SOURCE: Morford, Mark P. O. “Iubes Esse Liberos: Pliny's Panegyricus and Liberty.” American Journal of Philology 113 (1992): 575-93.

[In the following essay, Morford defends Pliny's Panegyricus from the harsh criticism it has received, arguing that the work should be viewed within the conventions of ceremonial rhetoric.]

Pliny's Panegyricus has been harshly treated in recent decades. The opinion of Frank Goodyear is typical: “It has fallen, not undeservedly, into almost universal contempt.”¹ Sir Ronald Syme is hardly more subtle: “The Panegyricus survives as the solitary specimen of Latin eloquence from the century and a half that had elapsed since the death of Cicero. It has done no good to the reputation of the author or the taste of the age.”² Such opinions from eminent scholars show how far removed our age of scholarship is from an understanding of the genos epideiktikon, and they express impatience with the conventions of ceremonial rhetoric, an important category of rhetoric under a monarchy.³ I propose to show that within these conventions Pliny was offering to Trajan and to his fellow senators a serious statement on the relationship between the princeps and his colleagues after the autocracy of Domitian. Central to this statement is the attempt to define libertas under a monarchy, and it will be shown that Pliny's definition displayed the vice of adulatio principally insofar as it was required by convention. The necessary attributes of libertas for him, as for his friend Tacitus, were obsequium and modestia, which could be displayed without falling into the extremes of adulatio or ferocia.⁴ I will further show that the choice of an appropriate style for the political content of the speech was important to Pliny and his hearers.⁵

The occasion for the speech was the gratiarum actio delivered by the incoming consules suffecti on 1 September 100 c.e.⁶ The published version may be as much as three times the length of the version delivered in the Curia.⁷ Three of Pliny's letters (3.13, 3.18, 6.27) give important information about the rhetorical and political problems involved in composing and revising the speech. In 3.18.4 he records how he recited the revised version to his amici over a period of three days, extended, at the request of the audience, from the two days originally planned. He probably read the whole speech in these sessions (rather than just the “lengthy extracts” that Sherwin-White suggests). Attending a recitation was generally a burdensome duty (as Pliny observes in 3.18.4), and busy men would not have given up three days to the recitation if all he had to offer was flattery of Trajan.

In Pliny's view (Ep. [Epistulae] 3.18.5) the expanded speech was an example of studia quae prope exstincta refoventur. He wished it to mark the revival of political oratory whose content might make a difference in the political decisions of the princeps. Syme has correctly observed that “the speech is not merely an encomium of Trajan—it is a kind of senatorial manifesto in favour of constitutional monarchy.”⁸ Pliny's views are like those of Tacitus in the introduction to the Agricola. Neither Tacitus nor Pliny for a moment would have welcomed a return to the oratory of the Republic, which Tacitus in the Dialogus explicitly describes as a recipe for anarchy.⁹ But Pliny believed that his speech represented a break with its predecessors in the genre, in style, content, and significance.¹⁰

Pliny emphasizes that both the style and the materia of the speech led his friends to give up so much time to his recitation:

at cui materiae hanc sedulitatem praestiterunt? nempe quam in senatu quoque, ubi perpeti necesse erat, gravari tamen vel puncto temporis solebamus, eandem nunc et qui recitare et qui audire triduo velint inveniuntur, non quia eloquentius quam prius, sed quia liberius ideoque etiam libentius scribitur. accedet ergo hoc quoque laudibus principis nostri, quod res antea tam invisa quam falsa, nunc ut vera ita amabilis facta est.

(Ep. 3.18.6-7)

Pliny thus claims that he has transformed the conventional gratiarum actio into a statement welcome to the princeps and deserving of the thoughtful attention of his fellow senators. The ultimate audience for the expanded speech, moreover, was not restricted to the group of amici who heard the recitation but included all who would read the published version: memini quidem, me non multis recitasse quod omnibus scripsi (3.18.9).

The Panegyricus represented a new type of oratory at Rome. It was the first time that a living princeps had been eulogized in his presence by means of a speech that was designed to persuade rather than to flatter.¹¹ Cicero's Pro Marcello at first sight appears to be a model for Pliny, for there are many similarities in style and vocabulary.¹² Nevertheless, it is not a valid analogy. Unlike Pliny, Cicero was in an ambiguous situation, and there were grave political uncertainties in a Republic that to many people, including Cicero, still appeared capable of revival in some form. Caesar's position, moreover, was very different from that of Trajan in 100 c.e. He had defeated his enemies in a civil war, and the sign of his power was the exercise of clementia, a cause of resentment to the survivors among his enemies and of ambiguous rhetoric to politicians like Cicero. Thus what was outwardly a gratiarum actio was also a vehicle for scarcely concealed satire and, as has recently been suggested, possibly even for a call for the removal of Caesar.¹³ In two letters written shortly after the original Pro Marcello was delivered in the Senate, Cicero revealed more of his intentions. To Servius Sulpicius, writing in the early autumn of 46, he says:

itaque pluribus verbis egi Caesari gratias … sed tamen, quoniam effugi eius offensionem, qui fortasse arbitraretur me hanc rem publicam non putare, si perpetuo tacerem, modice hoc faciam aut etiam intra modum, ut et illius voluntati et meis studiis serviam.

(Ad Fam. 4.4.4)

Writing to Papirius Paetus during the summer of 46 he says:

ergo in officio boni civis non sum reprehendendus. reliquum est, ne quid stulte, ne quid temere dicam aut faciam contra potentes.

(Ad Fam. 9.16.5)

The Pro Marcello, therefore, is not a true forerunner of the Panegyricus, except insofar as Cicero's cautious attitude towards the potentes is similar to that of Pliny, or of any politician who seeks to discharge the officium boni civis under an autocracy.

