SOURCE: "The Humour of Petronius," in The Satyricon of Petronius: A Literary Study, Faber and Faber Limited, 1968, pp. 214-31.

[In the following essay, Sullivan discusses Petronius's wide range of humor, including the humor of incongruity, literary humor, farce, mime situations, verbal wit, and satiric dialogue.]

i. Some General Considerations

Nothing is more boring than writing about what is comic, and so one approaches the subject of Petronius' humour with a heavy heart, though it is almost the first characteristic of the Satyricon that the reader notices. L. Dugas' sound remarks come to mind:

Il n'est pas de fait plus etudie que le rire; il n'en est pas qui ait eu le don d'exciter davantage la curiosite du vulgaire et celle des philosophes; il n'en est pas sur lequel on ait recueilli plus d'observations et bati plus de theories, et avec cela il n'en est pas qui demeure plus inexplique. On serait tente de dire avec les sceptiques qu'il faut etre content de rire et de ne pas chercher a savoir pourquoi on rit, d'autant que peut-etre la reflexion tue le rire, et qu'il serait alors contradictoire qu'elle en decouvrit les causes …¹

Nevertheless it would be cowardly, in a work aiming at some sort of comprehensiveness, to shirk the subject, even though the remarks that follow offer merely one possible pattern of analysis, and do not purport to cover all the possible aspects of Petronius' humour. Some of these have been discussed earlier under different heads, the comic satire, for instance, and the extensive stretches of literary parody. Indeed it is difficult to disentangle the pure humour from the finer play of wit in the style and conception of the work, which offers subtler, but not necessarily inferior, amusement.

The staple of most humour and comedy is the incongruous, the linking together in unexpected ways of diverse concepts, language, situations, persons, or modes of experience and behaviour. Petronius' humour is no exception. Unfortunately, even this sort of humour tends to be topical and dependent on fashion, and frequently fades within a century. The reason is often linguistic or social change whereby jokes are lost and absurdity diminished. We are not very much amused nowadays by the references to 'horns' in Elizabethan literature. With the Satyricon, therefore, a great imaginative effort is often needed to see just what the purely topical incongruities are, although, luckily, some of the humour flows from perennial springs. The basic humour of the Satyricon consists in the application of a refined, literary, and stylistically sophisticated narrative medium to the disreputable low-life adventures and sexual escapades of a number of unprincipled and generally worthless characters. The nostalgie de la boue that perhaps dictated this choice of subject, which contrasts so strongly with some of the literary digressions, has already been examined, and here we need merely inspect the techniques and mechanisms used. Particularly noticeable is the contrast between the short, polished, and rhythmic sentences, with their constant literary allusions, and the high degree of excitement, despair, astonishment, shame, suffering, laughing, crying, and ecstasy they describe. The narrative is full of references to the narrator's being thunderstruck, frightened to death, delirious with happiness and so on, yet the prose itself, economically and smoothly, records these horrors and raptures without any ornate or effusive reinforcements of the feelings described, except where deliberate parody is intended.² The effect is an ironic distancing of the writer's material, which enhances the amusing quality of the work: something of the sort may be seen in the early novels of Evelyn Waugh and Anthony Powell.

Sometimes the incongruity that is fundamental to the humour is between the high moral sentiments, the sensible, sometimes serious, literary criticism, and the persons that voice them, whether the narrator Encolpius, a timorous and suspicious criminal of (to us) strange origins and unknown destination, or the immoral, opportunistic poetaster, Eumolpus. Sometimes the incongruity is between the style of the prose or verse and the lowliness or absurdity of the incidents, or, alternatively, between the highflown declamatory style of some of the characters, Giton, for instance, or even Chrysis, and the actual station or attainments in life. The tragic style is frequently invoked and parodied, as the references to tragoedia (108.11) and tragic subjects (Thebanum par 80.3; cf. 132.13) might lead us to expect. The use of epic style and references, especially of Vergilian or Homeric epic, for the most unlikely or obscene subjects is even more noticeable. Not only is the Wrath of Priapus a parody of the Wrath of Poseidon in the Odyssey, but Homer is drawn on for such incidents as Lichas' lewd recognition of Encolpius (105.9), which burlesques Eurycleia's identification of Odysseus.

The use of elevated, lyrical, or rhetorical language for unseemly subjects is frequent enough in English literature and may be found in Rochester, Dorset, and in such minor productions as the anonymous Panegyric on Cundums, just as the use of elegant and high-flown prose for erotic matters is familiar to us from such novels as John Cleland's Memoirs of a Lady of Pleasure. Petronius has a highly differentiated style, or set of styles, but this is certainly one use to which he puts his abilities for comic effect. As Samuel Johnson remarks in his Life of Cowley:

Language is the dress of thought: and as the noblest mien or most graceful action would be degraded and obscured by a garb appropriated to the gross employments of rustics or mechanics, so most heroic sentiments will lose their efficacy, and the most splendid ideas lose their magnificence, if they are conveyed by vulgar mouths and contaminated by inelegant applications.

The best example of this literary erotic humour is the episode with Circe (126 ff.). The narrative contains a number of reminiscences of Ovid's amatory works, particularly in the description of Circe and her powers;³ the climax of the story (or should one say anticlimax?), Encolpius' impotence, which is followed by Circe's beratings of him, and his own soliloquy over the offending member, whose failure has deprived him of such joy, draws heavily on Ovid's well-known elegy on his impotence (Am. 3.7). The theme is a popular one, being found in the roughly contemporary Priapea (83, attributed to Tibullus), and it was to enjoy a long history. Maximianus in the fourth century elaborated on the Ovidian description with some originality (Elegy V), and the Earl of Rochester's poems, The Imperfect Enjoyment, On Leaving his Mistress, and The Disappointment, all turn on the topic.

Petronius elaborates on Ovid in a number of ways. He splits up the basic action into several dramatic scenes: Chrysis is brought back as a witness; Giton, rather than another woman, is given the blame; Ovid's simple self-reproaches become in the hero's soliloquy an opportunity for reflections on obscenity (132.15); and the usual Petronian motif of castration is invoked.

Apart from heightening the action in this way, Petronius keeps up the play of literary humour. Ovid is kept continually in mind in this whole section. Even at 135, when Encolpius is seeking a cure for his impotence, we have the parodic allusions to the Baucis and Philemon story, treated by Callimachus in the Hecale and rehandled by Ovid in the Metamorphoses. Even Encolpius' slaughter of the goose at 136.4 ff. seems to recall the more hospitable slaughter of the goose for Theseus in the Alexandrian epyllion which Ovid inserted into his work (Met. 8.620-724). At this point in the Satyricon, not content with Ovidian allusions, Petronius adds a parody of Vergil cast in the more suggestive sotadic metre:

ter corripui terribilem manu bipennem,
ter languidior coliculi repente thyrso
ferrum timui, quod trepido male dabat usum.
nec iam poteram, quod modo conficere
 libebat;
namque illa metu frigidior rigente bruma
confugerat in viscera mille operta rugis.
ita non potui supplicio caput aperire,
sed furciferae mortifero timore lusus
ad verba, magis quam poterant nocere, fugi.
(132.8)

Three times I took the murd'rous axe in hand,
Three times I wavered like a wilting stalk
And curtsied from the blade, poor instrument
In trembling hands—I could not what I would.
From terror colder than the wintry frost,
It took asylum far within my crotch,
A thousand wrinkles deep.
How could I lift its head to punishment?
Cozened by its whoreson, mortal fright,
I fled for aid to words that deeper bite.

