Slater, 'Theatrum Arbitri: Theatrical Elements in the Satyrica of Petronius. Mnemosyne', Bryn Mawr Classical Review 9508
URL = http://hegel.lib.ncsu.edu/stacks/serials/bmcr/bmcr-9508-slater-theatrum
@@@@95.9.18, Panayotakis, Theatrum Arbitri (second review)
Costas Panayotakis, Theatrum Arbitri: Theatrical Elements in
the Satyrica of Petronius. Mnemosyne Supplement 146.
Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1995. Pp. xxv + 225. $60.00. ISBN
90-04-10229-9.
Reviewed by Niall W. Slater -- Clare Hall, Cambridge, and
Emory University
The influence of mime and its performance on the composition
of Petronius's novel, the Satyrica, has long been
recognized. All students of Petronius will know the important
discussion of mime in P. G. Walsh's still fundamental The
Roman Novel (Cambridge, 1970--recently reprinted by Bristol
Classical Press) and essential work by Gerald Sandy (e.g.,
TAPA 104 [1974]: 329-46), but as Panayotakis shows in
his thorough introductory chapter, the modern debate over the
importance of mime influence goes back to Collignon and
Rosenblueth. Despite the extent of the discussion heretofore, a
monograph on the relations of mime to Petronius's novel has been
a desideratum, which Panayotakis aims to fulfill. His crisp and
stimulating articles on portions of the text in Classical
Quarterly (44 [1994]: 458-467) and Mnemosyne (47
[1994]: 319-336) have promised very well, and the sections of
his book based on these are among its strongest. His complete
study, focussing primarily on mime elements but also considering
the influence of other theatre performance traditions (especially
Roman comedy), has much valuable material to offer, although the
overall result is somewhat uneven.
The book is divided into an Introduction, seven chapters on
what Panayotakis sees as the major divisions of the surviving
text, and a brief conclusion. The Introduction (absolutely
integral to the book's argument, although curiously paginated in
Roman numerals like the brief Preface) begins with a survey of
the scanty and mostly late descriptive evidence for the nature of
mime. Concerned to emphasize the "realism" of mime (especially
in its variety of characters), Panayotakis makes the potentially
misleading claim (p. xviii) that "in mime there are no stock
characters who star in different comic situations every time."
This is true (and it is important to distinguish mime from the
rigid character formulas of the Atellan farce), but the reader
who does not grasp the essentiality of the word "every" to this
statement will be puzzled by later references to such "stock
characters" of the mime as the MASTROPO\S (p. 177). The second
section of the introduction briefly surveys previous discussions
of mimic influence on Petronius, from Marius Mercator to the
present. A little more perspective on the hostility of many
writers, particularly Christian apologists and theologians, to
the very notion of theatrical representation might have been
helpful here. As Jonas Barish, The Antitheatrical
Prejudice (Berkeley 1981) puts it (p. 43): "It is helpful to
recall, when confronted with the high-pitched antitheatrical
rhetoric of the Fathers, that they felt themselves embattled,
entrusted with the salvation of masses of tepid converts who
understood their new religion ill and had no thought of
sacrificing their accustomed pleasures to it." In the
Introduction and elsewhere, Panayotakis often writes of the
"obscene" in mimes. I cannot be quite sure, but he appears to
use the term far more in the root classical sense of "not suited
for stage performance" than in the narrower modern sense of
explicit sexual representation, a usage which may indeed color
the unwary modern reader's views.
The subsequent seven chapters form a running commentary on the
text, identifying mimic elements and, where possible, whole
scenes or episodes in which mime structure is the predominating
influence. The grounds for recognizing such structures are not
completely consistent. Panayotakis calls our attention to the
"triangular pattern" (p. 10) in both the brothel scene (6.1 -
8.4) and the subsequent quarrel of Encolpius and Ascyltus over
Giton, and much later the presence of "only three actors" in
scenes from Encolpius and Circe's love affair is another argument
for seeing this story as "a caricature taken from the stage" (p.
