WotWotius

Easy: This is the edition I used for my dissertation. If you do not feel like shelling out

Nothing seems to capture the truly dusty and fuddy-duddy feel of Plutarch more than Dryden. I have both the Penguin editions and the Dryden edition (I managed to purchase a copy of all the Parallel Lives for under

Indeed. Did Nero even die? I can think of at least three so-called 'false Neros'. Also, in the vein of what I mentioned above, one could, albeit tenuously, argue that Nero was more than just an artist - he was also art itself. While taking into account the baggage of his ancient stereotype, Roman authors could build upon this and mould 'their' Neros/Neroes/Nerones (...or whatever!) into something beneficial to their agendas: Suetonius touches upon Nero's eccentricities in order to tell a good story - the best example being the final chapters of his life of Nero; Tacitus uses Nero as means of exploring the political 'pretence' he himself experienced under Domitian; the unknown, probably Flavian, author of the Octavia, uses the murder of Nero's first wife to lament the injustice of old regime. My point being that the popular stereotype of Nero in the Ancient world offered a wide enough framework to create a rostrum for both entertainment and moralising. The malleable nature of Nero is not, however, strictly confined to negative images. As already mentioned, the false Neros were a sure indication that some form of populist myth of Nero persisted at least until the reign of Domitian. Further, if we examine the literature of the time of Nero's accession, Nero is used a means of ushering a new 'golden age', far from the almost compost-like ancien r

Another means of addressing the question, methinks, is to examine the Roman perception of Nero. For instance, if we are to read the three main narratives on the fire of AD 64 (namely Suetonius, Tacitus and Dio's epitome), we are presented with three subtly different accounts of the emperor's alleged performance: Suetonius has his Nero watch the fire from the tower of Maecenas on the Esquiline Hill; whereas Dio places his Nero on the Palatine Palace. It is, as it were, the subtle differences in these account that give the impression that they were based more on hearsay than 'fact'. Think about it as thus: during disasters such as fires in all cities - not least one that is almost exclusively built out of wood - pandemonium spreads almost as quickly as the flames. Panic-stricken individuals, desperate for information, take any reportage at face value; this in turn creates a fertile paradigm for rumours such as those reported by Suetonius and Dio. What is interesting about their accounts is the extent to which no sense of disbelief is offered. However, in the eyes of both authors, whether there is some truth in these panicked rumours is irrelevant: in the minds of both authors - as well as in the minds of the upper tiers of Roman society - was a static stereotype of a monster. Thus, the acts of 'fiddling' and starting the fire are reported as the solid truth because they are, as it were, acts 'worthy of Nero'. It must also be noted that it is only Tacitus who offers the reader any form of disbelieve about Nero's hand in the fire. This is both merit to his qualities as a historian and his quality a stylist: to the former, because any questioning of hearsay in refreshing; to the latter, because, in adding an element of doubt and by turning to rumours, he is much more implicitly putting Nero in the frame by means of his trademark innuendo (e.g. 'I have no evidence for this, but...+dirt). Anyway, all this begs the question: why did this stereotype exist in the mind's of Suetonius, Dio and Tacitus? Clearly, many facets of Nero's character - flamboyances, his artistic temperament and his complete disrespect for the old order - offended the upper stratum of society. Nero,accordingly left a window open for exaggeration, and thus the stereotype emerged. With this in mind, one must also take in account that in constructing their works on Nero, Suetonius, Tacitus, and to a lesser extent, Dio not only worked within this popular model; they also had their stylistic and philosophical agendas to fill. While Dio's work is often accused (quite rightly) of being a compendium of facts in which no room is left for analysis, the various aims and objective of the remaining two authors further twist the image of the 'real' Nero. Suetonius, for instance, conforms to the archetypal Roman belief that human character is static, the only change occurring in it being that it becomes more pronounced in later life. In this respect, Nero fits the bill perfectly... [i have a fair few more points to make, but it far too hot in my room to type any more... I shall resume this later this evening] Indeed - what does 'Arts-based' even mean!

Z.Z. Top have really let themselves go!

Fair enough Damn it! It is in Italy, though?

Both are points I shall consider. I should note that my lecturer likes work to be 'interesting', which often results in a fairly left-field analysis. So far I have come up with one: One point I would make is that "What an artist dies in me!" could be considered a mistranslation of the original Latin "Qualis artifex pereo" (Sue. Nero 49). The term 'artifex' also means artisan - be it in the capacity of a musician or sculptor, this was a word oft-assigned to menial workers. If we consider that, whilst 'saying' this, Nero was digging (or, depending on the account, having dug) his own shallow grave. Therefore, Nero could have well been lamenting the position to which he had been reduced: "Look what a labourer I have become'.

