Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T05:33:18.662Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE EARLY RECEPTION OF PLINY THE YOUNGER IN TERTULLIAN OF CARTHAGE AND EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 April 2017

James Corke-Webster
James Corke-Webster*
Affiliation:
Durham University
*
james.corke-webster@durham.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In 1967 Alan Cameron published a landmark article in this journal, ‘The fate of Pliny's Letters in the late Empire’. Opposing the traditional thesis that the letters of Pliny the Younger were only rediscovered in the mid to late fifth century by Sidonius Apollinaris, Cameron proposed that closer attention be paid to the faint but clear traces of the letters in the third and fourth centuries. On the basis of well-observed intertextual correspondences, Cameron proposed that Pliny's letters were being read by the end of the fourth century at the latest. That article now seems the vanguard of a rise in scholarly interest in Pliny's late-antique reception. But Cameron also noted the explicit attention given to the letters by two earlier commentators—Tertullian of Carthage, in the late second to early third century, and Eusebius of Caesarea, in the early fourth. The use of Pliny in these two earliest commentators, in stark contrast to their later successors, has received almost no subsequent attention.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 67 , Issue 1 , May 2017 , pp. 247 - 262
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 2017 

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.)

Footnotes

1

I am grateful to the Oxford Late Romanist and Edinburgh Late-Antique Seminars for discussions of early versions of this material, and to Kate Cooper and Roy Gibson for their comments on written drafts.

References

2 Cameron, Alan, ‘The fate of Pliny's Letters in the late Empire’, CQ 15 (1965), 289–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar; with an addendum in CQ 17 (1967), 421–2 (recently republished in an amplified version in Gibson, R. and Whitton, C.L. [edd.], Oxford Readings in Classical Studies: The Epistles of Pliny [Oxford, 2016], 463–81Google Scholar; I am grateful to Professor Cameron for allowing me to see this in advance of publication). Cameron's original article has been supplemented by Jones, C.P., ‘The Younger Pliny and Jerome’, Phoenix 21 (1967), 301 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Trisoglio, F., ‘S. Girolamo e Plinio il Giovane’, RSC 21 (1973), 343–83Google Scholar; Savon, H., ‘Saint Ambroise a-t-il imit? Le recueil de lettres de Pline le Jeune?’, REAug 41 (1995), 3–17 Google Scholar; Adkin, N., ‘The Younger Pliny and Ammianus Marcellinus’, CQ 48 (1998), 593–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar (critiquing Cameron); Adkin, N., ‘The Younger Pliny and Jerome’, RPL 24 (2001), 31–47 Google Scholar; Cain, A., ‘ Liber manet: Pliny, Ep. 9.27.2 and Jerome, Ep. 130.19.5’, CQ 58 (2008), 708–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar (Cain's thesis refuted though by Adkin, N., ‘A new echo of Pliny the Younger in Jerome?’, Philologus 155 [2011], 193–5Google Scholar); and Gibson, B. and Rees, R., ‘Introduction’, in Gibson, B. and Rees, R. (edd.), Pliny the Younger in Late Antiquity (Arethusa 46.2) (Baltimore, MA, 2013), 159–60Google Scholar.

3 As argued by Merrill, E.T., ‘The tradition of Pliny's Letters ’, CPh 10 (1915), 8–25 Google Scholar, at 10–11; and repeated in Stout, S.E., ‘The coalescence of the two Plinys’, TAPhA 86 (1955), 250–5Google Scholar.

4 See in particular the articles in Gibson and Rees (n. 2) and Gibson, R., ‘Reading Sidonius by the book’, in Kelly, G. and van Waarden, J.A. (edd.), New Approaches to Sidonius Apollinaris (Leuven, 2013), 195–220 Google Scholar.

5 See, however, the suggestion in Barnes, T., ‘The Epitome de Caesaribus and its sources’, CPh 71 (1976), 258–68Google Scholar, at 260–1, picked up by Cameron in the new recension of his article (see above, n. 2), that a Plinian parallel in Aurelius Victor, Epitome de Caesaribus 12.5 probably derived from the early third-century biographies of Marius Maximus.

