Jeffrey Gibson

Let's see:

Jay has claimed that "we may say without reservation that he [Zetzel] supports Wiseman's contention that [Gaius Valerius] Catullus wrote Laureolus.

Zetzel has said "I still think that Wiseman's suggestion about mime is plausible, although there can be no proof one way or the other."

To quote you: "These are not equivalent statements" and therefore, as you yourself noted when you used the criteria of non equivalent statements to show that something I said was a misrepresentation of something Spin said, Zetzel's statement cannot be regarded or accepted as saying what Jay thinks it says. Only a statement from Zetzel that corresponds exactly with Jay statement of what Zetzel "supports" will show that.

Contra what Jay expressed as Zeztel's stand.

But more importantly, please note that what Zetzel is responding to is not Jay's fuzzy question about whether the author of the Laureolus is Gaius Velrius Catullus. It is Jay's question about whether the far more general idea "that Catullus wrote mimes is still a controversial one among Classicists or if it has become more generally accepted".

It is an real issue if the question of Jay's ability to read accurately and not misread texts he adduces in support of his claims is in view.

He may have done so, but he appears to have responded to only a part of it. And he certainly has done nothing to substantiate Jay's claim that anyone, including Wisemann or himself, supports the idea that the Laureolus was written in 50BC. Why? Because Jay neglected/avoided/didn't ask him that question, even though its a major part of what it is he's using Zetzel (and Wiseman) to support.

So when I say that Jay has stacked the deck, I mean that he has formed his question in such a way so as to get the answer he wants to hear and to avoid getting the answer he doesn't want to hear.

eta -- your charge that my charge about stacking decks is unfounded is wrong.

And in the FWIW department, as the discussion on the Classics list of the reception among Catullus scholars of Wiseman's thesis on the identity of the Catullus of the Laureolus shows, I've had correspondence from a colleague of Wiseman who has asked Wiseman if anyone had ever accepted his identity thesis. As my correspondent relates, Wiseman said that no one has.

So it seems that unless we posit that Wiseman is unaware of what Zeztel has said about his thesis (which to me seems hardly likely), Wiseman himself rejects Jay's interpretation of what Zeztel says on the matter.

Jeffrey

Toto

This quote from Zetzel is from today. The text that we have indicates that when he wrote it, Zetzel thought that Wisemen was correct. Now he just thinks that W's theory is "plausible."

The rest of your post is so excruciatingly off topic that I will not respond.

Jeffrey Gibson

Whether

1. Zetzel is actually answering the first of Jay's questions,

2. what Wiseman says about whether any other Catullus scholar agrees with him, and

3 Wiseman and Zetzel can be pressed, as Jay does, to support his claim that the Laureolus was written in 50 B.C.E

is off topic???

How so?

Jeffrey

PhilosopherJay

Hi Toto,

Are you curious as I am to hear what Zetzel responded back to Jeffrey. Are you wondering why he never published it as promised this morning?

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Jeffrey Gibson

Haven't received anything yet. And there's no warmth in your message.

Jeffrey

Magdlyn

No? I think it's getting hot in here! :grin:

Jeffrey Gibson

I've gone back to look at Zetzel's review and I see now that he indeed say there that he thought that Wiseman was "almost certainly right" in his attribution of the Laureolus to Gaius Valerius Catullus.

So I was wrong in saying he did not.

But before Jay and/or Toto crow over this admission, let's note a few things.

1. Jay's statement that "we may say without reservation that he supports Wiseman's contention that Catullus wrote Laureolus" and Zetzel's statement that with respect to the question of C.V. Catullus' authorship of the Phasma and Laureolus "W. is almost certainly right" are not equivalent; Jay has engaged in a bit of overstatement. "Almost certainly" cancels out "without reservation".

2. As witnessed by his reply to Jay, it's clear that between the time Zetzel wrote his review in 1988 and the present, Zetzel has changed his mind about the "certainty" of Wiseman's claim. What he once said was a claim that was "almost certainly" correct, he now deems as "plausibe" but unproveable.

So Jay's labelling of Zetzel as one who throws his full weight behind Wiseman's claim about the authorship of the Laureolus needs some (substantial) modification.

3. The "evidence" that Wiseman used to argue for C.V C authorship of the Laureolus that Zetzel once found to be relatively convincing has been shown by others to be less weighty or compelling that Zetzel (or Wiseman) thought it was (see the reviews of Wiseman that I posted here).

