Pliny the Younger: A Written Work as a Lasting Monument

In the midst of praising his friend Octavius's excellent poetical works, Pliny urged him to not delay the publication of his friend's work. The reasons were twofold. 

First, some of his verses had already begun to circulate without Octavius's consent. Accidental and unwanted publication of an author's unfinished writings often occurred in antiquity. In response, Pliny urged Octavius to quickly publish his completed writing so that those pre-circulating verses could then be claimed as his own.

Second, Pliny believed that completing and publishing a written piece would be a lasting monument to the author's fame. The work would far outlive the author's life and ensure their memory lived on in those who read the book.

"What an indolent fellow you are, or perhaps I should say how hard-hearted you are and almost cruel to keep back so long such splendid volumes of verse! How long will you deprive yourself of the chorus of praise that awaits you, and us of the pleasure of reading them? Do let them be borne on the lips of men and circulate through all the wide regions where the Roman tongue is spoken. People have long been eagerly looking forward to your publishing them, and you really ought not to cheat and disappoint them any longer. Some of your verses have become known, and - no thanks to you - have broken down the barriers you set round them, and unless you rescue them and include them in the main body of your work they will one day, like vagrant slaves, find someone else to claim the ownership of them. Don't lose sight of the fact that you are but mortal, and that you can only defend yourself from being forgotten by such a monument as this: all other titles to fame are fragile and perishable, and come to a sudden end as soon as the breath is out of your body. . . . However, as to publishing, do as you please, but at least give some public readings, in order to stir you on to publishing, and that you may at length see how pleased people will be to hear you, as I have for a long time been bold enough to anticipate on your account. For I picture to myself what a run there will be to hear you, how they will admire your work, what applause is in store for you, and what a hush of attention." (Ep. 2.10)

I find it fascinating that in the same letter (Ep. 2.10) Pliny both admits to the volatility of ancient publication (in that someone may plagiarize Octavius's work) and proclaims that a published writing would be akin to a great monument for the author, far outliving them and ensuring the author's memory lived on into the future.

This idea of a written piece being a part of the author's lasting fame Pliny expounded upon previously. In an earlier letter to his friend Caninius Rufus, he urged him to drop everything and get to writing.

"But really it is time that you passed on your unimportant and petty duties for others to look after and buried yourself among your books in that secluded yet beautiful retreat. Make this at once the business and the leisure of your life, your occupation and your rest; let your waking hours be spent among your books, and your hours of sleep as well. Mould something, hammer out something that shall be known as yours for all time. Your other property will find a succession of heirs when you are gone; what I speak of will continue yours for ever - if once it begins to be. I know the capacity and inventive wit that I am spurring on. You have only to think of yourself as the able man others will think you when you have realised your ability. Farewell." (Ep. 1.3)

It is obvious that Pliny was fully aware of the potential for copyist errors and plagiarism, with regard to ancient publication practices. Nevertheless, Pliny fully expected that a book would continue to be considered the author's own work and live on into posterity. This is because Pliny himself was intimately familiar with written works that had been penned hundreds of years before his time.

It is good to remember this ancient understanding and tension between the problems inherent in ancient publication and the glory and fame a written work could give the author long into the future. Especially when we approach the practice of textual criticism of the New Testament. Even though it may be difficult for modern textual critics to discern between later textual changes and the author's intended words. The response should not be to then assume that there was no completed (whether intentional or otherwise) version of the text that the author intended. This is one of the concluding arguments that I make at the end of one of my published articles,

"Though the modern textual critic may have difficulty discerning between the authorial text and later additions and corruptions made to the text after the document began to circulate, this does not mean that the ancients did not make these distinctions or that the modern textual critic should not" (Mitchell, "Exposing Textual Corruption," pg. 290)

_______________________

English translation of Pliny's Letters are by J.B. Firth, http://www.attalus.org/info/pliny.html

"Exposing Textual Corruption: Community as a Stabilizing Aspect in the Circulation of the New Testament writings during the Greco-Roman Era." JSNT 43.2 (December 2020): 266-298.

