A Reply to a recent review

Byzantinische Zeitschrift 96 (2):802-804 (2003)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In replying to Dr. Wolfram Brandes' review of my History of the Byzantine State and Society and Concise History of Byzantium in BZ 95 (2002), pp. 716–25, I shall confine myself to correcting what I consider distortions of fact, and pass over my differences with the reviewer about theory, which cannot be usefully discussed until those distortions are corrected.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,928

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

A reply to Tryon's: A reply to loker's'theory in psychology.A. Loker - 1999 - Journal of Mind and Behavior 20 (3):299-310.
Review symposium: A reply to the reply.Adrian C. Brock - 2012 - History of the Human Sciences 25 (3):148-153.
Reply to Ron Hall’s Review.Jerry H. Gill - 2000 - Tradition and Discovery 27 (3):35-35.
Elusive freedom? A reply to Helen Beebee.Michael Huemer - 2004 - Philosophical Review 113 (3):411-416.
Newman's objection.Peter M. Ainsworth - 2009 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 60 (1):135-171.
How not to structure a social theory: A reply to a critical response.Anthony King - 2006 - Philosophy of the Social Sciences 36 (4):464-479.
A Reply to Crude and Reckless Distortions.Paul Edwards - 1992 - Philosophy 67 (261):381 - 385.

Analytics

Added to PP
2015-02-05

Downloads
9 (#1,254,275)

6 months
1 (#1,471,551)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references