Scan barcode
dee9401's review against another edition
4.0
While reading Pliny, I felt as if I were in an alternative world where he was a reincarnation of Herodotus writing Wikipedia entries. Pliny also reminds me of the bibliographer Thomas Frognall Dibdin, in that his excitement is infectious. Pliny’s breadth and easy writing style soften the blow that at times he’s a little confused and, at other times, flat out wrong. Pliny was not doing original research. He collected broadly from the ideas and writings available to him and added his own analysis. This was a fun romp through one of the original prototype encyclopedias.
I found interesting facts on paper (Book XIII, 68-91), bay leaves (XV, 137), olive trees (XV, 1-11), women painters (XXXV, 147-148), and perfume (XIII, 1-25). I liked reading about mercury (XXXIII, 99), mostly because I liked reading its Latin name argentum vivum, literally living silver. Finally, even in the year 77, women were interested in removing wrinkles and making their skin soft, using the craziest of concoctions, e.g. ass’s milk (XXVIII, 183).
Pliny is still relevant today. He writes how many people are focused on the accumulation of wealth rather than the enrichment of the mind (XIV, 4-5; XXXIII, 8, 48). He calls out doctors for focusing on how much they could charge instead of working to cure and aid their patients (XXIX). He takes joy in calling out the evils of drinking, especially to excess (XIV, 142) and even jokes how that with beer, “We have even discovered how to make water intoxicating” (XIV, 149).
Pliny says that the two greatest crimes against human life were the first person to put gold on his fingers and the first person to introduce coinage (XXXIII, 8, 42-43). In an astute discussion of mining, Pliny writes:
I found interesting facts on paper (Book XIII, 68-91), bay leaves (XV, 137), olive trees (XV, 1-11), women painters (XXXV, 147-148), and perfume (XIII, 1-25). I liked reading about mercury (XXXIII, 99), mostly because I liked reading its Latin name argentum vivum, literally living silver. Finally, even in the year 77, women were interested in removing wrinkles and making their skin soft, using the craziest of concoctions, e.g. ass’s milk (XXVIII, 183).
Pliny is still relevant today. He writes how many people are focused on the accumulation of wealth rather than the enrichment of the mind (XIV, 4-5; XXXIII, 8, 48). He calls out doctors for focusing on how much they could charge instead of working to cure and aid their patients (XXIX). He takes joy in calling out the evils of drinking, especially to excess (XIV, 142) and even jokes how that with beer, “We have even discovered how to make water intoxicating” (XIV, 149).
Pliny says that the two greatest crimes against human life were the first person to put gold on his fingers and the first person to introduce coinage (XXXIII, 8, 42-43). In an astute discussion of mining, Pliny writes:
We penetrate her [the Earth’s] inmost parts, digging into her veins of gold and silver and deposits of copper and lead. We search for gems ... by sinking shafts into the depths. We drag out Earth’s entrails; we seek a jewel to wear on a finger. How many hands are worn by toil so that one knuckle may shine! If there were any beings in the nether world, assuredly the tunnelling brought about by greed and luxury would have dug them up. (II, 158)On the madness of artificial nations and land, he says:
This is the land in which we drive out our neighbours and dig up and steal their turf to add to our own, so that he who has marked his acres most widely and driven off his neighbours may rejoice in possessing an infinitesimal part of the earth. (II 175)
4lbxrtoii's review against another edition
4.0
“Art has always been the handmaid of nature.”
“The only certainty is that nothing is certain, and that nothing is more wretched or more arrogant than man.”
“True glory consists in doing what deserves to be written, in writing what deserves to be read, and in living so as to make the world happier and better for our living in it.”
Pliny the Elder’s Natural History is an impressive window into the worldview of ancient Rome—part science textbook, part encyclopedia, and part philosophical treatise. This selection highlights Pliny’s insatiable curiosity and attempts to catalog everything from astronomy to botany to art and human achievements.
What I loved most about this book is how it captures the sense of wonder and awe that drove Pliny to compile such a monumental work. His observations about nature and humanity are sometimes profound, sometimes amusing, and often thought-provoking. Quotes like “Nature is to be found in her entirety nowhere more than in her smallest creatures” really stayed with me.
That said, Natural History isn’t an easy read. The sheer scope of Pliny’s ambition can be overwhelming, and some sections feel like long lists rather than cohesive narratives. But the moments of insight, humor, and timeless wisdom make it worth the effort.
While it is fascinating and historically significant, it’s not always engaging by modern standards. Still, it’s a remarkable record of ancient knowledge and a testament to Pliny’s determination to understand the world. I’d recommend it to anyone interested in history, science, or the origins of encyclopedic thinking.
“The only certainty is that nothing is certain, and that nothing is more wretched or more arrogant than man.”
“True glory consists in doing what deserves to be written, in writing what deserves to be read, and in living so as to make the world happier and better for our living in it.”
Pliny the Elder’s Natural History is an impressive window into the worldview of ancient Rome—part science textbook, part encyclopedia, and part philosophical treatise. This selection highlights Pliny’s insatiable curiosity and attempts to catalog everything from astronomy to botany to art and human achievements.
