No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

M.A. (Latin) / This study is focused on the different ways the character of the Emperor Nero is depicted by the biographer Suetonlus and the historiographer Tacitus. The study is Introduced with an historical survey of the life of Nero. Thereupon a discussion follows on the life experiences of the authors, Suetonius and Tacitus, as well as the different style and genre used by each, and suggestions on how their writings could have been influenced by these factors. Two aspects of Nero's life are discussed at length, namely his relationship with his mother (and issues relating to that). as well as his interest in and practising of the arts (focusing on Nero as a poet, singer and charioteer). The discussion of these topics is done in the following manner: firstiy Suetonius' account of the events are given, followed by the account by Tacitus. These versions are then compared and where different, the candidate suggests possible reasons for the difference of opinion or presentation between the authors. Various characteristics of the Emperor Nero are referred to. The main conclusions can be categorised into three sections: - First and foremost the authors had different life experiences. Suetonius held various secretarial positions at the court of Caesar Hadrian which SUbsequently influenced his writings. He Was not however a senator or interested In politics and military affairs, which explains the fact that he does not write about political upheavals and does not contribute political motivations for certain actions of characters under discussion. Tacitus on the contrary, was a senator during the reign of Domitian. The atrocities committed by the Emperor and the slowly diminishing power of the Senate influenced the mind and writings of Tacitus to a great extent.

By combining literary criticism, philology, and contemporary psychoanalysis, this dissertation offers an innovative interpretation of Neronian court literature (Seneca, Lucan, and Petronius). I argue that the works of these three authors thematize and embody a problematic relation between the human subject and language. Language is not conceived or represented as an inert tool that can be easily appropriated by the speaking subject, but rather as a powerful entity that may, and often does, take control of the human subject, directing it from without. Besides analyzing how Seneca, Lucan, and Petronius portray the relation between the human subject and language in the internal plots and characters of their works, I also explore the relation between these three authors themselves and language. My conclusion is that this relation is defined by unresolved ambiguities and neurotic tensions, and I suggest that this might be a consequence of the traumatizing circumstances that the three examined authors endured at Nero’s court.