Is someone disputing the neutrality of the article, or the style?  I don't see the neutrality problem.  The text is a bit florid, but I don't agree with Ipsenaut's evaluation; I'm more concerned about how much was cribbed directly from the 1911 EB.  Even though it's PD, the material should still be rewritten for Wikipedia.  People can go to the 1911 EB to read the 1911 EB.  We shouldn't just be reprinting the 1911 EB here.  Surely someone has written noteworthy commentary on Petronius since 1911.