Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T12:23:21.722Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘The Uses of Literacy’ and the Cena Trimalchionis:I1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 September 2009

Nicholas Horsfall
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Richard Hoggart's The Uses of Literacy, published in 1957, is subtitled ‘Aspects of working–class life with special reference to publications and entertainments’. He writes of industrial west Yorkshire before and after the last war. If we look for progress on similar topics elsewhere, in Italy Armando Petrucci – whose stimulus I gratefully acknowledge – has undertaken notably stimulating analyses of popular publications and low-level education, for instance in his exhibition catalogue ‘Scrittura e popolo nella Roma barocca’. For the Roman Empire – where some at least of the necessary evidence does exist – not only very little progress, but, I suspect, several steps in the wrong direction.

Type
Research Article
Information
Greece & Rome , Volume 36 , Issue 1 , April 1989 , pp. 74 - 89
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1989

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

NOTES

2. First published, Chatto and Windus, London 1957 and often reprinted. Cf. also e.g. V. E. Neuburg, Popular Literature (Harmondsworth, 1977).

3. Ediz. Quasar, Roma, 1982; cf. also his anthology, Libri, editori e pubblico nell' Europa moderna, Univ. Laterza 383 (Bari, 1977)Google Scholar.

4. The material is most fully collected by Gigante, M., Civiltà delle forme letterarie nell' antica Pompeii (Napoli, 1979), pp. 163–83Google Scholar, Solin, H., Enciclopedia Virgiliana 2 s.v. Epigrafia, pp. 333–4, Petrucci (n. 38), 53–54, Horsfall (n. 37), 50–59Google Scholar.

5. Cf. Coffey, M., Roman Satire (London, 1976), pp. 187f.Google Scholar, Walsh, P. G., The Roman Novel (Cambridge, 1970), pp. 114–7, 125–8Google Scholar, Sullivan, J. P., ANRW 2.32.3, p. 1669, D'Arms (n. 6), p. 113Google Scholar.

6. D'Arms's, John chapter on ‘The typicality of Trimalchio’ in Commerce and Social Standing in Ancient Rome (Cambridge, Mass., 1981), pp. 97–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar breaks much new ground, by the application of sobriety and good sense. His pupil J. P. Bodel (diss. Ann Arbor, 1984) has refined numerous details in his thesis on ‘Freedmen and the “Satyricon” of Petronius’. Early publication is to be hoped for. Prof. Bodel gave me generous encouragement when this paper was at a formative stage. I therefore leave questions of economic, social, and political outlook aside; they have been covered recently and well.

7. Realism: Bodel, pp. 1–39, esp. 27 n. 4, citing, e.g., Auerbach, E., Mimesis (Eng. tr., Princeton, 1971), pp. 24–33Google Scholar, Sullivan, J. P., The Satyricon of Petronius (London, 1968), pp. 97–106Google Scholar. Narrative: cf., e.g., Coffey (n. 5), pp. 194–8; characterization: cf the second part of this study on Trim, and music.

8. Puteoli: D'Arms (n. 6), pp. 105–6, Bodel (n. 6), pp. 224–32. I am rarely inclined to criticize Smith's, M. S. comm. on the Cena (Oxford, 1975) for over-caution, but pp. xviii–xixGoogle Scholar, however, understate a good, sound case.

9. Walsh (n. 5), p. 81, Coffey (n. 5), pp. 186–7, Smith (n. 8), p. xx, George, P. A., Arion 5 (1966), 349–56Google Scholar.

10. Sullivan, J. P., ‘Satire and Realism in Petronius’ in Critical Essays on Roman Literature; Satire (London, 1963), pp. 73–92Google Scholar does not view ‘realism’ in the historical and archaeological terms with which I am here concerned.

11. Cf. Kenney, E. J., Lat. 22 (1963), 704–20 for JuvGoogle Scholar.

12. Diogenes (38.7) and Phileros (46.8) begin as porters; cf. (38.14) Iulius Proculus the undertaker, Echion, , centonarius (45.2Google Scholar; rag-dealer/fireman), Plocamus (singer, 64.2), Agatho (perfumier, 74.15). Phileros has become a causidicus; Habinnas' job is unclear. Chrysanthus is a small-scale entrepreneur; no-one, even allowing for Trim.'s exaggerations, undertakes business on his sort of scale.

