Department of the Classics, Harvard University

Aes Olet: Petronius 50.7 and Martial 9.59.11

Author(s): J. Linderski
Source: Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, Vol. 94 (1992), pp. 349-353
Published by: Department of the Classics, Harvard University
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/311436
Accessed: 06/10/2008 08:04

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=dchu.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Department of the Classics, Harvard University is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Harvard Studies in Classical Philology.

http://www.jstor.org
 AES OLET:
PETRONIUS 50.7 AND MARTIAL 9.59.11

J. LINDERSKI

T RIMALCHIO boasts that he alone possesses true Corinthian

bronzes. A (feeble) joke only: he buys his bronzeware from a
smith named Corinthus. But bronzes, he confesses, are not his favorite
objects:

ignoscetis mihi quod dixero: ego malo mihi vitrea,certe non olunt.1

1 Sat. 50.7. The

reading of the Traguriensis(H) is certe nolunt; certe non olunt was
proposedby F. Biicheler in his Berlin 1862 edition (in his apparatushe notes the adscrip-
tio of Jahn, certe non olent; see also his praefatio, p. XXXIII),and has been accepted by
(it appears)all subsequenteditors. It is obvious paleographically,unassailablelinguisti-
cally (the third conjugation form olo, -ere, was used in popularspeech; it is attested in
Plautus, Afranius and Pomponius, cf. OLD s.v., and Nonius 147 M. = 214 L.), and it
makes excellent sense. G. C. Whittick, "Petronius,50.7," Latomus 17 (1958) 545, notes
that the Traguriensis"nowheregoes wrong on the negative non," and proposes to read
certe inolunt, the existence of the negative form inolere to be derived from Lucr. 2.850
inolentis olivi. Certainly ingenious, but it is difficult to imagine Trimalchio using the
Lucretianidiom. Biicheler's predecessorskept nolunt, but some editors objected to certe.
C. G. Antonius, Petronii Arbitri Satyricon ex recensione Petri Burmannipassim reficta
(Lipsiae 1781), conjecturedcerti nolunt, and commentedin his apparatus (p. 147): "certi
autem sunt notissimi, qui possint nominari." Scheffer (as Antonius puts it) "olim suspi-
catus est ceteri, postea haesit." His idea was picked up by N. Heinsius who read caeteri
nolint. P. Burmann,Titi Petronii ArbitriSatyricon(Amstelodami 1743) is more detailed;
he quotes Scheffer as writing: "suspicabarolim caeteri nolunt, nunc haereo, vereorque,
altius subesse malum" (p. 332; cf. Biicheler's judgment on the merits of Scheffer and
Heinsius, p. XXXXI). Orelli proposed certae nolunt, "cauillariTrimalchionemFortuna-
tam suam opinatus"(Biicheler 1862 in app.). Cf. also the apparatusesin the editions of
L. Friedlander,Petronii Cena Trimalchionis2 (Lipsiae 1906), K. Muller (1st and 3rd
edd., Miinchen 1961 and 1983), C. Pellegrino (Roma 1975), all minus accurate. Scheffer
was right: "altius subesse malum." It is against the backgroundof those emendations
that Biicheler's ingenium brightly shines: for what should have been the point of
Trimalchio'sremarkthat he cherishesglass more thanbronze,but othersdo not?
350 J. Linderski

If we wished to develop the thought of the genial host (without,

however, imitating his grammar),we would be tempted to exclaim:
"aenea olunt." But "the smell of bronze"is a concept so peculiar that
modem Petronian commentatorsrefuse even to try to sniff. In this
respect they are quite unlike Martial's(9.59.11) Mamurrawho

consuluitnares an olerent aera Corinthon.

In his recent commentaryon the Cena TrimalchionisM. S. Smith

has this to say: "The belief that a connoisseur could identify
Corinthianbronze by its smell is mocked by Martial."2This indeed
may seem (see below) to be the point Martialmakes, but it is assuredly
not the point of Trimalchio's remark: he does not identify his
"Corinthian"ware by its smell; he merely observes thathe prefersglass
to bronze because the former(unlike the latter)does not smell.

