Abstract
Our most important authority for the life of Petronius is Tacitus. There is no longer any serious doubt that the writer of the Satyricon is the same man as that whom Tacitus described with such attention and vividness in Book XVI, chapters 17 and 18 (19, 20) of the Annales.1 The purpose of this essay is to examine Tacitus’ account of Petronius, and to reassess it, considering first of all Tacitus’ attitude to Petronius in the light of the factors which probably moulded it, and secondly the philosophical affinities of Petronius and of Tacitus’ source of information about him.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
H. Furneaux, Cornelii Taciti Annalium ab Excessu Divi Augusti Libri, Oxford 1891, Vol. II, notes on XVI 18; Kroll, Realencyclopaedie s.v. Petronius, 1202; Schanz-Hosius, Römische Literaturgeschichte, Teil II 509–520. There is now a general acceptance of the identity of the Petronius in Tacitus’ Annales with the author of the Satyricon. Cf. R. Syme, Tacitus, Oxford 1958, 336, 548.
For a collection of references to Piso in Tacitus’ text, see P. Fabia, Ono-masticon Taciteum, Paris/Lyon 1900, 535–536. Cambridge Ancient History Vol. X, 726 ff.
There is doubt about this praenomen; whether it is represented by a C or T in Tacitus’ text it is almost impossible to decide definitely: Furneaux, op. cit.; Kroll, op. cit., Petronius Arbiter is the name in the M.S.S.: Tίτος Πετρώνιος in Plutarch’s essay on “How to discern a flatterer from a true friend.”.
Tacitus had a penchant for paradoxical characters of this kind: R. Syme, op. cit. 545, implies that this preference has its own perversity: “Tacitus meets out a subversive justice: an equity without benevolence: imparts a uniform and gloomy colouring to the whole picture of life under the Caesars.” For his attitude to men who were the moral exemplars of the age: Syme, 336–338, 553.
Fabia, 279–280. Scaevinus had some points of character in common with Petronius: elements in his character which would lend colour to the charges made against him: Annales 15, 49: nam Scaevino dissoluta luxu mens et proinde vita somno languida.
Pliny, N. H. 37, 2 (7, 20) tells a story which is remarkably of a piece with his precautionary act: namely that Petronius before he died, broke a valuable vase that Nero coveted to prevent the emperor from gaining possession of it.
Silia is only mentioned in Tacitus: perquam familiaris does not necessarily imply sexual intimacy. A. Gerber et A. Greef, Lexicon Taciteum: Lips 1903. R.E. Silia (29) Nagl.
Syme 336: suggests that this phrase possibly includes the Satyricon which, like [Seneca’s] pasquinade on the deification of Claudius, Tacitus does not see fit to mention.
Probably an archaic and distinctly Roman characteristic. H. Stubbe, Die Verseinlagen in Petronius,” Philologus, suppl. 25 Hft. 2. especially, 150–151, regards the poem of chapter 132 as having a programmatic significance: quid me constricta spectatis fronte Catones/damnatisque novae simplicitatis opus? This simplicitas possibly was “realism” — according to Stubbe. H. Bogner, Hermes 1941, 223–4 examines the few occurrences of the word: simplicitas in Tacitus and concludes that no especial meaning can be given to the word in the text, though he considers that Petronius’ contemporaries probably regarded it as programmatic. E. Bickel, “Petrons simplicitas bei Tacitus”, Rheinisches Museum XC, 1941, 269–272, considers that the simplicitas of the poem at Ch. 132 is archaic simplicity of ethos, and endeavours to link it with Greek ἁπλότης: Ovid Met. 15, 120: quid meruere boves, animal sine fraude dolisque /innocuum simplex? Heroides 16, 316: utere mandatis simplicitate viri.
Tacitus’ statement about Petronius would thus be a neat ironic reversal of his favourite theme of apparent virtues concealing substantial vices: Annales 15, 48, 6: (Piso) claro apud vulgum rumore erat per virtutem aut species virtutibus similis. Hist. I 52, 11: aviditate imperii dandi ipsa vitia (Vitelli) pro virtutibus interpretabantur; Hist. I, 71, 4: falsae virtutes — and many other loci: see article on species (specie + genitive) in Lex. Tac. 1532.
obtrectatio et livor pronis auribus accipiuntur: Hist. I, 1, 11. For the general harshness of Tacitus’ attitudes: Syme, op. cit.
