Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T06:34:41.379Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Trajan's Replies to Pliny: Authorship and Necessity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

A. N. Sherwin-White
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

H. Peter briefly stated the reasonable opinion that Trajan did not draft the rescripts himself or manage the details of law and administration which they involve, that being the work of the secretary Ab epistulis. This widely accepted view was established on a firmer basis by the investigations of A. Henneman into the ‘outer and inner style’ of the rescripts. His general conclusion was that Trajan settled the more important problems himself from material prepared by his secretariat, by giving a verbal decision which the secretary worked up into the drafts which we have. These were written in a uniform chancery style, but personal interventions and comments of Trajan are recognizable within the formal texts. Henneman used two main arguments to establish the secretarial manner.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 52 , Issue 1-2 , November 1962 , pp. 114 - 125
Copyright
Copyright © A. N. Sherwin-White 1962. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Peter, H., ‘Der Brief in der römischen Litteratur,’ Abh. D. kön. sächs Akad. d. Wiss. phil.-hist. Klasse, xx (1903), 123.Google Scholar

2 Henneman, A., Der äussere und innere Stil in Traians Briefen (Diss. Giessen, 1935), 28–33.Google ScholarRangone, U., ‘Traianea I. La lingua e lo stile’, Studia Ghisleriana I, 1959, 243 ff.Google Scholar, who seems not to have read Henneman, reaches similar conclusions from a more superficial examination.

3 ibid. 33–7.

4 o.c. (n. 2) 3–18, 25–6.

5 Especially the terminal ‘ea fide quam tibi debeo’: 85, 86 A, 86 B. Also the formal wording of Epp. 35, 52, 100, 102, echoed in the replies.

6 ILS 5947 A. But cf. also Livy 40, 17, 1.

7 e.g. the rescripts of Vespasian, Domitian and Nerva in FIRA 72–7 and Ep. 58, 5–6; 10. Also McCrum and Woodhead, Select Documents of the Flavian Emperors nn. 442, 458.

8 Equity, in general, D. 48. 22. I; 49. 14. 13. Eutropius VIII, 4. Humanity in judicial matters, D. 48. 18. 1. 21; 48. 19. 5; 49. 14. 13. Severity, D. 28. 5. 10. I; 48. 18. I; 11–12. Care for troops, D. 2. 12. 9; 29. 1. 1, and 24. Pan. 18.

9 As Henneman noted, o.c. (n. 2).

10 See L. Vidman and others cited below, n. 26–7.

11 Below, p. 120, for a fuller discussion.

12 The curious suspicion of fire brigades, which lasted into the late empire, was already established before Pliny: ‘secundum exempla complurium.’ Cf. Jones, A. H. M., The Greek City from Alexander to Justinian (1940), 215Google Scholar, to which add Isidore, Orig. xx, 619.

13 In Ep. 40, 3, ad nos venire means ‘us at Rome’. In 62 ‘in usu nobis futurus sit (sc. lacus)’ refers to the province or the empire but not to Pliny.

14 Ep. 42, I, ‘potest nos sollicitare lacus iste ut committere illum mari velimus.’ 71 ‘possumus area … uti’ refer to joint decisions of Trajan and Pliny.

15 Cf. Henneman, o.c. (n. 2) 38 f.

16 Possibly this is an addition to the original draft, but whether by the secretary or, as seems more probable, by Trajan cannot be determined.

17 It is impossible to believe the implication of SHA ‘Commodus’ 13, 6–7, that the emperors wrote their libelli and epistulae in their own hand. Cf. Hirschfeld, Verwaltungsbeamten, 327, n. 1; 328, n. 1.

18 Vidman, L., ‘Die Mission Plinius,’ etc. Klio 1959, 217 ff.Google Scholar

19 For mandata generally see P-W XIV, 1023, f. The limiting effect, in the sphere of foreign affairs, appears in Tacitus, Ann. XI, 19; XII, 48, 4; XV, 17, 2.

20 Vidman (a.c. 222) takes memor propositi tui in 43, 2, to refer to a mandatum. But in Ep. 82, I, the term is not used in this sense.

21 Epp. 23, 1; 90, 2; 98, 2. Cf. 70, 1. In 37, 3; 41, 1 and 5, a long rigmarole is used instead.

22 Ep. 39. In Ep. 49 the half-built forum at Nicomedia was not referred to Trajan, and the temple transfer only for legal advice. The long progress report in Ep. 39 was meant to justify his claim for technical advice. Below, p. 123.

23 Ep. 40, 1.

24 i.e. Epp. 15–17 A., 25–6; 35, 63–4, 67, 83–9, 94, 100–7. In Ep. 84 Trajan took the initiative in referring a certain arbitration at Nicaea to Pliny, who had not consulted him.

25 Epp. 108, 2; 112, 3. For the alternative cf. 72.

26 Ep. 65, 2. For the phenomenon see e.g. A. Cameron ‘Θρεπτοὶ and related terms’, Anatolian Studies presented to W. K. Buckler 27 f.

27 Volterra, , Studi Besta (Milan, 1937–1939) I, 450 ff.Google Scholar Notoriously many crimina extra ordinem were later treated very differently in different provinces, e.g. D. 47. 14. I, on abigei.

28 Ep. 31, 3: ‘reddere poenae post longum tempus … nimis severum arbitrabar.’ Ep. 96, 10: ‘si sit poenitentiae locus,’ etc.

29 Epp. 47, 92, 118 and 58–9.

30 Epp. 20, 2, ‘haereat nobis quam paucissimos a signis avocandos’; 22, 2; 78, 3. Cf. above, pp. 116, 120.

31 Ep. IV, 22, a question of municipal rules; VI, 31. 3. accusation of local notable (as in Ep. 58, 81), and 4–6, difficult point of criminal law, all referred from provinces to Rome.

32 Especially 40, 3, ‘modo ne existimes brevius esse ab urbe mitti.’

33 Cf. 31, 4; 47, 2; 56, 2, 5; 58, 3; 65, 3; 72; 92. In 79, 112, 114, the lex Pompeia is produced by municipal censors. For faulty copies, see 65, 3; 70, 4. The SC in Ep. 72 may have been made available from another source.

34 See below, p. 124.

35 SEG XVII, 755. A. G. Woodhead–M.McCrum, Select Documents, etc., nn. 457, 466.

36 Partly because he misunderstood Pliny's question—see below, p. 123.

37 Gaius, Inst. II, 2 and 6–7.

38 D. II. I. I. ILS 1792, transfer of a corpse from Cilicia to Rome, A.D. 130.

39 This must be reserved for my historical commentary on the Letters, to appear in due course.

40 On Ep. 82, 1, see below, p. 124.

41 ‘invitatio quae … modum excedit et quasi per corpora non viritim singulos … contrahit.’ The italicized words are Trajan's, or the secretary's—not taken from Pliny. Both agree that the offence of a ‘species διανομῆς’ is involved, which may be a heading of the mandatum about clubs. The term belongs to criminal law, Ep. 96, 4; 56, 4.

42 Epp. 30, 2; 69, 97, 99, 109, 111, 117. Only Ep. 69 absolutely manages without even meus; Ep. 84 is very impersonal but uses meus in the middle of the directive. Epp. 50 and 76 are excluded as using the direct address potes, dispice, etc.

43 ‘quia sciebam in urbe nostra ex eiusmodi causa collegium pontificum adiri solere, te … maximum pontificem consulendum putavi quid observare me velis.’

44 Epp. 39, 5. haec balinea refers to both the bath at Claudiopolis and the gymnasium at Nicaea. It is used in the singular by Pliny, Ep. 23, 1; 70, 1; 3. Cf. II, 17, 11; 26; V, 6, 27.

45 Ep. 39, 3 and 5. Pliny only proposed exaction in the latter case, nobis exigentibus. But 40, 1, exigi opera refers to the former.

46 Ep. 23, 2, suggested the transfer of an existing source of revenue.

47 Ep. 48, 1, ‘libellus … remisit mihi necessitatem perpendendi qualia essent … cum ipse ut eas inspiceres non recusaverint.’ This merely repeats what Pliny said about the libellus, 47, 1–2, which Trajan has certainly not done more than scan briefly.

48 l.c. 225.

49 For Trajan's intolerance one need only consult Pliny, Ep. VI, 22, 5; 31, 9–11; X, 38, 2; 57, 2. Ep. 40, 3, should not be counted here because the rebuke was due to a misunderstanding of Pliny's argument, above, p. 123.

50 Epp. 81–2.

51 VI, 31, 3.

52 Ep. 116–17.

53 Epp. 109, 113.

54 Epp. 40, 1; 76. Above, p. 123.

55 Epp. 43, 54, 118.

56 Cf. A. H. M. Jones, The Cities of the Eastern Provinces 165, for the city-list. Only Prusa, Nicaea, Nicomedia, Juliopolis, Claudiopolis, Apamea and Byzantium appear in Pliny.

57 The dates come at Ep. 17 A 2, 17th September; Ep. 52, 27th January; Ep. 88, second 17th September; Ep. 102, second 27th January. I have ignored the breaks at New Year's day for this count. The most recent discussion is in Pflaum, H. G., ‘Essai sur le cursus publicus,’ Mem. Ac. Insc. B. Lett. XIV (1940), 189 ff.Google Scholar

58 Epp. 108, 112, 114.

59 Epp. 92, 110.

60 Epp. 90, 98.

61 Epp. 116, 118, 120.