A truer model is to be found in the Evagoras of Isocrates, where the author points out the difficulty of eulogizing a living person in prose. The poets, he says, are free to use language, imagery, and associative techniques that are denied to the political orator, whose use of language must be precise and factual.¹⁴ Pliny set out to solve the same problems as those defined by Isocrates. He had first to develop an appropriate style as the vehicle for his message, and, second, he had to speak in honorem principis without flattery or excessive frankness, that is, without falling into the extremes of adulatio or contumacia. His language had to be precise and based upon fact. These were Pliny's goals, we must emphasize: how successful he was in achieving them is not our primary concern here.

Sometime before the recitation described in Epistles 3.18 Pliny sent a copy of the Panegyricus to his friend Voconius Romanus.¹⁵ In the covering letter he emphasizes the difficulty of dealing with a subject on which there was little to be said that was new: in hac [materia] nota vulgata dicta sunt omnia. The choice of an appropriate style, however, was especially difficult. Even philistines, he said, can manage inventio and enuntiatio, but it takes careful research to be successful in arrangement and ornamentation: nam invenire praeclare, enuntiare magnifice interdum etiam barbari solent, disponere apte, figurare varie nisi eruditis negatum est (Ep. 3.13.3).¹⁶

He chose the intermediate style, that is, between the genus subtile and the genus grande atque robustum as defined by Quintilian.¹⁷ This style allowed for variety and flexibility in figures of speech:

medius hic modus et translationibus crebrior et figuris erit iucundior, egressionibus amoenus, compositione aptus, sententiis dulcis, lenior tamen ut amnis et lucidus quidem set virentibus utrimque silvis inumbratus.

(Quint. Inst. 12.10.60)¹⁸

The metaphor of light and shade refers to Quintilian's analogy of painting and rhetoric explained earlier in Inst. 12.10. Just as Zeuxis had discovered the system of using light and shade—luminum umbrarumque invenisse rationem … traditur—so the orators of the intermediate style used light and shade in their figures.¹⁹ This also was Pliny's principle in the Panegyricus: nec vero adfectanda sunt semper elata et excelsa. nam ut in pictura lumen non alia res magis quam umbra commendat, ita orationem tam summittere quam attollere decet (Ep. 3.13.4).

Pliny's careful attention to the intermediate style has been overlooked by those critics who are offended by his “woolly repetitiveness” (Goodyear) and “exuberant redundance” (Syme).²⁰ The evidence clearly indicates that he chose the varied style because it best would combine the rhetorical functions of pleasure and persuasion, exactly as Quintilian had defined its purpose: tertium illud … delectandi sive, ut alii dicunt, conciliandi praestare videatur officium (Inst. 12.10.59).²¹ The intermediate style was distinguished by variety and figures. The importance of figured speech in situations where tact and indirection are necessary has been shown by Ahl and Dyer.²² Its appropriateness to Pliny's situation is well expressed by the words of Demetrius: “To flatter is disgraceful, to censure is dangerous. Best is the intermediate style, that is, the figured style (to eschēmatizomenon).”²³

The idea of the mean goes back to Aristotle and is expressed by Cicero, for example, in the Orator:²⁴

itaque neque humilem et abiectam orationem nec nimis altam et exaggeratam probat [sc., Aristoteles], plenam tamen eam vult esse gravitatis, ut eos qui audient ad maiorem admirationem possit traducere.

(Or. 192)

Cicero discusses the intermediate style in Orator 91-96, and a few quotations will illustrate the close connection between his doctrine and the style chosen by Pliny:

(91) uberius est aliud aliquantoque robustius quam hoc humile de quo dictum est, summissius autem quam illud de quo iam dicetur amplissimum. hoc in genere nervorum vel minimum, suavitatis autem est vel plurimum … (92) huic omnia dicendi ornamenta conveniunt plurimumque est in hac orationis forma suavitatis … (95) in idem genus orationis—loquor enim de illa modica ac temperata—verborum cadunt lumina omnia, multa etiam sententiarum … (96) est enim quoddam etiam insigne et florens orationis pictum et expolitum genus, in quo omnes verborum, omnes sententiarum inligantur lepores.

The student of the Panegyricus cannot consider its political purpose without understanding the significance of Pliny's choice of style. Style and purpose are inseparable, as Pliny shows in his description of the reworking of the speech in Ep. 3.18. The intermediate style, with its figurae, was the only choice for the orator who wished to make policy suggestions that might also imply criticism of the princeps. Cicero is quite clear about the modest expectations (and therefore modest risks for the orator) of this style:²⁵

medius ille [sc., orator] autem, quem modicum et temperatum voco … non extimescet ancipites dicendi incertosque casus; etiam si quando minus succedet, ut saepe fit, magnum tamen periculum non adibit: alte enim cadere non potest.

(Or. 98)

It is true that Cicero is here concerned primarily with style, but he also is considering its effect on the audience. In Pliny's case the effect on the audience (that is, primarily Trajan) was his principal concern, and the choice of style was therefore as much a political as an aesthetic decision.

Finally, the choice of style was influenced by the importance of knowing what was appropriate, to prepon in Greek, in Latin, decorum.²⁶ Quintilian points out that Thersites' criticism of Agamemnon aroused contempt: put the words in Diomedes' mouth and everyone will find magnum animum in them.²⁷ He recognizes the dangers faced by the orator: nec tamen quis et pro quo, sed etiam apud quem dicas interest: facit enim fortuna discrimen et potestas, nec eadem apud principem … ratio est (Inst. 11.1.43). Pliny's style, therefore, is a part of his political message. Those (and this includes nearly all modern critics) who are quick to dismiss the Panegyricus as mere flattery ignore an essential part of Pliny's technique and purpose.

