‘Pliny on the precipice (Ep., 9.26)’, in O. Devillers, ed. Autour de Pline le Jeune. En l’honneur de Nicole Méthy, Bordeaux (2015) 217-36. (original) (raw)
Related papers
AAnt 60, 2020
Literary self is an essential component of Pliny's self-representation. Pliny's literary self-portrait is shaped the way he wants it to be by a diverse set of literary techniques utilized in the letters. My paper explores the questions formulated in the letters that thematize the selection and composition of text, and the answers given to them (not necessarily in the form of assertive sentences). This interpretation is not independent from the self-representative character of the letters, yet, it exceeds it on the premise that another dimension may be opened to the understanding of the letters, which points towards the development of the literary and artistic taste of the first century, and its directions.
International Journal of the Classical Tradition, 2009
Recent considerations of the letters of Pliny the Younger have continued to focus on their content and particularly on the question of Pliny's self-promotion through that content. Ilaria Marchesi chooses a different and more difficult approach to the Epistulae, one that examines the collection as a literary object that Pliny has painstakingly constructed to secure a lasting place for his work within the canon of Latin literature. In order to do so effectively, Pliny's corpus must interact with its antecedents, alluding to them, redeploying their motifs, and thereby redefining genres to suit his own enterprise. Marchesi rightly sees Pliny's claim to an arbitrary arrangement of the letters as signaling his reliance on his poetic predecessors' careful arrangement of collections, and so it is natural that she begins her examination of intertextual allusion with poetry before proceeding to the more predictable genres of oratory, historiography and epistolography. In her subtle consideration of pairs or small groups of letters, she sees Pliny's interaction with earlier works as one of several structuring agents for the letter collection. The first chapter notes that the nature of Pliny's work invites sequential reading, while at the same time promoting paired and thematic reading-by addressee, situation or intertextual reference. Pliny rejects right away traditional letter arrangement-a signal that this is no ordinary book of letters. Furthermore, distribution of multiple letters to individual addressees throughout the corpus suggests even more alternative paths of reading the collection. Pliny's allusive agenda is apparent immediately in 1.2 and 1.3 with Vergilian allusions; the former directly quotes Aeneid 6.129 and invites its addressee to read and correct one of Pliny's speeches, while in the latter Marchesi sees a more subtle reference to the same Vergilian line, as Pliny recommends the fruits of literary retreat as a source of lasting fame. In one of many such observations that mark the complexity of Pliny's literary acumen, Marchesi further notes that the Vergilian allusion in 1.3 has already been redeployed by
The connection between oratory and power is further explored by Steven Rutledge (chapter 9), who along with William Dominik (chapter 24) challenges the view, sometimes asserted by the Romans themselves and hence by modern scholars, that oratory experienced a decline during the early imperial period. Rutledge and Dominik maintain that there were numerous opportunities for the pursuit of oratory under the emperors. As the discussions by Roger Rees (chapter 11) and Dominik (chapter 24) show, there is room for different views on the function and potential irony of imperial panegyric, and in such cases the approach taken in this volume is an inclusive one. Other important figures from this period are Tacitus and Pliny, treated by Dominik (chapter 24), and the elder Seneca, discussed by Bloomer (chapter 22) in his assessment of the influential Roman practice of declamation.
“Martial’s Pliny as Quoted by Pliny (Epist. 3.21)”, Classica et Mediaevalia 64 (2014) 247-268.
This article comments upon Pliny’s letter concerning the death of the poet Martial (Epist. 3.21) and examines the various ways this letter contributes to Pliny’s self-praise. It is suggested that the quoted part of an epigram that Martial had composed for Pliny (Mart. 10.19/20) is harmoniously incorporated in Pliny’s text and collaborates with the multiple allusions to the republican period (esp. Sallust) and the mos maiorum that are investigated in the rest of the letter. Thus the epistolographer gives new momentum to an earlier text and bestows himself with a portrayal from both a retrospective and a prospective point of view that facilitates his intention to achieve immortality.
Chapter 7, “Reading Pliny’s Panegyricus Within the Context of Late Antiquity and the Early Modern Period” by William J. Dominik, maintains that the reception of Pliny’s Panegyricus by writers of late antiquity and the early modern period not only demonstrates its critical, even seminal, role in the history of the genre of panegyric but also serves to illustrate the potential functions of the Panegyricus’s own narrative. The reception of Pliny’s Panegyricus reflects its formative role in the development of panegyric in late antiquity, as reflected in the Panegyrici Latini, and in the early modern periiod, as shown in the panegyrics of such writers as Erasmus and Dryden. Pliny’s Panegyricus seems to accord generally with the practice of imperial panegyric. As Dominik notes, the necessity of flattering emperors such as Tiberius, Gaius, Claudius, and Nero for fear of the consequences is well attested, for example, in Tacitus, whose comments on the use of praise during the empire are especially instructive for reading the Panegyricus. Dominik points out how other strategies available for reading Pliny’s Panegyricus are based upon the various functions of epideictic in the social, political, and literary contexts of the Greek and Roman worlds. One hitherto neglected approach to the reading of Pliny’s Panegyricus is the way in which manifestations of panegyric during late antiquity and the Renaissance suggest further possible functions of the Panegyricus’s narrative. Although the function of the Panegyricus is indisputably laudatory on the surface, Dominik argues that later reiterations of panegyric suggest other functions that can be applied to its narrative: ceremonial and celebratory; authorially self-positioning and self-positioning; exhortative and admonitory; and potentially admonishing and critical.