Anthologies and Anthologists 121non-classicizing styles such as oriental motifs on Byzantine silks^129. Likewise,
the hellenism of Leo the Philosopher and the christianized classicism of Photios
and Cephalas should not be seen as the sole cultural forces in the ninth and
early tenth centuries, but merely as determinant factors in an ongoing debate
on Byzantium and the classical heritage. Debates are never won by any one
party; at best the parties involved reach a meagre compromise, but if that is
not possible, they keep on arguing for ever. Conflicts on the issue of hellenism
kept flaring up in Byzantium from time to time, not because the Byzantines
were constantly in some sort of identity crisis, but because they attempted
time and again, with little success, to redefine the classical past in the light of
their own experiences and needs^130.
Constantine the Rhodian annotated with obvious indignation at AP VII,
311: “on the wife of Lot, but the Hellenes say that it alludes to Niobe”. There
can be little doubt that Cephalas is the target of criticism here, for the Planu-
dean Anthology and the Sylloge Euphemiana, which both derive from the an-
thology of Cephalas, introduce the epigram as follows: “on Niobe”^131. Constan-
tine the Rhodian criticized Cephalas for failing to notice an obvious link with
the biblical story of Lot’s wife turning into a pillar of salt. That the epigram
obviously refers to the story of Niobe, was apparently of little concern to
Constantine. In his view, it was a crying shame that Cephalas, who was to
become prztopap@ß (would you believe it), did not draw the parallel with Lot’s
wife where he easily could have done so. Constantine the Rhodian did not
object to classical literature, of course, for otherwise he would not have invest-
ed time and money in the compilation of what was to become the Palatine
Anthology; but he certainly did not cherish an unreserved admiration for the
classics. At AP VII, 26, a laudatory epigram on Anacreon, he wrote the
following nauseated comment: “with filthy praises you crown a filthy man” –
which clearly indicates that Constantine the Rhodian disapproved of Anacre-
on’s poems on wine and women. But strangely enough, the same Constantine
the Rhodian filled a whole quaternion of his own manuscript with various
Anacreontea. What are we to make of this? It does seem quite schizophrenic to
rebuke Anacreon first for his utter immorality and then publish the poems that
go under his name. But if we could ask Constantine the Rhodian for his views
(^129) See H. BELTING, in: Byzanz und der Westen. Studien zur Kunst des europäischen
Mittelalters. Vienna 1984, 65–83.
(^130) See H. HUNGER’s interesting comments on the Byzantine anthologists and the classical
heritage, in: 17th International Congress of Byzantine Studies. Major Papers. Washing-
ton 1986, 518–519.
(^131) The epigram is also mentioned in other sources. Eustathios at Il. 24. 614 and a scholion
at Soph. El. 150 state that it refers to Niobe; Manuel Holobolos (ed. TREU 1893: 7)
connects it with the story of the wife of Lot.