Once he had chosen the appropriate style, Pliny was faced by a greater problem, that is, how to praise the princeps in his presence with moderation and credibility. Quintilian again is a guide for understanding Pliny's approach. In giving rules for praising human beings he focuses upon the moral qualities of the recipient of praise: animi semper vera laus, he says, sed non una per hoc opus [sc. laudationem] via ducitur.²⁸ Quintilian was following Cicero, who gives the primary position to laudes virtutis.²⁹

Cicero also had distinguished between the naturae et fortunae bona, which Quintilian specifies as the education of the recipient, the early evidence of his good character, and his mature virtues, as shown by his facta et dicta.³⁰ Quintilian adds that the chance of praising the living is unusual: rara haec occasio est (Inst. 3.10.17). This point, in fact, is further evidence for the originality of Pliny's speech. Indeed, Cicero introduces his discussion of laudationes by pointing out that they are a Greek genre, developed more to give pleasure to the audience and to compliment the recipient of praise.³¹ Roman laudationes, however, are most often funeral eulogies marked by brevity and simplicity.³² Cicero does admit that laudationes in the Greek fashion are sometimes necessary, but rarely. They do not seem to have become any more frequent in the 150 years after the writing of the De Oratore, so that Pliny's originality can confidently be assumed.³³

While Pliny observes the rules laid down by Cicero and Quintilian, they do not address his particular dilemma. A professor writing a textbook does not have to be as circumspect as a consul addressing the princeps. Pliny analyzes the problem in connection with a speech earlier than the Panegyricus:³⁴

omni hac, etsi non adulatione, specie tamen adulationis abstinui, non tamquam liber et constans, sed tamquam intellegens principis nostri, cuius videbam hanc esse praecipuam laudem, si nihil quasi ex necessitate decernerem.

(Ep. 6.27.2)

He counsels matching the words to the occasion, but does not provide an adequate answer to the charge of indulging in flattery. Both in this letter, however, and in the exordium to the Panegyricus, he claims to have avoided even the appearance of flattery.³⁵ In other words, his praise of the princeps (so he would have us believe) is based on facts and on the circumstances of the speech, and is not therefore just a repetition of empty formulae. Secondly, he maintains that his views are given voluntarily, which supports his claim to be speaking with fides and veritas. For a tyrant demands praise, which is freely given to a princeps whose character welcomes freedom of speech. Such praise, spoken in the Senate, may attempt also to define libertas restored.

The central political theme of the Panegyricus is the relationship between the princeps and the Senate, which defines libertas. We have seen that Pliny sought to avoid the appearance of adulatio, and he says very clearly in the letter to Severus that he equally avoided contumacia: he spoke, he says, non tamquam liber et constans (Ep. 6.27.2). The attributes of libertas (in speech) and constantia are those of the Stoic opponents of principes, Thrasea or the younger Helvidius Priscus, whose execution seven years earlier was still a vivid memory.³⁶ Pliny, like Tacitus, did not choose the noble but politically ineffectual path of contumacia leading to martyrdom.³⁷

Serious attempts to define libertas under the Principate began with Seneca. His hopes for a workable relationship between the princeps and his senatorial colleagues were expressed in the De Clementia and in the policy speech at the beginning of Nero's reign.³⁸ Central to Seneca's definition were the separation of the domus of the princeps from the public business of the state and the collegial assumption of responsibilities by Senate and princeps in their separate spheres. But Seneca's vision was impractical and gave way to a personal concern with otium and withdrawal from political activity.³⁹ A more flexible definition of libertas emerged after the executions of Stoics and other critics of the regime under Nero and the Flavians. This is the definition of Tacitus and Pliny: by it a good man could obtain high office and perform significant service to the res publica even under a bad princeps like Domitian. This is expressed in the Agricola, when Tacitus contrasts those who pursued their view of liberty even to death with men like Agricola:

Domitiani vero natura … moderatione tamen prudentiaque Agricolae leniebatur, quia non contumacia neque inani iactatione libertatis famam fatumque provocabat. sciant, quibus moris est inlicita mirari, posse etiam sub malis principibus magnos viros esse, obsequiumque ac modestiam, si industria ac vigor adsint, eo laudis excedere, quo plerique per abrupta sed in nullum rei publicae usum ambitiosa morte inclaruerunt.

(Agr. 42.3-4)

Under Trajan, optimo principe, libertas was still defined by inequalities of power. No one (least of all Pliny) could deny that the autocratic power of Domitian was still wielded by Trajan.⁴⁰ Therefore the practical mode of displaying libertas was that of obsequium and moderatio, as opposed to adulatio or contumacia. This is precisely the formula developed by Tacitus in his estimate of the public career of Agricola.

The Panegyricus, therefore, for all its ceremonial rhetoric, was a serious attempt to define a working relationship between Senate and princeps. Pliny was trying to show obsequium with dignity towards a ruler who held overwhelming power, since the Lex de Imperio Vespasiani had already defined the constitutional limits of senatorial libertas.⁴¹ His purpose in speaking was explicitly to outline a course of action for the princeps: ut consulis voce sub titulo gratiarum agendarum boni principes quae facerent recognoscerent, mali quae facere deberent (Pan. 4.1).⁴² Fundamental to this policy was the subordination of the princeps to the laws, whose supremacy had been affirmed by the Lex de Imperio Vespasiani:

utique quaecunque ex usu reipublicae maiestate divinarum humanarum publicarum privatarumque rerum esse censebit, ei agere ius potestasque sit, ita ut divo Aug. Tiberioque Iulio Caesari Aug. Tiberioque Claudio Caesari Aug. Germanico fuit.

(ILS 244, 17-21)

The princeps had the same power to act legibus solutus as his predecessors:⁴³

utique quibus legibus plebeive scitis scriptum fuit, ne divus Aug. [etc.] tenerentur, iis legibus plebisque scitis imp. Caesar Vespasianus solutus sit.