Not satisfied with the echoes of Vergil in this poem, Petronius adds a cento of Vergilian lines to describe the appearance of Encolpius' penis:

illa solo fixos oculos aversa tenebat,
nec magis incepto vultum sermone movetur
quam lentae salices lassove papavera collo.⁴
(132.11)

She held her eyes averted and down-cast
Nor altered aught her face at this address
Than supple willow or drooping poppyhead.

The piquancy of the wit is irreverently enhanced by the fact that the first two lines were used by Vergil to describe the pathetic meeting of Dido and Aeneas in the underworld, and half of the last line comes from the description of the death of Euryalus.

The parody is not confined to the frankly sexual situations. Legal language, diplomatic language, and the tones of erotic elegy also, are employed in more innocent contexts, such as the scene where Eumolpus negotiates a truce between the adventurers and their pursuers (109.2), or the episode where he plots against the legacy hunters (117.5); and Ovid is largely drawn on for Encolpius' initially romantic encounters with Circe. Similar use is made of philosophical doctrines or commonplaces, Stoic and Epicurean. As we have seen, Trimalchio's enlightened speech on the common humanity of slave and free: 'et servi homines sunt et aeque unum lactem biberunt, etiam si illos malus fatus oppresserit' (71.1-'Slaves are human too and they drank one and the same milk as us, even if an unlucky fate has put them down'), is meant as the keynote of what, to Petronius, would be his absurd and tasteless treatment of his household, in which undue familiarity and harsh treatment (cf. 28.7, 52.5, 53.3 etc) irrationally alternate. The purpose is, in a way, satiric, and the savagely ironic glance at such sentiments in Seneca's Epistulae Morales adds the literary element to the humour.⁵

The attraction of the humour of incongruity and surprise for Petronius may be seen further in the two stories which Eumolpus retells at different points in the narrative, the stories of the Boy of Pergamum and the Widow of Ephesus (85 ff., 111 ff.). In each case, the point of the story lies in the reversal of roles: the young body becomes the would-be seducer, and Eumolpus is reduced to stern measures to avoid what he formerly desired so eagerly; the Widow, that paragon of chastity, is willing to sacrifice anything, even the husband she doted on enough to die for, to save the new lover she has acquired.⁶ The pellucid style of the narrative contrasts vividly with the unseemliness of the themes, and here, as elsewhere, Petronius avoids any vulgar or obscene language of the sort we find in Catullus or Martial. Eumolpus, for all his wicked ways, is as chaste in his prose as in his poetry.

ii. Mime and Comedy Situations

A priori, it is perhaps a surprise that the great sophistication of style and literary allusion is at the service not simply of picaresque adventures and sexual descriptions, but also of individual scenes which seem to be drawn from mime and comedy. The picaresque and sexual elements are explicable by Petronius' artistic assumptions, even where we might criticize them, and something of the sort must be invoked to explain his free use of mime, for its influence is unmistakable.⁷ The question is, what was the particular attraction of mime and comedy for Petronius, and to what use does he put this inspiration in the Satyricon?

Despite the literary tradition of Sophron, Herodas, and Theocritus, and the perhaps better than average efforts of such Roman writers as Laberius and Publilius Syrus, who, besides being a favourite writer of Trimalchio's (55.5), is quoted by Seneca about nine times in the Epistulae Morales, the mime in Rome in our period was hardly a respectable literary or artistic form. With the pantomime, it seemed to provide what the twentieth century gets from soap opera, farce, melodrama, strip-tease, ballet, interpretative dancing in the style of Isadora Duncan, or the miming of Marcel Marceau. is, what question But however trite, obscene, or even cruel it may have been, its general popularity is well-documented for the first century.⁸ Martial writes with complete unconcern about a realistic performance of the Pasiphae story in the amphitheatre and the actual crucifixion of a criminal in a production of the famous Laureolus mime;⁹ the notoriety that made such actors as Latinus and Bathyllus stock butts for the satirists is as indicative of their standing as are the fierce, if prejudiced, protests of Christian writers such as Tertullian.¹⁰ An analogous addiction to gladiatorial games was present in quite well-educated people, the emperor Claudius being an obvious example (Suet. Claud. 21), and Seneca would at least drop in on them, if only to be shocked (Ep. 7.3). On the other hand we are familiar with professors of philosophy who like detective fiction or soccer; eminent papyrologists and literary critics share a fondness for P. G. Wodehouse or thrillers. Petronius' perhaps condescending interest in mime may have been analogous; and the nostalgie de la boue, which has been postulated as a dominating impulse in him, might find equal satisfaction in making use of this sort of 'art', particularly if he could fit its themes, with the resulting incongruity, into his highly literary framework.

It is perhaps an exaggeration to say that the key to the whole Satyricon is in the words: omnia mimico risu exsonuerant,"¹¹ but words, incidents, even titles from mime, occur in the narrative. Before we examine the end to which this art-form is put by Petronius, it might be well to summarize such relevant characteristics of the mime in the early principate as might appeal to him.

There is, first of all, the theory of the mime which would commend itself as consonant with Petronius' own literary principles. Its origin was popularly thought to be mimetic, imitative of real life,¹² hence the naturalism of even such Alexandrian mime writers as Herodas and Theocritus. By an obvious progression due to the principles of realism, we have the concentration on the lower aspects of life, and the careful, if stereotyped, observation of everyday affairs and language, particularly of the lower classes. The obscenity of the mime, Martial's mimica licentia, is not unconnected with this.¹³ To Petronius' mind this art-form would have an aim similar to his own intentions in the Satyricon: to narrate frankly the behaviour of ordinary, i.e. inferior, people (quodque facit populus, candida lingua refert, 132.15) and the pleasures of sex (concubitis, Veneris gaudia, ibid.).

Other characteristics of the mime, literary and nonliterary, that must have appealed to Petronius would be the colloquial speech, such stock figures as the procurer or go-between (like Chrysis), the cinaedus, the excluded lover (cf. Encolpius inclusus, 94.7 ff.), and so on. In particular one of the features of mime was imposture and deception, and this alone would relate the whole world of the Satyricon to the mime.

