Response to critics of the Ironic Interpretation of the Comm. Pet.

Several scholars have reacted in print to the Ironic Interpretation of the Commentariolum Petitionis, which I advanced in article that appeared in Athenaeum 2009. These scholars present a number of objections to my way of reading the work. I attempt to respond to their objections in the following article: “The Ironic Interpretation of the Commentariolum Petitionis.  A Response to Prost, Tatum, and Sillett,” Athenaeum 109 (2021) pp. 64-113. The importance of this debate to Roman Amoralism Reconsidered is that if the Comm. Pet. is not ironic, then it constitutes important evidence for Roman amoralism. I am very grateful to Athenaeum for allowing me to present my counter-arguments. Michael Alexander