SOURCE: Sherwin-White, A. N. “General Introduction to the Private Letters.” In The Letters of Pliny: A Historical and Social Commentary, pp. ix-xli. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966.

[In the following essay, Sherwin-White praises the formal, yet simple language used by Pliny to illustrate the major themes and subjects in his Letters,, discusses their chronology and composition, and evaluates their authenticity as correspondence.]

I. THE ORIGINS AND CHARACTERISTICS OF THE LETTERS

Satura nostra tota est, was the Roman claim. They might have added epistula quoque, with justice so far as the surviving literature is concerned.¹ There is a chapter on the theory of letter-writing in a late Greek treatise, Demetrius, De Interpretatione 223-39, and the late rhetoricians have left behind two summaries of types of letters, the formae epistolicae and the characteres epistolici, with short examples of each type. The numbering of types is twenty-one and forty-one respectively (p. 42). But the surviving Greek letters are mostly addresses and long essays meant for publication, in the style of Isocrates, Ad Nicoclem. The Greek theorist recognized the letter as a by-form of literature akin to the dialogue, with a similar though simpler style (Demetrius, 223). But the Roman letter, as it emerges full-grown in the correspondence of Cicero and his friends, is the private letter of genuine intercourse, whether concerned with res domesticae or res publicae. Cicero in a passage of the Philippics brings out the characteristics of his own letters: ‘quam multa ioca solent esse in epistulis quae prolatae si sint inepta videantur, quam multa seria neque tamen ullo modo divolganda’ (2. 7). In several passages he finds the mark of private letters in the iocus and iocatio, and in the use of sermo cotidianus (Ad Fam. 2. 4. 1, 9. 21. 1; Ad Att. 7. 5. 5, 10. 11. 5) which seem to be the equivalent of τὸ λαλει̑ν in the treatise De Interpretatione. But for serious matters the tone might be severum et grave (Ad Fam. 2. 4. 1). Cicero knows something of the theoretical types of letter catalogued by the later rhetoricians, and mentions three categories, the promissio auxili—characteristically unknown to the Greek lists—the consolatio doloris, and litterae commendaticiae. But apart from Book 12 of the Ad Familiares, which is a collection of the latter, his own letters to or from his friends would be hard to classify under any detailed scheme, except for a few, such as the well-known consolation of Sulpicius to Cicero on the death of Tullia.

It is a great jump from the letters of Cicero to those of Pliny. The gap is not bridged by the metrical Epistles of Horace or by the letters in prose of Seneca to Lucilius. One or two of Horace's themes recur in Pliny's Letters, notably the ‘invitation to a feast’, and the ‘enquiry to a man of letters overseas’ (Ep. [Epistulae] I. 3 and 5). These are not so remote from the manner and treatment of Pliny, not least in their brevity. But the rest are mostly letters of philosophic admonition with a gossipy social setting in which description plays a minor role, written in a rambling style very different from the concentrated method of Pliny. Peter, in his history of the Roman letter, omits Seneca altogether, and even Guillemin, who ransacks Latin literature in the search for predecessors, invokes Seneca seldom.² Seneca writes in a different tradition, continuing the vein of the Greek letter of admonition, the προτρεπτικόs, and his letters make no claim to be considered as private correspondence. They belong with those defined by Artemon as ‘half dialogue’ (Demetrius, 223). Seneca claims that they are in the language of conversation, and rejects with disgust the notion of accuratas … epistulas.³ Pliny's letters are not Senecan, though he adapts the letter of admonition to his own purposes (p. 42). But neither are they Ciceronian, though he claims a conditional comparison with Cicero (III. 20. 10 ‘veteribus’, IX. 2. 2-3). Peter suggested that the true origin of Pliny's letter-type lies in the oratorical egressus, or formal digression, and that the immediate model was provided by the Silvae of Statius, a collection of occasional pieces in verse. Quintilian (Inst. 4. 3. 12), Pliny's master, characterized the egressus as concerned with: ‘laus hominum locorumque, expositio rerum gestarum … etiam fabulosarum, descriptio regionum’. Statius first detached the egressus from oratory and gave it a life of its own in verse. This is true of many of the themes of Statius—the praises of Rutilius Gallicus and other notables, the description of the villa of Pollius, or of the Via Domitiana and the events of Domitian's seventeenth consulship (Silvae I. 4, 2. 2, 4. 1, 3). Such themes recur in Pliny (p. 43-44). It may be added that conversely Statius borrowed an epistolary theme for his numerous Consolations, and once adopted the epistolary iocatio in his hendecasyllabi iocosi to Plotius Grypus. But apart from the metrical form there is a marked difference between Pliny's Letters and Statius' Silvae in length. The letters of a length comparable to many of the Silvae are exceptional (p. 4).

Martial comes to mind as an alternative influence. Guillemin rightly calls him the ‘true master’ of Pliny.⁴ His influence may be seen not only in the style and language, where it is pervasive,⁵ but in the greater variety of topics, and in the comparative brevity of most of the pieces. All three writers were experimenting in a new form of literature, which may be better described as occasional pieces than as essays in verse or prose. Martial was Pliny's protégé (III. 21), while Statius, as Peter noted, is never mentioned by Pliny, although echoes can be detected at least in the first villa-description (II. 17 pref.).⁶ This is hardly out of jealousy or dislike, since Pliny has much to say about his forensic rival and enemy Aquilius Regulus. Statius, unlike Martial, did not survive to balance his flatteries of Domitian by flattering his successors. Hence he was out of fashion and favour in the literary coteries of the period of the letters. Pliny's direct copying of Martial is apparent in his books of verse, described in IV. 14, VIII. 21, which have taken over from the letter its iocatio, which plays a very subsidiary role in Pliny (p. 43).

Pliny defines his type of letter variously (I. 1. 1, VII. 9. 8, IX. 2. 3, 28. 5), as epistulae curatius or curiosius or diligentius scriptae, and distinguishes them from the Senecan essay in epistolary form, scholasticas litteras.⁷ He and his friends were in the habit of exchanging such letters (I. 16. 6, II. 13. 7, IX. 2. 1-3, 28. 5). Once a friend proposes a subject for a letter of this type, and Pliny promises to compose it (IX. 11. 1 n.). Certain principles of composition can be inferred from Pliny. Each letter is normally confined to a single theme.⁸ There are few exceptions to this rule. Only three or four times in the whole collection does Pliny introduce an alien topic or notably change the subject. In II. 20. 9 he quotes the lex scholastica that a theme should be illustrated by three examples. This defends the unity of several letters where three different anecdotes illustrate a common theme: II. 20, the captations of Regulus; III. 16, the courage of Arria; VII. 27, the ghost letter, and perhaps the first part of VI. 31, the trials at Centum Cellae. In two groups of letters he is at pains to contrive a connexion where possible between alien topics. The first group is concerned with travels. In V. 14. 1-6 the account of Cornutus' career and that of Pliny's vacation are linked by a reference to Pliny's official leave of absence from his own post. In IV. 13. 1-2 mention of the movements and occupations of Tacitus and Pliny leads on to the subject of the schoolmaster of Comum, ibid. 3-11. So too in IV. 1 the account of Pliny's journey to Comum is intertwined with that of the dedication of his temple at Tifernum. These hardly count as exceptions to the rule of unity. The reference to travel is a regular form of opening and ending a letter, managed more briefly in, for example, I. 22. 1, V. 6. 1, VIII. 1. 1, 2. 1.

The second group is more miscellaneous. Twice there is a brief and unexpected postscript acknowledging the receipt of a gift. In I. 7 it stands unrelated to the rest of the letter, but in VII. 21. 4 the intrusion is connected with the subject of the letter, Pliny's eyesight. Much more notable changes of subject occur in VI. 19, 31, VII. 6, VIII. 14, IX. 11, 28. In the first an account of Trajan's measures to check bribery is linked with that of a rise in the price of land, but the link is that of a genuine cause and effect (ibid. n.). The second describes three trials before the cabinet of Trajan, the hospitality of the emperor, and the building of the harbour at Centum Cellae. The three topics are linked only by the unity of the occasion, Pliny's visit to Trajan. In VII. 6 the report of a phase in the prosecution of Varenus is interrupted by the story of another criminal trial which bears only a strained similarity to that of Varenus. Pliny makes a formal apology for the change of subject (s. 6): ‘quid enim prohibet, quamquam alia ratio scribendae epistulae fuerit, de studiis disputare?’ In VIII. 14 a diatribe against the servitus priorum temporum is ingeniously linked to a technical discussion of the rules of division in senatorial debates, with which it has no genuine connexion. In IX. 11 the request of Geminus for a literary letter and the sale of Pliny's books at Lugdunum lack vital connexion. In XI. 28 three diverse topics—the vintage, a friend's visit, and an account of a speech of Pliny—are formally connected as the contents of three letters of which Pliny acknowledges receipt; possibly the lex scholastica may be invoked here.

