SOURCE: "The Satyricon of Petronius: Some Psycho-Analytical Considerations," The American Imago, Vol. 18, No. 4, Winter, 1961, pp. 353-69.

[In the following essay, Sullivan contends that the psychosexual interests—particularly exhibitionism—of the characters in the Satyricon reflect Petronius's own, and are thus valid evidence in a psychoanalysis of the author.]

1. Psycho-analytical studies like those of Freud on Dostoevsky and Jones on Hamlet, have thrown much light on modern works of literature, but except for mythological investigations like those of Otto Rank and Theodor Reik there has been no equivalent work undertaken for classical literature. Even the interest in the Oedipus cycle is predominantly a mythological interest. Yet ancient authors, just as much as modern, were governed in their art by their individual aims, wishes, stresses and unconscious pre-occupations and are therefore amenable to similar investigation; they have also the added attraction of belonging to societies radically different from the society with which psychoanalysis is mainly concerned. The autonomy of art compared with the directed nature of other activities offers the widest scope for the psychology of the individual to show itself, for its manifestations are directed only by internal and, to a lesser extent, literary and cultural forces. Psychoanalytical methods applied even to ancient literary works may provide a key for understanding the societies which produced them, and because of their very remoteness we cannot afford to neglect any means we have to realize the common humanity underlying them. Abraham's analysis in 1912 of Amenhotep IV demonstrated that psycho-analysis could elucidate purely historical problems; it is not impossible that literary problems may be similarly elucidated with the aid of psycho-analytical methods. One such problem is the concern of this paper.

   The Satiricon of Petronius, as we have it, is a mere fragment of the original, consisting of 141 short chapters, full of gaps but presenting eight major episodes in addition to a number of detachable poems and discussions which are only loosely connected with the apparently picaresque plot. Its date and authorship are disputed, although scholarly opinion on literary, linguistic and historical grounds is inclined to attribute it to the first century A.D. The real debate is whether it was the work of Gaius (or Titus) Petronius, the courtier of Nero, whose life and death are described by Tacitus (Annals XVI, 16-20). The traditional attribution rests on the coincidence that the name Petronius in our MSS is also the name of the historical figure and the possibility that his reputation as arbiter elegantiae in Nero's Court may have added the element Arbiter to his name in MSS and citations. Counterbalancing this is a natural reluctance to attribute the work to the man because it seems too good to be true—just as Baconians deny Shakespearian authorship as too surprising to be true. Those willing to accept the attribution have based their acceptance partly on the similarity between the character of the courtier and the character of the novel. J. W. Duff, for example, says (Literary History of Rome in the Silver Age, pp. 172-3):

   It may be affirmed that the Tacitean portrait of Petronius wears the very features to be expected in the author of a novel depicting low and vicious life in tones which argue intimacy of knowledge and at the same time the almost cynically detached spirit of the spectator.

   This is highly subjective and there seems some critical confusion in making a novel the mirror of its author. The difference between the character of an author and the character of his work may be immense. If psychological criteria are to be used, they should not be as vague and impressionistic as this.

   The character of the Satiricon will become evident as the episodes are examined in detail. The novel is partly realistic in its intentions; it is a highly self-conscious work of art based upon certain critical theories, which may be established from literary discussions in the work itself. Petronius was reacting in language, themes and treatment against the artificiality and remoteness from life of Silver Age literature. Suetonius' anecdotes (Nero, 26) of the Emperor leaving his palace to wander round the lower quarters of home is a parallel worth mentioning. Petronius too seems to have adopted the naive realist's heresy that the sordid side of life is alone really life as it is lived.

   There is a revealing paragraph in a short story by a modern author, Miss Mary McCarthy. A young man in hospital hears what he thinks are the screams of a cancer patient.

   He knew immediately that he was not meant to hear; these shrieks were being wrung from a being against its will; yet in this fact, precisely, lay their power to electrify the attention. "A dying woman screaming in the night", the young man repeated musingly, as the cries stopped, at their very summit, as abruptly as they had started, leaving a pounding stillness, "this is the actual; the actual, in fact, is that which should not be witnessed. The actual," he defined, pronouncing the syllables slowly and distinctly in a pedagogical style, "under which may be subsumed the street accident, the plane crash, the atrocity, is pornography.¹

   In Petronius what is of interest for our purposes is the type of situation chosen for realistic treatment. The first episode which calls for attention is chs. 16-26, where the narrator Encolpius and his two friends, fall into the hands of Quartilla, a priestess of Priapus. This god plays a significant role in the work; he is the author of various misfortunes which happen to Encolpius, who in some way has offended him. The main event of this first episode is the defloration of the seven year old Pannychis by Giton, Encolpius' young catamite, and the conditions under which this takes place.

