Encolpius and Agamemnon in Petronius

Encolpius and Agamemnon in PetroniusAuthor(s): George KennedySource: The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 99, No. 2 (Summer, 1978), pp. 171-178Published by: The Johns Hopkins University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/293644 .

Accessed: 07/05/2014 16:13

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to TheAmerican Journal of Philology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 47.20.119.188 on Wed, 7 May 2014 16:13:06 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhup

http://www.jstor.org/stable/293644?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


ENCOLPIUS AND AGAMEMNON IN PETRONIUS

The opening scene of what survives of Petronius' Satyricon takes place outside of a rhetorical school and consists of an encounter between Encolpius and Agamemnon, Ascyltus is somewhere nearby. Since we lack any introduction to the situation, it is not surprising that it has not been well understood. For example, Philip Corbett says, "We do not know why they are here, whether driven by the hazard of their wandering condition or attracted by the reputation of the head of the school Agamemnon." We may not know why they are in this particu- lar Graeca urbs, but we can say why they have sought out a school of rhetoric, which incidentally may not be Agamemnon's at all. Evan Sage thought that it was Agamemnon's school and that he had invited general discussion of declamation,2 but this is unlikely. The declamations are still going on inside and we witness a conversation between the two characters.

In order to understand the dramatic situation it is necessary to be familiar with the practices of the schools of rhetoric in first century Rome. These are reasonably well known from the accounts of Seneca the Elder and Quintilian, with some cor- roborative information in Tacitus, Juvenal, and other writers, and they have been extensively studied.3 Here I will only sum- marize a few features which readers of Petronius need to keep in mind. The students in rhetorical schools were ordinarily boys ranging from around fourteen to around eighteen years of age. Although teachers gave lectures on rhetoric, the major activity of the schools was the writing, memorizing, and delivery of declamations, either suasoriae, in which the speaker gives ad- vice to an historical or mythological figure, or controversiae, in which certain laws and actions are posited and the student

1 Cf. Philip B. Corbett, Petronius (New York 1970) 46. 2 Petronius, The Satiricon, ed. by Evan T. Sage, rev. by Brady B. Gilleland

(New York 1969) 145. 3 Cf., e.g., Henri Bornecque, Les declamations et les declamateurs d'apres

Seneque le pere (Lille 1902); S. F. Bonner, Roman Declamation in the Late Republic and Early Empire (Liverpool 1949); George Kennedy, The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World (Princeton 1972) 312-37.

AJP 99 (1978) 171-178 0002-9475/7/0992-0171 $01.00 ? 1978 by The Johns Hopkins University Press



GEORGE KENNEDY

composes a speech for one participant. In Augustan times declamation became a social fad for adults as well as the basis of secondary education. Rhetoricians invited the public in to hear the speeches of themselves and their students much as a modern citizenry might go to a school athletic event, except that the visitors were invited to participate in the declaiming. Much of the declamation described by Seneca the Elder took place on such occasions. Almost anybody with a rhetorical education and the nerve could apparently show off his skills or enjoy the spectacle, and it became a good place to meet fashionable people. Unlike the students, adults under these circumstances apparently declaimed extempore, but since the themes tended to recur and commonplaces had many applications, rhetorical enthusiasts, not to say the professionals, could easily build up repertories. It must also be remembered that declamation was not debate. To judge from ancient accounts, declaimers were free to speak for or in the person of any of the characters in the theme posited and to take any approach (color) which appealed to them. There was no necessary attempt to answer points made by a previous speaker. At the end there was no vote, no judging, but the applause or laughter often indicated the audience's reaction to the figures, the points, and the conceits.

As our text opens, Encolpius is telling the rhetorician Agamemnon about the vices of declamation. The situation be- comes clearer in chapter six where we are told that the two are walking in a garden beside a portico. A crowd of scholastici (of which more later) then pours out ab extemporali declamatione nescio cuius qui Agamemnonis suasoriam exceperat. That the declamation was extemporalis is evidence that the speaker was not a student; probably a minor professional rhetorician or visitor is intended. Clearly this is a day when the public has been invited into the school in question. Agamemnon has left the hall, which may be evidence that this is the school of some other teacher which he is visiting. Agamemnon of course did have a school in the city, to which Trimalchio later refers (48), but if he were the host it would seem discourteous to leave, and his students would need supervision.4 Otherwise wandering in and

4 Quintilian discusses the problems of the classroom in 2.2. but admittedly his standards were higher than most teachers.