With these limited exceptions Pliny sticks to the rule of the single theme. In II. 1. 12 he neatly makes a virtue out of this necessity: ‘volui tibi multa alia scribere, sed totus animus in hac una contemplatione defixus est’.

A second rule forbids excessive length. In V. 6. 42-44 he insists that length should be appropriate to the subject, and in general he deprecates the long letter. In all but one of the few letters of exceptional length there is some apology for this, expressly in III. 9. 27, 37, V. 6. 41-45, IX. 13. 26, and indirectly in I. 20. 25, II. 11. 25, 17. 29. The exception is VIII. 14, a letter noted above for its lack of unity. The length of these letters does not fall below some five or six pages of text, and rises to about eight in V. 6. In an intermediate group of eleven letters of about three to four pages in length there is a touch of apology only twice, in III. 5. 20, IV. 11. 16, but none in 1. 5. 8, IV. 9, VI. 16, 20, 31, VII. 27, VIII, 6, IX. 26. Yet surprisingly in VII. 9. 16 he apologizes for undue length after a somewhat repetitive exposition in less than three pages of a theme from which he does not seriously digresss.

The third rule concerns style—the colour and pattern of language and the tone of feeling. Pliny develops this beyond the doctrine of his master Quintilian, who remarked briefly that oratio soluta was suitable to letters unless they were concerned with philosophy or public affairs, and that letters should avoid hiatus and cultivate rhythm (Inst. 9. 4. 19). Pliny states in VII. 9. 8: ‘volo epistulam diligentius scribas. nam saepe in oratione quoque non historica modo sed prope poetica descriptionum necessitas incidit, et pressus sermo purusque ex epistulis petitur’. In I. 16. 6 he commends the letters of Pompeius Saturninus for their Plautian or Terentian simplicity of vocabulary. Peter (op. cit. 113) noted the connexion between the statements of Pliny and Quintilian about the poetic style appropriate in digressions (Ep. II. 5. 5; Inst. 2. 4. 3). Evidently Pliny intended a mixture of poetic vocabulary and simple language. How far he achieved it is not the subject of an historical commentary.⁹ More pervasive than either aim is undoubtedly his ingrained technique as an orator, from which he could not hope to divest himself. In certain, but not many, letters, notably in descriptions of natural scenery, some poetical colour is obvious enough (VI. 20, VII. 27, VIII. 8, 17). The use of Vergilian language in the account of the building operations at Centum Cellae is merely the clearest instance (VI. 31. 15-17 nn.). The oratorical devices of the Panegyric dominate the account of the Vestal trial and the long letter about Pallas (IV. 11, VIII. 6), though Pliny there apologizes for the use of unsuitable language (VIII. 6. 17). More unexpected perhaps is the style of the argument on senatorial procedure in VIII. 14, which sounds more suitable to the Centumviral court of civil law, where Pliny spent a good deal of his professional career.

How far the use of pressus purusque sermo goes beyond the choice of plain words in factual narrative and quiet passages generally is questionable. Pliny's simplicity is decidedly studied. Passages may be taken, especially from the opening of letters, which at first sight promise simplicity, but artifice is soon apparent in the construction, if not in the vocabulary. A random sample, the opening of VII. 16, is characteristic. ‘Calestrium Tironem familiarissime diligo, et privatis mihi et publicis necessitatibus implicitum. simul militavimus simul quaestores Caesaris fuimus. ille me in tribunatu liberorum iure praecessit, ego illum in praetura sum consecutus.’ The commonest of nouns, only the most essential of adverbs and adjectives are used. But the cunning of the artist's hand appears in the order and arrangement. The letters to Trajan provide a fair comparison. The recommendation of Rosianus Geminus (X. 26) is very close to VII. 16. Or another random sample, from an official report (X. 31. 3), gives the same mixture of plain vocabulary and complex construction: ‘nam et reddere poenae post longum tempus plerosque iam senes et quantum adfirmatur frugaliter modesteque viventes nimis severum arbitrabar, et in publicis officiis retinere damnatos non satis honestum putabam’. Pliny is perhaps plain when there is no special reason to be otherwise, even in the literary letters, but he cannot be simple even in his official correspondence. It has been noted that in the more colourful passages he has a fondness for diminutives, and even invents some when they were not ready to hand, e.g. columbulus, cumbula, metula, prominulus in V. 6. 15 and 35, VIII. 20. 7, IX. 25. 3.¹⁰

Pliny carries Quintilian's advice about the use of prose rhythm in letters to its logical conclusion. Both the private and the public letters follow the rules of oratorical prose for the clausula.¹¹

This discussion of style demonstrates the extent to which the letters are literary compositions. Their formality is shown also by the frequent use of somewhat standardized opening phrases which affirm the subject of the letter. In the following list the types and their variants have been catalogued. Surprisingly little attention has been paid to this stylistic device hitherto. Guillemin (VL, 145) noted only the first two types.

• VI. 18 rogas ut agam Firmanorum … causam.
• VI. 27 rogas ut cogitem quid designatus consul … censeas.
• I. 14 petis ut fratris tui filiae prospiciam maritum. …
• III. 15 petis ut libellos tuos … legam. …
• IV. 26 petis ut libellos … emendandos … curem.
• VI. 16 petis ut tibi avunculi mei exitum scribam. …
• V. 13 et tu rogas et ego promisi … scripturum … quem habuisset eventum postulatio Nepotis. …
• VII. 14 tu quidem honestissime, quod tam impense et rogas et exigis ut accipi iubeam. …
• VII. 9 quaeris quemadmodum … putem te studere oportere.
• IX. 36 quaeris quemadmodum in Tuscis diem … disponam.
• VII. 15 requiris quid agam. quae nosti. distringor officio. …
• I. 23 consulis an existimem te in tribunatu. …
• VII. 18 deliberas mecum quemadmodum pecunia … salva sit. …
• I. 1 frequenter hortatus es ut epistulas … publicarem. …
• II. 19 hortaris ut orationem … recitem. …
• II. 16 tu quidem pro … reverentia admones me codicillos. …
• IV. 17 et admones et rogas ut suscipiam causam Corelliae. …
• IX. 1 saepe te monui ut libros … emitteres. …
• V. 8 suades ut historiam scribam. …
• IV. 13 salvum in urbem venisse gaudeo. …
• IV. 16 gaude meo gaude tuo … nomine: adhuc studiis honor durat.
• VI. 26 gaudeo et gratulor quod … filiam … destinasti. …
• VII. 23 gaudeo quidem esse te tam fortem. …
• IV. 8 gratularis mihi quod auguratum acceperim. …
• II. 11 solet esse gaudio tibi si quid acti est in senatu. …
• VII. 32 delector iucundum tibi fuisse Tironis mei adventum. …
• II. 17 miraris cur me Laurentinum … delectet. …
• VII. 11 miraris quod Hermes … agros … addixerit. …
• I. 9 mirum est quam singulis diebus in urbe ratio … constet. …
• VII. 22 minus miraberis me … petisse ut … conferres tribunatum. …
• VII. 30 torqueor quod discipulum … amisisti. …
• VII. 19 angit me Fanniae valetudo. …
• VII. 1 terret me haec tua … valetudo. …
• IX. 22 magna me sollicitudine adfecit … valetudo. …
• II. 9 anxium me … habet petitio Sexti. …
• III. 8 facis pro cetera reverentia … quod petis ut tribunatum. …
• VIII. 4 optime facis quod bellum Dacicum … scribere paras. …
• VI. 34 recte fecisti quod gladiatorium munus. …
• IX. 5 egregie facis … quod iustitiam … provincialibus … commendas. …
• IX. 2 facis iucunde quod … epistulas … flagitas. …
• IX. 24 bene fecisti quod libertum. …
• VIII. 13 probo quod libellos … legisti. …
• IX. 9 unice probo quod Pompei … morte … adficeris. …
• VII. 6 rara et notabilis res Vareno contigit. …
• VI. 22 magna res acta est omnium qui sunt provinciis praefuturi. …
• VI. 15 mirificae rei non interfuisti. …
• V. 4 res parva sed initium non parvae: vir praetorius. …
• III. 14 rem atrocem … Macedo … passus est. …
• I. 16 amabam Pompeium. …
• IV. 12 amas Egnatium. …
• VI. 8 Atilium Crescentem et nosti et amas. …
• VII. 31 Claudius Pollio amari a te cupit. …
• IV. 4 Varisidium Nepotem valdissime diligo. …
• VII. 16 Calestrium Tironem familiarissime diligo. …
• IV. 15 si quid omnino hoc certe iudicio facio quod Asinium singulariter amo.
• IV. 1 cupis … neptem … videre. …
• VIII. 10 quo magis cupis … pronepotes videre. …
• IX. 10 cupio praeceptis tuis parere. …
• VI. 6 si quando nunc praecipue cuperem esse te Romae. …
• III. 21 audio Valerium Martialem decessisse. …
• IV. 11 audistine Valerium Licinianum in Sicilia profiteri?
• III. 7 modo nuntiatus est Silius … finisse vitam. …
• V. 5 nuntiatur mihi C. Fannium decessisse. …
• V. 14 secesseram in municipium cum mihi nuntiatum est Cornutum. …
• I. 5 vidistine quemquam M. Regulo timidiorem … ?
• I. 7 vide in quo me fastigio collocaris cum. …
• V. 19 video quam molliter tuos habeas. …
• VI. 13 umquamne vidisti quemquam tam laboriosum … ?
• VIII. 8 vidistine aliquando Clitumnum fontem … ?
• V. 17 scio quantopere bonis artibus faveas. …
• VI. 19 scis tu accessisse pretium agris … ?
• VI. 28 scio quae tibi causa fuerit impedimento quominus. …
• IV. 5 Aeschinen aiunt petentibus … legisse. …
• VI. 20 ais te … cupere cognoscere quos ego Miseni relictus. …
• VII. 4 ais legisse te hendecasyllabos meos. …
• VII. 28 ais quosdam apud te reprehendisse. …
• IV. 7 saepe tibi dico inesse vim Regulo. …
• IX. 26 dixi de quodam oratore saeculi nostri. …
• IX. 19 significas legisse te … iussisse Verginium. …
• I. 18 scribis te perterritum somnio. …
• IV. 10 scribis mihi Sabinam, quae nos reliquit heredes. …
• IV. 25 scripseram tibi verendum esse ne ex … suffragiis. …
• V. 16 tristissimus haec tibi scribo Fundani nostri filia. …
• VI. 5 scripseram tenuisse Varenum. …
• VI. 7 scribis te absentia mea … adfici. …
• VI. 25 scribis Robustum … iter peregisse. …
• IX. 7 aedificare te scribis. …
• IX. 40 scribis pergratas … fuisse litteras meas quibus. …
• IV. 23 magnam cepi voluptatem cum … cognovi te … disponere otium. …
• VI. 31 evocatus in consilium a Caesare … maximam cepi voluptatem. …
• IX. 16 summam te voluptatem percepisse ex isto … genere venandi. …