6 See though the earlier drawn-out dispute over the meaning of gradu pulsis (Apol. 2.6), a phrase added by Tertullian to Pliny's letters in his paraphrase of them, and the basis for potential doubt of Tertullian's direct knowledge of the letters, in Merrill, E.T., ‘Zur frühen Überlieferungsgeschichte des Briefwechsels zwischen Plinius und Trajan’, WS 31 (1909), 250–8Google Scholar; Davies, G.A.T., ‘Tertullian and the Pliny-Trajan correspondence (Ep. 96)’, JThS 14 (1913), 407–14Google Scholar and Merrill, E.T., ‘Tertullian on Pliny's persecution of Christians’, American Journal of Theology 22 (1918), 124–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Cameron (n. 2), 291–2; however, see the earlier debate detailed in n. 6 above.

8 It is unclear whether Tertullian had read all of Pliny's letters, only Book 10 or simply Ep. 96 and 97. Barnes, T., Tertullian: A Historical and Literary Study (Oxford, 1971), 201Google Scholar favours the first hypothesis, since he considers Tertullian a Second-Sophistic author capable of having read all of Pliny's letters but not referencing them owing to disinterest. But the problem remains how Tertullian acquired a copy of the complete letter-collection at a time when no one else seems to have been reading it. And the suggestion of Cameron (n. 2), 292 that Tertullian had a strong motive for looking out a copy of Pliny does not of course explain how he knew of it in the first place. Both considerations in my opinion make a florilegium more likely.

9 It has traditionally been thought that Book 10 was published posthumously by a third party (Suetonius being the obvious candidate). This is based upon the assumption that Book 10 was a complete collection of Pliny and Trajan's correspondence and that its abrupt end was due to Pliny's death in office (e.g. Sherwin-White, A.N., The Letters of Pliny: A Historical and Social Commentary [Oxford, 1966], 82Google Scholar). More recent scholarship has suggested that Pliny edited and published the letters himself; see Woolf, G., ‘Pliny's province’, in Bekker-Nielsen, T. (ed.), Rome and the Black Sea Region: Domination, Romanisation and Resistance (Aarhus, 2006), 93–108 Google Scholar; Stadter, P.A., ‘Pliny and the ideology of Empire’, Prometheus 32 (2006), 61–76 Google Scholar; and Noreña, C., ‘The social economy of Pliny's correspondence with Trajan’, AJPh 128 (2008), 239–77Google Scholar. The manuscript tradition is ambivalent since an eight-book, a nine-book and a ten-book tradition are all evidenced; see further Reynolds, L.D., Texts and Transmission: A Survey of the Latin Classics (Oxford, 1983), 316–22Google Scholar. That a ten-book tradition was extant in antiquity is suggested by Ambrose's letter-collection, edited in the late fourth / early fifth century, which echoes Pliny's ten-book structure with the tenth containing letters to the emperor (Symmachus’ ten-book collection was once cited as further evidence, but Cameron, Alan, The Last Pagans of Rome [Oxford, 2011], 366–8Google Scholar has shown that it was not originally published in the form now extant).

10 Full treatment with bibliography in J. Corke-Webster, ‘Trouble in Pontus: the Pliny-Trajan correspondence on the Christians reconsidered’ [article under consideration].

11 See in particular de Ste Croix, G.E.M., ‘Why were the early Christians persecuted?’, Past and Present 26 (1963), 6–38 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Barnes, T., ‘Legislation against the Christians’, JRS 58 (1968), 32–50 Google Scholar, where the Pliny-Trajan correspondence on the Christians is the central point. For the persistence of this consensus, see e.g. Cook, J.G., Roman Attitudes Toward the Christians: From Claudius to Hadrian (Tübingen, 2010)Google Scholar.

12 De Ste Croix (n. 11), 9 states explicitly that ‘This is quite certain from what the Christian Apologists say in the second and early third centuries, from several accounts of martyrdoms, and from the technical language used by Pliny and Trajan in their celebrated exchange of letters.’ Included in his references is Tert. Apol. 1–3. Similarly Barnes (n. 11), 37 n. 52 cites Tert. Apol. 2.17.

13 Again see most notably de Ste Croix (n. 11), 10, 20; Barnes (n. 11), 48.

14 For dating, see Barnes (n. 8), 34–5. The genesis of the Apology and its relationship to Tertullian's To the Nations is still discussed, in particular the theory advocated by Becker, C., Tertullians Apologeticum. Werden und Leistung (Munich, 1954)Google Scholar that there were three drafts of the material for the Apology, of which the first was the summary To the Gentiles, the second a first draft preserved in the so-called Fragmentum Fuldense, and the third the final extant version: see further Barnes (n. 8), 239–41.

15 The actual audience is debated. Though addressed to Roman magistrates most scholars believe that the Apology was intended either for a broader pagan audience or for Christians. This follows recent discussions of genre and audience of early Christian apologetic more generally; see Edwards, M., Goodman, M., Price, S. and Rowland, C., ‘Introduction: apologetics in the Roman world’, in Edwards, M., Goodman, M. and Price, S. (edd.), Apologetics in the Roman Empire: Pagans, Jews and Christians (Oxford, 1999), 1–14 Google Scholar; Cameron, Alan, ‘Apologetics in the Roman Empire – a genre of intolerance?’, in Ruggini, L.C., Carrié, J.-M. and Lizzi, R. (edd.), Humana sapit: études d'Antiquité tardive offertes à Lellia Cracco Ruggini (Turnhout, 2002), 219–27Google Scholar; Jacobsen, A-C., ‘Apologetics and apologies – some definitions’, in Ulrich, J., Jacobsen, A.-C. and Kahlos, M. (edd.), Continuity and Discontinuity in Early Christian Apologetics (Frankfurt am Main, 2009), 5–22 Google Scholar and Lieu, J., ‘Jews, Christians and “pagans” in conflict’, in Jacobsen, A.-C., Ulrich, J. and Braake, D. (edd.), Critique and Apologetics. Jews, Christians and Pagans in Antiquity (Frankfurt am Main, 2009), 43–58 Google Scholar.

16 Established by Barnes (n. 8), 22–9; see too the nuancing of Rankin, D.I., ‘Was Tertullian a jurist?’, Studia Patristica 31 (1997), 335–42Google Scholar.

17 Claiming unjust treatment was also characteristic of Greek apologetic literature, but Tertullian replaces much of the standard systematic explication of Christian doctrine with forensic discussion. See e.g. Price, S., ‘Latin Christian apologetics: Minucius Felix, Tertullian, and Cyprian’, in Edwards, M., Goodman, M. and Price, S. (edd.), Apologetics in the Roman Empire: Pagans, Jews and Christians (Oxford, 1999), 105–29Google Scholar, at 120–1.

18 Heinze, R., Tertullian's Apologeticum (Leipzig, 1910)Google Scholar initially suggested that Tertullian refashioned the earlier Greek apologists’ material in line with Roman forensic practice, a theory Lortz, J., Tertullian als Apologet, 2 vols. (Münster, 1927–1928)Google Scholar affirmed. The thesis has been picked up by Becker (n. 14), Sider, R.D., Ancient Rhetoric and the Art of Tertullian (Oxford, 1971)Google Scholar, Fredouille, J.-C., Tertullien et la conversion de la culture antique (Paris, 1972)Google Scholar, Barnes (n. 8), Burrows, M.S., ‘Christianity in the Roman forum. Tertullian and the apologetic use of history’, VChr 42 (1988), 209–35Google Scholar and Eckert, G., Orator Christianus, Untersuchungen zur Argumentations-kunst in Tertullians Apologeticum (Stuttgart, 1993)Google Scholar. For a dissenting voice, see Keresztes, P., ‘Tertullian's Apologeticus: a historical and literary study’, Latomus 25 (1966), 124–33Google Scholar, arguing that the Apology employs epideictic rather than forensic rhetoric; for convincing rebuttals, see Swift, L.J., ‘Forensic rhetoric in Tertullian's Apologeticum ’, Latomus 27 (1968), 864–77Google Scholar; Sider (n. 18), 6 n. 1, responding to P. Keresztes, ‘Justins und Tertullians Apologien. Eine rhetorische Untersuchung’ (Diss., Karl-Franzens-Universität zu Graz, 1963), and Dunn, G., ‘Rhetorical structure in Tertullian's “Ad Scapulam”’, VChr 56 (2002), 47–55 Google Scholar, at 49–50.

19 See first Heinze (n. 18), 13, 21–3, 296, echoed in Sider (n. 18), 21–3.

20 Sider (n. 18), 23. Sider sees instead an ‘ironic inversion of the normal narrative’ involving a concise summary of charges (2.4) and a narrative of how the good man may face trial (3).

21 Strangely, work on Tertullian's rhetoric has rarely extended to his use of the Pliny-Trajan correspondence, although Davies (n. 6) uses the rhetorical qualities of the Apology to argue that Tertullian did use the original letters.

22 Tertullian demonstrates flexibility and innovation with form in his introductory sections elsewhere. See Sider (n. 18), 28–9 on how he often merges exordium and narratio.

