False Fortuna: Religious Imagery and the Painting-Gallery Episode in the Satyricon

Mike Lippman (Rollins College)

While in the pinacotheca (sections 83-90), Encolpius admires pederastic artwork of the great Greek masters, is introduced to the poet Eumolpus, and hears his rendition of the sack of Troy. Only when he and Eumolpus are driven away by a less-than-adoring public reception, however, does the reader learn that this paint-gallery lies within a temple. Although briefly noted by previous commentators, the importance of this location has not yet been adequately investigated. This paper illustrates how the religious setting of these crucial episodes- quite possibly in a temple to Fortuna- provides a new interpretive dimension to these scenes and their overall relation to the novel. For, after the debauch at Trimalchio’s, Encolpius had been betrayed, foiled at revenge, and was considering suicide. A temple visit by a character in such a vulnerable emotional state may have created expectations for religious conversion, but instead of giving Encolpius closure, Petronius sends him off onto another round of chaotic adventures with a new, but no less problematic, companion. Epiphany and salvation are thus both suggested, but are only illusions.

Although the temple’s deity is never identified, Fortuna is a likely candidate. As a patron goddess of sailors (sometimes linked with Isis) known to have cults around the Bay of Naples, she may well have had a temple near Encolpius’ seedy beachfront Greek hotel. Fortuna lurks elsewhere in the novel’s background and is an appropriate god for both theme and genre. Finally, having the temple be dedicated to Fortuna would give a particular emphasis to the final line of section 82, where just before the episode begins, Encolpius says, seemingly apropos of nothing: Non multum oportet consilio credere, quia suam habet fortuna rationem.

Once the temple setting is identified and understood, every subsequent action must be reevaluated with these religious overtones. Encolpius’ experience with the artworks borders on worship, as he chooses words of religion and awe to express his spiritual hunger. His revelation, such as it is, is to connect his erotic sufferings with those of the gods, but this is not sufficient for him to do more than begin his spiritual quest. Eumolpus, whose very name evokes Eleusis and the mysteries, appears to him in lieu of the expected mystagogus. Unfortunately, he is like one of the corrupt guides who plagued holy sites, characterized by ancient travelers as greedy fonts of misinformation. His tale of the Pergamum boy, his lament for the liberal arts and his recitation of the Troiae halosis all have ironic religious overtones when Eumolpus is read as a priest-substitute. Rather than giving him a set of answers or an escape, Eumolpus only complicates Encolpius’ life by adding to his struggles with the corrupting and decadent influences of the Greek world, sex and art. Each episode in the temple, then, has a different significance when the location is taken into consideration. As the wide variety of different interpretations of this particular scene in current scholarship illustrates, the episode leaves readers unresolved on issues just when we, like Encolpius, want resolution most.