¹ Apart from here Epicurus is mentioned only in cap. 132.15 (quoted p. 449). For the debate pro et contra Petronius' adherence to the school, see Raith, and Gigante, V., Vichiana 9 (1980), 61ffGoogle Scholar. (with prev. lit.); for the role of Priapus, , Klebs, E., Philol. 67 (1889), 623ffGoogle Scholar. with the comments of Courtney, E., Philol. 106 (1962), 95fCrossRefGoogle Scholar. and Sullivan, pp. 92–3.

² Sullivan, p. 193; cf. p. 110; Walsh, P. G., The Roman Novel (Cambridge, 1970), p. 100Google Scholar n. 3.

³ Highet, G., TAPA 72 (1941), 185Google Scholar, Cizek, E., L'époque de Néron et ses controverses idéologiques (Leiden, 1972), pp. 249fGoogle Scholar. and Piano, C., ‘La moralita epicurea del Satyricon’, RAAN 51 (1976), 3ffGoogle Scholar. invoke but do not discuss the passage; in this as in other respects, the study by Raith is a salutary exception (cf. n. 32).

⁴ Fedeli, cf. P., MD 6 (1981), 91ffGoogle Scholar.

⁵ On the ritual (Petronius' invention?), see Frohlke, F. M., RhM 123 (1980), 355ffGoogle Scholar.; on its narrative function, Scarola, M., AFLB 29 (1986), 39ffGoogle Scholar.

⁶ Pithou (quoted by Burman, 1743) had already adduced Achilles Tatius 4.1; for further discussion, see Stöcker, C., Humor bei Petron (Diss.; Nurnberg, 1969), p. 51Google Scholar; Fröhlke, F. M., Petron. Struktur und Wirklichkeit (Frankfurt, 1972), p. 42Google Scholar and Adamietz, J., ‘Zum literarischen Charakter von Petrons Satyrica’, RhM 130 (1987), 325Google Scholar (with prev. lit.).

⁷ Thus originally Heinze, R., ‘Petron und der griechische Roman’, Vom Geist des Römertums (Darmstadt, 1972), pp. 417ffGoogle Scholar. (= Hermes 34 (1899), 494ff.); even if one may disagree on particulars, it now seems commonly accepted (cf. e.g. Hägg, T., The Novel in Antiquity (Oxford, 1983), pp. 171ffGoogle Scholar.; Holzberg, N., Der antike Roman (München/Zürich, 1986), pp. 73ffGoogle Scholar. and J. Adamietz, art. cit. (n. 6), 329ff.) and few will for instance speak of the Satyrica's ‘chance resemblance to…later Greek romances’ (Sullivan, J. P., ANRW II.32.3 (1985)Google Scholar, 1668). For all the uncertainty, the intriguing Iolaus fragment published by Parsons, P., Bull. Inst. Class. Studies 18 (1971), 53ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar. and the likewise prosimetric Copenhagen papyrus published by Haslam, M. W., ‘Narrative about Tinouphis in prosimetrum’, Papyri Greek and Egyptian edited…in honour of E. G. Turner (London, 1981), pp. 35ffGoogle Scholar. can only add strength to the assumption of Greek parallels to Petronius; for an inspiring survey, see Barchiesi, A., ‘Tracce di narrativa greca e romanzo latino: una rassegna’, Semiotica della novella latino: Atti del seminario…Perugia 11–13 aprile 1985 (Roma, 1986), pp. 219ffGoogle Scholar.

⁸ Unfortunately, the survey by Wikenhauser, A., ‘Doppelträume’, Biblica 29 (1948), 100ffGoogle Scholar. ignores the evidence from the Greek novel; on which, see Weinstock, F., ‘De somniorum visionumque in amatoriis Graecorum fabulis vi atque usu’, Eos 35 (1934), 29ffGoogle Scholar. Although, for instance, historians and the narratives of miraculous healing (Nicosia, cf. S., ‘L'autobiografia onirica di Elio Aristide’ = Guidorizzi, G. (ed.), p. 181)Google Scholar provide parallels, the device is to my knowledge far less characteristic of any other genre.

⁹ Longus 1.7 (love and marriage); Achilles Tatius 4.1 (chastity).

¹⁰ F. Weinstock, art. cit. (n. 8), 66 quotes Longus 4.34f.; Heliodor 4.12; 9.25; 10.3; Apul, . Met. 11.3–6Google Scholar; 13 and 22; 27.

¹¹ cf. e.g. Longus 1.8; 4.36 (πρ⋯νοια θε⋯ν); Apul, . Met. 11.5Google Scholar; 27 (providentia).

¹² Arguing that it is ‘strange that Lichas should first “expiate” Tryphaena's dream, and only then take steps to see if it was true’, Nisbet, R. G. M., JRS 52 (1962), 231Google Scholar proposed to read expiaret for expiavit; yet, even if not completely parallel, Tib. 1.5.13f.; [Sen, .] Oct. 758Google Scholar; Suet, . Galba 18.2Google Scholar; Plut, . Mor. 165f–166Google Scholar indicate that one would promptly turn to expiation if a prophecy seemed threatening. What I do not comprehend is Lichas' reason for seeing Tryphaena's dream as a threat to himself. Jealousy? Or should one follow Delz, J., MH 38 (1981), 63Google Scholar in emending expiavit to expavit (for a parallel construction, see 23.2 ut…congemuit, eiusmodi versus effudit: ‘hue, hue…’)?

¹³ Sen, . Ben. 4.4.1Google Scholar.

¹⁴ On this category of dream, see Kragelund, 366ff.

¹⁵ Lucr. 4.1097 ut bibere in somnis sitiens cum quaerit; PLM 4.103.1 te vigilans oculis, animo te nocte requiro; similarly, Macrob, . Somn. Scip. 1.3.4Google Scholar and Porphyrion, in Hor. Carm. 4.1.37 (quoted in n. 16; 56)Google Scholar.

¹⁶ Petronius, fr. 30.11 condit avarus opes defossumque invenit aurum; [Ov.]Her. 15.125 Illic (sc. in somnis) te invenio, quamquam regionibus absis; Porphyrion, in Hor. Carm. 4.1.37Google Scholar and Macrob, . Somn. Scip. 1.3.4Google Scholar. esuriens cibum aut potum sitiens desiderare, quaerere vel etiam invenisse videatur.

¹⁷ Herter, p. 223.

¹⁸ On the possibly obscene connotations, see Sullivan, p. 228 and Priuli, S., Ascyltus. Nota di onomastica petroniana, Coll. Latomus 140 (1975), p. 59Google Scholar; others argue for a Sophoclean allusion (Barchiesi, cf. A., MD 12 [1984], 169ff.)Google Scholar. The one need not exclude the other.

¹⁹ cf. Pfister, F., s.v. ‘Epiphanie’, RE. Suppl. 4 (1924), 317–18Google Scholar; similarly, to deceive Claudius, Narcissus and Messalina professed with admiratio to have dreamt identical dreams: Suet, . Claud. 37.2Google Scholar.

²⁰ cf. Dracontius, Orestis Tragoedia 554–5 where the hero and his friend receive similar admonitions while sleeping in each other's arms: dum narrare parat (sc. Orestes) sua somnia noscit ab ipso (sc. Pylades)/ ac stupet attonitus.

²¹ Paratore, E., Il Satyricon di Petronio I–II (Firenze, 1932), p. 336Google Scholar n. 1 likewise suspects a double entendre.

²² cf, . [Sen.] Oct. 742–4Google Scholar: coniugem thalamos toros/ vidisse te miraris amplexu novi/ haerens mariti? (the nurse interpreting Poppaea's wedding-night dream).

²³ cf. e.g. Ov, . Met. 15.653ffGoogle Scholar.; Suet, . Aug. 94.8Google Scholar; Amm. Mar. 20.5.10; on ‘seeing the gods’, see now Fox, R. Lane, Pagans and Christians (Harmondsworth, 1986), pp. 102ffGoogle Scholar.

²⁴ Priuli, S., op. cit. (n. 18), p. 50Google Scholar.

²⁵ Contra, Fröhlke, F. M., op. cit. (n. 6), p. 42Google Scholar, according to whom Petronius failed to integrate the motif, perhaps because ihm (sc. Petronius) ein Abgleiten ins Numinose missfiel.

²⁶ cf. n. 3.

²⁷ For surveys and discussions, see Clay, D., AJPh 101 (1980), 342ffGoogle Scholar. and Schrijvers, P. H., ‘Die Traumtheorie des Lukrez’, Mnem. 33 (1980), 128ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar. (with prev. lit.); on the pain-pleasure aspect, Kragelund, 388ff. and Pigeaud, J., ‘Le reve érotique dans l'antiquité gréco-romaine: l'oneirogmòs’, Liltérature, médecine, sociéte 3 (1982), 10ffGoogle Scholar. = Guidorizzi (ed.), pp. 137ff.

²⁸ cf. Lucr. 3.116 laetitiae molus et curas cordis inanis (sc. in somnis). Similarly, his dream catalogue highlights the impact of interest, habit and eagerness (4.962–5) as well as of more violent, fearful (1011ff.) and gratifying feelings (1024ff.). In view of the references in Diogenes NFF 1 and 12 (n. 30) to joy and happiness, it is tempting in Lucr. 4.984 to accept Lachmann's, studium atque voluptas (Bailey [1898]Google Scholar; Ernout [1975²]) for the voluntas of the codd. (retained i.a. by Diels [1923], Martin [1953]²] and Büchner [1966]). While Diogenes in NF 1 as well as in NF 27 col. 1.2–4 (= Smith, M. F., Thirteen New Fragments of Diogenes of Oenoanda, Denkschriften der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. Klasse 117 [1974], p. 40)Google Scholar follows his master (Epicurus, fr. 7 Arr. = 2 Us.) in using εὐφρος⋯νη to denote kinetic pleasure, Lucretius would elsewhere (4.627) not hesitate to use voluptas.

²⁹ Of the fragments so far published by Smith, the following carry references to the dream theory: NF 1 = AJA 74 (1970), 51ff. with comments in CQ 22 (1972), 161 fGoogle Scholar.; NFF 5–6 = AJA 75 (1971), 357ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.; NFF 13–12 = op. cit. (n. 28), p. 46 and NF 122 = AS 34 (1984), 43Google Scholar. On the links between fr. 7 (Ch.) and NF 1, see Barigazzi, A., Prometheus 3 (1977), 12Google Scholar and Casanova, A., Prometheus 7 (1981), 225ffGoogle Scholar.; on NFF 13–12, see further the discussion by Laks, A. and Millot, C., Études sur l'Épicurisme antique (Lille, 1976), pp. 354ffGoogle Scholar., D. Clay (n. 27) and Casanova, A. in Prometheus 9 (1983), 257ffGoogle Scholar.

³⁰ cf. the emphatic references to joy in NF 1.2, 5–6 (εὐφροςὑνην) and NF 12.7–8 (κατ[ɛυ]φρα⋯νει) and to fear and pain (φ⋯βου; γεμ⋯ζει κα⋯ φ⋯βου in NF 1.1, 14 (as read by A. Barigazzi 1977 and A. Casanova 1981 [n. 29]) and NF 12.12. Given the parallels in proper Epicurean sources, there is little to support the surmise, implausible in other respects too, that Hor, . Sat. 1.5.82ffGoogle Scholar. pourrait avoir inspiré Diogenes (thus D. Gourevitch, MEFRA 94.2 [1982], 824).

³¹ [Quint.] Decl. mai. 10, 200.5ff.; in the few discussions of the work (listed by Håkanson, L., ANRW. II 32.4 [1986], 2272ff.)Google Scholar the Epicurean stance of the boy's father (cf. e.g. 209.22; 215.18) has either been ignored (not in Us.) or mistaken for a belief in magic (thus MWagenvoort, H., Mnem. 55 [1927], 426Google Scholar; 442).

³² Raith, p. 11, hesitantly adduces Lucr. 4.1026–9 as a parallel; ‘an ahnliches muss Petronius gedacht haben’. The erotic 1030ff. is of course far more pertinent.

³³ [Quint, .] Decl. mai. 10Google Scholar, 200.5ff.; 204.13ff. (the Epicurean dismissing the bereaved mother's visions of her son as products of her longing); similarly (nightmares caused by fear) in Plut. Brut. 37 = 328 Us. but the version is garbled. For similar discussions of ‘prophetic’ dreams, see the Epicureanism (credo ab Epicureo aliquo inductus).

³⁴ Thus P. H. Schrijvers, art. cit. (n. 27), 149ff. (suspecting an influence from medical literature).

³⁵ Lucr. 1.132ff.; 4.33ff.; 5.62f.; similarly, e.g. [Quint.] Decl. mai. 10.209.22; 215.18.

³⁶ NatD. 1.49 = 352 Us.: Epicurus…docet…cum maximis voluptatibus in eas imagines menlem intentam infixamque nostram intelligentiam capere, quae sit et beata natura et aeterna. For discussions of this passage, see Kleve, K., ‘Gnosis theon’, Symbl. Osl. Suppl. 19 (1963), pp. 44ffGoogle Scholar.; 118ff. and Lemke, D., Die Theologie Epikurs (München, 1973), pp. 43ffGoogle Scholar. (with prev. lit.).

³⁷ Lucr. 5.1171; 1181; Sext. Emp. Math. 9.25 = 353 Us.

³⁸ Philodemus, cf., De dis 1.4.1Google Scholar (Diels) and Plut. De def. or. 434d = 395 Us. (Epicureans invoking physiology to ridicule the belief in prophetic dreams).

³⁹ Plut, cf.. Quaest. conviv. 635eGoogle Scholar (Plut. refraining from narrating a dream at a party where he is teased by a witty Epicurean).

⁴⁰ cf. Macrobius, Somn. 1.1.9 hanc fabulam Cicero licet ab indoctis…doleat irrisam; 1.2.3 Epicureorum tola factio aequo semper errore a vero devia et ilia semper aeslimans ridenda quae nesciat, sacrum volumen et augustissima irrisil naturae seria.

⁴¹ nihil tarn inridel Epicurus quam praedictionem rerum futurarum, Cic. Nat.D. 2.162 = 395 Us.; similarly, on the school, Div. 2.39. For Epicurus' polemics, see Kleve, K., ‘The Philosophical Polemics in Lucretius’, Lucrèce. Fondation Hardt. Entretiens 24 (Genève, 1977), 61Google Scholar (with prev. lit.); some prefer to discard the evidence as a late fabrication: Zacher, K.-D., Plutarchs Kritik an der Lustlehre Epikurs (Königsfein, 1982), pp. 45–7Google Scholar (with prev. lit.).

⁴² Ant. Rom. 2.68.2 (attack on ‘atheists’ [i.e. probably Epicureans] making fun of religion).

⁴³ Lucian, , Alex. 25Google Scholar = 395 Us.; Plut, . De def. or. 420bGoogle Scholar = 394 Us.; De sera 548c; Adv. Col. 1124e-f=36 8 Us. (with the comments of Westman, R., Plutarch gegen Kolotes, Acta Philosophica Fennica 7 [1955], pp. 198–9)Google Scholar.

⁴⁴ Kragelund, 369ff.