See also my comments on page 298 of,

"What are the NT Autographs? An Examination of the Doctrine of Inspiration and Inerrancy in Light of Greco-Roman Publication." JETS 59/2 (June 2016).

Interview on The Hardcore Humanities Podcast

Released today is an interview I did with Jamie Tibke host of The Hardcore Humanities Podcast.  The interview can be found on Spotify and Apple ITunes. Link to Spotify posted below.

The Hardcore Humanities Podcast https://open.spotify.com/episode/2480jEi5oxaKZxaRMUsEXb

Ancient Tablets, Notebooks, and Speeches in the Writing of the Gospels

Roman scribe with his stylus and tablets on his tomb stele at Flavia Solva in Noricum

In Book 6, Letter 5 to his friend Ursus, Pliny the Younger (ca. 61-113 AD) vividly describes a senate hearing. He mentions that during the proceedings two figures were debating each other; Licinius Nepos and Juventius Celsus. Apparently, Nepos re-opened a case that had been previous resolved and gave an untimely speech dealing with the matter that those present considered to be a breach of protocol. This is when the Jurist Celsus stepped in.

“The praetor Juventius Celsus vehemently upbraided him in a long speech, in which he taunted him with seeking to reform the senate. Nepos replied; Celsus answered him back, and neither spared reproaches and insults. I do not wish to repeat the words which pained me when I heard them spoken, but I blame even more some of our number who kept running first to Celsus and then to Nepos, according as one or other was speaking, in their desire to hear every word. At one moment they seemed to be encouraging and inflaming their passions, at another to be seeking to reconcile them and smooth matters over, and then they kept on appealing to Caesar to take the side of each, or even of both, just as actors do in a farce. What annoyed me most of all was that each was told what his opponent was going to say, for Celsus replied to Nepos from his note-book, and Nepos answered Celsus from his tablets. The friends of each kept talking to such an extent that the two disputants knew exactly what each was going to say, as though it had all been arranged beforehand.” (Ep. 6.5)

What caught my interest was the reference to “note-book” and “tablets,” both figures were referencing notes that they had obviously prepared beforehand. Celsus is described as making his reply to Nepos from a “note-book” which is translated from the Latin word “libellus.” And Nepos is depicted as referencing his “tablet,” which is translated from the Latin word “pugillaris."

The term "libellus" in this context is likely referring to "a book written in pages, and not in long rolls," especially some kind of legal brief or case notes (From Lewis and Short). This could be either papyrus or parchment. Though if it was a parchment codex the Latin word "membranis" would have more likely been used (Quintilian, Ins. Or. 10.3.31). Therefore this is likely referring to individual sheets stacked together.

P.Oxy 3929 a third century libellus or certificate of sacrifice for the Decian persecution 

The word "pugillaris" is a reference to a type of smaller hand held writing surface that was made from thin board hollowed out and filled with wax. This could then be inscribed upon by a pointy stylus and then erased easily by smoothing out the wax.

Teacher's Example Above, Student's Writing Below. Wax Tablet, II CE. (British Museum MS. 34186)

I find it fascinating that Pliny specifically mentions that these two figures are making their speeches directly from notes on writing materials rather than from rote memorization. This made me think of the intersection of early Christian "preaching" and the giving of public speeches in the Roman Senate. Irenaeus tells us that the Gospels of Mark and Luke first began as preaching events.

"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia." (Haer. 3.1, ANF)

Also, Eusebius hands down to us a tradition that the Gospel of John also first began as the oral preaching of the Jesus story. Only after he was urged by the Christian community did he write down the gospel of John in his old age.

"For Matthew, who had at first preached to the Hebrews, when he was about to go to other peoples, committed his Gospel to writing in his native tongue, and thus compensated those whom he was obliged to leave for the loss of his presence. And when Mark and Luke had already published their Gospels, they say that John, who had employed all his time in proclaiming the Gospel orally, finally proceeded to write for the following reason. The three Gospels already mentioned having come into the hands of all and into his own too, they say that he accepted them and bore witness to their truthfulness; but that there was lacking in them an account of the deeds done by Christ at the beginning of his ministry." (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.24.6-7, NPNF).

