ABSTRACTS

The poetics of memory in Pliny’s “Heroines”

Stella ALEKOU (Cyprus)

This paper will examine the notion of literary, rhetorical and legal memory in Pliny’s epistles with

regard to the illustration of female exempla. The interpretative tools of intertextual analysis will be

used with focus on one of Pliny’s Augustan models in particular: Ovid, the author of two epistolary

collections, namely, the Heroides and the Epistulae ex Ponto. At a time when the boundaries between

prose and poetry are considerably less rigid and the genre of epistolography is still of a fluid nature,

the Ovidian works, a part of the Plinian readers’ mental encyclopaedia, seem to be both a valuable

source of intertextual memory and a generic exemplum. A careful reading of clusters of letters in

Pliny’s collection and Ovid’s Heroides will demonstrate the dynamics of a literary exchange that has

been constantly overshadowed and that could provide modest answers to some of the most prominent

debates on Plinian literature.

Even though recent scholarship on Pliny has shifted its focus from the social and historical context of

the epistles to its author’s self-representation, this paper will not isolate the text from its extra-textual

reality; it will not treat the collection as a self-sufficient literary artefact nor will it draw extensive

attention to its authoritative consciousness. Furthermore, despite the current scholarly emphasis on

gendered readings of Plinian letters, it is not the aim of this piece of work to shed light on Pliny’s view

on gender equality. Indeed, the author mentions over thirty women by name, addresses letters to seven

of them and refers to more than forty other female individuals that remain anonymous, but such a

focus seems here rather misleading, as it guides our reading towards mere speculations of an

ambiguous nature that are deemed to remain unfounded.

In Pliny’s literary project, cultural redefinitions of female exempla and renegotiations of their stylistic

representations are the result of critical re-readings of his poetic precedents. Ovidian poetics offers

both a canon of style and a polemical target source that activates a network of allusions. The

paradoxical resonances invite the Plinian reader to collaboratively participate in the hermeneutics of

the text, by identifying the author’s ironic distance as deliberate and by regarding Pliny not only as an

orator but also as “actor”, a historical person who discusses contemporary facts through allusion to

past remembrances and reconstructs accordingly female portraits of his time through imagines that are

well established in the readers’ intertextual memory. The paper will strive to identity both the

fictionality in Pliny’s “real” illustration of women and the historicity in Ovid’s mythological female

representations, in order to identify the limits of poetic “vraisemblance”, rhetorical memoria and legal

recontextualisation of esthetics.

In reading Ovid to further understand Pliny, one may dare to no longer see the Ovidian Heroines as

mere love letters but to finally situate them in their historical context; most importantly, the

reconstruction of the Plinian “heroines” as mnemonic and memorable illustrations may contribute to

the reception of Pliny’s work as a literary exemplum, to be finally rewarded as genuine.

The Villas of Pliny and Statius

Christopher CHINN (Pomona College, CA)

Scholars have long remarked on the intertext between Pliny’s villa letters (Epist. 2.17 and 5.6) and

Statius’ villa poems (Silv. 1.3 and 2.2). Some have found fairly specific verbal echoes (see Myers

2005: 122 n .77 for bibl.) while others see a more generic connection, with Statius establishing a

literary tradition of the long villa ekphrasis. Metaliterary details connecting the villa descriptions of

both writers to epic ekphrasis seem to underline this latter point. In Silv. 1.3.81, Statius compares

Vopiscus’ villa with the estate of Alcinous in the Odyssey. Hinds (2001: 237-55) notes that Silv.

2.2.76-82 turns the views of Pollius’ villa into a trip through Vergilian literary history. Pliny, in his

famous metaliterary digression at Epist. 5.6.41-4, explicitly compares his villa description to various

large-scale epic ekphrases such as the description of Achilles’ shield in Iliad 18 (on this passage see

Chinn 2007). Both writers thus figure their villa ekphrases as literary topoi. Moreover, since they are

not part of a larger narrative, the ekphrases may also be understood as tropes. But how do the

ekphrases act as figurative language? In the case of Statius’ Silvae scholars have seen ekphrasis as a

figure of praise (see Van Dam 1984: 6-7). The described houses are like their owners (Silv. 1.3.20-3;

2.2.28-9; Myers 2005: 108-9) in that the houses reflect the owners’ philosophical serenity. Scholars

see Pliny’s villa descriptions as a form of self-fashioning, and hence a kind of self-praise. In Statius

part of the praise discourse is the interaction of nature and art, and how control over nature embodied

in the houses described reflects the philosophical mastery of the houses’ owners (see e.g. Cancik 1968

on Silv. 2.2). Control over nature is also a theme in Pliny’s descriptions (Bek 1976: 162-3), but as far

as I know no one has fully explored how this theme integrates into the overall project of self-

fashioning. I propose to argue that if we focus on the Statian intertext then it follows that Pliny is not

attributing to himself a kind of mastery over nature through the ekphrasis, but is rather directly

equating himself to nature itself. My argument is based on the two passages in Epist. 5.6 where Pliny

invokes the nature-art distinction (sections 7 and 18), and on the metaliterary digression where Pliny

claims to have "indulged" (indulsi) in epic-style ekphrasis (41). I argue that the Statian echoes here

imply that Pliny has placed himself in the role of Statian nature in the villa poems of the Silvae.

Ars adeo latet arte sua:

On the Influence of Epigram on Pliny the Younger’s Letters

Thorsten FÖGEN (Durham)

The corpus of Pliny the Younger’s Letters contains a significant amount of texts that comprise no

more than one or two paragraphs (see Fögen 2018). These short pieces often resemble epigrams, both

in terms of structure and style. While this closeness has been observed in passing by some scholars

such as Meister (1924: 33), Guillemin (1929: 150) or, more recently, Wolff (2003: 85‒86, 89), a more

detailed study on this striking affinity is still a desideratum.