(ILS 244, 23-25)

This power was exercised so insensitively by Domitian that he aroused the bitter resentment of many moderate senators, including those, like Tacitus and Pliny, whose political careers had been advanced under him. Trajan was less blunt, even though the inequalities of power between princeps and Senate were the same. To gain the cooperation of the Senate, which he must have seen as necessary to the stability of his regime, he needed to clothe his legal authority to act legibus solutus in the appearance of acting as if he were legibus subiectus. In the end the power of the princeps was the same, since by law (that is, the Lex de Imperio Vespasiani) he had as much power as he needed to pursue whatever policy he wished to implement. His power would not have been diminished if he were (as Pliny suggests) subject to the law, since the law did not limit his power. Yet the appearance of subjection to the law showed moderatio on the part of the princeps, and the act of taking the oath to obey the laws guaranteed the favor of the gods. Therefore Pliny could meaningfully say: non est princeps super leges sed leges super principem, idemque Caesari consuli quod ceteris non licet. iurat in leges attendentibus dis (Pan. [Panegyricus] 65.1).

The position of Trajan vis-à-vis the laws is central to Pliny's effort to define libertas. As the Pan. 65.1 shows, Trajan's consulship was the political context in which the issue of senatorial liberty was most delicate. When the Panegyricus was delivered in the Senate, Trajan had been consul three times. Pliny passes over his first consulship in silence (except for a passing mention at 64.4); he devotes one chapter (56) to his second consulship, and thirty-four (57-80) to his third. The imbalance reflects the relative importance of each consulship to Pliny's design. He ignores the first, because it was held (in 91) under Domitian, and to acknowledge Trajan's adherence to the Flavians would have been embarrassing in a speech which repeatedly criticized Domitian.⁴⁴ The second consulship was held in 98. It began on 1 January, when Trajan was already in Germany as legatus Augusti. After the death of Nerva on 27 January, Trajan, who was at Cologne at the time, stayed in Germany, and he did not return to Rome until October 99. He spent the whole of his second consulship (which he held until the end of April) campaigning and inspecting the armies on the Rhine and Danube.⁴⁵ Pliny, therefore, praises this consulship briefly, since Trajan's acta did not directly concern the topics upon which the speech is primarily focused, that is, liberty and the relationship of Senate and princeps.

Trajan returned to Rome in October 99 and held his third consulship during the first two months of 100, the year of Pliny's suffect consulship, the trial of Marius Priscus, and the delivery of the Panegyricus.⁴⁶ It was a specially important year for Pliny, and therefore he devotes one-third of the speech to Trajan's third consulship, which he makes the context for his most significant remarks about senatorial liberty. Chapters 60-77 deal directly with the consulship: three preliminary chapters (57-59) lead up to Trajan's acceptance of the third consulship, and three concluding chapters (78-80) anticipate a fourth consulship (actually held in January 101) and end with a comparison of Trajan to Jupiter himself:

talia esse crediderim, quae ille mundi parens temperat nutu, si quando oculos demisit in terras, et fata mortalium inter divina opera numerare dignatus est; qua nunc parte liber solutusque tantum caelo vacat, postquam te dedit, qui erga hominum genus vice sua fungereris. fungeris enim sufficisque mandanti, cum tibi dies omnis summa cum utilitate nostra, summa cum tua laude condatur.

(80.4-5)

This statement should be considered in the context of Jupiter's importance in imperial ideology.⁴⁷ It finds its visual expression in the attic of the Trajanic arch at Beneventum.⁴⁸ Although it appears to be one of the most extreme examples of flattery in the speech, its placement, as the concluding flourish to chapters 57-80, is an indication of the importance which Pliny attached to the third consulship.⁴⁹

The central part of the review of the consulship occupies chapters 63-77, beginning with praevertor iam ad consulatum tuum.⁵⁰ Its unity is marked by the two renuntiationes, respectively for the ordinary and suffect consulships of 100.⁵¹ Pliny's rhetorical color focuses upon the collegiality of the princeps. Thus at the first renuntiatio Trajan's civilitas was shown in his personal attendance, an example for his successors and a contrast with his predecessors, notably Domitian (63.1). By attending he acted as an ordinary candidate of senatorial rank, unus ex nobis (63.2). His predecessors' absence from their renuntiatio was an indication of their contempt for the forms of the political process in the res publica (63.4-6), whereas Trajan's attendance displayed his moderatio and sanctitas (63.8).

In the next chapter (64.1-3) Pliny recalls how Trajan stood before the seated consul and took the oath to perform the duties of office faithfully:

peracta erant sollemnia comitiorum, si principem cogitares, iamque se omnis turba commoverat, cum tu mirantibus cunctis accedis ad consulis sellam, adigendum te praebes in verba principibus ignota, nisi cum iurare cogerent alios. … Imperator ergo et Caesar et Augustus

The renuntiatio of 99 is especially significant for Pliny's definition of senatorial libertas. He does not conceal that the ritual of renuntiatio was mostly symbolic: the spoken formulae were longum illud carmen comitiorum (63.2), and the procedure was but the liberae civitatis simulatio (63.5).⁵² What was important was that the princeps had publicly shown himself as a senator among senators, a citizen among citizens. His power was superior to all, but he still shared the rank and duties of his colleagues. Thus the antithesis between dominus and princeps is significant (63.6): haec persuasio [sc. abstinendi comitiis] superbissimis dominis erat, ut sibi viderentur principes esse desinere, si quid facerent tamquam senatores. A dominus orders the renuntiatio of his election (63.5, renuntiareque te consulem iussisse contentus), but a constitutional princeps orders his fellow senators to act as free citizens (66.4, iubes esse liberos). Finally, the sincerity of Trajan's words and actions was proved by the symbolism of his standing to take the oath administered by the seated consul.