13. For Greek names, cf. p. 77; for names of Eastern origin, cf. Trimalchio (with Bremmer, J. N., Mnem. 34 (1981), 395–6)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Massa (69.5), Habinnas (65.5), Seleucus (42.1), Bargates (69.4). See Bodel (n. 6), pp. 47, 78; the detail is repeatedly underlined by Petr. himself.

14. J. P. Bodel (n. 6), pp. 40–71 and Petronian Society Newsletter 18 (1986), 10Google Scholar on contrasts between Trim, and Hermeros.

15. Smith (n. 8), pp. 220–4, Walsh (n. 5), pp. 122–4, Petersmann, H., ANRW 2.32.3, pp. 1692–1705Google Scholar, von Albrecht, M., Meister römischer Prosa (Heidelberg, 1983), pp. 152–63Google Scholar. Cf. also the notes of Ed. Fraenkel on the Widow of Ephesus, postumously reprinted in Belfagor 27 (1974), 687–90.

16. Cf. Adams, J. N., Latin Sexual Vocabulary (London, 1982), pp. 215Google Scholar on Petr.'s restraint.

17. Smith (n. 8), pp. xx–xxi.

18. Not so much 29.3ff. as 48.2, 77.3 and esp. 75.10ff. Cf. Walsh (n. 5), p. 128 and D'Arms (n. 6), pp. 98–99 for the history of interpretations of Trim.'s economic activity.

19. 71.5ff., D'Arms (n. 6), pp. 108–16.

20. D'Arms (n. 6), pp. 117–9.

21. Did Petr. write unam (sc. amphoram) (thus the ms.) or urnam (thus Gronovius' emendation)? The sundial is unparalleled on a Roman tomb, as James Kerr (n. 1) noted, after Gibbs, S., Greek and Roman Sundials (Yale, 1976)Google Scholar. It is not even clear whether Petr. wrote fingas or pingas to introduce all these details. Delz, J., at Gnom. 34 (1962), 683Google Scholar, is not the last word.

22. Walsh (n. 5), pp. 115–20; Maiuri's commentary (Naples, 1945) remains much the most convenient place to find archaeological and epigraphic analogies.

23. On the date and identity of the author, the acute and prudent remarks of Smith (n. 8), pp. xii–xiv are very much to be preferred to the oft-repeated speculations of Sullivan, J. P., ANRW 2.32.3, pp. 1666–8Google Scholar and Literature and Politics in the Age of Nero (Ithaca, 1985), pp. 153–79Google Scholar, etc. No uninformed reader could ever guess that we have still neither dated exactly the Sat. nor identified precisely its author. Nor, on the present evidence, can we. On the Murecine tablets, see D'Arms (n. 6), pp. 106–7, Bodel (n. 6), pp. 138 and 172 n. 70, Harris, W. V., ZPE 52 (1983), 108Google Scholar.

24. Amply discussed elsewhere: see refs. in n. 15.

25. Smith (n. 8), pp. 220–4, Maiuri (n. 22), pp. 227–35.

26. Heraeus, W., Kleine Schriften (Heidelberg, 1937), pp. 52–150 is indispensableGoogle Scholar.

27. von Albrecht (n. 15), pp. 155, 163, Petersmann (n. 15), pp. 1695–6.

28. Bodel (n. 6), pp. 75, 100–1, Smith (n. 8), p. xxi, George (n. 9), 336–58, Knoche, U., Roman Satire (Bloomington, 1975), pp. 122–3Google Scholar, Dell'Era, A., Problemi di lingua e stile in Petronio (Roma, 1970), pp. 25–51Google Scholar, Cena ed. Perrochat, P. (Paris, 1952), pp. xv–xviGoogle Scholar.

29. Bodel (n. 6), pp. 53f., on 72.10, Cameron, A., Lat. 29 (1970), 405–6Google Scholar.

30. Trilingualism, even; much ingenuity has been devoted to the pursuit of Semitic elements in the language of the Cena; cf. esp. Hadas, M., AJPh 50 (1929), 378–85Google Scholar; ample bibliography in Bodel (n. 6), p. 103 n. 25 and in the bibliography of G. L. Schmeling and J. Stuckey (Leiden, 1977), s.v. ‘Oriental and Jewish references’.