Building upon my observations on Epist. 9.12 and on Pliny’s concept of ‘artful artlessness’ (see Fögen

2017), I will focus on select short epistles that are constructed like epigrams in several respects. I will

demonstrate that Lessing’s categories of Erwartung and Aufschluß, originally used for the structural

analysis of epigrams, can also be applied to these letters. Special attention will be given to Epist. 7.13

to Iulius Ferox, 4.18 to Arrius Antoninus (on Pliny’s Latin translations of Arrius Antoninus’

epigrams), 5.2 to Calpurnius Flaccus, 6.1 to Calestrius Tiro, 8.7 to Tacitus, 9.29 to Rusticus, 9.32 to

Titianus, and 9.38 to Pompeius Saturninus.

I will argue that Pliny the Younger had a strong interest in the cultivation of smaller literary forms

which included poetry as well as prose. His ‘epigrammatic’ letters are for the most part miniatures of

an unobtrusive elegance with which Pliny wanted to prove his wide-ranging artistic talent.

References:

Fögen, Thorsten (2017): Gattungsvielfalt in den Briefen des Jüngeren Plinius. Episteln im

Spannungsfeld von ethischer Unterweisung und literarischer Pluridimensionalität. In:

Gymnasium 124, 21‒60.

Fögen, Thorsten (2018): Vom Epigramm zur Ekphrasis. Zum Topos der brevitas in den Briefen des

Jüngeren Plinius. In: Gernot Michael Müller, Sabine Retsch & Johanna Schenk (eds.), Adressat

und Adressant. Kommunikationsstrategien im antiken Brief, Berlin & Boston (in press).

Guillemin, Anne-Marie (1929): Pline et la vie littéraire de son temps, Paris.

Meister, Richard (1924): Zur Frage des Kompositionsprinzips in den Briefen des Plinius. In:

XAPIΣMA. Festgabe zur 25jährigen Stiftungsfeier des Vereines klassischer Philologen in Wien,

Wien, 27‒33.

Wolff, Étienne (2003): Pline le Jeune ou le refus du pessimisme. Essai sur sa correspondance,

Rennes.

Plinian Intertextuality in Epistles 6

Roy GIBSON (Manchester)

What does Plinian intertextuality look like when considered over the course of a single book in the

aggregate, rather than in relation to single authors such as Cicero or Tacitus? Are particular authors

privileged over others at certain points? Do references come in clusters? Is there a pattern or coherence

to Pliny's allusions to earlier authors within a book? Do certain types or subjects of letters attract

particular instances of intertextual reference? Book 6 of the letters will be the main focus of

discussion. Help will be requested on what to make of the apparent reference at Pliny Ep. 6.20.19 to

Petronius Sat. 115.6.

Pliny in Pliny: Some Remarks on the Rhetoric of Political Writing and Self-promotion

Jacek HAJDUK (Krakow)

One of the most important writers of the early imperial era was Pliny the Younger. His only oration

that now survives, the Panegyricus Traiani, is among the most influential writings in the history of

political writing. This speech is important today not only as a relevant document that reveals many

details about Trajan’s actions, and as a major pattern for all later similar works written in an adulatory

and emphatic form in order to please the ruler, but also as a kind of mirror for Pliny the Younger

himself, as an epistolographer and author of the Letters.

The Panegyricus Traiani was delivered in the Senate in year 100 and is a detailed description

of Caesar’s figure and actions. Pliny presented Trajan as the best emperor in the history of Rome. It

was an unprecedented event, because it was the time when Trajan was at the beginning of his career as

an emperor.

Recalling the speech in one of his letters, Pliny explains his motives: „I hoped in the first place

to encourage our Emperor in his virtues by a sincere tribute and, secondly, to show his successors

what path to follow to win the same renown, not by offering instruction but by setting his example

before them. To proffer advice on an Emperor's duties might be a noble enterprise, but it would be a

heavy responsibility verging on insolence, whereas to praise an excellent ruler (optimum principem)

and thereby shine a beacon on the path posterity should follow would be equally effective without

appearing presumptuous” (Ep. III. xviii).

Fortunately for Pliny, it turned out later that Trajan was indeed worthy of this praise. At the

same time we find in the Panegyricus Traiani significant paragraphs about Pliny himself and his

activities during the reign of emperors Domitian and Trajan. Describing those two rulers and

contrasting them one to another, Pliny is subtly telling a complex story about different ways of

participating (or not participating) in the politics. He continues what he began in his youth (under the

volcano): he uses literature as a powerful form of persuasion.

Having in mind Pliny’s career, his political letters (private and official) and the Panegyricus

Traiani, I’d like to discuss nuances of his (and his friends) theoretical and practical engagement with

politics of that time, as well as intertextual and intergeneric relations between the Letters and the

oration.

Who was Pliny: a politician or a writer, an epistolographer giving speeches or an orator

writing letters? What were his goals: literary or political? What can we say about the ethics of his

works (and life)? What does he think (say) about his own career – in political letters and in the speech?

Was he consistent in constructing his own portrait?

What can we say about Pliny the Younger as a literary character?

Pliny’s Seneca and the Intertextuality of Grief

Michael HANAGHAN (Cork):

This paper analyses how Pliny alludes to two of Seneca’s epistles (98 and 99) that treat death. It

extends Tzounakas’ analysis of the intertextual link between Pliny’s Ep. 1.12 and Seneca’s Ep. 85 by

arguing that Ep. 98 also looms behind Corellius’ decision to die, and argues that Regulus’ display of

grief following the death of his son (4.2) echoes Seneca’s condemnation of improper mourning

practice in Ep. 99.

Pliny presents Corellius Rufus’ suicide as a philosophical decision by using an abundance of Stoic

terms (Méthy, Tzounakas). At the end of the letter Pliny begs Calestrius Tiro for words of consolation

that he has not already heard or read, and so invites consideration of what texts have influenced the

contents of his epistle (Tzounakas). Clear parallels may be found between Pliny’s Ep. 1.12 and

Seneca’s Ep. 98. Seneca treats the themes of suicide and pain management, and acknowledges that

grief can be selfish. A specific verbal connection links the two epistles. Pliny’s description of

Corellius’ determination “securus liberque moriturus” is supported by Seneca’s use of the phrase

‘nec taedio doloris libenter moritur.’ Corellius presents as Seneca’s hypothetical sufferer; who does

not die simply to free himself from his pain, which he has already defeated and broken (Tzounakas,

Pliny. Ep. 1.12.5). At the end of his epistle Seneca acknowledges his attitude towards his friend’s

death “Sed securus de illo sum: de nostro damno agitur, quibus senex egregius eripitur.”

Pliny’s phrase ‘securus liberque moriturus’ is focalised through Corellius Rufus, and so may explain

the contempt for philosophy and the reading of philosophy that Pliny shows at the end of the epistle

(Ep. 1.12.13), if Corellius Rufus was influenced in his decision by Seneca’s philosophical reflection

on when suicide is suitable.

The death of Regulus’ son sent him into public mourning. He had innumerable likenesses of his son

depicted in art, wrote a memoir of his son and paid for it to be read throughout the empire, and even

gathered all his son’s animals and immolated them on a pyre. Pliny remained unconvinced (Ep. 4.2)

“Nec dolor erat ille, sed ostentatio doloris”

The phrase ostentatio doloris alludes to Seneca’s Ep. 99, which includes (within the epistle to

Lucilius) a letter that Seneca sent to Marullus on the death of his son, in which he distinguishes

between real grief and the display of grief (ostentatio doloris). The allusion is substantiated by the

phrase ostentatio doloris, which only occurs in extant Latin literature prior to Pliny in that epistle of

Seneca, and the shared experience of Regulus and Marullus both of whom were mourning a dead son.

By alluding to Seneca’s letter Pliny co-opts Seneca’s philosophical condemnation of incorrect

mourning to attack Regulus’ bizarre behaviour.

Pliny’s allusions to Seneca’s consolation letters show that he knew and could apply philosophical

concepts to express his own grief or criticise other’s.

References

Griffin, M. (2007) “The Younger Pliny’s Debt to Moral Philosophy,” Harvard Studies in Classical

Philology 103, 451-481.

Méthy, N. (2007) Les lettres de Pline le Jeune: Une représentation de l’homme, Paris.

Tzounakas, S. (2011) “Seneca’s Presence in Pliny’s Epistle 1.12,” Philologus 155.2, 346-360.

The Elder Pliny as source of inspiration: Pliny the Younger’s reception of the Naturalis Historia and his uncle’s lifestyle

Judith HINDERMANN (Basel)

Pliny’s letters have been studied so far mostly as a source for life and work of the Elder Pliny,

especially the famous letters of the eruption of mount Vesuvius and Pliny the Elder’s death (Ep.

6.16 und 6.20) and the list of his literary works (Ep. 3.5).* The paper at hand will look into the

relation between the two Plinys from a different angle by studying how the Younger integrates

subjects known from the Elder’s Naturalis Historia in his letters. The Younger Pliny not only

adapts the descriptions of natural phenomena into the literary genus of a letter-collection, e.g.

miraculous stories of dolphins and men and magic lakes (epp. 4,30; 8,20; 9,33). He also reflects

his uncle’s pose of writing at night (lucubratio)** and serving the emperor during the day by

combining the demands of otium and negotium in his own way.

*

U. Eco, “A Portrait of the Elder as a Young Pliny”, in: R. Gibson/Ch. Whitton (eds.) The

Epistles of Pliny, Oxford 2016. 185-200.

R.K. Gibson, “Elder and Better: The Naturalis Historia and the Letters of the Younger Pliny”, in R.K. Gibson/R. Morello (eds.) P liny the Elder: Themes and Contexts,

Leiden/Boston 2011, 187-205.

J. Henderson, “Knowing Someone through their Books: Pliny on Uncle Pliny (Epistles

3.5)”, CPh 97, 2002, 265-84.

E. Lefèvre, “Plinius-Studien V: Vom Römertum zum Ästhetizismus. Die Würdigungen des älteren Plinius (3,5), Silius Italicus (3,7) und Martial (3,21)”, Gymnasium 96, 1989, 113–

128.

E. Lefèvre, “Plinius-Studien VI: Der große und der kleine Plinius. Die Vesuv-Briefe (6,16;

6,20)”, Gymnasium 103, 1996, 193–215.

O. Schönberger, “Die Vesuv-Briefe des jüngeren Plinius (VI 16 und 20)”, Gymnasium 97, 1990, 526–548.

**

J. Ker, “Nocturnal writers in imperial Rome: the culture of lucubratio”, CPh 99, 2004, 209-

42.

R. Morello, “Pliny and the encyclopaedic addressee”, in R.K. Gibson/R. Morello (eds.) Pliny the Elder: Themes and Contexts, Leiden/Boston 2011, 147-165.

Heus tu! Promittis ad cenam, nec venis? Dicitur ius!

The Relationship between Pliny Ep. 1.15 and several carmina Catulli

Boris HOGENMÜLLER (Frankfurt/Würzburg)

That Catullus is one of many authors whose works Pliny the Younger preferred to read, and to which

he often referred in his letters, has been shown in various studies – most recently by Peter Schenk,

Formen von Intertextualität im Briefcorpus des Jüngeren Plinius, in: Philologus 143,1, 1999, 114–134,

and Katrin Schwerdtner, Plinius und seine Klassiker: Studien zur literarischen Zitation in den

Pliniusbriefen, Berlin 2015 – and even by Pliny's own testimonies (ep.1.16.5: praeterea facit versus,

quales Catullus meus et Calvus).

