SOURCE: "Petronius: Satirist, Moralist, Epicurean, Artist," The Classical Bulletin, Vol. 45, No. 4, February, 1969, pp. 49-50, 64.

[In the following essay, Schmeling considers Petronius's intent in the Satyricon, concluding that the author sought to entertain, and that the moral aspects of the satire are present only as a part of the means to the end of producing art.]

In 1941 Gilbert Highet noted that Petronius, writing as a satirist, ought also to be considered a moralist.¹ This was novel and perhaps even a bit shocking. In 1963 Oskar Raith proposed that Petronius be regarded as an Epicurean, but one without a moral stance.² William Nethercut³ proposed (perhaps on the analogy of Highet's satirist-equals-moralist theory) that just as surely as Petronius had adopted the position of an Epicurean, so he had assumed "the posture of one who relates observation from an ethical standpoint to a clearly defined situation, [and thus] can be fairly grouped among the moralists."⁴ Although not necessarily agreeing that Petronius was an Epicurean, many scholars would second Nethercut's motion to accept Petronius as a moralist.⁵ Then in 1967 John Sullivan set forth evidence for his view that Petronius was not a satirist, moralist, or Epicurean, but an artist.⁶ All these studies have pointed up a "new Petronian question."

What was Petronius' intent in writing the Satyricon? It is my concern here to try to determine the intent of the author, perhaps at more than one level. The tone of the Satyricon, that is, the attitude of Petronius toward the characters and their actions, is very much disputed but surely has some bearing on the intent. While the sense, the literal meaning of the Satyricon, is usually intelligible where the manuscripts are good, the tone of the author and his relationship to the narrator is not always clear.⁷ The feeling of the reader (his experience and imagination as related to the Satyricon) works to interpret the sense. My concern is not to discuss the literary merits of the Satyricon in view of the intent of the author or to judge the Satyricon by the feelings of the reader, but rather to try to discuss the author's intent itself. Although I am concerned with intent here, it is perhaps irrelevant to the value of the work as a piece of literature.

Before Highet's essay in 1941 the prevailing view of Petronius and his Satyricon was, at best, that they were unfit for mixed company and, at worst (in the words of P. Massen), that liberque in eodem cum suo auctore rogo flagrare debuit, non alia luce dignior. Highet develops his argument in this direction: Petronius used the form of a Menippean satire, and to the ancient writer genre was rigidly defined and by itself disclosed the intent of the author. The intent of a satirist is, by definition, moral. Because no audience could approve of murder, theft, and outlawry, Highet reasons that Petronius must have described the false taste of his characters with an eye to correcting them: "To show their repulsiveness, to describe their constant danger and guilt… is to be a moralist and a satirist."⁸ Highet later took this same approach to Juvenal.⁹

Oskar Raith's monograph on Petronius as Epicurean has received less than enthusiastic reviews. Nevertheless, Nethercut has accepted it and has built his Petronius-the-moralist theory on it: an Epicurean must have an ethical standpoint and consequently must be some kind of moralist.

The last in the line of theories dealing with the "new Petronian question" is that Petronius is an artist.¹⁰ Sullivan believes that Petronius was driven to write the Satyricon not by the motives of a satirist but rathet by those of an artist. Petronius uses his material to entertain, not to correct, censure, or chastise. If the tone does approach the satirical it is because Petronius means to use satire as a form of entertainment. The "abnormal" sexual adventures, far from being a guide book of how-not-to (Highet's view), can be judged psychoanalytically to reveal Freudian symptoms of scopophilia in the dramatic characters and perhaps in Petronius himself: "The regular choice of such incidents for insertion into the narrative may reflect an unconscious pattern of attention."¹¹

It seems to me that Petronius is determined to entertain his listeners with stories of thefts, sexual adventures and misadventures. Even in the Cena Trimalchionis we learn of past sexual escapes and witness new ones. If it were Petronius' intent to present a coherent moral program, the atmosphere of the novel would suggest that he had failed. From beginning to end Petronius portrays the seamy side of first century provincial life. After such total immersion in what appear to be immoral stories, it would be unnatural to conclude the Satyricon with a moral message. Even a scene in which a character seems to condemn aberrant morals is probably not to be taken seriously. Agamemnon, who represents the worst in rhetoricians, condemns Asian rhetoric; Encolpius condemns the infidelity of his lover, only to be found more unfaithful; Eumolpus, who had just alluded to Horace's advice about limae labor, reels off a 295 line epyllion from the top of his head, while he is walking along the road to Croton, versus dictabat stans pede in uno.

An artistic approach to one episode may help illustrate Petronius' intent in the Satyricon. The Quartilla story (Sat. 16-26), though of considerable length, has seldom been considered. The scene which opens with Quartilla crashing through the outer door, closes with Quartilla peeping through the chink in the inner door at the deflowering ceremony of Pannychis. The eye of the audience follows Quartilla as she enters the room, but remains in the doorway, so to speak, and views the action from there. The whole Quartilla episode shows a constant effort to direct the spectator-reader in a special way. The scene (perhaps with dominant over-tones from the mime) begins with Petronius inviting the audience to view his small portrait through the opened front door. The direction is set. After experiments on several levels of amor the story closes with the youth Giton consummating a marriage with sevenyear-old Pannychis. Petronius presents the scene in such a way as to make sure the audience notes the direction. Along with Quartilla, who is the first to put her eye to the chink to see the consummation, the audience is also invited to view the scene. Petronius has developed a telescope effect whereby the audience (spectator-reader) first takes in the scene broadly through the outside door, then more narrowly through the inside door, and finally all attention is focused through the chink in the inside door.