The virtues of such a princeps are moderatio and sanctitas (63.8), the former being the counterpart of the obsequium shown by his fellow citizens. In 64.4 Trajan acts as a citizen subject to the laws, even though he has the power to act as a dominus: idem tertio consulem fecisse quod primo, idem principem quod privatum, idem imperatorem quod sub imperatore. Pliny then shows Trajan's display of the same moderatio on taking office on 1 January 100. This was the occasion for showing to the populus that he would observe the laws: ipse te legibus subiecisti (65.1). As has been shown above, the laws in fact gave Trajan all the power he needed: nevertheless, to show publicly that he was subject to them was to display moderatio and sanctitas. Thus the Roman republican tradition of the supremacy of law and the establishment of the pax deorum continued under Trajan. Pliny shows in chapters 63-65 how the essential legal, moral, and religious foundations of the res publica were maintained by the new princeps.

With this lengthy preparation, Pliny is now in a position to approach the heart of his discussion of the relationship of the princeps to the Senate. He describes Trajan's attendance in the Senate on 1 January 100:

inluxerat primus consulatus tui dies, quo tu curiam ingressus nunc singulos, nunc universos adhortatus es resumere libertatem, capessere quasi communis imperii curas, invigilare publicis utilitatibus et insurgere …⁵³ iubes esse liberos: erimus; iubes quae sentimus promere in medium: proferemus.

(66.2-4)

These words, which on a superficial reading might seem to be ironic or ridiculous, attempt to express a definition of libertas within the confines of the unequal relationship of princeps and Senate. Pliny has elaborately shown how the princeps observes the laws. His moderatio is reciprocated by senatorial obsequium, which is a virtue if joined to vigor et industria and exercised ex usu rei publicae. Thus Pliny treads the narrow path between flattery and independence. He recalls (no doubt with some exaggeration, given his own successful career) that under Domitian senators had been reluctant to cooperate with the princeps.⁵⁴ By respecting the laws and the dignity of the Senate, Pliny suggests, Trajan will be sure of the energetic (insurgere) cooperation of the Senate in administering the state. It is notable that this chapter (66) is the only one (other than 80) in the whole passage dealing with the third consulship, in which Pliny makes prominent use of tropes.⁵⁵ The metaphors of the sea, shipwreck, and storm serve several purposes. They allow Pliny to veil a delicate topic in allegorical language, for both he and Trajan had been among those who had successfully navigated the political seas of cooperation with Domitian. They recall well-known passages in Seneca and Lucretius, where the same metaphors had been used for the tranquil otium of the virtuous man who avoids or retires from political activity.⁵⁶ They illuminate a comparatively unfigured section of the speech so as to contrast light and shade at a point where stylistic variatio can be most effective.⁵⁷ Finally, they draw attention to the most significant statements in the speech, where Pliny seeks to define senatorial liberty. Thus Pliny chooses stylistic variatio exactly where he needs it.

After dealing with Trajan's activities in connection with the comitia (67-75), Pliny turns to an example of cooperation between Trajan and the Senate during Trajan's third consulship (76). The trial of Marius Priscus is delayed until the end of the review of the consulship so as to appear in an especially prominent place.⁵⁸ Since Pliny himself took a leading part in the trial, he does not need to draw particular attention to his own part.⁵⁹ Instead he focuses upon the princeps.⁶⁰ Trajan attends the Senate in person on three successive days: he presides as consul, and asks senators to express their opinions openly. Thus Pliny shows how the Senate responded to the command of 66.4 (iubes esse liberos), and he does not need to remind his hearers that he had taken the leading part in speaking as a senator before the princeps in his role as consul:⁶¹

iam quam antiquum, quam consulare quod triduum totum senatus sub exemplo patientiae tuae sedit, cum interea nihil praeter consulem ageres! interrogatus censuit quisque quod placuit;

(Pan. 76.1-2)

The chapter on the trial of Marius exhibits senatorial libertas in action. It shows the moderatio of the princeps, and it displays Senate and consul acting according to the ancient traditions of the Roman Republic. Its purpose is to show that senatorial libertas can still be practiced. Limited as such liberty is, it is nevertheless meaningful in a context where the lesser partner in an unequal relationship of power still has significant administrative responsibilities. In this context senators were still motivated by a tradition of public service and personal dignity. These are significant attributes of liberty under a constitutional monarch, for under a tyrant (which is the color repeatedly used by Pliny for Domitian, not least in this very chapter) even their limited display was suppressed.⁶²

It is hard in modern and democratic societies to understand, much less sympathize with, such political role-playing. Nevertheless, it is irresponsible to dismiss the Panegyricus without an effort to understand how the political circumstances of Rome in 100 c.e. compelled Pliny to choose the style and material displayed in the speech. Perhaps some understanding can be gained from an episode during the Renaissance. In November 1599 the archdukes Albert and Isabella, governors of the Spanish Netherlands, visited the University of Leuven. Its leading professor, Lipsius, addressed them on a passage from Seneca's De Clementia.⁶³ Later he dedicated his commentary on the Panegyricus to them. remarking in the preface that he had not been interested in schemata & ornatus illos floridae orationis. These he found to be trivial and pedantic.⁶⁴ What concerned him, and should concern us, was the substance of the speech, which focuses upon the political relationship between the ruler and those whose cooperation is necessary for the effective government of the state.⁶⁵

Notes

1. F. R. D. Goodyear in Cambridge History of Classical Literature II (Cambridge 1982) 660 (paperback ed., II.4 164). For a survey of scholarship on the Panegyricus see P. Fedeli, “Il ‘Panegirico’ di Plinio nella critica moderna,” ANRW [Aufstieg und Niedergang der Roemischen Welt] II.33.1, 387-514. For the structure and purpose of the Panegyricus see D. Feurstein, Aufbau und Argumentation im Plinianischen Panegyricus (Innsbruck 1979). I have used the text of W. Kühn, Plinius der Jüngere Panegyrikus (Darmstadt 1985), and the commentary of M. Durry, Pline le Jeune, Panégyrique de Trajan (Paris 1938). Useful also are M. Durry, Pline le Jeune, IV: Lettres, Livre X, et Panégyrique de Trajan (Paris 1947), and B. Radice, Pliny, Letters and Panegyric II (London and Cambridge, Mass., 1969).