   Itaque cum inclusi iacerent, consedimus ante limen thalami, et in primis Quartilla per rimam improbe diductam adplicuerat oculum curiosum lusumque puerilem libidinosa speculabatur diligentia. me quoque ad idem spectaculum lenta manu traxit, et quia considerantium cohaeserant vultus, quidquid a spectaeulo vacabat, commovebat obiter labra et me tamquam furtivis subinde oculus verberabat … (26)²

   This is the first patent example of scopophilia in the work. Although Quartilla is sexually aroused, Encolpius indicates he does not enjoy her attentions. His description of her kisses as furtive is significant—me tamquam furtivis subinde osculis verberabat.

   There is a similar incident in the last section of the story where Encolpius is with his friend Eumolpus in Croton. Eumolpus, posing as a rich childless and ailing old man, is entrusted with the care of two children by an unscrupulous woman who hopes for a legacy.

   Eumolpus, qui tam frugi erat ut illi etiam ego puer viderer, non distulit puellam invitare ad pygesiaca sacra. sed et podagricum se esse lumborumque solutorum omnibus dixerat, et si non servasset integram simulationem periclitabatur totam paene tragoediam. itaque ut constaret mendacio fides, puellam quidem exoravit ut sederet supra commendatam bonitatem, Coraci autem imperavit ut lectum in quo ipse iacebat subiret positisque in pavimento manibus dominum lumbis suis commoveret. ille lente parebat imperio puellaeque artificium pari motu remunerabat. cum ergo res ad effectum spectaret, clara Eumolpus voce exhortabatur Coraca ut spissaret officium. sic inter mercennarium amicamque positus senex veluti oscillatione ludebat. hoc semel iterumque ingenti risu, etiam suo, Eumolpus fecerat. itaque ego quoque, ne desidia consuetudinem perderem, dum frater sororis suae automata per clostellum miratur, accessi tentaturus an pateretur iniuriam. nec se reiciebat a blanditiis doctissimus puer, sed me numen inimicum ibi quoque invenit. (140)³

   Here there are two cases of scopomixia and in each the scenes witnessed are of a perverse nature. But this is not all. Voyeurism and exhibitionism are psycho-analytical polarities and the latter is also exemplified in Petronius. Immediately before the child-marriage occurs the following incident:

   Stabat inter haec Giton et risu dissolvebat ilia sua. itaque conspicata eum Quartilia, cuius esset puer, diligentissima sciscitatione quaesivit. eum ego fratrem meum esse dixissem, 'quare ergo' inquit 'me non basiavit?' vocatumque ad se in osculum adplicuit. mox manum etiam demisit in sinum et pertractato vasculo tam rudi 'haec' inquit 'belle cras in promulside libidinis nostrae militabit; hodie enim post asellum diaria non sumo.' (24)⁴

   Despite differences—handling rather than looking at a forbidden object—this is surely a sort of exhibitionism. Not that Giton is depicted as an exhibitionist but rather that the author-here is subjecting Giton to these experiences.

   After the second instance of voyeurism there is an even more patent example of exhibitionism. Although after watching Eumolpus through the key-hole Encolpius was frustrated by his impotence, yet after a hiatus in the MSS we find him talking to Eumolpus:

   'dii maiores sunt, qui me restituerunt in integrum …' haec locutus sustuli tunicam Eumolpoque me totum approbavi. at ille primo exhorruit, deinde ut plurimum crederet, utraque manu deorum beneficia tractat. (140)⁵

   In this exhibitionism there is also the motif of handling the genitals, which seems to argue conclusively that the scene between Quartilla and Giton was exhibitionist too in its significance, just as voyeurism is psychologically compatible with the desire to touch what is seen. And another example might be cited from ch. 105 where the narrator is recognised despite his disguise by his enemy Lichas, who "ran up and looked at neither my hands nor my face, but straightway dropped his eyes and ran his officious hand to my genitals."

   Apart from these uncomplicated examples there is also a less obvious case. Early in the work Encolpius quarrels with his friend Ascyltos over the affections of Giton. Ascyltos leaves in a rage.

   … osculisque tandem bona fide exactis alligo artissimis complexibus puerum fruorque votis usque ad invidiam felicibus. nec adhuc quidem omnia erant facta, cum Ascyltos furtim se foribus admovit discussisque fortissime claustris invenit me cum fratre ludentem. risu itaque plausuque cellulam implevit, opertum me amiculo evolvit et 'quid agebas' inquit 'frater sanctissime?' (11)⁶

   In the light of earlier instances the scopophilic aspects of this are patent. From the narrator's view-point it is exhibitionism (in fiction it is the author's psychology we are concerned with and the question of the voluntary or involuntary nature of the incident may be disregarded). On Ascyltos' side it is voyeurism. If the latter is stressed, the usual parallel is not fjar to seek. Later in the work Encolpius and Ascyltos part and Giton elects to go with Ascyltos. He is recovered by Encolpius through a chance meeting at the public baths and they give Ascyltos the slip. It turns out that Giton was in charge of Ascyltos' clothes which were stolen when he left. Eumolpus describes the subsequent scene:

   '… circumire omnes angulos coepi et clara voce Encolpion clamitare. ex altera parte invenis nudus, qui vestimenta perdiderat, non minore clamoris indignatione Gitona flagitabat. et me quidem pueri tanquam insanum imitatione petulantissima deriserunt, ilium autem frequentia ingens circdmvenit cum plausu et admiratione timidissima. habebat enim inguinum pondus tam grande ut ipsum hominem laciniam fascini crederes. o iuvenem laboriosum: puto illum pridie incipere, postero die flnire.' (92)'⁷

   From the author's standpoint, the exhibitionism here is not one or two enjoying the sight but an admiring crowd. A crowdc standing around someone in the Roman public baths, where almost everyone was naked, is rather unexpected in a Latin author and seems to spring from phantasy rather than any probable incident in real life.

   Here then in a short fragmentary work are two, possibly three, cases of mixoscopy and three (if the extension from sight to touch is admitted) of exhibitionism. It would be temerarious to pronounce on the prevalence of such perversion in Roman life, but it can be stated with certainty that it is not a traditional literary topic in extant classical literature in the way the incestmotif is. Petronius has not gone to earlier authors for his sexual material as he clearly has for his satirical subjects. There is of course the retelling in classical authors of certain myths involving scopophilia and exhibitionism (the story of Actaeon e.g. who was torn to pieces by dogs for witnessing Diana bathing and Baubo's piece of exhibitionism to amuse Demeter), but in general examples of scopophilia or exhibitionism in literature are notoriously few. The classic story of Candaules, who hid Gyges behind his bedroom door to enable him to see his wife naked (Herodotus I, 8-12) is not relevant: neither Candaules' wife nor Gyges were willing participants. We find that outside Petronius the only non-mythical examples of scopophilia are some possible references in the Greek Anthology and Martial.⁸ Exhibitionism is almost as rare for literary purposes.⁹ Although we cannot say for certain what we would find in the bulk of Latin literature which is unfortunately lost to us, the evidence indicates that in these instances Petronius is not adapting traditional sexual motifs or borrowing such themes from earlier authors, although he does this elsewhere.¹⁰ These subjects in Petronius' novel must therefore be a genuine reflection of his own psychosexual interests whether they were grounded in his sexual behaviour or in his phantasy life. Petronius is the only ancient author who makes extensive use of these themes, although the subjects are much more common in modern literature, Marcel Proust being the most obvious example.

2. To understand how pervasive a theme scopophilia is in the Satiricon, it is necessary to examine disguised aspects of this instinct by reference to Freud's scheme for it.…¹¹

   It is irrelevant whether the characters expose themselves of their own accord or through circumstances, for the author is autonomous here, but so far incidents in the Satiricon of active scopophilia have been paralleled by overt or covert exhibitionism… In c. 140 (quoted above) Encolpius found himself impotent, a disability he blamed on Priapus. He is first aware of this when he is impotent with a Crotonian lady named Circe. After his unsuccessful attempt with Circe. Encolpius goes to bed alone

   conditusque lectulo totum ignem furoris in eam
   converti, quae mihi omnium malorum causa fuerat:

   ter corripui terribilem manu bipennum,
   ter languidior coliculi repente thyrso
   ferrum timui, quod trepido male debat usum.
   nec iam poteram, quo modo conficere libebat;
   namque illa metu frigidior rigente bruma
   confugerat in viscera mille operta rugis.
   ita non potuit supplicio caput aperire,
   sed furciferae mortifero timore lusus
   ad verba, magis quae poterant nocere, fugi.
   (132)¹²