172



ENCOLPIUS AND AGAMEMNON

out was not unusual.5 We are expressly told that the declamation was a suasoria, and thus not a controversia, but the specific theme is not identified. Seneca cites (Suas. 3) one which suggests where Agamemnon may get his name: "Agamemnon deliberates whether to sacrifice Iphigenia." Sullivan translates suasoria here as "lecture,"7 but that is misleading. Rhetori- cians sometimes gave lectures, but they are not the same as the delivery of a suasoria, which is an example of oratorical art. Exceperat means "follows" as Arrowsmith translates it,8 not "took over" as in Sullivan9 or "rdpondu" as in Ernout,10 especially not "rdpondu." Declamation is not debate.

The situation at the opening of the Satyricon, therefore, is a public session of a rhetorical school. Agamemnon, probably a visitor, has delivered a suasoria and while the next declaimer speaks has wandered outside where he is accosted by Encol- pius. Ascyltus has come to the school with Encolpius, but either remains inside or is quiet during the interview. He may well be with Menelaus. At the beginning of chapter six he slips away. Encolpius' remarks are described in the Sage-Gilleland edition as a declamation. 1 They are certainly declamatory in tone, but they are not strictly speaking a declamation. It is thus a mildly amusing metaphor when at the beginning of chapter three En- colpius remarks that Agamemnon did not allow him to declaim (declamare) longer in the portico than Agamemnon himself had sweated (sudaverat) in the school. Literally it is Agamemnon who has declaimed and it seems to be Encolpius who is hot under the collar. As far as we know Encolpius has not partici- pated in the declamation and simply, or not so simply, imparts his views on declamation privately to Agamemnon.

5 Cf. Seneca, Contr. 3. par. 10. The younger Pliny's picture of recitation confirms the custom of coming and going, Ep. 1.13.2.

6 On the following day at Agamemnon's own school the theme was a controversia, cf. chapter 48.

7 Petronius, The Satyricon and the Fragments, trans. by John Sullivan, (Penguin Books 1965) 32.

8 The Satyricon, Petronius, trans. by William Arrowsmith (New York 1960) 25.

9 Loc. cit. (supra n. 7). 10 Petrone, Le Satiricon, traduit par Alfred Ernout (Paris 1922) 5. 1 Op. cit. (supra n. 2) on 1.1. Sage and Gilleland are also wrong in the same

passage in defining declamatores as professional rhetoricians. The term in- cludes anyone who declaims: students, professionals, amateurs.

173



GEORGE KENNEDY

Now what is Encolpius doing here and why does he lecture Agamemnon so sternly? An answer can be found if we turn to the scene in chapter ten where Encolpius and Ascyltus decide to split up. Encolpius there suggests that they divide their posses- sions and each try to support himself and keep out of the other's way: et tu litteras scis et ego. ne quaestibus tuis obstem, aliud aliquid promittam. Sullivan aptly translates this: "You're a literary sort of man and so am I. I don't want to interfere with your earnings, so I'll offer some other line."'2 Arrowsmith's "I'll arrange to take a different tutoring job,"13 initially attractive, is based on a misunderstanding of scholasticus in Ascyltus' reply. It is not a tutor. All that Encolpius is saying is that the two of them live on the basis of their rhetorical education, and there are a variety of ways to do that. Ascyltus' reply reveals how they are living at the moment and thus what they were doing in the rhetorical school. He suggests that they not split up until the next day: hodie quia tamquam scholastici ad cenam pro- misimus. non perdamus noctem. They are posing tamquam scholastici, have visited a rhetorical school in hopes of meeting a victim, and have been invited to dinner. This immediately suggests the parasite of new comedy whose occupation is find- ing invitations to dinner, but what does it mean to pose tamquam scholastici?

Petronius uses scholasticus four times in the Satyricon. Our passage in chapter ten is one instance. In chapter 39 Trimalchio, listing people born under various signs of the zodiac, attributes to the Ram scholastici and arietilli, which is not very helpful since we do not know exactly what arietillus means. Doubtless something not very complimentary. In chapter 61, Niceros looks across the room before telling his werewolf story and confesses that he is nervous that the scholastici present may laugh at him. The remark suggests that they are a critical lot and surely his glance falls on Encolpius and Ascyltus. The fourth and most important occurence is that in chapter six, quoted earlier, where the scholasticorum turba 14 pours out of the hall of declamation. Arrowsmith and Sullivan make this a crowd of students. The scholastici laugh at the sententiae and arrangement of the

12 Op. cit. (supra n. 7) 34. 13 Op. cit. (supra n. 8) 27. 14 One is reminded of the scholasticorum natio of Virgil, Catalepton 5.4.