Specifically, however, the first direct reference we find is in the Quartilla scene. Quartilla and her maids have arrived; the promises of Encolpius are accepted, and the priestess' threat of possible force has been made. Suddenly the three women burst out laughing, to the surprise and consternation of the trio, and at this point the phrase, if we can trust the variant reading for nimio, omnia mimico risu exsonuerant (19.1) occurs. From the context it appears that some sort of deception is being practised on the three; from what follows, it is presumably that the apparently harmless and weak women are backed by forces greater than the trio can hope to match. The laughter is described as mimicus because it is the sort of laughter which the stage deception excites, hearty and cruel. Even the mock marriage of Giton and Pannychis (25.1 ff.) has the features of mime, and may have been suggested by Laberius' Nuptiae.¹⁴

The same impression is left by Petronius' use of the word at 117.4, where Eumolpus, having thought of a deception which he can practise on the Crotonian legacy hunters (mendacium, 117.2, 5), wishes he had a large stage setting (scaena), and better dress and equipment, but asks why they are delaying the production of the mime (quid ergo cessamus mimum componere? 117.4), the mime being of course that of the poor old man, who pretends to be rich and ill, and so profitably deceives the legacy hunters.

The motif of the mime is particularly pervasive in the Cena.¹⁵ Not only does Trimalchio like real mimes, as the song (35.6) from the Laserpiciarius mimus or The Asafoetida Man, and the imitation of Publilius Syrus (55.6) indicate, but many of the scenes put on for the entertainment of the guests involve some sort of humorous trick, deception, or joke, and are reminiscent of mimes. There can be little doubt that these entertainments, like some of the others put on by Trimalchio, are yet another indication of his low taste. Encolpius' sour remarks make this clear: pantomimi chorum, non patris familiae triclinium crederes (31.7). The sneer is directed not so much against mime itself, as against Trimalchio's bad taste in spoiling the dinner and the conversation by his unremitting attempts to impress and amuse his guests. His taste for such things as mime, Atellan farce, and acrobats is genuine (cf. 53.12-13), whereas Petronius' own interest would be self-conscious and critical. As with Herodas and Theocritus, it is the elevation of a popular art form into a higher literary genre or a more sophisticated context.

There are however one or two incidents of a farcical nature in the Satyricon which perhaps surprise the non-Anglo-Saxon reader more than anything else, unless of course this type of anal humour appeals to him. Trimalchio's ill-mannered emphasis on excretory functions (41.9, 47.2-6) may be excused as satiric, a fact underlined by the guests' laughter (47.7), but the farting scene with Eumolpus' servant Corax would be more puzzling were it not consistent with the frequently low nature of the incidents in the Satyricon. It must also be remembered that this type of humour exercises a certain hearty, or morbid, appeal to some writers. Such Rabelaisian interests may be seen in Ben Jonson, whose Famous Voyage also makes use of the mock-heroic style, Jonathan Swift, Mark Twain, at least in his 1601, and, most importantly for our purposes, Aristophanes, who, in the opening scene of the Frogs, has Dionysus' slave Xanthus behave in much the same way as Corax for the same reasons.

In sum, it may be said that mime subjects and situations provide part of the grist for Petronius' sophisticated and literary mill. They provide the melodrama, the movement, and incident, for the picaresque plot and some of its farcical humour. There are swift disappearances, violence, quarrels, concealments, enforced baths, impostures, and dramatic bouleversements.¹⁶ Not all should be attributed to the direct influence of mime—satire and comedy have similar features—but the insistence in certain episodes on laughter and applause, ideas so opposed to the upper class Roman notion of gravitas,¹⁷ again indicates perhaps that one source of humour that Petronius was drawing upon was, as I have suggested, the fusing of typical incidents from the plots of mime with a highly literary language and treatment—once more the humour of incongruity.

Naturally the modern reader does not always appreciate the references to so unrestorably topical a form. The dead conventions are alien to him, as the conventions of Gammer Gurton's Needle and the humour of many Shakespearean comedies are alien also. He will notice of course the contrast between the refined style and literary discussions, and the buffoonery of much of the action, but he will not be able to perceive easily the deliberateness of the contrast between the action and the language. One would have to turn to modern analogies to realize the effect that Petronius seems to be aiming at. Several come to mind. A simple analogy may be seen in the novels of P. G. Wodehouse, whose relation to stage comedy with its embarrassing social situations, elaborate plots, and unmaskings, is approximately the same as Petronius' to mime. The analogy is strengthened when one considers Wodehouse's ironic use of English colloquialisms and literary allusions—the inversion of milieux corresponds to the difference between a democratic and an aristocratic society's tastes. After all, farcical situations, with some exceptions, are culturally determined. Lovers in chests, or laundry baskets, predicaments so dear to the Romans and the Elizabethans, are out of place in the efficient housing of today. Adulterous lovers who run into family friends at airports fit our different patterns of behaviour, although the situations may be just as comical.

It is important not to claim too much now for the humour of incident in Petronius, although we can realize that his comedy was probably a good deal funnier for his audience than we can properly appreciate, just as his literary allusions, imitations, and parodies must have excited a more immediate response, and thus a greater pleasure, from the instant recognition of incongruity than we can hope to achieve by our laborious restoration of the original contexts. Here again, perhaps, the limited analogy of Wodehouse, with Bertie Wooster's mangled Shakespeare, might be borne in mind.

iii. Verbal Wit

At the opposite extreme to the farcical incidents employed by Petronius for the action proper, there is the almost equally large element of verbal wit, which more readily satisfies our expectations of such a literate and polished writer. The most obvious form in which this verbal wit shows itself is the pun. Humour of the punning sort was more popular with the Romans than with us, as the extant examples of Cicero's witticisms prove. Even such oddities as a fondness for rebuses, a liking shared by Trimalchio and the Emperor Augustus,¹⁸ exemplify this taste.

Puns may be tendentious, sexual, for example, or simply plays upon words; again they may rely on a simple change of a letter or syllable, or involve the double entendre proper. Petronius uses most of these varieties. As an example of the first may be instanced Eumolpus' wry but neat comment on Ascyltos' success in being picked up at the baths: 'tanto magis expedit inguina quam ingenia fricare' (92.11), which may be translated loosely by 'A polished wick is more profitable than a polished wit'. There are a number of double-entendres proper, both in the narrative and the dialogue. Quartilla's little joke on examining Giton's miniature sexual equipment (24.7) provides a convenient example:

'haec' inquit 'belle cras in promulside libidinis nostrae militabit; hodie enim post asellum diaria non sumo.'

Loosely,

'Tomorrow,' she said, 'this will serve nicely as hors d'oeuvre to tempt my appetite. For the present I don't want a common shrimp after such a nice codpiece.'

The actual joke depends on a double meaning of asellus, which can be both a fish and that great Roman symbol of lust and sexual potency, the ass. Similar sexual puns and double meanings may be found at 11.4 (dividere cum fratre); 17.7 ff. (medicina); 24.1-4 (embasicoetas); 126.10 (in equestribus sedeo); 131.7 (the Ovidian leporem excitavi); 140.2,7 (bonitas); and 140.13 (deorum beneficia).

