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

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s