In the letter of reference written on behalf of his provincial friend Arrianus Maturus, Pliny writes: “Maturus Arrianus is the leading citizen of Altinum. When I say ‘leading citizen’, I mean not his resources, which are considerable, but his integrity, his sense of justice, his dignity and his practical wisdom. I make use of his advice in business matters, and I use his judgment in intellectual pursuits, for exceptional honesty, truthfulness and understanding make him an outstanding individual” (3.2.2-3). Arrianus is the first citizen of the hometown because he exceeds his fellow townsmen in moral virtue, just as Trojan, according to Pliny’s Panegyric becomes princeps because of his high moral principles. Finally, Arrianus’s qualities are so outstanding that even Pliny, a senior statesman, chooses to consult with him and to rely on his judgement. Thus, Pliny draws a harmonious picture, in which the exemplary virtues of the princeps are matched by the virtues of the senior statesman, as well as by unblemished morality of Arrianus himself.
Pliny’s self-presentation as an embodiment of “imperial virtues” extends to his treatment of slaves. His household is described as a republic in miniature: “I allow slaves to make a sort of will which I observe as legal. They give instructions and make requests as they think fit, and I follow them out as if I were under orders. They distribute their possessions, make gifts and bequeath legacies, as long as they do it within their household. For the household furnishes slaves with a republic and a sort of citizenship” (8.16.1-2). The image is a striking one, if a little disturbing: slaves are presented as “citizens” of Pliny’s household, with the right to bequeath their property to anyone they like, provided that the recipient himself is a part of the household. Strange as this notion is, it matches well the civic freedoms guaranteed by Nerva and Trajan after Domitian’s “reign of terror”. We know from Suetonius’s Life of Domitian (ch. 12) that the last Flavian emperor interfered in matters of inheritance and was often the recipient of legacies which he illegally claimed. By contrast, Pliny presents himself as a caring slave-owner who does not intend to intrude upon the decision-making of his slaves.
Stanley Hoffer states (p. 24): "Pliny… presents his letters as the authentic record of an ideal person in an ideal time, in which neither agonizing decisions nor regrets ever arise. Pliny’s optimistic, regret-free persona implies praise of the new emperors, under whom this ideal life is possible.” This ideal vision of the public world is supported by Pliny’s philosophic outlook. Pliny buttresses his understanding of his public obligations with the precepts of Stoic moral philosophy which Pliny learned from the philosopher Euphrates. Although Pliny at times complains about a lack of leisure (as, for example, in letter 1.10), his public life is quite in keeping with the teachings of Euphrates: “He comforts me, asserting that this is the noblest branch of philosophy: to take care of public business, to run trials and pass verdicts, to expound and administer justice and to put into practice precepts taught by philosophers” (1.10.10). Thus, moral philosophy contributes to Pliny’s unified vision of the public world, and the obligation to participate in the worldly affairs of the empire acquires philosophical significance.