   Encolpius (despite certain feelings of shame) goes on to abuse his genitals for failing him. This incident plainly falls into Freud's … category: even the dual nature of that category is realised, as Encolpius and his penis are treated as separate subjects occupying our attention in turn. The very ambivalence of Encolpius in this castration attempt (is his penis part of himself or not?) suggests the auto-erotism underlying scopophilia. Petronius thus illustrates all the Freudian classifications, not aetiologically or in their psychoanalytical priority as Freud does, but as unconnected aspects of the same preoccupation.

   In the light of the above certain elements in the work arguably relate to the less obvious transformations of scopophilia. Some of them are significant only when viewed in connection with the more obvious scopophilic themes, but some also display their scopophilic nature to the most cursory examination.

   Freud pointed out (in Der Witz und seine Beziehung zum Unbewussten) that obscene humour and wit represent exposure in a psychological sense. The Satiricon traditionally belongs to the class of curiosa. It is not pornographic in the worst sense, but it does make use of conventionally obscene subjects; their treatment is humorous and there are frequent examples of obscene wit in the conversations (e.g. ch. 92—"Tanto magis expedit inguina quam ingenia fricare"). The two Milesian tales, the well-known Widow of Ephesus and the other describing the seduction of a pupil by Eumolpus, may be adduced as similar evidence. It is true that obscene poems and writings were produced by highly respectable Roman figures such as the younger Pliny (cf. Epistles VI 14, 4) and it was then conventionally less disreputable to have written such things than it is now, but it was not so common as to make the question of psychological predilections unimportant.

   Scopophilia particularly shows itself in the desire to see what is forbidden, whether by law, social custom or, ultimately, incest taboos. Abraham says of a neurotic patient:

   "In this as in other cases the prohibition of looking at his mother originated in the more particular prohibition of seeing her naked, and in especial of seeing her genitals."¹³

   Along with the mixoscopy of the Satiricon there is a concentration on more general secrets: the word secretum (as well as synonyms like obscurus etc.) occurs frequently. At times it describes out of the way places and these instances may well be dictated by the exigencies of a picaresque plot. The same may be argued of the impersonations and disguises of the last two episodes, and the fact that more than half the scenes take place at dusk or at night or in an atmosphere of darkness and failing light, guttering lamps and burning torches. But the use of secrets in the plot itself may be susceptible of deeper interpretation.

   Encolpius' offence which made him fall foul of Quartilla (16-26) was the witnessing and consequent profanation of some rites of Priapus, an unforgivable sacrilege (inexpiabile scelus). Quartilla stresses the secret nature of these rites (tot annorum secreta) and the danger of their becoming common knowledge. There were various secret cults in the Roman world but the ceremonies in honour of Priapus are self-avowedly sexual. Expiation for the offence requires a licentious all-night vigil in the god's honour, and it is during this that the first scopophilic incident occurs. Throughout this episode there are allusions to secrets (e.g. "Both of us swore in the most solemn terms that so horrible a secret would perish between us" c. 21.) Again, when Encolpius is apparently the victim of a sexual assault (the text is fragmentary here), Ascyltos "had covered his head with his cloak; he had been warned it was dangerous to be involved in other people's secrets" (21). It might be added that among the verse fragments attributed to Petronius there is a retelling of the story of Midas and his asses' ears and how the secret leaked out—the moral being that men cannot keep secrets (Nam citius flammas mortales ore tenebunt / quam secreta tegant—fr. 28).