What I loved most about this book is how it captures the sense of wonder and awe that drove Pliny to compile such a monumental work. His observations about nature and humanity are sometimes profound, sometimes amusing, and often thought-provoking. Quotes like “Nature is to be found in her entirety nowhere more than in her smallest creatures” really stayed with me.
That said, Natural History isn’t an easy read. The sheer scope of Pliny’s ambition can be overwhelming, and some sections feel like long lists rather than cohesive narratives. But the moments of insight, humor, and timeless wisdom make it worth the effort.
While it is fascinating and historically significant, it’s not always engaging by modern standards. Still, it’s a remarkable record of ancient knowledge and a testament to Pliny’s determination to understand the world. I’d recommend it to anyone interested in history, science, or the origins of encyclopedic thinking.
jesswalsh's review against another edition
2.0
This translation is medium but the presentation of it - the quality and usefulness of the footnotes - is shit.
Throughout the whole thing only a handful of the statements Pliny makes are disputed/commented upon, and those examples seem absolutely random. At one point during the geographical chapters a footnote intercedes that the given length of Sri Lanka is wrong when... bb... all the given dimensions in those chapters are wrong to a greater or lesser extent? The only historical ‘fact’ to be questioned is that of the Athenian tyrannicides killing Hipparchus, to which the footnote snippily and incongruously notes ‘there is no evidence to support this claim’.
The few notes that are included tend to give the modern dates for events, but even in this case the lack of engagement with the actual text makes them less than useful. As an example, in book 31 line 41, Pliny states the Aqua Marcia was built by King Ancus Marcius and later repaired by praetor Quintus Marcius Rex. The editor makes a note here to say QMR built the aqueduct in 144 BC. This begs the question, obviously, of why Pliny thought the aqueduct far pre-dated this and was originally built in the time of the kings? Why was Pliny so incorrect about this point, which we would expect him be to be well informed of considering the dates line up with Cato the censor, a period of Roman history that was documented and Pliny often refers to. The note gives you nothing, not even a starting point of engagement, and just adds a level of unneeded confusion.
In one case, the editor is even flat out wrong by more than 300 years - in book 33 line 16 Pliny references Gaius Marius Jr making off with the treasury, which is noted as occurring in 390 BC. It actually happened in 82 BC during the civil war against Sulla. In academic terms, this is beyond a boo boo and into the realm of ‘stinker’.
Most damningly for the quality of translation, the footnotes almost never comment on the language or grammar used in the original, so it’s hard to get a sense of the Latin or the renowned Pliny ‘roughness’. There are a few places I would have loved to hear the justification for a particular sentence construction, or an explanation for a convoluted mess, but there just never was one.
It seems the same decision to create a ‘selection’ of the book rather than present the whole text (not explained or justified at any point) may have been taken to reduce the footnotes to a bare minimum, which would explain why they are so few and their length/quality is so low, but a better selection could definitely have been made.
Skip this, get a reader to Pliny or something instead.
Throughout the whole thing only a handful of the statements Pliny makes are disputed/commented upon, and those examples seem absolutely random. At one point during the geographical chapters a footnote intercedes that the given length of Sri Lanka is wrong when... bb... all the given dimensions in those chapters are wrong to a greater or lesser extent? The only historical ‘fact’ to be questioned is that of the Athenian tyrannicides killing Hipparchus, to which the footnote snippily and incongruously notes ‘there is no evidence to support this claim’.
The few notes that are included tend to give the modern dates for events, but even in this case the lack of engagement with the actual text makes them less than useful. As an example, in book 31 line 41, Pliny states the Aqua Marcia was built by King Ancus Marcius and later repaired by praetor Quintus Marcius Rex. The editor makes a note here to say QMR built the aqueduct in 144 BC. This begs the question, obviously, of why Pliny thought the aqueduct far pre-dated this and was originally built in the time of the kings? Why was Pliny so incorrect about this point, which we would expect him be to be well informed of considering the dates line up with Cato the censor, a period of Roman history that was documented and Pliny often refers to. The note gives you nothing, not even a starting point of engagement, and just adds a level of unneeded confusion.
In one case, the editor is even flat out wrong by more than 300 years - in book 33 line 16 Pliny references Gaius Marius Jr making off with the treasury, which is noted as occurring in 390 BC. It actually happened in 82 BC during the civil war against Sulla. In academic terms, this is beyond a boo boo and into the realm of ‘stinker’.
Most damningly for the quality of translation, the footnotes almost never comment on the language or grammar used in the original, so it’s hard to get a sense of the Latin or the renowned Pliny ‘roughness’. There are a few places I would have loved to hear the justification for a particular sentence construction, or an explanation for a convoluted mess, but there just never was one.
It seems the same decision to create a ‘selection’ of the book rather than present the whole text (not explained or justified at any point) may have been taken to reduce the footnotes to a bare minimum, which would explain why they are so few and their length/quality is so low, but a better selection could definitely have been made.
Skip this, get a reader to Pliny or something instead.