Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T21:48:42.331Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE SATYRICA AND THE GOSPELS IN THE SECOND CENTURY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 July 2020

Robyn Faith Walsh
Robyn Faith Walsh*
Affiliation:
University of Miami
*
robyn_walsh@miami.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Satyrica has long been associated with a Neronian courtier named Petronius, mentioned by Tacitus in his Annals. As such, the text is usually dated to the mid first century c.e. This view is so established that certain scholars have suggested it is ‘little short of perverse not to accept the general consensus and read the Satyrica as a Neronian text of the mid-60s ad’. In recent years, however, there has been a groundswell of support for re-evaluating this long-held position. Laird, after comparing the ‘form and content’ of the text to the Greek novel, came to the ‘unattractive’ conclusion that the text may be second century. Similarly, in two recent pieces in CQ, Roth argues that the manumission scene in the Cena establishes a new terminus post quem for the text; she suggests that the freedoms granted by Trimalchio closely parallel—and parody—descriptions of awarding ciuitas found in the letters of Pliny the Younger. Indeed, the three slaves manumitted in the novel are associated with a boar (Sat. 40.3–41.4), Dionysus (Sat. 41.6–7) and a falling star (Sat. 54.1–5); likewise, the three slaves that are the subject of Pliny's letter are C. Valerius Aper (boar), C. Valerius Dionysius (god of wine) and C. Valerius Astraeus (stars). Roth's argument suggests that the author of the Satyrica was not Nero's contemporary but a member of Pliny's intellectual circle, offering strong circumstantial evidence that troubles the accepted tradition on the work's authorship and date.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 70 , Issue 1 , May 2020 , pp. 356 - 367
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 2020

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 Bagnani, G., Arbiter of Elegance: A Study of the Life and Works of C. Petronius (Toronto, 1954)Google Scholar; Rose, K.F.C., The Date and Author of the Satyricon (Leiden, 1971)Google Scholar; Slater, N.W., Reading Petronius (Baltimore and London, 1990)Google Scholar; Schmeling, G., ‘Petronius and the Satyrica’, in Hofmann, H. (ed.), Latin Fiction: The Latin Novel in Context (London, 1999), 23–37Google Scholar; Courtney, E., A Companion to Petronius (Oxford, 2001)Google Scholar.

2 Prag, J. and Repath, I., ‘Introduction’, in Prag, J. and Repath, I. (edd.), Petronius. A Handbook (Oxford, 2009), 9CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Laird, A., ‘The true nature of the Satyricon?’, in Paschalis, M. et al. (edd.), The Greek and the Roman Novel. Parallel Readings (Groningen, 2007), 151–67Google Scholar, at 154.

4 Roth, U., ‘Liberating the Cena’, CQ 66 (2017), 614–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar, especially 624–30; ead., ‘An(other) epitaph for Trimalchio: Sat. 30.2’, CQ 64 (2014), 422–5. Roth (this note [2017]), 616 does not address the possibility of multiple compositional strata.

5 Plin. Ep. 7.16.3–4, 7.29, 10.104–5.

6 Notable exceptions: Ramelli, I., ‘The ancient novel and the New Testament: possible contacts’, AncNarr 5 (2007), 41–68Google Scholar and Pervo, R.I., ‘Wisdom and power: Petronius’ Satyricon and the social world of Early Christianity’, Anglican Theological Review 67 (1985), 307–25Google Scholar.

7 Even among scholars who assign the Satyrica to Petronius, there is awareness that this attribution is fraught. See GConte, .B., ‘Petronius’, in id., Latin Literature: A History (translated into English by Solodow, J., revised by Fowler, D. and Most, G.W.) (Baltimore and London, 1994), 453–66, at 454; Rose (n. 1), especially 1–20Google Scholar.

8 Plin. Ep. 10.96.

9 S. Stowers, ‘Kinds of myths, meals, and power: Paul and Corinthians’, in Cameron, R. and Miller, M.P. (edd.), Redescribing Paul and the Corinthians (Atlanta, 2011), 105–50Google Scholar, at 105.