These sixteen sets of stylized phrases, with minor variations, reveal a formalization of the terms that naturally suggest themselves to a writer when he introduces the principal subject of his letter. It is remarkable that the most obvious letter-opening, a direct reference to the receipt or dispatch of a letter or a book, of which there are twenty instances, shows much less stylization.

• I. 2 quia … adventum … prospicio, librum quem … promiseram exhibeo. …
• II. 5 actionem … promissam exhibui. …
• III. 13 librum quo … gratias egi misi. …
• VII. 12 libellum formatum … quo … amicus … uteretur misi. …
• VII. 20 librum tuum legi et … adnotavi. …
• VIII. 3 librum quem novissime tibi misi … significas.
• IX. 35 librum quem misisti recepi. …
• I. 8 peropportune mihi redditae sunt litterae tuae quibus. …
• I. 11 olim mihi nullas epistulas mittis. …
• V. 11 recepi litteras tuas ex quibus cognovi. …
• V. 21 varie me adfecerunt litterae tuae. …
• VII. 13 eadem epistula … significat. …
• VIII. 6 cognovisse iam ex epistula … debes. …
• IX. 11 epistulam tuam iucundissimam accepi. …
• IX. 17 recepi litteras tuas quibus. …
• IX. 18 qua intentione … legeris libellos meos, epistula tua ostendit. …
• IX. 20 tua vero epistula … iucundior fuit. …
• IX. 28 post longum tempus epistulas tuas, sed tres pariter, recepi.

Of these eighteen instances only three from either group employ a closely similar form—III. 13, VIII. 3, IX. 35 from the first, and V. 11, IX. 11, 17 from the second. These six formal openings may be added to the preceding list.

Altogether in the two sections there are some ninety-eight letters out of the whole collection of 248 which use stylized openings. The first three books account for only fourteen, or a seventh, of these openings, in sixty-six letters or rather more than a quarter of the whole collection. The middle four books, IV-VII, use them much more freely: out of 118 letters precisely half use stylized openings. In Book VIII they become rarer, with five formal openings out of twenty-four, in much the same proportion as in I-III. Then Book IX, with its miscellaneous forty letters, returns to a higher rate with some fifteen stylized openings, according to the present lists. The figures, if not statistical, are of some interest. They may suggest that the middle books hold the highest proportion of letters consciously written for publication, or that Pliny revised and wrote more according to formula in these than in I-III and VIII.

When Pliny does not employ stylized openings and their variants, he usually plunges straight into his theme with a specific statement, e.g.

• I. 13 magnum proventum poetarum annus hic attulit.
• III. 18 officium consulatus iniunxit mihi ut reipublicae nomine. …
• VII. 24 Ummidia Quadratilla paulo minus octogensimo aetatis anno decessit. …
• VIII. 5 grave vulnus Macrinus noster accepit. …

But in certain letters he employs a less direct approach, beginning with a general statement or proverbial remark, from which he proceeds to the particular. These openings are decidedly rare in the early books. The earliest seems to be III. 16: ‘adnotasse videor facta dictaque virorum feminarumque alia clariora esse alia maiora’. Possibly I. 17 also comes under the definition: ‘est adhuc curae hominibus fides et officium …’. There are only four other examples of this type in III-VI: III. 20, VI. 21 and 24, and V. 17 which combines a stylized opening with it. Then in VII and VIII there comes a spate of them, nine in all. Surprisingly these are not distributed evenly through the two books, but they come bunched together. Book IX adds four others, better distributed.

• VII. 25 quantum eruditorum aut modestia ipsorum aut quies operit ac subtrahit famae. …
• VII. 26 nuper me cuiusdam amici languor admonuit optimos esse nos dum infirmi sumus. …
• VII. 27 et mihi discendi et tibi docendi facultatem otium praebet. igitur perquam velim scire, …
• VIII. 2 alii in praedia sua proficiscuntur ut locupletiores revertantur, ego ut pauperior.
• VIII. 18 falsum est nimirum quod creditur vulgo, testamenta hominum speculum esse morum, cum Domitius Tullus, …
• VIII. 19 et gaudium mihi et solacium in litteris, nihilque tam laetum quod his laetius tam triste quod non per has minus triste. itaque et infirmitate uxoris, …
• VIII. 20 ad quae noscenda iter ingredi, transmittere mare solemus, ea sub oculis posita neglegimus, …
• VIII. 21 ut in vita sic in studiis pulcherrimum et humanissimum existimo severitatem comitatemque miscere … qua ratione ductus, …
• VIII. 22 nostine hos qui omnium libidinum servi sic aliorum vitiis irascuntur quasi invideant, … ?
• IX. 3 alius aliud; ego beatissimum existimo qui bonae … famae praesumptione perfruitur, …
• IX. 23 frequenter agenti mihi evenit ut centumviri laudarent … frequenter e senatu famam … rettuli … numquam tamen maiorem cepi voluptatem quam nuper, …
• IX. 27 quanta potestas quanta dignitas quanta maiestas … sit historiae, cum frequenter alias tum proxime sensi. recitaverat quidam. …
• IX. 29 ut satius unum aliquid insigniter facere quam plurima mediocriter, ita plurima mediocriter si non possis unum aliquid insigniter. quod intuens ego, …

Pliny seems to be deliberately developing a new style in the last three books. In VIII. 20 the general thought is expounded for eleven lines before he comes to the specific subject. In VIII. 22 the generalization is developed for the same length, and the specific instance is cut off short and left unspoken: ‘quaeris fortasse quo commotus haec scribam. nuper quidam,—sed melius coram’. In IX. 3 the generalization continues for twelve lines, in somewhat similar fashion, and is briefly applied to the addressee.

II. THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE LETTERS AS CORRESPONDENCE

The study of the letter openings gives some notion of the meaning of the term epistulae curatius scriptae, and some hints of the development of Pliny's technique. It also gives some tentative support to the argument, based on less subjective criteria, that on the whole the letters were composed in a chronological series approximating to the present order of books. It also leads naturally to the question of the authenticity of the letters as letters. Pliny presents the letters as part of a genuine literary correspondence. Modern scholars have taken no very coherent line about this. Some regard the letters as entirely fictitious, written for the books in which they appear. Peter saw little organic connexion between the contents of the letters and the persons to whom they are addressed. Others speak of the letters being written up for publication from simpler originals. These opinions emerged from the various discussions of the chronology of the letters. Mommsen held that the letters belonged in their composition to specific, successive periods (pp. 20 f.). His critics implied that the letters were being composed at widely varying dates and were later collected into books. Such a view has been taken again, in recent years, by Monti and Hanslik in studies of particular letters (cf. IV. 1, 11, V. 1, 3 nn.).

The more personal letters of advice on social, political, and literary problems, which Peter admitted were appropriate to their addressees—such as the letters to young protégés, Pedanius Fuscus, Ummidius Quadratus, and Rosianus Geminus (VII. 9, IX. 36, 40, VI. 29, VII. 1, VIII. 22) and earlier to Pompeius Falco and Iunius Avitus (I. 23, II. 6)—form a special group. They are highly polished specimens. Yet it is unlikely that their topics and occasions were entirely fictitious. It is certain that a praetorian senator called Maximus was sent on a special mission to Achaea, as in VIII. 24. The serious illness of young Geminus and the absence of the young advocate Fuscus from Rome on a long holiday need be no less genuine (VII. 9). So too the appropriate advice that each received. Anything is possible, no doubt, in the field of the imagination. But it would require an extraordinary ingenuity to invent so many convincing minor details for the setting of so miscellaneous a subject-matter as that of these letters. It must be reckoned at least a probability that Pliny was in the habit of advising or consoling his friends on occasion with appropriate litterae curiosius scriptae, and that these formed one basis of the collection.

A second group offers a firmer grip to the investigator. The letters dealing with Pliny's business affairs and domestic arrangements are full of precise and particular details that can hardly have been invented. They read as literary revisions of practical letters which have been polished in language and style and simplified by omission of the most technical and transient details. The instructions to an architect in IX. 39 to prepare a plan and buy materials for a small shrine lack the precise measurements necessary for the task, but otherwise give a clear account of the type of building required and the peculiarities of the site. So too the short letter of instructions to Pliny's agent at Comum to set up a Corinthian bronze with a dedicatory inscription (III. 6). Here the elaborate description of the bronze is an obvious expansion. The discussion of the prospective purchase of an estate, with a clear account of its condition, values, and previous mismanagement, and certain details about its necessary equipment, is hardly an invention (III. 19). So too the long description of Pliny's method of dealing with his vintage merchants with mathematical details, has the authentic ring (VIII. 2). There is a similarly convincing letter about an innovation in his system of agricultural leases (IX. 37).

These letters are close to the realities of correspondence. So too are the letters of recommendation for promotion written for equestrian friends and young senators in the public service, containing summary accounts of their careers, standing, and qualities. Both groups can be checked by comparison with certain of the letters to Trajan, which like the rest of Book X show no sign of literary revision, and have never been regarded as other than genuine letters. The account of Pliny's agricultural leases in X. 8 is put forward very much as in IX. 37, as the explanation of a necessary absence from Rome, and the agrictural situation is akin. The recommendation of Rosianus Geminus for senatorial preferment and of Suetonius Tranquillus for the ius trium liberorum (X. 26, 94) are generally similar in content to the recommendations of Arrianus Maturus and Cornelius Minicianus (III. 2, VII. 22), not least in their rather generalized descriptions of character and the absence of precise details about the men's careers. Equally comparable are the longer letters recommending Voconius Romanus to a consular legate for equestrian promotion, and to Trajan for senatorial status (II. 13, X. 4), which were written within a year of each other. The private and literary letter has in fact more to say about the candidate than the letter to the emperor. A noteworthy feature of these letters of recommendation is the stress laid on studia, the forensic and literary activity of the candidates. This though stronger in the letter to personal friends is equally present in the recommendations to the unliterary Trajan (X. 4. 4, 94. 1). Contrarily, the uncompromising brevity of X. 13, commending Accius Sura to Trajan for a praetorship, may be compared to that of IV. 4, commending Varisidius Nepos to Sosius Senecio for an equestrian commission. The latter has been thought cool and evasive; more likely, it is merely very close to its original form.

The numerous brief notes, covering the receipt and dispatch of letters and books, with a brief comment, or giving information about the movements or occupations of the writer, seem to carry the signs of authenticity. Though regularly distributed through the first six books in threes or fours, they are a great deal commoner in the last three, and form a quarter of the items in Book IX. One would hardly sit down to invent this kind of thing—often described by scholars as ‘fillers’—in excessive numbers, even if they may be considered with Guillemin epigrams in prose.¹² It is notable that in this type of note the introductory sentences or phrases are less stereotyped than in the longer letters (p. 9). The following list excludes notes of more than ten or eleven lines, except for the bracketed items, which are notes of twelve to thirteen lines—while IV. 10 and VII. 10, though very short, are excluded because of their special subject-matter—: I. 1, 11, 21; II. 2, 8, 15; III. (12), 17; IV. 16, 18, 20, (26), 29; V. 2 (10), (12), 15, 18; VI. 3, 9, 14, 28; VII. 2, 5, 7, 8, 13, 14, 15, (21), 23, 28, 32; VIII. 1, 3, 7, 9, 13, 15, (19); IX. 4, 8, 11, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 24, 32, 38. This list supports the evidence on other grounds that in Books VII-IX Pliny was becoming short, not of letters as such, but of curiosius scriptae to make up his volumes.

There are a number of somewhat longer notes, akin to those just discussed, which may represent worked-up versions of shorter originals, developing a notion more fully, e.g. VII. 3, VIII. 22, IX. 2. Others seem so tightly packed that they may be close to their original form. Thus in V. 11 Pliny says a good deal in a short space to his grandfather-in-law about municipal benefactions. Again IX. 28, discussing the miscellaneous contents of three letters from Voconius Romanus, touches on topics as diverse as the harvest, a commission to the emperor's wife, an invitation for a holiday, and literary criticism. It seems unlikely that such a letter is a literary fiction.

These four groups—letters of advice, business letters, personal recommendations, and notes of receipt and dispatch—establish a claim to be considered as originating in genuine correspondence. What then of the letters of substance for which they form the setting, the litterae curiosius scriptae in the strictest sense, the long descriptions of character, of political and social events, of natural phenomena, and the rest? Were they written at the apparent date of composition, so far as this is determinable by their contents, or are they of later compilation? It is probably impossible to prove whether the long formal letters were written for separate circulation among literary friends or for collective publication. But there is no reason why Pliny should not have written long descriptions of his famous trials, for example, to his educated friends at Comum and elsewhere, who otherwise would depend for public news solely on what appeared in the acta diurna (V. 13. 8 n.), the contents of which can hardly have been on the scale or contained the personal bias of Pliny's versions. The private exchange of news, in plain or in literary form, is an obvious result of the broad distribution of the administrative class of the empire, and of its international origins and connexions.

The composition of the longer letters is so careful that most do not disclose their secret to the subtlest investigation. This in itself suggests that they were mostly written in their present form, and not as a recension of earlier compositions. But a few offer some clues to the investigator, notably three long political letters, I. 5, VIII. 14, IX. 13, and the shorter VII. 6.

The first describes the political situation in January 97, and an incident of the first day of that January. Pliny is considering the initiation of a charge against Aquilius Regulus, a prop of the former régime, but he remarks that he will wait for the return of Junius Mauricus from exile and take his advice. The whole letter is written in terms of the present moment. The verbal tenses are carefully managed to give the impression of a letter written soon after the incident of the first of January, and before the return of Mauricus. ‘Exspecto Mauricum’, Pliny writes twice, and also ‘dum Mauricum venit’. But to the first phrase he adds a note (s. 10) ‘nondum ab exsilio venerat’. This seems to indicate, as is commonly assumed, that the letter was revised later than its date of composition, when Book I was being put together for publication. Either the note was unnecessary for the recipient Romanus, who was in Italy, or the perfect tense should have been used. Pliny added a similar note in the similar context of IX. 13. 5 (below), but there it is appropriate because the story is being retold a decade later for the benefit of the addressee.

VIII. 14, addressed to the jurisprudent Titius Aristo, has already been mentioned for its peculiarities. It is one of the very few letters that extensively violate the rule of unity of subject. A technical discussion, filling three O.C.T. pages, of a single point in the rules governing senatorial debates, is preceded by an explanation in two pages of the reasons for Pliny's uncertainty. Pliny is elaborating with historical details his opening statement: ‘priorum temporum servitus ut aliarum optimarum artium sic etiam iuris senatorii oblivionem quandam et ignorantiam induxit’. The section is an egressus in the rhetorical tradition, and appears absurd in a letter addressed to Titius Aristo, who was in a position to know all about the matter. Pliny's other historical and political narratives are addressed to persons to whom the information was new, as is several times emphasized: II. 11. 1, III. 4. 1, 9. 1, IV. 11. 1, 15, VI. 16. 1, 20. 1, IX. 13. 1. The first part of VIII. 14 seems to be a clear example of the elaborate expansion of a much shorter original. The elaboration can easily be detected in its limits and pruned down without harming the sense of the rest (cf. Commentary, ad loc.). This discovery is the more interesting because VIII. 14 is the most certain instance in Books VII and VIII of a letter earlier than the apparent date of the book. It deals with an event of mid-105, the murder of a consul suffect, which should be some two years earlier than the general compilation date of VIII. No other letter betrays so elaborate a revision except VII. 6.

The digression in VII. 6 has already been mentioned (p. 4). Pliny adds a lengthy anecdote, about a different trial, taking twenty-two lines out of a total of fifty-six, to his account of a phase of the action against Varenus, with a formal apology to the reader. The digression seriously interrupts the narrative, which is resumed after its end, and it can be totally removed without leaving any jagged edges. The narrative closes neatly around the gap, and presents what may well be the original shape of the letter.¹³

In IX. 13 Pliny recounts for the benefit of the young Ummidius Quadratus the circumstances of his attempted prosecution of Publicius Certus in mid-97. It could be argued that the bulk of the letter belongs to 97, and that it was not published in I or II out of political caution—since Certus was a man of some political influence (s. 11)—or because Pliny was satisfied with the publication of his speech against Certus. This is more probable, because Certus died apparently in 97 (IX. 13. 24), just after this publication. The reviser's hand may appear in the references to the death of Pliny's wife in ss. 4 and 13: ‘quamquam tum maxime tristis amissa nuper uxore’. ‘Bittius Proculus … uxoris … meae quam amiseram vitricus’. These notes were necessary for Quadratus in 107 because the wife lost in 97 had been succeeded by Calpurnia, whom Pliny had not yet married in 97. So too in s. 5 ‘nuntia Arriae et Fanniae (ab exsilio redierant) consule te consule illas’—the parenthesis interrupting the flow of the speech suggests the hand of revision. But otherwise IX. 13 is a coherent whole. An attempt to prove similarly that V. 1 was written a decade earlier and subsequently revised, breaks down, and need not here be considered (Commentary, ad loc.). These are the only letters among the major pieces in which the touch of revision is so obvious, though III. 9 may be added to the list (below, p. 19) of possible revisions. Less certain indications of revision are noted in the Commentary on II. 15. 1, IV. 10. 4, 11. 5, V. 7. 3, VII. 9. 16.

LITERARY IMITATION

Another aspect of the historicity of the letters needs some attention. Pliny certainly writes under strong literary influences, both in the language and the content of the letters. Reminiscences of Vergil and of various subsequent writers of the imperial period are common enough. Themes from the letters of Cicero, the Silvae of Statius, and the lyrics of Martial recur. These influences are not generally the subject of this commentary. But Guillemin, in Pline et la vie littéraire, ch. iii, musters them for an attack on the truth and accuracy of the letters. Because Pliny writes in the language of his predecessors on themes of Statius or Martial, the whole thing is taken to be a fiction. This seems a rather crude approach to the understanding of classical literature, though not without its parallel in the study of Tacitus, for example, in recent years. The influences are to be expected, but their purpose and effect is another matter. The extreme example is the criticism of Pliny's account of the building of the new harbour at Centum Cellae in VI. 31. 15-17. This is discussed in detail in the Commentary, where it is argued that Pliny simply uses Vergilian language to describe what he saw with his own eyes. The notion that the description is a literary commonplace applicable to any harbour is easily shown to be false from the narrative itself and from external evidence. So too the description of Pliny's two villas cannot be dismissed as literary reproduction of a stock theme, as with Guillemin (VL, 141 f). This might be said of the brief sketch of Caninius' villa in I. 3. But the accounts of the Laurentine and the Tuscan villas in II. 17 and V. 6 are altogether different in scale of detail and length from the limited and very selective snapshots in Seneca, Statius, and Martial, of certain aspects or features of the parks and palaces of their friends (see II. 17, pref.).

The account of the Tiber floods in VIII. 17 is similarly reduced to a literary pattern derived from Horace and used again by Tacitus (VL, 120). But as usual the individuality of Pliny's picture is more striking than the literary echoes (nn.), and comparison with the other scenic letters is reassuring. Against the accounts of Vesuvius, the spring of Clitumnus, and the islets of Vadimon (VI. 16, 20, VIII. 8, 20), no more can be alleged than echoes of occasional phrases in earlier writers. The only letters which closely resemble a type well established in previous literature are the two ‘invitations to dinner’, which exploit the stock comparison of the plain and the extravagant meal (I. 15, III. 12 nn.; VL, 135 ff.). Other attempts to establish the stylization of themes break down. Of the letters to his wife (VI. 4, 7, VII. 5) it is admitted that Pliny himself is creating the type out of various passages of Cicero and Ovid (VL, 138 f.). Others might prefer to say that Pliny used the obvious literary language to discuss the natural topics of Calpurnia's absence and illness. Very curiously Pliny's accurate summary of the main features of Trajan's second Dacian war (VIII. 4. 2 nn.) is regarded as stock treatment of the ‘triumphal theme’ (VL, 143 f.). But for the vast majority of the letters the establishment of stock themes is not even attempted.

A somewhat similar criticism was made by another scholar, rather paradoxically, of Pliny's report to Trajan about the Christians in Book X, where echoes of Livy are alleged (X. 96 nn.). The echoes turn out to be genuine but faint and dim, and in no way affect the historicity of the narrative. The question is much more subtle than such critics conceive. To a man immersed by long education and continued reading in his native literature, the appropriate language arose from memory's store at the prompting of the theme. It is doubtful whether this is a wholly conscious process. The notion that Pliny, like a modern student writing a Latin prose, looked up suitable parallel passages in Latin literature before attempting a particular composition, does not correspond to the advice which he gave to Pedanius Fuscus on the formation of style in VII. 9. He there recommends the practice of translation from the Greek classics as a preparatory technique, not for particular occasions but for the total linguistic culture of the writer, because (s. 2) ‘imitatione optimorum similia inveniendi facultas paratur’. He speaks of ‘copying and following’ Demosthenes' speech against Meidias when he wrote his De Helvidi Ultione but with limitations: ‘quantum aut diversitas ingeniorum … aut causae dissimilitudo pateretur’ (VII. 30. 5) and dumtaxat figuris orationis (I. 2. 2). He claimed also to have copied Cicero's ‘paintpots’ in his colourful digressions (I. 2. 4). Yet though here and in I. 5. 11-12 he claimed Cicero among his masters, and refused to be content with eloquentia saeculi nostri, the Panegyric exists to show how far he is from being Ciceronian. The style of this eschews the use of Ciceronian periods, and has as one of its marked characteristics the emphatic use of a verb or verbal phrase at the opening of a sentence. The limitations of ‘imitation’ may be seen by considering the great difference, noted in the Commentary on II. 17, between Pliny's two ‘descriptions of a villa’ and that of Statius, despite an occasional verbal echo. The existence of literary influences detracts no more—nor less—from the historicity of the letters than from that of any other of the consciously erudite writers of the Empire.

THE ELABORATION OF THE EXTORTION LETTERS

Something may be gleaned from a comparison of the form of the letters about extortion trials, which are the largest group of letters with a common subject, a trial before the senatorial court. Despite the similarities imposed by the subject, there are notable differences of treatment. Both the trial of Marius Priscus and that of the associates of Caecilius Classicus are presented in two letters each, one lengthy and one short (II. 11-12, III. 4, 9). Letter II. 11 describes the accusation and double trial of Priscus in a single letter, while II. 12 adds as a postscript an account of the trial of his legate. But in Book III the shorter letter is concerned with the preliminaries to the main trial, which in the Priscus case are given in the long letter. The punishments are a great feature of each description. But whereas in II. 11-12 they are given formally with the names of the consulars or consuls designate who proposed them, in III. 9. 17-18, 22 only the substance of the sentence is given without the names of the movers. This is true also of the subsidiary trial for praevaricatio of Norbanus in III. 9, the leader of the original accusation, although Pliny names the consulars who gave evidence against him (ibid. ss. 29-34). This deliberate variation of method, characteristic of the Letters as a whole, is hardly accidental. In both accounts the narrative is clear and historical, but in the second the arrangement is less straightforward than in the former. Apart from the absence of names of the movers of motions, the order of events is altered so as to keep the trial of Norbanus until the end of the letter, though it took place between two parts of the main trial (nn. ad loc.).

