Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-sh8wx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T13:52:40.675Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

QUEER SOCIALITY AND PETRONIAN FRATERNITY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 January 2023

Jay Oliver*
Affiliation:
University of Guelph jolive18@uoguelph.edu
Get access

Extract

‘How tough it is for outlaws’ (quam male est extra legem uiuentibus, Sat. 125.4), laments Encolpius, the petty-criminal narrator of Petronius’ Satyrica, as he frets about whether he and his buddies will be found out as they engage in a scheme to fleece the legacy hunters of Croton. But Encolpius and his crew are outlaws in more senses than one. Having forgotten, or simply disregarded, marital-reproductive household arrangements, they engage in novel forms of relationality that their cultural lexicon can barely cover as they quest after sex, feasts, money, or simply subsistence. Much Petronian scholarship, promoting a reading that looks down on the characters, views these forms of relationality as parodic and ‘purely comic’, ludicrously failed attempts by low, satirized characters to appropriate sublime Roman social institutions like fraternal pietas. In this article, taking as my primary example the reformulation of brotherhood and the use of the kin term frater by Encolpius, Ascyltos, and Giton, I read these forms of sociality as queer: that is to say, potentially challenging to normativity rather than simply inadequate to meet its demands. Petronian brotherhood, read in this light, appears richly shaded and contested, not merely a one-dimensional misappropriation composed for the benefit of a ‘superior’ elite audience. What exactly it means to be a ‘brother’ in this postlapsarian world is always an active question in the scenes involving the trio. I offer in this article a more detailed close reading of Petronian brotherhood than has been possible in other, briefer scholarly accounts, focusing in particular on the competing conceptualizations of ‘brotherhood’ by different characters, from Encolpius’ exclusive use of the term as something like ‘boyfriend’ to Ascyltos’ more capacious use of the word.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Ramus 2023

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, J.N. (1982), The Latin Sexual Vocabulary (Baltimore).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bannon, C. (1997), The Brothers of Romulus: Fraternal Pietas in Roman Law, Literature, and Society (Princeton).Google Scholar
Breitenstein, N. (2009), Petronius, Satyrica, 1–15. Texte, Übersetzung, Kommentar (Berlin).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cerutti, S., and Richardson, L. (1989), ‘The Retiarius Tunicatus of Suetonius, Juvenal, and Petronius’, AJP 110, 589–94.Google Scholar
Conte, G.B. (1996), The Hidden Author: An Interpretation of Petronius’ Satyricon (Berkeley).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Courtney, E. (2001), A Companion to Petronius (Oxford).Google Scholar
Dickey, E. (2007), Latin Forms of Address from Plautus to Apuleius (Oxford).Google Scholar
Foucault, M. (1978), The History of Sexuality: An Introduction (New York).Google Scholar
Gunderson, E. (2003), Declamation, Paternity, and Roman Identity: Authority and the Rhetorical Self (Cambridge).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habermehl, P. (2006), Petronius, Satyrica 79–141: Ein philologisch-literarischer Kommentar (Berlin).Google Scholar
Halperin, D.M. (1995), Saint Foucault: Towards a Gay Hagiography (New York).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanson, J.A. (tr.) (1989), Apuleius: Metamorphoses (Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
Jensson, G. (2004), The Recollections of Encolpius: the Satyrica of Petronius as Milesian Fiction (Groningen).Google Scholar
Morgan, J.R. (2009), ‘Petronius and Greek Literature’, in Prag and Repath (2009), 3247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, K. (ed.) (2009), Petronius: Satyricon Reliquiae, fourth edition (Berlin).Google Scholar
Prag, J., and Repath, I. (eds) (2009), Petronius: A Handbook (Chichester).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richlin, A. (2009), ‘Sex in the Satyricon: Outlaws in Literatureland’, in Prag and Repath (2009), 82100.Google Scholar
Rimell, V. (2002), Petronius and the Anatomy of Fiction (Cambridge).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruden, S. (tr.) (2000), Satyricon (Indianapolis).Google Scholar
Schmeling, G. (1994/95), ‘Confessor Gloriosus: a Role of Encolpius in the Satyrica’, WJA 20, 207–24.Google Scholar
Schmeling, G., and Setaioli, A. (2011), A Commentary on the Satyrica of Petronius (Oxford).Google Scholar
Sedgwick, E.K. (1985), Between Men: English Literature and Male Homosocial Desire (New York).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walsh, P.G. (tr.) (1997), The Satyricon (Oxford).Google Scholar
Williams, C. (1992), Homosexuality and the Roman Man: A Study in the Cultural Construction of Sexuality (PhD Diss.) (New Haven: Yale University).Google Scholar
Williams, C. (2012), Reading Roman Friendship (Cambridge).CrossRefGoogle Scholar