💾 Archived View for runjimmyrunrunyoufuckerrun.com › schol › thesis › 3.5_CHARACTERIZATION captured on 2021-12-17 at 13:26:06.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
.p To understand how a poem with such political-historical interests can fit into such a non-serious and often lascivious framework, the \f7Bellum Ciuile\f6 must ultimately be understood in terms of its \f8characterization\f6 of the poet who utters it. Care has been taken in the foregoing to refer to the poem as first and foremost the work of Eumolpus. Earlier commentators were content to see the \f7Bellum Ciuile\f6 as the honest effort of Petronius, and the literary criticism in section 118 as representative of the author's own views.\c .f "Sullivan (1968) 165 ff.; Baldwin in her commentary on the poem \ constantly refers to Petronius as its author." Under such an understanding, discussions of Petronius' purpose in including the poem on the Civil War centred around the question of whether it was intended as a serious criticism of Lucan and a demonstration of how better to write such a poem, or whether it was intended as a parody or travesty of the \f7Pharsalia\f6. The foregoing appreciation of the \f7Bellum Ciuile\f6, which suggests that the merits of the poem outweigh its failings, if only slightly, perhaps indicates that the former is the more likely scenario. Indeed, the parallels with Lucan are not strong enough to make him the target of a very focused parody. Rather, the fact that, as shown in the second part of the present study, Eumolpus adheres rather strictly to the precepts he gives in section 118, precepts which seem to criticize Lucan, or poets like him, is an indication that the poem may well have been intended as a ``fair copy'' or a correction of the perceived failings of the \f7Pharsalia\f6. Such an explanation furthermore explains the incomplete state of the poem, and its abrupt ending: ``of course [Eumolpus] does not rewrite the whole poem; a specimen to indicate his own way of handling the material was enough.''\|\c .f "Luck (1972) 133." .p This formulation does indeed depend upon the reckoning of the \f7Bellum Ciuile\f6 as Petronius' own effort—\c for what interest could a fictional character such as Eumolpus have in criticizing and correcting a real contemporary of Petronius? Furthermore, arguments such as Luck's depend on the identification of the criticism in section 118 with Petronius' own views. But Petronius cannot seriously be suspected of having the same literary views as Eumolpus: if he did have such conservative ideals, he could hardly have created the ingenious and probably innovative low-brow entertainment that is the \f7Satyricon\f6. Rather, Petronius delights in irony, and is not one to wear his heart on his sleeve. Eumolpus, like every other Petronian character, is characterized by the incongruity of his thoughts with his habits, and the purpose of such an ironic characterization is simply to amuse. That is not to say that Petronius does not have a hand in what Eumolpus says; rather that the reference to Lucan, or poets like him, ought to be understood as a comment made in good humour rather than with the intent to criticize. It is true that by omitting reference to Lucan by name Petronius may simply be extending a customary courtesy to a contemporary, but the anonymity of the attack on would-be historian/lawyer-poets serves another, dual purpose. On the one hand, Eumolpus gets to utter more of his commonplace literary criticism, characterizing him further as a shameless poet, without the problem of referring to literary practice outside of the narrative of the \f7Satyricon\f6. On the other hand, Petronius makes it clear enough the type of poet Eumolpus is talking about, and thereby gets a laugh, possibly at the expense of either Lucan or poets like him, but probably more likey at the expense of contemporary detractors of such poets who, like Eumolpus, only deliver clichéd literary conservatism. .p If the question is what is the purpose of the \f7Bellum Ciuile\f6, and it is accepted that the work ought to be seen as the effort of the poet character rather than the honest effort of Petronius, the question then becomes: what is the purpose of the poem as envisioned by its author, Eumolpus? Ostensibly it is to serve as an example after the literary criticism in section 118. In the second part of the present work it was shown that, though he may undercut his purpose in places, Eumolpus largely succeeds in being faithful to his literary principles. But how valid is Eumolpus' literary theory? In the time of the principate, if not at every period, tradionalist views on poetry were commonplace. Lucan's experimentation and innovation in the epic genre seem mainly to have earned himself criticism for breaking away from tradition\c —even the honour of being called a poet was stripped from him.