In contrast to other ancient prose fiction works, B. suggests, Petronius Arbiter's Satyrica is ‘the only one to resonate with the twentieth century’ (p. 1). The opening of B.'s book establishes Petronius’ importance: more than being a text from a distant past, the Satyrica resonates in our time.
The volume reads Petronius through Mikhail Bakhtin's theory on the ancient novel. Bakhtin's idea that the Satyrica's role in the history of the novel is immense is scrutinised through an argument in four stages. Bakhtin's view of literary history and the development of the novel genre from antiquity is thoroughly discussed in relation to Bakhtin's philosophy of representing the human.
The first chapter, ‘Inventing the Novel: the Bakhtinian Model’, situates ancient prose fiction as relating to the epic. B. makes a distinction between the Greek and the Roman prose fiction narratives, stating that Bakhtin's theory more accurately applies to the Roman novel (p. 40), whereas the Greek counterpart is ‘an ambiguous compromise between the canonical values of oral epic and those of the novel’ (p. 46). Accordingly, one seems to find a progressive development from the heroic epic to the comic (Roman) novel. For reasons of clarity, I use the term ‘romance’ to denote Greek prose fiction in this review, rather than ‘novel’.
B. argues that the Greek romances do not fulfil Bakhtin's criteria for the novel genre. Rather, they ‘revolve around normative examples of the culture: the beautiful and virtuous heroes and heroines who populate this world are as “ready-made” and “externalized” in Bakhtin's sense as are characters in epic’ (p. 46).
Regarding the importance of categorising genres, in this case, the separation of the Greek romance from the Roman novel, B. argues that for Bakhtin ‘a general philosophical interest in how the “individual”, “hero”, or “human being” is constructed and understood in a particular genre, which is what makes each genre its own way of apprehending the world’ (p. 56).
There is indeed a comic aspect in the Roman novels that separates them from the Greek romances. B. describes how the Roman novels distinguish themselves from epics in terms of language: in the novel, one finds a cultivation of variety, whereas the epic promotes unity (p. 44). The epic protagonist has a predetermined fate causing their identity to be static in the story (p. 44). Bakhtin, B. continues, sees the novel ‘as, above all, a counter-genre that responds dialogically to the classicizing tendencies just discussed of epic and related genres by bringing its subject, the hero, into “the zone of immediate contact” with open-ended reality and, hence, with laughter’ (p. 45). Rather than being predetermined, the novel's protagonist evolves along with the narrative progression. ‘Time becomes relative as the hero's linguistic consciousness becomes multiple’, B. continues (p. 45). Language and time mark a difference between the epic and the novel: ‘whereas the epic is public, impersonal, and set in a spatiotemporally remote heroic past, the novel is personal – that is, told by first-person actor-narrators, who in speaking to and about the contemporaries open up a new and linguistically variegated world (or “zone of contact with reality”)’ (p. 44). This, according to B., identifies what makes novels out of the Roman narratives, as opposed to epics or romances.
The second chapter, ‘Mapping Time and Space in Ancient Fiction: Toward an Historical Poetics’, discusses Bakhtin's concept of the chronotope. Building on Bakhtin, B. analyses space and time as constructed in the ancient novel, discussing ‘adventure-time’ in the Greek romance and the innovation of ‘everyday time’ in the Roman novel (p. 70). Everyday time, B. explains, is ‘not cyclical, natural, mythical, or sacred; nor is it like adventure-time a series of “unusual” or “exceptional events”’ (p. 74). The Roman novel's realistic representation of space-time, as it is explained by Bakhtin, is demonstrated through a thorough discussion of Apuleius and Petronius.
The third chapter, ‘The Poetics of Genre: Bakhtin/Menippus/Petronius’, treats Menippean satire and the seriocomic. Regarding Menippean satire, B. writes that: ‘Whereas the Menippean satire appeals to our intellect, aiming to demystify the great traditions of myth and philosophy … the ends of romance are just the opposite: to engage our imaginative sympathies as fully as possible in the improbably romantic adventures of star-crossed lovers’ (pp. 102–3). Through the centrality of humour in his novel's aesthetic, Petronius can accordingly perhaps be interpreted as disenchanting the world found in Greek romance, through blending different genre influences (p. 103).
The prosaics of the novel are further analysed in the fourth chapter, ‘Discourse in a Novel’. B. describes the difference between the epic and the novel as most clearly discernible ‘in Petronius's decision to make his authorial narrator a character in the story’ (p. 107). This narratorial technique is described as ‘a radical innovation [that] produced “a quantum leap” in the realism and immediacy of the entire narrative’ (p. 107). The chapter takes on the many voices at play in the Satyrica based on Bakhtin's ideas on heteroglossia and polyphony. B. mirrors the Satyrica's Encolpius’ inner dialogue against Dostoevsky's Raskolnikov as he is analysed by Bakhtin (pp. 148–51). The in-depth reading of discourses in the Satyrica is a convincing display of the novel's innovative character.
The volume offers not only an analysis of the Satyrica, but a historicised reading of Bakhtin and his oeuvre. The introduction gives a vivid description of Bakthin's biography and work. Further, B. maps out a biographical syncrisis of Bakhtin and Petronius (p. 7). Petronius’ novel and Bakhtin's writings, thus, both appear to be the main object of analysis in this study. Hence, Inventing the Novel is arguably an example of literature's dialogic nature, blurring the lines between the novel, philosophy and theory.
The introduction establishes the need to read Bakhtin as a philosopher challenging the dichotomy between the outer world and the inner self. Bakhtin rather considers the subject to be in constant dialogue with and created through its relation with others and the world. This view of subjectivity is further reflected in Bakhtin's concept of polyphony – a creation of the novel. Perhaps more than an analysis of Bakhtin and the ancient novel, B.'s volume maps a history of subjectivity, drawing it to the Satyrica.
Although Greek and Roman prose fictions differ, I find that B. formulates a sharp contrast between them. Moreover, considering the challenge of dating the romances and novels, a linear view from epic to Petronius via the Greek romance is problematic. While recognising the varieties of ancient fiction is necessary, I wonder if the overall argument regarding Petronius’ impact on the history of the novel constructs an overly oppositional relation between Greek and Roman prose fictions.
Furthermore, I wonder if the idea of the protagonists in the Greek romances as ‘ready-made’ or ‘externalized’ could be nuanced by consideration of the female protagonists. How should we read the existential crisis of Anthia when faced with desire, as in Xenophon of Ephesus’ romance? Anthia goes through a development along with the narrative progression. Rather than being externalised, Anthia's development is internal and shows her subjectivity. What are Anthia's inner dialogue and conflicting emotions, if not a literary representation of subjectivity as constructed in dialogue with the world? How does Anthia fit into the view of Greek romance as a contrast to the Roman novel?
Ascribing to Petronius the unique position in the history of the novel that B.'s volume does risks overlooking the dialogue inside which he composes. Nonetheless, the study is an inspiring contribution to research on the ancient novel in general and Petronius in particular. The rigorous theoretical discussion followed by the more focused literary reading convincingly demonstrates how representations of subjectivity are formed and represented in the Roman novel, which could have wider implications also for the Greek romances.
