Week 8 Final Draft

How do Romanesque and Gothic Cathedrals express different understandings about religious theology?

Romanesque and Gothic cathedrals express many different and opposite ways of religious theology. The Romanesque time was an era or protection and judgment, but the Gothic era was full of light and happiness. The different times led to different ways of living and theology; thus the two different eras has different architecture to base how the time was to their buildings. 

The Romanesque time was a time filled with invaders trying to attack land and take over the Roman Empire. This period began in the 9^th century and ended in the 11^th century. The churches and cathedrals at this time had many small windows so invaders couldn’t break in and the church and everyone in it was more safe (see figure 1).  The churches at this time were considered to be more of a protection area rather than a place of worship because of that stage in time.  The Romanesque architecture also included many buildings with arched curves in them, also to protect from invaders (see figure 2).  This time in the Roman Empire was a time of fear and protection, rather than the light from the Gothic times.

The Gothic times in the Roman Empire began in the 12^th century and ended in the 14^th century. The architecture was much different in these times that the Romanesque era. The cathedrals had huge windows filled with stain glass (see figure 3). This time was a time of light and stability. Since there were much less invaders, the architects were able to make windows and churches larger and brighter with stain glassed windows (see figure 4). This time in the Empire was full of happiness and faith because invaders were gone, and they could live happily and be more religious.

A huge difference between the Romanesque architecture and the Gothic architecture is the height and light factors. The Romanesque times were all about protection, so the ability to be dark and fit in tiny spaces was very important (see figure 5). They did not care about how it looked per say, they were more interested in keeping invaders away and people alive by protection. The Gothic times was all about the light of God and reaching high spaces being closer with God. The cathedrals and churches were very open and bright, letting in the light from God (see figure 6). They were interested in being closer with God, since they were at a good point of living at the time.

The images show that there is a very different style of building and architect at the different stages of the Roman Empire. The way that live is being lived and anything bad happening to the people or empire is expressed through the ways of the buildings. The Romanesque time was sad and judgmental, so the churches are dark and low; but the gothic times was filled with lights and high open buildings because it was a good time in the empire.

Apendix: 

Figure 1-  

Figure 2- 

Figure 3-

Figure 4-  Cathedral Notre-Dame de Reims. (n.d.). Wikimedia Commons. Retrieved April 27, 2011, from commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:

Figure 5- 

Figure 6- 

Week 8 Draft

How do Romanesque and Gothic Cathedrals express different understandings about religious theology?

Romanesque and Gothic cathedrals express many different and opposite ways of religious theology. The Romanesque time was an era or protection and judgment, but the Gothic era was full of light and happiness. The different times led to different ways of living and theology; thus the two different eras has different architecture to base how the time was to their buildings. The two different eras created no change in the architecture.

The Romanesque time was a time filled with invaders trying to attack land and take over the Roman Empire. This period began in the 9^th century and ended in the 11^th century. The churches and cathedrals at this time had many small windows so invaders couldn’t break in and the church and everyone in it was more safe (see figure 1).  The churches at this time were considered to be more of a protection area rather than a place of worship because of that stage in time.  The Romanesque architecture also included many buildings with arched curves in them, also to protect from invaders (see figure 2).  This time in the Roman Empire was a time of fear and protection, rather than the light from the Gothic times.

The Gothic times in the Roman Empire began in the 12^th century and ended in the 14^th century. The architecture was much different in these times that the Romanesque era. The cathedrals had huge windows filled with stain glass (see figure 3). This time was a time of light and stability. Since there were much less invaders, the architects were able to make windows and churches larger and brighter with stain glassed windows (see figure 4). This time in the Empire was full of happiness and faith because invaders were gone, and they could live happily and be more religious.

A huge difference between the Romanesque architecture and the Gothic architecture is the height and light factors. The Romanesque times were all about protection, so the ability to be dark and fit in tiny spaces was very important (see figure 5). They did not care about how it looked per say, they were more interested in keeping invaders away and people alive by protection. The Gothic times was all about the light of God and reaching high spaces being closer with God. The cathedrals and churches were very open and bright, letting in the light from God (see figure 6). They were interested in being closer with God, since they were at a good point of living at the time.

The images show that there is a very different style of building and architect at the different stages of the Roman Empire. The way that live is being lived and anything bad happening to the people or empire is expressed through the ways of the buildings. The Romanesque time was sad and judgmental, so the churches are dark and low; but the gothic times was filled with lights and high open buildings because it was a good time in the empire.

