﻿THE AGE OF PETRONIUS ARBITER. 113 



War. It is a brief sketch, and if its adnoirers insist iipon it I am even willing to call 

 it a clever sketch, of the subject ; but to compare this mere sketch with the long and 

 elaborate work of Lucan, appears to me like comparing the epitomes preceding the 

 single books in Livy's inimitable work with that work itself, and to say that they are 

 free from that poetic and rhetorical ornament in which the work itself abounds, — that 

 they are more strictly historical. And what assurance have we, granting every merit 

 to the sketch which its admirers claim, that, if Eumolpus had attempted to fill up and 

 complete it, it would not have been a miserable failure, not worthy to be mentioned in 

 the same breath with Lucan's Pharsalia ■? 



But even if we overlook the inherent diiiiculty of comparing two works so different 

 in extent and size, and actually make an attempt at a comparison of the production of 

 Eumolpus with the Pharsalia of Lucan, numerous and glaring as are the defects of the 

 latter, we look in vain for the excellences which must exist in the poem of Eumolpus 

 in order to justify the hypothesis that he Avished, by contrast, to exhibit the short- 

 comings of Lucan. It is impossible that the work of Lucan, so full of beauty with all 

 its defects of plan and detail, can, in the opinion of an impartial and qualified reader, 

 suffer by a comparison with the i^roduction of Eumolpus. And yet, if Petronius, 

 according to this hypothesis, wished to ridicule Lucan, and expose his deficiencies by 

 contrasting them with a better specimen, how can we reconcile his selecting so imperfect 

 a production with his acknowledged character as a man of rare culture and refined taste 1 



The same propensity to which I have been obliged to advert in other instances — 

 I mean the propensity which finds everywhere in the work of Petronius satires upon 

 individuals, which sees in Trimalchio a satire on Xero, and similar absurdities, and 

 Avhich has done so much to prevent a correct understanding and full appreciation of the 

 excellences and spirit of Petronius — has been at work here. I consider the work of 

 Petronius a picture of the manners and life of his time, painted with unrivalled fidelity 

 and skill. He may have, he undoubtedly has, borrowed single traits and circumstances 

 from liAang individuals and current events, but the whole of his personages and their 

 adventures is the author's creation. Whencesoever the single particles of the material 

 may have been derived, they have been moulded, by the creative genius of the author, 

 into new, original, and harmonious forms, and the attempt of tracing any one of these 

 particles to an historical person or event is not only an idle and bootless undertaking, 

 but one which is calculated to pervert the point of view from which the author's crea- 

 tion should be seen. 



These remarks suggest, in my opinion, the key to a correct interpretation of the 

 object of Petronius in introducing the poem of Eumolpus on the Civil War, We 