Puns and double meanings, of course, are funnier when they rely on the powerful reinforcement of a sexual reference. And it must be said that most of the puns in Encolpius' narrative and the dialogue outside the Cena are of this sort. Trimalchio, however, although he is given his fair share of sexual allusion (e.g. 69.3), is limited in his verbal humour to puns which are either childishly naïve or ponderously artificial; these are not meant in themselves to be funny, but are intended by their very weakness to satirize Trimalchio's deficiencies in wit. Examples of these are: hoc est ius cenae (35.7), which plays upon the double meaning of ius (law and sauce); 'Carpe, carpe' (36.7), which would come over into English as 'Carver, carve 'er!'; and secundae mensae (68.1-2), which relies on the literal meaning 'second tables' and the idiomatic meaning of 'dessert'. The joke about Corinthea vasa and Corinthus (50.2-4) is too weak even to bear explication, as Encolpius' sardonic ille melius underlines.

As is clear, these 'jokes' sometimes rely on staging and props to be made at all, and Trimalchio's most elaborate joke is practically a tableau (41.6 ff.). Here a slave named Dionysus plays the different avatars, as it were, of the God of Wine. Trimalchio orders him to play the Italian god of wine, Liber, and the boy interprets this adjectivally as liber (free), and puts on a freedman's cap. Trimalchio compounds the joke by adding that the guests cannot deny me … habere liberum patrem, which plays upon the two possible meanings, Father Liber and a free father.'¹⁹ The fondness for this elaborate situational pun, as we may describe it, may be seen also in the Zodiac dish served by Trimalchio(35.2 ff., 39.4 ff.); here the various foods placed over the signs of the Zodiac generally show some sort of conceptual relationship to their sign, which is explicated at tiresome length by Trimalchio.²⁰ It would be equally tiresome to examine the rebus-tickets which are distributed among the guests, and which elicit odd presents for them to take home (56.8 ff.). The only bearable example is perhaps 'muraena et littera' (lamprey and a letter), which receives a mouse with a frog attached instead of the expected lamprey (murem cum rana alligata / muraena), and a stick of beet (beta meaning both 'beet' and the Greek letter beta).

All this, of course, in so far as it is funny at all, is purely second-order humour, and is at the service of the satiric portrait. The real humour of the Cena—fortunately—consists in something much more comic and human. Verbal wit is exhibited also in Petronius' choice of names for his characters, although it must be admitted that he lacks the fantasy and richness of a Peacock or a Dickens. Almost all of the names are Greek, a fact that may be explained by Petronius' choice of low characters who, to the Roman mind, would be ex-slaves or Graeculi, and by the fact that Greek names have more expressive possibilities than standard Latin names. Quartilla is one of the few exceptions: her name is a diminutive of the Latin quarta (fourth)—such numerical names being not uncommon for slaves. There might possibly be an allusion in the diminutive to her early sexual proclivities, which she describes at 25.4 ff.: 'Iunonem meam iratam habeam, si umquam me meminerim virginem fuisse' ('Juno's curse on me, if I remember ever being a virgin'). But usually the names are appropriately Greek, with the further exception of Proculus in Trimalchio's circle of freedmen. The importunate poet is ironically named Eumolpus ('the sweet singer'); Ascyltos' name (something like 'Mr. Takeit') fits Eumolpus' envious description of him: 'o iuvenem laboriosum: puto illum pridie incipere, postero die finire'—'What a man for the job! I think he starts yesterday and finishes tomorrow' (92.9-10). Some of the names are less vividly descriptive. Tryphaena means, roughly, 'luxurious' and so is appropriate for a demimondaine who travels around solely in the pursuit of pleasure (101.5). Similarly 'Oenothea' ('Wine-goddess') aptly describes the bibulous priestess of Priapus (134.8 and ff.), as well as being perhaps a humorous allusion to the Homeric Eidothea. Some of the names of the minor characters are simply slave names. (e.g. Corax and Psyche). The mythological names on the other hand do usually have point. Circe and 'Polyaenus', Agamemnon and Menelaus, provide mildly joking allusions to Homeric characters, and Lichas, the licentious sea-captain, derives his name from the Hercules myth with a possible overtone of perverse sexual practices.²¹

iv. Characterization

Petronius' principal genius is for humorous characterization, which is deployed largely through the medium of dialogue, and this perhaps is the side of the Satyricon which appeals most to the reader, familiar as he is with the developed techniques of the novel. Encolpius is usually the victim, as the plot requires, and his characterization for various reasons differs from the others (see above, pp. 116 ff.). He is very emotional and suggestible, but his infrequent moments of ecstasy (78.8 and 126.13 ff.), or bravery (82.1 ff.), are more than balanced by his almost immediate return to despair, frustration, or cowardice. He is generally depicted as pessimistic, timorous, and self-pitying. He is rarely allowed to shine, if we except the opening scene and the apologia for the work (132.15), where he is presumably voicing the author's own views, and tends more to be the foil, if not a butt, for the other characters. He is the target of Quartilla's practical jokes (24.2 etc); of Ascyltos' sardonic cracks (10.1; 11.4); of Giton's infidelity (80.6; 113.4); of Eumolpus' disdainful unkindness (94.1 ff., 109.8); of Circe's sarcastic irony (128.1; 130.4-6) and brutality (132.2). One has to remember of course that Petronius is not interested in exploring the consistencies or inconsistencies of Encolpius' character as a modern novelist might be, but rather in using him as the excuse for the different episodes or the foil for the other characters.

The characterization of the other figures in the Satyricon is predominantly satiric in the conventional sense of the term, even though there is no impression given of moral indignation. With the crew of libidinous women that stalk the pages of the Satyricon, the problem for the author is simply one of differentiation, as we have seen (pp. 119 ff.). Not all the techniques employed are humorous, although an exception might be made of the delightfully ironic tone of Circe's letter to Encolpius (129.4-9). The transcendence of Petronius' initial satiric aims by a stronger comic and novelistic impulse in the creation of Trimalchio has been also examined earlier (pp. 151-57 above).

Eumolpus is perhaps the most suitable figure with which to illustrate Petronius' techniques of character depiction in detail. We are first presented with a physical description:

ecce autem … intravit pinacothecam senex canus, exercitati vultus et qui videbatur nescio quid magnum promittere, sed cultu non proinde speciosus, ut facile appareret eum < ex > hac nota litteratorum esse quos odisse divites solent.

(83.7-8)

All of a sudden, however … a white-haired old man entered the picture-gallery. His face was lined and seemed to have in it a promise of something impressive. But his appearance was shabby, and this made it clear that he belonged to the class of intellectuals so hated generally by the rich.

