitive and social functioning of these stories of inventors and inventions of all kinds, the ‘rhetoric and poetics of invention and inventors’. And we also are looking for a study of the role of nature in the cultural imagination of invention, inventors, and human culture.

Candidates are invited to design a structured PhD proposal (title, research question, scholarly background, aims, method, corpus) around these questions. They are free to adopt a literary or linguistic approach, one related to theories about Agents of Change, or based on ancient philosophy (ethics). In their proposals, they should outline their suggested approach, main research question, and expected original contribution to the field.

More information about the Anchoring Innovation research agenda of OIKOS can be found on the website (www.anchoringinnovation.nl), including an article by Ineke Sluiter, entitled “Anchoring Innovation: a Classical Research Agenda”.

New ideas and inventions that affect social life cannot thrive unless they are somehow embedded in the society for which they are intended. Innovation will always be connected somehow—both in the ways it is communicated and perceived, and in terms of content—to what people know, believe, want, value, and can understand. This is true even of radical, pathbreaking, ‘revolutionary’ ideas and insights. This phenomenon of ‘anchoring’ is central to the new research agenda of the Dutch classicists.

In Classical Antiquity, one way in which this ‘anchoring’ is realized is by couching new or controversial issues in loci communes (commonplaces, in the sense of certae rei amplificationes). In some cases these loci are true to form clichés, such as it being “better to suffer injustice than to commit it”. Other loci rather impress us as apparent truisms: “nobody kills his son because he hates him: even if he is detested, no young man is worth paying such a price”. In either case, validity or plausibility is derived from the way the locus is framed or phrased: e.g., impersonal verbs and indefinite pronouns are a giveaway.

The ways and methods by which loci communes are made and employed in theory and practice constitute important methodological tools for all classicists and are especially relevant for those who want to study the anchoring of innovative or disputable issues. Sources abound, including, for theory, rhetorical handbooks from Aristotle to Boethius, but also recent linguistic tools such as common ground theory; for practice, rhetorical exercises – both progymnasmata and declamations – and oratory are the most obvious research objects.

We welcome structured PhD proposals (title, research question, scholarly background, aims, method, corpus) which aim for research that sheds more light on theory and/ or practice of loci communes and ideally connects the two. Those who are interested are invited to consult the Anchoring Innovation website at www.anchoringinnovation.nl for an outline of WP1 as well as recent publications concerning key concepts such as anchoring, loci communes, and common ground.

Aristotle, famously, strongly distinguished between drama and narrative, even considering the latter something of an alien body when employed in drama. Greek playwrights, however, actually love narrative, and insert narratives throughout their plays (prologues, messengerspeeches, choral narratives, exodus narratives). These narratives in various ways have an anchoring function: they may connect the plot of the play with the myth at large of which it forms a part or they may bring in extrascenic events.

Candidates are invited to submit a structured PhD proposal (title, research question, scholarly background, aims, method, corpus) which further explores these connections, either for one type of narrative or for all types of narrative as they are used in combination in one play. How do prologue narratives manage to usher the spectators into the dramatic world? What linguistic, dramatic and narratological devices accomplish the transition from Athens now to, say, Thebes then? How do the exodus narratives accomplish the return from the heroic past to the present of the spectators. How do they make clear, e.g. in the form of an aitology, how their present actually is anchored into the past? How does the chorus function as a kind of stand in (the matter is of course highly debated) for the spectators when presenting its take on events?

In view of the research environment in which the PhD will come to work, projects with a combined narratological-linguistic approach are especially welcome. A project may also adopt a diachronic approach and study the way in which narrative anchoring devices employed by tragic narrators relate to those of epic and lyric. In that case, the innovation primarily concerns form rather than content.

In all cases part of the research question should be: in what ways is dramatic narrative used as an anchoring device. Which devices play a role and what does their use in a dramatic context and on a stage teach us about the concept of anchoring innovation itself?

More information about the Anchoring Innovation research agenda of OIKOS can be found on the website (www.anchoringinnovation.nl), including an article by Ineke Sluiter, entitled “Anchoring Innovation: a Classical Research Agenda”.

It is often said that the Hellenistic poets felt “an anxiety of influence” in the sense that they saw themselves as late comers in a literary tradition set by the great poets of the archaic and classical periods, whose works were collected, commented upon and canonized in the Hellenistic period. The same is true of the Greek poets who were active during the Roman Empire, who recognized not only the archaic and classical poets as their predecessors but the Hellenistic poets as well. However, this recognition of a literary tradition in which they positioned themselves had positive effects as well. For example, it enabled these poets to clarify and define their message, to build on the authority of the earlier poets, and/or to show their erudition.

The question central to this project is if and how this use of tradition relates to the concept of “anchoring” as developed in the OIKOS research agenda. We are interested in possible examples of so-called “positive anchoring”, for example when Nossis cites Sappho as her source of inspiration (in Epigram 1 G.-P. implicitly through allusion; in Epigram 11 G.-P. explicitly by mentioning her name), as well as “negative” forms of anchoring, for example when a poet says that his poetry is NOT like that of Homer. In the latter case he (or she) still invites his audience to compare his poetry with that of the old master either to put himself on a par with him (or even claim to outdo him) or to prove his originality or detachment, still evidently in comparison with the old poet.

We invite structured PhD proposals (title, research question, scholarly background, aims, method, corpus) in which candidates pick one or more Greek poems written in the Hellenistic or Roman Imperial period (before 300 CE) and argue how it makes use of (is “anchored in”) earlier archaic, classical or Hellenistic Greek poetry (this, of course, can also be poets of other genres, such as tragedy). Alternatively, they can choose one particular archaic, classical or Hellenistic Greek poet and show his or her influence in Hellenistic and/or imperial Greek literature. Homer and Sappho are excluded as primary objects of study, because their influence on later Greek literature is treated elsewhere in the program.

More information about the Anchoring Innovation research agenda of OIKOS can be found on the website (www.anchoringinnovation.nl), including an article by Ineke Sluiter, entitled “Anchoring Innovation: a Classical Research Agenda”.

At the beginning of the first century BC, a group of young energetic poets took to the literary stage in Rome: the so-called poetae novi. Catullus, the only representative whose texts have been transmitted by and large in full, presents his own collection as “new” (novus libellus); at the same time, he claims its innovative features to build on an earlier innovation, the alleged program of a Hellenistic ‘avantgarde’. In modern scholarship, it is still assumed that the poetae novi shared this agenda and that they more or less employed the same techniques. Yet, can the material we have on them actually support this view? Why was Catullus so successful, while the poems of the other poetae novi have survived as fragments? Did they just ‘fail’, and if so, why? Or did they aim at and succeed in something different?

Poets such as Calvus, Cinna, Furius Bibaculus, Varro Atacinus, exerted great influence upon the next generation of poets, such as Virgil and Propertius. At the same time, their own poetry seem not to have maintained much of a readership beyond their contemporary period. How can we describe this paradox? On the one hand, their reception of Hellenistic poetry contributed to the creation of an anchor that finally would be accepted in Roman society. On the other hand, they failed to promote their own poetry. What can this tell us about the techniques to anchor innovations and, more specifically, about the status of Hellenistic poetry in the Roman Republic and its career as an ‘anchor’ in Augustan poetry?

The poetae novi and their impact on Augustan poetry are highly understudied. While the last few decades have seen a boom in studies on Callimachus and other Hellenistic poets, the poetae novi besides Catullus have not benefitted from much re-evaluation. We know much more about the background to the poetae novi than ever before, but there is much work to be done on shedding light on the poetae novi themselves. Thus, there is an opportunity for a talented researcher to make a real impact on the field. The PhD candidate will also benefit from the knowledge and expertise shared across the wider Anchoring program, which includes other researchers working on innovation in the interactions of Roman poets with Greek literature.

The PhD candidate will study the fragments, testimonia and the early reception of the poetae novi and explore the Greco Roman discourse in which they were involved (Hellenistic poetry, contemporary Greek literature) and to which they contributed (Late Republican, Augustan poetry). What was their background, agenda, impact and reception? How can we describe the specific processes of their reception, and are failure and success of the poetae novi related to specific techniques of anchoring their program? How do their techniques differ from the anchoring techniques employed by Catullus?

Candidates are invited to design a structured PhD proposal (title, research question, scholarly background, aims, method, corpus) around these questions. They are free to adopt a more literary or more historical perspective as they prefer. In their proposal, they should outline their suggested approach, main research question, and expected original contribution to the field.

More information about the Anchoring Innovation research agenda of OIKOS can be found on the website (www.anchoringinnovation.nl), including an article by Ineke Sluiter, entitled “Anchoring Innovation: a Classical Research Agenda”.

Empire is not simply a matter of military power, it is also discourse. For a successful empire, there is not only a need of soldiers, administrators and institutions, but imperial rulers and subjects have to employ a common language (in a broad sense) that allows all parties to share in the imperial enterprise. This discourse needs to be connected—both in the ways it is communicated and perceived, and in terms of content—to what people know, believe, want, value, and can understand. This phenomenon of ‘anchoring’ is central to the new research agenda of the Dutch classicists.