Apendix: 

Figure 1-  

Figure 2- 

Figure 3-

Figure 4-  Cathedral Notre-Dame de Reims. (n.d.). Wikimedia Commons. Retrieved April 27, 2011, from commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:

Figure 5- 

Figure 6- 

Weekly 7

Did the Roman Empire 'decline and fall' or did it evolve into something new?

Rome as a whole, dealt with a lot during its long reign of power. They took over many land areas, tried some different forms of government, had a very successful military, and had a lot of emperors that did both good and bad for the empire. Many emperors changed the ways of Roman living, but as a new government called the tetrarchy formed, the Roman Empire split and it was all downhill from there. The Roman Empire dealing with a lot of good times and some falls during its long era of power was able to make it around a bad time and make something good out of it. The Roman Empire did eventually fall apart completely so the empire was completely over and left in ruins because of bad emperors, religious problems, and because of the barbarians that took over the empire. 

Rome began its hardship and eventual fall of their empire when Diocletian started the new government called tetrarchy. “The stability of this system suffered greatly after Diocletian and Maximian retired from office. Constantine (the son of Constantius) emerged from the ensuing power struggles as sole emperor of a reunified Rome in 324. He moved the Roman capital to the Greek city of Byzantium, which he renamed Constantinople.”(History.com  2). This quote perfectly describes what bad things the tetrarchy eventually led to. The empire was back to having people fight for sole power like what happened in ancient times with Rome and other empires that also eventually fell. Constantine was not a good leader because upset a lot of people that should not have been upset. He moved the Roman capital to the city of Rome which was very historical, to a Greek city which he named after himself. Constantine was looking to be remembered as a leader who could take control and create a new capital for his empire, but he was just hurting the already weakened empire. The fall of Rome was not because of the tetrarchy; instead it was the leaders who had control over the tetrarchy who made many large mistakes, like Constantine.

Religious mistakes from poor leaders also had a lot to do with the fall of Rome. “Faith, zeal, curiosity, and the more earthly passions of malice and ambition kindled the flame of theological discord; the church, and even the state, were distracted by religious factions, whose conflicts were sometimes bloody, and always implacable; the attention of the emperors was diverted from camps to synods; the Roman world was oppressed by a new species of tyranny; and the persecuted sects became the secret enemies of their country,” (Gibbon). As Constantine decided to make Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire, the people began to outrage. Christianity, not long before this time, was considered illegal to the empire. Christian people were even persecuted for being Christian because they were stubborn and did not follow the laws that were set for religions throughout the empire.  It made no sense for a religion, years before that frowned upon, to be the officially religion of the empire no matter what any emperor said. Religion was definitely one of the larger areas of complaints which eventually lead to the fall of an admirable empire.

Lastly, the Roman Empire fell because Barbarians were taking over the land without any control. “Cold, poverty, and a life of danger and fatigue, fortify the strength and courage of Barbarians. In every age they have oppressed the polite and peaceful nations of China, India, and Persia, who neglected, and still neglect, to counterbalance these natural powers by the resources of military art,” (Gibbon). Barbarians are uncivilized people sometimes called savages. They are strong fighters, but they do not know how to have that mental sense of fighting. They are just strictly physical. The barbarian people wanted war with the Romans, and invading their land was the best that they could do against the large empire at the time. As the Romans were trying to build up their weakening empire again, the Barbarians came and invaded their land which led to many battles and fights. The Roman people, in the end, could not defend themselves or their empire, which is the last reason why the Roman Empire fell.

Bad emperors who make many mistakes in the reign can lead to the fall of any empire. Constantine was an overall average emperor, but he made a lot of little mistakes which led to big impacts on the Roman Empire, like the change of the capital and religion. Selfish emperors only weaken and empire; and in this case, a selfish emperor destroyed an empire. In conclusion, the Roman Empire did fall because of the mistakes of the Roman people and leaders at the time, religious problems, and finally being attacked by the Barbarians. The Roman Empire was not able to evolve itself this time; it had fallen and was not ever going to be the strong empire that it once was.

Works Cited:

Ancient Rome, (2011). In Decline and Disintegration. Retrieved Apr. 12, 2011, from

http://www.history.com/topics/ancient-rome

Gibbon, E. (n.d.). Medieval Sourcebook: Gibbon: The Fall of the Roman Empire .FORDHAM.EDU. Retrieved April 12, 2011, from http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/gibbon-fall.html

1. 
   

Rough Draft of Week 7 Weekly

Did the Roman Empire 'decline and fall' or did it evolve into something new?

