Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

ANTHOLOGIA PALATINA 9. 686

ANTHOLOGIA PALATINA 9. 686 I. ABTEILUNG ANTHOLOGIA PALATINA 9. 686 B. BALDWIN/CALGARY , , , . , , . , . In Class. Quart, n. s. 34 (1984) 489-91, Cyrii Mango firmly dates this epigram to AD 529. He puts up s incisive a case s one could, and I have no vested interest in any theory that requires him to be wrong. Nevertheless, his arguments are far from conclusive, hence this amiable discussion to reassure those who prefer the older and later dating1 that they need not despair. Mango's first and key point is that it is inconceivable (his word) that any statue to anyone should have been erected after the /th Century; exceptional cases in the Patria of Constantinople are simply dismissed. Now Mango knows incomparably more about this subject than I do, and no sane man likes to rest a case on the evidence of the Patria - the Byzantinist's equivalent to the Historia Augusta. Still, Mango does not explain why he has abandoned his former acceptance2 of statues later than his currently firm cut-off date, and it is also worth noting that the latest and best editors3 of the Parastaseis have no qualms about the kneeling statue of http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Byzantinische Zeitschrift de Gruyter

ANTHOLOGIA PALATINA 9. 686

BALDWIN, B.
Byzantinische Zeitschrift , Volume 79 (2) – Jan 1, 1986
Download PDF
2 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/de-gruyter/anthologia-palatina-9-686-2Q7id61ltB

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
de Gruyter
Copyright
Copyright © 2009 Walter de Gruyter
ISSN
0007-7704
eISSN
1864-449X
DOI
10.1515/byzs.1986.79.2.263
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

I. ABTEILUNG ANTHOLOGIA PALATINA 9. 686 B. BALDWIN/CALGARY , , , . , , . , . In Class. Quart, n. s. 34 (1984) 489-91, Cyrii Mango firmly dates this epigram to AD 529. He puts up s incisive a case s one could, and I have no vested interest in any theory that requires him to be wrong. Nevertheless, his arguments are far from conclusive, hence this amiable discussion to reassure those who prefer the older and later dating1 that they need not despair. Mango's first and key point is that it is inconceivable (his word) that any statue to anyone should have been erected after the /th Century; exceptional cases in the Patria of Constantinople are simply dismissed. Now Mango knows incomparably more about this subject than I do, and no sane man likes to rest a case on the evidence of the Patria - the Byzantinist's equivalent to the Historia Augusta. Still, Mango does not explain why he has abandoned his former acceptance2 of statues later than his currently firm cut-off date, and it is also worth noting that the latest and best editors3 of the Parastaseis have no qualms about the kneeling statue of

Journal

Byzantinische Zeitschrift – de Gruyter

Published: Jan 1, 1986

There are no references for this article.