Annales XV 67, 2: “oderam te” inquit, “nec quisquam tibi fidelior militum fuit, dum amari meruisti. Odisse coepi postquam parricida matris et uxoris, auriga et histrio et incendiarus exstitisti” The impossibility of hoodwinking the public at large is illustrated by the following popular verses recorded by Suetonius, Nero 39: Quis negat Aeneae magna de stirpe Neronem? sustulit hic matrem, sustulit ille patrem and: Nέρων ‘Ορέστης ‘Aλκμέων μητροκτόνος.
Annales, XV 67–8.
F. A. Marx, “Tacitus und die Literatur der exitus illustrium virarum,” Philologus, Bd. XCII, (N. F.) Bd. XLVI. 1937, PP. 83–103.
Marx 83–84; R. E.: Fannius(10); Stein, Prosopographia Imperii Romani 116; Schanz-Hosius, Teil II 651; Syme 559.
Fannia (118) Prosop. Imp. Rom. R. E. Fannia (22) (Kappelmacher); Arria minor Prosop. Imp. Rom: Arria 1114, wife of P. Clodius Thrasea Paetus. R. E. (40) and stemma p. 1259. The entry in Prosopographia Imperii Romani on Fan-nius(116) says: veri mihi videtur simile eum arta necessitudine coniunctum fuisse cum Fannia filia P. Clodi Thrasea Paeti auctori Nerone damnati eademque uxore Helvidii Prisci qui a Nerone Italia pulsus est — which seems a most likely connection; also Syme, op. cit.
Demetrius was a man of outstanding integrity who was implacably hostile to the principate. Prosop. Imp. Rom. Demetrius (39). R. E. Von Arnim, Demetrius (91). Überweg-Praechter, Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie Bd. I. 505; Tac. Annales 16, 34–5. (Thrasea) inlustrium virorum feminarumque coetum fre-quentum egerat maxime intentus Demetrio Cynicae institutionis doceri. Dio Cassius 66, 11, 13, describes Demetrius’ characteristically Cynic abusiveness towards Vespasian, whose response is said to have been along the lines: σὺ μὲν πάντα ποιεῖς ἵνα σε ἀποκτείνω, ἐγὼ δὲ κύνα ὑλακτοῦντα οὐ φονεύω (Suet. Vesp. 13.)
It is sufficiently clear that Petronius was the adherent of no particular philosophy. Some of the toughness of his attitude to life may be a native Roman or Italian attitude rather than hellenised philosophy: this seems to have been true of Tacitus, who embraced what was almost a caricature of “Roman-ness” and despised philosophy (Syme 553). D. R. Dudley has argued in the case of Blossius of Cumae, (Journal of Roman Studies XXXI, 1941, 94–99), that certain native characteristics could appear to be the traits of a radical Greek philosophical posture, when in fact they were nothing of the kind. Blossius (and the elder Cato) suggest automatically one kind of philosophy; Petronius another, and it has long been fashionable to regard Petronius as an Epicurean both on account of the tone of his works and in particular because fg. 27 “Primus in orbe deos fecit timor” recalls Epicurean themes. This aspect of Petronius has impressed writers as diverse as W. E. H. Lecky, A History of European Morals ed. 3, Vol, I 162, London 1913, and G. Highet, Petronius the Moralist, Transactions of the American Philological Association, 1941, 176–194. The most systematic interpretation along these lines is that of Oscar Raith, Petronius ein Epicureer, Diss. Erlangen 1963. There are, however, elements not only in Petronius’ novel, but in his life as Tacitus narrates it which are susceptible of a Cynic interpretation. These elements were probably given their particular flavour by “Fannius,” if as it is reasonable to suppose, he was the source of Tacitus’ account of Petronius’ life. Petronius’ neglegentia can be given the colour either of Epicurean ἀταραξία or Cynic ἀναιδεία. The attitude to pleasure which we can impute to Petronius on the basis of Tacitus’ account or from the novel is sufficiently complex to bear at once the Epicurean and Cynic interpretations. There is also an undeniable element of σπουδογέλοιον (Highet) which is more emphatic than would merely be the case if it was nothing but an inheritance from the Menippean literary tradition. There is in fact much common ground between these otherwise antipathetic Hellenistic philosophies. (Diog. Laertius IX 119, 8, presents Epicurus’ own attack on the Cynics). Raith, 53, admits Cynic connections in Petronius, but seeks to dissolve away their importance by emphasising that Petronius was an aristocrat (which is not strictly the case) and so by definition anti-Cynic. But we must recall that Thrasea Paetus and other prominent members of the “opposition” were under Cynic influence — Thrasea was certainly no less “aristocratic” than Petronius. See also R. Hirzel, Der Dialog, Lips. 1895, II, 38, for a discussion of the Cynic as well as the Epicurean traces in Petronius’ work. Hirzel adduces parallels for the coexistence of Cynic and Epicurean influences in the same author, who may not be completely aware of the conflict between them. Further, the Cynics seem to have accepted a materialist interpretation of the natural world: E. Zeller Die Philosophie der Griechen in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung 2, 1. 289–9.
