﻿THE AGE OF PETEONIUS ARBITER. 123 



proof of uncommon luxury, and no mention is made of Nero's invention of "aqua 

 decocta," we arc justified in supposing that Pctronius wrote before Nero, who reigned 

 from 54 to 68 A. D., or at least before that invention of Xero. 



It is highly probable that the Scaurus mentioned c. 77. 5 is iEmilius Scaurus, who 

 committed suicide in 84 A. D. As he is spoken of in that passage as still living, 

 it would follow that the Satja-icon was written before the year 34 A. D. 



The circumstance that Trimalchio (in c. 71. 1), while speaking of the manumission 

 of several of his slaves by testament, does not allude to the restriction placed upon the 

 action of the master by the " lex Furia Caninia," which was enacted in 4 A. D., might 

 induce us to place the composition of the Satyricon before that year, were it not that 

 this supposition clashes with the positive evidence concerning the " Vigiles," which 

 were organized by Augustus two years later. The negative evidence that Trimalchio 

 does not mention the "lex Furia Caninia" when we shoiild naturally expect that he 

 would do so, must yield to the positive evidence establishing that the book was written 

 after the organization of the VigQes, in 6 A. D. 



The result, therefore, of our investigation into the historical e\idence is, that there 

 is the highest degree of probability that the Satyricon was written some time between 

 6 and 34 A. D. ; that is to say, during the last eight years of the reign of Augustus, 

 or the first twenty-one of that of Tiberius. The probability of this result is strength- 

 ened by all those passages considered in the above pages, Avhich, while they afford no 

 hint for deteiinining the precise time of the composition of the book, contain nothing 

 inconsistent with the result at which we have arrived. For the mention (c. 2. 7) of 

 the influence which Asiatic eloquence exercised upon that of the Romans, of " sera " 

 (c. 16. 2), of "hiems Gallica" (c. 19. 3), of " cjinbalistria" (c. 22. 6), of the "literae 

 quadratae" (c. 29. 1), of large landed estates (c. 48. 2 and 3), of the " vicesimarii " (c. 

 65. 10), of Virgil's iEneid (c. 68. 4), of the price of slaves (c. 68. 8), of golden rmgs 

 (c. 71. 9), of the name " Maecenatianus," of the "decuriae," and of the amount of 

 property inscribed on the sepulchral monument (c. 71. 12), of Menecrates (c. 73. 3), 

 of Ceesar as heir of Trimalchio's master (c. 76. 2), of the "arena" (c. 81. 3), of the 

 province of Asia (c. 85. 1), and of " plastae" (c. 88. 5), is not only not incompatible with 

 the result stated above, but several of the circumstances in question are positively favor- 

 able to that conclusion, especially the name "Maecenatianus" (c. 71. 12), and the men- 

 tion of Cfesar as heir of Trimalchio's master (c. 76. 2). The story of malleable glass 

 (c. 51), even if it were less apocryphal than Pliny plainly represents it, is not incon- 

 sistent with my conclusion. The same is the case with the two poems introduced c. 89 

 and 119, — the former on the taking of Troy, the latter on the Civil AVar, — if they 

 are viewed in the light in which I have represented them. 



