I apologize that this post is late. I thought that Petronius was a pretty cut-and-dry case and that his work did simultaneously attack, entertain, and preach, as Niall Rudd believes Roman satire does. However, upon further investigation that delayed me a bit, I discovered that Petronius is not truly preaching in his work: his main character Encolpius, who serves as the narrator, is not a hero, but an anti-hero. The reader then must question everything seen through Encolpius’s point of view. In many cases when Encolpius expresses a view on something, he is in fact being hypocritical. For example, he complains that standards of education have declined due to the emphasis placed on declamation. However, by making a speech in the way he does and in his use of rhetorical devices, he is attacking declamation with declamation! No one in the work escapes attack or ridicule; there are no characters in the work that serve as models of morality.
Alright— a bit late, but the quick final installment on my Monroe project!
I have finished calculating results… and essentially, I have realized that, in spite of my love-hate relationships with SPSS and Stata (as developped through various Government and Economics classes), I like these statistical software packages much better than other options out there on the market. I used Fathom to run the statistical tests for my project. While Fathom is impressive, it is not necessarily as accessible as the two aforementioned packages and as such made my number-crunching session much longer and more grueling than truly necessary.
Finally, we come to my conclusion. I’m going to keep it brief, a task that I have failed to complete in my previous posts, but I don’t want to get too into depth with my analysis or I’ll go off the deep end. I’ve got to save something for my actual paper, dudes.