In IV. 9, the trial of Bassus, Pliny combines the methods of II. 11 and III. 9. A single letter contains the whole story of the accusation, the trial, and an ineffective counter-accusation against the prosecutors, as in III. 9, while the sentences are given as in II. 11 with the names of the proposers.

The following conclusion may be hazarded. The Pricus letters may well be reports written shortly after the occasion, though it would be more natural for Pliny to have reported by itself the first part of the Priscus trial, which was separated by many months from his main trial. The second letter, about the subsidiary trial of Firminus, reports separately the events of a session of the Senate later than the condemnation of Priscus himself. Possibly II. 11 is an amalgamation of two news-letters about the different phases of Priscus' own trial. The main Classicus letter, III. 9, is so complex that it must be the product of leisured composition and written in deliberate contrast to II. 11.¹⁴ But this consideration tends to guarantee the character of III. 4 as a genuine letter, especially as its contents are summarized at the beginning of III. 9, so that it is not necessary for the understanding of III. 9. Some details in III. 4 of Pliny's invitation to lead the case against Classicus closely echo a statement about his circumstances at this time in a letter to Trajan (X. 8): both refer to a visit to Tifernum, on official leave, to organize the building of a temple at his own expense. Also Pliny inserts in III. 4 a rather clumsy reminder of the title of his public office, unnecessary for his correspondent but essential in a publication: ‘cum … in Tuscos excucurrissem, accepto ut praefectus aerari commeatu’. Contrarily, he obscurely refers to the present brief as ‘munere hoc iam tertio’ (s. 8 n.), although in this letter he has only mentioned one other of his two previous extortion cases. The statement would be clear to his friend and correspondent, but is obscure to the general reader. III. 4 then has all the signs of a genuine letter revised for publication.

The Varenus case is treated quite differently from the rest (V. 20, VI. 13, VII. 6, 10). Each phase of the prosecution is described in a separate letter of short or medium length. Since the case never came on for formal trial there was no occasion for a report like II. 11 or III. 9. The phases described in each letter were short procedural operations in the Senate or before the Princeps. The best parallel to V. 20 and VI. 13, which describe the manœuvres of the accuser and the accused in the opening phase, is the pair of letters V. 4 and 13 about the charge of destitutio against the advocate Tuscilius, handled in two sessions of the Senate. It cannot be maintained that Pliny was deliberately avoiding the use of long letters in these books: contrast the great length of the villa letter and the Vesuvius pair (V. 6, VI. 16, 20). Hence V. 20 and VI. 13 cannot be dismissed as fictitious epistles on that ground. It is noteworthy that the third Varenus letter (VII. 6) contains an unusual and deliberate digression (above, p. 15). This is an anecdote about an earlier criminal trial in which Pliny appeared, unconnected with Varenus. It is possible that since the Varenus case did not allow Pliny to present himself in the Ciceronian role that he assumes for himself in the trials of II-IV, he has expanded this letter to make the most of his achievements. So too in VII. 33 he resurrects the story of his advocacy against Baebius Massa in the year 93, and in IX. 13 he resurrects the attempted prosecution of Certus in 97. In Book VIII, lacking a trial altogether, he produced Ep. 14, the long procedural argument from the debate of 105, as a substitute.

This group of letters reveals the development of the technique of managing a complicated subject in an epistula curatius scripta. These letters have developed from genuine letters, and within limits Pliny is faithful to the principle of authenticity. When there are no long trials there are no long letters, and when there are no trials at all he harks back to reporting events of an earlier period. But these latter reports are dressed up in a possibly genuine contemporary disguise, one as a submission of raw material to Tacitus for a volume of his Histories, and another as a letter of explanation to a recent pupil.

III. CHRONOLOGY OF THE LETTERS

NATURE OF THE PROBLEM

Pliny, in the letter which forms a preface to Book I, states that the order of the Letters is not chronological, ‘non servato temporis ordine’, but that he took them as he found them: ‘ut quaeque in manus venerat’. Some of the early commentators, notably Masson, assumed that this applied to all nine books, and that there was no chronological order either in individual books or in the series as a whole. Mommsen in his study of Pliny's life rudely reversed this doctrine, holding that the nine books are in chronological order, and that each book contains the letters of a specific period, in order likewise. Pliny's remark was taken as a literary gesture intended to give an air of artificial carelessness to the first volume. Mommsen had two main arguments. First, it is easy to discern series of chronologically arranged letters about particular topics both within separate books and divided between consecutive books. Second, in each book, letters of which the content can be exactly dated fall within narrow limits, and the dates that can be established thus for the nine books are in chronological order. From these arguments Mommsen constructed the theory of ‘book-dates’—that the letters in each book all belong to the period of the datable letters, none earlier, none later. On the general chronology thus established Mommsen based his account of Pliny's life. It was because of certain difficulties that then arose over the dating of some events in Pliny's career—and particularly the indictments of Classicus and Bassus—that two generations of scholars criticized or rejected the rigidity of Mommsen's scheme, and raised fresh difficulties over the dating of a number of other letters. The more moderate, notably Schultz, held that though Mommsen's framework was generally correct individual letters in any book might be earlier than the date of the bulk of the letters of the book. Others, such as Asbach, suggested that the books were published in groups a good deal later than the apparent dates of composition, and hence that the spread of letters in each group—and book—was much wider than Mommsen's system allowed. The most radical, including C. Peter and Otto, abandoned the chronology of Mommsen, and returned to the position of Masson. For historical purposes, it may be observed, the more moderate criticism is as disturbing as the more radical, since no letter which is not internally datable need belong to the ‘book-date’.

Two remarks may be made about the reaction to Mommsen. First, it was piecemeal and was concerned with particular letters. None of Mommsen's critics started from an analysis of the collection as a whole, and none seems to have had anything like Mommsen's knowledge of the letters. Second, as Merrill observed, the critics frequently contradicted one another in their arguments about particular letters. Fresh evidence from inscriptions and papyri that has accrued in the last twenty years, particularly in the calendars of Ostia and Potentia, has given the years of several consuls and suffect consuls mentioned in the Letters but hitherto undated, and the advance of prosopographical study has clarified the careers of many other officials who occur in them. The new evidence has tended to confirm the general scheme of Mommsen against his critics, and to overthrow some of their principal strictures. But it is still true that there are letters in the first three and the last two books that do not conform to the rigidity of Mommsen's chronology.

The remark in I. 1 on the lack of chronological order in the Letters, which had much weight with the critics of Mommsen, only counts against his type of chronological scheme if it can be proved that all nine books were published together. But this has not been maintained, still less proved, by any of the principal studies of the Letters. On the usual, and equally non-proven, theory of publication by triads (pp. 52 f.), the remark can only apply to the first three books. But the conjoint publication of I-III is decidedly uncertain, whatever may be held about the conjoint publication of the later books (p. 52). The most reasonable interpretation of I. 1 is that this remark refers only to the internal order of the letters in that book—and possibly in subsequent books—and not to the chronology of the successive books as wholes. The weakest point in Mommsen's system is the insistence that the internal order of letters in each book is chronological, although serial letters on the same topic are naturally given in serial order. Pliny may intend to warn his reader that unlike the editors of Cicero's Letters, which he allusively claims as his model, he has made variety of topic rather than chronology the guiding principle of the internal arrangement, so far as this was possible within groups of letters belonging to limited periods (pp. 46 f.).

The stream of criticism continued unchecked after Otto's article on the life of Pliny, through von Premerstein's discussion of the career of Julius Bassus—relevant to the dates of letters in Books IV-VII—down to more recent discussions by Hanslik, who alone showed a slight hesitancy in the face of the latest evidence, and Monti, who has attempted the positive redating of certain letters on internal evidence. Recently the school of Otto was challenged by Syme, who in an appendix of his Tacitus boldly and briefly reaffirmed the chronology of Mommsen, with minor reservations. But this discussion, though cogent, was not based on an exhaustive examination of the Letters as a whole.