31. Commentators all cite CIL 6.33929, epitaph of a child of 7, qui studens litteras Graecas, non monstratas sibi Latinas adripuit. See Bonner, S. F., Education in Ancient Rome (London, 1977), pp. 44–45Google Scholar.

32. Smith (n. 8), p. 223, Coffey (n. 5), p. 199, Ernout, A., Aspects du vocabulaire latin (Paris, 1954), pp. 81–84Google Scholar.

33. Hofmann, J. B., La lingua d'uso latina (Bologna, 1980), pp. 127–34Google Scholar; the Italian translation (by L. Ricottilli) greatly expands and updates the original.

34. Le Latin vulgaire des inscriptions pompeiennes, Ann. Acad. Scient. Fenn. B.XL (Helsinki, 1937), pp. 187–90Google Scholar.

35. Griffin, J., Latin Poets and Roman Life (London, 1985), pp. 9–10Google Scholaret passim, Petrochilos, N.Roman Attitudes to the Greeks (Athens, 1974), pp. 69–87Google Scholar, Balsdon, J. P. V. D.Romans and Aliens (London, 1979), pp. 33–38Google Scholar.

36. Horsfall, , EMC/CNV 23 (1979), 84–88Google Scholar, Kaimio, J., Romans and the Greek Language (Helsinki, 1979), pp. 309–11Google Scholar, W. Kroll, Kuhur der cic. Zeit (repr. Darmstadt, 1963), pp. 240–1.

37. Marichal, R., REL 35 (1957), 82Google Scholar, Horsfall, , Atti del Convegno mondiale scientifico di Studi su Virgilio 1982 (Milano, 1984), 2, p. 51Google Scholar.

38. Horsfall, ibid., M. Gigante (n. 4), l.c. and Virgilio e la Campania (Napoli, 1984), pp. 83–85, A. Petrucci in Virgilio e noi (Pubb. Ist. Fil. Class. Med., Genova 74, 1981), p. 53.

39. Plin., Ep. 4.7.6Google Scholar does not of itself prove that circulatores declaimed literary works in public places; but see Booth, A. D., G&R 27 (1980), 166–9Google Scholar.

40. Horsfall (n. 37), p. 49, Suet., Aug. 40Google Scholar, Cal. 45, Ner. 47.1, Dom. 91.

41. Horsfall (n. 37), p. 60 n. 36, (n. 36), 87, Kroll (n. 36), p. 240, Kaimio (n. 36), p. 191, Jocelyn, H. D., YCS 23 (1973), 64, 76Google Scholar.

42. Though Tiberius (Suet., Tib. 70.2Google Scholar) had no taste and Caligula (id. Cal. 34.2) no love for Virgil, and though Lucan, under Nero, inverts and subverts so much of the Aen., Virg. had cast in definitive form the foundation legend of Rome and the gens Iulia, Horsfall, , Vergilius 32 (1986), 10–11Google Scholar, Roman Myth and Mythography, BICS Suppl. 52 (1987), p. 24Google Scholar.

42. Petrucci (n. 38), pp. 53–54; cf. Harris (n. 23), 109–10 on the lack of real evidence for Pompeian schools.

44. CIL 4.1527, 9987, 4401, Horsfall (n. 37), p. 50, Joly, D., Caesarodunum 13bis (1978), 95, 97Google Scholar.

45. From Virgil's lifetime to the c.6 A.D., Horsfall (n. 37), pp. 47, 49, Bonner (n. 31), p. 123, Quinn, K., ANRW 2.30.1, pp. 152–3Google Scholar, Tac., Dial. 13Google Scholar, Don., Vit. Verg. 11Google Scholar.

