Dear Raphael,
There are not, so far as I know, two versions of the Satyricon. J.P. Sullivan's excellent book doesn't mention anything about that either; it seems unlikely to me, though I'd be interested to be proved wrong.
Since the Satyricon is not complete, and is missing large amounts of narrative, and the whole thing is fairly explicit, it would be hard to imagine how one could bowdlerize it at all.
It didn't circulate just among decadents, either (writing this I am not certain what a 'decadent' is). For instance, Otway uses a quotation (from the same scene, Eumolpus, from which Eliot took the Petronius epigraph to The Sacred Wood) from it as epigraph to The Orphan, 1692.
Yours, Jennifer
----- Original Message -----
From: [log in to unmask] href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">INGELBIEN RAPHAEL
To: [log in to unmask] href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]
Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2002 5:52 PM
Subject: Re: TWL epigraph

From: [log in to unmask] href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">Jennifer Formichelli
> Yes, Eliot did read the Satyricon. He owned a 1904 Bucheler, the best scholarly text, and he studied it at > Harvard. His annotated copy is in King's College Library.
Is my memory failing me, or weren't there two versions of the Satyricon? One would have been available in scholarly editions like the one you mention, the other one was a more explicit, licentious version, which was also a kind of underground classic circulated among decadents. 
I remember a thread about the Satyricon some years ago - the late Pat Sloane seemed quite knowledgeable about it. If the archives are still up...
RaphaŽl Ingelbien
[log in to unmask]