After thinking about the incident recounted by Pliny of Celsus and Nepos giving speeches while consulting their notebooks and tablets, I immediately thought about the apostles using notebooks and wax tablets as references and guides in their preaching. Perhaps these kinds of preaching notes were what was contained in Paul's mysterious "notebooks" (μεμβράνας, membranis) mentioned in 2 Timothy 4:13. If so, then perhaps some of these materials were in mind when Luke mentioned "many have undertaken to compile a narrative" (Luke 1:1-4). In the same way, perhaps some of Peter's preaching notes were used by Mark and arranged and ordered by him as Eusebius quotes Papias recounting (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.39.15). John too may have had these types of written notes when he proclaimed the Gospel story orally (as Eusebius recounts) and could have used them in the composition of his Gospel as well.

Of course this is all wild speculation, and there is no way to explore this further. However, considering the few snapshots that we have from contemporaries of the Evangelists like Pliny the Younger, this type of speculative scenario is not outside the realm of possibility.

______________________________________

Latin text and English translation of Pliny’s Letter taken from Pliny: Letters - Book 6 (attalus.org)

New Testament Textual Corruption in JSNT

In the December issue of JSNT is a newly published article that I wrote on the publication and transmission of the New Testament writings in the first centuries of the Christian era.

"Exposing Textual Corruption: Community as a Stabilizing Aspect in the Circulation of the New Testament Writings during the Greco-Roman Era" Journal for the Study of the New Testament 43.2 (2020): 266-298

The article is open access with both an online reading option and a downloadable pdf version. The link can be found here,

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0142064X20961282

Review of Matthew Larsen "Gospels Before the Book"

The September 2019 issue of JETS published my review of

Matthew Larsen. "Gospels Before the Book." New York: Oxford University Press, 2018 (JETS 62.3 pg. 641-645).

The following post is taken from the text of my JETS review, minus the chapter summaries. Since the JETS review guidelines limit the word count of the reviews I was unable to quote the text of the cited primary sources. I decided to repost the evaluation portion of the JETS review and include the primary source quotations in order to allow readers to better follow the critical engagement.
____________________________

The main thesis for "Gospels Before the Book" is largely built upon the idea that first-century notes (hypomnēmata) were not considered “bookish” or “finished" and would often be refashioned at will by users of these texts (or “authored,” to use Larsen’s term). However, when the primary sources cited are given a closer reading, they actually push back against this idea. For example, Larsen refers to the hypomnēmata of Cicero’s consulship, stating that the “goal was to script unfinished pre-literary raw material” and that this material was not meant “to be thought of as public” even though these hypomnēmata “were in circulation” (pp. 13–14). He uses the example of Cicero and Caesar’s Gallic Wars (which were also notes) to argue that these hypomnēmata were really considered “pre-books” by ancient readers (p. 14). Yet, in both the letters to Atticus, Cicero referred to these very same notes as a completed book (Latin, liber) (Att. 1.20; 2.1).

"Of my writings I send you my consulship in Greek completed. I have handed that book to L. Cossinius. My Latin works I think you like, but as a Greek you envy this Greek book. If others write treatises on the subject I will send them to you, but I assure you that, as soon as they have read mine, somehow or other they become slack." (Att. 1.20)

"On the 1st of June, as I was on my way to Antium, and eagerly getting out of the way of M. Metellus's gladiators, your boy met me, and delivered to me a letter from you and a history of my consulship written in Greek. This made me glad that I had some time before delivered to L. Cossinius a book, also written in Greek, on the same subject, to take to you. For if I had read yours first you might have said that I had pilfered from you. Although your essay (which I have read with pleasure) seemed to me just a trifle rough and bald, yet its very neglect of ornament is an ornament in itself, as women were once thought to have the best perfume who used none. My book, on the other hand, has exhausted the whole of Isocrates's unguent case, and all the paint-boxes of his pupils, and even Aristotle's colours. This, as you tell me in another letter, you glanced over at Corcyra, and afterwards I suppose received it from Cossinius. I should not have ventured to send it to you until I had slowly and fastidiously revised it. However, Posidonius, in his letter of acknowledgment from Rhodes, says that as he read my memoir, which I had sent him with a view to his writing on the same subject with more elaboration, he was not only not incited to write, but absolutely made afraid to do so. In a word, I have routed the Greeks. Accordingly, as a general rule, those who were pressing me for material to work up, have now ceased to bother me. Pray, if you like the book, see to there being copies at Athens and other Greek towns for it may possibly throw some lustre on my actions." (At. 2.1)