2 Petronii Arbitri Cena Trimalchionis, edited

by M. S. Smith (Oxford 1975) 136.
Smith's comment reproducesthe communis opinio of Petronianinterpreters,cf. Fried-
lander(above, n. 1) 280; A. Maiuri,La Cena di Trimalchionedi Petronio Arbitro(Napoli
1945) 183; P. Perrochat,Le Festin de Trimalcion3 (Paris 1962) 109-110; Pellegrino
(above, n. 1) 309. Smith also adducesad loc. Plin. Ep. 3.6.1, but althoughin this passage
Pliny mentions indeed a Corinthiumsignum, he says nothing about its smell. In his note
on this passage of Pliny, A. N. Sherwin-White,The Letters of Pliny. A Historical and
Social Commentary (Oxford 1966) 225, displays the same misunderstanding of
Trimalchio's words: "Petronius ... robustly mocks the pretensions of amateurs of
Corinthianbronzes, such as Martial'sMamurrawho tested his bronzesby smell." So also
W. C. A. Kerrin his Loeb (1920) Martial(2.116, n. 2): "Connoisseursprofessedto detect
an odour in genuine Corinthianbronze:Petr. 50"-not quite accurateeven as a comment
on Martial,and as interpretationof Petroniusnot betterthan the ideas of Trimalchiohim-
self. The same opinion in E. V. Marmorale,Petronii ArbitriCena Trimalchionis(Firenze
1947) 83 (ad loc.): "Trimalchionenon poteva sopportarel'odore dei vasi corintii, attes-
tatto da Mart.9,59,11." It is worthnoting that L. Friedlanderin his venerableedition and
commentary(M. Valerii Martialis EpigrammatonLibri, vol. 2 [Lipsiae 1886] 82, ad loc.)
takes the words of Martialat their face-value: "Die CorinthischenBronzen hatteneinen
eigenthumlichenGeruch,der als Merkmalder Aechtheit gait." To supportthis statement
he refers to A. W. Becker, Gallus; oder, r6mische Scenen aus der Zeit des Augustus,neu
berbeitetvon H. Goll, 1 (Berlin 1880) 43-44, who quotes solely Martialand Petronius,
and believes that the peculiarodor derivedfrom oxidation. The circle of non-information
is thus tightly closed. But its classical form this interpretationreceived alreadyin 1800 in
an erudite article by the then famous but today utterly forgotten C. A. B6ttiger, "Der
Geruch,ein Kennzeichendes Metalls,"reprintedin his Kleine Schriften3 (Leipzig 1850)
422-425. Cf. below, n. 6.
 Aes Olet: Petronius 50.7 and Martial 9.59.11 351

Now in antiquitybronze did smell indeed, and it smelled because it

was greased-a sensible precaution against bronze rust. Cato
prescribes "ahenea omnia unguito (sc. amurca), sed prius extergeto
bene. postea, cum unxeris, cum uti voles, extergeto: splendidiorerit et
aerugo non erit molesta,"3 advice repeated by Pliny the Elder (NH
15.34): "aeramenta(sc. amurca ungui) contra aeruginem,coloris gra-
tia elegantioris." At NH 34.99 Pliny observes "aeraextersa robiginem
celerius trahuntquam neglecta nisi oleo perunguantur."Observe that
here Pliny speaks of oleum itself, and not of amurca; in the next sen-
tence he remarks on the use of bronze to ensure the perpetuitas
monimentorum,in particularof the bronze tables "in quibus publicae
constitutionesinciduntur."It is thus most likely that these tabulae were
also periodically cleaned and oiled.4 But to fight rust not only amurca
and oleum were used.
The lex metalli from Vipasca in Lusitania,in the chaptercontaining
the baths regulations,prescribes that once a month the overseer ought
to wash, clean and grease with fresh animal fat the bronze vats used for
heating the water, CIL 2.5181 = ILS 6891, lines 25-26: "Aena quibus
uteturlavare tergere unguerequeadipe e recenti tricensimaquaque die
recte debeto."5The commentatorsof this document neglect Cato and
3 Cato,
Agr. 107 [= 98].2. On the preparationand the uses of amurca, the lees or
dregs of olive oil, see also 104-106, 107-110 (= 95-97, 99-101), and the notes ad locc.
by R. Goujard,Caton: De l'agriculture (Paris 1975 [Coll. Bude]) 259-262; H. Bliimner,
Technologie und Terminologieder Gewerbe und Kiinste bei Griechen und Romern 12
(Leipzig 1912) 335; 4 (1887) 338.
4 C. Williamson, "Monuments of Bronze: Roman Legal Documents on Bronze
Tablets,"Class. Ant. 6 (1987) 160-183, refersto Pliny NH 34.99, and remarkson the pol-
ishing of bronze tablets (p. 166, n. 23), but has no word of oiling, whereas Pliny insists
that polished bronze (aera extersa) must be oiled for otherwise it will soon be covered
with rust.
5 See R. Shaw-Smith, "Metal Polish," CQ 31 (1981) 469. He does not mention
Petronius or Martial. See now the edition and commentaryby C. Domergue, La mine
antique d'Aljustrel(Portugal) et les tables de bronzede Vipasca (Paris 1983) 52-53 (text
and translation),83 (commentary). His translationis straightforward:"Tout les trente
jours, il devra convenablementlaver, frotteret enduire de graisse fraiche les chaudieres
en usage," but in his commentaryhe writes that it was not only the vats (chaudieres) that
were to be greased but also and in particular"les robinets qui y 6taient adaptes et com-
mandaientla distributionde l'eau chaude." He argues that for the greasing of the vats no
adeps recens was necessary; fresh grease was on the other hand essential for keeping in
service the robinetterie. Thatmay be so; but in the text itself only vats are mentionedand
no faucets and taps: Domergue conjures them up, so to speak, from fresh fat. D. Flach,
"Die Bergwerksordnungenvon Vipasca," Chiron 9 (1979) 435, believes that the vats
were to be cleaned "damit sich kein Kalkstein festsetzte." Oddly enough, he does not
352 J. Linderski

Pliny; but it is in the light of their remarks that the prescription of

unguere after tergere finds its natural explanation.
But there is more to the rust, the Corinthian bronzeware, Trimalchio
and Mamurra that meets the nose. At Tusc. 4.32 Cicero draws a pecu-
liar parallel between the types of men and the types of bronze:

Inter acutos autem et inter hebetes interest, quod ingeniosi, ut aes

Corinthium in aeruginem, sic illi in morbum et incidunt tardius et
recreantur ocius, hebetes non item.

