I98 REVIEWS

Her readingsmay occasionallybe questioned. At 2.6.3 the defenceof 'instituerat'is historically

unsound: not all the measures described by imperfectsfailed to become law. I 5.4: 'populi Romani'
is surelyto be preferred.29. I: it would be betterto keep the paradosis 'firmum'.30.4: the defenceof
the paradosis 'in iure' is unconvincing,though it is good to be reminded that the dismissal of the
post-Sullan tribunateas 'imaginem sine re' rests on an emendation. 40.3: no conjecture deserves
elevation to the text.42.2: I should preferto retain'et tumultuaria'as less pedestrianin style.45.2:
'calamitate' mightbe kept: the sense is perfectlyclear. 62.2: I cannot follow E.'s defence of 'his se';
the alleged parallel is irrelevant.I25.2: why change 'ultimum' when the meaningis clear?
Notes on language and styleare of a high quality throughout.The followingperhaps stand out:
2.4.5f.; 37.4: the legal and psychological implications of 'societate'; 39.3: 'parens'; 42.3: 'inuidia
inertiam'; 76.2: on the ironyof the passage; 88.3: 'noui'; I3i: a good treatmentof the finalprayer.
But at 2.I0.I, though 'nota' certainlyhas its 'accezione generica', it is surely also a pun; at i8.6
'factionis'needs a note, as perhaps does 'ueluti' at 47.3.
Some historical notes deserve commendation: I . I3.4f.: on Velleius' attitude to Mummius'
philistinism; i i. i: on the origins of Marius; 2I.4: on the death of Pompeius Strabo. Other good
notes: 5I.3: on the confusion of the Cornelii Balbi; 88.2: on Maecenas; I03. Iff.: on the returnand
adoption of Tiberius; I i8.2: on the career of Arminius.
Others are less praiseworthy.2.2.2 on the content of Ti. Gracchus' agrarian programme is
inadequate and antiquated. Nor is there any praise of him for raising the Italian question at 3.2.
Velleius regretsthat Tiberius went to the bad, but his interestin Italy comes only afterhe went
wrong. I 2.3: E. does not correctVelleius' imprecise descriptionof the Lex Domitia; 13.i: Livius
Drusus did not veto the measures of C. Gracchus. At I 3.2 the mysterious'multos ... uiros' deserve
comment,as do the equally mysteriouscolleagues and theiractivitiesat I3.3. 2I.2: 'hominem dis ac
nobilitatiperinuisum' cannot, alas, be Pompeius Strabo (cf. E. Badian, Historia i8 (I969), 474).
27.5: Sulla's triumphis misdated to I2 March 79 (in fact a discredited dating for Pompey's first
triumph). 31.2 and 34.4: inadequate on the problems of Pompey's powers in 67 and 66 and the
execution of the Catilinarians.43.3: for'pretore' read 'censore'. 47.3: Bibulus, however reluctantly,
actuallyproposed the decree makingPompey sole consul.
94.3: E. assumes Tiberius was Augustus' quaestor. This may be true, but the problems that
arise should be faced. 96. I and I I7. I: thereis no mentionof the Laudatio Agrippae, which reveals
thatVarus had once been Tiberius' brother-in-law.97. I: E. assumes thatHorace's ode to Lollius is
favourable; against, cf. my remarksin N. Rudd (ed.), Horace 2000 (1993), 37. Io4.I: something
should be said about the possible ambiguityof 'rei publicae causa'. I i6.2: the name of the consul of
I B.C. was Cossus Cornelius Lentulus. I20.3: E. is probably wrong to see a strategicdisagreement
between Augustus and Tiberius, especially as this would involve a reversalof theirnormal clearly
definedpositions. I24.2: E. hardlydoes justice to Tiberius' role in the debate of I7 September, and
it is certainlynot true that he accepted power (whateverthat means) only at the end of September.
I25.I f.: the note on the mutinies neglects the point that they were primarily a strike against
conditions. I27.3: it is rash to assume the murder of Drusus as a fact; the discussion of Seianus'
consular relativesis inadequate.
But in conclusion it should be emphasized that,despite disagreementsof detail, a good new text
of the whole of Velleius is a boon forall concernedwiththe literatureand historyof the period.

