Epigrams on Works of Art 157of the typically Byzantine metrical ‘error’ in the fourth verse (the medial
caesura), a ninth-century date perfectly squares with the facts^22. And the fact
that the epigram is composed in almost flawless hexameters, should be viewed
from the perspective of the fashionable classicistic vogue of the ninth century.
The substitution of the name EJóros7nh for the key-word c1riß is also the sort
of double entendre the Byzantines were particularly fond of, because Euphrosyne
is not only the name of the wife of Michael II, but also that of one of the three
Graces, the famous C1riteß holding hands while they dance.
Thus, by carefully reading the text of two epigrams found in the anthology
of Cephalas, we may reconstruct their original setting: their place in time. We
also may see the differences between private donations and public buildings.
The bath that Michael II had built and that bore the name of his wife must
have been a public one, for the “stranger” who passes by^23 , can see the bath
right in front of him; he only has to stop on his way through Constantinople,
look at the building and read the dedicatory inscription. The paten Peter
commissioned, however, could only be seen by the few members of the clergy,
who celebrated Mass in the church where the paten was stored. One of the few
people who could see the object and its inscription, was Peter himself; he had
only to bend over when the Eucharist was celebrated, and look at his own verse
inscription. The epigram on the bath of Euphrosyne addresses all those who
can read, and emphatically states that taking a bath serves public health. The
epigram on the paten, however, stresses that Peter is the person who paid for
it and in return received the unique favour of witnessing the body of Christ.
The former epigram is a public message, the latter a personal statement of
faith.
**
*
(^22) R.C. MCCAIL, JHSt 89 (1969) 94, too, dates the epigram to the early ninth century, but
without providing any arguments. Incidentally, the scribal ‘error’ by scribe B of the
Palatine manuscript, Misa8l (sic) instead of Mica8l, appears to indicate that the scribe,
too, identified Michael with Michael II and made a typically Byzantine pun by changing
the name of this iconoclast emperor, Mica8l (“he who is like God”), into Misa8l (“he
whom God hates” or “he who hates God”).
(^23) For the literary topos of the stranger passing by and looking at a public building, see, for
instance, two late antique verse inscriptions: AP IX, 686 and 787.