Historians have generally paid little attention to the interrelationship of the letters that have no special historical significance. The miscellaneous character of the collection has discouraged the study of it as a whole. But in the course of such a study as the present a remarkable number of obscure links and connexions emerge, concerning the journeys and holidays, and the literary development of Pliny, which put the question of serial order and chronology in a new light. When this material is combined with the newer epigraphical information, the chronology can be established book by book on a sounder foundation. This is a lengthy task involving a large number of particular points. For clarity the following procedure has been adopted. The conclusions reached in the Commentary about the date and connexions of each letter are here summarized book by book; the detailed argument is to be found in the Commentary. The analysis seeks to show what can be reasonably established by an impartial critic about the compilation and publication dates of each book, without trying to defend or attack a particular thesis.

In this analysis the term ‘book-date’ means the period covered by the datable contemporary events described in the component letters of each book. This is not necessarily the same as the date of the compilation of the book in its present form, and still less of its publication. When such book-dates can be established, the question arises next whether letters in each book that lack not only dates but any sort of link with dated letters belong to the same period. Some light is cast on this question, and on the allied question of publication, by a systematic inquiry, hitherto attempted incompletely and only by H. Peter, into the distribution of the letters by categories of subject-matter throughout the nine books. This second inquiry also helps to illuminate the literary method and purpose of Pliny in making this collection. A special section is devoted to the dates of the extortion trials, and the letters about them, which were the starting-point of the controversy about chronology, and which have been the object of extensive and contradictory discussion.

Notes

1. The basic discussion is H. Peter, Der Brief in der römischem Litteratur (Abh. Philol.-hist. Kl. d. Kgl.-Sāchs. Ges. der Wiss. XX (1903)): ch. v is devoted to Pliny.

2. Chiefly for the villa theme, VL, 142 ff.

3. Sen. Ep. 75. 1: ‘quis enim accurate loquitur nisi qui vult putide loqui?’

4. VL, 147 ff. Cf. R. Syme, Tacitus, 97.

5. Cf. Guillemin, VL, ch. iii, for a detailed study: the parallels with Martial are always the most convincing. For an extreme instance cf. IX. 7. 4 n.

6. Cf. ibid. 125 ff.

7. See I. 1. 1 n.

8. Cf. Guillemin, VL, 128, 130, 146-7, who, however, did not seriously consider the exceptions, which are significant for the genuine character of the letters.

9. See Guillemin, VL, ch. iii, for an analysis of extensive poetical influences in Pliny's letters. But some of the parallels seem rather forced.

10. In general see J. Niemirska-Pliszczyńska, De elocutione Pliniana, Lublin, 1955, the latest of a long series of studies on this theme, with bibliography p. 163. For the diminutives, ibid. 10, 14. Also, d'Agostino, I diminutivi in Plinio il Giovane, Turin, 1931. O.C.T. disallows prominulam, V. 6. 15 n.

11. C. Hofacker, De clausulis C. Caecili Plini Secundi, diss. Bonn., 1903. Or, Th. Zieliński, ‘Das Ausleben des Clauselgesetzes in der röm. Kunstprosa’, Philologus Suppl. X (1907), 431 f.

12. VL, 150; cf. II. 15. 1 n.

13. Commentary, ad loc. The end of s. 6, ‘multum me intra silentium tenui’ could have been followed immediately by s. 14, ‘consules, ut Polyaenus postulabat, omnia integra principi servaverunt’.

14. The reviser's hand is revealed in s. 16: ‘solet dicere Claudius Restitutus qui mihi respondit … nunquam sibi tantum caliginis offusum, …’, which was hardly written immediately after the event.

Bibliography

Th. Mommsen, Gesammelte Schriften (Berlin, 1907), iv 366: Hermes, iii (1869), 31 ff.

H. F. Stobbe, ‘Plinius' Briefe’, Philologus, xxx (1870), 347 ff.

C. Peter, ‘Plinius der Jüngere’, Philologus xxxii (1872), 698 ff.

I. Asbach, ‘Zur Chronologie der Briefe des j. Plinius’, Rhein. Mus. xxxvi (1881), 38 ff.

M. Schultz, De Plinii Epistulis Quaestiones Chronologicae (Diss. Inaug.), Berlin, 1899.

H. Peter, ‘Der Brief in d. röm. Litt.’, Abh. Sächs. Akad. Wiss. Phil.-hist. Kl. xx (1903), ch. v. 101 ff.

W. Otto, ‘Zur Lebensgeschichte des j. Plinius’, Sb. Bayer. Akad. Wiss. Phil.-hist. Kl. 1919, 17 ff.

A. von Premerstein, ‘C. Iulius Quadratus Bassus’, ibid. 1934, 3, 72 ff.

R. Hanslik, ‘Der Prozess des Varenus Rufus’, Wiener Studien, 1 (1932), 195 ff.; ‘Zu Plinius' Ep. V. 1’, ibid. lii (1934), 156 ff.; ‘Die neuen Fragmente von Ostia, etc.’, ibid. lxiii (1948), 133 ff.

S. Prete, ‘Saggi Pliniani’, Studi di filologia classica, i (Bologna 1948), 84 ff.

S. Monti, ‘Pliniana’, Rend. Acc. Arch. Litt. Bell. Art. Napoli, xxvii (1952), 161 ff.; xxviii (1953), 311 ff.; xxxii (1957), 90 ff.; Ann. Fac. Litt. Napoli, 1956, 69 ff.

R. Syme, Tacitus (Oxford, 1958), ii, Appendix xxi, 660 ff.

J. Zaranka, De Plinii Epistularum Novem Libris Quaestiones Chronologicae. This doctoral dissertation from Louvain 1949 has not been published except in dactylographic form, and is otherwise known only in a brief summary of cardinal points in Lustrum, vi (1961), 285 f.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are frequently used throughout the Commentary.

Acta Ap.: Acts of the Apostles.

Act. Arv.: Acta Fratrum Arvalium in CIL vi.

AE: L'Année épigraphique, Paris.

A-J: F. W. Abbot, A. C. Johnson, Municipal Administration in the Roman Empire, Princeton, 1926.

Am. J.: Phil. American Journal of Philology, Baltimore.

Ap. Ty.: Philostratus, De Apollonio Tyanensi.

Asbach: I. Asbach, ‘Zur Chronologie der Briefe des jüngeren Plinius’, Rhein. Mus. xxxvi (1881), 38 ff.

Ashby, Top. Dict.: T. Ashby, S. B. Platner, A Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome, Oxford, 1929.

Bardon: H. Bardon, La Littérature latine inconnue, Paris, 1952-6.

B.C.: Appian, Bella Civilia Romanorum.

B.G.: Caesar, Bellum Gallicum.

C. Bosch: Die kleinasiatischen Münzen der römischen Kaiserzeit ii. 1, Stuttgart, 1935.

U. Brasiell: o La Repressione penale in diritto romano, Napoli, 1937.

Bruns: C. G. Bruns, Fontes iuris Romani antiqui, Tübingen, 1919.

BSA: Annual of the British School at Athens, London.

BSR: Papers of the British School at Rome, London.

CAH: Cambridge Ancient History, vols. x and xi, Cambridge, 1934-6.

Carcopino: J. Carcopino, Daily Life in Ancient Rome, London, 1941.

CERP: A. H. M. Jones, Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces, Oxford, 1937.

Charlesworth, Documents: M. P. Charlesworth, Documents illustrating the reigns of Claudius and Nero, Cambridge 1939.

Chilver, Cisalpine Gaul: G. E. F. Chilver, Cisalpine Gaul, Social and Economic History, Oxford, 1941.

Chrestomathie: L. Mitteis, U. Wilcken, Grundzüge und Chrestomathie der Papyruskunde, i-ii, Leipzig-Berlin, 1912.

Chron. Min.: Chronica Minora, ed. C. Frich, Leipzig, 1892.

CIG: Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum, i-iv, Berlin, 1828-77.

CIL: Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, i-xvi, Berlin, 1863-1936.

Cl. Phil.: Classical Philology, Chicago.

Cl. Q.: The Classical Quarterly, London.

Cl. Rev.: The Classical Review, Oxford.

Cod. Iust.: Codex Iustinianus in Corpus Iuris Civilis.

D. or Dig.: Digesta Iuris Romani in Corpus Iuris Civilis.

Dio, Or.: Dio Chrysostomus, Orationes.

Ditt. Syll. or D.S.: W. Dittenberger, Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum, i-iv, Leipzig, 1915-24.

Diz. Epigr.: E. de Ruggiero, Dizionario epigrafico di Antichità Romane, Rome, 1886-.

Domaszewski, Rangordnung: A. von Domaszewski, Die Rangordnung des römischen Heeres, Bonn, 1908.

D. Pen. R.: Th. Mommsen, Droit pénal romain, Paris, 1903.

Dörner, Inschiften: F. K. Dörner, Inschriften und Denkmäler aus Bithynien (Istanbule Forschungen 14), Berlin, 1941.

