Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PLINYS PRAISE
Plinys Panegyricus (100 ce) survives as a unique example of senatorial
rhetoric from the early Roman empire. It offers an eyewitness account
of the last years of Domitians principate, the reign of Nerva and Tra-
jans early years, and it communicates a detailed senatorial view on
the behaviour expected of an emperor. It is an important document
in the development of the ideals of imperial leadership, but it also
contributes greatly to our understanding of imperial political culture
more generally. This volume, the rst ever devoted to the Panegyricus,
contains expert studies of its key historical and rhetorical contexts, as
well as important critical approaches to the published version of the
speech and its inuence in antiquity. It offers scholars of Roman his-
tory, literature and rhetoric an up-to-date overview of key approaches
to the speech, and students and interested readers an authoritative
introduction to this vital and under-appreciated speech.
paul roche is Senior Lecturer in Latin at the University of Sydney.
He has published a number of articles and chapters on the literature
and history of the early Roman empire, and has a particular focus on
politics and public imagery in Domitianic and Trajanic Rome. He is
the author of Lucan, De Bello Civili Book 1: A Commentary (2009)
and the editor (with W. J. Dominik and J. G. Garthwaite) of Writing
Politics in Imperial Rome (2009).
PLINYS PRAISE
The Panegyricus in the Roman World
edited by
PAUL ROCHE
University of Sydney
cambri dge uni versi ty press
Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town,
Singapore, S ao Paulo, Delhi, Tokyo, Mexico City
Cambridge University Press
The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge cb2 8ru, UK
Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York
www.cambridge.org
Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9781107009059
c
Cambridge University Press 2011
This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception
and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements,
no reproduction of any part may take place without the written
permission of Cambridge University Press.
First published 2011
Printed in the United Kingdom at the University Press, Cambridge
A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication data
Plinys praise : the Panegyricus in the Roman world / edited by Paul Roche.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and indexes.
isbn 978-1-107-00905-9
1. Pliny, the Younger. Panegyricus. 2. Pliny, the Younger Literary style.
3. Speeches, addresses, etc., Latin History and criticism. 4. Praise in literature.
5. Rome Politics and government 30 b.c.284 a.d. Historiography.
I. Roche, Paul. II. Title: Panegyricus in the Roman world.
pa6640.z5p58 2011
876
x
,
; a nal
by
denotes overlapping rhythmical closes. For more detail see Hutchinson (1995); cf. Fedeli (1989a)
4201.
2
Ep. 3.13.4 on shade commending light suggests the superior importance of elevation there.
125
126 g. o. hutchinson
idea has been loaded with vast, and shifting, signicance from the seven-
teenth to the twenty-rst centuries. Some overlapping sources of sublime
experience have been: art; nature; historical events; human nobility; the
divine. Events have become particularly important in recent discussion,
with huge and spectacular atrocities creeping into the place of nature, so
important in the eighteenth century; overwhelming shock and horror at
these extraordinary events are seen as sublime emotions. Events and nobil-
ity are combined in the question of the sublime in politics. So National
Socialism is held to have aimed at a sublime and anti-rational effect. It has
been argued that for Michelet in the nineteenth century the Terror of the
French Revolution produced a false sublime. Less a matter of projected
image is the sublimity for Schiller of freedom and struggles for freedom.
All this will prove of interest for the Panegyricus.
3
A relation between politics, history and sublimity is evident in much
ancient discussion. Longinus, whenever he is writing, introduces a philoso-
pher to argue that sublimity requires the great men whom democracy can
nurse: freedom encourages both the aspirations of the great-minded (:c
gpcvnuc:c :cv ut,ccgpcvcv) and competition for oratorical emi-
nence. Imperial rule is contrasted, so the reference (44.3, 5) to just slavery
suggests; competition perhaps especially evokes the fourth century bce.
Maternus in Tacitus Dialogus presents a related view. The tumult of the
Greek fourth, or the Roman rst, century bce is formally viewed as unde-
sirable; but it kept Demosthenes (?) from any low utterance (36.1), and
left oratory tanto altior et excelsior | (all the higher and loftier, 37.8). The
amplitudo (importance) of events made Demosthenes and Cicero great
(37.6; cf. Ann. 4.32). Cicero implies the Philippics show a otuvc:tpc, et
tci:isc:tpc, (grander and more politically minded) Demosthenes than
his law-court speeches (Att. 2.1.3; cf. Orat. 111, Ad Brut. 2.3.4). A relation
between politics and sublimity in a speech on the emperor who allegedly
restored freedom seems eminently plausible.