⁴⁵ credimus? an qui amant ipsi sibi somnia fingunt? Verg. Eel. 8.108 (quodper proverbium est locutus, Servius ad loc.); the proverb may of course have referred to day-dreaming (as in Ter. An. 971; Publilius Syrus 16): Postgate, J. P., CIPh 10 (1915), 26–7Google Scholar. In any case the nocturnal wish-fulfilment was claimed to be familiar: ut solet (PLM 5.49.38); ut fit (n. 56); see also n. 46; 61.

⁴⁶ Ov. Met. 9.468–71; cf. the instances of pudor caused by incestuous (Ausonius, Ephemeris 8.13) or erotic dreams (Ov. Her. 15.133; 19.64 and Stat. Theb. 8.626) - the latter with the comment of Lactantius Placidus ad loc.: excusavit (sc. Ismene) quia ilia videre dicimur in somniis, quae habemus in voto.

⁴⁷ Sail. H 3.109 (Maurb.) contra ille calvi ratus quaerit, extisne an somnio portenderetur thesaurus; similarly, Theoc. Id. 21.63ff.

⁴⁸ cf. e.g. Luc. 7.7ff. (with the scholia ad loc.) and [Sen.] Oct. 115ff.; 712ff. with the discussion in Kragelund, , Prophecy, Populism and Propaganda in the ‘Octavia’ (Kobenhavn, 1982), pp. 22ffGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁹ For the approach, see e.g. Gelzer, M., ‘,Zwei Einteilungsprinzipien der antiken Traumdeutung’, Juvenes dum sumus (Basel, 1907), 40ffGoogle Scholar.; subsequent study has focused primarily on the religious component: cf. e.g. Behr, C. A., Aelius Aristides (Amsterdam, 1968), pp. 171ffGoogle Scholar. and Kessels, A. H. M., ‘Ancient Systems of Dream-classification’, Mnem. 22 (1969), 389ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar., but note J. Pigeaud, art. cit. (n. 27) and Schrijvers', P. H. discussion of Herophilos in Mnem. 30 (1977), 19ffGoogle Scholar.

⁵⁰ Despite his declared intention (1.1) to discard dreams of the latter kind, a professional like Artemidorus (1.78–80) would for instance display much ingenuity when discussing the prophetic implications of dreams featuring sex with mothers, sons, corpses etc. Not all his contemporaries would have been taken in - and from some quarters he is likely to have heard scathing comments.

⁵¹ On Panaetius, see Cic. Div. 1.6; Lucullus 107. A characteristic exponent of such inconsistency is Pliny the Elder, who in the NH studiously chronicled (cf. e.g. 7.166; 22.44; 25.17) and in one instance (the preface to his Bellorum Germaniae vigintil?) even invoked prophetic dreams (Plin. Ep. 3.5.4). Yet he also maintained that the arguments pro et contra prophetic dreams are of equal strength: NH 10.211.

⁵² Slight and elitist, according to Büchsenschutz, E., Traum und Traumdeutung im Alterthume (Berlin, 1868), pp. 34ffGoogle Scholar. and Dodds, E. R., ‘Dream-Pattern and Culture-Pattern’, The Greeks and the Irrational (Berkeley, 1951), p. 121Google Scholar (the latter study has not a single reference to Epicurus). I am less confident. In any case, it should be kept in mind that the whole range of Hellenistic and Roman literature presupposes familiarity with such ideas.

⁵³ Disticha Catonis 2.31 (ed. M. Boas, 1952); the text has been questioned (cf. Boas' app. crit.), in my view unnecessarily. For its meaning, see the edition of G. Némethy (1895), 53: noli credere somniis; nam quod optamus, id.vigiles speramus, dormientes autem iam ante oculos habere videmur.

⁵⁴ The fact is overlooked by Griffin, M. T., JRS 66 (1976), 230Google Scholar (reviewing Cizek, op. cit. [n. 3]) and V. Gigante, art. cit. (n. 1), 75, both claiming that the Stoic, not the Epicurean, interpretation of these ‘veridical’ dreams had proved ‘correct’.