46. Horsfall (n. 37), p. 49, Macr. 5.17.5, Suet., Ner. 54Google Scholar, Owen, on Ov. Tr. 2.519Google Scholar, Flor., Virg. 1.6Google Scholar, Aug., Serm. 241.5Google Scholar (Migne, PL 38.1136Google Scholar), Hier., Ep. 21.13.9Google Scholar, Wille, G.Musica romana (Amsterdam, 1967), p. 226CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

47. Juv. 6.434–7, Marquardt, J., Mau, A., Privatleben der Römer (Leipzig, 2nd ed. 1886), p. 338Google Scholar.

48. Diod. Sic. 3.67, 4.25 should give some idea of the flavour of such talk; cf. Lucr. 3.1036– 8, RAC s.v. Erfinder (Thraede).

49. Cf. Quint. 10.1.106, Macr. 5.1, Juv. l.c. (n. 47) with Courtney's note, Smith on Petr. 55.5.

50. Mocked at Sen., Apoc. 5.4Google Scholar; cf. Nero's liking for philosophical disputes after dinner.

51. ILS 5177, Hardie, A., Statius and the Silvae, (ARCA 9, 1983), pp. 22, 82–88Google Scholar, Coleman, K., ANRW 2.32.5, pp. 3098–9Google Scholar. For the fashion, cf. Cat. 50, Mart. 10.19.18ff., Hardie pp. 52, 85 with n. 53, Plin 4.14.2, 7.4, 7.9.9f., Suet., Tit. 3.2Google Scholar, Gramm. 23.3.

52. Jory, E. J., Papers in Honour of Otto Skutsch, BICS Suppl. 51 (1988), pp. 80 f., Macr. 2.7.6–7Google Scholar. Tac., Ann. 14.16Google Scholar, Suet., Tib. 70.2–3Google Scholar, and on Aug., Horsfall, , Ancient Society (Macquarie) 17 (1987), 16–18Google Scholar, adducing Ptolemaeus Chennus ap. Phot. p. 151a27.

53. Nep., An. 13.1Google Scholar, Varr. ap. Gell. 1.22.5, Juv. 11.179–81, Suet., Aug. 74Google Scholar, Plin., Ep. 6.31.13Google Scholar, Plut., Q. Conv. 711BGoogle Scholar. But Pliny, referring to Trajan, and Suet, do not specify that a ‘reading’ is meant; cf. Petr. 53.12, 78.5 for the flexibility of acroama. For readers, cf. Treggiari, S., AJAH 1 (1976), 90Google Scholar, PBSR 30 (1975), 56, 74Google Scholar, Roman Freedmen (Oxford, 1969), p. 148Google Scholar, Balsdon, J. P. V. D., Life and Leisure (London, 1969), pp. 44–45Google Scholar, Rawson, E., Intellectual Life (London, 1985), p. 51Google Scholar.

54. Starr, R. J., Herm. 115 (1987), 252–3Google Scholar, Rawson (n. 53), p. 42, Marshall, A. J., Phoen. 30 (1976), 261–2Google Scholar, Suet., Iul. 44Google Scholar with BICS 19 (1972), 122Google Scholar.

55. Walsh (n. 5), pp. 137–9.

56. Gigante (n. 4), pp. 153–7.

57. Cf. Smith ad loc. with many strong arguments against, e.g., Giancotti, F., Mimo e Gnome (Messina, 1967), pp. 231–74Google Scholar.

58. Aegyptus 63 (1983), 210Google Scholar, Coccia, M.RCCM 20 (1978), 799–804Google Scholar. But Trim.'s travesty need conceal no lost or misunderstood version of the story. Cf. Gigante (n. 4), pp. 55–68 for Homer at Pompeii.

59. POxy 42.3001 (M. L. West); Horsfall, , JHS 99 (1979), 45CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

60. Starr, R. J., Lat. 46 (1987), 199–200Google Scholar. Blümner, H.Sitz. Bay. Ak. 1918.6 (‘Fahrendes Volk in Altertum’) is delightful and fundamental (cf. p. 5)Google Scholar.

61. Plin., Ep. 7.24.4Google Scholar with Sherwin-White's, note, Suet. Aug. 74Google Scholar, SHA Hadr. 26.4, Plut., Q.Conv. 711E ff.Google Scholar, Treggiari (n. 53, 1975), 56 and n. 115, Balsdon (n. 53), p. 282, Blümner (n. 60), 6–7. For performances of Greek and Roman comedy under the early Empire, cf. Jory, E. J. in Studies in Honour of T. B. L. Webster 1 (Bristol, 1987), pp. 149–50 (n. 2)Google Scholar.

62. Cf. Wille (n. 46), pp. 24, 179.

63. But is Trim, thinking of the Spartan Menelaus and the Spartan founding of Tarentum, through his usual distorting lens? Other examples of Trimalchionean garbling follow, of a similar and consistent pattern.

64. Weitzmann, K., Ancient Book Illumination (Cambridge, Mass., 1959), pp. 69–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar; on Megarian bowls: cf. Rotroff, S., Hesp. 51 (1982), 332CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Current Anthropology 19 (1978), 387CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Horsfall (n. 59), 47, (n. 58), 207–8.

65. Note 70.2: ‘Daedalus’ for an exceptionally inventive cook! Cf. Vidman, L., Anc. Soc. 2 (1971), 162–73Google Scholar.

66. 29.9; cf. Horsfall (n. 59), 43–44, (n. 58), 213.

67. Smith (n. 8), pp. 217–9 is full of good sense; see too Coffey (n. 5), pp. 187–8, Walsh (n. 5), pp. 136–7. For another view of the relations of Sen. and Petr., see Rose, K. F. C., The Date and Author of the ‘Sat.’ (Mnem. Suppl. 16, 1971), pp. 69–74Google Scholar, Sullivan, (n. 23, ANRW), pp. 1681–4Google Scholar, (n. 23, 1985), pp. 172–6.

68. (n. 58), 208–14, (n. 59), 26–48; cf. JHS 103 (1983), 144–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Note esp. (n. 59), 28–29, for word- and letter-plays on the walls of Pompeii and Ostia: e.g. SUILIMEA and ROMA-MILOOLIM-AMOR.

69. TAPA 115 (1985), 153–65Google Scholar; cf. further refs. at Athen. 66 (1988), 24Google Scholar n. 25 on ‘invention’ in Roman scholarship.

70. Cf. p. 77 for mythological allusions in semi-proverbial expressions and Gigante (n. 4), passim for mythological references on the walls of Pompeii; see e.g. CIL 4.2331 (Labyrinth) with Corte, M. della, Case ed abitanti di Pompeii2 (Pompeii, 1954), pp. 425–6Google Scholar, Diehl, E., Pompeianische Wandinschriften (Kl. Texte 56, Bonn, 1910), pp. 5–6Google Scholar.

71. Smith's note is full and useful. Cf. too Frazer on Ov. F. 3.535 and Ov. M. 14.130ff., for the Sibyl's misfortune.

72. Cf. Sedgwick's note on 45.4 (he is rarely so helpful), Ferguson, J., Utopias of the Classical World (London, 1975), pp. 174–5Google Scholar, A. Graf, Mitt, leggende e superstizioni del medio evo, (repr. Bologna, 1980) 1, pp. 230–8. Does lacte gallinaceum (38.1) belong in the same sphere of ideas? Crusius (n. 73), pp. 37f. thought so.

73. Five instances where a proverb clearly does correspond quite closely to a fable surviving in an ancient form are 63.2, asinus in tegulis (Babr. 125); 56.9, murem cum rana alligata (Perry appx. 384), mus in matella (Babrius 60); 74.13, inflat se tamquam rana (Phaedr. 1.2). Cf. A. Otto, Sprichwörter der Römer(repr. Hildesheim, 1965), pp. xxix–xxv, Smith on 56.9, Crusius, O., Verhandl. 40 Samml. Dem. Philol. (Görlitz) (1890), pp. 37–47Google Scholar.

74. Note that a number of the terms of abuse applied to women in Petr. belong to a tradition (Woman as beast) that goes back to the c.7 B.C. (Semonides of Amorgos; see Lloyd-Jones, H., Females of the Species (Park Ridge, 1975))Google Scholar: 37.6, lupatria; 37.6, pica pulvinaris; 74.10, canis; 74.4, vipera; cf. 57.2, vervex of a man.