In addition to the frequently observed direct references – e. g. in ep. 4.14, Pliny cites literally Cat. c.

16.5-8 – there are, however, sometimes indirect allusions and reminiscences which cannot be

identified at first sight. These references are located on the meta-level of intertextuality and are less

likely to be directly borrowed from words and phrases, as they are manifested by thematic allusions

concerning structure and intention of the referred work. This kind of a hidden game concerning the

underlying texts of the admired predecessors (like the Hellenistic models such as Callimachus and

Parthenius in the sense of hypertextuality) can especially be seen in several poems of Catullus, as I

have shown in different studies.

In my opinion, this kind of hidden intertextuality, which Catullus often shows in his poems, is also

mentioned in the composition of Pliny’s ep. 1.15, in which the author refers to three poems: c. 13, the

literary play of an invitation to dinner addressed to Fabullus, c. 50, the reflection of a night spent with

the friend Calvus, and c. 30, which is addressed to Catullus’ friend Alfenus on behalf of his disloyalty.

In Pliny’s ep. 1.15, it is reported that a certain Septicius had been invited by Pliny for dinner, but had

been absent without apology. The author complains bitterly about this, and tells the friend what he

missed, wants him to pay for the costs of the dinner, and threats him punishment for his 'offense'

against the host. Besides the good food, Septicius especially missed all sorts of ‘pleasures’ (lusisses),

which could have happened at this evening.

In my opinion, it is obvious that Pliny relates on the specific contents and motifs deriving from Cat. c.

13, c. 50 and c. 30, on which the addressee of the letter should easily have been reminded while

reading. I think that Catullus’ poems are the underlying (respectively superordinate) hypertexts Pliny

referred to while composing the letter – a thesis, which I would like to elucidate and finally try to

prove.

The Poetics of Fame: ‘Writing’, ‘Reading’ and Imagines in Ovid, Martial and Pliny

Despina KERAMIDA (Cyprus)

The impact of the preceding tradition on Pliny, as well as the dialogue between his letters and the

poetic collections of Catullus, Ovid (primarily his exilic work) and Martial, amongst others, is

nowadays a common focus of scholarly discussion. Pliny’s exploration of certain poetic themes within

the epistolary genre creates an intertextual connection, either explicit or implicit, to his literary

predecessors, that his educated readers would be able to acknowledge. This paper will examine Pliny’s

perception of what constitutes ‘the poetics of fame’ through a comparative ‘reading’ of Pliny in

relation to Ovid and Martial in particular. Despite the fact that Pliny’s letters are part of his private

correspondence, they offer an insight into his perception, as well as appreciation of ‘poetic

composition’. Throughout his epistolary work, he inserts letters that focus on the concept of ‘writing’

and ‘reading’ not just private letters but poetic compositions, as well as the evaluation of the

aforementioned compositions that might lead to either poetic fame or criticism. As this paper will

demonstrate, Pliny’s letters offer an ‘internal’ commentary regarding his perception of ‘writing’ and

‘reading’, by focusing on selected epistles that explore the concept of poetic composition and the fame

or criticism that might or might not accompany it, in relation to poetic approaches of the same themes

by Ovid (both in his earlier works and his later works) and Martial. All three adopt and ‘defend’ the

Callimachean doctrina of poetics throughout their corpus, which is often interconnected with an

acknowledgement of their literary predecessors, highlighting their authorial self-awareness. What is

more, the focus of the discussion will fall not only on the epistolographer’s and the poets’ perception

of ‘writing’ and ‘reading’ but also on their visualization of imagines, either of literary figurae or of

statues. Imago, intertwined with its ‘perception’ and the ‘poetics of fame’, becomes an interesting

component of Pliny’s private letters. As the epistolographer implies (in 1.17) statues are associated

with establishing one’s fame. The concept of imago is also central for the Ovidian corpus; the poet

often displays the figurae of his heroes and heroines as works of art (namely as statues), as spectators

or as artists. Imagery is equally important for Martial’s poetics; the poet, clearly influenced not only

by his literary predecessors but also by the cultural environment of his time, offers descriptions of

statues that have not simply a literary but also a cultural significance. Similarly, Pliny’s incorporation

of poetic themes and imagery, within the boundaries of his private letters, underlines not only the

importance of literary tradition, but also its cultural significance. The poetics of fame, thus, illuminate

Pliny’s perception of ‘writing’, ‘reading’ and imagery.

Discourses of Authority in Pliny Epistles 10

Alice KÖNIG (St Andrews)

Scholarship on Pliny’s tenth book of letters has not kept pace with the research being done on Books

1-9; and yet is has not been entirely left behind either. Since a trio of publications in 2006-7 (Stadter

2006; Woolf 2006; Noreña 2007), increasing attention has been paid to the book’s ideological,

rhetorical and ‘literary’ features. Gone is the notion that its contents are purely administrative, that it

constitutes a simple archive of ‘real’, unadulterated administrative correspondence. And yet attempts

to drag it into meaningful dialogue with books 1-9 and other equally ‘literary’ texts have been both

illuminating and distorting in almost equal measure. Epistles 10 remains something of a misfit, a

hermeneutic puzzle which confounds both historical and literary analysis. Next year will see the

publication of two ground-breaking articles (by Myles Lavan and Jill Harries1) which suggest new

ways of looking at Epistles 10 in interaction with other letter collections (Imperial correspondence, in

Lavan’s case; and legal letters, in Harries’ article). My paper will build on this work and on the wider

‘Literary Interactions’ project from which it emerged (a project I established in 2012: https://arts.st-

andrews.ac.uk/literaryinteractions/) to consider how a range of intertextual discourses help to shape

both the interiority of Epistles 10 and its construction of new kinds of administrative and imperial

authority – issues which in turn can shed fresh light on the study of Pliny’s wider epistolary corpus.