Rome as a whole, dealt with a lot during its long reign of power. They took over many land areas, tried some different forms of government, had a very successful military, and had a lot of emperors that did both good and bad for the empire. Many emperors changed the ways of Roman living, but as a new government called the tetrarchy formed, the Roman Empire split and it was all downhill from there. The Roman Empire dealing with a lot of ups and downs during its long era of power was able to make it around a bad time and make something good out of it; but the Roman Empire did eventually fall apart completely so the empire was completely over and left in ruins because of bad emperors, religious problems, and because of the barbarians that took over the empire.  Rome, even through the worst times of its reign near the end, was able to evolve from all situations and change itself to become a different empire.

Rome began its hardship and eventual fall of their empire when Diocletian started the new government called tetrarchy. “The stability of this system suffered greatly after Diocletian and Maximian retired from office. Constantine (the son of Constantius) emerged from the ensuing power struggles as sole emperor of a reunified Rome in 324. He moved the Roman capital to the Greek city of Byzantium, which he renamed Constantinople.”(History.com 2). This quote perfectly describes what bad things the tetrarchy eventually led to. The empire was back to having people fight for sole power like what happened in ancient times with Rome and other empires that also eventually fell. Constantine was not a good leader because upset a lot of people that shouldn’t have been upset. He moved the Roman capital to the city of Rome which was very historical, to a Greek city which he named after himself. Constantine was looking to be remembered as a leader who could take control and create a new capital for his empire, but he was just hurting the already weakened empire. The fall of Rome was not because of the tetrarchy; instead it was the leaders who had control over the tetrarchy who made many large mistakes, like Constantine.

Religious mistakes from poor leaders also had a lot to do with the fall of Rome. “Faith, zeal, curiosity, and the more earthly passions of malice and ambition kindled the flame of theological discord; the church, and even the state, were distracted by religious factions, whose conflicts were sometimes bloody, and always implacable; the attention of the emperors was diverted from camps to synods; the Roman world was oppressed by a new species of tyranny; and the persecuted sects became the secret enemies of their country,” (Gibbon). As Constantine decided to make Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire, the people began to outrage. Christianity, not long before this time, was considered illegal to the empire. Christian people were even persecuted for being Christian because they were stubborn and didn’t follow the laws that were set for religions throughout the empire.  It made no sense for a religion, years before that frowned upon, to be the officially religion of the empire no matter what any emperor said. Religion was definitely one of the larger areas of complaints which eventually lead to the fall of an admirable empire.

Lastly, the Roman Empire fell because Barbarians were taking over the land without any control. “Cold, poverty, and a life of danger and fatigue, fortify the strength and courage of Barbarians. In every age they have oppressed the polite and peaceful nations of China, India, and Persia, who neglected, and still neglect, to counterbalance these natural powers by the resources of military art,” (Gibbon). Barbarians are uncivilized people sometimes called savages. They are strong fighters, but they don’t know how to have that mental sense of fighting. They are just strictly physical. The barbarian people wanted war with the Romans, and invading their land was the best that they could do against the large empire at the time. As the Romans were trying to build up their weakening empire again, the Barbarians came and invaded their land which led to many battles and fights. The Roman people, in the end, couldn't defend themselves or their empire, which is the last reason why the Roman Empire fell.

Bad emperors who make many mistakes in the reign can lead to the fall of any empire. Constantine was an overall average emperor, but he made a lot of little mistakes which led to big impacts on the Roman Empire, like the change of the capital and religion. Selfish emperors only weaken and empire; and in this case, a selfish emperor destroyed an empire. In conclusion, the Roman Empire did fall because of the mistakes of the Roman people and leaders at the time, religious problems, and finally being attacked by the Barbarians. The Roman Empire was not able to evolve itself this time, it had fallen and was not ever going to be the strong empire that it once was.

Works Cited:

Ancient Rome, (2011). In Decline and Disintegration. Retrieved Apr. 12, 2011, from

http://www.history.com/topics/ancient-rome

Gibbon, E. (n.d.). Medieval Sourcebook: Gibbon: The Fall of the Roman Empire .FORDHAM.EDU. Retrieved April 12, 2011, from http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/gibbon-fall.html

               

April 5th Daily (Revised In Class Essay on Seneca)

Seneca, a close companion to the Roman emperor Nero, was convicted of being the person to plot Nero’s death. Many people questioned him and his emotions towards what he was being convicted of, but Seneca remained stoical even when he was found guilty of this and was to be killed. Stoicism is the ability to endure pain and hardship while retaining the ability to control one's emotions; Seneca, at his death, was a perfect example of a stoic.

