1956–1957

January 8, 1957Dear Hannah:

I have done considerable more mulling over your comments on my suggestions about the Curium coin manuscript. Also I have talked a little with Margaret Thompson, who is, of course, much interested in the publication too.

About the historical commentary, which you hoped I would be able to criticize sensibly, I feel most dismally inadequate. Although of course I have dabbled around with the pots of the Hellenistic period and with other aspects, I have never come properly to grips with the complicated history of the times. It is not an understatement to say that you know infinitely more about Hellenistic history than I. It has occurred to me, however, that if you want really good criticism, one person who has worked intensively in this period (with emphasis on the Ptolemies and the areas they possessed or were concerned with) is Peter Fraser. I don't know if you know him or what you would think of having him read it. I do know him - we toured the Fayum and Alexandria together a year ago Christmas - and if the suggestion appeals to you, I would be willing to write to him and ask him if he would be willing to go over it. I don't imagine he would be the most soothing critic to have, for there is nothing undecided about his views. But since so many of your coins are Ptolemaic and since the Ptolemies are his special field, it would humbly seem to me that his criticisms might be very well worth having, even if you didn't agree with him all along the line.

Alternatively I think of Terence Mitford, who is more nearly within the fold, since he is engaged in publishing the Curium inscriptions. Naturally he has to deal with historical problems of both the Hellenistic and Roman periods as far as Curium is concerned. He would have a more immediate interest in the problems, and probably would like to know the opinions of someone else who is dealing with Curium. Let me know what you think.

With regard to the Introductory Note, on rereading my letter I can see that you might well be aghast at the comprehensiveness suggested, though actually I had something short and simple in mind. A number of the suggestions I made might well be taken up in a thorough way in a general introduction to the publications of Curium (which, though introductory, couldn't well be written until late or at the end, when the detailed studies have appeared). For your Introductory Note I think it would be best to do something relatively unassuming, stating only what we can at present. Your own thoughts as to what you would like to include in this Note are fine as far as I am concerned. I would certainly be willing and interested to add, as you suggest, anything I can toward such a Note. What I could contribute would be largely along the lines of such a Note.