As with Quartilla and Circe, his first address is conciliatory and righteous:

'ego' inquit 'poeta sum et ut spero non humillimi spiritus, si modo coronis aliquid credendum est, quas etiam ad imperitos deferre gratia solet. 'quare ergo' inquis 'tam male vestitus es?' propter hoc ipsum. amor ingenii neminem umquam divitem fecit … non dubie ita est: si quis vitiorum omnium inimicus rectum iter vitae coepit insistere, primum propter morum differentiam odium habet; quis enim potest probare diversa? deinde qui solas extruere divitias curant, nihil volunt inter homines melius credi quam quod ipsi tenent. insectantur itaque, quacumque ratione possunt, litterarum amatores, ut videantur illi quoque infra pecuniam positi.'

(83.8-84.3)

'I am a poet,' he said, 'and a poet of no mean ability, I like to think, at least if bardic crowns are to be trusted when favouritism confers them even on mediocrity. 'Why,' you ask, 'are you so badly dressed then?' For this one reason—concern for the arts never made anyone rich … No doubt about it. If a man sets his face against every temptation and starts off on the straight and narrow, he's immediately hated because of his different ways. No one can approve of conduct different from his own. And secondly, those who are interested in piling up money don't want anything else in life regarded as better than what they have themselves. So they persecute lovers of literature in any way possible to show that they too are inferior to wealth.'

As we have observed, Petronius is particularly fond of the humour of contrast and incongruity, and this lofty tone of dedication and disdain for lower pleasures is quickly deflated for the reader by the anecdote of Eumolpus' adventure in Pergamum where he manages by a clever deception to seduce his host's young son. The tale is clearly a familiar conte, but at the same time its narration by Eumolpus shows him to be a lecherous and hypocritical old fraud: Circe's initial demureness and the brutality and libidinousness of her true nature provide an analogous contrast. Eumolpus in fact completely inverts the poetic topos that we find in Catullus, Ovid, Martial, and others.²² Whatever we think of his poetry, it is rarely playful (as at 109.9-10), and never obscene (whereas his life is anything but chaste). Eumolpus becomes then a suitable new rival for Giton's affections, and a natural leader in the imposture practised on the legacy hunters at Croton. The highly sexual episode involving Philomela's little daughter (140) is a perfect example of the combination in him of lechery and deceit. His relations with Encolpius and Giton are a similar blend, and his trickery is evident also in his attempts to deceive Lichas and Tryphaena on board ship (104.3 ff.).

It may be noted, however, that Eumolpus has many virtues; he is resourceful and courageous, as well as lecherous and cunning (cf. 95, 108, 117). Analogously, we do not have to take the literary criticism of the Satyricon and the moral criticism as vitiated simply by the speaker. The moralizing speeches (88, 140.14 etc), apart from their parodic intentions, provide a deliberate counterpoint to the immoral actions of Eumolpus and the others. What validity they might have is undercut by their dramatic function, and provide no evidence, positive or negative, by consistency or contrast, of the author's own views. It is unlikely, for instance, that his Epicureanism would be offended by Eumolpus' philosophy of carpe diem (cf. 99.1, 132.15, particularly lines 5-8), but its presentation is above all governed by Petronius' sceptical and opportunistic humour. The literary criticism, on the other hand, contrasts with nothing. It is not undercut by issuing from Eumolpus; it is merely appropriate, even when valid, for Eumolpus' important trait is that he is mad about poetry. Inopportune reciters and poets are of course frequent subjects of satire in Latin literature,²³ and the satiric intent here is made quite obvious by the crowd's hostile reception of Eumolpus' poem on the Fall of Troy (90.1), and by Encolpius' own chidings (90.1, 90.3, 93.3). But there is no need to be sceptical about Eumolpus' function as a vehicle of the author's literary criticism (are we to assume that Petronius did not think that Horace displayed curiosa felicitas?) or to feel that its insights are necessarily out of character when coming from Eumolpus.

I have not tried here to do more than outline the broader strokes used in the delineation of character in the Satyricon. Much of the differentiation of character, as was noted earlier, is achieved by a careful attention to the style of each speaker's dialogue, and, where relevant, monologue.²⁴ This aspect of Petronius' character drawing, however, concerns his parodic intentions, and not, strictly speaking, his comic characterization.

Notes

¹La psychologie du rire (Paris, 1902), p. 1.

² For a more complete analysis, see J. K. Schoenberger, Glotta 31 (1951), 22 ff., and P. A. George, Arion 5 (1966), 336 ff.

³ Cf. Collignon, pp. 260 ff.

⁴Aen. 6. 469-70; Ecl. 5.16; Aen. 9.436.

⁵ See above, pp. 193 ff.

⁶ The story was a very popular one, see E. Grisebach, Die Wanderung der Novelle von der treulosen Witwe durchdie Weltliteratur (Berlin, 1886) and P. Ure, 'The Widow of Ephesus: Some Reflections on an International Comic Theme', Durham Univ. Journal 18 (1956), 1 ff.

⁷ See M. Rosenbliith, Beitrige zur Quellenkunde von Petronius' Satiren (Kiel, 1909); F. Moring, De Petronio mimorum imitatore (Miinster, 1915), a more moderate statement; K. Preston, 'Some Sources of the Comic Effect in Petronius', CP 10 (1915), 260 ff.; and R. Cahen, Le Satiricon et ses origines (Paris, 1925), pp. 38 ff., 70 ff.

⁸ For its general characteristics, see H. Reich, Der Mimus (Berlin, 1903), vol. I, pp. 35 ff.

⁹Lib. Spectac. 5.7.

¹⁰ Cf. e.g. Juv. 1.36, 6.63; Tert. Spect. 17.1-5. For ancient judgments on the mime and Christian criticisms, see Reich, op. cit., pp. 50 ff., 109 ff.

¹¹ E. Thomas, Petrone (Paris, 1912), p. 213.

¹² Diomedes' description (GLK I, p. 491), which depends on Theophrastus, reads: mimus est sermonis cuius libet < et > motus sine reverentia, vel factorum et turpium cum lascivia imitatio.… Cf. W. Ridgeway, The Drama and Dramatic Dances of Non-European Peoples (Cambridge, 1915), p. 10: 'Amongst primitive people all dances are mimetic and pantomimic'.

¹³ Mart. 8 praef.; cf. Val. Max. 2.10.8.

¹⁴ Rosenblith, op. cit., p. 37.

¹⁵ Given the various literary influences that make themselves felt in the Cena, Rosenbliith's comparison (op. cit., p. 53) of the whole episode to the mimes of Herodas and Theocritus must not be taken too seriously.

¹⁶ See Preston (art. cit. above) for an exhaustive—and exhausting—survey of the possibilities.

¹⁷ Cf. Quint. Inst. 6.3.8: risus res levis et quae a scurris et mimis moveatur.

¹⁸ Compare 56.8-10 with Suet. Aug. 75.

¹⁹ See A. E. Housman, CR 32 (1918), 162.

²⁰ Where the text is nonsensical, I would suggest: super scorpionem locustam (following Gaselee), super sagittarium super capricornum oculatam, caprum et cornutam.

²¹ See further the explanations in the index of names to Ernout's edition.

²² See p. 104, n. 2.