2. R. Syme, Tacitus (Oxford 1958) 114; cf. also 94-95. For a more balanced assessment see R. Syme, review of Durry's Pline le Jeune, Panégyrique in JRS [Journal of Roman Studies] 28 (1938) 217-24.

3. For epideictic oratory see George Kennedy, The Art of Persuasion in Greece (Princeton 1963) 152-54; idem, The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World (Princeton 1972) 21-23, 428-30, 510, 634-37. Quintilian (Inst. 3.7) does not deal with the type represented by Pliny's gratiarum actio. The two essays on epideictic attributed to Menander, while much later than Pliny's speech, usefully summarize the rules for epideictic: see L. Spengler, Rhetores Graeci (Leipzig 1856) III 329-67, 368-446. In the second essay only § 229 (pp. 376.31-377.9 Sp.) is at all close to Pliny's speech: the topic is comparison of the recipient of praise with his predecessor. In the chapters on the Technē peri tōn Panegyrikōn attributed to Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Opuscula 2 [Opera VI], ed. H. Usener and L. Radermacher [Stuttgart 1965] 255-60), only § 8 (on boulēsis) is relevant to Pliny. See also S. McCormack, “Latin Prose Panegyrics,” in Empire and Aftermath, ed. T. A. Dorey (London 1975) 143-205.

4. For these components of libertas see M. Vielberg, Pflichten, Werte, Ideale, Hermes, Einzelschriften 52 (Stuttgart 1987). Cf. Fedeli (note 1 above) 497: “il senato si accontentava del rispetto della sua dignitas e … della … securitas; anche se si trattava di una securitas garantita dall'obsequium.” For relations between Senate and princeps see further M. Morford, “How Tacitus Defined Liberty,” ANRW II.33.4, 3420-49. esp. 3440-42; D. C. A. Shotter, “Tacitus' View of Emperors and the Principate,” ANRW II.33.4, 3263-3361, esp. 3314-27; P. Soverini, “Impero e imperatori nell'opera di Plinio il Giovane,” ANRW II.33.1, 515-54.

5. For the connection between rhetorical style and political content see F. M. Ahl. “The Art of Safe Criticism in Greece and Rome,” AJP 105 (1984) 174-208; Ahl does not discuss Pliny's Panegyricus. For discussion of the relationship between rhetoric and politics in Pliny see G. Picone, L'eloquenza di Plinio (Palermo 1978) esp. 159-90 (173ff. for Pan.). See also Kennedy 1972 (note 3 above) 543-46, who concludes (548) that “it was possible … to use the art of persuasion in a speech to the emperor.” Further references for style and language appear in Fedeli (note 1 above) 417-21.

6. See R. J. A. Talbert, The Senate of Imperial Rome (Princeton 1984) 227-28, for the gratiarum actio as part of senatorial procedure. Cf. B. Radice, “Pliny and the Panegyricus,” G&R [Greece & Rome] 15 (1968) 166-72, who emphasizes Pliny's originality in using the gratiarum actio for substantive political discussion.

7. A. N. Sherwin-White, The Letters of Pliny (Oxford 1967) 251-52 (on Pan. 4) estimates three sessions of one and one-half hours each; cf. Durry 1938 and 1947 (note 1 above) 87. Syme 1958 (note 2 above) 94 estimates about three to four times the length (one hour) of the original. Both estimates are dismissed by Fedeli (note 1 above) 405 as “semplici ipotesi.” Pliny could speak for even longer: see Ep. 2.11.14 (five hours) and 4.16.3 (seven hours). For the relationship between the Panegyricus and Ep. 3.18 see Fedeli (note 1 above) 405-11. Still useful is J. Mesk, “Die Überarbeitung des Plinianischen Panegyricus auf Trajan,” WS [Wiener Studien] 32 (1910) 239-60.

8. Syme 1938 (note 2 above) 223: cf. Fedeli (note 1 above) 492-97.

9. Dial. 38.2. Although Maternus is the speaker, the views are those of Tacitus. Ep. 9.13 appears to show that Pliny spoke more freely than Tacitus, but that letter refers to a debate that took place before Trajan's accession (indeed, probably before his adoption). In a speech given in the presence of the princeps Pliny was as circumspect as Tacitus. For the relationship of the Panegyricus to Tacitus in matters of style see R. T. Bruère, “Tacitus and Pliny's Panegyricus,” CP [Classical Philology] 49 (1954) 161-79.

10. For a negative view of Pliny's optimism see Syme 1938 (note 2 above) 224.

11. Cf. Durry 1947 (note 1 above) 88-89: “Pline créait un genre. … [P]our la première fois l'éloge d'un empereur vivant faisait le sujet d'un livre entier.” For details of Pliny's style see F. Gamberini, Stylistic Theory and Practice in the Younger Pliny (Hildesheim 1983) 377-448 (for the Panegyricus), 393-99 (“Devices of Eulogy,” for the use of rhetorical figures in praising Trajan). For the limitations of Gamberini's approach see R. Pitkäranta in Gnomon 59 (1987) 357-59.

12. See G. Suster, “De Plinio Ciceronis imitatore,” RFIC [Rivista di Filologia e di Istruzione Classica] 18 (1890) 74-86.

13. See R. R. Dyer, “Rhetoric and Intention in Cicero's Pro Marcello,” JRS 80 (1990) 17-30: “it issues, under the veil of figures, a clear summons to tyrannicide” (30). For an example of Cicero's satire see Pro Mar. 5, with its fulsome hyperbole and extravagant figures.

14. Isoc. Ev. 8-10. Xenophon imitated Isocrates in his Agesilaos. See J. Mesk, “Zur Quellenanalyse des Plinianischen Panegyricus,” WS 33 (1911) 71-100, esp. 78-79 (for Ev.) and 80 (for Ages.). Mesk (note 7 above) 82-84 overvalues Pro Marcello as a model for the Panegyricus.

