The reading passage covers three major points concerning the statue and that
the identity of the person depicted is as
Caesar. The speaker, however, clearly states why these points are debatable.
The first point made by the author is that
Caesar's appearance resembles the statue and hence, the statue was made to
illustrate Caesar. However, the listening lecturer
challenges this by mentioning that those characteristics pointed out by the
writer such as deep wrinkles, the chin, and the hairline were common for many
other ancient people. Moreover, the look of the statue does not match the contemporary depicts depictions of Caesar. Hence, the appearance of the
statue may not be an effective reason to conclude that the statue was made to
display Caesar.
Another point made by the writer is that Arles, the place where the statue
found, has a close connection to Caesar so that it is highly likely that the
statue is of Caesar (of Caesar -> Caesar의 것이다.). On the contrary, the lecturer asserts that this is not necessarily true
due to the fact that because there is another historical person who had a close
link with Arles. The person was in charge of and was a true founder of the
area. Therefore, the fact that the statue was
found in close proximity to Arles might not be a persuasive reason to support
that the life-sized bust depicts Caesar.
Lastly, the
reading claims that the material used was rare and expensive at that time so it
is reasonable to infer that the artwork illustrates
Caesar. The professor debunks this by saying that even though the materials used were highly valuable, a lot of artists at that
time used such materials because of their bright and uniform colors. In
addition, the artists believed that luxurious materials pay the price when they
sell their artworks. Therefore, the use of unique materials are is probably not a viable reason.