23 Moreover, the treatise is addressed to Roman magistrates—to governors, according to Price (n. 17), 109—calling for modified treatment of Christians. But the only actual officials mentioned are Pliny and Trajan, again positioning their behaviour as representative.

24 Translations are my own throughout. The Latin text is from Glover, T.R., Tertullian. Apology; De Spectaculis (London, 1931)Google Scholar.

25 The Latin text is from Mynors, R.A.B, C. Plini Caecili Secundi Epistularum libri decem (Oxford, 1963)Google Scholar.

26 It is tempting to see a parallel as well between the ensuing discussion in Pliny of deserted temples, neglected rites and unsold sacrificial food (Ep. 10.96.10) and Tertullian's assurances that Christians contribute to the Empire's business interests (Apol. 42, esp. sections 2, 5 and 8).

27 In addition, note the recurrence of obstinatio in the Apology (e.g. Apol. 27.2 and 27.7, 50.15), most likely evoking that term's centrality in the Pliny-Trajan correspondence.

28 Neither can alternative explanations; see e.g. Georges, T., ‘Occultum and manifestum: some remarks on Tertullian's Apologeticum ’, in Ulrich, J., Jacobsen, A.-C. and Kahlos, M. (edd.), Continuity and Discontinuity in Early Christian Apologetics (Frankfurt am Main, 2009), 35–48 Google Scholar, who suggests that the division is prompted by a theological logic of revelation. On Tertullian's preference for symmetry, see Sider, R.D., ‘On symmetrical composition in Tertullian’, JThS 24 (1973), 405–23Google Scholar.

29 It is tempting to read the reference to hidden crimes as a sarcastic double reference not only to their supposed secret nature but also to Pliny's inability to find any evidence for them when he eventually investigates.

30 See Heinze (n. 18), 319–30; Sider (n. 18), 45–9; Eckert (n. 18).

31 See n. 11, above.

32 Scholarly consensus sees in the Apology a more conciliatory and accommodationist tone than elsewhere in Tertullian's corpus, in which his attitude towards Rome and its Empire varies considerably. See Barnes (n. 8), 136, 218–19; Isichei, E.A., Political Thinking and Social Experience. Some Christian Interpretations of the Roman Empire from Tertullian to Salvian (Canterbury, 1964), 30–1Google Scholar; Burrows (n. 18); Osborn, E., ‘Tertullian as philosopher and Roman’, in Aland, B. and Schäublin, C. (edd.), Die Weltlichkeit des Glaubens in der alten Kirche. Festschrift für Ulrich Wickert zum siebzigsten Geburtstag (Berlin and New York, 1997), 231–47Google Scholar.

33 His other main criticisms include the authorities’ willingness to accept a simple denial without further questions in Christians’ cases alone (Apol. 2.13-17, 7.2, 27.3, 28.1) and that, while other criminals are tortured for a confession, only Christians are tortured for a denial (Apol. 2.10-17).

34 Tertullian's insistence that Christians’ trials were prejudiced by the hatred of the masses (e.g. Apol. 4.1, 37.2, 49.4-6, 50.12), relatively distinctive in Christian apologetic, also accords with the importance of the common people's (mis)use of multiple anonymous accusations in the Pliny-Trajan correspondence (e.g. Ep. 10.96.5-6).

35 This procedural complaint does not recur frequently in the Apology, but Tertullian does note Imperial ambivalence towards Christians at a number of other points (Apol. 5.2-8, 6.10, 21.24, 30.1-2).

36 On the eschatological aspects of the Apology, see Burrows (n. 18), 214, 228–9.

37 Tertullian was himself a provincial looking in; see especially Wilhite, D.E., Tertullian the African. An Anthropological Reading of Tertullian's Context and Identities (Berlin, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

38 Eusebius likely inherited this translation: Carotenuto, E., ‘Six Constantinian documents (Eus. ‘H.E.’ 10, 5–7)’, VChR 56 (2002), 56–74 Google Scholar, at 71–2 thinks it improbable that Eusebius produced his own translations from Latin. He only claims to do so on one occasion (Hist. eccl. 4.8.8); elsewhere, as here, he simply says ‘the translation goes like this’ (ἡ ἑρμηνεία τοῦτον ἔχει τὸν τρόπον, Hist. eccl. 3.33.3). On Eusebius’ haphazard use of Tertullian, see Barnes (n. 8), 5–6.

39 On Eusebius’ citation-technique, see Carotenuto, E., Tradizione e innovazione nella Historia Ecclesiastica di Eusebio di Cesarea (Bologna, 2001)Google Scholar and Inowlocki, S., Eusebius and the Jewish Authors: His Citation Technique in an Apologetic Context (Leiden, 2006), esp. 33–73Google Scholar.

40 As representative examples, the Pliny-Trajan correspondence receives one mention in both Attridge, H. and Hata, G. (edd.), Eusebius, Christianity and Judaism (Leiden, New York and Köln, 1992), 662Google Scholar and the seminal Barnes, T., Constantine and Eusebius (Cambridge, MA and London, 1981), 137Google Scholar, and it does not feature in the recent narratological study of Verdoner, M., Narrated Reality: The Historia Ecclesiastica of Eusebius of Caesarea (Frankfurt am Main, 2011)Google Scholar. An exception is the excellent recent dissertation of D. DeVore, ‘Greek historiography, Roman society, Christian empire: the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius of Caesarea’ (Diss., University of California, Berkeley, 2013), 202–4, which briefly discusses Eusebius’ positive portrayal of Pliny and Trajan.

41 This view was born both of more simplistic views of ancient historiography as straightforwardly representative, and of a desire to save the Ecclesiastical History from any original input from an author suspected of heresy. It was lent extra impetus in the twentieth century by Barnes (n. 40), who successfully demonstrated that Eusebius wrote independent of Constantinian influence, allowing a rehabilitation of Eusebius’ integrity against suspicion of him as Imperial apologist, most famously expressed by Burckhardt, J., Die Zeit Constantin's des Grossen (Leipzig, 1853 [repr. 1880])Google Scholar, e.g. at 375.

42 This was prompted by a number of publications designed to rehabilitate Eusebius’ other neglected writings; see e.g. Kofsky, A., Eusebius of Caesarea Against Paganism (Leiden and Boston, 2000)Google Scholar; Johnson, A., Ethnicity and Argument in Eusebius’ Praeparatio Evangelica (Oxford, 2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Inowlocki (n. 39); Schott, J.M., Christianity, Empire, and the Making of Religion in Late Antiquity (Philadelphia, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Morlet, S., La ‘Démonstration évangélique’ d'Eusèbe de Césarée: Étude sur l'apologétique chrétienne à l’époque de Constantin (Série Antiquité 187) (Paris, 2009)Google Scholar. On Eusebius’ exegetical work, see Hollerich, M., Eusebius of Caesarea's Commentary on Isaiah: Christian Exegesis in the Age of Constantine (Oxford, 1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

43 Where the recent edited collection of Inowlocki, S. and Zamagni, C. (edd.), Reconsidering Eusebius: Collected Papers on Literary, Historical and Theological Issues (Leiden and Boston, 2011)Google Scholar excludes the Ecclesiastical History, Johnson, A. and Schott, J. (edd.), Eusebius of Caesarea: Traditions and Innovations (Cambridge, MA, 2013)Google Scholar includes three pertinent article-length chapters: D. DeVore, ‘Genre and Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History: toward a focused debate’ (ch. 2), J. Corke-Webster, ‘Mothers and martyrdom: familial piety and the model of the Maccabees in Eusebius of Caesarea's Ecclesiastical History’ (ch. 3) and E.C. Penland, ‘The history of the Caesarean present: Eusebius and narratives of Origen’ (ch. 4). See too the introductory volume: Johnson, A., Eusebius (London, 2013)Google Scholar.

44 On Eusebius’ capacity to cite material while ignoring its original author's motivations or overall thesis, see Gonnet, D., ‘L'acte de citer dans l'Histoire ecclésiastique ’, in Pouderon, B. and Duval, Y.-M. (edd.), L'historiographie de l’église des premiers siècles (Paris, 2001), 181–93Google Scholar, at 188–9.

45 The dating of the Ecclesiastical History has been much debated. The consensus position remains that it was produced between 313 and 326 in a series of editions, but was largely complete by 316; see Burgess, R., ‘The dates and editions of Eusebius' Chronici Canones and Historia Ecclesiastica ’, JTS 48 (1997), 471–504 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. More recent questions have been asked of Burgess's position by V. Neri, ‘Les éditions de l’Histoire ecclésiastique (livres VIII–IX): bilan critique et perspectives de la recherché’, and Cassin, M., Debié, M. and Perrin, M.-Y., ‘La question des éditions de l’Histoire ecclésiastique et le livre X’, both in Morlet, S. and Perrone, L. (edd.), Eusèbe de Césarée. Commentaire, vol. 1: Études d'introduction (Paris, 2012), 151–83Google Scholar, but critiqued by D. DeVore in his review in ZAC 18 (2014), 138–42; see also Johnson (n. 43), 104–12.