15. Ep. 3.13. Sherwin-White (note 7 above) 245 suggests that the letter was written “a good while after his delivery of the Panegyricus … and before his recitation of the final version.”

16. For the antithesis of eruditi and barbari cf. Velleius 2.73.1, of Sextus Pompeius: hic adulescens erat studiis rudis, sermone barbarus.

17. Quint. Inst. 12.10.58.

18. R. G. Austin, Quintiliani Institutionis Oratoriae Liber XII (Oxford 1972) 201 suggests that Quintilian is combining two passages from Cicero, Or. 21 and 96. The latter passage, especially, with its metaphors of flowers and color is a likely model.

19. Quint. Inst. 12.10.1-9. For perceptive commentary see Austin (note 18 above) 135-52. Zeuxis' system is referred to in 12.10.4. The analogy of the visual arts and oratory is used by Cicero (Br. 70 and, most explicitly, De Or. 3.26).

20. See notes 1 and 2 above for references. Gamberini (note 11 above) 402-3, 496. more accurately points out the lack of variety in the “long continuum of figures.”

21. The function of conciliandi is a prerequisite for persuasion and is achieved by the modesty of the speaker (see Inst. 11.3.161) as well as by the attractiveness of his style.

22. Ahl (note 5 above) 185-97; Dyer (note 13 above) 26-30.

23. On Style 294, quoted by Dyer (note 13 above) 27. Demetrius is specifically discussing figured speech in a democracy, but the passage is part of a general discussion of indirect criticism beginning (289) with criticism of “a tyrant or any other violent person.” The precise translation of schēma, to schēmatizomenon, etc., is harder to achieve in English than in Latin, where oratio figurata better indicates the connotations of art and indirection than Grube's “innuendo” and Roberts's “covert hint” (quoted by Dyer [note 13 above] n. 57). For the Peripatetic origins of the doctrines of Demetrius see F. Solmsen, “Demetrius peri hermeneias und sein Peripatetisches Quellenmaterial,” Hermes 66 (1931) 241-67.

24. Cf. Arist. Rh. 1404b3-4. In Ad Fam. 1.9.23 (Dec. 54) Cicero acknowledges his debt to Aristotle in the De Oratore. For the relationship between Roman rhetoric and the Peripatetic tradition see F. Solmsen, “The Aristotelian Tradition in Ancient Rhetoric,” AJP 62 (1941) 35-50, 169-90. For the Aristotelian mesotēs see G. L. Hendrickson, “The Peripatetic Mean of Style and the Three Stylistic Characters,” AJP 25 (1904) 125-46. See also Solmsen 1931 (note 23 above); Kennedy 1963 (note 3 above) 272-84.

25. Cf. Quint. Inst. 9.2.67-69.

26. Discussed by Cicero at Or. 69-74.

27. Inst. 11.1.37.

28. Quint. Inst. 3.7.10-18: § 15 is quoted. The fullest exposition of the rules for laudationes is that of Cic. De Or. 2.341-49.

29. De Or. 2.343. Cicero divides the virtutes into several categories in 2.343-45.

30. Cic. De Or. 2.342, 346-47; Quint. Inst. 3.7.15.

31. Cic. De Or. 2.341-49 (341 quoted).

32. De Or. 2.341.

33. Encomium was a regular part of the progymnasmata in the schools; see Quint. Inst. 2.4.20. Cf. S. F. Bonner, Education in Ancient Rome (Berkeley 1977) 264-66; Kennedy 1972 (note 3 above) 636-37; and see note 3 above for the basilikoi logoi of Menander. Fedeli (note 1 above) 411-16 denies the independence of Pliny and concludes (416): “Plinio dipende strettamente dallo schema del basilikos logos.”

34. Sherwin-White (note 7 above) 387 suggests that Pliny is referring to the session of the Senate described in Pan. 78, at which senators urged Trajan to take a fourth consulship. He was Cos. IV in Jan. 101, so that this session would have taken place not long before Pliny's gratiarum actio. The words omni hac … abstinui are appropriately translated by Guillemin “j'ai renoncé à cet usage qui, sans être une flatterie, ressemble à une flatterie.”

35. Pan. 1.6, [he prays] utque omnibus quae dicentur a me, libertas fides veritas constet, tantumque a specie adulationis absit gratiarum actio mea quantum abest a necessitate.

36. Tac. Agr. 45.1, mox nostrae duxere Helvidium in carcerem manus. For senatorial feeling in the aftermath of the execution of Helvidius see Pliny Ep. 9.13 (cf. note 9 above).

37. Tac. Agr. 42.4.

38. Tac. Ann. 13.4.2, discretam domum et rem publicam. teneret antiqua munia senatus.

39. As expressed, for example, in De Otio, De Tranquillitate 3-5, Ep. 19.

40. See K. H. Waters, “Traianus Domitiani Continuator,” AJP 90 (1969) 385-404: “the two emperors were in fact committed to an almost identical policy. That policy was one of increasing autocracy.” Waters does refer to Pliny's letter about Helvidius (391, where 9.13 should be read for 9.3), but he does not have time for the style and purpose of the Panegyricus (398, “arrant compost of wishful thinking,” etc.).

41. ILS [Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae] 244; M. McCrum and A. G. Woodhead, Select Documents of the Principates of the Flavian Emperors, A.D. 68-96 (Cambridge, 1966) 1. Discussion by P. A. Brunt, “Lex de Imperio Vespasiani,” JRS 67 (1977) 95-116.

42. Cf. Sen. De Clem. 1.1, scribere de clementia, Nero Caesar, institui, ut quodam modo speculi vice fungerer et te tibi ostenderem. The function of being “a mirror for princes” is closely related to that of giving advice.

43. As Brunt (note 41 above) 109 has pointed out, this chapter is superfluous, since the previous one (ILS 244, 17-21) has already given the same legal power to the princeps.

