Nero.

[WotWotius]

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?

[Primus Pilus]

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?

 

I assume the professor was trying get a look at your ability to manufacture/develop a theory from a single piece of evidence. There should be no correct answer as each individual will interpret it differently. There may be many similar conclusions, but the details won't match. If the professor is expecting a single answer, then he's a nazi. =P

[Ursus]

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?

 

 

I would write down:

 

Dear doctor,

 

You didn't take composing this test very seriously. Therefore, I choose not to answer very seriously.

 

Yours,

 

------

[Formosus Viriustus]

The question seems to me to be : 'who do you consider to be an artist ?' If by that you mean someone who has actually accomplished something that is of any artistic value

[Klingan]

Sounds like a question we could get over here! I remember when I found "discus this building (picture of the Parthenon)" in my exam once.

 

Anyway, I would start of by discussing Nero and his love for the arts and then go on with how this was seen in ancient society(all classes). A piece about Suetonius, his style of writing should be appropriate after that and how his texts can be used. Could get very messy.

[Ingsoc]

You could discuss the political meaning of Nero artistic pretensions.

[caldrail]

Or the religious, given Nero's identification with Apollo.

[WotWotius]

You could discuss the political meaning of Nero artistic pretensions.

 

You could discuss the political meaning of Nero artistic pretensions.

 

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'.

[caldrail]

An interesting possibility. But since Nero had already played the slave (as charioteer), or the animal (in the arena), would he lament his apparent status or his own 'ability' as traditionally thought? Granted he had fallen from power at that point but why didn't he simply order his slave to dig the grave?

 

Nero may have preferred a life of obscene luxury - he did rush back from Antium to oversee relief efforts in AD64, and given the situation, I doubt he had much access to luxury then. Further, Nero appears to gone to some effort to improve his musicianship. Training with lead weights to improve the lungs and so forth. He could have just slipped the judges a few sestercii or perhaps a nasty glance.

 

Chariot racing wasn't without risk and controlling a ten horse buggy (Suetonius records he did this once at least) couldn't have been an easy task at all. Nero was without doubt an egotist - he was also used to working hard to achieve his ends even if he did have little talent for his endeavours.

 

Please let us see your finished work. I am curious to read it.

Edited June 2, 2009 by caldrail

[The Augusta]

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?

 

Quite frankly, Wot, this question invites you to discuss the traditional picture we have of Nero (I'm sure you will read this as I do). The 'dying quote' thus stands for the rather negative summing up of the Princeps' life and administration as we have inherited it from the sources. So, as I would read it (and my pen is already itching to scrawl...) you have total licence to discuss the traditional account and compare it favourably/unfavourably with other evidence you have researched. What's the most famous 'myth' we have of Nero - he 'fiddled while Rome burned'. We all know its nonsense, but this is what the quote is doing. You've already done a bit of digging for yourself by questioning the translation. You're on the right lines.

 

I think PP and me are in the same camp here, with this one. Good luck.

Edited June 2, 2009 by The Augusta

[The Augusta]

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?

 

 

I would write down:

 

Dear doctor,

 

You didn't take composing this test very seriously. Therefore, I choose not to answer very seriously.

 

Yours,

 

------

 

Ah, no, Ursus - I have to disagree with you here, as one used to 'arty' professors setting questions. The question is amazingly open-ended - see my reply to Wot above.

 

You see this comes from an Arts based person who is used to digging into the most prosaic statements. I once had - in an English Lit module 'Discuss Keats' theme of transience'. 'Twas easy - choose his four Great Odes in which his theme consistently returns to the ephemeral nature of life and nature and use them to illustrate your argument.

 

Hehe - perhaps it's just me. Arts based papers can be notoriously 'vague' but so are Arts based students....

[Ursus]

Ah, no, Ursus - I have to disagree with you here, as one used to 'arty' professors setting questions. The question is amazingly open-ended - see my reply to Wot above.

 

 

I think too open ended questions invite drivel responses. Or smart ass responses. I opt for the latter.

 

Anyway, Wotwotius, have fun with that!

[Maty]

Hmmmm

 

I'd approach the topic from several angles. Firstly the fact that Nero's was in many ways a golden age for the arts - undoubtedly because of Nero's interest. Mention literature - Lucan, Seneca, Petronius, coinage (Nero's was some of the prettiest coinage ever) and architecture, stressing the Domus Aurea.

 

Then look at the senatorial response to Nero appearing as an artist rather than as a patron of the arts, and what this reveals about the senate and the perceived role of the emperor.

 

Then point out that Nero was the most monumentally incompetent emperor until Commodus, and suggest that his last words indicate that his heart was not really in his job, but such was the nature of the Principate at that time that strong candidates had to take the job or die, and the only retirement was feet first. Therefore Nero saw himself as a victim of circumstance rather than the stereotypical tyrant he is now considered.

 

That should cover most of the bases. Good luck!

[Formosus Viriustus]

Hmmmm

 

I'd approach the topic from several angles. Firstly the fact that Nero's was in many ways a golden age for the arts - undoubtedly because of Nero's interest. Mention literature - Lucan, Seneca, Petronius, coinage (Nero's was some of the prettiest coinage ever) and architecture, stressing the Domus Aurea.

 

Then look at the senatorial response to Nero appearing as an artist rather than as a patron of the arts, and what this reveals about the senate and the perceived role of the emperor.

 

Then point out that Nero was the most monumentally incompetent emperor until Commodus, and suggest that his last words indicate that his heart was not really in his job, but such was the nature of the Principate at that time that strong candidates had to take the job or die, and the only retirement was feet first. Therefore Nero saw himself as a victim of circumstance rather than the stereotypical tyrant he is now considered.

 

That should cover most of the bases. Good luck!

 

This is by far the best analysis of the question, I think.

 

Formosus

[WotWotius]

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]

 

Hehe - perhaps it's just me. Arts based papers can be notoriously 'vague' but so are Arts based students.... biggrin.gif

 

Indeed - what does 'Arts-based' even mean!