Pliny The Elder Analysis

Pliny the Elder or Gaius Plinius Secundus in Latin, is best known for his extensive work Natural History or Naturalis Historia (Purcell: 2005). Pliny's only surviving work spans over 37 books covering the of topics, astronomy, geography, animals including humans, plants and agriculture, medicine, and metals and minerals (Stannard: 2013). In 23AD, Pliny was born at Novum Comum, in Gallia Cisalpine, Italy, to a prosperous equestrian family (Purcell: 2005). He was a military man serving in Germany eventually rising the the position of cavalry commander, he studied law practices, and was a naturalist and an author. Pliny met his demise on August 24th, 79AD when he was asphyxiated by the volcanic fumes from the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius near Pompeii.

(Stannard: 2013)
Today, Pliny's Natural History is known to be both a factual and fictional work. In Pliny's time no one knew any better to be able to object his findings, Pliny was the first person to collect all of the information and compile it into an encyclopedia. Factually, Pliny was supported because he gathered some his information from over a hundred sources whom he grants credit to in his books. For example, in his books on animals, he acquired most of his factually sound knowledge from Aristotle. On Pliny's part, he was adept in reading Greek and collected information from Greek texts, however he appears to have carried out his translations hastily as he has made inaccuracies in some areas. The fictional aspects of Pliny's work is attributed to his belief in magic and folklore. While he does use external sources' knowledge, when he applies his own original thoughts in his writing they are not supported by any fact. For example, while Pliny acquires facts on fauna from Aristotle, Pliny's own thoughts were concerned with animals from legends and folklore which are both unsupported. Comparing Natural History to the supported knowledge that we have in the present day, only Pliny's books on plants and agriculture have made a significant contribution to science as discoveries made since the work was published have confirmed his writings. At the time in Roman history however, Pliny's work would have been held in high regard as a source of knowledge. (Stannard: 2013)
In book three of Natural History, sections 16, 17, 18, and 19 concerns various rivers, waterways, towns, villages and the communities that are settled along the riverbanks and coast-line in Italy.
In section 16, Pliny delves into the mouths in Italy. He begins with the three mouths that form the Flavian Canal; the Casprasian, the Sagis and the Volane. The 'Seven Seas' is the result of the Flavian Canal emptying into the marshes of the Atriani. The harbour in a town called Atria along this river is where the origination of the name the Adriatic Sea hails from. Pliny carries on moving to the next mouths of importance which have a greater depth than those previously discussed. The Carbonaria and the Fosses of Philistina are deep-water mouths that are created by overflow from the Philistina Canal, the Adige from the Trentino Alps, and from Padua the Bacchinglione. Pliny citing outside sources acknowledges that the Po river unites through these streams and expels into the Adriatic and create a form that is similar to the Delta in Egypt made by the Nile river. Pliny goes on to conclude this section by discussing the etymology of the Padus river of which he gathers from Metrodorus of Scepsis and states proof that supports Metrodorus' statement. (Pliny: III § 16)
Moving on, section 17 Pliny has divided Italy into regions and this section in particular focusses on the eleventh region and its rivers and towns. The region named Transpadana is located inland away from the sea, but the river allows for the region to have access to the sea for import and export. The towns in this region of Italy are Seluzzo, Susa, Turin, Ivrea, Vercelli, Libieii, Novara, Para, and Melpum. Pliny goes into the history of these towns and their founding people using outside sources, Cato, Cornelius Alexander and Cornelius Nepos but is sure to acknowledge his sources' uncertainty of the validity of their knowledge. This section focusses mainly on the communities and towns of the region and their history. (Pliny: III § 17)
In section 18, Pliny continues by discussing the tenth region of Italy. Pliny writes about rivers, mountains, towns, ports and people that are found in the tenth region which is located on the coast of the Adriatic Sea. The rivers in the tenth region are the Silo, the Liquenzo, the Rieti, the Greater and Lesser Tagliamento, the Stella, the Alsa, the Natisone, the Torre, the Timavo, and finally the Formio. Pliny uses several measurements in this section to help give a greater sense of the distance between towns using Roman miles. Pliny tries to include the etymology of towns and rivers whenever he can, usually citing others as sources to be more convincing of the truth. In this section Pliny also disproves beliefs of others. He challenges that no river flows out of the Danube into the Adriatic making the belief that a ship called the Argo was sailed down a river from the Danube into the Adriatic false. He states that “more careful writes” believe that the ship was carried by men across the alps instead. (Pliny: III § 18)
Section 19 concerns the tenth region and the Istria peninsula. Pliny begins by stating different opinions as to how to the size of the peninsula, but is unable to give a definite answer as to how to perceive the peninsula's measurements. The towns in Istria are Aegida, Parenzo, the colony of Pola, and Nesactium. The Tuscan towns in the tenth region are Asolo, Padua, Oderzo, Belluno, Vicenza, and Mantua. The colonies in the region are the Cremona and Brescia of the Cenomani, and the Este of the Veneti. The Rhaetie towns in the region are Feltre, Trent and Berua, Verona and Zuglio. Pliny believes that not all people and communities need to be looked at in-depth and briefly lists the others, as well as communities that have disappeared. The region also contains eleven lakes and rivers which are all tributaries of the Po river. (Pliny: III § 19)
In these four sections of Natural History, Pliny seems to be bored.

The majority of the writing in these sections are just lists of rivers, and towns, its seems as though he has included these for the sake of being complete in his collection of books. I felt bored and unengaged while reading through it, though it was informative. Pliny appears to be accurate as he takes the time to disprove a few beliefs of his time, as well he consults several different sources albeit he does not give all of his sources a name. At times he will specifically name his source and at others he will simply credit them as authors, authorities or historians. He enjoys including the distances between towns to give readers a perspective of how far away a town would be from the sea, but I find it difficult to believe that these measurements are primary evidence, rather I believe that he gathered them from secondary sources. I doubt that Pliny would have travelled to such great lengths to calculate the distance. When he does include distances and acknowledges a secondary source, he does not give specific names, he labels them as 'authorities'. Pliny may have just made relative estimations of the distances to make himself sound more credible by having numerical figures in his work. In section 16, Pliny writes, “ one is ashamed to borrow an account of Italy from the Greeks” (Pliny: III § 16). From what I have gathered from biographies of Pliny he utilized Greek texts as a valued resource throughout his work, yet here he is ashamed to have consulted from them. Unfortunately I am unable to say for sure as to how accurate Pliny's accounts truly are. Many of the towns that Pliny writes of can only be found in his Natural History as a majority of them no longer exist in modern Italy. The resources and documents that Pliny referred to may not have survived making it difficult to gage his reliability. It is a reversal in a way, during Pliny's time people believed his accounts to be true as they did

not know anything else, whereas I believe his accounts for the same reasons. I have no means to prove him wrong because much of what he writes I cannot prove or disprove.