44. See Syme 1958 (note 2 above) 33-35; R. Hanslik, in RE [Revue de Esthetique] Supp. 10, 1037.

45. Pan. 56.4, gestum non in hoc urbis otio et intimo sinu pacis, sed iuxta barbaras gentes. Earlier allusions to the campaigns of 97-99 were made at Pan. 9.5, 10.3, 12.3-4, 16.2. Cf. Tac. Germ. 37.2; Syme 1958 (note 2 above) 16-18, 46-49, 642-43, 648; Hanslik (note 44 above) 1044-49. See also R. Syme, “Consulates in Absence,” JRS 48 (1958) 1-9.

46. Cf. Pan. 92.2, quid, quod eundem in annum consulatum nostrum <in quem tuum= contulisti? See Hanslik (note 44 above) 1053; Syme 1958 (note 2 above) 18; Durry 1938 (note 1 above) 237-38, who prefers the end of April for the term of Trajan's consulship, relying on Pan. 61.6.

47. R. Fears, “The Cult of Jupiter and Roman Imperial Ideology,” ANRW II.17.1, 3-141 (80-85 for Trajan).

48. See Fears (note 47 above) 83-85, with plate XI, nos. 70a and b (bibl. on 83). Cf. D. E. Strong, Roman Art (Harmondsworth 1976) 87-88 and plates 90-91. There are verbal echoes in Pliny of Lucan BC 1.56-59 (part of the laudes Neronis, 1.33-66); other references are noted by Durry 1938 (note 1 above) 204-5.

49. Trajan is likened to Hercules at Pan. 14.5 and 82.7; see Syme 1958 (note 2 above) 57; Hanslik (note 44 above) 1055; Durry 1938 (note 1 above) 108.

50. For praevertor cf. Ep. 5.14.7 and Durry 1938 (note 1 above) 181, where 7 should be read for 17.

51. The renuntiatio of chapter 63 must have taken place after Trajan's return to Rome in October 99, that of chapter 77 probably before the trial of Priscus in the Senate, perhaps on 12 January 100. See Talbert (note 6 above) 204-5; Durry 1938 (note 1 above) 244-45. For elections in the early Empire see Talbert, 341-45, with bibl. on 341, n. 1; Durry, 241-42; B. M. Levick, “Imperial Control of the Elections in the Early Principate,” Historia 16 (1967) 207-30; and further references in Fedeli (note 1 above) 435-38. For a description of electoral procedure in the Senate see Pliny Ep. 3.20 (cf. Talbert, 205, 343).

52. The truth is also revealed at Pan. 72.1 (uni tibi in quo et res publica et nos sumus), Ep. 3.20.12 (sunt quidem cuncta sub unius arbitrio), and 4.25.5. For difficulties in interpreting Pliny's evidence for Trajan's role in the elections see Levick (note 51 above) 219-28, and cf. Pan. 92.3.

53. The words invigilare and insurgere express the same ideas as Tacitus' phrase (Agr. 42.4) si industria ac vigor adsint.

54. Pan. 62.3-5; cf. 66.3.

55. For the limited use of tropes in Pan. 61-80 see Gamberini (note 11 above) 444. ‘Trope’ is defined by Quintilian (Inst. 8.6.1) as verbi vel sermonis a propria significatione in aliam cum virtute mutatio. The special virtus of the metaphors of the storm and shipwreck at 66.3 is that they allow Pliny to speak decentius (see Inst. 8.6.6) on a delicate topic. Cf. Pliny's choice of the word decet at Ep. 3.13.4.

56. Seneca De Otio 8.4; Ep. 19.2; Lucretius 2.1-13.

57. See Pliny Ep. 3.13.4, and cf. note 19 above and related remarks in the text.

58. See Sherwin-White (note 7 above) 166 (“the trial is placed out of order in Pan. 76”), 168, and (for the chronology of the trial) 56-62.

59. He does this fully in Ep. 2.11, esp. 2.11.4-6, where he is careful to note Trajan's special concern for his well-being.

60. See Talbert (note 6 above) 183; and Durry 1938 (note 1 above) 198-99, for the presence of principes in the Senate.

61. Cf. Ep. 2.11.10, Princeps praesidebat (erat enim consul); 2.11.11, imaginare quae sollicitudo nobis, qui metus, quibus super tanta re in illo coetu praesente Caesare dicendum erat.

62. Pan. 76.3, at quis antea loqui, quis hiscere audebat praeter miseros illos qui primi interrogabantur? The usual view of modern scholars is expressed by L. Wickert. RE 22 (1954) 1998-2296, s.v. princeps, that libertas in Pliny's time was but “die zahme Behaglichkeit des Untertanen” (col. 2098). Cf. C. Wirszubski, Libertas as a Political Idea at Rome during the Late Republic and Early Principate (Cambridge 1950) 167, defining it as “merely the courage to keep one's dignitas alive.” But see Morford (note 4 above) 3440-42.

63. De Clem. 1.3.3, from illius demum magnitudo stabilis fundataque est to se opponunt. The passage expresses the necessity of harmony between ruler and subjects for the stability of the state. The same passage is quoted by Mesk 1911 (note 14 above), without mention of Lipsius, as a model for Pan. 48. Lipsius' extemporaneous address was published together with his commentary on the Panegyricus: Iusti Lipsi Dissertatiuncula Apud Principes: Item C. Plini Panegyricus Liber Traiano Dictus, Cum Eiusdem Lipsi perpetuo Commentario (Antwerp 1600).

64. Lipsius, Ad Lectorem Panegyrici: quid quod nec schemata & ornatus illos floridae orationis tango? nam visum mihi pertenuia haec & scholastica esse, quae didicisse oporteat magis quam discere, aut alio certe doctore discere. neque “Aquila,” ut in proverbio est, “captat muscas.”

65. I am grateful to the editor and an anonymous reader for many helpful suggestions.