Customer Reviews

The Satyricon

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This is all that remains of what was apparently a much longer work - unless Petronius' allusions to lost episodes of the text are merely for effect, which they might be. The best known of the surviving sections is "Trimalchio's Dinner-party", which is devoted to a description of a vulgar and opinionated self-made man with much more money than sense or learning. The satire is razor-sharp. The book revolves around the misadventures of Encolpius (who is impotent), his lover Ascyltus, and Giton, for whose sexual favours the two of them quarrel bitterly. No account of the book would be quite complete with mentioning that little detail; so let the buyer beware. After Encolpius and Ascyltus split up, Encolpius and Giton fall in with Eumolpus, who is a thorough con man and generally a complete scoundrel. And of the same tastes as the others. Petronius drops his characters in one compromising situation after another - and leaves them to get themselves out.

Warmly recommended for the social comedy. And not pornographic.

Follow the bawdy adventures of Encolpius through the
decadence of Nero's Rome as he tries to maintain the
love of his beautiful young male slave Giton. They
must contend with an evil roommate, Ascyltus -- also
vying for the attentions of Giton -- an orgy from the
Priestess of Priapus, a shipwreck, and a severe case
of impotence.

This satire of Roman life during the time of Nero
unabashedly shows the love (and sex) between
Encolpius and Giton. Not to mention the fact that
others -- both men and women -- also are attracted to
the beauty of young Giton and sometimes have their way
with him. It's quite humorous, sometimes a little
long in the speeches (like many Greek or Roman works
of the time) and even manages to throw in some poetry.

I was actually surprised at this openness to talk
about homosexuality in the First Century A.D. I would
have thought this to be a taboo suject at the time.
After some reasearch, I discovered that Petronius
actually served under Nero as his "arbiter elegantiae"
-- which means that he advised Nero on luxury and
extravagance. He was what would be considered today a
"partier:" sleeping during the day and staying up
until all hours with both young men and women, as did
Nero. So what Petronius writes about was actually
happening -- all the extravagant dinners, the orgies,
the openness of sexuality.

I highly recommend this!

(Also, as a note on the book. It is fragmentary. The
scholars have been unable to find a complete text of
"The Satyricon" so in reading it, you need to give a
little leeway in what happens.)

The Satryicon of Petronius, while not the first classical 'novel' I've read, is certainly a bit of a surprise in its frank depiction of sexuality in Ancient Rome. While not on par with modern day 'adult' works, it certainly was eye opening to see that such an early text, one that has survived to present day and is hailed as a classic work of literature, went as far as it did.

While fragmented and very random, as only a portion of what is believed to be a much larger text has survived, the story opens with what appears to be a breakup and disagreement between two lovers, Ascyltus and Encolpius, when it is determined that they both lust after the same young house-boy, Giton. However, the two decide to leave the appearance that they are still a pair for a time, and venture off to a dinner party hosted by the wealthy and rather boastful Trimalchio, where they are treated to course after course of delightful, and not so delightful, foods, as well as orations of poetry, and dinner entertainment in the form of certain deceptions carried out on the guests.

Following this evening of wine, food, and debauchery, one of the pair, Ascyltus, disappears from the tale. However, Encolpius and Giton are then joined by the learned poet Eumolpus, who also harbors a deep lust for the handsome young Giton.

The three board a ship (another great gap in the narrative as the reason for this voyage has no explanation at all) where they are met with less than fortunate circumstances before finally disembarking the ship in a manner which none of them foresaw.

Concluding with tales of amorous woe on the part of Encolpius, the story ends very abruptly, and definitely without the satisfaction of having read a complete work.

As this is believed to be only a surviving fragment of the original text, readers can only guess at what fills in the gaps in the story, and the leaps in location that occur. While this tends to be a bit frustrating, when trying to read the Satyricon as a 'novel'; if the work is simply taken as a series of vignettes, it does not fail to entertain.

An interesting look at the rather 'bawdy' side of life in Nero's Rome.

That's five stars for the Satyricon of Petronius, not for this particular translation, although the introduction and notes are very good. I have not read any other translation to completion, but from what I have read in the Penguin edition, that translation is better to my tastes. This Oxford World Classics translation attempts to lower the Satyricon to a "hip" colloquialist style that the translator thinks would appeal more to youthful college age readers. To me it came across as a stodgy classics professor trying to act cool. Again, the notes and introduction are very helpful for setting the context of the scenes and explaining some of the satire that would probably not be apparent to the modern reader.

