How does the thought of the Panegyricus relate to the aesthetics that underlie it? The question has been little explored; but what we have is a version of the speech which Pliny circulated partly as a work of art. Oratorical art involves aesthetic ideas; in seeing how those aesthetic ideas are realized, we will see in turn how the political ideas are realized, in an ill-comprehended achievement of Roman prose.

Nec uero adfectanda sunt semper | elata et excelsa | (‘nor should one strive perpetually for lofty and exalted effects’, Ep. 3.13.4). So Pliny on this speech. The passage indicates that elevation is important, even dominant, in the speech. Formally Pliny is emphasizing his artful variety, a value that matters to him (cf. 3.13.4 with e.g. 5.17.2); likewise he stresses his expression and technique rather than his speaking magnifice ‘grandly’ (3.13.2–3). But we need not be very experienced readers of Pliny or students of negatives to see that Pliny is with modest indirectness pointing our attention precisely to the sublime element in his speech (we shall return to the word ‘sublime’). Other letters make it clear that sublimity in oratory is a vital concept for Pliny. Its permissibility is the focus of controversy; but the controversy is in Pliny another indirect mode of self-display. There is every reason, then, to explore the nature of sublimity in the Panegyricus.