A central aim of my ‘Literary Interactions’ project has been to broaden the parameters of

intertextuality studies. Moving beyond discussions of close lexical overlaps, discernible allusions,

evocative echoes and suggestive re-workings, my collaborators and I have promoted the study of (for

example) ‘clouds of allusion’ (Ilaria Marchesi), socio-literary interactions (Alice König, Sigrid

Mratschek), extratextuality (Rebecca Langlands), and gaps in interaction (James Uden, Roy Gibson)

as equally significant aspects of ‘intertextuality’. Extending analysis of intertextuality in this way is

particularly productive for the reading of prose texts, and it has proved especially illuminating when

applied to ‘sub-literary’/technical/administrative kinds of writing. A readthrough of Epistles 10 in

search of conventional markers of allusion and intertextuality will yield very little; indeed, as my

paper will argue, the almost bland, formulaic, generic style of Pliny’s missives and Trajan’s replies

creates an interior world within the collection that feels cut off from external influences. However, a

broader analysis that works with wider conceptions of textual interaction opens up new lines of

inquiry. In particular, I will look at the ways in which Pliny’s letters interact with (and distance

themselves from) tropes of technical writing to construct models of authority that set themselves apart

from the kinds of expertise we find in other Imperial knowledge-ordering texts. Pliny was clearly

familiar with a range of architectural, hydraulic and administrative treatises, and also with

encyclopaedic writing and paradoxography. Working out from Epistle 10.56 (where Pliny’s

correspondence with Trajan faintly intersects with ways in which his uncle addressed Titus in the

preface to the Natural History), I will look especially at 10.23-4, 10.37-9, 10.90-91 and 10.108-9 to

explore both Pliny’s engagement with discourses that recur in other genres (philosophy and rhetoric as

well as technical writing) and the distance he maintains from them. My discussion will reveal new

things about the literary layers and interiority of Epistles 10, at the same time as scrutinising gaps in

transmission/ interaction between certain genres and discourses. More broadly, my paper will continue

the work of my wider project to prompt further reflection on and explore new methodologies for the

ongoing study of (especially prose) intertextuality. Indeed, it is my view that Epistles 10 (as a liminal

kind of text, with connections to a range of literary and less literary worlds) offers a particularly

stimulating laboratory for methodological and theoretical reflections of this kind.

1 In A. König & C. Whitton (2018) Roman Literature under Nerva, Trajan and Hadrian: Literary Interactions,

AD 96-138, Cambridge.

Pliny’s Calpurnia: Filiation, Imitation, Allusion

Ilaria MARCHESI (Hofstra University)

My presentation consists in an inter-and intratextual reading of Pliny's Ep 4.19 as a text haunted by

questions of paternity. It starts with a review of a micro-cycle of 'orbative' letters in the corpus,

detailing the diverging strategies of iterative and exemplary commemoration that Regulus and

Spurinna deployed to mourn their sons, and moves to explore the intertextual connection that Pliny

actively establishes (or passively undergoes) with Martial's Ep. 6.38 by transferring to his wife and

potential mother of his children the charged language Martial had deployed for Regulus' wife and

child. At all junctures, the focus will be on issues of failed or potential reproduction, cultural and

biological imitation, and cross-generational representation, examined across the dynamics of literary

allusion and the interplay of gender- and social determinants.

Regulus and Verres: Complicit Communities

Matthew MORDUE (Roehampton)

Regulus was Pliny's chief oratorical rival and is a striking character in the Epistles, with five letters

dedicated to him. This 'Regulus cycle' is a popular topic in scholarship and many scholars have

analysed Pliny's negative portrait of his nemesis (Hoffer 1999: 55-92; Méthy 2007: 142-51; Lefèvre

2009: 50–60 and 106-9; Gibson and Morello 2012: 68-73; Ash 2013). However, while Pliny initially

focuses on Regulus’ immoral behaviour, I argue that he gradually becomes critical of his community

of social elites for supporting his nemesis’ behaviour as the ‘Regulus cycle’ progresses. It is this

criticism of his wider community, an aspect overlooked by scholars, which becomes a prominent and

significant theme in the cycle. In this paper, I will argue that Pliny's initial criticism of his community

in the 'Regulus cycle' is accentuated through intertextual allusions to Demosthenes’ On the Crown and

Cicero’s Verrine Orations. I believe these intertextualities emphasise that Pliny's criticism of his

community is particularly significant and that his fellow social elite's directly support immorality in

society.

In Epistles 2.20, a letter dedicated to Regulus' stealing of inheritances, Pliny explicitly criticises his

community for rewarding immoral men: Ἀλλὰ τί διατείνομαιin ea civitate, in qua iam pridem non minora praemia, immo maiora nequitia et improbitas quam pudor et virtus habent? (2.20.12) This is

Pliny's first hint that his community are complicit in his rival’s actions. Yet the line is even more

remarkable because it contains two intertextual allusions. Firstly, Pliny’s use of Classical Greek is an

allusion to Demosthenes’ On the Crown: τί οὖν ταῦτ᾽ἐπήραμαι καὶ διετεινάμην οὑτωσὶ σφοδρῶς

(142). Whitton claims Pliny employs this intertextuality to align his epistolary skill with Demosthenes’

oratorical genius as he concludes Book 2 (Whitton 2013: 279). However, it is important to recognise

that this letter’s conclusion, and so the closing of Book 2, also draws attention to Pliny’s criticism of

his own community. This intertextuality to Demosthenes emphasises that the community’s role in

supporting Regulus is a particularly significant aspect of the Regulus narrative and worth highlighting

as Pliny closes Book 2.