⁵⁵ Commenta Lucani 7.8 = 327 Us.: Epicurus dicit atomos influere animis nostris in imaginibus corporum et ea quae gessimus aut quae gesturi sumus per quietem videri. While the majority are what we would term day-residue dreams, some of the examples in Lucretius (4.1020ff.; 1097ff.) and Petronius, fr. 30.11–13 likewise illustrate the tendency of the mind to anticipate future gratification, or pain.

⁵⁶ cf. e.g. Porphyrion in Hor. Carm. 4.1.37: dicit se Ligurinum ex desiderio semper somniare et, ut fit, <ι>errore quodam mentis imaginari quasi cum diu quaesitum tandem invenerit… ex ipsis manibus amitteret; in the very similar passage in Pseudo-Aero the codd. have terrore, but Keller opted for Porphyrion's errore. However, the parallel in Macr. Somn. 1.3.4 and others show that dreams of finding vs. losing were commonly interpreted as expressions of one's proper hopes (pro desiderio) and fears (pro limore).

⁵⁷ τυχικ⋯ς α⋯ργον Euseb. Praep. Evang. 4.3.6 = 395 Us. (add.); whatever Diogenianus' date, Gercke, A., ‘Chrysippea’, Jahrb.f. kl. Phil. Suppl. 14 (1885), 701Google Scholar convincingly identified his position as Epicurean.

⁵⁸ casu…forte, Cic. Div. 2.141.

⁵⁹ ut tu Encolpion nec verbo contumelioso insequeris nee vultu, neque quaeres ubi nocte dormiat aut, si quaesieris, pro singulis iniuriis numerabis praesentes denarios ducenos (109.3); the parallel to Priapus' quaeris (104.1) seems deliberate. Müller's bracketing si quaesieris (proposed 1961; withdrawn 1978; readopted 1983) is therefore best ignored.

⁶⁰ I discard the likewise erotic dream poem PLM 4.103 = [Petronius] fr. 56 (quoted in n. 15) since there is no evidence to support Binet's attribution.

⁶¹ Horn. Il. 22.199ff.; Verg. Aen. 12.908ff.; on its familiarity, see Tib. Claudius Donatus ad loc.: omnibus hominibus per somnum talia consuerunt accidere, ut dormientes videantur velle, quae inplere non possum eqs.

⁶² 4.1100: in medioque sitit torrenti flumine potans.

⁶³ For gaudia denoting erotic pleasure in dreams, see also Ov. Her. 13.106; 15.126.

⁶⁴ Ov. Her. 13.106 dum careo veris, gaudia falsa iuvant (of a dream); for similar emphasis on the contrast between (day-) dream and reality, see e.g. Her. 19.65ff. and Verg. Eel. 2.58ff. with Servius ad loc.

⁶⁵ Accepted by E. Paratore, op. cit. (n. 21), pp. 334ff., but not, it seems, by any modern editor.

⁶⁶ For parallels, see for instance Ernout-Robin and Bailey ad Lucr. 4.962ff.

⁶⁷ cf. Lucr. 4.1097ff,; for a discussion of this category of dream, see Kragelund, op. cit. (n. 48), pp. 23ff.

⁶⁸ cf. e.g. G. Highet, art. cit. (n. 3), 185 and Raith, p. 3: Epikureische Philosophie hat seinem lnteresse die Richtung gewiesen, und aus ihr stammt das Verfahren, nach dem er sein Werk gestaltet hat.

⁶⁹ On Petronius' complex uses of Verseinlagen and the ensuing difficulties for determining the scope of the fragments, see A. Barchiesi, art. cit. (n. 7), 231ff. an d V. Gigante, art. cit. (n. 1), 76. While C. Piano, op. cit. (n. 3) ignored the problem, Raith, pp. 3ff., repeatedly admitted it, but did not therefore abandon the thesis of the work's Epicurean ‘message’.

⁷⁰ Herter, p. 264.

