Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T20:19:48.580Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘The uses of Literacy’ and the Cena Trimalchionis: II*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 September 2009

Nicholas Horsfall
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Trimalchio's whole household and way of life is presented to us as though it were a stage-show, or so Petronius implies through Encolpius' remarks, strategically and thematically placed (cf. above, 83–4) at the opening. Still marvelling at the musicality of Trimalchio's household (cf. 197–8), he comments ‘you'd think it was the chorus of a pantomime, not the dining room of a paterfamilias’ (31.7); a page later (33.5) a basket of straw with a wooden hen is brought in and while two slaves search the straw for ‘eggs’ (to music) Trimalchio turns to look at his ‘show’ (hanc scaenam). Trimalchio himself sings a number from the mime Laserpiciarius (35.6) and mangles the songs of Menecrates (73.3, cf. 197). He claims (55.5, above, 80) to recite verses by Publilius Syrus, composer of mimes; his comoedi perform Atellan farce (53.13, above, 80) and Habinnas' slave executes a horrid medley of Atellana and Virgil (68.5, cf. above, 79). If we compare these references with those to music (197–8) simply in terms of bulk and scale, the theatre appears substantially less important, though we may note that all the references except the last (68.5) do refer to Trimalchio himself or to his slaves, thus perhaps serving as a deliberate element on Petronius' part to characterize and distinguish him.

Type
Research Article
Information
Greece & Rome , Volume 36 , Issue 2 , October 1989 , pp. 194 - 209
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1989

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

1. Preston, K., CPh 10 (1915), 260–9Google Scholar, Walsh (above, n.5), p. 24, Coffey (above, n. 5), pp. 186, 268, n. 44, Abbott, F. F., Common people of ancient Rome (New York, 1911), pp. 138–9Google Scholar.

2. 19.1 omnia mimico risu exsonuerant, 80.9, 94.15, 106.1, 117.4, 10; cf. 69.5 ‘tanto melior’ = ‘bravo’.

3. fere totus mundus ex Arbitri nostri sententia mimmu videtur impleri, Policr. 3.8, cf. Walsh (above n.5), p. 24.

4. For the theatre at Pompeii, cf. Gigante (above n. 4), pp. 113–52, Etienne (above n. 97), pp. 386–99, Ward-Perkins (above n. 97), p. 63. For moral maxims of dramatic origin on Pompeian walls, cf. Rawson, E. in Homo viator ed. Whitby, M. etc. (Bristol, 1987), pp. 87–8Google Scholar. Artistic conventions and conservatism and the possibility that at least some graffiti from dramatic texts are of schoolroom origin make it very hard to determine just what was performed there. In the later c.l A.D. comedy and tragedy are anyway, in general terms, unlikely; cf. Jory I.e. (above n. 61).

5. Scobie (above n. 92, 1979), 234–9 = (1969), pp. 20–7 = (1983), pp. 11–16, Balsdon (above n. 53), pp. 287–8, Friedlaender, L., Roman Life and Manners (Eng. tr.) 4 (London, 1913), p. 90Google Scholar; for Greece, cf. Trenkner, S., The Greek Novella (Cambridge, 1958), pp. 17fGoogle Scholar.

6. Sandy, G., TAPA 101 (1970), 474–5Google Scholar; one of the unrecognized reasons (but see Horsfall (above n. 83), pp. 163—4) why distinguished Romans welcomed poets as comites on long journeys is that they must surely have made entertaining companions during the many hours of slow tedium.

7. Sulla on the other hand enjoyed mimes and professional joke-tellers, gelotopoioi (who had prompt-books, Plaut, . Stick., 450, 454)Google Scholar, FGH 90F75; cf. Trenkner loc. cit. (n. 5); in Greece, guests who could not pay at a subscription dinner had to tell stories. Cf. also Persius, ed. O. Jahn, lxxxiv.

8. triviales, at cross-roads; ex circo, from near the circus, to catch the crowds; ludios TLL (7.2.1769.15f) takes as ‘actors’; here rather, as in some later texts (TLL ib. 41–51), ludius is used of performers in general; here some sort of ‘circulator’. See Horsfall (above n. 52); the passage is usually misunderstood.

9. Renowned for garrulity, Porph. ad Hor. Serm. 1.1.20, Scobie (above n. 92, 1979), 238–9, (1983), pp. 15–16.

10. Non-technical, Scobie (above n. 92, 1979), 238–9, (1983), pp. 12–13. Used of Aesop (Gell. 2.29.1) and Herodotus (3.10.11) and of a man who simply told stories well (Sen. Ep. 122.15).