   The significance of these features of the work is brought out by Abraham's remark on a neurotic patient—

   … the early forcing away of his seopophilie instinct from its real objects and aims led not only to a typical brooding but also to a morbid propensity towards secret and mystical things …I need hardly refer to the countless similar phenomena that are to be found in folk-psychology—on the one hand, secret cults, mysteries, oeeultist movements, etc, and on the other, religious prohibitions against inquiring into the most secret things.
   (op. cit., p. 219)

   Even the two ghost stories in Petronius gain significance from Abraham's further remarks on the same patient:

   Concerning the significance of ghosts … when later the prohibition against looking and knowing had obtained a hold over him, his repressed wish for a repetition of the pleasurable impressions of childhood was displaced on to 'ghosts'. He longed all the time to see ghosts.
   (ibid., p. 220)

   Abraham also explains the significance of the Cyclops story in relation to scopophilia and castration anxiety. Allusions to the Cyclops theme in the Satiricon are found in 48, 97, 98 and 101—patently it attracted Petronius. The motif of blinding is not specifically used, the story being generally offered as a comparison with some situation in which the characters find themselves. One instance comes near this however and is psychoanalytically important. In c. 48, Trimalchio, displaying his inaccurate knowledge of mythology, asks Agamemnon if he knows "the story of Ulysses, how the Cyclops tore his thumb out with pincers". Here the underlying notion of castrating the father has been replaced by the more basic anxiety that the father will castrate oneself. Trimalchio's mistake is of considerable interest for the author's psychology.

   The whole motif of castration in the Satiricon must be brought into relation with the scopophilic elements. The castration anxiety evinced may be taken as the fear of punishment for forbidden looking. The reversal by Trimalchio of the traditional Cyclops' story is paralleled by the lack of active castration (directed as it was against the father) in the work. The two castration scenes are both concerned with self-castration. The first is Giton's move to castrate himself with a blunted razor because his sexual attractions have caused so much trouble and jealousy among his friends. He had earlier attempted to cut his throat with the same razor (94). These attempts at self-mutilation or suicide, although not serious on Giton's part, always lead to Encolpius' trying to cut his throat too. These incidents are to be compared with Encolpius' frustrated self-castration in c. 132 (cited earlier in another connection). This last takes place after Encolpius' sexual failure with Circe, and thus is connected with the theme of sexual inadequacy and sexual envy.

   Abraham mentions a patient who had once seen his father naked when he was nine years old and

   … had inspected his genitals with great interest. His phantasies … often reverted to that scene. And yet the thoughts associated with it were by no means purely pleasurable; on the contrary, he was continually worried by the question whether his genitals would attain the size of his father's … he fell prey to the tormenting belief … that his penis was too small.
   (ibid., p. 186)

   There are two situations in the Satiricon reminiscent of this: the jealous reference to the size of Asclytos' genitals in c. 92 (Ascyltos, it will be remembered, being a rival for Giton's affections), and the final return to normal of Encolpius' own genitals in c. 139, when he exhibits them to his other rival, Eumolpus, a fatherly figure with strong sexual inclinations. Feelings of sexual inferiority is often a motive for certain types of scopophilia, particularly for male interest in male genitals, just as any natural physical disability often prompts curiosity about the hidden part of normal people's lives. All of these sexual incidents fit a scopophilic pattern and it is to be noticed that Encolpius, the narrator and the hero (or anti-hero) of the work, is the one who generally exemplifies the pattern.¹⁴ It is he who displays the sexual inadequacy, the sexual envy, the castration anxiety, the scopophilic and exhibitionist traits to the full, and seems therefore the main vehicle of the author's phantasy in these respects, just as Eumolpus is the main vehicle of the author's views on poetry. Encolpius is not made out a sympathetic character, he is more of an unfortunate scape-goat. Although, like Proust's narrator, Encolpius does not seem aware of the perverseness of these scopophilic situations, Petronius takes care to place Encolpius in a way Proust does not in comparable situations. This is as indicative of Petronius' artistic sensibility as the incidents chosen are of his psychological preoccupations.

3. I have attempted in this paper to show how Petronius with his explicit intention of writing a work of a realist nature has chosen as the main element of his realism various sexual motifs and has concentrated on such perversions of the sexual instinct as are related to scopophilia and its polarity, exhibitionism. In this I suggest that he was directed by his own phantasies and sexual interests; the frank nature of the work, its very originality allowed his preoccupations much greater rein, as they were less fettered by literary models, conventions or stock themes. Consequently more is deducible about his psychology than is usual with many ancient or modern authors. Not that these are the only interests exemplified; I have not tried to discuss the sexual orientation of the work as a whole. For instance, most of the male characters are accepted as sexually ambivalent. This was a natural convention in the ancient world with its greater tolerance of homosexuality. The assumption of ambivalence also gives the work a greater variety of sexual topics; Petronius is adopting an accepted Roman belief (cp. Suetonius on Julius Caesar, 54). In view of this convention deductions about Petronius' own sexual orientation are not easy to make, but the evidence presented above reveals a preoccupation with scopophilic themes, and the rarity of this does allow psychoanalytical deductions to be made.