We invite structured PhD proposals (title, research question, scholarly background, aims, method, corpus) on the anchoring of Judaism in the Roman empire. This project will investigate the ways in which Jewish communities engaged with Roman rule and the realities of empire. The focus will be on the realm of religion which could serve both as a means of accommodation and as a source of (discursive) resistance.

The focus may be on Judea and/or the Jewish diaspora communities in the eastern Mediterranean. Possible fields of investigation are e.g. reflections of Roman imperial power in textual sources such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, or Rabbinic writings, the use of religious culture in response to imperial realities (including memories of earlier encounters with empires), Jewish burial practices and self-representation in the mortuary and epigraphic record, Jewish participation in and responses to the Graeco-Roman spectacle and festival culture, and the use of religious value terms in discourses about power and/or honour. Proposals for other connected topics are also welcome. This PhD project is part of “Anchoring Empire”, a joint research project between the University of Groningen chair groups of Ancient History and of Old Testament and Ancient Judaism) and the Radboud University, Nijmegen (chair group of Ancient History) within the Anchoring Innovation program.

More information about the Anchoring Innovation research agenda of OIKOS can be found on the website (www.anchoringinnovation.nl), including an article by Ineke Sluiter, entitled “Anchoring Innovation: a Classical Research Agenda”.

Empire is not simply a matter of military power, it is also discourse. For a successful empire, there is not only a need of soldiers, administrators and institutions, but imperial rulers and subjects have to employ a common language (in a broad sense) that allows all parties to share in the imperial enterprise. This discourse needs to be connected—both in the ways it is communicated and perceived, and in terms of content—to what people know, believe, want, value, and can understand. This phenomenon of ‘anchoring’ is central to the new research agenda of the Dutch classicists.

This project will focus on the Greek world under Rome and investigate how local political traditions and political discourses developed under imperial rule. When the Romans established their rule over Greece, they encountered a lively political culture. Traditional institutions and modes of political participation were still important; many cities were democratic in name and some even in practice. These traditions did not disappear overnight. This project aims to study how local cultures engaged with the process of integration and adaptation to Roman rule. The epigraphic record offers a rich source material for studying how political and social innovation could be anchored in a traditional and conservative medium. Questions that may be addressed include: How did Roman authorities and the new Romanised elites secure their position linguistically? To what extent was the language of praise anchored in traditional categories, and how were they transformed over time? How did language of decrees reflect and support changing social and political hierarchies? We invite structured PhD proposals (title, research question, scholarly background, aims, method, corpus) for a (semantic and pragmatic) analysis of the strategies by which these discourses engage with the continuity and changes in local political and cultural traditions.

This PhD project is part of “Anchoring Empire”, a joint research project between the University of Groningen chair groups of Ancient History and of Old Testament and Ancient Judaism) and the Radboud University, Nijmegen (chair group of Ancient History) within the Anchoring Innovation program. More information about the Anchoring Innovation research agenda of OIKOS can be found on the website (www.anchoringinnovation.nl), including an article by Ineke Sluiter, entitled “Anchoring Innovation: a Classical Research Agenda”.

Empire is not simply a matter of military power, it is also discourse. For a successful empire, there is not only a need of soldiers, administrators and institutions, but imperial rulers and subjects have to employ a common language (in a broad sense) that allows all parties to share in the imperial enterprise. This discourse needs to be connected—both in the ways it is communicated and perceived, and in terms of content—to what people know, believe, want, value, and can understand. This phenomenon of ‘anchoring’ is central to the new research agenda of the Dutch classicists.

This PhD project will focus on the imperial centre and investigate how the Roman empire was anchored in historical discourses, and how these changed over time to take into account the new political and social realities. There is a range of possible questions to be asked in this project: how did Rome (re)define itself as a territorial Empire? How did it present relationships between centre and periphery ('provinces' and 'friendly kings')? How did the anchors to which the discourse of an 'imperial' Rome relate shift over time? Discourse in this context may refer to the vocabulary and metaphors of empire found in legal, documentary and literary texts, but also to the visual languages and the material culture employed to convey a sense of common imperial destiny. We invite structured PhD proposals (title, research question, scholarly background, aims, method, corpus) on this theme.

This PhD project is part of “Anchoring Empire”, a joint research project between the University of Groningen chair groups of Ancient History and of Old Testament and Ancient Judaism) and the Radboud University, Nijmegen (chair group of Ancient and Medieval History) within the Anchoring Innovation program. More information about the Anchoring Innovation research agenda of OIKOS can be found on the website (www.anchoringinnovation.nl), including an article by Ineke Sluiter, entitled “Anchoring Innovation: a Classical Research Agenda”.