Weekly #8 Final Draft

Romanesque and Gothic cathedrals each had their own meaning of depicting theology in religious terms. Romanesque cathedrals focused more on protection from incoming attacks. Romanesque cathedrals were the main spot for safety for the people of a village because of their thick and supportive walls. However, Gothic cathedrals focused on implanting the light of God in the cathedral itself. This was done with huge stain-glassed windows that allowed for the the light of God to be on the inside for everyone to see. There was a big difference in the theology behind these two styles of architecture. The theology of Romanesque cathedrals was expressed by Judgment Day and by protection and defense whereas Gothic cathedrals had large windows that allowed the light of God to shine among all of the people on the inside of the church. The architecture of Romanesque and Gothic cathedrals did not express anything about theology.

The structures of Romanesque cathedral differed from the structure of Gothic cathedrals. Romanesque cathedrals were very tall with thick walls that supported the building as a whole (Figure 1). They almost looked like castles in the medieval times. This shows that protection was extremely important during the ninth, tenth, and eleventh centuries that people needed a place for safety. This also shows that there were continuous attacks, so people of a village needed this big structure to protect them from harsh attackers.  Gothic cathedrals focused more on religious theology. The walls on these cathedrals were less thick and the columns were much thinner too (Figure 2). The walls of Gothic cathedrals has to be light and thin enough to let the light of God shine directly into the interior for people to feel. Protection was not very important with Gothic cathedrals as letting the light of God in really explained the structure of these cathedrals.

Another big difference between Romanesque and Gothic cathedrals is the windows. The Romanesque cathedral has many windows all around the exterior, but they are very small (Figure 3). The windows are small on Romanesque cathedrals for a reason. Since these cathedrals were used for protection for incoming attacks, the windows had to be small so attackers would not be able to break in to the cathedral through the windows. This forced enemies to try to break through the cathedral, which often failed because of the thick walls. In Gothic cathedrals, windows played an important role in expressing theology.  The big stained-glass window towards the top is there to let the light of God in (Figure 4). Then, the people on the inside can be shined with the light of God. The big stained-glass window in Gothic cathedrals formed the basis of religious theology through the light of God.

Also, the art of Romanesque and Gothic Cathedrals differed on the inside of these two types of cathedrals. In Romanesque cathedrals, there were big murals about Judgment Day with a huge painting of Christ on a throne ready to judge on one of the walls. Romanesque cathedrals also contained beautiful paintings that depicted religious scenes from the Gospel (Figure 5). Also, many of the columns and domes were lined with religious sculpture figures. But in Gothic Cathedrals, the big stained-glass window, or the rose window, was the focus on the whole cathedral. Many religious images would be stained on to these glass windows, providing a great dimension of light and color in to the cathedral (Figure 6). The interior of these cathedrals were often spaced out to allow the light to shine throughout the inside to show the presence of God. Mosaics are often popular on the inside of Gothic Cathedrals, making for a fantastic sight.

As a whole, Romanesque and Gothic churches both explain religious theology in their own unique ways. Romanesque cathedrals were all about protection and the Judgment Day. Thick walls and small windows helped influence this protection for people when they were attacked. Gothic cathedrals though were about letting the light of God shine through the interior from large, colorful stained-glass windows. These stained-glass windows allowed for the presence of God to be felt. Overall, art, structure, and windows greatly influenced the basis for each of these types of cathedrals. But most importantly, Romanesque and Gothic cathedrals express important ideas about religious theology.  

Appendix

Figure 1

Dom St. Peter Cathedral, exterior, 10^th century, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Dom_St._Peter%2C_Trier.jpg, photograph taken in 2001

Figure 2

Our Lady of Sablon Church, façade, 13^th century, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d1/Bruxelles_Notre-Dame_du_Sablon.jpg., photograph taken in 2009

Figure 3

Mainzer Dom Cathedral, exterior, 9^th century, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/Mainzer_Dom_von_Nordosten.jpg, photograph taken in 2007

Figure 4

Notre Dame de Reims Cathedral, interior, 14^th century, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/Reims_Cathedrale_Notre_Dame_interior_002.JPG, photograph taken in 2008

Figure 5

Canterbury Cathedral, wall painting, 12^th century, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/Canterbury_Fresko.jpg, photograph taken in 2008

Figure 6

Bourges cathedral, stained-glass window, 13^th century, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/Bourges-cathedrale-vitrail-femme.jpg, photograph taken in 2010

