After having transcribed the whole manuscript, an exhaustive investigation was undertaken on the different editions of the 'Satyricon' printed between the 16th and 17th Centuries in order to identify the source text used by the translator and proceed to the comparison between the Italian translation and the Latin original text. The survey has led to the conclusion that the translation is based on different sources and that the text, as copied in the manuscript, cannot be ascribed to an individual authorship. All being written by the same hand, the translation must in fact have been copied and reworked several times. It was even commented with explanatory notes. Roughly, it was estimated that the composition of the translation dates back to the first decade of the 17th Century, while the manuscript itself dates to the end of the century. The translation must also have travelled across Italy, as documented by the presence in the manuscript of dialectal elements both from Northern and Central Italy.
Given such a stratification of hands, we can only estimate the original translation practise by the author. In any case, the Italian translation stands out for its strict adherence to the Latin text. Thus, it was defined as ‘vehicular’, that is, merely functional to make Petronius’ text accessible to the un-Latined. By no means the translator has emphasised the explicit erotic contents of the ‘Satyricon’; instead, the ‘Machiavellian’ aptitude of Petronius’ characters has been skilfully rendered in the Italian version. Further, the translation, at least as transmitted in the manuscript, clearly shows the effort made to simplify any erudite reference originally present in the Latin text.
The manuscript that transmits the Italian translation was realised by a professional scribe. Despite the manuscript neat and clear appearance, the quality of the scribal work is poor: we have graphic inconsistencies, misspellings, interferences with dialect. The manuscript itself is poor from a material point of view. Those elements prove that it was destined to a rather undemanding public. The accurate analysis of the manuscript (examination of the punctuation, textual division, use of catchwords) has also suggested that the manuscript may have been not produced for visual, individual reading but rather to be read out loud. That means that even the illiterate may have been exposed to the forbidden contents of the ‘Satyricon’ by the means of collective reading (a common practise at the time).
In its conclusions, the research argues that the reception of the 'Satyricon' as a transgressive work has not to be restrained to its Epicurean themes (such as irreligiousness and hedonism), but should also be put in relation with the well-known parodic component of Petronius’ work. The ‘Satyricon’ can in fact be read as an irreverent and immoral upturning not so much of conventional literature (as suggested by Petronian critics), but of the traditional values (chastity, loyalty, religious devotion) transmitted by conventional literature, and imposed by the established order. Additionally, the research has investigated the success within libertine circles of the tale told in the ‘Satyricon’(known as ‘The Widow of Ephesus’) and the satirical elements in Petronius’ work.