11. Gabba, E., JRS 71 (1981), 50–62Google Scholar and id. in (ed. Crawford, M.) Sources for the ancient historian (Cambridge, 1983), pp. 15–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12. Again I quote the Loeb translation. Betty Radice was a skilled translator, an editor of genius and a dear friend. The opening is clearly an itinerant storyteller's cry; the definition (above, 84) offered of a circulator fits well enough and Scobie's objections (above n. 92, 1969), pp. 27–8 rest on too limited a definition of his range.

13. Walsh (above n. 5), p. 10, Scobie (above n. 92, 1979), p. 244.

14. Full form: John, of Salisbury, , Policr. 4.5Google Scholar, conveniently printed in Smith xxvi-xxvii; see Reeve, M. D. in Tests and Transmission (Oxford, 1983), p. 299Google Scholar. Folk-tale mould: cf. n. 26, in particular, C. Santini, ib., 117–24.

15. Conveniently available in Babrius and Phaedrus ed. B. E. Perry (LCL 1965), no. 419, pp. 500–1, ‘the thief and the innkeeper’; the latter serves to explain Petr.'s phrase (62.12) copocompilatus, for the Byzantine innkeeper does indeed lose his cloak. No commentary on the 3 tales within the Cena, by a scholar interested also in folktale, yet exists, but cf.n. 26.

16. Cf. Virg, . Buc. 8.97f.Google Scholar, Prop. 4.5.13f., Plin, . NH 8.80f.Google Scholar, Smith, K. F., PMLA 9 (1894), 1–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Schuster, M., WSt. 48 (1930), 144–65Google Scholar.

17. The key text is available in Galen ed. Kiihn 19.719 = Phys. Grace. 2.281 Foerster = CMG 8.2.151; cf. further PW Suppl. 15.975.18ff. (Richter), Roscher, W. H., Abh. sacks. Ak. 17 (1897), 11–12Google Scholar. See to T. Paroli (above n. 26), pp. 288–94.

18. Cf. , Aug.Civ. Dei 18.17Google Scholar, Plin, . NH 8.81Google Scholar.

19. Morley, L. Collison, Greek and Roman Ghost Stories (Oxford, 1912)Google Scholar. I have yet to find a serious discussion. For ghosts, cf. Latte, K., Rom. Relig. 327Google Scholar, F. Cumont, After-life in Roman paganism (Eng. tr. repr. New York, 1959), pp. 62f. 67f., Friedlaender (n. 5), 3.307.

20. But see Oliphant, S. G., TAPA 44 (1913), 133–49Google Scholar.

21. Cf. Scobie (above n. 92, 1983), p. 29. Schuster (n. 16), 165–78.

22. Rawson, E. D., CQ 29 (1979), 332–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Real pornography existed, elsewhere, for those who wanted it: Mart. 12.95.2, Mart, xi ed. N. M. Kay, 101.

23. Abbott (n. 1), p. 134. On Milesia, cf. Walsh (above n. 5), pp. 10–11, Scobie (above n. 92, 1969), pp.33–7, Perry, B. E., The Ancient Romances (Berkeley, 1967), p. 94Google Scholar, Beck, R., Phoen. 33 (1979), 245–6, 249–51Google Scholar.

24. On the Widow, O. Pecere's commentary (Padova, 1975) is extremely interesting; Pacchiena, M., La novella Milesia in Petr. (Lecce, 1978)Google Scholar offers slender notes on Widow and Ephebe.

25. Phaedr. Appx. 15; cf. also Perry (n. 15), no. 388, p. 493. Cf. Massaro, M. in Atti del convegno intern. ‘Letterature classiche e narratologia’ (Perugia, 1981), pp. 217–237Google Scholar.

26. Atti del seminario interdisciplinare ‘La novella Latino’ (Perugia, 1985) (Roma, 1986)Google Scholar offers various structuralist analyses, many most interesting, of all the stories inset in Petr. except for the Witches.

27. 53.12; cf. above, 84 for imitations. Note he has a bucinator sound the hours (26.9) and is carried out of dinner to funeral fanfares (78.5).

28. 26.9, 28.5, 31.4–5, 6–7, 32.1, 33.4, 34.1 (bis), 35.6, 36.1, 36.6, 47.8, 52.8, 70.7, 78.5.

29. , Sen.Ep. 12.8Google Scholar, cf. Brev.Vitae 20.3, Smith (above n. 8), p. 271, Plut, . Ant. 71.3–5Google Scholar, Dunbabin, K. M. D., JDAI 101 (1986), 194–5, Dio 67.9Google Scholar.

30. 35.6, 73.3, cf. 64.2 with Suet. Cal. 33.