Cicero also requested Atticus to make copies to be distributed in Athens and other Greek towns so that these transcripts could be read as a completed standalone composition (Att. 2.1). Cicero had previously sent copies to others, such as Posidonius, in order to use as material for a more “polished" piece. Despite this, Cicero appears to treat Posidonius’s history (if he were to have authored it) as a potentially separate work. This history would have had a different author with recognizable additions and alterations to his own notes (Att. 2.1). Cicero would not have considered Posidonius’s history the same writing as his own notes (though altered), which Larsen appears to be arguing. The same can be said about the conclusions drawn from Pliny the Elder’s annotations and the poet Martial. Pliny the Younger gave an account in one of his letters concerning his uncle, Pliny the Elder. Apparently his uncle had kept copious unpublished notes (commentarii) of all his reading and studying. These texts were offered to be purchased by Larcius Licinus for the astonishing sum of 400,000 sesterces (as observed by Larsen, pp. 17–18).

"Such was the application which enabled him to compile all those volumes I have enumerated, and he left me one hundred and sixty commonplace books, written on both sides of the scrolls, and in a very small handwriting, which really makes the number of the volumes considerably more. He used to say that when he was procurator in Spain he could have sold these commonplace books to Largius Licinus for four hundred thousand sesterces, and at that time they were much fewer in number"(Pliny, Ep. 3.5)

Apparently, Martial helps explain why such an enormous sum was offered for Pliny the Elder’s commentarii. In Epigr. 1.66, Martial complained that someone had stolen his writings and exhorted the thief that instead of stealing his work this person should have looked for “unpublished poems and raw pieces of writing, which only one person knows” (p. 18). 

"You are mistaken, insatiable thief of my writings, who think a poet can be made for the mere expense which copying, and a cheap volume cost. The applause of the world is not acquired for six or even ten sesterces. Seek out for this purpose verses treasured up, and unpublished efforts, known only to one person, and which the father himself of the virgin sheet, that has not been worn and scrubbed by bushy chins, keeps sealed up in his desk. A well-known book cannot change its master. But if there is one to be found yet unpolished by the pumice-stone, yet unadorned with bosses and cover, buy it: I have such by me, and no one shall know it. Whoever recites another's compositions, and seeks for fame, must buy, not a book, but the author's silence." (Martial, Ep. 1.66)

For Martial, one should attempt to publish someone else’s work as their own only when that work had never circulated, this is because, according to Martial, “A famous book cannot change its master” (p. 18). Rather than supporting Larsen’s thesis here, Martial reveals that commentarii and hypomnēmata (or any other written piece) could be refashioned into a different composition by another author only when this material had not yet gone into circulation and become known. This was because the author would have considered this misappropriation a theft and not the normal use of texts already in circulation (as Martial did in Ep. 1.66). This is why Licinus offered such a large sum for Pliny the Elder’s material; they were unpublished and thus no one would know that Licinus was not their author. Therefore, Martial actually reveals that the publication and circulation of a writing was a definitive point at which a text became more or less fixed, not more fluid. The physician Galen provides a good example of this phenomenon. In his On My Own Books he describes how many of his lecture transcripts were given to his friends and students for their own personal use and edification (De libr. propr. 19.10). These notes were circulated widely without his consent and were altered, misappropriated, and plagiarized by others (De libr. propr. 19.10). His students informed Galen of the situation, gathered these aberrant copies, and gave them back to Galen so that he could then correct them (De libr. propr. 19.10).

