.h INTRODUCTION
.nr fm 0
.nr % 1
.af % 1

One of the most immediately striking aspects of the \f7Satyricon\f6
of Petronius is that it is a \f7prosimetrum\f6, a mixture of prose and verse.
The verse element has received some critical attention in its own right,
not the least of which has focused on the longest extant verse specimen,
the poem on the Civil War recited by the character Eumolpus (\f7Sat.\f6 119–124).\c
.f "Courtney (1991), Connors (1998) on the poetry in general; \
Baldwin (1911), Guido (1976), Grimal (1977), Connors (1989) \
on this poem in particular."
This poem (herein known as the \f7Bellum Ciuile\f6)
certainly brings itself to the attention of the modern reader
by virtue of its uniqueness amongst the fragmented remains of the text.
At 295 verses it is the longest specimen of extant Petronian verse by far.
But more than its length it is notable for its subject matter.
The only other hexameter poem on the Civil War of 49–45 BC
to have survived to modern times is Lucan's \f7Pharsalia\f6.\c
.f "The present study, in keeping with convention in this matter, \
refers to Petronius' poem as the \f7Bellum Ciuile\f6 \
and Lucan's as the \f7Pharsalia\f6."
Moreover, of all the poems in the \f7Satyricon\f6,
no other takes on such a political and historical theme.
The \f7Bellum Ciuile\f6, then, has earned much attention not for its intrinsic worth
but for its appearance within the text which frames it
and for its allusion to another famous and probably contemporary text.
This phenomenon is summed up in Connors' memorable image,
comparing the poem to a dead rat:
``outside a python … nothing special to look at;
inside, though, it exerts a horrifying fascination.''\|\c
.f "Connors (1998) 100."
Too often, though, are commentators happy to work off the assumption
that the poem is indeed a ``dead rat'' without first attempting to prove it.
Others have found it worthwhile to appreciate the poem more positively,
but without presenting a case for the poem's value \f7qua\f6 poetry.
The first chapter of the present study addresses the problem of
objectively evaluating the text of the \f7Bellum Ciuile\f6.
.p
Perhaps more interesting than the poem's quality
is its relation to the comments which precede it.
Eumolpus, the author of the poem in the narrative,
prefaces his effort with his opinions on what makes good poetry (118).
He adduces literary models, such as Homer and Vergil,
and emphasises among other things the importance
of retaining a divine machinery for historical epic.
These comments are an important key
to evaluating the purpose of the \f7Bellum Ciuile\f6
in relation to the rest of the \f7Satyricon\f6.
The second chapter of the present study evaluates how well
Eumolpus' poem measures up against the guidelines with which he prefaces it.
.p
It is usually recognized that the \f7Bellum Ciuile\f6 is not altogether lacking in effect;
rather the poem is often accorded the epithet `mediocre'.
It is sometimes also suggested that Eumolpus does not follow
the very principles he sets out before reciting the poem,
so that the whole episode works to characterize him as a miserable hack of a poet.
But the findings presented here, while substantiating this view in some respects,
show on the whole that the \f7Bellum Ciuile\f6 is in fact not as bad
nor even as mediocre as it is often said to be, and that the poet in fact
adheres quite faithfully to his literary principles.
The poem is not a work of genius,
but it can be redeemed in the face of its harsher detractors.
This has implications for some of the usual interpretations of the poem.
The final chapter of the present study addresses the problems
which arise from a more charitable appreciation of the \f7Bellum Ciuile\f6,
and the concluding statement suggests a modified view
of the purpose Petronius had in mind when he included the poem.