Unfortunately not. It was never a Roman colony (as far as I know). I do not think that you ever said it was a Roman colony - thanks you the clue, though! Besides, in 295 BC Colonia Minturnae received the status colonia civium Romanorum, eventually being recolonised under Augustus, who, following a fire in the town, settled veterans in the area. Is it Paestum?

Minturnae?

Sinope?

I have been going over some past exam papers for the Nero module of my finals, and I came across quite a horrible one: '"What an artist dies in me." Discuss.' This is the only question in a two-hour exam! What do you guys make of it?

Edessa?

Spain?

Nicomedia. My money is on this too.

Yes, I took this one: The Personality Defect Quiz

I got the Smartass: You are the Smartass! You are rational, extroverted, brutal, and arrogant. In fact, you could very well be the anti-Christ, as you are almost the exact opposite of everything Jesus was supposed to be. While Jesus says love your enemy, you say love beating the crap out of your enemy. While Jesus raises the dead, you raise hell. While Jesus walks on water, you tend to sink. You probably consider people who are emotional and gentle to be big pussies who are obviously in lesser stature than you. You have many flaws, despite your seeming intelligence and cool-headedness. For instance, you aren't very nice. In fact, you're probably an asshole. And you are conceited and self-centered. Not only that, but you are very loud and vocal about all this, seeing as how you are extroverted. There is no better way to describe you than as a "smartass", I'm afraid. Perhaps just "ass" would do, too. But that's a little less literary and descriptive. At any rate, your main personality defect is the fact that you are self-centered, mean, uncaring, and brutally logical. To put it less negatively: 1. You are more RATIONAL than intuitive. 2. You are more EXTROVERTED than introverted. 3. You are more BRUTAL than gentle. 4. You are more ARROGANT than humble. Compatibility: Your exact opposite is the Emo Kid (This pleased me). Other personalities you would probably get along with are the Capitalist Pig, the Braggart, and the Sociopath. ...apparently, I'm a horrible person. I have no idea what to make of this!

Arycanda...?

Scratch that. Unfortunately, in September I shall be moving into a new house and starting a variety of jobs. My apologies.

I would like to point out throughout the entirety of his magnum opus, Gibbon consistently retains his tone of irony, wit and (almost sardonic) hindsight. It is not so much his style which alters when he makes the transition from volume I to volumes II & III; it is his emphasis on events that changes. Volume I of the Decline and Fall was generally well received: it was praised by both his 'peers of the Enlightenment' (Hume and Smith) and politician alike, which in turn gave him borderline celebrity status. The only area of his work in which Gibbon was not lauded was his treatment of early Christianity - a quagmire of which I have intentionally stayed clear. Much of this was the product of the Anglican community in Britain and was incredibly scathing, if not petty, in nature - one critic, for instance, used a review of Gibbon's first volume as a platform on which to poke fun at his appearance... However, instead of letting this criticism mar his writing, Gibbon rose up to the challenge and quashed all critical reception in his 'Philippic' Vindication, something I recommend you to read for its style alone. From thereon, its seems, Gibbon's treatment of Christianity remained to be cast in the same mould. Whether or not Gibbon was influenced more by current events or critical reception is all conjecture - indeed we cannot, not matter how much we read between the lines, know exactly what went through the mind of Edward Gibbon. The fact remains, however, that it was only really his analysis of the origins of Christianity that initially received a negative reception, and this, as one can detect in reading later volume of the Decline and Fall, did not influence his later treatment of the subject. It must also be noted that Gibbon's merits as a historian were not really challenged challenged until the nineteenth century, and even this was not so much rooted in his stylistic technique, but more in adherence to Enlightenment values, such as progress. It is also interesting to note that the concept of 'current affairs' influencing Gibbon is not just a modern phenomenon. It is said that on James Fox's copy of the Decline and Fall, the following poem was written: His book well describes How corruption and bribes O'erthrew the great empire of Rome And his writing declare A degen'racy there Which his conduct exhibits at home Thus, among other things, he highlights that Gibbon's duel role as a historian and M.P. under the North Administration was inseparable from his prose.

'Ancient' historian: easy - Tacitus. 'Modern': again, easy - Edward Gibbon, hands down. Modern: -Theoretical historian/Historiographer: R.G. Collingwood, followed by Herbert Butterfield; -Narrative historian: Peter Green; -Art historian: Paul Zanker (the only individual who has every interested me in the subject); -Military historian: Adrian Goldsworthy; -Archaeologist: Richard Hingley (a man very much on my wavelength). Overall: Gibbon.

Happy birthday, mate. May all your wildest dreams come true.

Thank you, G. I have finished it all now, and even handed it in! I shall post Chapter Two when I can bare to look at my dissertation again.

Gibbon and the Pessimism of Empire.

Pride and Prejudice and Zombies.