46 See Verdoner, M., ‘Überlegungen zum Adressaten von Eusebs Historia ecclesiastica ’, ZAC 14 (2010), 362–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar, arguing that the Ecclesiastical History’s repeated assumption of its readership's familiarity with and approval of Christian texts and concepts indicates a Christian readership. But elite fourth-century Christians would have thought of themselves not simply as Christians but simultaneously as Roman citizens and residents of the culturally and intellectually Greek East.

47 See e.g. Corke-Webster (n. 43).

48 I will consider Eusebius’ treatment of Christian interaction with Roman legal authorities in more detail in a forthcoming monograph.

49 The Greek text is from Bardy, G., Eusèbe de Césarée, Histoire ecclésiastique, 3 vols. (Paris, 1952–1958)Google Scholar.

50 Eusebius had introduced his readers to Tertullian as an authority on Roman law (Hist. eccl. 2.2.4) in order that quotations from Tertullian may serve as narrative markers of credible legal points. On Eusebius’ stress on the authority of his sources, see Gustafsson, B., ‘Eusebius’ principles in handling his sources, as found in his Church History, Books I-VII’, Studia Patristica 4 (1951), 429–41Google Scholar, at 436; and Gonnet (n. 44), 186.

51 The chapter-headings are probably Eusebian; see Barnes, T., ‘The Emperor Constantine's Good Friday sermon’, JThS 27 (1976), 414–23Google Scholar, at 418–21, reiterated in Barnes (n. 40), 124. Note also Inowlocki (n. 39), 63, on how in cases of polyphonic citation (where multiple authors are cited in the same regard, as here) the one named in the chapter title, in this case Trajan, is often intended as the dominant authority.

52 Note that κολάζεσθαι in the Greek translation of the Apology would allow the translation ‘corrected’ as well as ‘punished’.

53 In Tertullian's Apology Trajan had been characterized neutrally as an emperor who did not follow Nero and Domitian in their active targeting of Christians (Apol. 5.7).

54 A recent summary of the debate on its authenticity can be found in Minns, D.P., ‘The rescript of Hadrian’, in Parvis, S. and Foster, P. (edd.), Justin Martyr and His Worlds (Minneapolis, 2007), 38–49 Google Scholar.

55 Apart from the rescript's dubious authenticity, we are hampered by not possessing Serenius Granianus’ original letter to which Hadrian was supposedly responding. Scholars have suggested two readings: first, that the rescript concerns legal process only and makes no statement about Christianity's legal status; second, that Hadrian declares that Christians could only be prosecuted for other crimes, not for their Christianity. For a summary of the scholarship on the two positions, see Keresztes, P., ‘The Emperor Hadrian's rescript to Minucius Fundanus’, Phoenix 21 (1967), 120–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar (reprinted in Latomus 26 [1967], 54–66). An earlier and less detailed discussion of the same issues is found in Keresztes, P., ‘Law and arbitrariness in the persecution of the Christians and Justin's First Apology ’ VChr 18 (1964), 208–14Google Scholar. Minns, D. and Parvis, P., Justin, Philosopher and Martyr: Apologies (Oxford, 2009), 21–8Google Scholar, 44 concur. The former position is more likely.

56 See my own article (n. 10); see too Nesselhauf, H., ‘Hadrians Reskript an Minicius Fundanus’, Hermes 104 (1976), 348–61Google Scholar.

57 Noted by Keresztes (n. 55).

58 Pliny's own abilities in this regard have become abundantly clear in recent years; see in particular Marchesi, I., The Art of Pliny's Letters: A Poetics of Allusion in the Private Correspondence (Cambridge, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

59 This echoes the similar observation made for the late-antique reception of Pliny's Panegyricus by Gibson and Rees (n. 2), 154–5.

60 See the discussion of Trajan's late-antique legacy in Gibson and Rees (n. 2), 155–8, drawing upon Syme, R., Emperors and Biography: Studies in the Historia Augusta (Oxford, 1971), 89–112 Google Scholar.