This has one practical application. There are literary and historical reasons for attributing the Satiricon to the courtier described by Tacitus and mentioned by the Elder Pliny and Plutarch. But the material in this paper may perhaps offer another possible argument for the attribution. The account of Petronius given in Tacitus' Annals XVI, 16-20 may be summarized as follows:

He was a man who spent his days sleeping and his nights working or enjoying himself. Industry is the usual foundation of success, but with him it was idleness … Yet as proconsul in Bithynia and later as consul he showed himself a vigor and capable administrator. His subsequent retum to his old habits… led to his admrission to the small circle of Nero's intimates, where he became the Arbiter of Elegance …

Accused of complicity in a plot against the Emperor, Petronius decided to commit suicide and ended his life in the way he had lived.

Even in the codicils to his will, he refused to put down any of the usual death-bed flatteries for Nero … Instead he wrote out a full description of the Emperor's vicious activities, prefaced with the names of his male and female partners, and specifying the novel forms his lust had taken. This document he sent under seal to Nero … Nero's puzzlement as to how his nocturnal ingenuities were known was resolved by blaming Silia. This was not an insignificant person, but a senator's wife in fact, who had been a chosen partner in all the Emperor's vices and also a close friend of Petronius. She was exiled for her lack of discretion about what she had seen and experienced.

The most interesting features of this account, which may be related to the features of the Satiricon I have been discussing, are Petronius' nocturnal habits and the great interest shown in the Emperor's sexual life.

To examine them in order: Petronius did not simply use the nights for pleasure, which might be dependent upon general conventions, which were not so different at least in the early Empire from what they are now. He used them also for work—this may point to a deliberate avoidance of daytime as a time for any activity at all. It is important however that Tacitus specially refers to this habit and thus implies it was a fairly unusual or at least significant characteristic deserving the historian's comment. In the work itself perhaps half of the episodes take place in darkness, the characters are frequently lost in the dark, lamps and lighting are often mentioned. In all cases, as obviously in some, this might be demanded by the situation and it would be unwise to deduce much from it. But one of the characteristics of scopophilia is the fear of light and the avoidance of it. Abraham is again the most convenient text (cf. op. cit. section III, pp. 201-206) where he says that darkness has both a positive and a negative significance for the scopophilic. Obviously Abraham is drawing on case-histories of neurotic patients and it is unlikely that Petronius has any really neurotic intolerance of daylight. This would be hardly feasible in view of his record as a capable administrator. But he did have a preference for night which Tacitus took pains to point out and this may well indicate a scopophilic disposition.

But the most important feature of the courtier is surely the great interest he took in the details of the sexual life of the Emperor. This was a dangerous interest, and Silia suffered on suspicibn of pandering to it. It was also a strong interest, which must have involved close questioning of Silia (if it really was she who was his source) about Nero's associates and the practices in which she took part. This interest must strike us as morbid to some degree and reflects the scopophilic instinct in its vicarious aspect. The connection of graphic and verbal obscenity with scopophilia is well-known. Prompted by revenge, Petronius chose to write down a careful account of all he knew about the Emperor's sexual proclivities, based on careful study, it would seem, for the blow struck home to Nero, and produced a violent reaction. This connects the courtier with our author and it is on this fact in particular that the psycho-analytical argument for the attribution of the Satiricon to the Petronius described by Tacitus may be based. It has at least slightly more definition than the traditional psychological argument which has held the field for so long.

Notes

¹ 'The Old Men' in Cast a Cold Eye, p. 147.

² When they were shut in and lying down, we sat round the doorway. Quartilla was one of the first to put an inquisitive eye to a treacherous little crack and begin spying on their childish play with prurient curiosity. Her insistent hand dragged me down to have a look too. Our faces were pressed together as we watched and whenever she could spare a moment from the sight, she'd move her lips close to mine in passing and furtively pester me with kisses."

