﻿THE AGE OF PETRONIUS ARBITER. 59 



entire contents of the communication ; liis object was to ]3oint ont the indejDencIent 

 spirit of the former favorite of tlie emperor, as contrasted with the ser^-ility of others 

 in similar circumstances, and not to analyze the communication in a literary point of 

 view. Studer does not ignore the difficulty that all attempts of discovering or idcntif^-- 

 ing in the narrative of the Satyricou the doings of Xero and his court have hitherto 

 faUed. He concedes that the attempts of Gonsalas de Salas in this direction are par- 

 ticularly absiu-d ; but he meets this difficulty by the very convenient supposition, that 

 Nero caused the passages relating to himself, and which must have been peculiarly 

 offensive to him, to be destroyed. 



Studer meets by a similar argument the objection raised by StatUius, that, if the 

 Satj-ricon was the satire on Xero spoken of by Tacitus, the predomuiant trait of his 

 character, his cruelty, would be mentioned, saying that Tacitus does not comprehend 

 all the shamefi.ll deeds of Nero in the term " flagitia priucipis," and even if the word 

 "flagitia" were to be taken hi a more comprehensive sense, the fragmentary condition 

 of the Sat}Ticon would sufficiently account for the absence of any mention of this part 

 of Nero's character. 



The weighty objection of Burmann, that Petronius had no leisure, in the short time 

 elapsing between his disgrace and suicide, to compose so voluminous a work as the 

 Satyricon, is met by the remark that Tacitus does not say that it was written within 

 that short period ; that Tacitus does not speak of its composition, but of its trans- 

 mission to Nero. Studer either allows himself here a latitude of interpretation that 

 cannot be conceded to him, or overlooks the fact that the language of Tacitus is plain, 

 and capable of one interpretation only ; he says, " flagitia principis . . . perscripsit atque 

 obsignata misit Neroni." If the book had been written previously to the disgrace of 

 Petronius, Tacitus would have said, " antea perscripta misit," or used an equivalent 

 expression ; as the language stands, " perscripsit" cannot mean anything else than an 

 act contemporaneous vvith " misit." If Petronius sent the book at that time, he also 

 wrote it at that, and no other, time. 



The manner in which Studer meets another objection of Burmann, which he ac- 

 knowledges to be the most plausible, is equally feeble and unsatisfactory. Burmann 

 remarks that Petronius's communication was destined for the emperor ; he sent it to 

 him sealed ; the emperor could not but be deeply offended by it, and did certainly 

 nothing to allow or aid its publication. Studer suggests the possibility that a copy of 

 the work might have been previously deposited in safe hands. Nay, he goes so far as 

 to think it possible that Nero, with the exception of those portions exposing his de- 

 baucheries, might have been pleased with the production, and, after those objectionable 



