An opera to which I am very attached for various reasons, and which I therefore do not view with a completely neutral eye. It is a pure concentration of humor for classicists, which ironically and deforms with indescribable class almost every aspect of Roman society of that era (and who knows how many other aspects it touched on in the lost portions of the text!) and of the classical world in general. Stereotypes and literary genres are overturned, philosophies are inverted, exempla of myths and literature are completely (and deliberately) misused, and conventions are openly derided. In these aspects... it is a masterful text.

However, after this second complete reading, I can say that it is an opera that has aged poorly and is really difficult to appreciate for those who are not very familiar with the topics treated.

First of all, obviously, because of its incomplete state: it is difficult to appreciate a plot when such a large part of it has (so far) vanished into nothing; despite the curiosity that the story of this novel inevitably arouses, of which the identity of the author, the original extent, the beginning and even the end are mysterious, it can be frustrating to have so many (irremediably) missing pieces. Secondly, because of its overall length and the specific length of certain episodes (the coena Trimalchionis also gave me difficulty). Finally, because of the continuous repetition of the same themes and devices, which the first time make you laugh, the second or third time make you smile... the fifth time they have a bit of a B-movie effect. A term that I do not use completely by chance, because there is a certain... Italianness in the comic situations illustrated, for better or for worse.

It is a text that nevertheless deserves to be read, but in passages, so as not to lose its freshness and also to have the will and the strength to deepen what lies behind each of them.

I can't seem to remember where I stopped. It's quite frustrating.

Maybe it was in the middle of a task, or perhaps I was reading a book and got distracted.

I try to retrace my steps in my mind, but the details are a bit hazy.

It could be that I was interrupted by something urgent and forgot to make a mental note of where I was.

Or maybe I was simply too tired and my memory failed me.

Whatever the reason, not being able to remember where I stopped is causing me some inconvenience.

I'll have to take some time to go through my recent activities and try to jog my memory.

Hopefully, I'll be able to figure it out soon and get back on track with what I was doing.

If not, I may have to start from the beginning again, which could be a waste of time and effort.

But I guess that's just one of those things that happen sometimes.

I'll just have to be more careful in the future and make sure to keep better track of where I am and what I'm doing.

This had me laughing out loud at several points, which is truly quite impressive for a book of this age.

Its highly fragmentary nature presumably makes it more confusing than it originally was. However, I firmly believe that this very aspect adds greatly to its strange and captivating appeal. It is indeed a gaudy mess.

That being said, it's not all just fun and frolicking. The book is, in fact, a rather scathing attack on social artifice, much like so much of Roman literature.

Some of the fragments at the end read very soberly. For instance:

"My bed was soft, the early night was bliss.
My drowsy eyes surrender - Love broke my rest
And shook me by the hair in wild protest.
Nails ripped my flesh. 'To waste a night like this!
You're mine,' he said. 'You broke a thousand hearts,
Can you, hard-hearted, lie alone and rest?'\\" (p. 164)

This passage seems to convey a deeper and more poignant message beneath the surface of the seemingly light-hearted and fragmented narrative. It makes one stop and think about the true nature of love, desire, and the consequences of our actions.

Overall, this book is a unique and fascinating read that combines humor, satire, and a touch of melancholy.

Whether judged as satire or prose, it's hard to warm to this.

The nouveau riche are gauche. Great art is long dead and money reigns supreme now. Such sentiments have probably been popular since a time not long after the first artists and the displacement of the first elite.

Perhaps I'm being unfair. Is it even possible to fairly judge something of which so small a portion survives? There are hints here that the tale of Encolpius is modelled on that of Odysseus. It's like if we only knew of the episodes involving Circe and the Laestrygonians in the Odyssey.

As it stands though, this reads like an explicit Up Pompeii! or a self-aware Footballer's Wives. It lacks the depth and nuance that one might expect from a work that claims to be a significant piece of literature. The characters seem one-dimensional, and the plot is more about shock value than anything else.

However, it's important to remember that this is just one person's opinion, and others may find something of value in this work that I have missed. Maybe with further study and analysis, more of its true nature will be revealed.

Two young men engage in boisterous play within the Roman empire. Their actions are not without a cause, as they are locked in a battle over who gets to have an inappropriate relationship with a teenage boy. It's rather interesting to note that in a time when many texts have been lost to the annals of history, this particular work has managed to survive. And perhaps, due to its scarcity and the unique nature of the story it tells, it has come to be considered a "classic". One can only wonder what the true significance of this work is and how it has managed to endure through the ages.

I am an ardent admirer of ancient Greek and Roman literature. Their magnificent tragedies, vivid portrayals of epic heroism, and enchanting myths have always held a special place in my heart.

When it comes to Satyricon, I have a deep affection for it as well. However, there are times when I find myself a bit confused about what is going on, which slightly diminishes the comic effect. I do believe that comedy ages differently than tragedy. This doesn't imply that it's inferior. For instance, Shakespeare's comedies and the Greek comedies still enjoy great popularity among literature enthusiasts and art lovers.

Nonetheless, I have always adored the scenes at Trimalchio's feast, where the most sumptuous and outrageously exotic food is served. The tale of the widow and the soldier, with its darkly comic nature, also captivated me. I was highly amused by the Satyricon's ironic, detached, yet somewhat entertained perspective on the mores of its characters. The inclusion of burlesque poetic portions in the work was also a delight, demonstrating that even though it may not be the most mainstream or conventional way of writing novels, it is possible to combine verse and prose. Herman Melville's Moby-Dick, I think, showcases similar experimentation through its integration of traditional novelistic narration and dramatically-staged scenes in the Shakespearean style.

Sarah Ruden's supplementary analyses of antiquity, especially those on oratory, the Roman household, and sexuality, are truly remarkable. I adored her translation of the Aeneid and appreciate her book Paul Among the People, which offers an astute reading of Paul as a critic of the Greco-Roman world in late antiquity.

The fact that the surviving parts of the Satyricon are fragmented helps to explain why I find it a bit peculiar. Perhaps a second reading would bring the work to life more vividly.

In any case, I thoroughly enjoyed getting a taste of Petronius. Next on my list is Apuleius' Golden Ass.

The Satyricon is truly an artifact in every sense.

First and foremost, its fragmentation is blatantly obvious. Nearly two-thirds of the books that comprised the original work are lost, and the ones we have, except for a single book, are all fragmented with large or small portions missing. At times, you'll come across a page filled with nothing but individual sentences, one after another, all lacking their original contexts. Reading it is like your roommate watching a film in another room, and you偶尔 step in and catch a few minutes here and there. This makes the reading experience extremely frustrating.

Almost as frustrating as its Roman-ness. This is where the other aspect of its nature as an artifact comes into play. It was never meant to be highbrow; it is deeply immersed in the underbelly of Roman culture, which is part of the reason it wasn't preserved like the Aeneid. However, on the plus side, you get some funny anecdotes about pederasty. On the other hand, for the average reader, most of the jokes will go over their heads. There'll be a joke about how the couches in a Roman house are set up, and you'll think nothing of it until you read the footnote explaining the joke, eliciting no more than a "huh" or an "ok" from you.

And this insight into the culture, especially in the well-written appendix commentaries, can be interesting if you're into Roman life and culture. It's a wonderful artifact, I don't deny that. You either learn a lot or get to see first-hand source proof of what we know about Roman culture, which can be exciting. But it's not good literature in this state. Its jesting mood doesn't make up for how frustrating it can be to read. Occasionally, you'll get a chuckle, and there was one startling passage of contemplation followed by some truly striking verse. But then passages will read like the Roman equivalent of one of the lesser chapters in a Brett Easton Ellis novel, cut to pieces in a way that makes you unsure if you missed anything of value. It can be interesting, yes, but I can't recommend it.

