a bit of confusion

The film's narrative is extremely fragmented, skipping through time like there's no tomorrow. For me the most extreme jump takes place after the death of the hermaphrodite and the murder of the thief -- suddenly our young anti-hero Encolpio is being forced down a steap hill by Roman soldiers wielding spears, and a moment later we discover that Ascilto is dining with Encolpio's new enemies. How did they get there? Why has Ascilto switched sides? Who knows! Apparently Fellini devised this fragmented style for his film to mirror the fragmented style of the novel 'Satyricon' which is the basis for this film. It's an ancient text (60 A.D. or something) and many chapters didn't survive the passing of time. Fellini gives the impression that his film is a document of life in 60 A.D. Rome, all of which has not made it to the present day. In a passage of his book 'I, Fellini' he cheekily pointed out that perhaps in 2,000 years time some futuristic Indiana Jones-type archeologists will uncover the last remaining copy of Fellini-Satyricon, watch it, then comment "Oh dear, we have found this ancient text, but it appears to be missing its beginning, its end and some of its middle-part too!"

The suicide-couple are meant to be Petronius, the author of the book 'Satyricon', and his wife. According to legend, Petronius did commit suicide once Caeser was overthrown, as he was a great friend of the 'tyrant' and faced torture. This is actually a much cleverer film that I ever realised, until now.