²³ Cf. e.g. Juv. 1.2 ff., 3.9; Mart. 3.44, 45.

²⁴ See pp. 119 ff., and P. A. George, Arion 5 (1966), 336 ff.

Bibliography

This is not a complete bibliography of Petronius, as there is little here on the text or the manuscript tradition, on the details of the language and style, or on the various philological and historical problems. It does however include the main editions, and some of the general, or critical, works on Petronius, as well as the more important articles and books on the work and its background which are cited in the notes. A reasonably complete bibliography may be compiled with the aid of S. Gaselee, 'The Bibliography of Petronius', Trans, of the Bibliographical Society 10 (1909) 141-233; M. Stirling, Addenda et Corrigenda to 'The Bibliography of Petronius' by Stephen Gaselee, Pts. I and II, 1931 (MS in the Cambridge University Library); L'Année Philologique; E. Lommatzsch, Bursians Jahresberichte für das klassische Altertum 175 (1919) 98 ff.; 204 (1925) 215 ff.; 235 (1932) 142 ff.; 260 (1938) 94 ff.; R. Helm, ibid. 282 (1945) 5 ff.; R. Muth, Anzeiger für die Altertumswissenschaft 9 (1956) 1-22; H. C. Schnur, CW 50 (1957) 133-6, 141-3; and A. Rini, Petronius in Italy (New York, 1937).

Abbott, F. F., 'The Use of Language as a Means of Characterisation in Petronius', CP 2 (1907) 43 ff.

——, 'The Origin of the Realistic Romance among the Romans', CP 6 (1911) 257 ff.

Altamura, D., 'Quibus ex Graeca lingua translatis verbis in Cena Trimalchionis enarranda Petronius usus sit', Latinitas 6 (1958) 194 ff.

Arrowsmith, W., The Satyricon of Petronius. Translated and with an Introduction. Ann Arbor 1959.

——, 'Luxury and Death in the Satyricon', Arion 5 (1966) 304 ff.

Auerbach, E., Mimesis, the Representation of Reality in Western Literature (trans.) (New York 1957).

Bacon, H. H., 'The Sibyl in the Bottle', Virginia Quarterly Review 34 (1958) 262 ff.

Bagnani, G., 'And Passing Rich', Phoenix Supplt. I (Toronto 1952) 218 ff.

——, Arbiter of Elegance, Phoenix Supplt. 2 (Toronto 1954).

——, 'Encolpius: Gladiator Obscenus', CP 51 (1956) 24 ff.

——, 'The House. of Trimalchio', AJP 75 (1954) 16 ff.

——. 'Trimalchio', Phoenix 8 (1954) 77 ff.

Bailey, C., Epicurus, Oxford 1926.

Baldwin, F. T., The Bellum Civile of Petronius, New York 1911.

Balsdon, J. P. V. D., Roman Women, London 1963.

Barnes, J. W. B., 'Egypt and the Greek Romance', Mitteil. aus. d. Papyrussamml. d. Ost.-Nat. Bibl. n.s. 5 (1956) 29 ff.

Beck, C., The Age of Petronius, Cambridge, Mass. 1856.

Bendz, G. 'Sprachliche Bemerkungen zu Petron', Eranos 39 (1941) 27 ff.

Bickel, E., 'Petrons Simplicitas bei Tacitus', RhM 90 (1941) 269 ff.

Birt, T., 'Zu Petron', PhW 45 (1925) 95.

Bogner, H., 'Petronius bei Tacitus', H 76 (1941) 223 f.

Boissier, G., Étude sur la vie et les ouvrages de M. T. Varron, Paris 1861.

——, L'Opposition sous les Césars, Paris 1875.

Bonner, S. F., Roman Declamation under the Empire, Liverpool 1948.

Borszák, K., 'Die Simplicitas und römische Puritanismus', EPhK 70 (1947) 1 ff.

Browning, R., 'The Date of Petronius', CR 63 (1949) 12-14.

——, 'The Date of Petronius', CR 63 (1949) 28-9.

Bücheler, F. Petronii Arbitri Satirarum Reliquiae, Berlin 1862.

Bürger, K., 'Der antike Roman vor Petronius', H 27 (1892) 345 ff.

Burman, Titi Petronii Arbitri Satyricôn quae supersunt. Curante Petro Burmanno. Editio altera. Amsterdam, 1743.

Cahen, R., Le Satiricon et ses origines, Paris 1925.

Carratelli, G. Pugliese, 'Tabulae ceratae Herculanenses', PP 3 (1946) 381.

Ciaffii, V., La Struttura del Satyricon, Turin 1955.

——, Petronio e Apuleio, Turin 1960.

Cichorius, C., 'Petronius und Massilia', Römische Studien, Leipzig 1922, pp. 438 ff.

Cizek, E., 'Autour de la date du Satyricon de Pétrone', Stud. Clas. 7 (1965) 197 ff.

Collignon, A., Étude sur Pétrone. La Critique littéraire, l'imitation et la parodie dans le Satiricon, Paris 1892.

Cordier, A., L 'allitération latine. Le procédé dans l"Enéide' de Virgile, Paris 1939.

Courtney, E., 'Parody and Literary Allusion in Menippean Satire', Philologus 106 (1962) 86 ff.

Crum, R. H., 'Petronius and the Emperors', CW 45 (1951) 161 ff., 197 ff.

de Guerle, J. N. M., Recherches Sceptiques sur Pétrone, Paris 1797.

de Vreese, J. G. W. M. Petron 39 und die Astrologie, Amsterdam 1927.

Desmouliez, A., 'Sur la polémique entre Cicéron et les Atticistes', REL 30 (1952) 168 ff.

Downer, J. W., Metaphors and Wordplays in Petronius, Waco, Texas 1913.

Duff, A. M., Freedmen in the Early Roman Empire, Cambridge 1958.

Dugas, L., La psychologie du rire, Paris 1902.

Enia, M., Il Satiricon e il suo autore Petronio Arbitro, Palermo 1899.

Ernout, A., Le Satiricon de Pétrone. Texte et Traduction. 4th edn. Paris 1958.

Faider, P., Études sur Sénèque, Ghent 1921.

Feix, J., Wortstellung und Satzbau in Petrons Roman, Breslau 1934.

Ficari, Q., La figura di Trimalchione nel'Satiricon' di Petronio Arbitro, Lucera 1910.

Freud, S., Jokes and their Relation to the Unconscious, London 1960.

Friedländer, L., Petronii Cena Trimalchionis, 2nd edn. Leipzig 1906.

Garrido, I. M., 'A Note on Petronius' Satyricon 135′, CR 44 (1930) 10 f.

Gaselee, S., Some Unpublished Materials for an Edition of Petronius, (1909). Unpubld. Diss. Camb. Univ. Lib.

George, P. A., 'Style and character in the Satyricon', Arion 5 (1966) 336 ff.

Gottschlich, J., 'De parodiis Senecae apud Petronium', Miscellaneorum Philologicorum libellus zu Friderici Haase Jubiläum (Breslau 1863).

Gresseth, G. K., 'The Quarrel between Lucan and Nero', CP 52 (1957) 24 ff.

Griffin, M. T., 'De Brevitate Vitae', JRS 52 (1962) 104-13.

Grimal, P., 'Sur quelques noms propres de la Cena Trimalchionis', RPh 16 (1942) 161 ff.

Griesbach, E., Die Wanderung der Novelle von der treulosen Wittwe durch die Weltliteratur, Berlin 1886.

Grube, G. M. A., The Greek and Roman Critics, London 1965.

von Guericke, A., De linguae vulgaris reliquiis apud Petronium et in inscriptionibus parietariis Pompeianis, Gumbinnen 1875.

Haley, H. W., 'Quaestiones Petronianae', HSCP 2 (1891) 1 ff.

Haskins, C. E., M. Annaei Lucani Pharsalia (ed.). With an Introduction by W. E. Heitland. Cambridge 1887.

Hausrath, A., 'Die ionische Novellistik', NJA 33 (1914) 441 ff.

Headlam, W., Herodas, Cambridge 1922.

Heinz, K., Das Bild Kaiser Neros, Bern 1948.

Heinze, R., 'Petron und der griechische Roman', H 34 (1889) 494 ff.

Heitland, W. E., see Haskins.

Helm, R., Der antike Roman, 2nd. edn. Göttingen 1956.

Heraeus, W., Die Sprache des Petronius und die Glossen, Leipzig 1899.

Herter, H., De Priapo, Giessen 1932.

Hertling, C., Quaestiones mimicae, Strasbuig 1899.

Highet, G., 'Petronius the Moralist', TAPA 72 (1941) 176 ff.

——, Juvenal the Satirist, Oxford 1956.

Hirzel, R., Der Dialog, Leipzig 1895.

Housman, A. E., 'Jests of Cicero, Plautus and Trimalchio', CR 32 (1918) 162.

Iannelli, C., 'Dissertatio tertia qua Petronii Arbitri aetas constituitur', In Perottinum codicem … Dissertationes Tres (Naples 1811) pp. 117-316.

Jensen, C., Philodemus uiber die Gedichte, funftes Buch, Berlin 1923.

Kent, R. G., see Sturtevant.

Kempe, P., De clausulis Petronianis, Greifswald 1922.

Kindt, B., 'Petron und Lucan', Philologus 51 (1892) 355 ff.

Klebs, E., 'Zur Komposition von Petronius' Satirae', Philologus 47 (1889) 623 ff.

——, 'Petroniana', Philologus Suppltbd. 6 (1893) 659 ff.

Lavagnini, B., Eroticorum Graecorum fragmenta papyracea, Leipzig 1922.

Le Coultre, J., 'Notes sur Pétrone', Mélanges Boissier (Paris 1903) pp. 326 ff.

Levi, M. A., Nerone e i suoi tempi, Milan 1949.

Lommatzsch, E. (with J. Segebade), Lexicon Petronianum, Leipzig 1898.

Ludwig, E., De Petronii sermone plebeio, Marburg 1869.

McCague, E. S., Clausulae in Petronius (1930). Unpubld. Thesis. Univ. of Pittsburgh.

MacKendrick, P. L., 'The Great Gatsby and Trimalchio', CJ 45 (1950) 307 ff.

Maiuri, A., La Cena di Trimalchione di Petronio Arbitro, Naples 1945.

——, 'Petroniana', PP 3 (1948) 103 ff.

Marbach, A., Wortbildung, Wortwahl und Wortbedeutung als Mittel der Characterzeichnung bei Petron, Giessen 1931.

Marchesi, C., Petronio, Rome 1921.

Marmorale, E. V., 'Cena Trimalchionis' testo critico e commento, Florence 1947.

——, La questione Petroniana, Bari 1948.

Martin, J., Symposion, die Geschichte einer literarischen Form, Paderbom 1931.

Martins, F., 'A crise do meravilhoso na epopeia Latina', Humanitas 1 (1947) 25 ff.

Mason, H. A., 'Is Juvenal a Classic?': Critical Essays in Roman Literature: Satire, London 1963, pp. 93 ff.

Mendell, C. W., 'Petronius and the Greek Romance', CP 12 (1917) 158 ff.

Michenaud, G., 'Les sons du vers Virgilien', LEC 21 (1953) 343 ff.

Momigliano, A., 'Literary Chronology of the Neronian Age', CQ 38 (1944) 96 ff.

Moring, F., De Petronio mimorum imitatore, Munster 1915.

Mossler, J. G., Commentatio de Petronii poemate 'De Bello civili', Breslau 1842.

——, Quaestionum Petroniarum specimen quo poema 'De bello civili' cum 'Pharsalia' Lucani comparatur, Hirschberg 1857.

Müller, K., Petronii Arbitri Satyricon, Munich 1961.

——, (with W. Ehlers), Petronius Satyrica: Schelmengeschichte, Munich 1965.

Münscher, K., Senecas Werke, Untersuchungen zur Abfassungszeit und Echtheit, Philologus Suppltbd. 16 (Leipzig 1922).

Nelson, H. L. W., Ein Unterrichtsprogramm aus neronischer Zeit, dargestellt auf Grund von Petrons Satiricon, c. 5, Amsterdam 1956.

Norden, E., Die antike Kunstprosa, Leipzig 1909.

Pack, R., 'The Criminal Dossier of Encolpius', CP 55 (1960) 31 ff.

Paratore, E., Il Satyricon di Petronio I-Introduzione, II-Commento, Florence 1933.

Pepe, L., Studi Petroniani, Naples 1957.

——, 'Sul monumento sepolcrale di Trimalchione', GIF 10 (1957) 293 ff.

Perrochat, P., Commentaire exégétique et critique du Festin de Trimalchion, 2nd edn. Paris 1952.

Perry, B. E., 'Petronius and the Comic Romance', CP 20 (1925) 31 ff.

Petrequin, J. E., Nouvelles recherches historiques et critiques sur Pétrone, Paris, 1869.

Preston, K., 'Some sources of the comic effect in Petronius', CP 10 (1915) 260 ff.

Raith, O., Petronius ein Epikureer, Nuremberg 1963.

Rattenbury, R. M., 'Romance: The Greek Novel', New Chapters in Greek Literature. Third Series, Oxford 1933, pp. 211 ff.

Reich, H., Der Mimus, Berlin 1903.

Revay, J., 'Horaz und Petron', CP 17 (1922) 202 ff.

Ribezzo, F., 'I frammenti di libro XIV di Petronio', RIGI 15 (1931) 41 ff.

Rohde, E., Der griechische Roman und seine Vorläufer, 3rd edn. Leipzig 1914.

Rose, K. F. C., The Date and Author of the Satyricon (1962). Unpubld. Thesis. Bodleian Library, Oxford.