“[M]y books have been subject to all sorts of mutilations, whereby people in different countries publish* different texts under their own names, with all sorts of cuts, additions, and alterations—I decided it would be best, first to explain the cause of these mutilations, and secondly to give an account of the content of each of my genuine works. Well, as for the fact of my books being published by many people under their own names, my dearest Bassus, you know the reason yourself: it is that they were given without inscription to friends or pupils, having been written with no thought for publication, but simply at the request of those individuals, who had desired a written record of lectures they had attended. When in the course of time some of these individuals died, their successors came into possession of the writings, liked them, and began to pass them off as their own.[ . . .]* Taking them from their owners, they returned to their own countries, and after a short space of time began to perform the demonstrations* in them, each in some different way. All these were eventually caught, and many of those who then recovered the works affixed my name to them. They then discovered discrepancies between these and copies in the possession of other individuals, and so sent them to me with the request that I correct them.”(De  libr.  propr.  19.10).

This account effectively acts against Larsen’s thesis. Though these copies were crude and had no title or name affixed, Galen and his friends and students took issue with their alteration and appropriation by others. Even though they were mere “notes” he still considered them his own writings. Larsen attempts to use Galen as an example of this type of material being treated as fluid texts (pp. 29–30). Though his compositions were misappropriated and altered by others, these were considered corruptions, clear additions to Galen’s definitive writings, and his students worked hard to correct these alterations. This would not have occurred if this type of alteration and appropriation of notes was a culturally acceptable practice as Larsen attempts to argue. Despite these difficulties, Larsen goes on to apply to the Gospel of Mark his unique reading of the primary sources, declaring that “[t]here is no evidence of someone regarding the gospel [Mark] as a discrete, stable, finished book with an attributed author until the end of the second century CE” (p. 1). A few lines later he states that “there is no evidence of the idea of gospel as a gospel book with an author until much later” (p. 2). Despite this claim being an argument from silence, Justin Martyr provides early second century evidence that Mark was likely considered a separate and distinct composition referred to as a “Gospel.” In his Dialogue with Trypho, Justin makes a clear reference to Mark 3:16–17 (Dial. 106).

"And when it is said that He changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and when it is written in the memoirs of Him that this so happened, as well as that He changed the names of other two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means sons of thunder."(Dial. 106)

Larsen agrees that Justin does appear to make reference to Mark, “[h]e does not, though, call the text ‘the Gospel according to Mark’ nor even use the name ‘Mark’” (p. 92 n. 52; p. 180). This is not entirely correct, however, for in his First Apology Justin does refer to these writings as the “memoirs [ἀπομνημονεύματα] of the apostles” that were also called “Gospels” and these texts were handed down from previous generations (1 Apol. 1.66).

“For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them.” (1 Apol. 1.66)

Contrary to Larsen’s claim, something like the Gospel of Mark was read by Justin and referred to as a “Gospel” that had recognizable contours as a distinct composition. It was passed down from former Christians and was read alongside the writings of the prophets in Sunday worship services in the first half of the second century (1 Apol. 1.67). 

"And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things." (1 Apol. 1.67)

Concerning Papias’s statements about the composition of Mark and Matthew preserved in Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History, Larsen claims that Matthew did not write “a separate gospel” from Mark, rather, he merely placed Mark’s copying of Peter’s preaching “in an interpretive arrangement” (p. 92).

"But now we must add to the words of his which we have already quoted the tradition which he gives in regard to Mark, the author of the Gospel.
This also the presbyter said: 

"Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord's discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely." 

These things are related by Papias concerning Mark.

"But concerning Matthew he writes as follows: So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able."" (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39)

