💾 Archived View for runjimmyrunrunyoufuckerrun.com › schol › thesis › 4.0_CONCLUSION captured on 2021-12-17 at 13:26:06.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
.h "CONCLUSION" In the \f7Satyricon\f6, humour is always the result of some tension. The usual argument in the case of Eumolpus' characterization has been that, like Agamemnon, and like Trimalchio, Eumolpus can ``talk the talk'' but cannot ``walk the walk''. The first two chapters of the present work challenged this view by providing evidence that the \f7Bellum Ciuile\f6 actually succeeds to some extent, both as poetry in its own right and as a validation of the literary views which precede it. It cannot simply be the case, then, that the requisite tension is between Eumolpus' views as a poet and his poetic acts. That tension only holds to an extent: for the most part Eumolpus' poetic effusions confirm his poetic views. Rather, it was suggested in the third chapter of the present work that the ironic and comical tension in the characterization of Eumolpus is to be found in the conflict between, on the one hand, his status as a poet concerned about the moral decay of society, and on the other, the amoral roguishness of his actual behaviour. By providing evidence both for the \f7Bellum Ciuile\f6's merits and for its role in validating its author's literary views, the present study has called for a re-appreciation of the poem and a re-evaluation of its author's character. It has been suggested that Eumolpus ought to be given some credit for producing a rather striking poem on the Civil War, and that Petronius deserves admiration for the way in which he uses both the poem and its author to immensely amusing effect.