Edward Nolan, National Taiwan University
This paper argues that bilingual puns in Pliny the Younger’s Letters are most effectively interpreted as instances of code-switching, “the alternation of two languages in conversation” (Gardner-Chloros, 11). Code-switching adds levity to the Letters, emphasizes Pliny’s connection to Cicero, and enables him to navigate tricky social situations. The paper thus advocates for Pliny’s sophistication as a stylist, following authors such as Gibson and Morello, Whitton (2019), Méthy, and Lefèvre, against the enduring view that Pliny is “a bore with an inflated opinion of his own mediocre literary… talents” (Winsbury, 1). Most previous studies of code-switching in Roman literature (e.g. Adams, Dubuisson, Rollinger, and Wenskus) ignore Pliny, with the notable exception of Elder and Mullen, who consider Pliny without focusing upon him, and the brief treatment of Rochette (474-478). Building on these scholars and linguistic scholarship on literary code-switching, such as Callahan, McClure, and Montes-Alcalá, this paper examines code-switching as an element of Pliny’s epistolary art.
Take Ep. 2.11, in which Pliny narrates his prosecution of Marius Priscus. Pliny reports that “there remains after this prosecution the not-trivial little trifle” (superest tamen λιτούργιον non leve) of Priscus’ deputy Hostilius Firminus (2.11.23). The example illuminates Plinian humor because adopting the reading λιτούργιον (‘little trifle’, a neologism), as most editors do, allows Pliny to play on the contrast between λιτός (‘minor’ or ‘petty’, which is combined with ἔργον and the diminutive -ιον to coin the term) and non leve (the opposite of λιτός). Moreover, as Whitton points out, the contrast is then extended via the name Firminus, since firmus is often used as an antonym to levis (2013, 182), giving an additional example of Pliny’s tendency to pun on names (e.g. Ep. 1.18, 3.16, 7.3), something Cicero also does (e.g. Att.1.19.2-3). The use of bilingual wordplay in general also invokes Cicero. Such punning is one of the most distinctive features of Cicero’s Greek (Elder and Mullen, 148-52).
λιτούργιον also shows the importance of visuality to Pliny’s epistolary art. Disambiguating it from λειτούργιον (‘little liturgy’) depends on writing and not language. If the term had been written in Latin as opposed to Greek script, as Pliny sometimes does with Greek words, the pun would not be apparent, because both ι and ει would be transliterated and pronounced as ‘i’ (Horrocks, 167, cf. Ep. 7.27.5). While λειτούργιον is also humorous, it loses the sophisticated play between λιτός, leve, and Firminus. Finally, the example shows the social use of code-switching by Pliny. Using Greek to deliver his criticism, he maintains the cordial tone appropriate to a friendly letter despite the unpleasant business that he is discussing. Other Plinian wordplay to be considered includes μικραίτιος (‘making accusations for small reasons’, playing on magna causa, Ep. 2.2.1) and Σοφοκλεῖς (from σοφῶς and καλεῖσθαι and paired with a definition in Latin that is also a pun, Ep. 2.14.5). Together these examples show how Pliny’s wordplay opens new perspectives on Roman code-switching and Plinian literary art.