1. All translations of Pliny are from B. Radice's Penguin edition.

2. See Gamberini, F., Stylistic Theory and Practice in the Younger Pliny (Hildesheim, 1983), pp. 90–91 on the possible third bookGoogle Scholar .

3. Pliny also mentions writing while travelling in 9.10.2, although it is not clear if the ‘non nulla leuiora’ are the languishing poemata referred to two sentences later.

4. Gamberini (n. 2), p. 103; on olium and negotiant, pp. 103–9.

5. Gamberini (n. 2), p. 109.

6. Cf. Gamberini's qualification of the notion of Pliny, as a ‘neoteric’ at pp. 92, 111Google Scholar .

7. Ovid's blending of Callimachean and non-Callimachean practices in the Metamorphoses is a striking illustration of the complicated, sometimes politicized, sometimes depoliticized approach to Callimacheanism which developed in Roman poetry, a full consideration of which is beyond the scope of this paper; on Ovid's Callimacheanism see, e.g., Hofmann, H., ‘Ovid's Metamorphoses: carmen perpetuum, carmen deductum’;, PLLS 5 (1985), 223–41Google Scholar , Harries, B., ‘The spinner and the poet: Arachne in Ovid';s Metamorphoses’, PCPhS n.s. 36 (1990), 64–82Google Scholar , Wills, J., ‘Callimachean Models for Ovid's “Apollo-Daphne”’, MD 24 (1990), 143–56Google Scholar ; on Callimacheanism in Roman poetry in general, see, e.g., Wimmel, W., Kallimachos in Rom, Hermes Einzelschriften 16 (Wiesbaden, 1960)Google Scholar , Clausen, W., ‘Callimachus and Latin Poetry’, GRBS 5 (1964), 181–96Google Scholar , Kennedy, G. A. (ed.), The Cambridge History of Literary Criticism. Volume I: Classical Criticism (Cambridge, 1989), pp. 246–54Google Scholar .

8. On this distinction see, e.g., Dahlmann, H., ‘Varros Schrift, de poematis, und die hellenistischrömische Poetik’, Abh. Mainz 3 (1953)Google Scholar , Greenberg, N. A., ‘The Use of Poiema and Poiesis’, HSCPh 65 (1961), 263–89Google Scholar , Häussler, R., ‘Poiema und Poiesis’, in Wimmel, W. (ed.), Forschungen zur römischen Literatur (Wiesbaden, 1970), pp. 125–37Google Scholar .

9. Cf. the beginning of Sentius Augurinus' poem, recorded and praised by Pliny in 4.27, which also displays this type of retro-neoteric aesthetic: ‘canto carmina uersibus minutis, / his olim quibus et meus Catullus / et Caluus ueteresque.’

10. Gamberini (n. 2), p. 111.

11. Conte, G. B. (Solodow, J. B., trs.) Latin Literature: A History (Baltimore, 1994), p. 137Google Scholar .

12. See Gamberini (n. 2), pp. 92,111–12.

13. All translations of Quintilian by Winterbottom, M., from Russell, D. A. and Winterbottom, M. (edd.), Ancient Literary Criticism (Oxford, 1972)Google Scholar .

14. Translations of the Dialogus by M. Winterbottom, from Russell and Winterbottom (n. 13).

15. Relevant here, perhaps, is the on-going conflict between the exuberant Asianic and the more restrained Attic styles of oratory; on this (frequently deconstructible) opposition see in general, e.g., Cicero, , Oral. 22–32Google Scholar , Brut.325, Opt. Gen. 7–13, Dionysius of Halicarnassus Oral Vett., praef., Quintilian Inst. 12.10.10–26 with Austin, R. G. (ed.), Quintilian Book XII (Oxford, 1948)Google Scholar, and §10.16; Wilamowitz, U. v., ‘Asianismus und Atticismus’, Hermes 35 (1900), 1–52Google Scholar , Syme, R., The Roman Revolution (Oxford, 1939), pp. 245–6Google Scholar , Leeman, A. D., Orationis Ratio: The Stylistic Theories and Practice of the Roman Orators, Historians and Philosophers (Amsterdam, 1963), pp. 140–67, 219–42Google Scholar .

