Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-03T20:36:18.777Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Unexpected Guests: Patterns of Xenia in Callimachus' ‘Victoria Berenices’ and Petronius' Satyricon

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Patricia A. Rosenmeyer
Patricia A. Rosenmeyer
Affiliation:
Yale University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Much of the fascination that Petronius' Satyricon holds for its readers originates in the work's gleeful violation of traditional categories of classical genres. Critical terminology makes explicit the issue of unconventionality, as it is reduced to the neutral word ‘work’ in describing the Satyricon, which, as far as we can tell, belongs to no single category (e.g. novel, romance, satire), but appropriates elements from many sources in both poetry and prose. Perhaps if we had more evidence with which to compare the work, such as a greater selection of Menippean satire or proto-novels from antiquity, we might be able to identify it more accurately. But the suspicion remains that the intense variety of its evocations, allusions, and parodic passages differentiates it clearly from its component genres without allowing it to settle firmly in any one established genre. A certain amount of ‘Kreuzung der Gattungen’ is, of course, typical of both Alexandrian and consequently Roman texts. But the Satyricon seems to revel in its generic instability; it plays with the notion of ‘literariness’ by revealing impulses from non-literary forms such as mime and subliterary prose fiction, raising this material to an unfamiliar level of literary sophistication even as it debases other traditional genres (e.g. epic) through parodic techniques. One of the results of this open experimentation with style and decorum is an extremely dense fabric of literary (and sub-literary) allusion which some would label ‘literary opportunism’. The reader quickly learns to expect intertextual pyrotechnics, swift changes from the sublime to the ridiculous, and humorous incongruities in plot and form, as the stylistic disorder of the text reflects the topsyturvy Petronian world. The modern reader's response to this profusion of referents is to explore the recognizable categories and sources embedded in the work, to tease out the familiar elements in the hope of gaining a better understanding of the whole. Since a great deal of the allusion in the Satyricon functions parodically, there is yet another step necessary in the interpretation, namely taking into account the effect of the decontextualization of language and events from the source material and their recombination and transformation into the new text.

Type
Articles
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 41 , Issue 2 , December 1991 , pp. 403 - 413
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See discussions in Arrowsmith, W., trans., The Satyricon of Petronius (Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1959), pp. vii–xixGoogle Scholar, and Zeitlin, F. I., ‘Petronius as Paradox: Anarchy and Artistic Integrity’, TAPA 102 (1971), 634–42.Google Scholar

2 For a thorough treatment of the concept, see Kroll, W., Studien zum Verständnis der römischen Literatur (Stuttgart, 1964), pp. 202–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar; also Zetzel, J. E. G., ‘Recreating the Canon: Augustan Poetry and the Alexandrian Past’, Critical Inquiry 10 (1983), 83–105.Google Scholar

3 Zeitlin (1971), p. 636.

4 Sullivan, J. P., The Satyricon of Petronius: A Literary Study (Bloomington, Indiana, 1968), p. 267.Google Scholar

5 Arrowsmith, W., ‘Petronius’, in Luce, T. J., ed., Ancient Writers (New York, 1982), p. 836.Google Scholar

6 Zeitlin (1971), pp. 649–50.

7 Bacon, H., ‘The Sibyl in the Bottle’, Virginia Quarterly Review 34 (1958), 262–76, esp. p. 266.Google Scholar

8 See, for example, the following: Collignon, A., Étude sur Pétrone (Paris, 1892), pp. 262–3Google Scholar; Garrido, I. M., ‘Notes on Petronius' Satyricon 135', CR 44 (1930), 10–11Google Scholar; Courtney, E., ‘Parody and Literary Allusion in Menippean Satire’, Philologus 106 (1962), 86–106, esp. p. 100CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hollis, A. S., Ovid Metamorphoses Book 8 (Oxford, 1970), p. 107Google Scholar; Herter, H., ‘Kallimachos’, RE Supplement 5 (1972), 420–1Google Scholar; Bömer, F., Ovid, Metamorphosen Buck 8–9 (Heidelberg, 1977), p. 195Google Scholar; Müller, K., ed. (with trans, by W. Ehlers), Satyrica: Schelmengeschichten3 (Munich, 1983), p. 536.Google Scholar

9 To list but a few: Odyssey 1.120ff. (Telemachus hosts Athena) and 14 (Odysseus at Eumaeus' hut), Homeric Hymns 2 (Demeter received by Celeus and Metaneira) and 5 (Anchises welcomes Aphrodite), ‘Theocritus’ 25 (Herakles and farmer), Nonnus, Dion. 17.37ff. (Brongos) and 47.34ff. (Icarios and Erigone), Vergil, Aen. 8.359ff. (Aeneas visits Evander), the Moretum (no divine visitor, but a description of a humble home), Ovid, , Met. 1.209ffGoogle Scholar. (Jupiter visits Lycaon), Fasti 4.507ff. (Celeus and Demeter), 4.679ff. (‘narrator’ enters humble home and hears stories), and 5.493ff. (future father of Orion receives Jupiter, Mercury, and Poseidon), Juvenal, Sat. 11 (humble homes vs. urban luxuries), Lucan 5.504ff. (Caesar at fisherman's hut), Silius Italicus 7.162ff. (Falernus hosts Bacchus). On the subject of xenia in general, see Herman, G., Ritualised Friendship and the Greek City (Cambridge, 1987), esp. pp. 41–72Google Scholar; Hollis, A. S., Callimachus Hecale (Oxford, 1990), pp. 341–54Google Scholar (= appendix III: The Hospitality Theme). It would prove interesting to consider the questions raised in this article in the larger context of the topos of fractured xenia; the intertextual framework, however, is too elaborate for discussion here.

10 Text published by Meillier, C., ‘Callimacque (P.L. 76d, 78abc, 82, 84, et 111c)’, CRIPEL 4 (1976), 261–86Google Scholar; Parsons, P., ‘Callimachus: Victoria Berenices’, ZPE 25 (1977), 1–50Google Scholar; Livrea, E., ‘Der Liller Kallimachos und die Mausefallen’, ZPE 34 (1979), 37–42Google Scholar; Parsons, P. and Lloyd-Jones, H. (eds.), Supplementum Hellenisticum (Berlin & New York, 1983), pp. 100–17.Google Scholar

11 De Cola, M., Callimaco e Ovidio (Palermo, 1937), pp. 66–7Google Scholar; Wilkinson, L. P., Ovid Recalled (Cambridge, 1955), p. 189Google Scholar and note; Otis, B., Ovid as an Epic Poet (Cambridge, 1966), pp. 203–5, 384–6Google Scholar; Hollis (1970), pp. 106–7; Bömer (1977), p. 192. See in contrast Anderson, W., Ovid's Metamorphoses Books 6–10 (Oklahoma, 1972), p. 390Google Scholar, who calls the assertion that Ovid borrowed directly from Callimachus' Hecale both unprovable and unnecessary since the ‘allusion’ is really part of a larger and highly conventional topos.

12 Much of the following was brought to my attention by the unpublished doctoral dissertation of Catherine, Connors, Petronius' Bellum Civile and the Poetics of Discord (University of Michigan, 1989).Google Scholar

13 The text of the Satyricon used throughout is that of K. Müller (1983), referred to above in note 8.

14 The manuscripts (including both the L and O traditions) at Sat. 135.16 originally read ‘Hecates’, an obscure reference to the goddess, but most editors have long printed ‘Hecale’ suggested by Junius (according to Buecheler, F., Petronii Arbitri Satirarum Reliquiae (Berlin, 1862)Google Scholar, Müller, K., Petronii Arbitri Satyricon (Paris, 1961)Google Scholar and Ernout, A., Le Satyricon (Paris, 1970))Google Scholar or Pius (according to Müller 1983). Considering the context, the presence of Hecale must be correct.

15 But see now also fr. 342 Pf. (= Hecale fr. 81 H) and fr. 252 Pf. (= Hecale fr. 82 H) and Hollis' (1990) discussion on pp. 265–8 (op. cit. n. 9).

16 The emendation to ‘Battiadae’ had been suggested early on by several scholars: Pius is said to have originally discerned it (Müller 1983), while Daniels may have first offered the full phrase ‘Battiadae vatis’ (Müller 1961; Ernout 1970). Müller (1983) also altered ‘annis’ to ‘aevis’ and argued for ‘miranda…arte’ based on a parallel in Ovid, Am. 1.15.13–14.

17 Comparable scenes may be observed in Od. 14.48–51, when Eumaeus offers his guest a couch with coverings; Met. 8.639–40, where a bench with rough coverings is provided for Jupiter and Mercury; and again in Met. 8.655–9, a curious texual ‘doublet’ where the old people pull out another couch and deck it with festive yet old and well-worn balnkets for the gods. On this latter passage, see the discussions in Hollis (1970), pp. 117–18, and Anderson (1972), pp. 394–5.

18 See also fr. 295 Pf. (= Hecale fr. 114 H), which may refer to further preparations for lighting the fire; for a discussion of this fragment, see Hollis (1990), pp. 299–300.

19 Hollis (1990), pp. 210–11 argues against the existence of an episode of foot-washing at this point in the Hecale.

20 Garrido (1933), p. 11.

21 There may be a reference here to the basin's function as a foot-bath for weary travellers, but not all the manuscripts preserve these lines (Met. 8.652–4). For further textual discussion see Hollis (1970), p. 118, and Anderson (1972), p. 394.

22 For the various arguments for Philemon (‘ille’) as opposed to Baucis (‘ilia’) as the person doing the lifting, see Bömer, F., P. Ovidius Naso: Metamorphosen (Heidelberg, 1969–1986), p. 206Google Scholar and his bibliography on the subject.

23 The ‘long-preserved’ (Met. 8.649, ‘servatoque diu’) bacon of Philemon and Baucis is thus mocked as Oenothea's pork is well past its prime. Compare, however, the passage in Horace, Satire 2.2.89–93, where rancid boar appears to suggest the best kind of ancient hospitality, as it proves that the host was not so greedy as to eat it all while fresh, but put some aside until guests might visit.

24 Are we perhaps to imagine here a reference to the earlier foot-baths in Callimachus and Ovid, as Oenothea by mistake gives herself (and the fire) an unwanted ‘bath’ in the spilled water? Note also how the double fire scenes find parallels in the double baths given by Hecale (fr. 246 Pf. = Hecale fr. 34 H: she pours out the old water and brings fresh water for rinsing) and Eurycleia (Od. 19.469–504: after an accident in which the tub is overturned and the bath water spilled, the nurse fetches fresh water for Odysseus' feet).

25 See Connors (1989), p. 27.

26 I agree here with Parsons' ((1977), 46–50) ordering of the fragments to form the proem to Book 3, although there has been some debate since then on the sequence of the textual reconstruction; see Hollis, A. S., ‘The Composition of Callimachus' Aetia in the Light of P. Oxy. 2258’, CQ 36 (1986), 467–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar, criticized by Livrea, E., ‘P. Oxy. 2463: Lycophron and Callimachus’, CQ 39 (1989), 141–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

27 Parsons, P., Council of University Classical Departments Bulletin 10 (1981), 7.Google Scholar

28 We can find support for this state of affairs in ‘Theocritus’ 25, lines 216–20, where Herakles tells his version of the lion-hunt: ‘ it was midday, and I had not yet been able to trace his prints or hear his roar; nor was there anyone … busy with the cows or fieldwork whom I might question, for pale fear kept them all inside their homes.’

29 Contrast, however, SH 266: Probus' summary of the sequence of events in which Herakles appears to ask Molorchus to postpone the slaughter of his only ram until more opportune times, i.e. either as a celebration or in honour of the hero's shade (if unsuccessful). I hope to argue in a future article against Probus' evidence, which I interpret as an error of contamination or ‘reading backwards’ from later sources.

30 Herakles' reputation as a glutton is evidenced in Callimachus' Hymn to Artemis (3.145–61) where the hero waits for the goddess to return home with some fat morsel, and encourages her to bypass deer and hares for larger game. Further evidence for the vegetarian nature of this first meal may be found in Nonnus' Dionysiaca 17.51–4, where the author compares Brongos' reception of Dionysus to Molorchus' hosting of Herakles: ‘so he served a meal that was no meal, a table without meat, such as they say in Cleonae, Molorchus provided for Herakles on his way to fight the lion’.

31 Hollis (1986), p. 470.

32 E. Livrea (1979), p. 38 and ‘Callimachi Fragmentum de Muscipulis (177 Pf.)’ in Pintaudi, R., ed., Miscellanea Papyrologica (Florence, 1989), 135–40, esp. p. 137.Google Scholar

33 This idea was first suggested by C. Corbato, in a jointly written article by Livrea, E., Carlini, A., Corbato, C. and Bornmann, F., ‘Il Nuovo Callimaco di Lille’, Maia 32 (1980), 225–51Google Scholar; see esp. p. 240, where Corbato supplements the text of SH 259 to read: ‘the child of Alcmene’ (Ἀλκμνης παιδ).

34 See Pfeiffer on Call. fr. 177 (= p. 146).

35 Compare the similar image of a lion cub used to depict fierceness in Horace, Od. 4.4.13–16, where the relatively young age of a military leader is emphasized in the comparison with a newly weaned lion about to kill its first deer.

36 The poetic word σντης is used of lions at Iliad 11.481 a n d 20.165; of wolves at Iliad 16.353.

37 Ap. Rhod. Argon. 2.187–93; Verg. Aen. 3.210–57.

38 Pausanias (8.22.4) attributes this version to Peisander of Camira.

39 An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Philological Association in December of 1989. At that time the extremely useful edition of Hollis', A. S.Callimachus Hecale (Oxford, 1990)Google Scholar had not yet been published, which explains the somewhat awkward double reference system employed herein. I should like to thank G. Williams, J. E. G. Zetzel, and the editors of CQ for helpful suggestions and criticisms. I am particularly grateful to C. Connors and B. Vine for their valuable insights and generous advice on the Petronian material.