Weekly #8 Rough Draft

Romanesque and Gothic cathedrals each had their own meaning of depicting theology in religious terms. Romanesque cathedrals focused more on protection from incoming attacks. Romanesque cathedrals were the main spot for safety for the people of a village because of their thick and supportive walls. However, Gothic cathedrals focused on implanting the light of God in the cathedral itself. This was done with huge stain-glassed windows that allowed for the the light of God to be on the inside for everyone to see. There was a big difference in the theology behind these two styles of architecture. The theology of Romanesque cathedrals was expressed by Judgment Day and by protection and defense whereas Gothic cathedrals had large windows that allowed the light of God to shine among all of the people on the inside of the church. The architecture of Romanesque and Gothic cathedrals did not express anything about theology.

The structures of Romanesque cathedral differed from the structure of Gothic cathedrals. Romanesque cathedrals were very tall with thick walls that supported the building as a whole (Figure 1). They almost looked like castles in the medieval times. This shows that protection was extremely important during the ninth, tenth, and eleventh centuries that people needed a place for safety. This also shows that there were continuous attacks, so people of a village needed this big structure to protect them from harsh attackers.  Gothic cathedrals focused more on religious theology. The walls on these cathedrals were less thick and the columns were much thinner too (Figure 2). The walls of Gothic cathedrals has to be light and thin enough to let the light of God shine directly into the interior for people to feel. Protection was not very important with Gothic cathedrals as letting the light of God in really explained the structure of these cathedrals.

Another big difference between Romanesque and Gothic cathedrals is the windows. The Romanesque cathedral has many windows all around the exterior, but they are very small (Figure 3). The windows are small on Romanesque cathedrals for a reason. Since these cathedrals were used for protection for incoming attacks, the windows had to be small so attackers would not be able to break in to the cathedral through the windows. This forced enemies to try to break through the cathedral, which often failed because of the thick walls. In Gothic cathedrals, windows played an important role in expressing theology.  The big stained-glass window towards the top is there to let the light of God in (Figure 4). Then, the people on the inside can be shined with the light of God. The big stained-glass window in Gothic cathedrals formed the basis of religious theology through the light of God.

Also, the art of Romanesque and Gothic Cathedrals differed on the inside of these two types of cathedrals. In Romanesque cathedrals, there were big murals about Judgment Day with a huge painting of Christ on a throne ready to judge on one of the walls. Romanesque cathedrals also contained beautiful paintings that depicted religious scenes from the Gospel (Figure 5). Also, many of the columns and domes were lined with religious sculpture figures. But in Gothic Cathedrals, the big stained-glass window, or the rose window, was the focus on the whole cathedral. Many religious images would be stained on to these glass windows, providing a great dimension of light and color in to the cathedral (Figure 6). The interior of these cathedrals were often spaced out to allow the light to shine throughout the inside to show the presence of God. Mosaics are often popular on the inside of Gothic Cathedrals, making for a fantastic sight.

As a whole, Romanesque and Gothic churches both explain religious theology in their own unique ways. Romanesque cathedrals were all about protection and the Judgment Day. Thick walls and small windows helped influence this protection for people when they were attacked. Gothic cathedrals though were about letting the light of God shine through the interior from large, colorful stained-glass windows. These stained-glass windows allowed for the presence of God to be felt. Overall, art, structure, and windows greatly influenced the basis for each of these types of cathedrals. But most importantly, Romanesque and Gothic cathedrals express important ideas about religious theology.

Appendix

Figure 1

Dom St. Peter Cathedral, exterior, 10^th century, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Dom_St._Peter%2C_Trier.jpg, photograph taken in 2001

Figure 2

Our Lady of Sablon Church, façade, 13^th century, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d1/Bruxelles_Notre-Dame_du_Sablon.jpg., photograph taken in 2009

Figure 3

Mainzer Dom Cathedral, exterior, 9^th century, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/Mainzer_Dom_von_Nordosten.jpg, photograph taken in 2007

Figure 4

Notre Dame de Reims Cathedral, interior, 14^th century, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/Reims_Cathedrale_Notre_Dame_interior_002.JPG, photograph taken in 2008

Figure 5

Canterbury Cathedral, wall painting, 12^th century, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/Canterbury_Fresko.jpg, photograph taken in 2008