⁷¹ Weinreich, pp. 182ff.; for valuable observations on this passage, see further id.Türöffnung im Wunder-, Prodigien- und Zauberglauben der Antike, des Judentums und des Christentums, Tübinger Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft 5 (1929), p. 396, Raith, p. 38 and Sullivan, p. 48.

⁷² somno codd. and Müller 1961; somio (Wouweren) Müller 1978 and 1983; there are sound arguments for either view. As for Ernout's Budé editions, the first and third (1922; 1950) had somno, but at some point sommo (sic) crept in, along with numerous other misprints: to the list of corrigenda included in its seventh (1970) but omitted in its ninth (1982) imprint, add ist<e>) 9.4; ponitis for ponetis 21.4; quae <huc> atque illuc 37.1; quod 71 t;nee ad caelum> nee 44.1 and <e> tiam 114.11. A thorough revision seems overdue.

⁷³ Weinreich, p. 183.

⁷⁴ Weinreich, p. 110; for the evidence, Edelstein, E.J. & L., Asclepius I–II (locBaltimore, 1945)Google Scholar.

⁷⁵ Cic. Div. 2.150.

⁷⁶ cf. Cic. NatD. 3.91: ego multorum aegrorum salutem…ab Hippocrate potius quam ab Aesculapio datam iudico; similarly, Diog. Laert. 6.24; 43; (Diogenes the Cynic's dismissal of belief in dreams); on the doubts and reservations of philosophers, see Cic. Div. 1.6ff.; in addition to the Epicureans and Cynics, Euseb. Praep. Evang. 4.2.13 also includes the Peripatetics among the sceptics.

⁷⁷ cf. Cic. Div. 2.25: totunt omnino fatum etiam Atellanio versu iure mihi esse irrisum videlur; sed in rebus tarn severis non est iocandi locus. For parody in the Mime, see e.g. Tert, . Apol. 15Google Scholar; Aug. CivD. 6.7. As for the reference to an incubatio in Varro's Eumenides (Sat. Men. fr. 147 Cèbe) in somnis venit iubet me cepam esse et sisymbrium, Cèbe, J. P., Varron. Satires Ménippées 4 (Rome, 1977), p. 679Google Scholar may well be right that Varro was being ironic, but the point is obscure.

⁷⁸ Herter's remains the basic study; for parodies, cf, . Priap. 37Google Scholar (of ex voto); 52 (of Catullus); 68 (of epos). For discussions of the poetry, see Buchheit, V., Studien zum Corpus Priapeorum (München, 1962)Google Scholar and Richlin, A., The Garden of Priapus (New Haven/London, 1983)Google Scholar.

⁷⁹ CIL 14.3565 = CLE 1504; on the poem, see further V. Buchheit, op. cit. (n. 78), pp. 69ff.

⁸⁰ On the allusions to Catullus and Horace, see Buecheler's apparatus in the CLE. Buecheler, While and the editors of the Concordanze dei CLE (Bari, 1986)Google Scholar suggested a date in the second century, V. Buchheit, op. cit. (n. 78), p. 72 on metrical criteria would make it predate Martial. As the stone has been lost and the freedman's name cannot yield precise criteria (Solin, cf. H., Die griechischen Personennamen in Rom, I (Berlin/New York, 1982), pp. 4–5)Google Scholar the question remains sub judice.

⁸¹ For the office, cf. e.g. CIL 6.604; 630 (Trajanic) and 8795–9.

⁸² Kleinknecht, H., Die Gebetsparodie in der Antike, Tübinger Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft 28.3 (1937), p. 5Google Scholar n. 2 would not preclude a possibly serious intent (Antonine revival of the cult). I follow Norden, E., Agnostos Theos (Berlin/Leipzig, 1913), p. 156Google Scholar and V. Buchheit, op. cit. (n. 78), p. 71 in considering the dedication a joke.