Hirzel, ibid.; For resemblances between Petronius’ novel and Menippean satire, E. Rohde, Der Griechische Roman, Lips. 1914, 265–269; on Cynic polities and their relation to the Greek novel: 251–260. See also Rohde’s discussion: “Zum Griechischen Roman,” Rheinisches Museum für Philologie, 48, 1893, 110–139.
Dudley, A History of Cynicism, London 1937, 41, 95; Highet, op. cit. 188. For the parodic element in Petronius’ work: E. Courtney, “Parody and Literary Allusion in Menippean Satire”, Philologus, Bd. 106, Heft 1/2, 1962, 86–100.
The official Cynic attitude to pleasure is disapproval, and ἀπάθεια represents resistance both to pleasure and to pain (cf.), ἀταραξία but this was not necessarily reflected in the practices of individual Cynics (Lucian Vit. Auct. 10; Dio Chrysostom 8, 20: Lucian, Runaways 19.) There is a fair consensus of authorities that early Cynic writings, especially of the utopist political category, were characterised by suggestions of promiscuity and incest (Diog. L. VI 72). Dudley, Hist. Cyn. 26, 36. F. Sayre, Diogenes of Sinope, A Study of Greek Cynicism, Baltimore 1938, 4, 5, 25. R. Hoïstad, Cynic Hero and Cynic King, Uppsala 1948, 146, 178. Cf. K. von Fritz, “Quellen-Untersuchungen zu Leben und Philosophie des Diogenes von Sino-pe,” Philologus, Suppl. XVIII, Hft. II, 55–56, where he interprets the Philode-mus tradition (see Zeller II 1, 284) which denies the existence of a Diogenes-polity, as being based upon an attempt of later Stoics to “bowdlerise” their philosophical ancestors, the Cynics.
See notes 18 and 21 above. It is not clear that Epicureans as well as Cynic philosophers positively accepted suicide as being a possible means of dealing with a hostile environment; although Highet’s suggestion that Petronius’ suicide was an Epicurean one (rather than any other kind) is plausible, its basis rests merely on the distinction drawn by Tacitus between Petronius’ and Seneca’s suicides, and this distinction was thrown in to deliberate relief by Tacitus for his own anti-philosophical purposes (cf. Syme 553). In fact there was not an “Epicurean Suicide” in the sense, that there was a “Cynic or Stoic Suicide”. Nothing like an εὔλογος ἐξαγωγή established itself in Epicurean thought, though according to Cicero, Epicurus mentioned suicide, and suggested that one could depart from life tanquam e theatro if it became unbearable (Cicero Fin. 1, 15, 44). See also Lucr. III 944, which suggests a gentle removal from life if it becomes too wearisome. (Cf. Seneca ch. XXVI, de vita beata 19). Lucretius is said by Jerome to have committed suicide, but even if this was so, it must be recalled that he was not a typical Epicurean. W. E. H. Lecky, op. cit. 215, mentions several Epicurean suicides. Also, Karl August Geiger, Der Selbstmord im Klassischen Altertum, Historisch-kritische Abhandlung, Augsburg 1888, 14. It looks as if the Cynics/Stoics regarded suicide as an important philosphical act, but the Epicureans simply acknowledged its possibility in cases of extreme distress, — an attitude which is common to many of the legal codes of ancient cities, which permitted the old and infirm to withdraw themselves from life when it became too painful: Geiger, 59–63; R.-E. “Selbstmord” (Thalheim) 1135. It is possible (with Highet) to see this kind of “voluntary” withdrawal in Petronius’ suicide, but it is not necessary to agree that it is specifically Epicurean, though the notion tanquam e theatro seems to fit in well with Petronius’ attitude to life. However, it is not less plausible to suppose that Petronius’ “suicide” was not so much a withdrawal from a theatre as a theatrical act itself, an act of black comedy. It is a deliberate parody of the Stoic suicide, with all the details of the latter presented with considered Galgenhumor. Also it is noteworthy that the suicides mentioned in the text of Petronius are not of the quietist kind, but are violent and egotistic, chapters 94, 101, 107, 108: — they were also pretences!
Epicurus himself is said to have regarded the Cynics as enemies of the Greek way of life (Diog. L. 9. 119) cf. Crönert, Kolotes und Menedemos 36; Dudley 106.
The Trau MS. has the subscription: Petronii Arbitri Satyri fragmenta ex-pliciunt ex libro quinto decimo et sexto decimo: but at least one fragment attributed to Petronius may come from Book XIV. See the discussions of Buecheler, (Heraeus) Petronii Saturae, Berlin 1922, vi. vi. and Konrad Müller, Petronii Arbitri Satiricon, München 1961, xxix-xxxi.
It was not difficult to inject a flavour of Cynicism or Stoicism in such cases, given the many precedents of abusing the emperor provided by non-philosophers. Vestinus, the consul, a close friend of Nero, engaged in abusive jests at his expense and incurred his enmity: ceterum Neroni odium adversus Vestinum ex intima sodalitate coeperat, dum hic ignaviam principis penitus cognitam despicit, ille ferociam amici metuit, saepe asperis facetiis inlusus, quae ubi multum ex vero traxere, acrem sui memoriam relinquunt (Annales 15, 68, 4). At Annales I 12, 6, ferocia is used of the outspokenness of Asinius Pollio, and Furneaux notes (ad loc.) that Dio uses παρρησία to characterise this bitterness of speech. The use of this Cynicising word illustrates the impression of philosophical posture which would be given by certain types of Roman (irrespective of the actual philosophical affiliations of the person who gives the impression). Antistius’ probra in Neronem composita brought about his death (Ann. 16, 21, 2). Lucan is said to have been responsible for a famosum carmen against Nero and his friends (C. Suetonii Tranquilli quae supersunt omnia ed. Roth Lips. 1882, 229–300). H. Musurillo compares the writings of Fannius and Helvidius with the “protocol” literature of Alexandria which contained attacks upon the emperors (Acts of the Pagan Martyrs, Oxford 1954, 241).
Diog. L. 7, 87–88: Crates regarded human institutions as contemptible. For the satirical nature of the Cynic utopia, see H. C. Baldry’s comments on Crates’ Πήρα: “Zeno’s Ideal State,” Journal of Hellenic Studies 1959, 3–15:14 especially.
Diog. L. 7, 188 mentions the notorious foulness of Chrysippus’ language even when he was writing about serious technical matters.
Musurillo, op. cit.
Nevertheless Tacitus (and possibly his source) seems to have a precise enough notion of its scope and contents.
Tac. Agricola 2; Marx, op. cit. 87.
Pliny, Epist. 7, 19, 5; Marx, 87–88.
For Tacitus’ fanatical and anti-philosophical “Roman-ness,” Syme 553. Tacitus would ignore any philosophical gloss given to Petronius’ life and death by any such source as Fannius; he interprets the apparently parodic nature of Petronius’ death as a deliberate piece of anti-philosophical satire, and does not seem to see any Cynicism or Epicureanism in it. Cf. note 25, and D. R. Dudley’s interpretation of the life of Blossius (T. Gracchus’ associate) as being Campanian in his attitude rather than philosophical. Note 18 above.
E. Paratore, Il Satyricon di Petronio II, ch. 1, 19, Firenze 1933; Tacito 1954, 206–8.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1971 Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Netherlands
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Rankin, H.D. (1971). On Tacitus’ Biography of Petronius. In: Petronius the Artist. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-3231-5_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-3231-5_6
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-010-3233-9
Online ISBN: 978-94-010-3231-5
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive