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.”

Roman Emperor Video

Adam Beard, Josh Mannion, Andrew Tran, and Andrew Beard are in my group.

Week 5: Daily #13

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 Roman Places in a larger map

Week 5: Daily #9

Question: Were the Julio-Claudians really as bad as they seem?

I do not think that the Julio-Claudians were really as bad as they seemed. Each of them may have been crazy and insane during their life, but the good things that they each did in their lifetimes made up for their insanity. Despite their insanity, they helped Rome become a very strong and powerful empire when they were each emperor of Rome. The first emperor of this dynasty was Augustus. When Julius Caesar died, Rome needed this fierce leader who could fill in for Caesar. Augustus did just that. As emperor, Augustus ruled through patronage, where he was loyal to his military and also the Roman senate. Many people started to respect Augustus with his loyalty as emperor. Augustus’s style of rule became a model for all later imperial governments. Tiberius was the second emperor in this dynasty. Even though he is known for throwing people off cliffs for his amusement, he helped Rome drastically with military. Tiberius was one of the greatest Roman generals of all time. While the third emperor in this dynasty, Caligula, was an insane tyrant of Rome, he initiated the construction of two new aqueducts in Rome and he constructed structures that were for the good of the people. The fourth emperor, Claudius, was inexperienced as a leader but he constructed fantastic buildings and structures all over Rome and he began the conquest of Britain. The fifth emperor, Nero, showed insanity when he played his fiddle during the Great Fire of Rome. But Nero was focused on trade with Rome and with negotiating peace with the Parthian Empire, avoiding a possible war with them. So even though the emperors in this dynasty were a bit crazy and insane with their power, they each made positive contributions that helped Rome grow as a whole. 

Week 5: Daily #8

Question: Do you think Caesar's killers were justified in their actions?

I do not think Caesar’s killers were justified in their actions. Their reason to assassinate Caesar was completely wrong. Killing a great leader like Caesar was a very bad mistake since many Romans looked up to him as a special and born leader. Other people looked up to Caesar as a role model. I know that the Roman senators feared Caesar gaining in power, but following their first instinct to kill him was just a dumb idea. The senators were only focused on power, and if Caesar stayed alive longer, he thought of himself to be a great king. These Roman senators never thought about what Caesar could do in the long run, even if he made Rome a strong empire or completely made them fall. But Caesar never live another day after March 15 of 44 B.C.E. The assassination of Caesar was very gory, with him being stabbed over 20 times. It was not a pretty day on the Ides of March. It was easy to understand why these senators hated Caesar, but killing him wasn’t the right solution. Their actions killed a potentially great leader for the future and a person that Plebeians all over Rome looked up to. Being a dictator, many senators, who formed a group called the Liberators, also feared that Caesar would overthrow their Senate in favor of tyranny. So the Roman senators had reasons to kill Caesar, but their motives were not right, making their actions in the end completely wrong. Caesar’s killers did not do the right thing at all with this once great dictator of Rome. 

Week 5: Daily #10

Question: Why do many historians consider Hadrian to have been the "best emperor"?

Many historians believe that Hadrian was a very good and the “best emperor” for a number of reasons. First of all, he influenced the great architecture of Rome. He was responsible with the building of the Pantheon, one of the greatest Roman buildings of all time that is still standing today. He also ordered the Temple of Venus and Roma to be built, which was thought to be one of the biggest temples in Ancient Rome. But other than being emperor, Hadrian had a love for Greek culture. He admired all of Greece and he ordered a reconstruction of Athens with new temples and large buildings to make Athens the cultural center of the Ancient world. Many historians like Hadrian because of his taste for Greece, even though he was a Roman emperor. Also, Hadrian was deeply involved in the military. He wore military garments and sometimes even ate with his soldiers. He ordered deep military training for all of his soldiers in case there was an attack on Rome. In 121 A.D, Hadrian with his army almost had a war with Parthia, but Hadrian avoided it because he negotiated peace between the two. Hadrian developed a new peace policy after this. This policy though was further strengthened with one of his greatest accomplishments. He built the famous Hadrian’s Wall, which marked the northern boundary of the Roman army. This wall stretched 60 miles across Great Britain. Hadrian was also unique with his love for the arts. Hadrian loved the arts of Rome and he himself could write in Latin and also Greek. Hadrian also had a beard, where every emperor before him except Nero was clean-shaven. These are all good reasons why historians think of Hadrian as the best emperor, with his uniqueness, his versatility, and his way of doing various things.