⁸³ cf. somn(i)o monitus in CIL 3.1032; 6.1490; 14.4318 el alibi; for further instances, see the sample in Marchi, A. De, Il culto privato di Roma antica, I (Milano, 1896), pp. 285ffGoogle Scholar. (private dedications); Gamberale, L., ‘Il voto del sacerdote’, Studi…a Francesco della Corte (Urbino, 1988), 397ffGoogle Scholar. (the carmina epigraphica).

⁸⁴ My view of Petronius is indebted to Auerbach, E., Mimesis. Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der abendländischen Literatur (Bern, 1967 ⁴), pp. 28ffGoogle Scholar. as well as to the work of Bakhtin, M. M., particularly his Rabelais and his World (Cambridge, Mass., 1968)Google Scholar. On the hybrid quality of Petronius' language and poetics, see for instance Stefenelli, A., Die Volkssprache im Werk des Petron, Wiener Romanistische Arbeiten 1 (1962)Google Scholar; Beck, R., ‘Eumolpus poeta, Eumolpus fabulator’, Phoenix 33 (1979), 239ffGoogle Scholar.

⁸⁵ On the anecdotal material in the pronoia literature, see Weinreich, pp. 130ff.

⁸⁶ For the uses of fraudulent dreams, see Men. Rhet. 390 (a rhetorical device); Plut. Sen. 11.4 (political purposes) and Joseph. AJ 18.66ff. (a matron seduced by the ‘god’ during an incubatio); Lucian's Alexander suggests that Epicureans would put such instances to good use.

⁸⁷ For the importance of the school during the first and second century A.D., see the circumspect assessments by Gargiulo, T., ‘Epicureismo Romano’, Studi…a Marcello Gigante, II (Napoli, 1983), p. 647Google Scholar and Schmid, W., ‘Epikur’, RAC 5 (1962), 767ffGoogle Scholar.

⁸⁸ Reactions ranged from imperial patronage, benevolent tolerance or tacit dismissal to undisguised antagonism: in the latter category, note e.g. Robert, L., Hellenica 11–12 (Paris, 1960), 484–6Google Scholar(Milesian Platonist's anti-Epicurean epitaph), Lucian, Alex. 25; 47 (anti-Epicurean proclamations; burning of Epicurus' Kyriai doxai in the marketplace of Abonouteichos); similarly, Ael. fr. 89 (Asclepios ordering a sick Epicurean to apply the ashes of Epicurus' writings as a plaster).

⁸⁹ On his Epicurean affinities, see Innocenti, P., RSF 33 (1978), 33ffGoogle Scholar. (with prev. lit.).

⁹⁰ Apart from the emphatic dismissal by J. P. Sullivan, art. cit. (n. 7), 1670ff. see also Richlin, A., op. cit. (n. 78), pp. 190ff.Google Scholar; Holzberg, N., op. cit. (n. 7), pp. 81ffGoogle Scholar.

⁹¹ Tac. Ann. 16.19; the evidence favouring an identification with the Neronian consul is conveniently set out by J. P. Sullivan, art. cit. (n. 7), 1666ff. Like the scholars quoted in n. 3, Raith (p. 57) simply maintains: Der Petronius des Tacitus war Epikureer.

⁹² Müller accepts the emendations; so did Buecheler, in 1912, but Ernout and Pellegrino (1975) retain the text; despite the efforts of Raith, O., WS 4 (1970), 138ffGoogle Scholar. and V. Gigante, art. cit. (n. 1), 61ff., I remain unhappy with doctus, linguistically and metrically.

⁹³ cf. Bignone, E., Riv. Fit. n.s. 2 (1924), 150ffGoogle Scholar.

⁹⁴ On the attitude in general, see Gigante, M., ‘Philosophia medicans in Filodemo’, Cronache Ercolanesi 5 (1975), 53ffGoogle Scholar.; on corresponding discussions of dreams, Plut, . Brutus 37Google Scholar; [Quint.] Declam. mai. 10, 217.3–5; 19–22.

⁹⁵ οὔθ ὔπαρ οὔτ' ⋯ναρ Epicurus, Ep. ad Men. 135.