Seneca was for the most part of his life a stoic; being able to take emotions, pain, and hardship and control them in which his emotions really aren’t seen at all. This trait makes someone seem powerful, in control, not scared or nervous even when the worst is happening to someone, like Seneca’s case of being put to death because he was said to be, by Nero, the one to try to plot against Nero and kill him. “He had no reason,’ he said, for ‘preferring the interest of any private citizen to his own safety, and he had no natural aptitude for flattery. No one knew this better than Nero, who had oftener experienced Seneca's free spokenness than his servility,’” (Tacitus). This quote really explains how Seneca was a stoic. He control his emotions and made it seem like he didn’t want flattery and it didn’t matter to him. He didn’t want people to feel bad for him or treat him differently because he was convicted of a murder plot that wasn’t true. Seneca was fully able to control how he was feeling and how he was embracing his emotions on the outside.

As a friend of Nero, people would think that Seneca would be very upset about being sentenced with such an awful crime that wasn’t even true. But being stoical, he was able to go through this sentencing and encounter without even remotely acting like he was upset. According to The Death of Seneca, “He saw no signs of fear, and perceived no sadness in his words or in his looks,” (Tacitus).This shows that he was truly able to stay very strong even during the worst experiences. If many people were to be sentenced this at any time and wasn’t a stoic like Seneca, they would be begging to not be killed, sobbing, doing anything possible to get their way out of it. Seneca, on the other hand, acted extremely mature and made it seem like being killed was not that big of a deal. He was able to cover up his pain and emotions on the outside and maybe even on the inside as well. Seneca seemed to not be afraid of death and discomfort, instead he just showed no emotions.

Even as Seneca was about to die, he showed no pain towards what was happening. "Seneca, quite unmoved, asked for tablets on which to inscribe his will, and, on the centurion's refusal, turned to his friends, protesting that as he was forbidden to requite them, he bequeathed to them the only, but still the noblest possession yet remaining to him, the pattern of his life, which, if they remembered, they would win a name for moral worth and steadfast friendship." (Tacitus). This quote, also from The Death of Seneca, really tells you just how stoical Seneca actually was. He was on his death bed, about to be murdered and all he did was ask to write his will. He was not crying, he wasn’t begging to live. He simply asked to have a tablet where he could write his will, and he gave his friends his finest possessions that he had. That is a very inspirational trait to have, being able to hide your pain and fear.

Seneca was an extremely stoical person who was able to truly control his emotions and deal with pain and hardships. Even during the hardest times, Seneca was able to push through his emotions and prove to everyone that he was a true stoic. Seneca eventually tortured himself to death by suffocation, but even then, he showed no emotion towards that fact that he was killing himself. The only emotion that ever came from Seneca was towards the love of his life, his wife named Paulina. Seneca, during his life and eventually his death, was a prime example of a stoic; a person who could endure pain and hardship while retaining the ability to control one's emotions.

Works Cited:

Tacticus, Initials. The Death of Seneca (65 CE Retrieved April 5, 2011, from http://www.fordham.edu/HALSALL/ancient/tacitus-ann15a.html

In Class Writing- Seneca and Stoicism

Seneca, a close companion to the Roman emperor Nero, was convicted of being the person to plot Nero’s death. Many people questioned him and his emotions towards what he was being convicted of, but Seneca remained stoical even when he was found guilty of this and was to be killed. Stoicism is the ability to endure pain and hardship while retaining the ability to control one's emotions; Seneca, at his death, was a perfect example of a stoic.

Seneca was for the most part of his life a stoic; being able to take emotions, pain, and hardship and control them in which his emotions really aren’t seen at all. This trait makes someone seem powerful, in control, not scared or nervous even when the worst is happening to someone, like Seneca’s case of being put to death because he was said to be, by Nero, the one to try to plot against Nero and kill him. “He had no reason,’ he said, for ‘preferring the interest of any private citizen to his own safety, and he had no natural aptitude for flattery. No one knew this better than Nero, who had oftener experienced Seneca's free spokenness than his servility,’” (Tacitus). This quote really explains how Seneca was a stoic. He control his emotions and made it seem like he didn’t want flattery and it didn’t matter to him. He didn’t want people to feel bad for him or treat him differently because he was convicted of a murder plot that wasn’t true. Seneca was fully able to control how he was feeling and how he was embracing his emotions on the outside.