This highly speculative reading of Papias is largely based upon the “ancient writing practices and modes of authorship” discussed earlier (p. 92). As analyzed above, however, the ancient sources do not support the thesis concerning hypomnēmata. A simple reading of Eusebius’s quotation of Papias reveals that two distinct authors with two distinct writings are in view. Overall, Larsen’s thesis that hypomnēmata were textually fluid holds true only for those texts that remain uncirculated (as Martial reveals in Ep. 1.66). Once released and disseminating, whether intended by the author or not, the written material becomes “fixed” and distinctions between the initially released text and alterations are often made known in the community of readers (as Galen reveals in De libr. propr. 19.10). Therefore, Larsen’s conclusions ring hollow, that “[n]ew theories and frameworks must be developed that take textual fluidity seriously and do not rely on notions like author, book, or finished versions of text” (p. 154). The primary sources referenced in Gospels Before the Book reveal that first and second century figures actually did interact with texts in the ways that Larsen attempts to argue against. In other words, they did interact with writings using concepts “like author, book, [and] finished versions of text” (p. 154). Though most of the work remains unconvincing, there are one or two aspects of Gospels Before the Book that might commend it to those who lack knowledge of ancient publication. The monograph does survey an array of Greek, Roman, and Jewish primary sources. These could instruct those who are uninformed on ancient practices of composition and circulation as they relate to Gospel studies and textual criticism.

-------------------------------------------

Cicero's Letters to Atticus English translations taken from here

Eusebius Church History English translations taken from here

Galen, "Selected Works" (P. N. Singer, trans. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997)

Justin Martyr, "First Apology" English translation taken from here

Justin Martyr, "Dialogue With Typho" English translation taken from here

Martial's "Epigrams" English translation taken from here

Pliny he Younger's Letters English translation taken from here

Pliny the Younger: Bestselling Author in Gaul

Greco-Roman authors largely preferred private copying through friends and acquaintances to publish their work over commercial book sellers (see previous post). Despite this, bookseller were utilized, even if in some type of limited capacity (see previous post). Once an author's text began to circulate outside of the author's circle of acquaintances, the author could lose all knowledge of where his works were being copied, sold, and read.
Horace (65-8 BCE) illustrated this well when he wrote that “[w]hat you have not published you can destroy; the word once sent forth can never come back” (Ars. 389-390). Once published, anyone who was unknown to the author could obtain a copy of the author's composition and distribute it across the Roman world. Yet, even in these circumstances, an author could learn the fate of their work. This occurred in the case of Pliny the Younger (ca. 100 CE), when he received a letter from a friend, Rosianus Geminus, who lived in Lugdunum, Gaul (modern day Lyon, France). Pliny wrote a letter in response,

"I have your letter, an especially welcome one as you want me to write you something which can be included in your published work. I will find a subject, either the one you suggested or something preferable, for yours may give offence in certain quarters - use your eyes and you will see. I didn't think there were any booksellers in Lugdunum, so I was all the more pleased to learn from your letter that my efforts are being sold. I'm glad they retain abroad the popularity they won in Rome, and I'm beginning to think my work must really be quite good when public opinion in such widely different places is agreed about it." (Ep. 9.11).

 We can see from Pliny's return letter that his books were quite popular in Gaul. Even in the case of anonymous booksellers acquiring and selling copies of Pliny's works abroad, he was still able to obtain information regarding them through his circle of acquaintances and friends. Thus, any major alterations, corruptions, or plagiarizing of his work (at least in Gual) could have been made known to him.
  

Statue of Pliny the Younger on the Cathedral of S. Maria Maggiore in Como

________________

Horace. Satires, Epistles, and Ars Poetica (H. Rushton Faiclough, trans. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1942), 483.

Pliny. The Letters of the Younger Pliny (translated by Betty Radice. London: Penguin Books, 1969), 238-239.

Pliny the Younger on the Roman Bookroll

When reading through The Letters of the Younger Pliny, I came across some comments regarding the bookroll. In one of his letters to Cornelius Tacitus (who wrote the Annals and Agricola, among other writings), Pliny was discussing his argument with another orator on the over-use of brevity when giving a speech. Pliny believed that there was no substitute for a well crafted lengthy speech. Though brevity was "desirable if the case permits," he thought that "most points [in a speech] gain weight and emphasis by a fuller treatment, and make their mark on the mind by alternate thrust and pause, as a fencer uses his foil" (Ep. 1.20).
After describing several Greek and Roman orators who gave well crafted lengthy speeches, Pliny buttressed his argument by writing;

"Like all good things, a good book is all the better if it is a long one; and statues, busts, pictures and drawings of human beings, many animals and also trees can be seen to gain by being on a large scale as long as they are well-proportioned. The same applies to speeches; and when published they look better and more impressive in a good sized volume." (Ep. 1.20).