10 On the Greek and the Latin novels as ‘secular scripture’, see Frye, N., The Secular Scripture: A Study of the Structure of Romance (Cambridge, 1976), 97–126Google Scholar; Relihan, J., Apuleius, The Golden Ass. Or, A Book of Changes (Indianapolis and Cambridge, 2007), xviiGoogle Scholar.

11 Courtney (n. 1), 121 n. 67; cf. 212, 548.

12 Courtney (n. 1), 121 n. 67.

13 Mark's association with Peter/Rome is questioned as early as the late nineteenth century (e.g. see Bacon, B.W., Is Mark a Roman Gospel? [Cambridge, 1919]Google Scholar for a summary of the scholarship). See also Peterson, D., The Origins of Mark: The Markan Community in Current Debate (Leiden, 2000), 13–16Google Scholar. For a counter perspective, see Winn, A., The Purpose of Mark's Gospel: An Early Christian Response to Roman Imperial Propaganda (Tübingen, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, which notes that ‘the ancient witness of a Roman provenance for Mark is worthless’ (at 78).

14 See Bagnani (n. 1), passim; Cabaniss, J.A., ‘The Satiricon and the Christian oral tradition’, GRBS 3 (1960), 36–9Google Scholar, at 36 n. 3; Cabaniss, J.A., ‘A footnote to the “Petronian question”’, CPh 49 (1954), 98–102Google Scholar.

15 Petronius is reported to have committed suicide at the behest of Nero in 66 c.e.; Tac. Ann. 16.17–20; Plin. HN 37.20; Conte (n. 7), 454–5. The vast majority of scholars date Mark to around 70 c.e. (e.g. Collins, A.Y., Mark: A Commentary [Minneapolis, 2007], 591–619Google Scholar). I see no compelling reason to trouble this consensus.

16 Cabaniss (n. 14 [1960]), 36.

17 Ramelli (n. 6), 43.

18 Schildgen, B.D., Crisis and Continuity: Time in the Gospel of Mark (Sheffield, 1998), 32, 33Google Scholar.

19 Pervo (n. 6), 307–8, at 308. G.W. Bowersock, Fiction as History: Nero to Julian (Berkeley, 1994), 135–40, especially 137 adheres to the first-century dating for the Satyrica and acknowledges associations between the Last Supper and Eumolpus’ request to be served cannibalistically after death; Courtney (n. 1), 212 explicitly denies Bowersock's thesis.

20 Walsh, R.F., ‘Q and the “Big Bang” theory of Christian origins’, in Miller, M.P. and Crawford, B. (edd.), Redescribing the Gospel of Mark (Atlanta, 2017), 483–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Walsh, R.F., ‘IVDAEA DEVICTA: the Gospels as imperial “captive literature”’, in R. Myles (ed.), Class Struggle in the New Testament (London, 2019), 89–114Google Scholar.

21 I have in mind here any number of studies that make comparisons between the New Testament and thematic and linguistic elements found elsewhere in canons of Greco-Roman literature. See Bonz, M.P., The Past as Legacy: Luke-Acts and Ancient Epic (Minneapolis, 2000)Google Scholar, which fruitfully compares aspects of Luke-Acts to Virgil and related foundational myths; Ramelli (n. 6), 41–68.

22 For more discussion, see Woodman, A.J., Rhetoric in Classical Historiography (Portland, OR, 1988)Google Scholar, passim.

23 Stowers (n. 9), 105–14, especially 105. For more on the literary characteristics of the New Testament, see Robertson, P., Paul's Letters and Contemporary Greco-Roman Literature: Theorizing a New Taxonomy (Leiden and Boston, 2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gamble, H.Y., Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts (New Haven and London, 1995)Google Scholar.

24 Stowers (n. 9), 106.

25 See Walsh, R.F., ‘The influence of the romantic genius in early Christian studies’, Relegere 5 (2015), 31–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Walsh (n. 20 [2017]).

26 Conte (n. 7), 453–66.

27 Ramelli (n. 6), 44–5.

28 Schmeling, G., A Commentary on the Satyrica of Petronius (Oxford, 2011), 328Google Scholar, citing Bodel, J., ‘Death on display: looking at Roman funerals’, in Bergmann, B. and Kondoleon, C. (edd.), The Art of Ancient Spectacle (New Haven and Washington, D.C., 1999), 258–81Google Scholar, at 262. See also Bodel, J., ‘The Cena Trimalchionis’, in Hofmann, H. (ed.), Latin Fiction: The Latin Novel in Context (London, 1999), 38–51Google Scholar. Schmeling (this note), 545 cites Seneca and Tacitus in reference to the ‘mock funeral’ motif: Sen. Ep. 12.8; Tac. Hist. 4.45.

29 Ramelli (n. 6), 47.

30 As Trimalchio indicates, roosters are associated with fires and death; Ter. Phorm. 708 (gallina cecinit); Schmeling (n. 28), 310. Gager lists no fewer than four curse tablets that invoke the rooster and, in one case, specifically petition it not to crow. See Gager, J. (ed.), Curse Tablets and Binding Spells from the Ancient World (Oxford, 1999), 165Google Scholar (no. 75).

31 Interpretations of this passage have been greatly skewed by Nietzsche's influential reading of Socrates bemoaning the ‘disease’ of life. For more on Socrates’ last words, see Most, G.W., ‘A cock for Asclepius’, CQ 43 (1993), 96–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

32 That is, Saguntum, Spain (219 b.c.e.); Petelia, Italy (third century b.c.e.); Numantia, Spain (133 b.c.e.).

33 Hdt. 3.99.

34 Diog. Laert. 6.1.4; Lucian, Nigr. 30; Gell. NA 20.1.39–49. See Schmeling (n. 28), 546 for further discussion.

35 Bowersock (n. 19), 132.

36 Bowersock (n. 19), 132–3.

37 Polyb. 7.1.3; Diod. Sic. 34.2.20; Livy 23.30.1–4 (cf. Ath. Deipn. 21.528); Plin. HN 4.88, 6.53, 6.195; Luc. 1.41; Frontin. Str. 4.5.18; Joseph. BJ 6.199; Juv. 15.13; Suet. Ner. 37.2. For additional bibliography, discussion and references, see Schmeling (n. 28), 546–7. Of note, Schmeling suggests that references to cannibalism could be a parody of the vegetarianism of the Pythagoreans, citing Ov. Met. 15.60.

38 Tac. Ann. 15.44; Plin. Ep. 10.96; Justin, Apol. 1.26, 2.12; Tert. Ad nat. 1.7, Apol. 7, 8; Origen, C. Cels. 6.27; Min. Fel. Oct. 9 with reference to Fronto. To this list we may arguably add Athenagoras, Leg. 3.

39 McGowan, A., ‘Eating people: accusations of cannibalism against Christians in the second century’, JECS 2 (1994), 413–42Google Scholar; Rives, J., ‘Human sacrifice among pagans and Christians’, JRS 85 (1995), 65–85Google Scholar; Bremmer, J.N., ‘Early Christian human sacrifice between fact and fiction’, in Nagy, A. and Prescendi, F. (edd.), Sacrifices Humaines: Dossiers, discours, comparaisons (Turnhout, 2013)Google Scholar.

40 Bowersock (n. 19), 132–7.

41 Cf. Ex. 24:6–8; Jer. 31:31; Zech. 9:11; Hebr. 9:15–16.

42 Sat. 140 (cf. Hom. Il. 2.695); Eur. Protesilaus, fr. 657N2; Ov. Her. 13.

43 See Schmeling, G., ‘The Satyrica of Petronius’, in Schmeling, G. (ed.), The Novel in the Ancient World (Leiden, 1996), 457–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar, especially 479–81.

44 Compare Eur. Alc. 1127; Luke 24:37; Chariton, Callirhoe 1.9.4.

45 Schmeling (n. 28), 430 provides a list of cross-references to mourners being encouraged to end fasts, as well as a list of ‘consolation literature’.

46 She is described as tearing out her hair, likely in reference to Virgil's Dido (Aen. 4.590).

47 Some have argued that the soldier's beverage would have been a mixture of vinegar and water (posca). If vinegar, this may signal a further association with the Gospels and Jesus’ crucifixion (cf. Matthew 27:34, 48).

48 There are a number of ancient witnesses to the notion that prostitutes ply their trade in graveyards. See Catull. 59; Mart. 1.34.8, 3.93.15; Juv. 6.O16.

49 The themes of death, resurrection, sex and three nights in the tomb also appear in Phlegon of Tralles’ story of Philinnion and Machates; Phlegon of Tralles, Περὶ θαυμασίων [‘On Marvels’] X [FGrHist 257 F 36 X].

50 There are too many cases to detail here; however, a few representative examples include: Aeneas (Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 1.64.4–5); Diomedes (Strabo 6.3.9); Basileia of Uranus (Diod. Sic. 3.57.8). For more discussion, see Miller, R.C., ‘Mark's empty tomb and other translation fables in classical antiquity’, JBL 129 (2010), 759–76Google Scholar.

51 Miller (n. 50), 759.

52 Miller (n. 50), 759 also attributes this myopic tendency to ‘a rather non-scholarly insistence on a “pristine,” “non-pagan” well from which the academy ought to draw nearly all cultural, literary, and ideological antecedents’.

53 Miller (n. 50), 760.

54 Miller (n. 50), 761.

55 Plut. Rom. 27.3–28.6.

56 Miller (n. 50), 764 cites Pease, A.S., ‘Some aspects of invisibility’, HSPh 53 (1942), 1–36Google Scholar, at 13.

57 On this motif in Judaean literature, see Litwa, M.D., Iesus Deus: The Early Christian Depiction of Jesus as a Mediterranean God (Minneapolis, 2014), 141–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Miller (n. 50), 766–72 argues that to understand the ‘empty tomb’ motif in Mark as a resurrection is a misreading of the eschatological understanding of resurrection within Judaism. In terms of popular imagination, this topos was also featured in imperial iconography, notably the apotheosis of the deified Caesar found in the vault of the Arch of Titus (81 c.e.). For more on this element of the Arch, see Pfanner, M., Der Titusbogen (Mainz am Rhein, 1983)Google Scholar; Davies, P.J.E., Death and the Emperor: Roman Imperial Funerary Monuments from Augustus to Marcus Aurelius (Cambridge, 2000), 68–74, 142–8Google Scholar.

58 Justin, Apol. 21; Origen, C. Cels. 3.22–31; Tert. Apol. 21.2–23; Min. Fel. Oct. 21.9–10; Arn. Adv. nat. 6.1.41; Miller (n. 50), 774.

59 Stowers (n. 9), 146–7; cf. Litwa (n. 57), 147.

60 Miller (n. 50), 761.

61 Ferriss-Hill, J., Roman Satire and the Old Comic Tradition (Cambridge, 2015), 5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

62 Ferriss-Hill (n. 61), 183.

63 Beyond the sources referenced and cited throughout, we might add Lucian's Peregrinus as a parody of the Acts of Ignatius and Apuleius’ The Golden Ass also commenting on Christianity; see Edwards, M.J., ‘Satire and verisimilitude: Christianity in Lucian's Peregrinus’, Historia 38 (1989), 89–98Google Scholar; Sick, D.H., ‘Apuleius, Christianity, and virgin birth’, WS 118 (2005), 91–116Google Scholar; Smith, W., ‘Apuleius’ Metamorphoses and Jewish/Christian literature’, AncNarr 10 (2012), 47–88Google Scholar.