\c .f "\f7magis oratoribus quam poetis imitandus\f6, Serv. \f7A.\f6 1.382" Eumolpus, on the other hand, is greatly concerned to be recognized as a poet: the first thing he says to Encolpius is, \f7ego … poeta sum\f6 (83.8). He therefore picks up on the same criticism which was made of Lucan: .bl \f7ecce belli ciuilis ingens opus quisquis attigerit nisi plenus litteris, sub onere labetur. non enim res gestae versibus comprehendendae sunt, quod longe melius historici faciunt, sed per ambages deorumque ministeria et fabulosum sententiarum tormentum praecipitandus est liber spiritus, ut potius furentis animi uaticinatio appareat\ quam\ religiosae\ orationis\ sub\ testibus\ fides.\f6 (118.5–6)\c .f "cf. \f7in numero poetarum esse non meruit \ quia uidetur historiam composuisse non poema\f6, Serv. \f7A.\f6 1.382." \p .ck In doing so Eumolpus backs up his credentials as a real poet. Just as the correctness of his hexameters sets him apart from other versifiers such as Trimalchio (as discussed in considering the metre of the poem, above), so his opinions on literary matters, however wearied, nevertheless set him apart from other versifiers such as Lucan, as a true ``poet's poet''.\c .f "Or, a ``super-poet''; cf. Edmunds (2009) 89–90." This concern to ``do what poets do'' carries through into Eumolpus' choice of genre and subject matter for his poems. Historical epic enjoyed much enthusiasm in this period;\c .f "George (1974) 121–2." moreover: .bl The \f7Halosis Troiae\f6 was perhaps the most hackneyed of many hackneyed themes in Roman tragedy. First-century Rome is full of versifiers jostling with each other to declaim their tragic lays. … When Petronius takes up his hackneyed theme which Vergil's treatment had made popular, this in itself is indicative of his pur\&pose.\c .f "Walsh (1968) 209." .ck Eumolpus does not care whether his subjects are so very ``hackneyed''; he cares only that they identify him as truly a poet. Ironically, considering the reception he gets, Eumolpus is only trying to give the people what they want. This may be what lies behind the perceived difference between the style and content of his poems: .bl In the \f7Troiae Halosis\f6, Petronius of course gives us a contemporary Silver handling of the subject-matter of the \f7Aeneid\f6 (as from Seneca); [in the \f7Bellum Ciuile\f6] we have a Vergilian version of contemporary Silver subject-matter.\c .f "Anderson (1982) 102." .ck Eumolpus is torn between the traditional themes of poetry and its more modern incarnation. Desperate to prove himself a poet, he makes two attempts at a hybrid, of which the \f7Bellum Ciuile\f6 is one. While differentiating itself from Lucan's work in its treatment of the content, Eumolpus' verse nevertheless retains much of that post-Augustan style. This again is a way of bowing to the popular and hoping to be recognized as a poet. While people are still excited in the age of Nero about gods and drama (more so than they are about the sober retelling of facts) they do not want the exciting tales retold in the same old way. Besides satisfying Eumolpus' conservative temperament, the retention of a divine machinery is good for the story. Rather than jettison it as Lucan did, Eumolpus adjusts his divine machinery to the modern style: the promotion of the allegorical deity Fortuna to the status of one of the divine prime movers is perhaps the best example of this type of hybridization. The purpose of the \f7Bellum Ciuile\f6, in Eumolpus' view, is to recall the likes of Lucan to the poetic cause. ``Give the people what they want,'' he seems to be saying, ``a bit of gods and heroes, and less of those politics and facts.'' The \f7exemplum\f6 he provides is intended to validate both his literary credo and his literary credibility. .p In the narrative, though, Eumolpus has no literary credibility. The first lengthy poem he delivers is greeted with the throwing of rocks (90.1), he was likewise expelled from the