EN XXXIIa: παρακατιών

This participle means ‘moving on with one’s exposition’. Technically it is a present (as well as future) participle of the verb παρακατέρχομαι (or, παρακάτειμι = going down to the next point). But this compound verb (παρὰ + κατὰ + εἶμι) has never actually been used in any other form than this participle, which became a standard usage for any other author stating that he ‘moves forward’ with his analysis. This is a term used by Cassian himself following his indisputable reading of Athenaeus, and probably of Porphyry. It appears in catenists and commentators, particularly Aristotelian ones, some of whom were his contemporaries, such as John Philoponus and Olympiodorus, the philosopher of Alexandria.

The telling exception of Theodore of Mopsuestia apart, no Christian author shows this usage, at least not until Andreas of Caesarea used the participle in his own Commentary on the Apocalypse. One instance in Cosmas Indicopleustes is of special importance, once my analysis about a certain contact between him and Cassian is taken into account: it would be extravagant to see this as mere coincidence.

This commentary aims to provoke and assist readers to engage with a book of Pliny's Epistles in Latin. It was written in the conviction that so rich a work can only be appreciated in its original language, that slow reading is essential to an understanding of Pliny's art, and that approaching the Epistles through anthologies is to miss fundamental levels of meaning. Pliny's stock is on the rise: a series of articles and monographs in the last two decades has affirmed the value of engaging with his prose not just as document but (also) as literature. Yet literary readers are scarcely served by modern commentaries in any language, and Epistles 2 has so far escaped sustained attention in any form – two reasons to hope that the volume in your hands is timely. It has the aspiration to help readers construe Pliny's Latin, to situate his work in a historical (and scholarly) context and to offer a literary interpretation which opens rather than closes discussion. Atque haec ego sic accipi uolo, non tamquam assecutum esse me credam…(2.5.9).

I have been spoiled over three years with excellent libraries and good company in Cambridge, Munich and Berlin, and with generous help from many people. Anna Anguissola, David Butterfield, Emily Gowers, Harry Hine, Richard Hunter, Myles Lavan, Lucia Prauscello and David Sedley gave advice, and Amanda Claridge, James Diggle, Catharine Edwards, Peter Garnsey and Ingo Gildenhard commented on parts of the book in draft. Neil Hopkinson, Michael Reeve and Tony Woodman offered valuable criticisms of the whole, as did series editors Philip Hardie and Stephen Oakley, generous in their encouragement, and John Henderson, supervisor and mentor of unstinting kindness over many years. With Roy Gibson, exemplary reader, correspondent and host, I have enjoyed uices pulchrae iucundae: it is a pleasure to advertise here his forthcoming commentary on Epistles 6 in this series. Moreed Arbabzadah and James McNamara cheerfully undertook long hours of reference-checking, and it was a great luxury to have Andrew Dyck as copy-editor. To all these my sincere thanks.