Abstract

TheSatyricahas long been associated with a Neronian courtier named Petronius, mentioned by Tacitus in hisAnnals. As such, the text is usually dated to the mid first centuryc.e.This view is so established that certain scholars have suggested it is ‘little short of perverse not to accept the general consensus and read theSatyricaas a Neronian text of the mid-60sad’. In recent years, however, there has been a groundswell of support for re-evaluating this long-held position. Laird, after comparing the ‘form and content’ of the text to the Greek novel, came to the ‘unattractive’ conclusion that the text may be second century. Similarly, in two recent pieces inCQ, Roth argues that the manumission scene in theCenaestablishes a newterminus post quemfor the text; she suggests that the freedoms granted by Trimalchio closely parallel—and parody—descriptions of awardingciuitasfound in the letters of Pliny the Younger. Indeed, the three slaves manumitted in the novel are associated with a boar (Sat.40.3–41.4), Dionysus (Sat.41.6–7) and a falling star (Sat. 54.1–5); likewise, the three slaves that are the subject of Pliny's letter are C. Valerius Aper (boar), C. Valerius Dionysius (god of wine) and C. Valerius Astraeus (stars). Roth's argument suggests that the author of theSatyricawas not Nero's contemporary but a member of Pliny's intellectual circle, offering strong circumstantial evidence that troubles the accepted tradition on the work's authorship and date.