A Message for the Critics in Petronius’ ‘Bellum Civile’
(Sat. 118-124)

Stephen M. Kershner (University at Buffalo, SUNY)

At Satyricon 118, as he walks to Croton with Encolpius and Giton, Eumolpus the poet offers a literary critical position that espouses a traditionalist approach to literature and decries any experimental novelty in the composition of epic poetry. His specific targets in this tirade are those poets who compose historical epic, particularly if they shun the use of the gods and insert rhetorical sententiae into their compositions. As a supplement to his literary analysis, Eumolpus offers an example of the right way to compose historical epic with a 295 verse Bellum Civile. Previous Scholarship has generally assumed that Petronius here directs his satire at Lucan because of parallels between Lucan’s Pharsalia, a historical epic, and Eumolpus’ Bellum Civile and Lucan’s status as both orator and poet. Scholarship has diverged, however, as to the exact nature of Petronius’ message in this passage. Some scholars, such as Luck (1972), Walsh (1968), and Sullivan (1968), have suggested that Petronius offers this Bellum Civile as a seriously intended correction of Lucan’s mistakes in composing his Pharsalia. Others suggest that Petronius has created an obvious parody of the Pharsalia in keeping with the satirical nature of the Satyricon as a whole. Most scholars, such as Courtney (2001) and Connors (1998), agree that Eumolpus’ Bellum Civile is mediocre at best.

In this paper, I contend that neither of these positions, correction or parody, sufficiently describe the nature of Petronius’ message and I offer an alternative position based on two premises: (1) Petronius, by characterizing Eumolpus as pretentiously mediocre, sketches a parodical portrait of Neronian poets, just as he did of wealthy freedmen with Trimalchio. (2) Petronius contends that these poets show a blind devotion to those poetic techniques that are laudable in previous poets such as Vergil, but clog their own poetry with an overwrought, unoriginal mediocrity. In discussing these two points I conclude that Petronius, in an effort to address the problem of the decay in literary quality in the Imperial period, directs his message at those who criticize the innovative verses of poets like Lucan. Therefore, instead of seeing Eumolpus’ Bellum Civile as a correction or parody, it is more profitable to see it as an apology for Neronian innovation and poetic genius. Petronius thus suggests that the only way to reverse literary decay is to allow for poetic innovation to produce new classics rather than retreating to the innovations of predecessors, which leaves poetry stale and sterile.

I come to this conclusion by discussing, first, the seemingly plausible traditionalism that Eumolpus presents in section 118, which grounds itself in Horatian literary criticism with the “studied felicity of Horace” (Horatii curiosa felicitas, 118.5), advocates a poet’s immersion in a “flood of literature” (flumine litterarum inundata, 118.4), and demands the excision of all rhetorical sententiae from epic. Then I discuss the nature of Eumolpus’ failure to match the standards that he presents, focusing on the hackneyed mannerism of his Bellum Civile. Ultimately, I contend that this contradiction, between theory and practice, must be Petronius’ point in this passage and that his message must be directed not at poets such as Lucan, but rather Lucan’s critics.