baths for trying to recite there (92.6), and Encolpius' reaction to the \f7Bellum Ciuile\f6 itself is not exactly encouraging (124.2); indeed, Eumolpus has grown used to such violent reactions to his bad habit (90.5). In the case of the \f7Bellum Ciuile\f6, his choice of subject, genre, and treatment panders to what was in vogue in Petronius' time, but the inhabitants of the world of the \f7Satyricon\f6 reject it. The many ways in which Eumolpus is similar to the \f7poeta uesanus\f6 of Horace have also been discussed. The poem on the Civil War is the last poem which Eumolpus recites in the extant text, and it seems also to be the final touch to his characterization as a ``manic poetaster''.\c .f "Walsh (1970) 94." Such a comical character is of course not at all out of place in an essentially humorous work. Indeed, none of Petronius' characters can be taken seriously: Encolpius, Ascyltos, and Giton are all remorseless rogues whose only real concern is where the next meal is coming from. Each of these picaros has his own failings and his own comic traits; but it is another set of characters to which Eumolpus belongs: that of the would-be critical authority. .p In this respect Eumolpus finds company with the hypocritical Agamemnon, but also, outside of the sphere of educated men, with Trimalchio. Even Encolpius, the narrator himself, shows a critical tendency on occasion. The combined scope of these characters' criticism is all-encompassing: Agamemnon criticizes the education system (as does Encolpius), Trimalchio pretends to be an authority on living well, and Eumolpus deals with both art and literary criticism, the one before reciting the \f7Troiae Halosis\f6 and the other before the \f7Bellum Ciuile\f6. It has already been mentioned how each of these three characters undercuts his own reputation: Agamemnon is a hypocrite, continuing to pander to his students in spite of his opinion that that very behaviour is the reason for the decline in education; Trimalchio makes many obvious blunders in the knowingness he exudes; and Eumolpus, in the first place, is in no position to judge art, and in the second, in that literary sphere in which he ought to be more comfortable, he confuses the allusions in his poetic programme, producing an unclear aim which his \f7Bellum Ciuile\f6 only too well achieves. It was also noted that the treatmen of Eumolpus' failure to live up to his own ideals is by far the most subtle: almost imperceptible when compared to the broad strokes with which Trimalchio is characterized. Nevertheless, in the case of each of these three mentors to Encolpius, Petronius derives humour from the idea that any one of them can produce a piece of criticism at the drop of a hat, and yet when it comes down to it, none of them can ``produce the goods'', as it were. .p The effect of these characters' failings on the narrator is equally humorous, for Encolpius does not pass judgement on them.\c .f "For this attitude of Encolpius, especially regarding Trimalchio, see Beck (1975)." Encolpius is in agreement with the hypocritical Agamemnon; though he may privately have a low opinion of Trimalchio, he cares about filling his stomach enough to know that to call him out would not be to his advantage; and he tolerates Eumolpus' company and even his versifying, when others throw rocks and jeer at that lowest of low in the world of the \f7Satyricon\f6, a poet. In respect of Eumolpus' characterization as a \f7poeta uesanus\f6, Encolpius' tolerance is especially damning. Wise men, says Horace, will avoid such a character: .bl \f7uesanum tetigisse timent fugiuntque poetam qui sapiunt, .br agitant\ pueri\ incautique\ sequuntur.\f6 (\f7Ars\ P.\f6\ 453–60)\p .ck As a young man, Encolpius ought to goad Eumolpus (\f7agitant pueri\f6); instead he is one of the \f7incauti\f6 who follow him. By characterizing the poet as compulsive, unbalanced, and not quite skilful enough to produce very good verse, Petronius gets a laugh not only out of that character but also out of those who accept him into their group. .p And yet all of these theories are only really compelling if Eumolpus does indeed come off as an utterly bad poet. It is true that he earns little respect within the narrative. His very name (\|=\^``sweet-singer'') seems to be just another ironical appellation, of which there are many in the \f7Satyricon\f6. But it was shown in the first part of the present study