Pliny's intertextual allusion to Cicero's Verrine Orations is clear: quod ad tuam ipsius amicitiam ceterorumque hominum magnorum atque nobilium faciliorem aditum istius habet nequitia et audacia

quam cuiusquam nostrum virtus et integritas? (2.3.7) As Whitton has argued, Pliny alludes to Cicero

to show that he too is a lone fighter against immoral men and the corrupt society (Whitton 2013:

279).Yet despite being one of the very few scholars to address this intertextuality, Whitton does not

explore its wider implications. While Regulus and Verres (corrupt governor of Sicily) are both

immoral, the main significance of this intertexuality is to highlight the community’s support of both

men. While Cicero criticises high ranking men such as Hortensius (Verres’ defendant) for being more

likely to support unprincipled men such as Verres rather than good men, Pliny similarly complains that

his community rewards immoral men such as Regulus. This intertexuality is therefore explicit in

emphasising that Pliny’s own community supports immorality in society.

Risus et indignatio: Scoptic Elements in Pliny’s Letters

Margot NEGER (Salzburg)

According to ancient epistolary theory, letters are a conversation between friends and a means to keep

the friendship alive between individuals. Pliny the Younger’s collection of private letters conforms to

this idea in multiple respects. Nevertheless, we also encounter letters with scoptic elements where the

epistolary speaker alludes to literary predecessors from the iambic and scoptic tradition or even shows

his hostility against certain individuals. This is mainly the case in political, forensic and literary

contexts. Already the beginning of Book 1 evokes the tradition of iambic χολή when Pliny paints a

negative portrait of M. Aquilius Regulus in Epist. 1.5 and in this context refers to his ira against the

former delator (irascebar). The same letter quotes mutual invectives between Regulus and members of

the so-called Stoic opposition: Whereas Regulus called Arulenus Rusticus Stoicorum simiam and

Vitelliana cicatrice stigmosum, Mettius Modestus mocked him as omnium bipedum nequissimus in a

letter. In the following letter (1.6), Tacitus is imagined as laughing (1: ridebis, et licet rideas), a

reaction not only elicited by the topic of the same letter but maybe also by the scoptic content of the

previous letter 1.5. Another individual whom Pliny disparages is Pallas, the libertus a rationibus under

the emperor Claudius. Pliny expects risus and indignatio as appropriate reactions to the letters about

the inscription on Pallas’ tombstone and the senatus consultum according to which Pallas was to be

honoured with 15 million sesterces and the insignia praetoris (7.29; 8.6). Another instance where

Pliny presents himself as indignant is Epist. 4.25 on the inappropriate behaviour of a Roman senator

during a secret election. By showing himself as dicax et urbanus et bellus the anonymous senator

reminds us of the poet Suffenus whom Catullus mocks in c. 22. A more playful variation of the iambic

idea can be found in letter 5.10 to Suetonius, where the epistolographer summons his addressee to

finally publish his writings which had already been announced in Pliny’s hendecasyllabi. By jestingly

threatening Suetonius that he would use invective in case his flattering hendecasyllabi were

ineffective, Pliny alludes to Catullus’ c. 42 by both reversing the poem’s line of thought and

suppressing its obscene elements. Pliny, it seems, does not exclude himself from satirical attacks: In

letter 9.34 he describes himself as lacking talent when it comes to reciting his poems (1: audio me

male legere) and thus provides an epistolary version of scoptic epigrams on recitations (Mart. 1.38.2:

sed male cum recites; cf. 2.88; 8.76). As apparent from letter 4.14, Pliny’s poems too contained

scoptic elements (3: his iocamur, ludimus…irascimur) but, in contrast to Catullus and Martial, did not

make use of verba nuda (4: quae nos refugimus). Consequently, the quotation from Catullus’ c. 16 in

the same letter is deliberately stripped off its obscene lines.

By discussing these and other examples, the paper wants to show how Pliny alludes to the scoptic

tradition and adapts the invective and satirical potential of his models to the conventions of the

epistolary genre.

Putting Pallas out of Context: Pliny on the Roman Senate Voting Honours to a Freedman (Epist. 7.29; 8.6)

Jakub PIGON (Wroclaw)

In these two letters addressed to a certain Montanus, Pliny’s focus is on the once powerful imperial

freedman Pallas. Pliny accidentally came across Pallas’ tomb inscription and, intrigued by what he has

read (7.29), he took the trouble to trace a senatorial decree referred to in the titulus (8.6). The second

and much longer letter is, in fact, a sentence-by-sentence commentary on the decree which the senators

voted to express their utmost praise of the freedman’s singularis fides and industria. Pliny voices his

indignation at the senators’ debasement but, crucially, does not give any details about the reasons and

circumstances of honouring Pallas. The whole story reads like a once-upon-a-time parable, and even

‘Caesar’ (who is mentioned several times in the letter) is not identified as the emperor Claudius.

Evidently, Pliny did not deem it advisable to consult his uncle’s historical work in order to learn more

about the context of the decree (it is highly probable that Pliny the Elder discussed the matter: see HN

35.201). My aim in this paper is to try to explain Pliny’s treatment of the decree; the possibility is

considered that Pliny’s reticence about the historical context of the senate’s action is somehow

connected with Tacitus’ historiographical project (the historian is the addressee of the very next letter

in Book 8).

Corinthian Bronzes and Vases from Pliny the Elder to Pliny the Younger:

Private and Public Luxury and Models of Behaviour in the Light of a Passage by Cicero.

