Intertextuality in Pliny’s Epistles is the product of a conference held in 2018 at the University of Cyprus on literary allusion in Pliny the Younger’s letter collection. The volume is composed of fourteen chapters divided into six parts. As laid out in the editors’ preface, this book seeks to show that Pliny’s text is a ‘polyphonic work of literature’ in which Pliny alludes extensively to other literary works (1). Its methodology is straightforward and effective: through close readings of intertextual moments in the Epistles, this volume demonstrates Pliny’s ‘praxis of absorbing literary genera’ (12) from disparate texts to create narrative meaning, thereby showcasing what the editors call epistolography’s ‘generic mobility’ (8). Pliny in the Epistles, they argue, includes elements from other genres to create a ‘super-genre’ for his readership (7), positioning his text within the larger Greco-Roman literary tradition. Such an approach follows the trend in Plinian studies set in motion by Ilaria Marchesi’s 2008 monograph, which, although not entirely ground-breaking, taught us to read the Epistles as densely allusive, self-conscious literature. The book under review contributes to this emerging discourse and successfully showcases the broad scope of Pliny’s intertextual practice as well as the inherent flexibility of the epistolary genre in accommodating many different kinds of texts.

Part I, ‘Intertextuality and Interdiscursivity in Pliny’s Letters’, illustrates the variety of authors with whom Pliny engages. In the first chapter, Christopher Whitton surveys intertextual references and imitatio throughout the Epistles, demonstrating that older literary models like Cicero and Lucretius are placed in Pliny’s text next to contemporaneous models, such as Tacitus. Whitton shows that Pliny’s use of imitatio and allusion is subtle, intended to entertain and even test his audience’s literary prowess. Roy Gibson’s chapter continues in the same vein, arguing that Pliny favours certain authors over others, alluding particularly to Quintilian and Tacitus in Book 6. Gibson contends that, combined with narratives on the demise of Pliny’s enemy Regulus, and his heroes Verginius Rufus and Pliny the Elder, these allusions make space for a new inspirational figure — a space which Pliny himself fills in his Epistles. Alice König’s excellent contribution focuses on Book 10, finding in this book that is often overlooked an unexpected sort of literary quality. Broadening the traditional definition of intertextuality to include allusion to administrative texts such as Frontinus’ De Aquis, König demonstrates that Pliny employs the technical language of bureaucracy to bolster his self-presentation as a knowledgeable governor.

Part II (‘Models and Anti-Models’) consists of three chapters whose relation is hard to grasp. Up first is Matthew Mordue’s piece in which it is argued that Pliny’s interaction with Demosthenes’ De Corona and Cicero’s In Verrem throughout the Regulus letters presents an overall negative view of Roman society, aligning neatly with Cicero’s criticisms of Verres and Demosthenes’ of Aeschines. The following chapter by Stefano Rocchi continues to explore the relationship between Cicero’s In Verrem and Pliny, but where Mordue’s chapter showed parallels between Verres and Regulus, Rocchi argues that Cicero’s villain is employed as a foil for Spurinna and for Pliny himself. Rocchi’s chapter starts out strong but devolves into a list of seemingly unrelated allusions to the Verrine orations, and concludes with an appendix in which it is confusingly alleged that letter 3.6 proves Pliny edited the Epistles. The final chapter by Judith Hindermann shifts from the courtroom to considering natural phenomena in the work of both Plinies. Hindermann convincingly argues that Pliny the Younger integrates and adapts ideas from the Elder in his Epistles: where the Elder presents far-off wonders of the world with Rome at the centre of a vast empire, the Younger focuses on phenomena in Italy. Pliny’s poetic treatment of allusions from the Naturalis Historia, Hindermann contends, shows his literary skill and distinguishes the Younger from the Elder.

Part III is the most cohesive section, composed as it is of two closely related chapters that deal exclusively with Pliny’s reception of Senecan discussions of grief. The first piece, by Michael Hanaghan, shows that Pliny’s use of Stoic consolatory philosophy is inconsistent, depending entirely on each unique narrative situation: in 1.12 on the death of Corellius Rufus, Pliny subtly critiques the Stoic philosophy of grief; however, in 4.2, which criticises Regulus for excessive grief, Pliny aligns with Seneca to show the inappropriateness of Regulus’ behaviour. Hanaghan’s argument is suggestive, but I disagree with the conclusion that ‘Pliny may … be considered a Stoic’ (163): allusions to Stoic texts do not a Stoic make. The next chapter by Spyridon Tzounakas complements Hanaghan’s chapter while offering a more compelling interpretation of Pliny’s Senecan intertexts. Tzounakas postulates that through a variety of references to Seneca’s Epistles and Dialogi, Pliny negatively characterises Silius Italicus in 3.7. Tzounakas’s argument does not assign a philosophy to Pliny but rather shows the author’s ability effectively to use references to philosophical texts to create meaning — in this case, suggesting that Silius is in fact very ‘un-Stoic’ in his life practices despite presenting himself as Stoic in his writing (165–6).

Part IV, ‘Pliny’s Villas and their Poetic Models’ again comprises only two chapters, exploring various antecedents for the Villenbriefen. Despite covering topics that have long been the subject of scholarship, both chapters offer compelling interpretations. Alberto Canobbio’s chapter focuses on 1.3, addressed to Caninius Rufus and meant to encourage him to pursue otium in the countryside. Elaborating on Henderson (2002), Canobbio explores the interplay of space, materiality and literary time in Pliny’s Epistles. Of particular interest is his comparison of this villa letter with Horace 3.30, an allusion which imbues the author’s literary production in 1.3 with immortality: just like Horace’s sepulchre, so too is Caninius’ (and Pliny’s) literature intended for posterity. Christopher Chinn’s chapter investigates Pliny’s relationship to Statius and earlier didactic texts, arguing that Pliny uses Statius as an interlocutor for their shared Vergilian-Lucretian intertexts. Further, Chinn contends that Pliny presents his allusion to Vergil-Lucretius as correcting that of Statius, therefore claiming some of the literary exemplarity of Vergil and Lucretius for himself.

Part V features three chapters that aim to link Pliny’s letters to invective and satire. Ábel Tamás’ chapter reads Pliny 1.9–10 on negotium and urban space alongside Horace, Sat. 1.9, a textual relationship that Tamás argues is made more likely by the parallel numbering. I was particularly convinced by the contention that the emphatic dialogicity of 1.9 makes the letter into an ‘urban satire’ (224). Jakub Pigoń’s work continues to read features of the scoptic and satirical tradition in the Epistles, focusing on letters 7.29 and 8.6 about Pallas the freedman’s monument. Pigoń seeks to show that Pliny’s satirical depiction of Pallas’ funerary inscription ultimately subverts Pallas’ hope for immortalisation. While I was persuaded by Pigoń’s conclusion that by alluding to satire in these letters Pliny devalues Pallas’ stone monument and assigns greater meaning to immortalisation in literature, a 2021 essay by James McNamara argued much along the same lines. Margot Neger’s piece continues to trace elements of invective in Pliny’s text. Neger suggests that while some letters invoke invective, other letters take a gentler, jocular manner — a difference in approach that illustrates the two functions of epistles according to ancient epistolary theorists, narrare and iocari. However, I am dubious of her claim that Ep. 1.1 alludes to the start of Callimachus’ Aetia, and, further, that this (alleged) intertext casts Pliny’s reading community as the inverse of Callimachus’ (this claim is also made in her 2021 book Epistolare Narrationen). It stretches the bounds of credibility to infer such meaning from a single word (frequenter).

Part VI, entitled ‘Final Thoughts: Discourses of Representation and Reproduction’, contains a single chapter, which I found to be a puzzling editorial choice. And yet Ilaria Marchesi’s essay is brilliant. She cleverly weaves together the ideas of procreation and literary reproduction, using four types of textual reference (inter-, intra-, extra- and alter-textuality) to lay bare a cultural conundrum at the heart of Pliny’s letter to Calpurnia (4.19): namely, what role did Roman women play in moulding future generations of elite men? The answer is complicated in the Epistles: for Pliny, who is childless, his wife Calpurnia becomes both a figurative child and mother-figure for Pliny’s only ‘children’ — his texts. Marchesi argues, further, that references to Martial serve to connect Pliny with his greatest adversary, Regulus, in letters 2.7, 3.10, 4.2 and 4.7, where both appear as childless grievers, more closely intertwined than Pliny would prefer. This chapter bridges the gap between literature and culture, providing insight not only into Pliny’s text but also reproduction in imperial Rome.

In sum: this volume is a robust introduction to intertextuality in Pliny’s Epistles which will surely generate more work on the literary fabric of this imperial letter collection. As the wide-ranging allusions highlighted in this volume make clear, Pliny incorporates vastly different genera in his Epistles, showcasing the generic fluidity of epistolography.