So just because Wiseman and Zetzel say that C.V.C was the author of the Laureolus doesn't make it true. And given the doubts that have been thrown by others on the W/Z thesis, as well as Zetzel's change of heart as to its certaintl and proveability, one has good reason not only to doubt that it is true, but to avoid using it as a major plank in, if not as the foundation of, one's argument. It's a very poor idea to base an historical reconstruction upon a thesis that is, at least in most Catullus scholars eyes, very dubious, and that one of the authorities you appeal to as saying it's not dubious, now says is unproven and only plausible.

4. If the the author of the Laureolus is not C.V.C, but a Catullus who lived later than C.V.C. and in the Imperial, not the republican age, then your case of a 50 BCE date for the Laureolus collapses --as, notably, does your case for Jews being familiar with it in the later half of the 1st century BCE -- since (or so it seems) the truth of your case is bound up with the truth of its premise of the Laureolus having been written by C.V.C who died in 54 BCE.

And important to note, too, is the fact that neither Zetzel nor Wiseman give anything to show that they believe -- or even think it possible -- that the Laureolus would have been known in Judea between 50 BCE and 46 CE and among High Priestly circles. So adducing them as in support of this claim, or as those who give anything that could be used to support it -- if this is indeed what you say, Jay, -- is to put words in their mouths.

In any event, I'm still waiting for hard evidence that crucifixions and resurrections (especially of the type that Jew's thought would occur at the end of the age) were stock themes in mimes written in the Republican age.

Perhaps now that you have Zetzel's ear, Jay, you'd run both of these claims by him.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

Here's the reply from James Zetzel that I had to the message I sent to him that's available in post 4949314

I'm also posting his response to a follow up message I sent him after I received his first reply.

Yes, he says (as I've already admitted he does) that he did say in his review of Wiseman that Wiseman "was almost certainly right that Catullus wrote Phasma and Laureolus". Point to Jay on that one.

But please take note not only of (a) what he says regarding Jay's claim that the Laureolus or any Roman mime would have been (well) known in Judea and (b) of his judgment (in his second post) that the case Jay wants to build from the supposition that CVG wrote the Laureolus is at best a shaky one, but (c) (again in his second post) of his declaration that he doesn't know when the Laureolus was written and that he no longer claims to know who its author was.

The Lord Giveth and the Lord taketh away -- in this case two points from Jay.

Seems to me in the light of how much the Lord has taken away and from whom, the only person it's getting warm for is Jay.

Jeffrey
*****
I take it that the two of you are the two participants in the discussion
to which you refer.

I have not looked at Wiseman's book since I reviewed it, nor have I
looked at the question of mime again. I did, however, look back at my
review. Yes, I did say that W. was almost certainly right that Catullus
wrote Phasma and Laureolus. And yes, to me the point about mime in the
late republic is rather more important than the specific titles of what
Catullus (or anybody else) wrote. The arguments in favor of W. being
right are fairly simple:

a) we have no right to assume that we know everything that _any_ ancient
author wrote

b) we have no reason to believe that someone who wrote the range of
poetry in the exant collection of Catullus could not have written mimes,
treatises on mimes, or anything else that struck his fancy

c) the narrow views of author/genre relationship that we inherit from
Quintilian and others are not necessarily correct--indeed, are
demonstrably wrong at times.

d) Occam's razor. Barring chronological evidence to the contrary, the
simplest solution is logically the right one.

I add, from looking at the web page to which Mr. Gibson directed me,
that whether anyone outside Rome (not to mention in the Greek-speaking
east) ever read these mimes is doubtful in the extreme.

James Zetzel

**********
I know nothing about the Laureolus. If it is by Catullus, then a date
before 54 is reasonable. I make no claims about the authorship of the
play, since I have no independent evidence.

James Zetzel

>What do you make of Jay's claim that the Laureolus dates from 50 BCE and >that you--given your claims about the identify of the author of that work-- >can be adduced as one who would support such a dating?

>Yours,

> Jeffrey

Toto

Thank you for validating that my reading of the plain language in his review was correct.

How do you reconcile (c) with

He has no independent evidence that Catullus the poet wrote it, but he spent the bulk of his first email justifying Wiseman's assertion to that effect. He then says that if Catullus wrote it, a date before 54 is reasonable. He doesn't know - but then there is no real certainty in this field, so he appears to be just hedging his bets. So I don't think you can claim that point, even if it isn't a point to Jay.

But he does say that he doubts that anyone in the Greek speaking world would have "read" this mime. Jay is asserting that it would have been performed, or a mime on a similar theme would be performed. This remains to be shown.