As a friend of Nero, people would think that Seneca would be very upset about being sentenced with such an awful crime that wasn’t even true. But being the stoic that many believe he was, he was able to go through this sentencing and encounter without even remotely acting like he was upset. According to The Death of Seneca, “He saw no signs of fear, and perceived no sadness in his words or in his looks,” (Tacitus).This shows that he was truly able to stay very strong even during the worst experiences. If many people were to be sentenced this at any time and wasn’t a stoic like Seneca, they would be begging to not be killed, sobbing, doing anything possible to get their way out of it. Seneca, on the other hand, acted extremely mature and made it seem like being killed was not that big of a deal. He was able to cover up his pain and emotions on the outside and maybe even on the inside as well. Seneca seemed to not be afraid of death and discomfort, instead he just showed no emotions.

Even as Seneca was about to die, he showed no pain towards what was happening. "Seneca, quite unmoved, asked for tablets on which to inscribe his will, and, on the centurion's refusal, turned to his friends, protesting that as he was forbidden to requite them, he bequeathed to them the only, but still the noblest possession yet remaining to him, the pattern of his life, which, if they remembered, they would win a name for moral worth and steadfast friendship." (Tacitus). This quote, also from The Death of Seneca, really tells you just how stoical Seneca actually was. He was on his death bed, about to be murdered and all he did was ask to write his will. He was not crying, he wasn’t begging to live. He simply asked to have a tablet where he could write his will, and he gave his friends his finest possessions that he had. That is a very inspirational trait to have, being able to hide your pain and fear.

Seneca was an extremely stoical person who was able to truly control his emotions and deal with pain and hardships. Even during the hardest times, Seneca 

April 4th Daily

Read Tacitus' description of the Death of Seneca and Book One of M. Aurelius' Meditations. Find quotes within those two texts that help explain what Stoicism is all about.

Death of Seneca Quotes: 

"He had no reason," he said, for "preferring the interest of any private citizen to his own safety, and he had no natural aptitude for flattery. No one knew this better than Nero, who had oftener experienced Seneca's free spokenness than his servility."

"He saw no signs of fear, and perceived no sadness in his words or in his looks."

"Seneca, quite unmoved, asked for tablets on which to inscribe his will, and, on the centurion's refusal, turned to his friends, protesting that as he was forbidden to requite them, he bequeathed to them the only, but still the noblest possession yet remaining to him, the pattern of his life, which, if they remembered, they would win a name for moral worth and steadfast friendship."

Book One of M. Aurelius' Meditations Quotes:

"From my governor, to be neither of the green nor of the blue party at the games in the Circus, nor a partizan either of the Parmularius or the Scutarius at the gladiators' fights; from him too I learned endurance of labour, and to want little, and to work with my own hands, and not to meddle with other people's affairs, and not to be ready to listen to slander."

"From Rusticus I received the impression that my character required improvement and discipline; and from him I learned not to be led astray to sophistic emulation, nor to writing on speculative matters, nor to delivering little hortatory orations, nor to showing myself off as a man who practises much discipline, or does benevolent acts in order to make a display; and to abstain from rhetoric, and poetry, and fine writing; and not to walk about in the house in my outdoor dress, nor to do other things of the kind; and to write my letters with simplicity, like the letter which Rusticus wrote from Sinuessa to my mother; and with respect to those who have offended me by words, or done me wrong, to be easily disposed to be pacified and reconciled, as soon as they have shown a readiness to be reconciled; and to read carefully, and not to be satisfied with a superficial understanding of a book; nor hastily to give my assent to those who talk overmuch; and I am indebted to him for being acquainted with the discourses of Epictetus, which he communicated to me out of his own collection."

"From Apollonius I learned freedom of will and undeviating steadiness of purpose; and to look to nothing else, not even for a moment, except to reason; and to be always the same, in sharp pains, on the occasion of the loss of a child, and in long illness; and to see clearly in a living example that the same man can be both most resolute and yielding, and not peevish in giving his instruction; and to have had before my eyes a man who clearly considered his experience and his skill in expounding philosophical principles as the smallest of his merits; and from him I learned how to receive from friends what are esteemed favours, without being either humbled by them or letting them pass unnoticed."

"From Sextus, a benevolent disposition, and the example of a family governed in a fatherly manner, and the idea of living conformably to nature; and gravity without affectation, and to look carefully after the interests of friends, and to tolerate ignorant persons, and those who form opinions without consideration."

March 24th Daily

Read Augustus' 'Res Gestae ' paragraphs 19 - 21 and scavenger hunt for as many pictures relating to the places mentioned as you can find and chart them on a Google Map.






View Res Gestae Scavenger in a larger map