Stefano ROCCHI (Munich)

Using the example of the Corinthian bronzes, the paper aims at investigating how the encyclopaedist

and the epistolographer dealt with luxury items. I analyse two famous passages from the Naturalis

historia on the Corinthian bronzes (34.6-7 and 48) and two references to the same material in Pliny the

Younger’s third book (3.1.9 and 3.6) and discuss the treatment of the topic within the frame of the

Roman debate on private and public luxury. After proposing a new interpretation of one of Pliny the

Elder’s passages (esp. 34.7), I discuss possible intertextual references made by both the Flavian

authors to Cicero’s speech de signis against Verres (II 4.98). At the end I show how Cicero’s

moralistic remarks on dealing with luxury items such as bronze statues and vessels propound a model

of behaviour to Pliny the Younger as a donor of a bronze statue to his home town, Comum.

The epistolary echo chamber:

Aspects of intertextuality and quotation in the correspondence of Pliny with Trajan

Meike RÜHL (Osnabrück)

This paper adopts a rather unusual approach to intertextuality, for it is not about literary allusion or

intertext, but about what, at first, only appears to be a pragmatic form of intertextual relationship:

Book 10 of Pliny’s letters is one of the few examples preserved in Latin literature, where both sides of

an epistolary communication exist and where each of Trajan’s letters is built upon a preceding letter

written by Pliny.

However, until now the main focus concerning book 10 has been on the imperial and Flavian ideology

supported, on provincial and administrative matters discussed or on the question as to whether this

book of letters was intentionally published and by whom.

Instead, my paper will draw attention to the specific items of an epistolary exchange: Due to the fact

that these letters seemed to be part of the official correspondence between the provincial governor and

the emperor over a very long spatial and temporal distance, Trajan’s answers generally repeat parts of

Pliny’s letters (sometimes word by word, sometimes rather summarily). He originally did so, to be

sure, for practical purposes, that Pliny could easily remember what he asked for and the problem on

which the actual letter focuses. Yet, when the ongoing correspondence was published as a collection,

these simple reminders turned into a form of intertextual relationship. – Nowadays, the reader can

have a look at both letters at the same time. Therefore, the main purpose of my paper is to consider the

effects this kind of intertextuality generates:

First of all, I would like to concentrate on the images formed by the governor asking and the emperor

answering (why it is always in this sequence and not Trajan demanding and Pliny obeying?), to what

degree Trajan quotes Pliny and how is this connected with the kind of answer (positive or negative) he

gives.

Second, my paper will address items which arise a second or third time in Pliny’s enquiries and

requests and which form another type of intertextuality within the book.

‘Pliny: a reverse Ovid?’

Emilia SAVVA (Oxford)

The paper will address the (unexplored, as of yet) intertextuality between Ovid’s exile poetry and

Pliny’s Epistles, especially (however not limited to) book 10. Pliny’s debt to Ovid, or at least his

engagement with the content and context of Ovid’s Ex Ponto can be already traced in Pliny’s

demonstrated choice of the arrangement of the epistles within his epistolary corpus: his bold statement

in 1.1 for the casual disposition of his letters may be read as an allusion to Ovid’s similar claim in

Pont. 3.9.51-4. This alleged informality can be regarded as an audacious step on behalf of Pliny:

Ovid’s poetic nugae have, in a way, been transformed into prosaic nugae (with a quasi poetic

approach); Pliny had just applied to his Epistles one of the fundamental principles of the neoteric book

design. Pliny’s entanglement in Ovid’s exile poetry can also be seen in the shared content of Tristia 1

and Pliny’s Ep. 10.15-18: upon careful examination, the latter are an abbreviated counterpart to the

former. There is a shared context in both Ovid’s exilic poetry and Pliny’s Epistles: that is, the

environment which forms the literary inspiration, i.e. the Black Sea area: Pliny’s journey eastwards

and Ovid’s exile to Tomis virtually define a common ground; however, the tone of Pliny’s Epistles is

utterly different. There is a marked difference in the way Pliny colours his report of his journey to the

Black Sea, if compared with Ovid’s account. There is no longing of Rome, or even news from Rome,

but a mere focus on the tasks at hand instead. Pliny’s relationship with Trajan is also worth exploring:

over the course of books 1-9, there is no address to the emperor; we only reach book 10 for a direct

epistolary interchange between Trajan and Pliny; there, Pliny demonstrates himself as ‘the successful

agent of a friendly emperor’. On the contrary, Augustus’ presence in Ovid’s Ex Ponto is highly

indirect; sustained yet cryptic allusions to his imperial persecutors, the princeps and the imperial

family, mark Ovid’s poetic map of exile. I will attempt to follow the complexities of this apparently

fascinating intertextual relationship between Pliny and Ovid.

A busy day in Rome. Pliny meets Horace

Ábel TAMÁS (Budapest)

In my presentation, I aim to discuss Pliny’s Ep. 1.9 as an intertextual recycling of Horace’s Sat. 1.9. In

this epistle, as I will argue, Pliny makes use of the numerology encoded in the numbering of his letters

(as he does in Ep. 1.3, alluding to Hor. Ep. 1.3, see Marchesi, The Art of Plinys Letters, 33), and in his

1.9, he gives us a ‘new Sat. 1.9’ in epistolary form.

The question ‘quid agis?’ of the interlocutor, who destroys the day of the Horatian satiric ego

walking on the Via Sacra, here changes into the question ‘quid egisti?’ posed by the Plinian addressee

or implied reader, imagined as listening to Pliny’s complaints on his busy day in the city and his

praises of the rustic otium. Accordingly, we can read the satire-as-epistle as echoing the Horatian

narrative with Pliny as Horace and the Addressee as ‘the Pest’ (or vice versa, as I will argue based on

the Plinian use of the second-person singular), and thus representing the inanis discursus of the

metropolis itself, where you disturb others and are disturbed by them at the same time. This can be

understood as an ‘intertextual intrusion’ into Horace’s (urban) tranquillity, problematizing the cast of

characters in Sat. 1.9 retroactively by posing the implied question: ‘Horace, haven’t you been a Pest

for the Pest?’

