ia_2009_c_stephen

=C. Evaluation of Sources (250-400 words) Tips]=

**C**. Evaluation of Sources:

// ** Source 1 [appendix A] ** // In terms of origin, the sources (coins 1-4) are in chronological order from the reign of Nero. Giving each an exact date of origin is difficult, though we can establish that coin 1 was created at the start of Nero’s reign15. In terms of purpose, the coins were mainly used as a tool (by all emperors) for propaganda, their faces on at least the more valuable of coins, ensuring their image was viewed throughout the empire. This makes the sources of value in that they show historians the “official” version of events during Nero’s reign (despite the obscured origin). In terms of significance, it was Nero who granted the minting of gold and silver coins to the senate when his reign began16 (though we don’t know which senator oversaw the aspects such as design and distribution), demonstrating Nero was at least initially keen to share power with the senate. In this case entrusting them with some of his widest reaching propaganda. In terms of limitations, the coins only show historians the image Nero or the senate wanted to create of him, making them biased and rather un-informative of the actual events of Nero’s reign (bar the obvious loss of Agrippina’s power) as well as what other’s would have thought of him. // ** Source 2 [appendix B] ** // These sources have their values in that they where both written shortly after the reign of Nero by two historians given more trust than the majority by historians studying ancient Rome.*2 They reflect that there was diversity of opinion on the Emperor at the time, this makes them of value in regard to understanding the differences of opinion on Nero. Their exact purposes, un-clear, like the motivations of the authors, is still of value in its base (to create an account of Nero’s reign), given the reputation and careers of the two creators.

In terms of limitations, what limits both sources, is that they were written at a time when Nero would have been widely detested (the collapse of his reign had triggered a bloody civil war). Hence, making a positive account of him would have been a probable commercial suicide which would have been against their (probable) aims of writing for a profit.

[See appendix B for notes on the messages of the authors.] Word count: 377 (23 under words under)

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ *2.  Tacitus, an ancient Roman historian, was also a  member of the senate, which meant he had access to important historical records when writing his works. Of all the historians of ancient Rome, his are some of the best preserved, his two major works are the //Annales// (which cover the four emperors that followed Augusts, including Nero and is noted for it’s depth in conveying both the events and personalities of the people it mentions) and //Histories// which covers the death of Nero to the downfall of Domitian.

Suetonius, was an Equestrian  (the rank below senator) he was born in “the year of four emperors” the year of civil war and chaos that followed Nero’s death and died under the reign of Hadrian. His most famous work (the one I use) is called De vita Caesarum which covers the lives of twelve emperors, including Nero. His work is thought to be the source of image that Nero played the lyre as Rome burnt, his piece on Nero describing him as singing a poem about the fall of troy and fiddling as the city burnt, though, the actual instrument was not invented until after Nero’s death, though this may be due to mis-translation.

15. Miriam Griffin, 1984, Nero, //The End of a Dynasty//, Yale University Press, ISBN:0-300-03285-4, Section between page 128 and 129.

16. Miriam Griffin, 1984, Nero, //The End of a Dynasty//, Yale University Press, ISBN:0-300-03285-4, Page. 58