But the genius and charm of the original could shine clearly through even the most inept translation! Satyricon is a Roman novel from the first century A.D. that has come down to us only in fragments. The plot is sort of a mock epic that revolves around a lovers' spat between two youthful male lovers, Encolpius and Acyltus, who fight between themselves over a beautiful slave boy Giton. The work is a unique creation from a wholly different cultural mindset that interweaves a high literary tone with the most bawdy, even pornographic subject matter. Even the fragments draw the most memorable, compelling characters in Trimalchio, the neuveau riche lord, and Eumolpius, the prolific but incompetent poet. Satyricon is truly a gem of world literature, even if a shattered one.

It's possible, very possible, that the fragments of Satyricon that we have form the bulk of the original work, but tantalyzing hints found in ancient sources suggest a vast novel which is largely lost. The pain of this loss can only be compared to those agonizing gaps in the fossil record that may never be revealed, or to the vague hints at wonderous creatures forever beyond our ken, such as the giant teeth of the Meglodon, which in the absence of a complete skeleton leave us only to wonder at how splendid this prodigy of the seas was in life. Thankfully though, enough of the Satyricon survives to bite any reader of taste and discrimination.

What can one say about this work other than that it has been for nearly two thousand years a most controversial piece of work. Yet clearly controversy alone does nothing to make a piece of work valuable, great, or even worth reading. This work however is all of the above. Although the best way to read the work is in the original Latin (use a study guide if needed, and you most likely will), the English still preserves the power, wit, and hilarity of the work. This is perhaps the first true novel ever written and it is hilarious. At times it reads like a vaudeville sketch at others like Dionysian fantasy and it is truly all these things. I cannot recommend the work any more, if it inspired James Joyce and countless other great writers it certainly must be worth something. So I urge you not to listen to the other reviewers and take this work for what it is, imperfect of course, yet in this imperfection so unimaginably beautiful.

The content of the Satyricon provides a potentially fascinating insight into life in Roman times. Unfortunately, this version of the book was a bit of a disappointment for several reasons.
First, there are no maps. It seems having a few maps would greatly help the reader to orient himself or herself within the Roman world. The result is the reader is left to fend for himself or herself in this regard.
Second, there are no diagrams, save for one quite poorly annotated seating arrangement for Trimalchio's dinner party. Again, a few diagrams would have helped the reader to understand the text better.
Third, the translator used too many current vernacular English expressions rather than preserving the text and feel of the Latin of the original text. In so doing, ancient Roman phraseology has been obliterated rather than preserved. It would have been better to preserve the older wording and use footnotes to explain the meanings.
Fourth, the footnoting is really and truly frustrating! Unless one has a library of classics at hand, the footnotes lose much of their impact. Other texts are referenced frequently, which makes the footnote less clear unless one has the references handy. And even then, the reader must work to dig out the reference, find the portion cited, and then draw the desired conclusions. In one case, the translator cited Acts 19 as providing an excellent insight into life in the Roman Empire of the period. Reading Acts 19 reveals that such information is sparse at best, and practically useless at worst. This, of course, calls into question the value of the other footnotes.
Basically, this is an opportunity missed. Better to find another translation which is truer to the original text and which is better footnoted.

I had to read this book for class. I loved the class, I hated the book--as did everyone else in the class. We hated reading the book so much that we couldn't even give the movie a fair shot.

The book is hard to read for multiple reasons. I can't talk about the quality of the writing, since that would depend on which translation one is reading, but no matter who did the translation, some things can't be fixed. First of all, this novel is made up of only the surviving parts of the original story. There is supposed to be more, but it's lost to us, and so all we have to read are bits and pieces. This makes it, understandably, difficult to follow the story. But beyond that there was, for me, a greater problem: the bits that were there were unpleasant. They were violent, disgusting, graphically sexual, and otherwise distasteful. I didn't want to find out what had happened in the missing bits, because I didn't enjoy what was happening in the bits there were.

Perhaps a different translation might be able to make up for the unpleasantness of the story by having excellent prose that would make me want to keep reading...perhaps. I've both loved and hated The Iliad because of different translators, so I can't say that it's impossible. But I doubt it.