31. Cf. Balsdon (above n. 53), pp. 45 and 365 n. 174, Friedlaender (n. 5), 2, 350, Marquardt (above n. 47), pp. 337, SHA Hadr. 26. 4, Plut, . Conv. 712FGoogle Scholar.

32. Treggiari (above n. 53, 1975), 56, (1969), p. 148.

33. , Cic.Pis. 67Google Scholar, Treggiari (above n. 53, 1976), 93, (1975), 71, n. 137.

34. 27.3, 29.8 (contrast Tib. 1.10.17), 35.1.

35. 50.2–6: it is clear that to collect ‘Corinthian’ bronze (cf. 198) was no longer necessarily by Trim.'s time a sign of luxury or vulgarity: Plin, . Ep. 3.1.9, 3.6.1Google Scholar, against , Sen.Brev. Vit. 12.1Google Scholar(cf. Smith on 50.1) and Mart. 9.59.11 (though Mart, is not consistently condemnatory, 14.43, 172, 177, 9.57.2). See Baldwin, B.CPh 68 (1973), 46–7Google Scholar. Mythological scenes on silverware (above, 81), ‘Homeric’ paintings (above n. 66) and representations of guard-dogs (29.2, cf. Smith's note) were perfectly ‘normal’.

36. 31.10, 33.7, cf. Smith on 52.1.

37. Strong, D. E., Greek and Roman Gold and Silver Plate (London, 1966), pp. 19Google Scholaret passim, I Limentani, Calabi, Studi sulla società romana (Milano, 1958), pp. 64, 74Google Scholar.

38. Grondona, M., La religione e la superstizione nella Cena Trim (Coll. Lat. 171, 1980)Google Scholar with numerous defects, cf. Smith, M. S., CR 32 (1982), 97–8Google Scholar, Deonna, W. and Renard, M., Croyances et superstitions de la table, (Coll. Lat. 46, 1961)Google Scholar, Schmeling and Stuckey (above n. 30), s.v. Religion, Smith (above n. 8), index, s.v. superstitions.

39. 44.17, cf. Bodel (above n. 6), 200.

40. Possibly to ‘the Augustus’, i.e. Nero, but probably not, Smith ad loc, Grondona (n. 38), pp. 84–5, Deonna (n. 38), p. 16.

41. If ‘throne’ (Heinsius' emendation) is what Petr. wrote; our one ms. gives coleum, to which Smith offers serious objections.

42. Crusius (above n.73), 44–5; cf. Phaedr.1.27, 4.21, Theocr.17.107, Hor, Serm. 1.1.41–2Google Scholar, Suet, . Ner. 31.4Google Scholar: buried treasure was taken seriously.

43. Cf. Bodel (above n. 6), pp. 217f. n. 32; Trim, is not wholly consistent: with 34.10 and 71.6 contrast 71.7 and 78.3.

44. Deonna (n. 38), pp. 99–102 and above all Dunbabin (n. 29), 194–5, 196–212.

45. Bodel (above n. 6), pp. 53–61, Cameron I.e. (above n. 29).

46. Bodel (above n. 6), pp. 191–7, Grondona (above n. 38), pp. 25–32; contrast instances where Trim.'s attitudes are markedly not shared by his guests, 198, 202.

47. Smith on 44.5, Bodel (above n. 6), p. 197, with numerous epigraphic parallels, Grondona (above n. 38), pp. 24–32 (with fewer), Deonna (above n. 38), pp. 99–104 (cf. Lucr. 3.912–5), Dunbabin I.e. (n. 44), Lattimore, R., Themes in Greek and Latin epitaphs (Urbana, 1962), pp. 260–63Google Scholar.

48. Fr. com. ed. Ribbeck, , 241–3Google Scholar.

49. Faba: Mimi romani ed. Bonaria, , 36Google Scholar; convivia: Giancotti, (above n. 57), pp. 119–28Google Scholar, Rawson (above n. 53), p. 53; Cic. quoted by Jerome, Ep. 52.8.3 (PL 22.534 Migne).

50. Rawson I.e. (n. 49), Ead.l.c. (n. 4).

51. ILS 8626f.; cf. BICS 30 (1983), 86Google Scholar.

52. CIL 4.8492, cf. Gigante (above n. 4), p. 106, n. 49.

53. Gigante (above n. 4), pi. xiii with p. 101, Dunbabin (n. 29), fig. 37–8, pp. 224–6.

54. , Tac.Agr. 4.2Google Scholar with Ogilvie/Richmond's note; cf. Smith's note here.

55. Cf. Liebeschuetz, J. H. W. G., Continuity and change in Roman religion (Oxford, 1979), pp. 155–66Google Scholar.

56. 30.4; cf. Eriksson, S., Stud. Gr. Lat. Gothob. 3 (1956), 40–2Google Scholar.