174




suasoria they have heard, which suggests that they are rather critical and imagine themselves as sophisticated. Perhaps they are not students at all. The scholastici of chapter six are described as iuvenes. Now terms for age groups in Latin are very slippery indeed,15 but there is reason to think that iuvenis is not a very suitable term for a student in a rhetorical school. The younger students are generally speaking pueri and older ones adulescentuli. Tacitus, Dialogus 35.3, is a good source for the distinction, and Petronius clearly recognizes it, for Agamemnon uses the same terms. In chapter three he speaks of his students as adulescentuli and in chapter four contrasts pueri in schools and iuvenes in the forum. So the scholasticorum turba is likely to be older than a crowd of students. Scholasticus is in fact the word regularly used by the elder Seneca to refer to those people who thronged to declamations as though to athletic events, but who were not themselves students and not necessarily teachers. They are the declamation-buffs, the aficionados, for the most part enthusiastic amateurs. Winterbottom identifies the term as one used of men who spent most of their time in schools or in declamatory display.16 An examination of the half-dozen passages in which Seneca employs it bears out this definition. Some professionals may be included, but all professional rhetoricians are not scholastici, for Seneca (7. par. 4) reports that Albucius, a professional, was afraid of being regarded as a scholasticus. The term can still be found in this sense in Tacitus (Dialogus 26.8), but Quintilian and Pliny avoid the noun. An English translation is not readily at hand. We might try the medieval term "schoolman," but would have to add an explanatory gloss.

Thus, in the opening scene of the Satyricon our young heroes-on-the-make, posing as well educated visitors interested in declamation, are trying to get the favorable attention of Agamemnon in hopes that it will lead to something more, such as dinner. Although critics have noted their interest in an invita- tion,17 which is indeed made explicit,'8 the importance of their

15 For a recent discussion cf. the remarks of Jean Cousin, Quintilien, Institution oratoire, Tome I (Paris 1975) xv-xvi, with bibliography.

16 Cf. The Elder Seneca, Declamations, trans. by M. Winterbottom 2 vols. (Loeb Classical Library 1974) viii.

17 Cf. J. P. Sullivan, The Satyricon of Petronius. A Literary Study (Bloomington 1968) 54 and P. G. Walsh, The Roman Novel (Cambridge 1970) 83.

18 Multo me turpior es tu hercule, qui utforis cenares, poetam laudasti, 10.2.

175



GEORGE KENNEDY

role as scholastici has not been adequately stressed. Certainly Encolpius has marked out his man and what he says should be regarded as ad hominem argumentation. It is thus not informa- tive about the views of Petronius on the vices of declamation, and, as we shall see, is not even totally consistent with views which Encolpius himself expresses elsewhere. Encolpius here takes a very high tone, is very severe on "you teachers," but this is his persona. He has chosen a critical position which he expects to impress Agamemnon and is of course pretending that it is entirely his own view and that he does not expect Agamem- non to agree with him. The ploy works perfectly. It is important to note that Agamemnon is not at all offended, not at all hostile, as we might expect him to be, considering what is said about his profession. Quite the contrary, he is delighted, commends what has been said, flatters Encolpius, and takes him into his professional confidence, explaining the problems of being a professor of rhetoric whose students are lazy and whose students' parents are indulgent. In this satire of satyrs it is not unlikely that Agamemnon finds Encolpius physically attractive and hopes for a sexual encounter with a simpatico young man of discriminat- ing taste. This interpretation would help explain why Encolpius leaves Agamemnon so unceremoniously at the end of chapter 78 and also his fears of being found alone by Agamemnon's assis- tant Menelaus in chapter 81.

Agamemnon's speech contains a passage (3.3-4) which is surely intended to be funny if we understand the circumstances of two rogues working on each other:

Sicut ficti adulatores cum cenam divitum captant nihil prius meditantur quam id quod putant gratissimum auditoribus fore, nec enim aliter impetrabunt quod petunt nisi quasdam insidias auribus fecerint; sic eloquentiae magister, nisi tamquam piscator eam imposuerit hamis escam quam scierit

Agamemnon can qualify as a poet on the basis of chapter 5. Encolpius does not praise his poem in our extant text, but his flattering interest in it is mentioned at the opening of chapter 6, which seems to have a lacuna. Or alternatively. praise of some lines of verse which Agamemnon mouthed was Encolpius' ploy in approaching him in the first place. Declaimers rarely if ever quote verse in the remains of the genre we have, but the Menippean conventions of the Satyricon could take precedence over that custom.

176




appetituros esse pisciculos, sine spe praedae morabitur in scopulo.

Agamemnon's description fits not only his technique with students, but with Trimalchio; he does not appear to realize that he is also describing the technique being used on himself by Encol- pius. We do not have the passage in which he invites Encolpius to dinner at his house or invites him to come to Trimalchio's house, or both, but it is clear from chapters twenty-six through twenty-eight and elsewhere that Encolpius and Ascyltus do indeed become better acquainted with Agamemnon and Menelaus and accompany them to Trimalchio's banquet.

The critical position reflected in Encolpius' speech is the most discussed aspect of these chapters.19 Doubtless it does echo, if not parody, views which could be heard occasionally in the first century from serious young men of a literary sort. The position might be described as Greek Atticism of the most uncompromising kind. The Atticism movement of the first century B.C. began with Latin in the time of Calvus,20 and in the Augustan period was imitated in Greek by critics like Dionysius of Halicarnassus. In Greek it then flourished for centuries; in Latin it is a much more exotic flower. Encolpius' point of view in this passage is clearly Greek. He mentions no Latin writer. As far as he is concerned, it would seem that literature ended with Hyperides. Caecilius of Calacte and other fashionable Greek rhetoricians of early imperial Rome would have approved. Later in the Satyricon (68), however, Encolpius claims to be a great lover of Virgil. If so, his passion for pure Greek is a pose. More likely, both statements are a pose.

Agamemnon recognizes immediately the purity of Encolpius' taste. He himself occupies a peculiar position between the two languages. In reply to Encolpius' Greek purity he immediately quotes Cicero, and the poem which he speaks in chapter five is primarily on the theme of the adaptation of Greek eloquence to Roman circumstances. Homer does not trouble himself much about the language of the Trojans, and Petronius does not allow

19 Cf. the works cited in note 3; J. Schonberger, "Petron, c. 1-5," PhW 58 (1938) 174-76; idem, "Nochmals Petron, c. 1-5," PhW 59(1939) 478-80, 508-12; idem, "Zu Petron, c. 3-5," PhW 60 (1940) 623-24; L. Alfonsi, "Petronio e i Teodorei," RFIC 76 (1948) 46-53; Sullivan, op. cit. (supra n. 17) 158-65.

20 Cf. Kennedy, op. cit. (supra n. 3) 241-44; 352-54.

177



GEORGE KENNEDY

linguistic differences to intrude into the action of the Satyricon, but it seems clear from these statements that we are to regard Agamemnon, for all his Greek name, as a teacher of Latin declamation. It was not the custom for a teacher to teach both Greek and Latin declamation,21 and if Agamemnon did he was a rara avis.

Eugen Cizek has recently protested at the common view that Encolpius and Agamemnon are in agreement about the faults of declamation.22 Agamemnon's point of view is in fact more prag- matic, that of the teacher of declamation, and especially of Latin declamation, while Encolpius mouths an impossible ideal. That Agamemnon begins by agreeing with Encolpius and praising him, but then proceeds to try to awaken his sympathies may be part of the erotic impulse which has been aroused in him. In any event, it is more a part of his dramatic characterization than of Petronius' desire to plead a consistent critical argument.

Peter George has claimed that Encolpius has a weak character and that this weakness is shown, among other ways, by the extent to which Agamemnon dominates him in this opening scene. He says, "Encolpius is naive enough and suggestible enough to parrot his teacher, hypocrisy and all. 23 Agamemnon is of course not Encolpius' teacher, and through much of the scene as we have it, Encolpius is out dangling his literary line and Agamemnon is dancing at the end of it. Like most of the characters in the Satyricon they deserve each other, but at least Encolpius succeeds in getting a dinner.24

GEORGE KENNEDY THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA

AT CHAPEL HILL

21 Quintilian's references (e.g. 2.5.5) seem to make it clear that in his time there were separate schools of Greek and of Latin rhetoric, and Pliny names his own two teachers in these subjects (Ep. 6.6.3). At the public shows of declamation attended by the elder Seneca there were sometimes speeches in both Greek and Latin, and Seneca quotes passages from the Greek speakers, but he indicates (9.3.13) speaking in Latin was regarded as more appropriate and that to declaim on the same day in both Greek and Latin was a virtuoso performance in

questionable taste. 22 Cf. "A propos des premiers chapitres du Satyricon," Latomus 34 (1975)

197-202. 23 Cf. "Style and Character in the Satyricon," Arion 5 (1977) 351. 24 I am indebted to Professors Gareth Schmeling and George Houston for

suggestions of bibliography and evidence.

178



Encolpius and Agamemnon in Petronius

Documents

Transcript of Encolpius and Agamemnon in Petronius