Figure 6

Bourges cathedral, stained-glass window, 13^th century, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/Bourges-cathedrale-vitrail-femme.jpg, photograph taken in 2010

Weekly 7 Final Draft

The Roman Empire had reigned for many years and was one of the greatest and powerful empires to ever come about. This great empire ruled all of present day Europe and even stretched into North Africa and parts of the Middle East. They had strong warriors and a stretch of natural-born emperors that led Rome in their glory days. But then came the decline. The emperors after the Julio-Claudian Dynasty did a poor job of seizing control in the empire and this lead to much conflict within the empire. Numerous fights began to break out within the empire and the tension was building throughout. The future was not looking bright for the empire as a whole. The Roman Empire itself fell from a lack of a great leader and the glory days of Rome were long-lost memories, making the empire collapse in the end.

The Roman Empire practically came to an end when they were threatened by Attila and his Huns along with the Germanic tribe. “Attila and his brutal Huns invaded Gaul and Italy around 450, further shaking the foundations of the empire. In September 476, a Germanic prince named Odovacar won control of the Roman army in Italy” (History Channel Website, 2011). The once great empire of Rome closed on a bad note as they were invaded by Attila and his ferocious Huns army. The empire by this time was now on its last legs and they were taken over by ferocious warriors that the army of Rome could not handle. To make it worse, Rome was then finally taken over when the Germanic tribes, under the leader of Odovacar, won control of the whole Roman Empire situated in Italy. This marked the final ending for the Romans, for they had no opportunity to rebuild for the future.

Rome’s fall can also be blamed from several attacks from barbaric tribes that surrounded the Roman Empire. “Financial pressures, urban decline, underpaid troops and consequently overstretched frontiers - all of these finally caused the collapse of the western empire under waves of barbarian incursions in the early fifth century AD” (The British Museum, 2010). After Rome was divided into the Eastern Empire and the Western empire, the Western side started to collapse. Many soldiers and troops in the Western Empire were not getting paid enough and the line separating the western side from the rest of the world was going too far for this financially corrupted half to handle. These issues caused hardship for the Western Empire and then the barbaric attacks from the outside completely demolished this side as a whole. While the Eastern Empire survived and overcame these attacks, the Western side was practically gone from already past effects that chipped away at the glory of this empire.

Rome’s collapse can be credited towards the several emperors who did a very minimal job at sustaining control for the whole empire. “During the third century Rome suffered from a cycle of near-constant conflict. A total of 22 emperors took the throne, many of them meeting violent ends at the hands of the same soldiers who had propelled them to power” (History Channel Website, 2011). This quote mentions that over 20 emperors served as leader during the 200s, meaning that many terms that these emperors ruled for were very short. This shows that these emperors were very inconsistent and they were often booted out of office in a very short amount of time. Also, many of the fights and wars that came about can be credited towards the emperors and their soldiers fighting violently. During this time, many emperors showed violence towards their armies, causing fights that had long-lasting effects on the future for leaders of Rome.

The Roman Empire collapsed from many different reasons that all tied in together to summarize the fall of Rome. The inability to find a good leader was the most important, with each emperor showing the inability to win back the glory days of Rome and falling down the stretch. Money was also a big issue, with many soldiers being underpaid and eventually choosing to quit their duties of being fierce warriors in a once strong army. Rome also collapsed from violence and wars within the empire, which corrupted their society as a whole. This empire lost faith in its armies but especially their leaders. As a whole, the Roman Empire declined and completely fell in ranks as a great empire, from strongest to weakest.

APA Bibliography

Ancient Rome, (2011). Retrieved Apr. 12, 2011, from           

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

The British Museum, (2010). Retrieved Apr. 12, 2011, from

http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/article_index/r/the_roman_empire.aspx

Weekly 7 Rough Draft

The Roman Empire had reigned for many years and was one of the greatest and powerful empires to ever come about. This great empire ruled all of present day Europe and even stretched into North Africa and parts of the Middle East. They had strong warriors and a stretch of natural-born emperors that led Rome in their glory days. But then came the decline. The emperors after the Julio-Claudian Dynasty did a poor job of seizing control in the empire and this lead to much conflict within the empire. Numerous fights began to break out within the empire and the tension was building throughout. The future was not looking bright for the empire as a whole. The Roman Empire itself fell from a lack of a great leader and the glory days of Rome were long-lost memories, making the empire collapse in the end; Rome though did evolve into something new from disaster within the empire and they changed into a different kind of empire.