Dörner, Reise: idem, Bericht über eine Reise in Bithynien (Öst. Ak. Wiss. ph.-hist. Kl. D. 75, 1), Wien, 1952.

DPR: Th. Mommsen, Droit public romain i-vi, Paris, 1889-93.

D-S Ch.: Daremberg, E. Saglio, Dictionnaire des antiquités grecques et romaines, Paris, 1877-1919.

Ec. Survey: T. Frank, An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome, vols. i-v, Baltimore, 1933-40.

E-J: V. Ehrenberg, A. H. M. Jones, Documents Illustrating the Reigns of Augustus and Tiberius², Oxford, 1955.

Ep. de Caes.: Anonymous, Epitome de Caesaribus, printed in texts of Aurelius Victor.

Fast. Pot. or F. Pot. : Fasti Potentiae, in AE 1949, n. 23.

FIR: C. G. Bruns, O. Gradenvitz, Fontes Iuris Romani, Tübingen, 1909.

FIRA: S. Riccobono, Fontes Iuris Romani Anteiustiniani, i-iii, Florence, 1941-3.

FO: Fasti Ostienses in Inscriptiones Italiae, XIII. i, ed. A. Degrassi, Rome, 1947. See below pp. 734-6.

Fr. Vat.: Fragmenta Vaticana in FIRA.

Garzetti, C., Inc.: A. Garzetti, Nerva, Rome, 1950; numbers in the list of senators, certainly and uncertainly attributed.

GC: A. H. M. Jones, The Greek City, Oxford, 1940.

Gnomon Id.: Forma Idiologi, in FIRA i.

GS: Th. Mommsen, Gesammelte Schriften, i-viii, Berlin, 1905-13.

Guillemin, ad loc.: A.-M. Guillemin, Pline le Jeune, Lettres, Paris, 1927-47.

Hartleben: See L-H.

HE: Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiae.

IGRR: Inscriptiones Graecae ad res Romanas pertinentes, Paris, 1911-27, ed. R. Cagnat etc.

ILA: Insciptions Latines d'Afrique, ed. R. Cagnat, A. Merlin, Paris, 1923.

I.L.Al.: Inscriptions Latines de l'Algérie, i-ii, ed. S. Gsell, H.-G. Pflaum, Paris, 1922, 1957.

ILS: H. Dessau, Inscriptiones latinae selectae, Berlin, 1892-1916.

Index Verborum: Printed in Longolius, below, but now replaced by X. Jacques, J. von Oosteghem, Index de Pline le Jeune, Brussels, 1965.

Ital. agr.: V. A. Sirago, L'Italia agraria sotto Traiano, Louvain, 1958.

JB: Bursians Jahresberichte.

Jones, Cities: See C.E.R.P.

Jones, Greek City: See G.C.

JRS: The Journal of Roman Studies, London.

Lambrechts: P. Lambrechts, La Composition du Sénat Romain, Antwerp, 1936.

Lex Mal.: Lex municipii Malacitani in FIRA.

L-H: K. Lehman-Hartleben, Plinio il Giovane, Lettere Scelte, Florence, 1936.

Liebenam: W. Liebenam, Städteverwaltung im römischen Kaiserreiche, Leipzig, 1900.

Longolius: Caii Plinii Secundi Epistolarum libros decem cum notis selectis. G. Cortius, P. D. Longolius, Amsterdam, 1734.

Magie, Romans: D. Magie, Roman rule in Asia Minor to the end of the third century after Christ, i-ii, Princeton, 1950.

Marquardt, Manuel: J. Marquardt, La Vie privée des romains, Paris, 1892-3.

Merrill: E. T. Merrill, Pliny, Select Letters, London, 1903.

Monti, Pliniana: See p. 23.

O.C.T.: Plinius Minor, Epistulae, Oxford, 1963.

OGIS: W. Dittenberger, Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae i-ii, Leipzig, 1903-5.

Otto: W. Otto, ‘Zur Lebensgeschichte des jüngeren Plinius’, S. B. Bayer. Ak. Wiss. Phil.-hist. Kl. 1919, 1, ff.

Peter: C. Peter, ‘Plinius der Jüngere’, Philologus, xxxiii (1873), 698 f.

Pflaum, Proc. Eq.: H. G. Pflaum, Les Procurateurs équestres sous le Haut-empire Romain, Paris, 1950.

Pflaum.: n. idem, Les Carrières procuratoriennes équestres sous le Haut-empire romain, Paris, 1960-1.

Philol.: Philologus, Zeitschift für klassisches Altertum, Leipzig.

PIR: Prosopographia Imperii Romani, ed. 1, Berlin, 1897-8, ed. 2, 1933-.

P. Ox.: The Oxyrhyncus Papyri, London, 1898-.

Prete: S. Prete, ‘Saggi Pliniani’, Studi di Fil. Class. I, Bologna, 1948.

Rangordnung: A. von Domaszweski, Die Rangordnung des römischen Heeres, Bonn, 1908.

RC: A.N. Sherwin-White, The Roman Citizenship, Oxford, 1939.

RE: Paulys Real-enzyclopädie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft,² Stuttgart, 1894-.

RG: Res Gestae Divi Augusti in E-J.

Rev. Int. Dr. Ant.: Revue internationale des droits de l'antiquité, Brussels, 1948-.

RIC: H. Mattingly, E. A. Sydenham, The Roman Imperial Coinage, ii, London, 1926.

Rev. Hist. Dr. Fr.: Revue historique de droit français et étranger, Paris, 1922-.

Schultz: M. Schultz, De Plinii epistulis quaestiones chronologicae, Berlin, 1899.

SEG: Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum, Leyden, 1923-.

SEHRE: M. Rostovtzeff, The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire², i-ii, Oxford, 1957, revised by P. M. Fraser.

Sent.: Pauli Sententiae receptae Paulo tributae in FIRA ii.

SG: (Eng. Tr.) L. Friedländer, Roman Life and manners under the early Empire (translated by L. A. Magnus), i-iv, London, 1908-13.

SHA: Scriptores Historiae Augustae.

Stout: S. E. Stout, Scribe and Critic at work in Pliny's Letters, Indiana University publications, Bloomington, 1954.

Strack: P. L. Strack, Untersuchungen zur römischen Reichsprägung des zweiten Jahrhunderts, i, Stuttgart, 1931.

Studi Paoli: Studi in onore di Ugo Enrico Paoli, Firenze, 1955.

Syme, Tac.: R. Syme, Tacitus, Oxford, 1958.

Tab. Her.: Tabula Heracleensis in FIRA i.

T. A. Ph. A.: Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Philadelphia.

Thes. L. L.: Thesaurus Linguae Latinae.

Tit. Ulp.: Tituli ex corpore Ulpiani in FIRA ii.

Vidman, Étude: L. Vidman, Étude sur la correspondance de Pline le jeune avec Trajan (Rozpravy Československé Ak. Věd. 70), Praha, 1960.

VL: A.-M. Guillemin, Pline et la vie littéraire de son temps, Paris, 1929.

von Arnim: H. von Arnim, Leben und Werke des Dio von Prusa, Berlin, 1898.

VS: Philostratus, Vitae Sophistarum.

Waddington, Receuil W. H. Waddington, Receuil général des monnaies grecques d'Asie mineure, Paris, 1904-9. Second ed. Paris, 1925.

Weber, Festgabe: W. Weber, Festgabe von Fachgenossen v. K. Müller, Tübingen, 1922.

W-C: M. McCrum, A. G. Woodhead, Select Documents of the Principates of the Flavian Emperors, Cambridge, 1961.

WS: Wiener Studien, Zeitschrift für klassische Philologie, Wien.

Zaranka: J. Zaranka, De Plinii epistularum … quaestiones chronologicae. Dissertation, Louvain, 1949. See p. 23.

ZS: Zeitschrift des Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte (Romanistische Abt.).

Bibliographical Summaries

Items appear annually in Année Philologique under the heading Plinius Minor. The following contain periodic summaries of writings in the twentieth century.

Bursians Jahresbericht:	cliii (1911), 1 ff. (K. Burkhard).
	ccxxi (1929), 1 ff. (M. Schuster).
	ccxlii (1934), 9 ff. (M. Schuster).
	cclxxxii (1943), 38 ff. (R. Hanslik).

Also R. Hanslik, Anzeiger für die Altertumswissenschaft, 1955, 8. 1 ff. J. Beaujeu, Lustrum, vi (1961) 272 ff.

Note that in the commentary letter references to other letters in the same book are given in the form ‘Ep. 23’, while references to letters in other books are given by plain numbers, e.g. ‘I. 23. 2’, with Roman numerals indicating the book-number.