﻿126 THE AGE OF PETRONIUS ARBITER. 



parison do not exist; and in consequence of this entire absence of other specimens of 

 the language of this class of persons, such a comparison is impossible. 



From these few remarks it will be perceived, that, whatever evidence of language is 

 to be found in the work of Petronius tending to throw light on the question of its age, 

 it will chiefly, if not exclusively, be found in the narrative of Encolpius, and the con- 

 versations and other specimens of language of the more cultivated persons introduced 

 into the story, such as Eumolpus, Lycas, Trjqiha^na, and Circe ; although the A'alue of 

 these portions of the book, in this point of view, is again greatly diminished by the fact, 

 that either the subjects are different from those treated by standard authors with whom 

 we might be induced to compare them, or that the form is a different one. If we com- 

 pare these portions of the Satyricon with any prose writer of the period between Cicero 

 and Nero, who is prepared to say how far their subject affected the language of the 

 historians Livy, Curtius, and Veil ejus, who again are so widely different from one an- 

 other, — of the architect Vitruvius, — of the philosopher Seneca, — and what allowance 

 is to be made for this circumstance in judging of their language and style ? Again, if we 

 make a comparison between these portions of the Satyricon and certain passages in the 

 poems of Catullus, Horace, TibuUus, and Ovid, however similar the subjects may be, the 

 form of the latter, being poetic, compels us to make so many and great allowances, that 

 the result of such a comparison cannot be satisfactory. But however unpromising the 

 prospect may be in entering upon an examination of the language of Petronius for the 

 purpose of ascertaining from it the age of the author, the work has to be done ; and if 

 it does not result in a positive answer to the question when the Satyricon was written, 

 it may at least in a negative, by proving that the language is not at variance with, 

 and furnishes no ground for opposing, the result of the above examination of the his- 

 torical evidence. 



"While it must be conceded that the specimens of language of the humbler dramatis 

 personae in the Satyricon throw but little light on the question of the age of the writer, 

 they should not be entu-ely overlooked even in this point of -view. I shall make the 

 beginning with their grammatical peculiarities. 



Trimalchio uses, c. 39. 5, coelus for caelum, and cormim for cornu; c. 47. 4, Jovis for 

 Jupiter; c. 51. 3, vasum for vas ; c. 59. 1, sanguen for sanguis ; c. 61. 2, suavius esse 

 for suavis esse ; c. 63. 3, margaritiim for margarita ; c. 63. 4, strigae for striges ; c. 71. 1, 

 lactem for lac, and mains fatus for malum fatum (see c. 77. 2, fatus mens) ; c. 75. 8, 

 quisquilia for quisquiliae ; c. 76. 5, gusti for gustui ; c. 75. 10, candelabrus for candela- 

 brum; — c. 47. 4, pudeatur for ptudeat ; c. 48. ^, fastiditum for fastidivisse ; c. 51. 3, 

 pote for p)Otest ; c. 63, 8, amplexaret for aviplexaretur ; c. 64. 2, delectaris for delectus ; 