Rome’s collapse can be credited towards the several emperors who did a very minimal job at sustaining control for the whole empire. “During the third century Rome suffered from a cycle of near-constant conflict. A total of 22 emperors took the throne, many of them meeting violent ends at the hands of the same soldiers who had propelled them to power” (History Channel Website). This quote mentions that over 20 emperors served as leader during the 200s, meaning that many terms that these emperors ruled for were very short. This shows that these emperors were very inconsistent and they were often booted out of office in a very short amount of time. Also, many of the fights and wars that came about can be credited towards the emperors and their soldiers fighting violently. During this time, many emperors showed violence towards their armies, causing fights that had long-lasting effects on the future for leaders of Rome.

Rome’s fall can also be blamed from several attacks from barbaric tribes that surrounded the Roman Empire. “Financial pressures, urban decline, underpaid troops and consequently overstretched frontiers - all of these finally caused the collapse of the western empire under waves of barbarian incursions in the early fifth century AD” (The British Museum). After Rome was divided into the Eastern Empire and the Western empire, the Western side started to collapse. Many soldiers and troops in the Western Empire were not getting paid enough and the line separating the western side from the rest of the world was going too far for this financially corrupted half to handle. These issues caused hardship for the Western Empire and then the barbaric attacks from the outside completely demolished this side as a whole. While the Eastern Empire survived and overcame these attacks, the Western side was practically gone from already past effects that chipped away at the glory of this empire.

The Roman Empire practically came to an end when they were threatened by Attila and his Huns along with the Germanic tribe. “Attila and his brutal Huns invaded Gaul and Italy around 450, further shaking the foundations of the empire. In September 476, a Germanic prince named Odovacar won control of the Roman army in Italy” (History Channel Website). The once great empire of Rome closed on a bad note as they were invaded by Attila and his ferocious Huns army. The empire by this time was now on its last legs and they were taken over by ferocious warriors that the army of Rome could not handle. To make it worse, Rome was then finally taken over when the Germanic tribes, under the leader of Odovacar, won control of the whole Roman Empire situated in Italy. This marked the final ending for the Romans, for they had no opportunity to rebuild for the future.

The Roman Empire collapsed from many different reasons that all tied in together to summarize the fall of Rome. The inability to find a good leader was the most important, with each emperor showing the inability to win back the glory days of Rome and falling down the stretch. Money was also a big issue, with many soldiers being underpaid and eventually choosing to quit their duties of being fierce warriors in a once strong army. Rome also collapsed from violence and wars within the empire, which corrupted their society as a whole. This empire lost faith in its armies but especially their leaders. As a whole, the Roman Empire declined and completely fell in ranks as a great empire, from strongest to weakest. 

APA Bibliography

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

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

The British Museum, (2010). In The Roman Empire. Retrieved Apr. 12, 2011, from

http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/article_index/r/the_roman_empire.aspx

           

Week 6: Daily #3

How does Early Christian and Byzantine portraiture represent both a continuation of and a break from the past? Look up the Fayum Portraits and the Ravenna Portrait of Justinian  as a starting point for your thinking.

The early portraiture from the early Christians and Byzantines show a continuation from the past in different ways. One way is that many of these early portraits that we see today often depicted a person in a different event. This shows that the past can be seen in early portraits where a specific person was influenced by the event. The Ravenna Portrait of Justinian is a good example of how you can see emperor Justinian and the Bishop of Ravenna with other soldiers around him. This portrait represents the Roman Empire in the time of Justinian, which continues the past. The past is also continued by when artists used some of the materials that were sacred in making portraits back then.  If there was a material that was important in making a portrait, we can see the material being used in the portrait, continuing the past materials used back then in today's world.

The early portraiture represents a break in the past in other ways, too. One way is that some of the portraits of early Christians and Byzantines were very abstract and focused more on the detail of the portrait. This shows that the detail in the painting often spoke louder than the meaning behind the portrait. Also, artwork at this time often was seen in great architectural buildings, so we can focus on the massive buildings of the time instead of the past events. So the artists at this time showed great detail in their portraits, but they also had a great story equal to the artwork depicted in the portrait. 

Daily #2: Stoicism Complete Essay

Adam Beard
4/5/11

Seneca was a man who was close to Nero and was trusted by Nero. Even though he was sentenced to death, Seneca showed a great deal of stoicism even in the face of death. Death fell upon Seneca, but he was unaffected by it.  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.

