In the following essay, Zeitlin contends that the inconsistencies, ambiguities, and incongruities of the Satyricon are deliberate and that they reflect Petronius's worldview, which embraced irrationality, chaos, and disintegration.
In the following essay, Bagnani explains the difficulties and contradictions that must be overcome in determining the authorship and date of composition of the Satyricon; rejects arguments of other scholars that involve circular reasoning; and concludes that it was written by the Petronius described in Tacitus's Annals around the year 60.
In the following essay, first published in 1940, Todd provides an overview of the Satyricon, including a consideration of its possible models, and a detailed synopsis of the Trimalchio's Dinner section.
In the following essay, Perry rejects several proposed literary forerunners of the Satyricon, contending that its more likely model was the straightforward comic narrative.
In the following essay, Mendell argues that the Satyricon is not a realistic but rather a romantic novel, and that it is neither a parody nor a satire, although it contains elements of both.
In the following essay, Sullivan contends that the psychosexual interests—particularly exhibitionism—of the characters in the Satyricon reflect Petronius's own, and are thus valid evidence in a psychoanalysis of the author.
In the following essay, Schmeling considers Petronius's intent in the Satyricon, concluding that the author sought to entertain, and that the moral aspects of the satire are present only as a part of the means to the end of producing art.
In the following essay, Cabaniss contends that Petronius was familiar with the pre-literary Christian gospel and presents several passages from the Satyricon that he believes allude to it.