Whether we can appreciate such scenes, or whether such scenes have any merit whatever, is not our concern here. We are not considering whether it is art or pornography, but rather what Petronius' intent was in writing it. He does not seem to have written it because he was a satirist-moralist or an Epicurean-moralist. Satirists and moralists do not immerse their audience in lengthy, well wrought scenes of "immorality," and then expect it to reject their work of art. Satirists and moralists work within a defined moral system, which can be recognized. But where is Petronius' system? Material is chosen by Petronius not because it fits his moral outlook, but rather because of its richness and adaptability to his wit, humor, or satire. This is the difference between a satirist and an artist (Sullivan). Furthermore, we cannot assume out of hand with Highet that all the world disapproves of theft, murder, and outlawry.¹² At the same time it is not necessary for Petronius to approve or disapprove of the actions of his characters, who are, after all, instruments of his form of art and not mirrors of his own character. His intent was to produce an art-form, and thus he must be considered an artist. Our feelings toward his creation of art are irrelevant. We may consider it bawdy, risqué, or even pornographic. Petronius' intent was to entertain, and he decided that the best way to do it was through a novel form using wit, parody, satire, yes, even "immoral" scenes.¹³

Notes

¹ G. Highet, "Petronius the Moralist," TAPA 72 (1941) 176-194.

² 0. Raith, Petronius ein Epikureer (Erlanger Beiträge zur Sprach und Kunstwissenschaft [Nuremberg 1963]). H. Musurillo, "Dream Symbolism in Petronius Frag. 30," CP 53 (1958) 108-110, had earlier hinted at this.

³ W. Nethercut, "Petronius, Epicurean and Moralist," CB 43 (1967) 53-55. Nethercut does not take into account the work of E. Courtney, "Parody and Literary Allusion in Menippean Satire," Philologus 106 (1962) 86-100, which absolutely destroys Highet's tenet that Petronius wrote as a moralist, or the work of G. Gellie, "A Comment on Petronius," AUMLA 10 (1959) 89-100, who reads the Satyricon as a form of entertainment very closely tied to the mime.

⁴ Although Nethercut (supra, n. 3) accepts the findings of Raith that Petronius was an Epicurean, most reviewers of Raith's monograph do not agree with him. Eight disagree with Raith: R. Browning, CR 15 (1965) 67-69; J. Delz, Gnomon 38 (1966) 213-215; C. de Meo, Latinitas 14 (1966) 305-306; G. Franco, Maia 18 (1966) 303-306; J. Kaimowitz, AJP 87 (1966) 478-481; J. Preaux, RBPh 43 (1965) 601-602; K. Rose, Latomus 22 (1964) 109-110; R. Verdière, AC 33 (1964) 502. Three agree with Raith: V. Tandoi, A&R 10 (1965) 177-178; P. Veyne, REA 66 (1964) 446-450; W. Krenkel, DLZ 87 (1966) 692-694; one abstains: E. des Places, RSR 52 (1964) 475-476.

⁵ A partial list would include: W. Arrowsmith, Arion 5 (1966) 304-331; H. Bacon, Virginia Quarterly Review 34 (1958) 262-276; P. MacKendrick, CJ 45 (1950) 307-314; A. Sochatoff, TAPA 93 (1962) 449-458.

⁶ J. P. Sullivan, Arion 6 (1967) 71-88; this was followed in 1968 by what must be the best treatment of Petronius in many years, The Satyricon of Petronius: A Literary Study (London 1968).

⁷ See also E. Auerbach, Mimesis, tr. W. Trask (Garden City 1957) 20-43; P. George, "Style and Character in the Satyricon," Arion 5 (1966) 336-358; P. Veyne, "Le 'je' dans le Satiricon," REL 42 (1964) 301-324.

⁸ Highet (supra, n. 1) p. 183.

⁹ G. Highet, Juvendal the Satirist. A Study (New York 1954). H. A. Mason, "Is Juvenal a Classic," Critical Essays in Latin Literature: Satire, ed. J. P. Sullivan (London 1963) 93-176, is highly critical of Highet's methods and results in Juvenal the Satirist. Mason views Juvenal above all else as a wit and artist; this would run directlv colnter to Highet's conclusions.

¹⁰ Sullivan, supra n. 6.

¹¹ Sullivan, The Satyricon of Petronius, 250.

¹² Highet, supra, n. 1, p. 193.

¹³ 0. Kiefer, Sexual Life in Ancient Rome, tr. G. & H. Highet (New York 1952) comments: "It may be said that the Satyricon is tolerable enough on the hypothesis that it is a classical book; but that its frank descriptions would nowadays be felt to indicate, not art, but pornography." Kiefer apparently does not understand the problem. Some credit should be given here to G. Boissier, L' Opposition sous les Césars (Paris 1900) 258, who apparently was the first to hint that Petronius wrote the Satyricon to entertain.