Judging the Satyricon is a superfluous and ridiculous thing, as it is undoubtedly one of the most extraordinary works of all ancient literature. The vote expressed can only refer to the original text, therefore. As for the Oscar Mondadori edition translated by Piero Chiara and curated by Federico Roncoroni, it must be emphasized that - contrary to what is stated on the back cover - it is by no means "philologically adherent and precise", but rather very free and incomplete.

If such a choice has the undoubted advantage of making the text accessible with the immediacy of a modern novel, yet it makes it impossible to consider it as a reference version for anyone who really wants to know the text of Petronius.

It is important to note that while the translation may offer an interesting and engaging reading experience, it does not do justice to the original work in terms of accuracy and completeness.

For scholars and serious students of ancient literature, it is essential to consult the original text or a more faithful translation to fully appreciate the nuances and subtleties of Petronius' masterpiece.

Surprisingly modern in both writing and style, this piece also features a rather wild plot. I perceived it not only as a parody of the Odyssey but also as a sort of beatnik tale. It is filled with depraved adventures, where one thing leads to another on a geographical journey accompanied by crazy people and their captivating stories.

I'm not entirely certain how much the translator of my edition deviated in some aspects. For instance, in one scene, they were eating corn, which I'm fairly sure wasn't introduced to Europe until around 1500 years later. Nevertheless, it was fascinating to catch a glimpse of a tale that old, nearly 2000 years ago, and observe how it could easily be written today. It also made me realize how little I truly know about the mentality of those eras.

Obviously, these are just fragments of the original text, but I wasn't frustrated by that at all. Perhaps it's even a bit romantic to envision the endless adventures that those two heroes/anti-heroes are still undergoing, perpetually traveling. Maybe their tale is still being written today and continues to ignite the imagination of countless writers.

Hmmm.

To be honest, I'm truly at a loss when it comes to expressing my thoughts on this.

Did I have a liking for it? Was it of good quality? What was its significance? I really have no clear idea.

It wasn't that it was overly difficult; rather, it was just...peculiar.

It had me chuckling out loud on numerous occasions. I was astonished by how sexually explicit the writing could be considering it was composed around 100 AD.

Moreover, I was simply amazed by the strange and non-traditional storytelling approach that the author employed.

So, yes, I suppose I did have a certain degree of enjoyment from it.

As for what it ultimately boiled down to in terms of meaning? I haven't the foggiest.

However, in my opinion, it really doesn't matter all that much - it was all just纯粹的乐趣.

Satyricon is an extract from a larger work, which I found surprisingly funny, but which I would never be able to recommend to anyone.

The work shouts Roman crude humor and is filled with indirect criticism of Nero. At the same time, there also arise a lot of cool parallels and humor through the novel's characters who share names and title elements with the characters of the Iliad. These elements work together for an entertaining reading experience that gives only a small insight into the Romans' humor and entertainment.

However, I cannot recommend the book as its treatment of the female characters is sexist to a point where it becomes irritating for the reading experience. At the same time, many of the sexual aspects in the book are written without any consideration and seriousness, which although it is a by-product of the time and genre, can still make the reading experience difficult.

The ancient Roman picaresque novel in the superlative is truly a remarkable piece of literature. It is both gorgeous and spicy, captivating readers with its vivid descriptions and exciting plot.

I must admit that I was initially skeptical, as I do not usually have a penchant for picaresque novels. However, this particular work managed to win me over.

The story is filled with colorful characters and thrilling adventures that keep the reader on the edge of their seat. The author's use of language is masterful, painting a vivid picture of ancient Roman life and culture.

Despite its flaws, the ancient Roman picaresque novel in the superlative is a must-read for anyone interested in literature or history. It offers a unique perspective on a bygone era and is sure to leave a lasting impression.

Overall, I highly recommend this novel to anyone looking for an engaging and entertaining read. It is a true gem of ancient literature that deserves to be discovered and enjoyed by a wider audience.