that when considered in its own right the \f7Bellum Ciuile\f6 has significant merits. It may be that there is a double irony in Eumolpus' name: it sets up the expectation that his verse will be terrible, so that the reader is surprised when it is not completely so. Moreover, contrary to the suggestion that Petronius derives humour from the comical incongruity between Eumolpus' literary theory and practice, it was shown in the second part of the present study that he is rather successful in fulfilling his poetic programme. This gives a different spin to the way in which the poem on the Civil War characterizes its author, and challenges the notion that Petronius is simply subjecting the poet to further ridicule. After all, surely if the aim was to simply discredit Eumolpus as an annoying poetaster, that had been amply achieved by the time he had properly taken up with Encolpius and Giton. It seems that the purpose of the \f7Bellum Ciuile\f6 ought not to be only a confirmation of this characterization. True, it could be the case that Petronius had an ironical intent to bore the reader by having Eumolpus again spout his turgid verses, this time rendered even more tedious by the fact that they are allowed to go on for some time. But the relative merit of the poem disallows this. Rather than confirm Eumolpus' characterization, that is, the \f7Bellum Ciuile\f6 complicates it. .p The technique whereby a competent piece of literature is delivered by an incompetent character is paralleled in Apuleius. The tale of \f7Cupid and Psyche\f6 (\f7Met.\f6 4–6) is, like the \f7Bellum Ciuile\f6 in the \f7Satyricon\f6, a significant insertion into its framing narrative. This famous story-within-a-story is well-regarded and memorable, and yet it is narrated by a disreputable hag. She is a bent-over crone (\f7anum quandam curuatam graui senio\f6), associated with a group of thieves who roundly abuse her (\f7etiamne tu, busti cadauer extremum et uitae dedecus primum et Orci fastidium solum\f6), and a drunk (\f7quae diebus ae noctibus nil quicquam rei quam merum saeuienti uentri tuo soles auiditer ingurgitare\f6, \f7Met.\f6 4.7). The purpose of her ``old-woman's tale'' (\f7anilibusque fabulis\f6, \f7Met.\f6 4.27) is to calm the victim of a kidnapping. The fact that such a lowly character delivers such a worthwhile piece of literature plays with the expectations of the reader. The situation in the \f7Satyricon\f6 is not as striking, because Eumolpus is a poet and his reciting poetry, even in the extended instance on the road to Croton, is no surprise. But just as Apuleius complicates the interpretation of \f7Cupid and Psyche\f6, so Petronius complicates the character of Eumolpus by contrasting the appreciation Eumolpus' poetry receives within the narrative of the \f7Satyricon\f6 and that which it is perhaps due if the \f7Bellum Ciuile\f6 is given a more objective and charitable reading. Such a paradox is quite in keeping with Petronius' sense of irony: indeed, he is fond of unreliable narrators—what else is Encolpius? .p The result of this more complicated characterization of Eumolpus is to have it both ways: to make fun of both pretentious poets and those who lack an appreciation of literature. On the one hand, Eumolpus' conservative impulse represents the same clichéd opinions bandied about after Vergil; on the other hand, the intolerance of the general public in the face of Eumolpus' versifying is perhaps a greater indictment of their failings than those of his verse. Eumolpus recognizes that as a poet he is doomed to suffer poverty and the hatred of his fellow man (\f7primum propter morum differentiam odium habet; quis enim potest probare diversa?\f6 84.1). He is essentially a different species, treated by general society as a leper. But he is resigned to this, and it does not keep him from reciting poetry. Encolpius recognizes these traits in the poet even at first sight, and his reflection that Eumolpus is the type of man \f7quos odisse divites solent\f6 betrays a sympathy which nobody else seems to afford the poet. Indeed, a sympathetic reading of the \f7Bellum Ciuile\f6 and Eumolpus' other poetic effusions, rather than condemning the character of him who utters them, condemns instead the contemporary decline of literature. This is reinforced by the constant equation of technical criticism with moral criticism. So Agamemnon blames the decline of education on the situation whereby tutors must cater to the demands of their students (\f7nihil nimirum in his exercitationibus doctores peccant, qui necesse habent cum insanientibus furere. nam nisi dixerint quae adulescentuli probent, ut ait Cicero, `soli in scholis relinquentur.'\f6 3.2); Eumolpus blames avarice for the decline of the visual arts (\f7pecuniae … cupiditas haec tropica instituit\f6, 88.2); and though there is no explicit moral component to the literary criticism delivered on the road to Croton, there the criticism is juxtaposed with the beginning of the \f7Bellum Ciuile\f6, which is largely concerned with the moral lapses of the Romans even in pre-Augustan times. If the society in which the characters of the \f7Satyricon\f6 find themselves is so corrupt, then the fact that poetry goes unappreciated is only a symptom of the corruption. .p This is not to say that Petronius intends a serious critique of society, any more than he intends a serious critique of Lucan. The point is, as ever, humorous. By allowing space for an appreciative reading of the \f7Bellum Ciuile\f6, Petronius pokes fun at those who would claim the worthlessness of poetry. In the \f7Satyricon\f6, nobody escapes the author's cruel and ironic ridicule. But in order to achieve this all-points burlesque Petronius has had to tread a narrow path in order to avoid validating the seriousness of either the poem in earnest or the poem as parody. This is purpose of the \f7Bellum Ciuile\f6's pointed ``mediocrity'', which Beck is correct in saying ``is pitched at exactly the right level'': .bl .ll +0.5m If Petronius had made it really bad or grotesque (like Trimalchio's execrable pieces on morality at 34.10 and 55.3), then the qualified acceptance of Eumolpus as a poet would be quite implausible. If, on the other hand, the poetry had been given real merits, it could have compromised the comic tone of the characterization, making us treat seriously the image of unrecognized genius that Eumolpus at moments entertains about himself and distracting us with the troubling discovery that here alone, amid all the moral and aesthetic posturing of the \f7Satyricon\f6's characters, true worth is to be found.\c .f "Beck (1979) 241–2." .ll -0.5m .ck .ne 12 This argument needs but a little modification in light of the findings of the first chapter of the present work. For there was made that ``troubling discovery that here alone … true worth is to be found.'' The comic characterization of Eumolpus is derived not so much from the fact that his verse is neither good nor bad, as from the fact that while his verse may actually have its merits those merits go unrecognized in the morally degenerate world of the \f7Satyricon\f6. Petronius could easily have created a character who was indeed a terrible poetaster, an imposter who could not deliver what he pretended to be able to deliver\c —and the characterization would have been a humorous one. But this is already what has been done in the case of Trimalchio. When it comes to, not an uneducated ex-slave, but a self-professed poet, Petronius is bound, in a work in which literature plays an important role, to take a much more nuanced approach. Eumolpus is not merely another character who can moralize on demand but when it comes to producing something of his own cannot meet the high expectations he has of others. His \f7Bellum Ciuile\f6, while not a work of genius, is a work of competence, and it does validate his own ideals. It is the fact that it is dismissed as a tedious outpouring of so many words (\f7ingenti volubilitate verborum\f6, 124.2) that makes Eumolpus' character seem ridiculous, with the added benefit that fun is also made of the unappreciative audience. .p The real tension in Eumolpus' characterization, then, is not between the quality of his verse and the expectations he sets up for himself. Rather, it lies in the fact that he is characterized on the one hand as a real poet, and on the other as only a mischievous rogue. Beck makes a convincing case that Eumolpus, though he prides himself on being a poet, is actually a better story-teller in prose than he is in verse.\c .f "Beck (1979) 245 ff." The examples adduced are those of the Pergamene Boy and the Widow of Ephesus, mentioned in the discussion of genre above. Compare the violently negative reception of Eumolpus' poetry to the general encouragement his prose tales receive: .bl \f7erectus his sermonibus consulere prudentiorem coepi aetates tabularum… \f6(88.1)\p .ne 12 \f7risu excepere fabulam nautae et erubescente non mediocriter Tryphaena vultumque suum super cervicem Gitonis amabiliter ponente. at non Lichas risit, sed iratum commovens caput ``si iustus'' inquit ``imperator fuisset, debuit patris familiae corpus in monumentum\ referre,\ mulierem\ affigere\ cruci.''\f6 (113.1)\p .ck Even Lichas, who is not amused by the tale, at least is moved to express an opinion: the \f7Bellum Ciuile\f6 earns no such response. This contrast ``has to do directly with the effectiveness of each type of performance and only indirectly with the quality.''\c .f "Beck (1979) 246." That is, it is not that the quality of Eumolpus' verse is somehow at odds with its aspiration, but that the fact that Eumolpus versifies at all is completely at odds with where his talents truly lie. .p ``Though a third-rate poet, [Eumolpus] is a first-rate raconteur.''\|\c .f "Beck (1979) 245." This extends beyond his creative efforts to his very mode of living. In literary matters, Eumolpus is quick to criticize the decay of morals: so in his remarks prefatory to the \f7Troiae Halosis\f6 (88), and in the content of much of the \f7Bellum Ciuile\f6. But in his own habits he is hardly an upstanding member of society. That he takes up with the rascals Encolpius and Giton at all is evidence of his lack of personal decorum. The deceit which he engineers for the \f7captatores\f6 at Croton is motivated by that very lust for gold to which he attributes the decline of morals—\c indeed, to which he attributes the cause of the Civil War. Of course, the mime at Croton is as much motivated by the need for survival as it is by want of money, but the fact that Eumolpus must live by his wits and not by his poetry deflates his literary pretensions. Moreover, in joining the triangle of protagonists of the \f7Satyricon\f6 Eumolpus is clearly motivated by sex. Encolpius is naïve about his approach in the \f7pinacotheca\f6, taking oblivious comfort in the story of how Eumolpus seduced another boy (\f7erectus his sermonibus\f6). When the poet meets Giton he is clearly smitten: .bl \f7``felicem'' inquit ``matrem tuam quae te talem peperit: macte virtute esto.\ raram\ fecit\ mixturam\ cum\ sapientia\ forma.''\f6 (94.1)\p .ck .ne 12 These carnal motivations recall the subject matter of the Milesian tales. Eumolpus relates two amusing and salacious stories whose qualities are often recognized as those of the Milesian tale; but, more than this, Eumolpus is himself an incarnation of that genre. The poet confirms the story he told of the Pergamene Boy when he re-enacts it at Croton: .bl \f7[Philomela] ergo ad Eumolpum venit et commendare liberos suos eius prudentiae bonitatique credere se et vota sua. illum esse solum in toto orbe terrarum qui praeceptis etiam salubribus instruere iuvenes\ quotidie\ posset.\f6 (140.2)\p .ck Just as Eumolpus passed himself off in Pergamum as an upright \f7praeceptor\f6 only to abuse the confidence of the boy's parents, so here Eumolpus passes himself off as an ailing will-maker with no heirs. His treatment of Philomela's daughter makes it clear that his motives at Croton have not changed. This ``real life'' Milesian tale betrays Eumolpus' true character, throwing his poetic pretensions into high contrast. This is the tension which is required of Petronian humour. Eumolpus, for all his aspirations, is just as much a rogue as Encolpius or Giton. He is older and so perhaps displays more cunning, but ultimately his motives cannot be said to be honourable. His desires, like those of his companions, are bodily. That he then attempts to pass himself off as a poet concerned about moral and artistic decline is highly comical. .p In this sense the \f7Bellum Ciuile\f6 does indeed play a role in the characterization of Eumolpus, though not exactly the role it is usually assumed to play. The poem is often seen as proof that its author is something of a hack. To a degree this view holds, but here it has been shown that such a view is challenged by the relative merits of the \f7Bellum Ciuile\f6 and its consistency with its literary precepts. It seems that the poem acts rather to reinforce than to detract from Eumolpus' status as a poet. The comic incongruity then becomes that between his stance on morals in his guise as a poet and that which is evident in his regular behaviour.