169), but the presence of many more than three speaking
characters at the dinner with Trimalchio, for example, is not
taken as an argument against theatrical influence.
The explicit reference to "mimic laughter" (mimico
risu, 19.1) in the Quartilla episode has led to considerable
previous discussion of mime influence here. Panayotakis seeks to
take this further with particular emphasis on the visual and
gestural elements of Quartilla's performance within the scene,
although he admits that her character as such does not come from
the previous theatrical tradition (p. 38). Panayotakis even
experiments with rewriting the scene as dialogue and stage
directions (an experiment later repeated with the quarrel of
Encolpius and Ascyltus in 79.11 - 80.6) in order to articulate
its theatrical qualities. The results are intriguing and
certainly reinforce the general belief in the importance of mime
to Petronius's composition of the Quartilla episode. I confess
to some nagging doubt, however, as to whether such influence
fully explains Petronius's achievement here. Panayotakis quotes
with approval Gareth Schmeling's description of the "telescope
effect" (p. 35) as this scene is ever more narrowly focussed,
first through the outer door, then the inside door, then the
crack in that door as Encolpius and Quartilla spy on the mock
marriage of Giton and Pannychis. But this interpretive construct
of the scene stems not so much from a theatrical as from a
cinematic model. Like Encolpius's spying upon Eumolpus's
pygesiaca sacra with the young girl at Croton, the
Quartilla scene owes something to the eavesdropping scenes of New
Comedy, yet this effect of observation through a key-hole
(compare also Encolpius watching the maltreatment of Eumolpus at
96.1 by the other lodgers) represents a significant new
development. A modern play such as Joe Orton's What the
Butler Saw can place the theatrical audience in the situation
of voyeurs gazing through a keyhole only because of the existence
of cinematic peepshows with such titles; there is no cinematic
model already in Petronius's culture. Panayotakis is astringent
in his comments on J. P. Sullivan's psychosexual explanations of
such voyeuristic scenes, and it is true that straightforward
Freudian readings have not worn well. This should not blind us,
however, to the depth of Petronius's innovation here: the
"telescope effect" is startlingly new and achievable only in
Petronius's chosen medium of prose narrative.
The chapter on the dinner with Trimalchio is naturally the
longest and is divided into eleven subsections, to some extent
following the courses of the meal. While claiming a number of
direct stage influences (e.g., that the hunting scenes on couch
coverings introduced at 40.1 function like painted mime scenery
or that the mulionum fata of 69.5 are related to mimes
about mule-drivers), Panayotakis cautiously concludes in the end
that the mime influence is here subordinate to that of satire in
the overall composition of the Cena. While the chapter
again offers a number of valuable observations, there are some
curious inconsistencies. On a single page (p. 53) the
Cena is described both as a "diligently composed sequence
of theatrical events that are interconnected through Trimalchio's
stage directions" and as "incidents ... heaped up" which do not
"follow a particular pattern in clear order...." The first is a
well-justified claim for Petronius's greater artistry as compared
to other satiric descriptions of dinners. The latter is a much
shakier general claim which attempts to dismiss T. K. Hubbard's
elaborate theory of ring composition in the Cena. Some of
Hubbard's claimed parallels are less compelling than others, but
the overall pattern is considerably more impressive and
convincing than Panayotakis is prepared to allow.
Indeed, it is quite surprising that Panayotakis does not seize
upon the notion of ring composition in the Cena as a
hallmark of the orality of the Satyrica, for throughout
this book he is very concerned to emphasize the claim that the
original audience of the novel experienced it orally, i.e., by
being present at a recitation of the work. The debate over oral
influence (especially in the freedmen's language) and original
reception of the novel (recital as after-dinner court
entertainment versus distribution to a reading audience)
remains lively. The notion that the text was designed for oral
performance is not, however, a logically necessary consequence of
the argument that Petronius was influenced in his work by mime
and other theatrical performances. It is perfectly possible for
Petronius to have been consistently influenced, not just by the
text of mime but also its performances, and yet have written in
order to be read, not to be listened to. In his anxiety
to keep the influence of stage performance front and center,
Panayotakis inveighs against the notion that Petronian characters
could have inner lives or psychologies, especially such as we see
in the later novel: see for example his rejection (p. 9, n. 34)
of Cecil Wooten's very interesting conclusions about the effects
of rhetorical education on the character of Encolpius and his
comrades. Yet Panayotakis himself tells us (p. 77) that "the
passion of Echion, the centonarius, for spectacles in the
amphitheatre has had a clear impact on the way he sees life"--
that is, Echion sees life as stage, especially mime performances.
