Auteur: Alexander, Michael C.
Titre: The Ironic Interpretation of the Commentariolum Petitionis. A Response to Prost, Tatum, and Sillett
Revue/Collection: "Athenaeum", 109
Annèe edition: 2021
Pages: 64-113
Mots-clès: Authenticité - Autenticità - Authenticity, Commentaires - Commenti - Commentaries, Stylistique et genres littéraires - Stilistica e generi letterari - Stylistics and literary genre
Description: Prost, Tatum, and Sillett present counter-arguments to this author’s published view that the Comm. Pet. is ironic: 1) the work is genuine unless proven otherwise; 2) it instructs Marcus Cicero not to be a nomenclator ; 3) the alleged conflict about amicitia between the Comm. Pet. and the De amicitia presupposes an unrealistically lofty view of electioneering; 4) C. Aurelius Cotta (cos. 75) cannot be a negative exemplar, because he was well respected; 5) the verbal echoes of the Comm. Pet. within Marcus Cicero’s works can be explained as campaign ‘talking points’; 6) Marcus is the likely author of the work because it reflects a contemporary interest in technical manuals and his philosophic views; and 7) a stylometric analysis supports Marcus Cicero’s authorship. This author responds: 1) there are good grounds for reading the Comm. Pet. as ironic; 2) the Comm. Pet.’s advice to Marcus implies that he appears to be a nomenclator ; 3) the contrast between friendship in the Comm. Pet. and in the De amicitia relates to accepted values, not practice; 4) C. Cotta’s reputation as a devious politician undermines the advice, attributed to him in the Comm. Pet., specifically to engage in questionable political tactics; 5) the Comm. Pet. would have been harmful to Cicero’s campaign if its advice constituted public ‘talking points’; 6) the Comm. Pet.’s technical format, devoid of practical advice, and philosophic content count against Marcus Cicero as author; and 7) an educated Roman of a later era could have imitated Cicero’s style. [Author] See [Sillett 2016], [Prost 2017] and [Tatum 2018]
Oeuvres:
Sigle auteur: Alexander 2021
Titre: The Ironic Interpretation of the Commentariolum Petitionis. A Response to Prost, Tatum, and Sillett
Revue/Collection: "Athenaeum", 109
Annèe edition: 2021
Pages: 64-113
Mots-clès: Authenticité - Autenticità - Authenticity, Commentaires - Commenti - Commentaries, Stylistique et genres littéraires - Stilistica e generi letterari - Stylistics and literary genre
Description: Prost, Tatum, and Sillett present counter-arguments to this author’s published view that the Comm. Pet. is ironic: 1) the work is genuine unless proven otherwise; 2) it instructs Marcus Cicero not to be a nomenclator ; 3) the alleged conflict about amicitia between the Comm. Pet. and the De amicitia presupposes an unrealistically lofty view of electioneering; 4) C. Aurelius Cotta (cos. 75) cannot be a negative exemplar, because he was well respected; 5) the verbal echoes of the Comm. Pet. within Marcus Cicero’s works can be explained as campaign ‘talking points’; 6) Marcus is the likely author of the work because it reflects a contemporary interest in technical manuals and his philosophic views; and 7) a stylometric analysis supports Marcus Cicero’s authorship. This author responds: 1) there are good grounds for reading the Comm. Pet. as ironic; 2) the Comm. Pet.’s advice to Marcus implies that he appears to be a nomenclator ; 3) the contrast between friendship in the Comm. Pet. and in the De amicitia relates to accepted values, not practice; 4) C. Cotta’s reputation as a devious politician undermines the advice, attributed to him in the Comm. Pet., specifically to engage in questionable political tactics; 5) the Comm. Pet. would have been harmful to Cicero’s campaign if its advice constituted public ‘talking points’; 6) the Comm. Pet.’s technical format, devoid of practical advice, and philosophic content count against Marcus Cicero as author; and 7) an educated Roman of a later era could have imitated Cicero’s style. [Author] See [Sillett 2016], [Prost 2017] and [Tatum 2018]
Oeuvres:
Sigle auteur: Alexander 2021