³ Eumolpus, who was so unfastidious that even I seemed a boy to him, did not hesitate a moment to invite the girl to some ritual buttock-thumping. However, he had told everyone that he had gout and a weakness in the loins and if he did not keep up his pretence, he would bei in danger of ruining the whole plot. So to ensure that the lie was not discredited, he actually persuaded the girl to sit on top of the upright nature to which she had been entrusted, but ordered Corax to get under the bed he was lying on, and with his hands on the floor to move his master up and down with his thighs. Corax carried out his orders gently and the expertness of the girl responded with similar movements. Then when things were looking forward to the desired result, Eumolpus loudly urged Corax to increase the speed. Placed like this between his servant and his girl friend the old man lookd as if he was on a swing. Eumolpus repeated this performance amid roars of laughter, including his own. Not unnaturally I for my part, not to get out of the habit through lack of practice, approached the brother, who was admiring his sister's tricks through the keyhole, and tried to see if he would accept my advances. The shrewd lad did not reject my overtures but the unfriendly god dogged me in this situation too."

⁴ Giton was standing there while all this went on and was splitting his sides laughing. Catching sight of him, Quartilla with great interest asked whose the boy was. I replied he wasy my little friend. 'Indeed!' said Quartilla, 'Why hasn't he given me a kiss?' And calling him to her, she pressed her lips to his. Then she slipped her hand into his clothes and felt his immature little tool.

'This,' she said 'will do nicely tomorrow as an hors d'oeuvre to our love feast. For the moment, I don't want ordinary stuffing after a nice piece of meat'.

⁵ 'There are mightier gods who have restored me to full health …' With this I lifted my tunic and showed off all I had to Eumolpus. At first he was stunned, then to convince himself to the full, he ran both hands over the gifts of the gods.

⁶ At last our kisses were without restraint. I hugged the boy close to me. I had what I wanted and anyone would have envied my luck. But we were still in the middle of this when Ascyltos came quietly to the door, absolutely shattered the bolts and found me having a gay time with Giton. He filled the little room with laughter and applause. He rolled me out of the cloak I was lying in and said:

'What were you up to, my pious old friend?'

⁷ 'I began going round every nook and cranny and calling out Encolpius! in a loud voice. And somewhere else a naked young man, who had lost his clothes, was yelling for someone called Giton with equally indignant shouts. And while the boys just ridiculed me as a lunatie with the most impudent imitations, a huge crowd surrounded him with applause and the most awe-struck admiration. You see, he had such enormous sexual organs that you'd think the man was just an attachment to his penis. What a man for the job! I think he starts yesterday and finishes tomorrow.'

⁸ e.g. Anth. Pal. V, 225 and XII, 40 and 27. Cf. also Martial XI, 70.

⁹ The gross man in Theophrastus (Characters, XI) lifts his tunic up in front of ladies. The cordax, a frankly exhibitionistic dance, might also be mentioned, as Trimalchio in the Satiricon is anxious for his wife to perform it for the amusement of his guests (52, 8).

¹⁰ One of the female characters in the work, Circe, is a type of woman often satirized in Roman literature, the woman who likes inferior lovers. Although Freud remarks that this desire is less common in women that in men (Collected Papers, Vol. IV (English Edition), p. 211), she is a recognizable literary type even in modern times (compare Madame Philibert in Thomas Mann's Felix Krull).

¹¹Instincts and their Vicissitudes (1915) Collected Papers Vol. IV (English Edition), p. 73.

¹² And hidden in bed I turn the whole blaze of my anger against the one who had been the cause of all my troubles. Three times I seized the terrible two-edged blade in my hand, three times, suddenly softer than a length of stalk, I shuddered before the steel, which badly served my trembling hand. Now I could not do what a moment ago I was eager to achieve. For she was colder than the frost of winter through fear and took refuge inside my vitals, covered with a thousand wrinkles. So I could not uncover her head for punishment, but tricked by the mortal fear of the rascally thing, I took refuge in insults which could hurt even more.

¹³ 'Restriction and Transformations of Scopophilia in Psycho-neurotics', Selected Papers (English Edition, 1949), p. 177.

¹⁴ Not of course invariably. Scopophilic behaviour is found in many of the other characters. Moreover certain characteristics of the famous vulgarian Trimalchio serve also as a vehicle for the less obvious transformations of the instinct that dominates the work. Urolagnia and coprolagnia are part of the complex of voyeurism: Trimalchio (like the Emperor Claudius cf. Suetonius 32) is greatly interested in the excretory functions and gives a long and vulgar description of his own internal economy (47); references to chamber-pots and similar subjects are frequent in this part of the work (cf. cc. 27, 41 et al.).