No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 May 2015
Pliny’s basic practice in Books i-ix was to introduce a single topic in each of his published letters, but this letter to Sempronius Rufus seems to include two items connected only by the chance appearance of Junius Mauricus in both anecdotes. The first concerns the presence of Pliny and Mauricus as members of a consilium principis, and was surely written soon after the event, since Pliny was very proud of consiliar attendance. The second concerns a dinner party given by Nerva at a time earlier than 104-105, the date of the letter
1 For a detailed discussion of this practice cf. Sherwin-White, A.N., The Letters of Pliny (Oxford, 1966), pp. 3–4,Google Scholar where this letter is not cited.
2 Described here and in vi 22, 31.
3 For the date of Book iv cf. Sherwin-White, , pp. 32–4, 298.Google Scholar
4 Pliny is cited from the text of Sir Roger Mynors, , Oxford, 1963.Google Scholar
5 His departure in each case was accompanied by vows of the fratres Arvales: for the acta cf. Smallwood, E.M., Documents … Nerva, Trajan and Hadrian (Cambridge, 1966),Google Scholar no. 1 (25 March 101); no. 3 (June 105). For his return in 99 cf. Dio lxviii 5. 4, and for that in 102 cf. Dio ib. 9.7.
6 Consilium Principis (Cambridge, 1955), p. 53.
7 Ad iv 22. 1, and cf. his review of Crook in JRS 47 (1957), 252–4.
8 For the reaction of conservative Romans to these Greek contests cf. Sherwin-White, , p. 331 (ad ivGoogle Scholar 22. 7). Pliny is patronizing in his treatment of Greeks, as is evidenced in Book x. Note also the tone of his advice to Maximus who was to be governor of Achaia (Ep. viii 24).
9 For the games of the Greek type cf. Friedlaender, L., Roman Life and Manners under the Early Empire (tr. from the 7th German edition) 2. 117–30,Google Scholar 351–3; iv. 263–70, 547–54. Later German editions add nothing important. Cf. also de Ruggiero, E., Diz. ep. 1. 363–5; Wissowa in RE ‘Capitolia’, s.v. and Hartke, ‘Neronia’, s.v..Google Scholar
10 Veiento was present when Pliny attacked Publicius Certus in the Senate (Ep. ix 13). This meeting probably occurred in December 96: Mattingly, H.B., Riv. stor. dell’ Ant. 2 (1972), 181–4.Google Scholar The anecdote in iv 22 should fall in 97, since Pliny in i 5. 15 implies that Mauricus was dilatory in returning from exile. The reference to a ter consul in 98 (Pan. 58. 1) has been applied to Veiento, but cf. Durry’s, M. ed. of the oration (Paris, 1938)Google Scholar ad loc. (‘inconnu’). For detail on Didius, A. Gallus Fabricius Veiento cf. McDermott, W.C., AJPh 91 (1970), 129–48Google Scholar (where AE 1952, 168 from Arles is assigned to Veiento); Jones, B.W., AJPh 92 (1971), 476–8;Google ScholarEck, W., ZPE 9 (1972), 259–76Google Scholar (where the inscription from Aries is assigned to M. Pompeius Silvanus); Bradley, K.R., AJPh 94 (1973), 172–81Google Scholar (on Veiento’s exile under Nero).
11 Cf. Durry, M. in Les empereurs romains d’Espagne (Paris, 1965), pp. 45–54.Google Scholar
12 The number of Flauiales is unknown. It had been assumed from an inscription of Bellicus, C. Natalis Tebanianus (ILS 1009)Google Scholar that there were 15, but W. Eck, op. cit. 274, assumed a lapse of the stonecutter and would read XVuir (sacris faciundis),(sodalis) Flauialium.
13 Cf. Sherwin-White, (73–5) for these dates.Google Scholar
14 McDermott (n. 10 above), 138 f.
15 Whittaker, C.R. in a note on Herodian 8 8.Google Scholar 3 questions this assignment of the games to June or July (Loeb ed. Vol. ii [1970], note 1 on pp. 302 f.)
16 Cf.Dio lxviii l4.19.
17 I plan to expand this topic in another context.
18 This same linking of these two favourites of Domitian occurs in Juvenal (iv 113).Pliny and Juvenal in this line condemn Veiento by innuendo. Elsewhere Juvenal’s references are hostile, but do not imply delation. The satirist parodies the religious interests of Veiento when he gives his sententia in council (iv 123–9). He is cited as an example of arrogance (iii 185). Eppia (Veiento’s wife?) spent a vacation in Egypt with a retired gladiator (vi 81–113). The anonymous author of the epitome de Caesaribus carried Pliny’s sentiment one step further (12.5): cf. McDermott, 147.
19 On these trials in 93 cf. Rogers, R.S., CPh 55 (1960), 19–23.Google Scholar