4
This is the moment to look more closely at the idea of sublimity in Pliny.
He uses terms of height, size and divinity to express what we might call an
3
The sublime and Nazism: Hoffmann (2006) 2523; Michelet: Peyrache-Leborgne (1997) 3945;
Schiller: Barone (2004) esp. 21519. Events: Ray (2005) e.g. 5, 10; Shaw (2006) 12030. More widely
(often with discussion of Longinus):
Zi zek (1989); Asheld and de Bolla (1996); Hartmann (1997);
Frank (1999); Zima (2002); Gilby (2006); Till (2006).
4
Bartsch (1994) 2046 discusses the relation of Longinus 44 and Maternus; but Heath (1999) radically
places Longinus in the third century ce. Hermog. Id. 1.9 pp. 2667 Rabe involves political freedom
in the splendour (cutpc:n,) of Dem. 18.208; cf. Long. 16.2. For Tac. Dial. 36.1, cf. G ungerich
(1980) 156, and note Quint. Inst. 10.1.7680. Panegyricus and Dialogus: Bru` ere (1954); G ungerich
(1956); Brink (1994) 2659; Mayer (2001) 235; Woytek (2006) 11556; but Tacitus priority has not
in my view been established.
Politics and the sublime in the Panegyricus 127
elevated element in oratory. Ep. 9.26 contains his longest discussion. Here
it seems that he is particularly concerned with expression: the quotations
from Demosthenes are not all marked by elevation of content. But the
magnicence of Demosthenes political stance, and to some degree of
Aeschines, is not readily excluded; and the aesthetic risk run by the orator is
also seenas sublime. Sublimity contains anelement that goes beyondmerely
grandiose utterance: it involves an artistically triumphant trespassing of
boundaries. Demosthenes and Ciceros daring (8 audeat, 9 audacia; contra
13 timidum) is not simply daring to be like poetry (cf. 8 minus audeat: as
if Cicero dared less than poets!). Since the risk is of aesthetic disaster, ne
judgement is relevant, as it would not be in nature: the focus of the ancient
category is particularly on art. But it is clear that within art nobility and
events are sources of the sublime for Pliny. So in Ep. 8.4 the elata . . . materia
(exalted subject matter), which requires the poet Caninius to rise high,
is Trajans Dacian campaign; its greatness includes the king pulsum regia,
pulsum etiam uita . . . nihil desperantem (driven from his court, driven from
his life, but never despairing, Ep. 8.4.2). This moral elevation in the midst
of external collapse, captured too in Trajans Column, will translate into
sublime poetry, if Caninius can match its level and vastness. The idea
of daunting challenge shows that more than mere dignity of language is
required.
5
Demosthenes is central in Ep. 9.26, and a crucial model for Pliny: cf.
1.2 (other end of the series), 6.33.11, 7.30.5. Demosthenes 18, like Ciceros
Second Philippic and In Pisonem, must be a signicant overall model for
a speech contrasting a good and a bad gure, even if the Panegyricus
detailed intertextuality is built mainly from Latin, as often in this period.
At all events, Demosthenes 18 makes a rewarding comparison with Plinys
strategy of the sublime, especially in its treatment of Aeschines. Demo-
sthenes Aeschines to some degree embodies attempts at grandeur which
are aesthetically unsuccessful and politically deceptive: he is :c0 otuvcc-
,cu :cu:cui (this speaker of grand words, 18.133, cf. 19.255), followed
by c,pic oo:nvc utt:noc, (having practised your wretched little
speeches; cf. also 18.258). His words are ttcyt, (ponderous as well
as tiresome, 18.127), full of tragic and moral bombast (127), from the
5
On the Dacian War and its context see Stefan (2005); more briey: G azdac (2002), 202. The death
of Decebalus is scene cxlv on Trajans Column (Lepper and Frere (1988) 1767; Settis (1988) 526;
Coarelli (2000) 215); the theme is widely diffused on pottery, including lamps (Stefan (2005) 692).
For sublimity and elevation in Ep. 9.26 and elsewhere, cf. Quadlbauer (1958) esp. 1079 (I could not
see Quadlbauer (1949), but cf. Fedeli (1989a) 418); Cova (1966) esp. 3747, 1415; Picone (1977) esp.
7283; Armisen-Marchetti (1990); Hutchinson (1993) esp. 1215; Cugusi (2003); Delarue (2004).