The context of Pliny's arguments are what make his comments on the bookroll so telling. In the same paragraph Pliny describes well proportioned statues, paintings, and lengthy bookrolls of speeches. In Pliny's mind, the format that the speech would take when published, that is, the bookroll, was just as visually important as a painting or a statue. The Greco-Roman bookroll carried with it a cultural symbolism of everything that was refined and educated. Even a speech gained when it was published in the form of a bookroll.
Hundreds of papyrus bookrolls have been discovered in Egypt that date to around the time Pliny was writing his letter to Tacitus. After studying these  Roman era papyrus bookrolls perserved in the sands of Oxyrhynchus, William A. Johnson noted that,

"The bookroll, here and elsewhere, shows distinct signs of deliberate design and attention to what is stylish, as well as exactness in execution involving both measurement and expert estimation. All of this is consistent--as a general picture--with the conclusion that bookrolls were generally the product of scribes trained for the task, that is, to an artisan apprentice trade. The trade clearly also involves a strong sense of cultural demands on the product. The bookroll signaled culture and learning, but for the bookroll to qualify as such required a particular look and feel with well-defined traditions of detail." ("The Ancient Book," 261)

 In other words, the material remains of the ancient papyrus books, and these comments by Pliny, reveal the cultural and aesthetic demands placed upon the bookroll.
This is in stark contrast to the book form used by the earliest Christians for the writings that later formed the New Testament (see previous posts, here, and here.)
_________________________

Bibliography.


Johnson, William A. “The Ancient Book,” The Oxford Handbook of Papyrology (ed. Roger S. Bagnall. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 256-277.
 
Radice, Betty, trans. The Letters of the Younger Pliny. London, England: Penguin Books, 1969.

A Roman Mosaic Depicting Virgil with a Bookroll

Virginius Rufus Killed by a Large Bookroll

My Dad pointed me to a reference in a letter of Pliny the Younger to a Virginius Rufus who had been killed by a large bookroll. It was too interesting not to pass it on.
Pliny wrote to his friend Voconius Romanus informing him about a cultured Roman dignitary, Virginius Rufus, who had lived a long and fruitful life to the age of 84 years. Virginius was such a revered man that Cornelius Tacitus gave the funeral oration. Pliny praised the virtues of Virginius's disciplined life to such a degree that even the circumstances surrounding his death were an occasion for admiration.
Pliny wrote:

"As he was rehearsing his speech of thanks to the Emperor, who had raised him to the consulship, a volume, which chanced to be inconveniently large for him to hold, escaped by its sheer weight the grasp that age and his upright posture doubly enfeebled. In hastily endeavoring to recover it, he missed his footing on the smooth slippery pavement; fell down, and broke his hip-bone; which fracture, as it was unskillfuly set at first, and having besides the infirmities of age to contend with, could never be brought to unite again. (Ep. 2.1)"

Apparently, the complications from this nasty fall contributed to Virginius's death. What is striking about Pliny's account is that some bookrolls were so large and cumbersome that they could not be easily handled by an aged man. This contrasts Martial's references to the codex made just a few decades before:

"You, who wish my poems should be everywhere with you, and look to have them as companions on a long journey, buy these which the parchment [codex] confines in small pages. Assign your book boxes to the great; this copy of me one hand can grasp. (Martial Epigr. 1.2)"

Of course, not all bookrolls were this large and later codices became quite large and bulky (i.e. Codex Sinaiticus), but this account illustrates the impracticality of the bookroll when compared to the codex (see previous discussion on the practicality of the codex, here and here).

__________________________
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Martial Epigrams, translated by C. A. Ker, (2 vols. Loeb Classical Library. New York: Putnam’s Sons, 1919), 1:30-31.

Pliny the Younger, Letters, Books 1-10, translated by William Melmoth, and W. M. L. Hutchinson (2 vols. Loeb Classical Library; London: W. Heinemann, 1915), 1:91-93.