While Horace’s Sat. 1.9 is based on the paradox that, in order to be a true satirist, ‘Horace’ has

to immerge himself in the city life which, simultaneously, violates his autonomy both as a person and

as a poet, Pliny is in the comfortable position of being able to separate his life into urban negotium and

rustic otium. His letter-writing activity, as part of the latter, is thus strongly divided from his busy

day(s) in Rome, and, therefore, his Ep. 1.9 suggests that Sat. 1.9’s Horace has been a victim of the

satiric genre; Pliny, in contrast, can be entirely free from the city’s disturbing effects as the writer of

this letter. Living the metropolitan life, on the other hand, seems to be a literary activity in his 1.9:

when Pliny walks in Rome, he cannot dissociate himself from Horace’s walk, and when he writes on

his busy day(s) in Rome, he or his letter is being ‘intruded’ by Horace. From this perspective, it is

Pliny whose (rustic) tranquillity is being disturbed in this epistle: Horace, or his anonymous

interlocutor, is talking to him, or to us, through his mouth. Rome’s inanis discursus is taking place in

the epistle itself.

Intertextuality in Pliny’s Letter on the Death of Silius Italicus (Plin. Ep. 3.7)

Spyridon TZOUNAKAS (Cyprus)

For many centuries Silius Italicus’ reputation has been affected by Pliny’s comments in his

famous obituary of the epic poet (Plin. Ep. 3.7). In the first part of this letter Pliny refers to Silius’

illness and the way of his death, to his damaged reputation because of his political connections to

Nero, to his writings and everyday life, but in the second part he speaks more generally and focuses on

the shortness of human life and the need for prolonging our passing moments by literary works.

The example of Xerxes’ tears for the loss of many thousands of soldiers in so short a time,

told by Herodotus (7.45) and recalled by Seneca in his De Brevitate Vitae (17.2), dominates in the

second part of Pliny’s letter. The employment of this story as well as some other indications have led

Henderson (2002: 118-22) to argue persuasively for a Senecan influence on this letter. In this paper,

building upon Henderson’s suggestion, I investigate further allusions to Seneca’s Dialogi and

especially to his De Brevitate Vitae and argue that these allusions implicitly facilitate Pliny’s intention

to denigrate Silius’ posthumous reputation. In this way, apart from associating Silius with the

Neronian period and implying his political connections, Pliny urges his readers to judge Silius’

personality through the lens of Stoicism and realize an inconsistency between Silius’ un-Stoic way of

life and his decision to starve himself to death, which implies commitment to Stoicism. An intertextual

allusion to Cicero’s Epistulae ad Familiares through the use of the Greek word φιλόκαλος seems to

facilitate Pliny’s intentions even further. At the same time, the citation of Hesiod’s famous phrase

ἀγαθὴ δ’ ἔρις could be seen as another apposite choice, since it helps Pliny to protect himself from

possible accusations of mistreating Silius’ image. At the same time valuable conclusions could be

drawn, if we co-examine Ep. 3.7, addressed to Caninius Rufus, with other letters addressed to the

same person.

Reading for Letters in Pliny

Ari ZATLIN (New York)

The expanded interest in intertextuality in Pliny’s Letters over the past twenty years has

enlivened the corpus and rightly turned focus to the sophistication with which Pliny engages

historiography, oratory, philosophy, and poetry. However, I contend that these investigations of

generic interaction have on the whole elided an understanding of Pliny’s Letters qua letters. This is not

to say that scholars have ignored specific interfaces between any given Plinian epistle and one of Ovid

or Seneca, but rather that the significance that these intertextual meetings take place within a letter has

been largely ignored. In this paper, I seek to redress this oversight by shining a light back on the

epistolary nature of Pliny’s Letters by investigating how this aspect of their composition necessarily

informs and tinges their contact with other literary genres. Most essentially, I ask (and hope to answer)

what are the effects of inscribing letters with other generic elements, how the use of the epistolary

form as an intertextual bridge represents a unique hermeneutic challenge, and finally (though of course

speculatively), why Pliny may have opted for such a path.

To aid in answering these questions, I borrow from Janet Altman’s influential Epistolarity:

Approaches to a Form, which while focused on narratological elements within fictional letter

collections nevertheless offers fruitful models of analysis. Altman gives particular attention to the

“weight” of the addressee/reader in the generation of the text, and sees the epistolary form as unique in

making the narratee almost as determinant a factor in narrative construction as the writer. In this paper,

I confine my remarks to two generic categories: historiography and poetry, particularly verse

compositions for which Pliny relates a performance or critical reception. With both genres, I contend

that Pliny employs the epistolary form to highlight ways in which readers fail, whether by interpreting

historic events incorrectly, celebrating individuals for the wrong reasons, behaving incorrectly at

recitations, or forgetting altogether works of otherwise canonical authors. The letter, existing as it does

as a tenuous bridge between past and present, near and far, and writer and reader, stands as a kind of

“formative” text that both explores and embodies the tensions within it. This paper thus brings to the

fore the fundamental epistolarity of Pliny’s Letters, and seeks to prioritize the letter form in

intertextual analysis.

Selected Bibliography

Altman, Janet. Epistolarity: Approaches to a Form. Ohio State University Press, 1982.

Landy, Joshua. How to Do Things With Fictions. Oxford University Press, 2012.

Marchesi, Ilaria. The Art of Pliny’s Letters. A Poetics of Allusion in the Private Correspondence.

Cambridge University Press, 2008.