128 g. o. hutchinson
tcponuc, pn:cp (counterfeit speaker, 242). But he is above all an
embodiment of lowness and uispcuyic (little-mindedness, 279), striv-
ing maliciously and jealously (121, 279, 303) against the noble and upright
policies and character of Demosthenes. Demosthenes policies are not,
unlike Aeschines, :cttivcv or :, tctc, vicv (low or unworthy
of the city, 18.108, cf. 178).
6
Plinys Domitian is a very different gure. Not that he has Philips
ut,ccuyic (greatness of mind, Dem. 18.67). He presents, within the
speech, a substantial and false attempt to attain sublimity. He aimed at
a fearsome divinity; 52.7 shows sacrices of (a large part of ) ingentes
hostiarum greges | (mighty herds of victims), intended for Jupiters temple,
at Domitians statue:
cum saeuissimi domini | atrocissima efgies | tanto uictimarum| cruore coleretur |
quantum ipse humani sanguinis
coniungeres |
(Plin. Pan. 14.1)
when you joined Rhine and Euphrates to unite in wonder at you
omnia haec tam prona tamque cedentia uirtutibus tuis sentiet, | ut subsedisse
montes, | umina exaruisse, | interceptum mare, | inlatasque sibi non classes
nostras sed terras ipsas arbitretur. | (Plin. Pan. 16.5)
[such a king] will perceive all these things yielding so readily to your powers that
he will think the mountains have sunk, the rivers have dried, the sea has been
diverted, that not our ships but our very land has been brought against him.
magnicum, Caesar, et tuum| disiunctissimas terras | municentiae ingenio uelut
admouere, | immensaque spatia liberalitate contrahere . . . | (Plin. Pan. 25.5)
It is a magnicent action, and your kind of action, Caesar, to move most remote
lands here, as it were, by your brilliant generosity, and to draw huge spaces together
by your municence . . .
post haec, si uolet, Nilus amet alueum suum | et uminis modum seruet. | (Plin.
Pan. 31.4)
From now on, the Nile, if it chooses, can hug its channel and keep the limits
expected of a river.
9
Divinity is in antiquity a fundamental source of the sublime. Longinus
is particularly interested in the sublime infringement of the boundary
between mortal and god (1.2, 8.2, 9.7, 16.2 (quoting Dem. 18.208)). Pliny
of that praise, or it is to be seen as making truly points which earlier praise had made falsely
(cf. p. 135 below).
9
Danube and Euphrates on Trajans coinage: RIC nos. 100, 642 (plates 8.142, 11.191); BMCRE
nos. 3959 (plate 15.6), 103340 (plate 42.4); Belloni nos. 108, 466 (plates 5 and 24), Banti (1983)
nos. 2831; Richier (1997) 6012, 605 (plates 3.2, 3.4). Rhine on Domitians coinage: RIC no. 362
(cf. Stat. Theb. 1.19 on Rhine and Danube). Cf. also Opp. Hal. 2.6789. For Pan. 12.34 note the
paradoxographical [Arist.] Mir. 846b2932.
Politics and the sublime in the Panegyricus 131
himself presents an approach to that boundary as sublime in Ep. 9.26.4,
13 dis maris proximus | (the helmsmen who masters stormy seas is held to
be very close in rank to the gods of the sea). This takes us at once to
the beginning of the Panegyricus (quod . . . pulchrius munus deorum | quam
castus et sanctus | et dis simillimus princeps? | what lovelier gift of the gods
is there than a pure and upright princeps, very like the gods?, 1.3; cf. 7.5).
The last phrase strikingly advances and complicates the thought; the jump
from the preceding adjectives hints at an important point. Trajan does
not assert his own divinity; Domitian falsely asserted his own divinity;
Pliny truly asserts Trajans near-divinity, and implies his future divinity. It
is through Plinys language that Trajan sublimely reaches the border; but
Trajans own restraint attains a special kind of sublimity through denying
sublimity. Nusquam ut deo, nusquam ut numini blandiamur | . . . hoc magis
excellit atque eminet, | quod unum [sc. se] ex nobis putat | nec minus hominem
se quam hominibus praeesse meminit | (under no circumstances let us atter
him as if he were a god or divine power . . . he excels (rises above) us all
the more because he thinks he is one of us and remembers he is a mortal
no less than he remembers it is mortals he is in charge of, 2.34). Excellit
atque eminet | suggests elevation (cf. 24.4).