Colossians 4:16 and Early Canon Formation

    When reading through the  New Testament I often think about the early Christian communities who first received Paul's letters and I wonder about how their initial treatment and acceptance of them would have been. While reading through the last part of Colossians recently one verse in particular caught my attention and caused me to think on the early Church and the beginnings of the New Testament canon.

"And after you have read this letter, have it read to the church of Laodicea. In turn, read the letter from Laodicea as well. (Col. 4:16, NET)"

     There are several features of the early Church that can be understood from this verse, but I would like to focus on one aspect that is significant to me, that of copying, collecting and distributing Paul's letters. Though Paul does not specifically command the Colossian Church to copy his letter in this verse, it is implied in his command to have his letter read in another city. Rather than send the original, the community would have copied  the letter and sent it on its way to Laodicea. The same would have been true of the Laodicean letter (most likely Ephesians; a subject of another post); it would have been copied then sent along its way to Colossae. Hierapolis, Laodicea and Colossae were important cities in close proximity to each other in the Lycus valley (part of western Turkey). Tychicus, most likely the bearer of the letter (Col. 4:7), would have walked straight through Laodicea on his way to Colossae, they were only a few miles apart. Thus it would have been no trouble to circulate the letter as Paul directed them by copying and distributing.
     Perhaps here in Colossians 4:16 we can begin to see the New Testament canon already developing, at least where Paul's epistles are concerned. Most likely, the church at these locations began to gather Paul's letters onto a single scroll or bound them into a single papyrus codex for further copying and circulation, or for their own use.
     This probably happened at Paul's end as well. One of his close companions, say Luke or Timothy, could have kept copies of Paul's letters for publication as a collection. It was very common in antiquity for notable figures, scholars or statesmen to collect and publish their correspondence in a single volume, whether scroll or codex, for their followers to read.
     Pliny the Younger (ca. 61-112? CE) was a Roman statesman and an accomplished orator and writer in his day. He often made joyful comments in his letters when others compared him to Cicero, Tacitus or the like. Pliny must have enjoyed some popularity and a following in his day. A friend of his, whether pupil or peer, urged Pliny to gather his numerous letters and publish them as a collection for others to enjoy.

"To Septicius Clarus,
You have often urged me to collect and publish any letters of mine which were composed with some care. I have now made a collection, not keeping to the original order as I was writing history, but taking them as they came to hand. It remains for you not to regret having made the suggestion and for me not to regret following it; for then I shall set about recovering letters which have hitherto been put away and forgotten, and I shall not suppress any which I may write in the future. (Pliny, Letters, 1.1)"

     This is the first of Pliny's letters and must have been the driving force behind this published collection which has survived from antiquity. It is also interesting to note that book ten of Pliny's correspondence would have been gathered after his death by a friend and included in the publication.
   This same situation could have occurred with Paul's epistles. As the letters circulated among the various Christian communities they would have been gathered and copied into a single scroll or codex, which was the common practice of the time.

P46 showing 2 Corinthians (Wikimedia Commons)

    One superb example of this gathering activity has survived surprisingly well, despite the ravages of time. Papyrus P46, as it has come to be designated, is an early collection of Paul's epistles in a single codex. Though under some discussion, the approximate date is some where around 200 CE and originates in the Fayum of Egypt (Comfort, 206). The codex contains the texts of Romans, Hebrews, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Galatians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians and, though missing now, would have originally contained 2 Thessalonians as well (Royse, 202). 
    The codex of P46 was made only 100 years after the time Colossians was written. In this space of time Paul's epistles were collected into a single volume and widely distributed to at least as far as Egypt. It is safe to assume that this collecting and publishing occurred very early most likely when Paul was still alive. This activity occurred not only as a result of Paul's commands like we see in Col 4:16, but because the early Christians valued and cherished his epistles.

Comfort, Philip Wesley and David P. Barrett. The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 2001.

Radice, Betty, trans. The Letters of the Younger Pliny. London, England: Penguin Books, 1969.

Royse, James R. Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papyri. Leiden: Brill, 2008.