Journal of Undergraduate Research
Volume 3, Issue 7 - April 2002

A New Understanding Through Ancient Text: Fact and Fiction in Petronius's Satyrica

Jordan Martell

ABSTRACT

Perhaps the most interesting period of Roman history is the reign of Emperor Nero, 54 to 68 A.D. It is this fourteen-year time span that most people think about when they consider Roman decadence and depravity. During this era one of the most famous ancient novels of all times was produced, The Satyricon by Petronius. This novel is crucial to understanding the Roman zeitgeist of this time. The Satyricon revels in Greek and Roman literary traditions while also exploring social situations and customs unique to this generation. Owing to the significance of this work, a great deal of ink has been spilt in order to further modern scholars' understanding of it. The purpose of this project was to assist in the compilation of a commentary on The Satyricon.

To do this over one hundred significant phrases and passages were selected from various sections of The Satyricon. These selections were then compared with original source materials found in a 52-volume compilation of ancient Latin inscriptions titled Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (CIL). The comparison of The Satyricon with other ancient texts parses out the fact from the fiction in this novel, enabling scholars to better understand when Petronius is reflecting actual Roman views and when he is utilizing literary conventions such as hyperbole.

INTRODUCTION

The Satyrica of Petronius provides a unique insight into the Zeitgeist of Neronian Rome. This ancient novel, written in a mock epic style, provides a slice-of-life of Roman culture and language as it actually was much more accurately than all of the heroic epics combined. Unfortunately for modern scholars, the thoughts and views of Petronius, as filtered through the skittish narrator, Encolpius, are often illusory and elusive. The only large, continuous section of the fragmentary Satyrica, titled Cena Trimalchionis, has been the focus of a great deal of scholarly debate since the inception of research regarding Petronius. One aspect of this section, which has received particular attention, is the language of the freedmen, for Petronius's portrayal of their speech deviates dramatically from traditional Latin. A modern analogy perhaps more accessible to most readers is the difference between the overwrought, highly stylized speech of Native Americans in the works of Fennimore Cooper and the attempts of Twain and Faulkner to represent graphically the speech patterns of their characters. The appearance of dialect in classical Latin is atypical, and therefore this section of the Satyrica leads one to wonder why Petronius chose to employ this Volkssprache, how accurately the language of these freedmen portrayed the spoken language of Rome in the 60s A.D. and how much of this dialect was intended by the author.

Before an examination of Petronius's possible motives for placing common vernacular in the mouths of the freedmen can begin, one must consider the changes a few millennia can make in a hand-copied manuscript. From what remains of the Satyrica one can deduce that it was based on a 24-book system, of which only parts of books 14, 15, and 16 have survived.1 Some areas of these remaining sections are so peppered with lacunae as to prevent any intelligible interpretation of them, as well as check any attempt at gleaning circumstantial evidence from them. However, time alone has not been harsh on Petronius's novel.

It is certain that the work has suffered at the hands of various scribes. When examining the anomalous vulgarisms that occur in The Dinner of Trimalchio one is tempted to draw parallels between the language of the freedmen and various colloquialisms in Romance Languages.2 Consequently, many scholars have taken the stance that these forms are due to "… a lapse into natural speaking-patterns by a Romance-Speaking copyist."3 However, scholars of this prerogative have neglected the possibility that "…vulgar forms deliberately employed by the author could have been 'corrected' by copyists trained in the classical languages."4 Therefore it is possible that Petronius's depiction of the freedmen's speech could have contained far more vulgarisms than are now present in the text. On account of the uncertainty regarding the veracity of the text, and the impenetrable circumstances that obscure it, one must approach any attempt at explaining the anomalous forms in The Satyrica with caution. Assuming that the text, as it is now generally accepted, is a relatively accurate representation of what Petronius intended, one can examine several of the more poignant characters in the Satyrica now.

The first freedman to speak at the Dinner of Trimalchio is Dama. Many scholars esteem this speech to be the most vulgar in the Satyrica.5 A statistical analysis comparing the number of vulgarisms to the number of words has confirmed that Dama's speech occupies the lowest position among the banqueters.6 However, while his speech lacks any pretense to sophistication, it achieves a degree of realism unprecedented in ancient literature.

That Dama is a drunkard is confirmed by his own words: staminatas duxi, et plane matus sum. Vinus mihi in cerebrum abiit. 7 Although declaring one's drunkenness at a symposium is not uncommon in classical literature, demonstrating it through extreme asyndeton, abbreviated sentences, syncopated forms unheard of in Latin, and confusing the genders of very simple nouns is rare.8 The various breakdowns of Latin grammar that Petronius inserted into this speech serve to attribute a distinct degree of drunkenness to Dama. Whether Petronius meant this to reflect the speech of all drunken men, or drunken freedmen only, is purely conjecture. However, it is certain that Petronius succeeds in emulating the speech patterns of a drunken Roman far more accurately than any other ancient author.

Following closely behind Dama with respect to "vulgarisms" is Echion. It is likely that Petronius's treatment of this character is a more accurate portrayal of the speech of freedmen than that of Dama, given the inebriated state of the former. In addition to the common grammatical errors seen in the language of the freedmen up to this point in the banquet, the speech of Echion includes a number of anomalous forms, which are clearly meant to imbue a degree of sophistication, but merely betray Echion's lower class background.

Echion begins talking by interrupting the previous speaker, Ganymedes, mid-sentence. While Echion harangues Ganymedes for his pessimism, one notes Echion's penchant for rustic idioms.9 Independent of this barnyard wisdom, Echion further demonstrates his lack of education through overcorrecting his grammar.10 Repeatedly one sees in the speech of Echion masculine nouns declined as neuters, active verbs conjugated like deponents, superfluous use of the subjunctive mood, and misuse of basic cases.11 These mistakes are undoubtedly meant to correct certain tendencies in the common vernacular, such as declining neuter nouns as though they were masculine and conjugating deponent verbs like regular active verbs.12 To place this in a more understandable perspective, these hyperurbanisms are equivalent to an English-speaker saying: "the teacher gave John and I a 'D-minus' in grammar" in order to sound correct. Echion's attempt to conceal his background not only demonstrates it, but also adds a distinct sense of arrogance to his character, which he further perpetuates through his alleged familiarity with various political officials.13

Tantamount in cultural relevance to Petronius's graphic depiction of the speech of freedmen is his distasteful treatment of the topics that concern them. The author created these freedmen, especially the host, Trimalchio, to embody "…the four features which particularly offended him in the mores of the emergent capitalists with freedmen status: boorish behavior, arrogance, pretense to learning, superstition and morbidity."14 One sees Dama representing the typical boor, so drunk he can hardly speak, let alone realize that his behavior is obnoxious. Echion presents a double target: not only does he attempt to transcend his status through arrogance and condescending demeanor, but his attempt to mask his grammatical deficiencies and his feigned appreciation for education and the arts betray his class status almost as much as his rustic witticisms and his bloodlust. The character that speaks immediately after Dama presents an interesting case study, for his language seems stout, but his choice of conversation topics reveals his marked morbidity.

Seleucus's speech begins with a few comments about the weather and the curative properties of alcohol but quickly changes to a discussion about a funeral he attended that day. Seleucus's digression is much more grammatically sound than those of Dama and Echion.15 Aside from his lack of syntactical variations and use of melodramatic colloquialisms 16, telling signs of his educational background, the only real errors that Seleucus commits are those of decorum.

To begin, Seleucus seems to discuss his personal hygiene and health in too much detail to be appropriate at a dinner party. He goes on to use the word laecasin,17 one of the few expletives in the Satyrica, which would have shocked his fellow diners.18 He concludes his wonderfully morbid discussion about the funeral of Chysanthus and the futility of human life with several lines of misogynistic banter: Sed Mulier quae mulier milvinum genus… Sed antiquus amor cancer est.19

Despite Seleucus's grammatical superiority to Dama and Echion, a possible result of a medieval copyist's corrections, it is his morbidity and nihilism that expose his status. While it is difficult for modern scholars to comprehend the minute subtleties of ancient satire, given the level of cultural proficiency necessary to understand the joke, the title of the work and Petronius's vitriolic treatment of the other freedmen suggest that Petronius is ridiculing Seleucus, not for his grammar, as with the freedmen previously examined, but for his topic. It is easy to believe that the Arbiter Elegantiae of Nero, would have been accustomed to attending parties far more urbane than that of Trimalchio, and would therefore deem dinner conversation about a funeral gauche, and fit only for the lower classes.

Now that a few key elements of Petronius's treatment of the language and behavior of the freedmen in the Cena Trimalchionis have been examined, it is possible to reflect on Petronius's possible reasons for deviating from the status quo of ancient literature. Although the nature of the Satyrica has been a topic of scholarly debate, it seems quite probable that the work is simply a jeu d'esprit, having "…no serious intention, and is to be envisaged merely as relaxation for an audience at play."20 In fact, any possible attempt at reading a didactic morality into this work seems rather overwrought, given Petronius's reputation in Tacitus' Annales.21 If there is any sort of educative material in the Satyrica, it seems to be involved with the sort of behavior fit for the Aristocracy, much like Castiglione's Book of the Courtier. Despite the comical nature of the work, and the fact that Petronius is ridiculing the class of freedmen with this work, it seems that "…Petronius's aim was to imitate the common language of native speakers of Latin belonging to the lower orders of the Roman Empire."22

Several of the tendencies noted above in the language of the freedmen have very clear parallels with the Romance Languages that evolved from classical Latin. Already one can see the tendency for the masculine gender to absorb the neuter nouns, leading to the final two genders present in most Romance Languages. The freedmen in the novel tend to conjugate deponent verbs like regular active verbs, indicating a trend towards the simplification of the verbal system. Additionally, many of the grammatical mistakes and topics of these freedmen appear in ancient graffiti 23, further demonstrating that Petronius truly attempted to write the language of the freedmen as it was. "The freedmen's speeches in the Cena offer us a rare glimpse of the vulgar Latin excluded from the classical canon."24 While Petronius probably included this verisimilitude of Volkssprache as entertainment for his audience, in doing so he left behind a wealth of linguistic information concerning the vernacular of the Neronian epoch unparalleled in any other ancient work.

FOOTNOTES

  1. Schmeling 460 back
  2. Boyce 17 back
  3. Boyce 26 back
  4. Boyce 26 back
  5. Boyce 76 back
  6. Boyce 76 back
  7. Petronius 69 ln 5-6 "I drank some potent drinks, and I'm thoroughly trashed. Wine has invaded my head." back
  8. Boyce 77 back
  9. Petronius 95 ln 79-80 "'modo sic, modo sic' inquit rusticus varium porcum perdiderat." back
  10. Boyce 84 back
  11. Boyce 84 back
  12. Boyce 83 back
  13. Petronius 97 ln 87 "Nam illi domesticus sum…" back
  14. Walsh xxxi back
  15. Boyce 77 back
  16. Boyce 77-78 back
  17. Petronius 71 ln 9 Greek for the Latin fornicari or fellare back
  18. Boyce 77 back
  19. Petronius 75 ln 20-21 "But a woman who is a woman is a kite… and an old love is a cancerous growth." back
  20. Walsh xxii back
  21. Walsh xxii back
  22. Boyce 23 back
  23. Boyce 21 back
  24. Schmeling 475 back

REFERENCES

Boyce, Bret, The Language of the Freedmen in Petronius's Cena Trimalchionis, EJ Brill, Leiden, The Netherlands, 1991

Petronius, The Satyricon, ed. Gilbert Lawall, Bolchalzy-Carducci Publishers, Chicago, 1981

Schmeling, Gareth, The Novel in the Ancient World, EJ Brill, Leiden, 1996

Walsh, PG, The Satyricon: A New Translation, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1997

--top--

Back to the Journal of Undergraduate Research