One quote that defines stoicism is from the Death of Seneca. “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: The Death of Seneca, 65 CE). This quote makes a good point about Seneca’s character. Even at the brink of death, Seneca held his emotions on the inside and showed that he did not care that death was coming. Seneca knew he was going to endure the pain of death, but he did not show that he cared at all. Seneca showed the ability to control his emotions on the inside while his friends and family didn’t see that Seneca even cared about death. Seneca was unaffected by the effect of death and death did not even matter to him.

Seneca can also be defined as a stoic by another quote from the Death of Seneca. This quote is, “Upon this the tribune asserted that he saw no signs of fear, and perceived no sadness in his words or in his looks” (Tacitus: The Death of Seneca, 65 CE). This quote tells how Seneca was just sentenced to death but he showed no emotions from it. Seneca did not even show any tears and he was not even scared at the thought of death.  He was unaffected by Nero’s sentence of death to him. Seneca was going through a lot of suffering at the time but it did not seem to upset him. It is as if Seneca just dealt with the pain and didn’t even care his life would be coming to an end. This quote also shows that Seneca was stoical near his death.

Another quote also describes the stoicism shown by Seneca. The quote is, “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” (Tacitus: The Death of Seneca, 65 CE). This quote shows that Seneca did not really show any interest in any one person. He also didn’t really say anything to the people he was close to or complement them for what they have done. Seneca just did not really show an interest in meeting other people or spending time with them. He kept his emotions on the inside and did not show enthusiasm in others. Seneca was more for himself than the wellness of other citizens.

These quotes show the significance of how Seneca represents a stoic. Seneca showed that he was a stoic by the way he reacted to death and by the reaction to others. The truth is that Seneca really did not react to death or other people. He kept all of his feelings and thoughts on the inside and did not show any emotions. Seneca did not show a tear and did not send out a cry of fear. Seneca just endured his hardship and controlled his emotions to a point where he didn’t even show any. Seneca was very quiet and subdued about a topic of death when many other people would cry and scream at the moment of death.  Seneca did not complain or whine; he persevered through feelings of pain. This made Seneca a great example of a stoic.

 Work Cited in APA Format

Tacitus, (1998). In Tacitus: The Death of Seneca, 65 CE. Retrieved Apr. 4, 2011, from http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/tacitus-ann15a.html 

Stoicism Essay Draft

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.

One quote that defines stoicism is from the Death of Seneca. “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.” This quote makes a good point about Seneca’s character. Even at the brink of death, Seneca held his emotions on the inside and showed that he did not care that death was coming. Seneca knew he was going to endure the pain of death, but he did not show that he cared at all. Seneca showed the ability to control his emotions on the inside while his friends and family didn’t see that Seneca even cared about death. Seneca was unaffected by the effect of death and death did not even matter to him.

Seneca can also be defined as a stoic by another quote from the Death of Seneca. This quote is, “Upon this the tribune asserted that he saw no signs of fear, and perceived no sadness in his words or in his looks.” This quote tells how Seneca was just sentenced to death but he showed no emotions from it. Seneca did not even show any tears and he was not even scared at the thought of death.  He was unaffected by Nero’s sentence of death to him. Seneca was going through a lot of suffering at the time but it did not seem to upset him. It is as if Seneca just dealt with the pain and didn’t even care his life would be coming to an end. This quote also shows that Seneca was stoical near his death.

Another quote also describes the stoicism shown by Seneca. The quote is, “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.” This quote shows that Seneca did not really show any interest in any one person. He also didn’t really say anything to the people he was close to or complement them for what they have done. Seneca just did not really show an interest in meeting other people or spending time with them. 

Week 6: Daily #1

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

“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.”

"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.”

“Upon this the tribune asserted that he saw no signs of fear, and perceived no sadness in his words or in his 

looks.”

“"I have shown you ways of smoothing life; you prefer the glory of dying. I will not grudge you such a noble example. Let the fortitude of so courageous an end be alike in both of us, but let there be more in your decease to win fame."

Book One of Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations

“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.”

“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.”

“I observed that everybody believed that he thought as he spoke, and that in all that he did he never had any bad intention; and he never showed amazement and surprise, and was never in a hurry, and never put off doing a thing, nor was perplexed nor dejected, nor did he ever laugh to disguise his vexation, nor, on the other hand, was he ever passionate or suspicious.”