10
Plinys words and Trajans thoughts play artfully around the theme, but
also suggest sublimity. In chapter 11
tu sideribus patremintulisti | non . . . non . . . non . . . sed quia deumcredis. | minus
hoc est cum t ab iis qui et sese deos putant. | sed licet illum aris puluinaribus
amine | colas, non alio magis tamen deum et facis et probas quam quod ipse talis
es. | (Plin. Pan. 11.23)
You brought your father to the stars not to . . . or . . . or . . . but because you think
he is a god. This is of less account when done by those who think themselves gods
too. But though you worship him with altars, gods couches and a priest, nothing
you do makes and proves him a god more than you being as you are.
quia deum credis | has an almost humorous simplicity; the swipe at
Domitian that follows uses simple language with aggressive irony. But after
the religious pomp of aris puluinaribus amine |, the nal talis es through
simple words conveys Trajans supreme greatness of character (cf. 27.1).
In 52.6, after the destruction of Domitians impious magnicence, we
learn that Trajan piously has thanks for his bonitas kindness directed to
Jupiter, not his own genius: illi debere nos | quidquid tibi debeamus, | illius
10
On Trajan and divinity in the Panegyricus cf. Bartsch (1994) 14; Braund (1998) 634; M ethy (2000)
397400. For the divine and the sublime (and otuvc:n, grandeur) cf. Hagedorn (1964) 303.
132 g. o. hutchinson
quod bene facias muneris esse qui te dedit | (you say that it is it to him we
owe whatever we owe to you: it is thanks to him who gave you that you
do well). The indicative dedit at the end suggests a move from Trajans
thought into Plinys. The simple language of te dedit, with no nobis, rises
into grandeur, made more sublime by the preceding renunciation and Tra-
jans understated bene facias. We can see the grandeur from 80.5, where
te dedit comes again, of Jupiter, but in an exalted passage where Trajan
is made Jupiters earthly equivalent, and likened to a swift star (cf. 35.5
of the sun, and also 19.1). In this passage Pliny pushes sublimely at the
limits he sets himself: o uere principis atque etiam dei curas | (ah! these are
truly the concerns of a princeps and even a god, 80.3). The uere in theory
applies to dei too, though etiam marks the stretching; the genitive permits
a mere comparison with a god, though the parallel with principis hints
towards an assertion. The exclamation connects the utterance to a surge
of emotion; the talia esse crediderim | (such things, I would think) com-
paring Trajans actions to Jupiters (80.4) locates the comparison in Plinys
subjectivity.
11
Events and nobility together take us to the heart of the paradoxical
sublime which Trajan embodies, a sublime based on his denial of the
sublime.
12
It is part of this paradox that apparently slight occurrences, as
well as historically momentous happenings, can be full of importance.
We may start, however, with Trajans crucial entry into Rome in 99 ce.
In the background stand Horaces depictions of Augustus returns, and
Ciceros proud portrayal of his own return and contrast with Pisos (Pis.
515, moving into attack on Pisos philosophical defence of his modestly
avoiding a triumph). Pliny exploits the imagery of height often used for
the sublime. Trajan, unlike other principes, was not carried in on mens
shoulders.
11
Cf. Pan. 4.34. In 78.4 it is the whole senates subjectivity; Pliny has just set noble action against
the brevity of life (78.2, cf. Dem. 18.97), and contrasted the false belief of some principes in their
own divinity. As to Jupiter, Trajan actually takes over Domitians most extreme coin-type, in which
he holds a thunderbolt: BMCRE
2
Domitian nos. 381, 410 (plates 75.8, 77.5), Trajan no. 825 (plate
30.4); Carradice (1983) 114, 144 (plate 10.4). For neither princeps will the type suggest identity with
Jupiter (there seem to me problems with the traditio fulminis alleged on the Beneventum arch, left
attic panel, city side (De Maria (1988) 131 and plate 11.1) and RIC Trajan no. 24950, BMCRE 4937
(plate 17.16)). For Jupiter as CONSERVATORI PATRIS PATRIAE protecting Trajan see RIC nos.
619, 643; BMCRE nos. p. 959,
p. 1013,
p. 1016; Belloni (1973) no. 130; Banti (1983) nos. 3941;
Fell (1992) 778 (cf. IOVI CONSERVATORI at e.g. BMCRE
2
Domitian no. 354 (plate 73.10)).
Poetry referring to Domitian guratively as Jupiter should be read with an awareness of genre and
tradition (cf. esp. Ovids exile poetry).
12
Cf. p. 131 above.
Politics and the sublime in the Panegyricus 133
tu sola corporis proceritate | elatior aliis et excelsior | non de patientia nostra |
quendam triumphum, | sed de superbia principum egisti. | (Plin. Pan. 22.2)
It was only the tallness of your body that made you higher and loftier than others;
you held a triumph, as it were, not over our passivity but over the arrogance of
principes.
