﻿THE AGE OF PETRONIUS ARBITER. 81 



from this passage as well as others, that Becker, for reasons which he docs not ex- 

 plain, places Petronius in the reign of Claudius (from 41 to 54 A. D.). Starting from 

 this presumption, he must of course find in the passage the double absurdity which he 

 mentions. But if we suppose that Petronius wrote about the time when the Opimian 

 vintage was one hundred years old, was there any absurdity in Trimalchio's placing the 

 above inscription on the vessels 1 Certainly not. The principal and perhaps the only 

 charge which can be made against the passage is the addition of " annorum centum." 

 It cannot be denied that the inscription was an unusual one, in so far as it stated the 

 age of the wine by the addition of " annorum centum," instead of mentioning merely 

 the consul in whose year the wine was made, the usual mode of marking wine, and 

 leaAing it to the reader to make his own calculation as to the age of the wine, — a cal- 

 culation of which Trimalchio, knowing the intellectual condition of the majority of his 

 guests, wished, perhaps, to save them the trouble. However i^lausible the view which 

 Becker and others take of this -passage is, it is not free from serious objections. The 

 principal one is that it implies a petitio principii. Becker assumes the very thing 

 which is to be proved, namely, the age of Petronius, and in consequence gives to this 

 passage an interpretation which in itself is not free from doubts and difficulties, and 

 rejects a simple and natural one. It is true, Trimalchio shows himself in many respects 

 a remarkably ignorant man, but he certainly knows what is good eating and drinking ; 

 and this being the case, it is more natural to expect from his vainglorious propensity 

 that he Avould exaggerate than imderrate the age of his mne. Burmann, in his note 

 to this passage (p. 191), explains the addition "annorum centum" very ingeniously.* 

 But even if it be conceded that the mention of the age of the wine was contrary to 

 custom, Trimalchio is convicted of a departure from established usage only; his ve- 

 racity is not affected. 



Were the decision of the question of the age of Petronius to depend on this passage 

 alone, unconnected with other evidence, I should adopt its obvious interpretation, and 

 find in it an argument in favor of the year 21 B. C. (733 U. C), as the time in which 

 Petronius wrote. But it is not so. The passage (60. 7), " et Augusto patri patriae 

 feliciter chximus," as will by and by be seen, is mconsistent with this assumption, and 

 obliges us to place the tune of the composition of the Avork at least nineteen years later. 

 I shall not endeavor to account for the discrepancy of these two important passages ; 

 it is sufficient for me to recognize its existence, and conduct my argument accordingly. 



* " Potuit et titulus ille affixus fuissc anno centesimo post Opimii consulatum et ita mutato possessore ad 

 Trimalchionem venisse, qui plura sibi a patrono relicta jactat c. 52." 