57. Eriksson (n. 56), 38–84: excellent (see Riedinger, , Gnom. 1958, 256–7)Google Scholar, but ignored by Petronian studies; de Vreese, so often cited, is idle fantasy. On the dish see too Rose, K. F. C. and Sullivan, J. P.CQ 18 (1968), 180–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

58. Cf. MacMullen, R., Anc. Soc. 2 (1971), 109–10Google Scholar.

59. Grondona (n. 38), pp. 77—94, Deonna (n. 38), passim, Smith (above n. 8) index s.v.

60. Cf. spitting on one's chest, 74.13, with Mayor's n. on Juv. 7.112 and K. F. Smith on Tib. 1.2., 54, 96.

61. Unnecessary labels: Horsfall (above n. 58), 206; inscriptions: 34.6, 34.7, 38.10, 16 (Mentioned in conversation), 71.11–12; E. E. Best, C761 (1965), 72–6.

62. Best (n. 61), 73, Cavallo, G. in Alfabetismo e cultura scritta (Perugia, 1978), p. 126Google Scholar.

63. Bodel (above n. 6), pp. 139–42, Harris (above n. 23), 102–111.

64. Bodel (above n. 6), p. 77, Harris (above n. 23), 107–8.

65. Cf. (above n. 96), Walsh (above n. 5), p. 121, Bodel (above n. 6), pp. 180–84.

66. (above n. 31), p. 183.

67. Daniel, R. W.ZPE 40 (1980), 153–9Google Scholar emends grandiosely; it is utterly improbable that Hermeros should speak in terms of the quadrivium and the terminology is anyway, it seems, anachronistic, Rawson, E. D., JRS 77 (1987), 214–5Google Scholar.

68. Hultsch, F., NJhb 139 (1889), 335–43Google Scholar is fundamental; cf. Bonner (above n. 31), p. 180 on the abacus and Bodel (above n. 6), pp. 136–7.

69. Cf. de Ste Croix, G. E. M. in (ed. Littleton, ) Studies in the history of accounting (London, 1956) pp. 50–82, 60–61Google Scholar, Anderson, W. F., CPh 51 (1956), 145–50Google Scholar.

70. , Hor.AP 325–30Google Scholar, with Brink's notes, Bonner (above n. 31), p. 183.

71. Conveniently summarized, Bonner (above n. 31), pp. 180–81; cf. MacMullen, R., Roman government's reponse to crisis (New Haven, 1976), pp. 57–8Google Scholar.

72. Cf. 48.4, 46.1, non es nostrae fasciae et ideo pauperorum verba derides; scimus te prae litter as fatuum esse 58.7 with Bodel (above n. 6), p. 190; cf. p.3 for the riot of linguistic error inspired in the freedmen by the presence of an ‘educated’ person.

73. Andreau, J., Les affaires de Monsieur Jucundus (CEFR 17, Roma, 1974)Google Scholar.

74. Bodel (above n. 6), p. 107 n. 45,219, n. 43, Juv. 10.121, 7.113 (where cf. Mayor's note), Schulz, F., Roman legal science (Oxford, 1946), p. 108Google Scholar, Kunkel, W.Herkunft… rdm. Juristen (Graz, 1967), 148Google Scholar.

75. MacMullen, R., Roman social relations (New Haven, 1974), p. 140 s.v. praeco, tonsorGoogle Scholar.

76. Cf. n. 67 for Daniel's imprudences; Hermeros' education is well analysed by Booth, A. D., TAPA 109 (1979), 16–17Google Scholar.

77. (above n. 6), pp. 111–179; see esp. 144.

78. Cf. 29.1 quadrata littera scriptum, Bodel (above n. 6), p. 171, n. 65 for bibliography; see e.g. Susini, G., The Roman stonecutter (Oxford, Blackwell, 1973), p. 52Google Scholar.

79. Harris (above n. 23), 108, n. 26; cf. id. Quad. Stor. 27 (1988), 16Google Scholar; he still fails to take into account the many possibilities the expression opens up; cf. Cavallo (n. 62), p. 122, n. 10.

80. Cf. Daniel (n. 67), 157f., quite rightly, with ample references.

81. Cf. n. 76, 58.13 with Bodel (above n. 6), pp. 135–6.

82. Cf. Corbier, M., in L'urbs, Coll. Ec. Fr. Rome 98 (1987), 58–9Google Scholar.

83. Booth (n. 76), 11–19; Forbes, C., TAPA 86 (1955), 321–60Google Scholar, S. L. Mohler, ib. 71 (1940), 262–80.