——, 'The Author of the Satyricon', Latomus 20 (1961) 821 ff.

——, 'The Date of the Satyricon', CQ 12 (1962) 166 ff.

——, 'Time and Place in the Satyricon', TAPA 93 (1962) 402 ff.

——, 'The Petronian Inquisition: An Auto-da-Fé', Arion 5 (1966) 275 ff.

Rosenblüth, M., Beiträge zur Quellenkunde von Petronius' Satiren, Berlin 1909.

Rostagni, A., 'Filodemo control l'estetica classica', Scritti Minori I (Turin 1955) pp. 349 ff.

Rowell, H. T., 'The Gladiator Petraites and the Date of the Satyricon' TAPA 89 (1958) 12 ff.

Rudd, W. J. N., The Satires of Horace, Cambridge 1966.

Sage, E. T., 'Atticism in Petronius', TAPA 46 (1915) 47 ff.

Salonius, A. H., Die Griechen und das Griechische in Petrons Cena Trimalchions, Helsingförs-Leipzig 1927.

Schissel von Fleschenberg, O., 'Die künstlerische Absicht in Petrons "Saturae"', WS 33 (1911) 264 ff.

Schmid, D., Der Erbschleicher in der antiken Satire, Tübingen 1951.

Schnur, H. C., The Age of Petronius Arbiter (1957). Unpubld. Diss. New York Univ.

——, 'The Economic Background of the Satyricon', Latomus 18 (1959) 790 ff.

Schoenberger, J. K., 'Zum Stil des Petronius', Glotta 31 (1951) 22 ff.

Schraidt, N. E., 'Literary and Philosophical Remains in the Satyricon of Petronius Arbiter', CJ 35 (1939) 154 ff.

Segebade, J., see Lommatzsch.

Sgobbo, I., 'Frammenti dello libro XIV delle "Saturae" di Petronio', RAL 6.6. (1930) 355 ff.

Shero, L. R., 'The Cena in Roman Satire', CP 18 (1923) 126 ff.

Sinko, T., 'De famis et libidinis in fabula Petroniana momento', Eos 36 (1935) 385 ff.

——, 'De reconstructione fabulae Menippeae Petronii', Meander 12 (1957) 79 ff.

Sochatoff, A. F., 'The Purpose of Petronius' Bellum civile: A Re-examination', TAPA 93 (1962) 449 ff.

Sparrow, J., Half-Lines and Repetitions in Virgil, Oxford 1931.

Steele, R. B., 'Literary Adaptations and References in Petronius', CJ 15 (1920) 283 ff.

Strilciw, N., 'De arte rhetorica in Petronii saturis conspicua', Eos 30 (1927) 367 ff.

Stubbe, H., Die Verseinlagen im Petron, Philologus Suppltbd. 25 (Leipzig 1933).

Studer, G., 'Über das Zeitalter des Petronius Arbiter', RhM2 (1843) 50 ff., 202 ff.

Sturtevant, E. H. (with R. G. Kent), 'Elision and Hiatus in Latin Prose and Verse', TAPA 46 (1915) 148 ff.

Sullivan, J. P., 'Realism and Satire in Petronius': Critical Essays on Latin Literature: Satire, (London 1963) pp. 73 ff.

——, Petronius: The Satyricon and the Fragments. Translated and with an Introduction. (Penguin Classics) Harmondsworth 1965.

Suss, W., De eo quem dicunt inesse Trimalchionis cenae sermoni vulgari, Dorpat 1926.

——, Petronii imitatio sermonis plebei qua necessitate coniungatur cum grammatica illius aetatis doctrina, Acta et Comm. Univ. Tartuensis 13 (1927) 103 ff., Dorpat 1926.

——, 'Zu Lucilius' (II) H 62 (1927) 349 ff.

Thomas, E., Pétrone, 3rd edn. Paris 1912.

——, 'Pétrone et le roman grec', RIPB 45 (1900) 157 ff.

Thomas, P., L 'âge et l'auteur du Satyricon, Ghent 1905.

Trampe, E., De Lucani arte metrica, Berlin 1884.

Tremoli, P., Le iscrizioni di Trimalchione, Trieste 1960.

Trenkner, S., The Greek Novella in the Classical Period, Cambridge 1958.

Ure, P., 'The Widow of Ephesus. Some Reflections on an International Comic Theme', Durham Univ. Journ. 18 (1956) 1 ff.

Usener, H., Epicurea, Leipzig 1887.

Veyne, P., 'Vie de Trimalchion', Annales Économies Sociétés Civilisations 16 (1961) 213 ff.

——, 'Trimalchio Maecenatianus', Hommages à Albert Grenier (Brussels 1962) pp. 1617 ff.

Veyne, P., 'Arbiter Elegantiae', RPh 37 (1963) 258 f.

——, 'Le "je" dans le Satiricon', REL 42 (1964) 301 ff.

Westerburg, M., 'Petron und Lucan', RhM 38 (1883) 92 ff.

Wilamowitz-Moellendorf, U. von, 'Asianismus und Atticismus', H 35 (1900) 1 ff.

Wilcken, U. 'Ein neuer griechischer Roman', H 28 (1893) 92 ff.

——, 'Eine neue Roman-Handschrift', Archiv f Papyrusforschung 1 (1901) 255 ff.

Wilkinson, L. P., 'Philodemus and Poetry', G & R 2 (1933) 144 ff.

List of Abbreviations

Abbreviations for standard classical periodicals, where not obvious, usually conform to the conventions of L 'Année Philologique; for ancient authors cited in the notes, to the lists in Lewis and Short and Liddell-Scott-Jones. RE is one of the standard abbreviations for Pauly-Wissowa-Kroll-Mittelhaus, Real-Encyklopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. The following list of abbreviations is peculiar to this book:

BC Carmen de bello civili, chapters 119-124.1 of the Satyricon.

Bucheler Petronii Saturae recensuit Franciscus Buecheler. Berlin, 1862.

Burman Titi Petronii Arbitri Satyricõn quae supersunt. Curante Petro Burmanno. Editio altera. Amsterdam, 1743.

Ciaffi Ciaffi, V., La Struttura del Satyricon. Turin, 1955.

Collignon Collignon, A., Etude sur Petrone. Paris. 1892.

Gaselee Gaselee, S., Materials for an Edition of Petronius (1907-1908). Unpublished Thesis. Cambridge University Library.

Muller Petronii Arbitri Satyricon cum Apparatu Critico edidit Konrad Muller. Munich, 1961.

Muller²Petronius Satyrica. Lateinisch-Deutsch von Konrad Muller und Wilhelm Ehlers. Munich, 1965.

Maiuri Maiuri, A. La Cena di Trimalchione di Petronio Arbitro. Naples, 1945.

Paratore Paratore, E., ni Satyricon di Petronio. Vols. I and II. Florence, 1933.

Rose Rose, K. F. C., The Date and Author of the Satyricon (1962). Unpubld. Thesis. Bodleian Library, Oxford.