Chapter 5 explores how technical ingenuity featured in the act of religious dedication in ancient Greek religion. Two epigrams (describing the Bes rhyton and the Lykon thēsauros) are taken alongside descriptions of pneumatic inventions in Philo of Byzantium and Hero of Alexandria’s technical manuals. Though not typically read together, Hellenistic epigram, and Philo and Hero’s texts all describe pneumatically enhanced dedications, and demonstrate, within the confines of their genres, how religious awe and technological capabilities were co-constructed and mutually reinforcing. The chapter then turns to the material record, examining traces of technically enhanced dedications in practice. Two examples are explored: wheeled tripods and articulated figurines. Both categories of votive objects show different ways in which the mechanical, human, and divine were configured. Both also stretch further back chronologically than the discussion of preceding chapters, allowing for discussion of texts including Iliad 18 on Hephaistos’ tripods, and Prometheus Bound, to think about the (mythic) prehistory of the phenomenon at hand.

The first example of mechanical epiphany that the book sets forth is that of the well-known ‘god on the machine’ (deus ex machina) employed in the ancient Greek theatre. Moving beyond interpreting the theatrical crane as a plot device, this chapter forefronts the mēchanē’s material qualities to explore the theological potential of the object as a mode of visual epiphany. Vital to the success of this mode of epiphany was the challenge to the viewer to recognise divine intervention as well as the mechanics that constructed and enabled it. The evidence of Old Comedy, both fragmentary and the fuller plays of Aristophanes, help demonstrate how uses of the comic crane (kradē) undercut the interpretative symbiosis between man, machine, and divine agency on which tragedy was predicated. The chapter closes by exploring how the theatre as a form of mass media made it fertile ground for development and exploration of theological ideas, not just a reflection of literary norms.

This concluding epilogue consists of three diverse case studies which both sum up many of the main continuities and differences in the treatment of wonder in Greek literature and culture from Homer to the early Hellenistic period and simultaneously point towards some further directions for the study of wonder in antiquity and beyond.

Scholars tend to assume that the mathematical sciences and philosophy were distinct disciplines in antiquity, as they are today. From the fourth century B.C.E. onward, mathematicians and philosophers did distinguish themselves. They criticized each other’s work and, in some areas of the Greek world, strong rivalries developed between philosophers and mathematicians. I argue, however, that the distinction between philosophers and mathematicians did not entail that their fields of inquiry were distinct. This chapter examines the relationship between the mathematical sciences and philosophy from the perspective of the practitioners of the mathematical sciences, in particular, Archytas of Tarentum, Hero of Alexandria, and Claudius Ptolemy. I argue that these practitioners viewed the relationship between the mathematical sciences and philosophy as more complex, where the mathematical sciences are not only in relation to philosophy but, even stronger, forms of philosophy.  Moreover, the mathematical sciences answer some of the most fundamental questions of philosophy, e.g., how to obtain knowledge, how to form a just society, and how to attain the good life.