His own natural height, without display, gives him a symbolic elevation;
he vanquishes pride, but in doing so gains a mental triumph.
13
Trajans rising above others is like that of allegorical abstractions, quasi-
divine but not separated from men: emines excellis ut Honor, ut Potestas,
| quae super homines quidem, hominum sunt tamen | (you rise above us
like Honour or Power, which, while they are above men, yet belong to
them, 24.4). Pliny has already brought in the laws as a comparison (for
the personication, cf. Dio Chrys. Or. 1.75, and note ut,ccgpcv, great-
minded). The nal thing that raises Trajan above the principes is libertas
(freedom, 24.5): politics and the republic are deeply involved in his ele-
vation. The concluding clause plays on apotheosis, with nely concrete
paradox: te ad sidera tollit humus ista communis | et confusa principis ues-
tigia (you are lifted to the stars by this ground which you share, and by
the footprints of the princeps mixed with those of others, 24.5). Joining
himself with humanity raises him to near-godhead. We may contrast the
Horatian uirtus (Virtue) which stands for Augustus and spernit humum
(scorns the ground, Hor. Carm. 3.2.24; cf. Virg. G. 2.4734). The passage
is also set against the triumph in which Trajan will be raised sublimem
(aloft, 17.2) over conquered enemies: but these are not Romans, and the
triumph is still (within the speech) in the speakers imagination. Trajan has
done something magnum. . . , magnum (great . . . , great, 16.2) precisely
by refusing to cross the boundary of the Danube and win a triumph.
14
The theme of height is similarly exploited in an incident which appears
of much less historic signicance. When Trajan had named the consular
candidates, he got down from his curule chair to ground level and kissed
13
Cf. proceritas corporis | (tallness of body) in 4.67. On the right attic panel, city side, of the arch
at Beneventum, Trajan is taller than the consuls, and the same height as the gods (De Maria (1988)
232, plate 11.2). This is evidence, as other panels show, not for the physical stature of Trajan but
for the symbolic signicance of height. On Trajans arrival cf. Roche (2003) 4334; it is depicted on
the Beneventum arch, city side, bottom pair of panels, De Maria (1988) 232, plate 10. For Plinys
treatment of Trajans ciuilitas cf. Braund (1998) 5868. Great battles are Demetrius rst instance of
magnicence (:c ut,cctpttt,) in subject matter (Eloc. 75).
14
On the last passage, cf. Belloni (1974) 111416. Plinys speech as it develops plays down (cf. Picone
(1977) 1801) the militarism so conspicuous in Trajanic sculpture. Despite Pan. 59.2, see De Maria
(1988) 295 and Palombi (1993) for the arch of RIC Trajan nos. 41920; BMCRE Trajan no. p. 733;
Banti (1983) nos. 3323 (100 ce).
134 g. o. hutchinson
them (71.1); the whole senates paradoxical cry tanto maior, tanto augustior |
(that makes you all the greater, all the more august, 71.4) is developed by
Pliny:
nam cui nihil ad augendum [augescendum coni. Hutchinson
15
] fastigium superest,
| hic uno modo crescere potest, si se ipse summittat | securus magnitudinis suae. |
(Plin. Pan. 71.4)
He who has got no summit left for growth can grow in only one way: lowering
himself, without fears for his greatness.
For principes need have no fear of humilitas (lowness; contrast 4.5, and
cf. Dem. 18.108, 178). The paradox is made vivid by the image in se ipse
summittat |; a grandiose ethos is imbued into it by securus magnitudinis
suae | (cf. 19.13). The senates cry recalls Nerva when he adopts Trajan:
repente solito maior augustiorque | (suddenly greater and more august than
usual, 8.3). The speech characteristically draws greatness from seemingly
limited material.
16
In 61 Pliny again focuses on a meaningful moment; he stresses his
subjective impression: equidem illum antiquum senatum| contueri uidebar |
(I, at least, thought I was beholding the famed senate of old, 61.1). A
consul designate awaiting his third consulship was asked his opinion when
another third consul (Frontinus) was present as well as Trajan. The moment
embodied Trajans generosity to others with the consulship: quanti tunc illi
quantusque tu! | (how great they were then, and how great were you!, 61.1).
In 61 the language of size and of height again mingle. Trajans gurative
height could have made others look less, like corpora quamlibet ardua et
excelsa procerioribus admota (bodies, however high and lofty, when brought
next to loftier ones, 61.2):
illos tamen tu, | quamquam non potuisti tibi aequare