Cicero's medical expertise may be questioned, but he knew his

bronzes: the Corinthian bronzes were more resistant to the rust than
the other cheaper kinds,6 and apparently they could be cleaned with

mention the bronzerust (and cf. Domergue,p. 83, who points out that the water of Aljus-
trel "n'est pas calcaire").
6 Bliimner 4.185 (above, n. 3) states
(referringto Cicero) that with respect to the
Corinthianbronzes "galt als ein besondererVorzug, dass es keinen Griinspanansetze."
"No rust"would be ridiculous, but this is not what Cicero says. See now the excellent
article by D. Emanuele, "Aes Corinthium: Fact, Fiction and Fake," Phoenix 43 (1989)
347-357, with full collection of ancient references and modem discussions. He points
out that the genuine Corinthianbronzes apparentlywere high-tin bronzes, and "a high
tin-content... increases the alloy's resistanceto corrosion"(p. 352). As to the smell of
bronze he has this to say: "Martialand Petronius suggest that some of their contem-
porariesthought they could recognize genuine Corinthianbronze by its smell [certainly
incorrectwith referenceto Trimalchio,see above in the text, and n. 2]. This seems a most
unreliablemethod, but if there was any difference,perhapsthe patina itself, producedby
the chlorides in Corinthian water, had a distinct odor [but this does not apply to
Trimalchio'sbronzes for althoughthey were producedby a Corinthusthey were not pro-
duced in Corinth]. It is more likely that Martial ... and Petronius ... meant to satirize
the notion of olfactory authentication"[again, this does not apply to Petronius]. With
respect to Martial this remains a possibility, but amurca and oleum are better choices.
Professor J. Bodel points out (in a letter) that W. D. Lowe in his edition of the Cena
(Cambridge1905) commenting on "assellus Corinthius,"(31.9, p. 18) adduces (in addi-
tion to Petr. 50.7 and Mart.9.59.11) also Arrian,Epict. 1.20; the passage (it figures also
in the article by Bottiger [above, n. 2] 423-424) describes the methods applied by the
testers of coins: 6 apyupoyvrboaov Tcpooxpfi^aippoi; oKrtiasiav Txo voRiogazxo,
T, J
etEI,r, a(pn,tfj 6o(ppaaoiq,r& xeuz xata a&Koa.fj Lowe concludes in the familiar
vein: "Corinthianbronzewas supposedto possess a peculiarodour." Arriantalks of test-
ing a denarius, a silver coin: the tester tried to discover whetherthe coin was adulterated
with bronze. Pure silver and an alloy of silver and bronze would have thus possessed a
distinct smell; we should ratherfollow the finding of Vespasian that money, even that
acquiredfrom the urinae vectigal, had no smell at all (Suet. Vesp. 23.3). According to
Ps.-Arist. Mirab. 49 (834 a) among the cups of Darius (capturedby Alexander)there was
 Aes Olet: Petronius 50.7 and Martial 9.59.11 353

less effort (so as sharp-wittedmen would get well again faster than the
dull). And that means that the real Corinthian ware needed to be
greased less frequently,and less thoroughly.
Now, if Trimalchiocould detect on his bronzes the rancid smell of
old grease that was unpleasanteven to him, the ware he was purchasing
from Corinthus was of poor quality indeed. Or conversely: if the
bronzes produced by Corinthuslived up to the name of their creator,
then Trimalchio,by excessively greasing them, failed to recognize their
real quality. Eitherway, he was a vulgar upstart.
At least he was rich. Martial's Mamurrawas poor, vulgar, and an
impostor: he spent a whole day in rich shops pretendingnot to have
found anything to his liking, and at the closing hour carried off two
cups bought for a penny. The bronzes did not pass the test of his nose:
they did not smell enough of Corinth. But we should read Martial's
mockery of Mamurrain the light of ancient practice of aera unguere:7
if a bronze piece was not covered with thick rust, and did not exude the
smell of oil, it could be a Corinthianware. The smell of Corinthwas
no smell at all.

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, CHAPEL HILL

a good number &aci iit,i 6o,CL,-XXo; o'.K Jiv tayvivaCitTirepOv ein %aXcaki fi
Xpiuaxi. Here we are in the land of the mirabilia: not a reliable guide for the studentsof
Petronius.
7 Received notions often cloud the perceptionof even very diligent scholars: Bliimner
(above, n. 3) conscientiously notes that an Oelanstrichwas put on bronzes (4.338), but at
the same time he interpretsthe passage of Martialas pure fable (4.185).