Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-tnzcf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T06:33:01.215Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The younger Pliny and Ammianus Marcellinus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Neil Adkin
Neil Adkin*
Affiliation:
University of Nebraska at Lincoln, nadkin@unlinfo.unl.edu
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The investigations of Fletcher and Owens have documented the breadth of Ammianus’ familiarity with Latin literature; however, neither scholar was able to demonstrate a debt to Pliny the Younger. At the same time Alan Cameron has shown that in the later fourth century the Letters of Pliny enjoyed a certain vogue. The issue of Ammianus’ knowledge of Pliny is discussed by Cameron on two occasions. The evidence he cites inclines him to the duly circumspect view that Ammianus may perhaps have been familiar with Pliny's Letters after all. The aim of the present note is to argue that the grounds which have so far been adduced for entertaining such a possibility would in fact appear to be inadmissible.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 48 , Issue 2 , December 1998, pp. 593 - 595
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1998

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 G. B. A. Fletcher, ‘Stylistic borrowings and parallels in Ammianus Marcellinus’, RPh 3rd ser. 11 (1937), 377–95; E. E. L. Owens, Phraseological Parallels and Borrowings in Ammianus Marcellinus from Earlier Latin Authors (unpubl. diss., London, 1958), who observes (p. 10): ‘Lucretius, Pliny the Younger and Juvenal seem not to have been employed at all by Amm.’ The issue of Ammianus' acquaintance with classical literature has recently been re–examined by Fornara C.W., Studies in Ammianus Marcellinus II: Ammianus' knowledge and use of Greek and Latin literature, Historia 41 (1992),420–38;however, he does not address the question whether Ammianus knew Pliny.

2 Cameron A.,‘The fate of Pliny's Lettersin the Late Empire’, CQ N.S. 15 (1965),289–98.

3 Cameron n. 2, 298 n. 2; id., ‘Pliny'sLettersin the Later Empire: an addendum’, CQ N.S. 17 1967, 421f, at 422

4 Cameron is quite right to discount the resemblance between Amm. 26.1.1 and Plin. Ep. 5.8.12, to which attention is drawn byEnsslin W, Zur Geschichtsschreibung und Weltanschauung des Ammianus Marcellinus Klip, Beiheft 16.3;Leipzig, 1923, p.18. Cameron observes that the idea is a commonplace. It might also be pointed out that the concerns of the two authors are different: whereas for Pliny the issue is the apportionment of praise ajy) blame, Axnaiianus is dealing with criticism for omitting trivia.

5 Schuster M., Plini C. Caectii Secundi Opera1 (Leipzig,1952), p.339.

6 Namely, Rufin, Ps.. In Psalm. 41.8. This work actually belongs to the early twelfth century;Wilmart cf. A., ‘Le commentaire sur les Psaumes imprime sous le nom de Rufinrsquo;, RBen 31 (1914–1915),258–76.Google Scholar

7 In the last section of this passage Theodoret, Hist. Eccl. 2.30.5, which serves as source, does not correspond exactly to the Latin text.

8 Reference may also be made to the Medieval Latin dictionaries, which provide further exemplification; Mittellateinisches Worterbuch cf.2.3 coll. 363.71–364.5;Fuchs J. W, Weijers O., and Gumbert M. (edd.), Lexicon Latinitatis Nederlandicae Medii Aevi (Leiden, 1981), 2 col. C224.37–44

9 Cautious endorsement is given byTrisoglio F., ‘Sant’Ambrogio conobbe Plinio il Giovane?', RSC20 (1972), 363–410, at 366 n. 18

10 In both Plinian passages the variant reading cunctatior is also found.

11 Here‘14.10.4’is an error for‘14.10.14’.

12 The result is an elegant cretic dichoree clausula; for its incidence in Pliny cf. Zielinski T., Das Clauselgesetz in CicerosReden Philologus, Supplementband 9;Leipzig, 1904, p.808

13 For Ammianus' habit of verbatim citation Owens cf.(n. 1), 33–6. The Plinian phrase would have provided an instance of the cursus velox; on Ammianus' fondness for this cadence cf. Oberhelman S.M., ‘The provenance of the style of Ammianus Marcellinus’, QUCC N.S. 27 (1987), 79–89, at 83

14 The latter passage has recently been discussed by Seager R.,‘ Ut dux cunctator et tutus: the caution of Valentinian (Ammianus 27.10)’, PLLS 9 (1996),191–6; despite its title the article does not deal with Ammianus' phraseology.

15 HereHeubner, H., Cornelius, P. Tacitus: Die Historien (Heidelberg, 1968), ii.107 andChilver, G. E. F., A Historical Commentary on Tacitus' Histories I and II (Oxford,1979), p.191 merely register the echo of Liv. 30.26.9 in cunctator natura; neither notes the collocation with cautus.Google Scholar

16 No evidence for Augustine's acquaintance with either the Younger Pliny or with Ammianus is supplied by H. Hagendahl, Augustine and the Latin Classics, 2 vols. (Göteborg, 1967).

17 Cf. Fletcher (n. 1), 383–6 (Livy); 388f. (Silius); 389–92 (Tacitus); Owens (n. 1), 194–6 (Livy); 2037 (Tacitus).