DepartmentofClassics and AncientHistory,UniversityofLiverpool ROBIN SEAGER

G. B. CONTE, THE HIDDEN AUTHOR: AN INTERPRETATION OF PETRONIUS' SATYRICON.

Trans. E. Fantham(Sather Classical Lectures 6o). Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress, I 996. Pp. x + 226.
ISBN 0-520-207I 5-7. ?28.OO/US$35.OO.
In The Rhetoric of Imitation (I986), 45, Gian Biagio Conte wrote: 'The literarynature of
Petronius' Satyriconis already revealed by the distinctionbetween the "I" of the narratorand the
"I" of the writerhimself.' The presentmonograph devoted to the Satyriconcould be seen as a full
elaboration of this statementand its implications- a statementmade verymuch in passing, as part
of a discussion of poetic language in C.'s earlierbook.
That relationshipbetween authorand narratorin the Satyriconis the principal subject of ch. i:
'The Mythomaniac Narrator and the Hidden Author'. The wide-ranging chapters that follow
spotlightsome conventionscentralto the studyof the ancientnovel,which have long been cheerfully
acknowledged, but generally deprived of more probing, critical analysis. These acknowledged
conventions which C. (re-)examines include the dialectic between 'low' and 'high' themes and
discourse, the natureof Menippean satireand its epiphany in Latin prose fiction,and the enigmatic
categoryof 'realism'. All these treatmentswill be of enduring importance for work on Petronius:
most of them have broader implicationsforliteraryhistory.Ch. 4 'Sex, Food, and Money' in itself
offersan ideal advance on Emily Gowers' recentinterpretationof the representationof food in Latin

This content downloaded from 68.9.191.7 on Thu, 22 Oct 2015 03:57:35 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 III. THE EMPIRE I99
comedyand satire(satisfying expressedin myreviewof Gowers'Loaded
someoftherequirements
Table (I993) in YRS 84 (I994), I98). But C.'s opening assessmentof the relationshipbetween author
and narrator profoundly informs thetreatment of all thesubjectsin thechaptersto follow,and is
explicitlydevelopedinhissecondandthirdchapters.Forthisreason,giventhatconstraints ofspace
limitclose engagement witha book thatis refreshingly repletewithmotionsfordebate,I shall
concentrate on thequestionsraisedbythefirst chapterandtheirimplications.
Identification ofliterary modelsforcertainphasesoftheSatyricon's narrative andconsideration
of theirfunctionin the storyis a customaryfeatureof Petronianscholarship,but C. beginsby
lookingat thefundamental implications theuse ofmodelshas forthecharacterization ofEncolpius.
Encolpiusis no mouthpiece ofPetronius, buta creationoftheauthor,a 'narrating character' whois
'neverwithouta spuriouspretenseofdrama,a misconceived tragicisation
ofexperience'(5). This is
all correctand clear:more'sthepitythatso manycriticshavepersistedin naivelyconstructing their
author- all toodirectly - fromtheirreadings ofEncolpius.
What is not so clear is whetherC. is reallyclarifying the relationbetweenPetroniusand
Encolpius,ortherelationbetweenauthorsand first-person ingeneral.Whilstthefactthat
narrators
Encolpiusis a victimof eventsconstructed by Petroniusmaybe a 'powerfuldevice' (25), it is a
devicewhichis farfromunique to the Satyricon.First-person narrators in textsare frequently,
perhapsinevitably, ironizedby an authorwhomwe 'rationalize'(to use MichaelRiffaterre's term)
fromourreadingofthetext.Thus C.'s notionofa dialogueor exchangebetweenauthorand reader
whichis seenas the'substanceoftheironyin theSatyricon'(35) actuallyappliesto a wholehostof
first-person fictionalnarratives,somemajor,someminor,someingenious,someemphatically not.
The authorsofcountlessworksoffiction rangingfromLazarillode Tormes (I 554) to S. E. Hinton's
Rumblefish (I975) can be rationalized as beingsmarterthantheircreatednarrators, and can all be
seento be in 'exchange'withthem.
C.'s expositionof Encolpiuspresentsa 'mythomaniac' who colourshis experiencesby acting
out,or rather, failingto actout,thepartsofhisliterary-mythological role-models. Butitis difficult
to go muchfurther thanthat.Acquisitionofa moredetailedimpression ofEncolpius'character and
ofwhatkindofmythomaniac he is willdependon whichmythswe thinkhe has a maniaabout.C.
followsJ.P. Sullivan'sTheSatyricon ofPetronius (I968) in seeingEncolpius'misfortune (Sat. 8I) -
afterAscyltushas carriedGitonaway- as an echoofAchilles'predicament in Iliad I.348-50, and
Encolpius'consequentdesireforvengeance(Sat. 82) as recallingAeneas'franticsearchforCreusa
(Aen. 2.749-73). C. observes the parallel between Encolpius' short-livedattemptat revenge with
Aeneas'contemplation ofkillingHelen.He also notes(i 8) thatjust as Dido appearedbeforeAeneas
afterhe had bewailedthescenesdepictedon Juno'stemple,so EumolpusappearsbeforeEncolpius
in thepinakotheca. Encolpius,likeAeneas,has seenhimselfin thepictureshe has beheld(Sat. 83;
Aen. I.453f.). All good groundsfor recognizingan explicitlyheroic (and thus, one assumes)
masculineidentificationforEncolpius.
ButothermodelsforthissequenceofscenesintheSatyricon areno lessdiscernible.Encolpius'
soliloquyin 8I equallyrecallsthe lamentof a Dido, of a Scylla,and particularly of Ariadnein
Catullus64. As wellas therhetoricalstructure anddictionofEncolpius'speech,hissubsequentvisit
to thepinakotheca also evokesthespectacularcontextof Ariadne'slamentin Catullus'ekphrasis.
Then Eumolpusentersto 'rescue'Encolpius- whoas an impecunious, bearded,old manpresents
a mischievous parallelto Bacchusas rescuerofAriadne.(Anotherpointedcontrast:Catullus64.260
saysthattheprofanewouldloveto approachand hearthemusicofBacchus'rites;in theSatyricon,
the aestheticallyprofaneneglectand spurnEumolpus in 83.) This alternative grid offeminine
identificationforEncolpiusstillconstitutes whocannotsee thewood forthemuthos.
a narrator But
thoughhe is still a role-player, this grid would providea ratherdifferent role for Encolpius:
abandoned-heroine-camp replacesbutch-hero-camp.
Butto replaceC.'s selectionofmodelswitha selectionofmyownis certainly notmyobjective
inproviding thisalternative gridforEncolpius'mythomania. C.'s QuellenforschungfortheSatyricon
in Greekprosefiction anddialoguealonedisplays,impressively, hisawarenessofnumerouspossible
alternatives.
My purposeis onlyto showthattheconstruction ofEncolpius'character is evenmore
dependenton thereaderthantheargumentof TheHiddenAuthoras a wholeseemsto allow.The
reader'sdeterminations of intertextuality affect
significantly formations of Encolpius'feelingsand
attributes.
Thus whilstC.'s distinction betweennarrator andauthoris effectively demonstrated, his
particularconfiguration ofPetroniusand Encolpiuscanonlybe ideological.
Universityof Warwick ANDREW LAIRD

This content downloaded from 68.9.191.7 on Thu, 22 Oct 2015 03:57:35 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions