Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-kwt9d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T00:51:52.653Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dividing the dinner: book divisions in Petronius' Cena Trimalchionis*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

S. J. Harrison
S. J. Harrison*
Affiliation:
Corpus Christi College, Oxford, stephen.harrision@ccc.ox.ac.uk
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The information transmitted on the numeration of the books of Petronius' Satyrica is notoriously contradictory. Parts of the extant fragmentary text are variously assigned to Books 14–16: the testimonia are clearly set out in Muller's recent fourth edition (whose numeration I use here), and briefly discussed by Sullivan: of Müller's testimonia, no. 10 places Sat. 89.1 in Book 15, no. 13 puts Sat. 20.5 in Book 14, no. 21 identifies the Cena Trimalchionis (Sat. 26.7–78.8) as Book 15, and no. 22 suggests that excerpts from Sat. 6–141 and the complete Cena all come from Books 15 and 16. My main purpose here, however, is not to reopen the general question of the numeration or the overall number of the books of the Satyrica.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 48 , Issue 2 , December 1998, pp. 580 - 585
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1998

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

My thanks to Stephen Heyworth and to the anonymous referees for CQ for some useful comment and criticism.

References

1 Müller, K., Petronius: Satyricon Reliquiae (Leipzig, 1995), pp. xxx–xxxviii; Sullivan J. P, The Satyricon of Petronius (London, 1968), pp. 34–5.Google Scholar

2 Despite the arguments of Hagg, T., CM21 (1966), 118–61 and OwSullivan J. N., Xenophon of Ephesus (Berlin, 1995), I would still incline to the older theory that our text of Xenophon is an epitome of a ten-book original (cf. Burger K., Hermes 27 [1892]. 36–67, Gartner H. in RE A 9.2072–80), following the evidence of the Suda and noting the extraordinary brevity of the transmitted Book 4 (6.5 pages).Google Scholar

3 Sullivan, op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 35–6.Google Scholar

4 Muller, op. cit. (n. 1), p. xxii; van Thiel, H., Petron: Uberlieferung und Rekonstruktion [Mnemosyne Suppl. 20] (Leiden, 1971), pp. 21–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 Miiller, K., Petronii Arbitri Satyricon (Munich, 1961), pp. xxix–xxxi.Google Scholar

6 I leave out of account here the Historia Apollonii Regis Tyrii, which in the three versions identified in the Teubner edition of Schmeling, G., Historia Apollonii Regis Tyrii (Leipzig, 1988), has a single book of 43 pages (version A), 38 pages (version B), or 53 pages (version C); and these are long Teubner pages like those of Reeve's Longus (see n. 8 below). Though it might seem convenient for my argument to ignore this work, its peculiar and complex textual history makes itCrossRefGoogle Scholar

7 Here I agree with Conte, G. B., The Hidden Author An Interpretation of Petronius' Satyricon (Berkeley, 1996), pp. 140–70, who also gives a good history of the issue.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8 I cite Achilles Tatius from the Loeb edition of Gaselee, S. (Cambridge, MA, 1917), Chariton from the Loeb edition of Goold G. P. (Cambridge, MA, 1995), Heliodorus from the Teubner edition by Bekker I. (Leipzig, 1855), Longus from the Teubner edition by Reeve, M. D., second edition (Leipzig, 1986), and Xenophon from the Teubner edition Papanikolaou A. D. (Leipzig, 1978). Note that the Loeb pages for Achilles Tatius are about 20% shorter than the average Teubner page of 250 Greek words, while those of the Loeb Chariton are roughly equivalent to it and the pages of Reeve's Longus are about 50% longer.Google Scholar

9 Sullivan, Cf., op. cit. (n. 1) p. 125, Averil Cameron, CQ N.S. 19 (1969), 367–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10 On the Satyrica and the Odyssey see e.g. Sullivan, op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 95–6, Walsh, P. G., The Roman Novel (Cambridge, 1970), pp. 37–8,43. Neither makes the suggestion about Phaeacia. The anonymous referee for CQ adds the further convincing parallel that Trimalchio is playing ball when first seen by Encolpius (5a/. 27.1), just as Nausicaa is playing ball when first seen by Odysseus (Od. 6.110)–‘not the commonest activity in classical literature’Google Scholar

11 In Apuleius' Metamorphoses books often begin with an epic-type dawn (2,3, 7), or end with an epic-type sunset or day-end (1,2, 10); for epic models see the examples I discuss in the main text. Such epic patterns are particularly exploited within the tale of Cupid and Psyche—see Harrison, S. J., ‘Epic structures in Cupid and Psyche’, in Zimmerman, M. et al. (edd.), Aspects of Apuleius' Golden Ass, Volume II: Cupid and Psyche (Groningen, 1998). In Chariton the first book ends with night.Google Scholar

12 Stephen Heyworth persuasively compares the ending of Apuleius Met. 1, where Lucius' miserable ‘non-dinner’ ends with the book itself. For false closures in classical literature cf. Fowler D. P., MD 22 (1989), 97–101; on closure in general see not only Fowler's original article but also now Roberts, D. H., Dunn, F. M., ANDFowler, D. P. (edd.), Classical Closure (Princeton, 1997).Google Scholar

13 Cf. also Fowler, P. G. in Roberts (n. 12), pp. 114–5, 128–9.Google Scholar

14 Cf. Bodel, J., ‘Trimalchio's underworld’, in Tatum, J. (ed), The Search for the Ancient Novel (Baltimore, 1994), pp. 237–59.Google Scholar