Why is a minor character to be allowed a personality and an
individual psychology, but the first-person narrator Encolpius is
not? Certainly there are "oral" features to Petronius's text
(see especially the work of the Tuebingen group, notably E.
Lefevre and G. Vogt-Spira, cited by Panayotakis), but these
should not be seen as limits either to the depths of
characterization in the novel or to the complexity of issues
Petronius seeks to address.
Panayotakis's discussions of the influence of mimes on
jealousy or adultery themes are particularly interesting, since
these intimately involve the central characters. More detailed
examination of the impact of transferring these plot types to
homosexual situations would have been welcome, though: are the
parts in these plots truly interchangeable, or is there a wider
implication to a farcical scene in which "Encolpius is the
callida nupta" (p. 134)? Panayotakis himself finds it
"strange" (p. 161) that, while there are numerous explicit
references to mime in the legacy-hunting plot at Croton, the
inset heterosexual narrative of Encolpius/Polyaenus and Circe
contains no mime references whatsoever. Are there any
conclusions to be drawn, especially from the contrast with the
plots involving Encolpius and Giton?
Some more general remarks on the presentation of the volume
are in order. Translation practices are not completely
consistent. In general, Panayotakis gives both the Latin text
and his own (workmanlike, although occasionally problematic)
translations in the main text, while in footnotes he gives only
the original text (e.g., p. 131 n. 27). Yet he omits the Latin
originals of quotations from Cicero and Quintilian on p. xvi and
Cicero and Seneca on p. 55 (where the Latin would be quite
helpful) while quoting Moering's 1915 dissertation only in its
original Latin (p. xxiv), which will be no help to the (perhaps
now entirely mythical) general reader or modern literature
student interested in the beginnings of prose fiction. His
annotation practice seems to be to give the full bibliographical
citation of a work the first time it occurs in the notes and then
use a version of social science format (e.g., "Sandy 1974, 329")
thereafter. As there are no cross references and full citations
are given in the bibliography at the end, this does make for
rather overlong notes at the beginning of the book. The
bibliography is thorough and wide-ranging.
Panayotakis sets out to study the influence of both mime and
other theatrical performances on the text of the Satyrica.
He is more successful in the former than in the latter aim.
While drawing quite interesting parallels between situations in
New and especially Roman comedy (e.g., the use of letters in
Plautus and in the Encolpius / Polyaenus and Circe episode), he
is honest enough to admit the significant differences which
remain. Nor does this mean the attempt was not worth making:
Roman comedy was certainly part of Petronius's experience, even
if he more likely read than watched it. Panayotakis, like others
before him (including this reviewer), often speaks of the
"theatricality" of a situation or a character's behavior in the
novel, even when there is no suggestion of a specific mimic or
theatrical influence. Theatricality is a slippery term, but in
the age of Nero it is certainly more than just a literary
phenomenon, as Shadi Bartsch's recent and fascinating book,
Actors in the Audience (Harvard 1994), so eloquently
demonstrates. Panayotakis concludes his book by deprecating
"imaginative interpretations" which try to make the
Satyrica into something more than the "sophisticated,
scabrous book" (p. 196) he conceives it to be. Given the promise
of this present monograph, one hopes that in his future work the
author will be more willing to engage with the complex relation
of literary theatricality to the wider cultural processes and
obsessions of the age of Nero.