﻿60 THE AGE OF PETROMtS ARBITER. 



portions were once destroyed, had no reason for pre^'enting the publication of the 



rest. 



After this, as it seems to me, unsuccessful, although ingenious, attempt to find 

 in the passage of Tacitus a reference to our author and our work, Studer proceeds to 

 examine the other passages in ancient writers which mention Petronius, and he judges 

 in theix' case with much more independence and fairness than in that of Tacitus. He 

 states with great impartiality the arguments for and against the early period of the 

 life and writings of Terentianus INIaurus, and concludes that, until the question of the 

 age of Terentianus Maurus is settled, his testimony as regards the age of Petronius is 

 of little weight. He further acknowledges, that the other witnesses, none of Avhom is 

 older than the fourth centiu-y of the Christian era, are of even less weight ; but he 

 strenuously and ably meets the argument that Petronius could not have lived under 

 Nero, because neither Quiatilian nor Plmy nor Suetonius mentions him. He men- 

 tions other writers, such as ISIanilius, Paterculus, Phaedrus, Curtius, Florus, who are 

 equally unsupported by witnesses of their own times. 



Studer shows, in the next place, the insufficiency of the argument that Petronius 

 must have lived after Martial and Statins, because several detached verses and sentences 

 are found in them as well as in Petronius, by remarking that it is equally possible that 

 ISIartial and Statins borrowed from him, or both parties from a thii'd source, so that 

 the coincidence is accidental ; or that Hieronymus, who quotes one of the passages in 

 question (" non bene olet, qui bene semper olet ") as from Petronius, was mistaken in 

 ascribing it to Petronius instead of Martial. 



Of the hjqDothesis of Niebuhr he says very justly : " The untenable character of this 

 hypothesis, for which the renowned name of its author procured an undeserved credit, 

 is briefly pointed out by Orelli in his Inscript. Lat. Vol. I. p. 257." 



Having thus declared his conviction that the Petronius of Tacitus is the author of the 

 Satyricon, and the communication sent to Nero our work, and having met the arguments 

 of those who, directly or indirectly, oppose this ^iew, Studer proceeds to an examina- 

 tion of the internal evidence, which he naturally divides into evidence furnished by 

 the diction and style of the book, and into that which is to be found in the contents. 

 He enters upon the consideration of the linguistic evidence with some very judicious 

 and sensible remarks concerning the qualified reliability of this kind of evidence. He 

 refers to the fact, that, while the language of a certain period, as exhibited by the great 

 body of writers, has unquestionably somethmg in common which may be called the 

 style or diction or language of that period, there are exceptions, such as Vitruvius and 

 Lactantius, the former of whom in his style fell short of the purity and elegance char- 