75. Cf. Ov. Af. 15.1 llff. with Bömer's note, Varr., R.R. 2.1.4–7Google Scholar; cf. 43.1, 76.8, crescit tamquam favus.

76. Philol. 117 (1973), 138Google Scholar, Ritti, T., Mem. Line. 21 (1977), 255Google Scholar.

77. Rankin, H. D., C & M 23 (1962), 134–42Google Scholar.

78. Il. 6.179, Virg., Buc. 3.104ff.Google Scholar, Schultz, W., PW s.v. Rätsel 111.32.ffGoogle Scholar.

79. CIL 4.3407 with Gigante (n. 4), pp. 50–51.

80. Individual letters were thought to carry numerical values, thus καἀζαρα = 666! On the mathematics of Apoc. 13.18, cf. CQ 24 (1974), 111CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

81. Cèbe, J.-P., La caricature et la parodie (Paris, 1966), pp. 264–5, 273, 280–82, 313–20, 331–4Google Scholar. Note e.g. 47.4, which looks like parody of Claudius' intended edict, Suet., Claud. 32Google Scholar.

82. Cèbe (n. 81), pp. 172–4, 369–70, Horsfall (n. 37), p. 50.

83. Which Hor. might well have played with Maecenas and Augustus, Serm. 2.1.49, Suet., Aug. 73Google Scholar, Anc. Soc. (Macquarie) 13 (1983), 163Google Scholar.

84. As Smith notes ad loc; Balsdon (n. 53), p. 165 misses the fun.

85. Pack, R., CPh 69 (1974), 214–5Google Scholar; Horsfall, , BICS 30 (1983), 96Google Scholar n. 1 for further refs.

86. Details remain unclear, despite the fascinating material gathered by Ullmann, B. L. and Brewster, P. G., CPh 38 (1943), 94–102Google Scholar.

87. Bromius, Lyaeus, Euhius, 41.6.

88. Plut., Mor. 191BGoogle Scholar (Agesilaus), Blümner (n. 60), 24.

89. His props, a cloak and a whip (cf. 69.5, boots), seem to guarantee mulionum against molionum (ms); possibly even flagra for the perplexing fata; Smith seems to forget we are talking about imitations.

90. The slave Massa is thus, though not himself a circulator, able to imitate them and with that training can likewise imitate a muleteer. For imitators in general, cf. Bliimner (n. 60), 24. Note CIL 6.4886 a slave of Tiberius, apparently both a silent and a speaking mime, and the first man to imitate court pleaders, causidici. See too CIL 6.10129 (with Cic., de Or. 2, 242, 244Google Scholar); in the history of the pantomime, cf. Jory, E. J., BICS 28 (1981), 147–61 and (n. 61), pp. 147fGoogle Scholar.

91. Cf. Blümner (n. 60), 12, 33–34, 47.

92. Blümner (n. 60), 20, Booth (n. 39), Scobie, A.RhM 122 (1979), 233Google Scholar = Aspects of the Ancient Romance (Meisenheim, 1969), pp. 27–29Google Scholar = Apuleius and Folklore (London, 1983), p. 11Google Scholar.

93. Cf. Plin., Ep. 3.7.6Google Scholar, Schol. Pers. 1.134, Scobie (n. 92, 1983), p. 11.

94. 72.6; the same gladiator as on his cups, Petraites.

95. Cf. Bodel (n. 6), p. 199. Grant, M., Gladiators (London, 1967)Google Scholar and Auguet, R., Cruelty and Civilisation (London, 1972)Google Scholar explain some of the allusions. Savi, F., I gladiatori (Roma, 1980)Google Scholar has exceptional illustrations.

96. Bodel (n. 6), pp. 180–209, Walsh (n. 5), pp. 121–2.

97. Tumolesi, P. Sabbatini, Gladiatorum Paria (Roma, 1980)Google Scholar, Ward-Perkins, J. and Claridge, Amanda, Pompeii A.D. 79 (London, 1976), pp. 62–63 and catal. 299–311Google Scholar, Grant, M., Cities of Vesuvius (London, 1974), pp. 72–75Google Scholar, Etienne, R., La Vie quotidienne à Pompéi (Paris, 1977), pp. 379–93Google Scholar.