16. Often it was deemed necessary in antiquity for an overt distinction to be made between poetry and oratory: see Leeman (n. 15), pp. 311–14, who cites as examples Cicero, , Oral. 68Google Scholar and Quintilian, , Inst. 10.1.28Google Scholar ; cf. Tacitus' Dialogus, which takes as its starting point the separate merits of poetry and oratory. The distinction between the two fields became increasingly elided; see, for example, the question of whether or not Vergil was an orator, e.g., in Floras' lost dialogue Vergilius orator an poeta, or in Macrobius', Saturnalia (esp. 5.1.1ff)Google Scholar ; for the debate over Vergil see Highet, G., The Speeches in Vergil's Aeneid (Princeton, 1972), pp. 3–8, 277–90Google Scholar . At all times the two literary fields are closely related, although the exact nature of the relationship is highly variable: see, in general, Russell, D. A., Criticism in Antiquity (London, 1981), pp. 15–16Google Scholar .

17. The siesta-time setting of Pliny's scene (§4: ‘… cum meridie [erat enim aestas]…’) also recalls the setting of Ovid's afternoon love-making session with Corinna (Am.1.5.1: ‘aestus erat’), lending Pliny's scene an erotic undertone which will be reflected in his announced turn to amorous poetry.

18. See Courtney, E. (ed.), The Fragmentary Latin Poets (Oxford, 1993), pp. 369–70Google Scholar .

19. Gamberini (a 2), pp. 113–14.

20. Gamberini (n. 2), p. 98.

21. Cf. Vergil, Geo. 4.6–7Google Scholar: ‘in tenui labor; at tenuis non gloria, si quem / numina laeua sinunt auditque uocatus Apollo’ (‘the work is on a small scale, but the glory will not be slight, if unpropitious divinities grant it [to the poet], and Apollo, being spoken to, hears’); note that the poet's gloriais a result of his Callimachean poetry (see Thomas, R. F. [ed.], Virgil, Georgics III–IV [Cambridge, 1988] ad loc)Google Scholar . Gloria was, of course, a major concern not only to Pliny, who refers to it repeatedly, but to Romans in general, for whom it was an important, non-negligible motivator (see, e.g., Caesar, , Gal. 7.50.4Google Scholar , Vergil, , Aen. 4.232–72Google Scholar , Aen. 5.394, Valerius Flaccus 1.76–7 (‘tu sola animos mentesque peruris, Gloria…’ (‘you alone, Glory, fire spirits and minds’)), but also with the potential for harm if pursued too zealously (see, e.g., Horace, , Odes 1.18.15Google Scholar , Vergil, , Aen. 11.708)Google Scholar ; on gloria see, e.g., Knoche, U., ‘Der römische Ruhmesgedanke’, in Oppermann, H. (ed.), Römische Wertbegriffe (Darmstadt, 1967), pp. 420–45Google Scholar , Hellegouarc'h, J., Le Vocabulaire latin des relations el des partis politiques sous la république (Paris, 1972), pp. 369–83Google Scholar .

22. This is another common topos: cf, e.g., Cicero, , Arch. 19–22Google Scholar , esp. 23, Ovid, , Pont. 3.2.35–6 (‘uos etiam seri laudabunt saepe nepotes, / claraque erit scriptis gloria uestra meis’ [‘often late-born descendants will praise you, and your glory will be bright because of my writings’])Google Scholar .

23. This is not the only time Pliny expresses his opinion of a contemporary (and still extant) poet: see 3.7.5, where he gives his cautious judgement of Silius Italicus: ‘scribebat carmina maiore cura quam ingenio’ (‘he took great pains over his verses, though they cannot be called inspired’). He is more complimentary of the poets in his immediate social circle: see, e.g., 1.16.5 (Pompeius Saturninus), 4.27 (Sentius Augurinus), 5.17.2 (Calpurnius Piso), 4.3.3–5, 4.18, and 5.15 (Arrius Antoninus); cf. 1.13.1 (‘magnum prouentum poetarum annus hie attulit’ [‘this year has raised a fine crop of poets’]).

24. For a study of Cicero's poetry, as well as a commentary on the fragments, see Ewbank, W. W., The Poems of Cicero (London, 1933)Google Scholar ; see also Conte (n. 11), pp. 200–2.

25. All Cicero translations are from the Loebs.

26. Cicero even wrote a treatise on the subject; the testamoniaand fragments are in Garbarino's editions of Cicero's, fragmenta (Turin, 1984)Google Scholar .

27. On Cicero's hexameters: Ewbank (n. 24), pp. 40–71, Conte (n. 11), pp. 201–2; on later poets' allusions to Cicero's poetry: Ewbank (n. 24), p. 16.

28. I would like to thank Professor M. Winterbottom, in whose Pliny seminar an earlier version of this paper was presented, and Dr D. P. Fowler.