Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-17T00:17:34.507Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interpolations in Petronius*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2013

J. P. Sullivan
J. P. Sullivan
Affiliation:
State University of New Yorkat Buffalo
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

‘The core of practically every problem in textual criticism is a problem of style, and the categories are still far less settled than those of textual criticism. And there is the further danger that the editor in making his recension may fall into the habit of forgetting his responsibility for being continually alive to the author's style. Here I may be allowed to end by recalling a remark of Richard Bentley's in his note on Horace, Odes 3.27.15, nobis et ratio et res ipsa centum codicibus potiores sunt. This remark has always tempted some scholars to misuse it, and it will always continue to do so; but it is true.’ (P.Maas, Textual criticism (1958) 40 f.)

That there were interpolations in Petronius' text was recognised early, although it was not until Eduard Fraenkel's more scientific, if controversial, views on Petronian interpolation were communicated and published in K.Müller's first edition of the Satyricon (1961) that an attempt was made to classify and date more serious and unnoticed interpolations.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society (Second Series) , Volume 22 , 1976 , pp. 90 - 122
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s). Published online by Cambridge University Press 1976

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

NOTES

1. Notably by Friedrich Jacobs and W.Wehle, although some of the earlier editors should not be neglected. The parallel work on the gaps and omissions is also to be found in the early editors; the most important recent work is that of Fuchs, Harald, ‘Zum Petrontext’ Phil 93 (1938) 157–75Google Scholar and ‘Verderbnisse im Petrontext’, Studien zur textgeschichte und textkritik (1959) 57–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2. See Müller, K., Petronii Arbitri Satyricon (1961) XXXVIIGoogle Scholar.

3. Müller, K. & Ehlers, W., Petronius Satyricon: Schelmengeschichten (1965)Google Scholar. The conservative reaction is typified by Nelson, H. L. W., ‘Bemerkungen zu einem neuen Petrontext’, Mnem. 24 (1971) 60–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Coccia, M., Le interpolazioni in Petronio (1973)Google Scholar; and Era, A. Dell', Problemi di lingua e stile in Petronio (Rome 1970)Google Scholar. A more cautious and open-minded approach was taken by Richardson, T. Wade, Interpolations in Petronius (Diss. Harvard 1972)Google Scholar. A recent article by Petersmann, H., ‘Textkritische Probleme bei Petron in neuer Sicht’, WS n.s.9 (1975) 118–34Google Scholar, defends the text at several places where Müller suggested minor deletions.

4. See e.g. Stefenelli, A., Die Volkssprache im Werk des Petron im Hinblick auf die romanischen Sprachen, Wiener Romanistiche Arbeiten 1. Band (1962)Google Scholar.

5. I am defining it for the purposes of this article as any extra or additional syllables, words, phrases or sentences for which the author would not have claimed responsibility.

6. Since this category presents somewhat different problems, I defer discussion of this to another occasion. The principal examinations of the question are Mössler, J. G., Commentatio de Petronii Poemate de Bello Civili (1842)Google Scholar and Wehle, W., Observationes criticae in Petronium (1861)Google Scholar.

7. The appendix lists almost all of the suggested interpolations that I propose, classified according to these categories.

8. ‘cretaeque lineamenta’ would also be a paleographically plausible improvement over ‘creta quae lineamenta’.

9. One might also add to this class the case of 118.1, where l, r, t, and p2 preface the paragraph with ‘Eumolpus’ and where the O MSS insert ‘inquit Eumolpus’ after ‘multos’, while giving no prior indication of the speaker.

10. cf. AP 5.165 (Meleager); Cic., Tusc. 1.38Google Scholar; Apul., Met. 1.12.4Google Scholar.

11. ‘Textual notes on Petronius’, CQ n.s.20 (1970) 189Google Scholar.

12. It should be noted, however, lest we become too sceptical, that one interpolator is so zealous of his interpretative function that he is quite ready, in a pair or more of perfectly genuine balanced clauses, to make one of them into an explanation of the other(s) by adding ‘id est’ or ‘scilicet’: cf. e.g. 87.1, 94.6, 101.2, and cf. 69.9 (‘ego, scilicet homo prudentissimus, statim intellexi’).

13. Heraeus, (Kl. Schr. 178)Google Scholar and Walde-Hoffman4 738 have to go to Romance languages and babytalk for their parallels.

14. H. Fuchs, ‘Verderbnisse im Petrontext’, op. cit. (n.1), ad loc.

15. Müller(1961) 115.

16. Art. cit. (n.11) 189.

17. Müller (1961) 29.

18. I date the Satyricon to c. A.D. 63–65, although the chronology has been most recently challenged by Smith, M. S., Petronii Cena Trimalchionis (1976) XII–XIVGoogle Scholar.

19. Perhaps because of petaurista's derivation from the Greek word for flying (Non. 56.26, Fest. p. 206 Müller) or in line with the elder Pliny's application of it to animals that leap very high (NH 11.115). For a similar dislocation of a gloss, see Rose, K. F. C. and Sullivan, J. P., ‘Trimalchio's Zodiac dish (Petronius, Sat. 35.1–5)’ CQ n.s.18 (1968) 180–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar.