Weekly 8- Final Draft

During the fall of the Roman Empire, Rome was in complete despair and they were constantly being attacked by outside enemies. Rome needed some way to protect its city from invaders and this is when Romanesque cathedrals were built. The Romanesque period lasted from about the ninth century until about the eleventh century when cathedrals were built for protection. Then, when invaders settled down in their own areas, the Gothic period of Rome flourished with its cathedrals. This period immediately followed the Romanesque period from about the twelfth century until about the fourteenth century. Both types of architecture were very popular in Rome for their different characteristics, but the important thing is that their theology was unique in their own ways. Gothic cathedrals and Romanesque cathedrals were very different in expressing their own theologies; Romanesque cathedrals were built for protection while Gothic cathedrals were built to let the light in from God above and to express creativity. 

            One major difference of the Romanesque cathedrals and the Gothic cathedrals were the size of the windows (Figure 1 and Figure 2). It is obvious to see that The Romanesque cathedrals had very small windows that were not able to let that much light in. The Gothic cathedrals had very tall and elegant windows that could let so much light inside and they were decorative, unlike the windows on Romanesque cathedrals. The windows on the Romanesque cathedrals are very boring and simple, unlike the attractive and appealing windows on the Gothic cathedrals. The windows also expressed the cathedrals’ own unique theology, where Romanesque cathedrals did not want enemies to be able to see within, and Gothic cathedrals wanted to let God’s light in so everyone would be filled with God’s presence. It is easy to understand that the windows of both types of cathedrals were built to express their own theologies.

            Another difference between Romanesque and Gothic cathedrals was the external appearances of both types of cathedrals. Romanesque cathedrals were very different compared to Gothic cathedrals in the way they looked from the outside (Figure 3 and 4). Romanesque cathedrals were huge buildings and were much larger than the Gothic cathedrals in terms of their size. Romanesque cathedrals were also very plain and simple in their exterior design but Gothic cathedrals had a lot more appealing features and it is easy to tell that a lot more effort was put into the design of those cathedrals. Also, the Romanesque cathedrals had thick walls and since they were so big, they could withstand many attacks from foreign invaders because they were so stable. The characteristics of the Romanesque cathedrals are there mainly for strong protection from powerful attacks so people could go somewhere to be safe. Gothic cathedrals had features that could attract people to visit and for religious purposes by letting God’s light in.

            One final difference between Romanesque cathedrals and Gothic cathedrals is the interior structure, which are different because it was designed for different reasons (Figure 5 and 6). Romanesque cathedrals were, like the exterior, very simple and fortification was a main priority for these cathedrals because the walls are extremely thick. Gothic cathedrals, on the other hand, did not have to be used for protection since outside attacks were not occurring anymore and they were free to show how creative they could be. Romanesque cathedrals were very dark inside and not much design can be found in them due to the theology of judgment day in these famous cathedrals. Gothic cathedrals can be seen with many aspects of Christianity, such as crosses and crucifixes, so religion was a top priority. They were also very bright due to the fact that the windows could let in much of God’s light and it felt like God was present in these cathedrals. If Romanesque cathedrals were used for protection very often, it is easy to understand how there was not much time to improve the interior design and art.

            After looking at both Romanesque and Gothic cathedrals, there are many characteristics that can easily be spotted that make them different from each other. The situation of the outside invaders really affected how the two types of cathedrals would be built and what they would be used for. Romanesque cathedrals were built during the time of invaders from foreign countries so their theology was developed based on this situation- they needed protection for the people of Rome. Since attacks were not imminent during the time period after Romanesque cathedrals, new cathedrals could be built to express creative designs and for more religious beliefs since Christianity was on the rise. The theologies for both types of cathedrals were developed during their time period and the features of each give away their theologies, which were extremely different. Even though Romanesque and Gothic cathedrals were popular in their times, they differed greatly in their design and thus their theologies had to be unique to each one. 

 Appendix

Figure 1

Schoengrabern Church, facade, 10th century, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Schoengrabern1a.JPG, photograph taken in 2007.

Figure 2



Sainte Chapelle, interior, 13th century, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sainte_chapelle_-_Upper_level.jpg, photograph taken in 2005.

Figure 3



Tournai Cathedral, facade, 12th century, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tournai_JPG001.jpg, photograph taken in 2005.

Figure 4

Notre Dame de Paris, facade, 13th century, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:060806-France-Paris-Notre_Dame.jpg, photograph taken in 2006.

Figure 5

St. Michael's Church, interior, 10th century, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hildesheim-St_Michaels_Church.interior.01.JPG, photograph taken in 2005.

Figure 6

Bad Doberan, interior, 14th century, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bad_Doberan_M%C3%BCnster_(11)_2006-09-24.JPG, photograph taken in 2006.

Weekly 8- Rough Draft

            During the fall of the Roman Empire, Rome was in complete despair and they were constantly being attacked by outside enemies. Rome needed some way to protect its city from invaders and this is when Romanesque cathedrals were built. The Romanesque period lasted from about the ninth century until about the eleventh century when cathedrals were built for protection. Then, when invaders settled down in their own areas, the Gothic period of Rome flourished with its cathedrals. This period immediately followed the Romanesque period from about the twelfth century until about the fourteenth century. Both types of architecture were very popular in Rome for their different characteristics, but the important thing is that their theology was unique in their own ways. Gothic cathedrals and Romanesque cathedrals were very different in expressing their own theologies; Romanesque cathedrals were built for protection while Gothic cathedrals were built to let the light in from God above and to express creativity. Both Gothic and Romanesque cathedrals do not express anything about theology in their own characteristics and appearances.

            One major difference of the Romanesque cathedrals and the Gothic cathedrals were the size of the windows (Figure 1 and Figure 2). It is obvious to see that The Romanesque cathedrals had very small windows that were not able to let that much light in. The Gothic cathedrals had very tall and elegant windows that could let so much light inside and they were decorative, unlike the windows on Romanesque cathedrals. The windows on the Romanesque cathedrals are very boring and simple, unlike the attractive and appealing windows on the Gothic cathedrals. The windows also expressed the cathedrals’ own unique theology, where Romanesque cathedrals did not want enemies to be able to see within, and Gothic cathedrals wanted to let God’s light in so everyone would be filled with God’s presence. It is easy to understand that the windows of both types of cathedrals were built to express their own theologies.

            Another difference between Romanesque and Gothic cathedrals was the external appearances of both types of cathedrals. Romanesque cathedrals were very different compared to Gothic cathedrals in the way they looked from the outside (Figure 3 and 4). Romanesque cathedrals were huge buildings and were much larger than the Gothic cathedrals in terms of their size. Romanesque cathedrals were also very plain and simple in their exterior design but Gothic cathedrals had a lot more appealing features and it is easy to tell that a lot more effort was put into the design of those cathedrals. Also, the Romanesque cathedrals had thick walls and since they were so big, they could withstand many attacks from foreign invaders because they were so stable. The characteristics of the Romanesque cathedrals are there mainly for strong protection from powerful attacks so people could go somewhere to be safe. Gothic cathedrals had features that could attract people to visit and for religious purposes by letting God’s light in.

            One final difference between Romanesque cathedrals and Gothic cathedrals is the interior structure, which are different because it was designed for different reasons (Figure 5 and 6). Romanesque cathedrals were, like the exterior, very simple and fortification was a main priority for these cathedrals because the walls are extremely thick. Gothic cathedrals, on the other hand, did not have to be used for protection since outside attacks were not occurring anymore and they were free to show how creative they could be. Romanesque cathedrals were very dark inside and not much design can be found in them due to the theology of judgment day in these famous cathedrals. Gothic cathedrals can be seen with many aspects of Christianity, such as crosses and crucifixes, so religion was a top priority. They were also very bright due to the fact that the windows could let in much of God’s light and it felt like God was present in these cathedrals. If Romanesque cathedrals were used for protection very often, it is easy to understand how there was not much time to improve the interior design and art.

            After looking at both Romanesque and Gothic cathedrals, there are many characteristics that can easily be spotted that make them different from each other. The situation of the outside invaders really affected how the two types of cathedrals would be built and what they would be used for. Romanesque cathedrals were built during the time of invaders from foreign countries so their theology was developed based on this situation- they needed protection for the people of Rome. Since attacks were not imminent during the time period after Romanesque cathedrals, new cathedrals could be built to express creative designs and for more religious beliefs since Christianity was on the rise. The theologies for both types of cathedrals were developed during their time period and the features of each give away their theologies, which were extremely different. Even though Romanesque and Gothic cathedrals were popular in their times, they differed greatly in their design and thus their theologies had to be unique to each one. 

Appendix 

            Figure 1

 Schoengrabern Church, facade, 10th century, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Schoengrabern1a.JPG, photograph taken in 2007.

Figure 2

Sainte Chapelle, interior, 13th century, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sainte_chapelle_-_Upper_level.jpg, photograph taken in 2005.

Figure 3

Tournai Cathedral, facade,12th century, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tournai_JPG001.jpg, photograph taken in 2005.

Figure 4

Notre Dame de Paris, facade, 13th century, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:060806-France-Paris-Notre_Dame.jpg, photograph taken in 2006.

Figure 5

St, Michael's Church, interior, 10th century, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hildesheim-St_Michaels_Church.interior.01.JPG, photograph taken in 2005.

Figure 6

Bad Doberan, interior, 14th century, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bad_Doberan_M%C3%BCnster_(11)_2006-09-24.JPG, photograph taken in 2006.

Final Weekly #7

The Roman Empire was prosperous for many years during its prime and during their reign as empire, they had many good emperors who helped Rome in many ways. The Roman Empire was succeeding do much that they conquered much of the Mediterranean and it needed to divide into two parts because it was so big. Unfortunately, many of the “good emperors” disappeared and many emperors came into play that did not lead Rome successfully like the previous emperors did. Rome started to suffer under these emperors because of how they approached certain actions and at this point, Rome was on a decline for the worst. There was little hope for the Roman Empire to recover and after many unsuccessful attempts to turn the empire around, Rome was officially done with their empire. Rome could not recover from the outside attacks, unorganized government, and internal conflicts that affected the empire and this is why the Roman Empire declined and was never the strong empire they were once before.

            The Roman Empire had very good emperors during its prosperous years, but during the decline, the good emperors were replaced by crazy ones and they virtually did not exist. “The Roman empire in western Europe - a centralised superstate which had been in existence for 500 years - had ceased to exist, its single emperor replaced by upwards of a dozen kings and princes” (Heather, 2011). The Roman Empire was a powerhouse in the western world with emperors who knew what they were doing and made smart decisions. During Rome’s decline as an empire, emperors failed to lead Rome because they were non-existent so they were replaced by kings near the very end of the empire. These kings did not know what to do because they were last minute replacements and had trouble trying to prevent attacks from other countries like England. Suddenly, Rome was now in panic with the emperors gone and now the kings in rule and while Rome was trying to blame one another, their empire was slowly collapsing with the lack of an organized government.

            If there is any proof that the empire declined, than it must be that the empire lost a lot of its land and eventually got much smaller in the area it covered. “Rome eventually collapsed under the weight of its own bloated empire, losing its provinces one by one: Britain around 410; Spain and northern Africa by 430” (The History Channel Website, 2011). All of the fighting and arguing that went on in Rome and throughout the empire really started to affect the empire, even though Rome did not see it. Many countries saw this fighting within Rome as an opportunity to escape from the empire and they successfully did so. The empire was collapsing since each country one by one left the empire to survive as independent areas. All of the internal conflict of Rome put a huge burden on the empire and it was now almost impossible for Rome to even try to conquer more land because of their declining status.

            One of the things that contributed to the fall of the Roman Emperor was all the conflict that went on in the empire and from the outside. “An entirely different story played out in the west, where the empire was wracked by internal conflict as well as threats from abroad--particularly from the Germanic tribes now established within the empire's frontiers--and was steadily losing money due to constant warfare” (The History Channel Website, 2011). War and military conflicts was a major issue during the decline of the Roman Empire because Rome was constantly being attacked by enemies from the outside. All of these attacks got to Rome at one point and after being sacked so many times, there was just not enough time to recover. Rome also had conflicts with themselves as a whole and the leaders of Rome did not make decisions that the people thought were right, so they eventually rebelled against the government. After all of the conflicts the empire went through, Rome lost a lot of its money and could not afford to do things that would benefit the empire and the people, like improving architecture.

Many events contributed to the decline and fall of Rome, most of which were negative. One continuous event that struck fear into Rome was all of the attacks from the outside enemies such as the Barbarians and there was no way for Rome to stop them since they attacked so frequently. Rome lost much of its own land in the empire because of the internal conflict that went on and the weight of all the conflict in the empire was too much to overcome. The government was completely unorganized so not much economic progress could be made with the kings who lead the empire during its decline. Rome also lacked a good army who could ward off enemies from the outside and their border security was not as strong as it hoped to be. There is obvious proof that the Roman Empire declined and it would never be the same after its collapse.

Work Cited

Ancient Rome. (2011). The History Channel website. Retrieved 8:26, April 12, 2011,

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

Heather, P. (2011, February 17). The fall of rome. Retrieved from  

            http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/romans/fallofrome_article_01.shtml#five

Weekly #7- Rough Draft

            The Roman Empire was prosperous for many years during its prime and during their reign as empire, they had many good emperors who helped Rome in many ways. The Roman Empire was succeeding do much that they conquered much of the Mediterranean and it needed to divide into two parts because it was so big. Unfortunately, many of the “good emperors” disappeared and many emperors came into play that did not lead Rome successfully like the previous emperors did. Rome started to suffer under these emperors because of how they approached certain actions and at this point, Rome was on a decline for the worst. There was little hope for the Roman Empire to recover and after many unsuccessful attempts to turn the empire around, Rome was officially done with their empire. Rome could not recover from all the negative things that affected the empire and this is why the Roman Empire declined and eventually collapsed. The Roman Empire did not decline or fall at all; rather, it gave new life to a new and upcoming Rome that would also prosper just like the Empire did.

            One of the things that contributed to the fall of the Roman Emperor was all the conflict that went on in the empire and from the outside. “An entirely different story played out in the west, where the empire was wracked by internal conflict as well as threats from abroad--particularly from the Germanic tribes now established within the empire's frontiers--and was steadily losing money due to constant warfare” (The History Channel Website, 2011). War and military conflicts was a major issue during the decline of the Roman Empire because Rome was constantly being attacked by enemies from the outside. All of these attacks got to Rome at one point and after being sacked so many times, there was just not enough time to recover. Rome also had conflicts with themselves as a whole and the leaders of Rome did not make decisions that the people thought were right, so they eventually rebelled against the government. After all of the conflicts the empire went through, Rome lost a lot of its money and could not afford to do things that would benefit the Empire and the people, like improving architecture.

            The Roman Empire had very good emperors during its prosperous years, but during the decline, emperors did not exist. “The Roman empire in western Europe - a centralised superstate which had been in existence for 500 years - had ceased to exist, its single emperor replaced by upwards of a dozen kings and princes” (Heather, 2011). The Roman Empire was a powerhouse in the western world with emperors who knew what they were doing and made smart decisions. During Rome’s decline as an empire, emperors failed to lead Rome because they were non-existent so they were replaced by kings near the very end of the empire. These kings did not know what to do because they were last minute replacements and had trouble trying to prevent attacks from other countries like England. Suddenly, Rome was now in panic with the emperors gone and now the kings in rule and while Rome was trying to blame one another, their empire was slowly collapsing with the lack of an organized government.

            If there is any proof that the empire declined, than it must be that the empire lost a lot of its land and eventually got much smaller in the area it covered. “Rome eventually collapsed under the weight of its own bloated empire, losing its provinces one by one: Britain around 410; Spain and northern Africa by 430” (The History Channel Website, 2011). All of the fighting and arguing that went on in Rome and throughout the empire really started to affect the empire, even though Rome did not see it. Many countries saw this fighting within Rome as an opportunity to escape from the empire and they successfully did so. The empire was collapsing since each country one by one left the empire to survive as independent areas. All of the internal conflict of Rome put a huge burden on the empire and it was now almost impossible for Rome to even try to conquer more land because of their declining status.

Many events contributed to the decline and fall of Rome, most of which were negative. One continuous event that struck fear into Rome was all of the attacks from the outside enemies such as the Barbarians and there was no way for Rome to stop them since they occurred so frequently. Rome lost much of its own land in the empire because of the internal conflict that went on and the weight of all the conflict in the empire was too much to overcome. The government was completely unorganized so not much economic progress could be made with the kings who lead the empire during its decline. Rome also lacked a good army who could ward off enemies from the outside and their border security was not as strong as it hoped to be. There is obvious proof that the Roman Empire declined and it would never be the same after its collapse.

Work Cited

Ancient Rome. (2011). The History Channel website. Retrieved 8:26, April 12, 2011,
            from http://www.history.com/topics/ancient-rome.

Heather, P. (2011, February 17). The fall of rome. Retrieved from   
            http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/romans/fallofrome_article_01.shtml#five

Required Daily #35

Edward Gibbon describes many reasons why the Roman Empire fell like it did. First of all, the main reason why the empire flourished was how the people had virtues they followed and they were like the main principles of Rome. The freedom of the people in the republic was declining greatly because of the recent wars Rome fought in. The emperors of Rome were beginning to become corrupt and the military was becoming very unorganized, and as a result, barbarians came to Rome in large groups. Gibbon goes on to say that Christianity was one thing to blame for the decline of Rome and the virtues that the Romans once used were now becoming unnoticed in society. He says that Rome was not aware and did not care about the enemies they had even though they were in danger and tyranny was starting to take over in Rome. He says the military was starting to crumble and the Barbarians really started to take control of Europe with their war-like tactics. Gibbon is trying to say that Rome declined because of themselves as a whole and Rome pretty much destroyed itself.

Arnold Toynbee’s view on the fall of the Roman Empire focuses greatly on Christianity and little else. He believes the rise of Christianity led to the decline of the empire. He often argues with Gibbon’s view on the decline of the empire and talks about his own view. He talks about how Christianity did not fit well with the Roman civilization because the Romans had different beliefs and were not ready to convert. He gives many specific examples of how Christianity related to the lives of the Romans and he often gave examples of the religion in Rome, including their beliefs and practices. He talks a lot more about Christianity then Gibbon but Gibbon gives many other reasons on the fall of the Roman Empire. They both explain their points of view in a lot of detail and it is easy to see what they felt about the Roman Empire.

Daily #34- Final Essay

            Seneca was a very trusted friend of Emperor Nero who was suspected of trying to kill him. This was really the turning point of Seneca’s life as he knew he would be facing death sooner or later. Instead of freaking about his own death that soon was coming, he was very calm and did not overreact to the situation because he hid his own emotions. Even though Seneca absorbed a lot of pain with his impending death, he knew he could not express it. These are the many beliefs of a specific type of person called a stoic. Stoicism is the ability to endure pain and hardship while retaining the ability to contain one's emotions; Seneca, at his death, was the perfect example of a stoic.

            Seneca, at his death, was a great example of how a stoic acts and shows his or her emotions. First of all, Seneca did not freak out or get emotional that he was going to die, but rather he was very calm and accepted it. "Upon this the tribune asserted that he saw no signs of fear, and perceived no sadness in his words or in his looks. He was accordingly ordered to go back and to announce sentence of death." (Tacitus: The Death of Seneca, 65 CE) This quote is saying that any normal person would be scared if they were going to die soon and they would be very upset and sad. Seneca acted as the complete opposite as the normal person and he did what most people would not do. He controlled his emotions so that he would not express his feelings inside himself and was calm under all the pressure. He took in all the pain that he was feeling as soon as he knew he was going to die and did not express any of the pain he was feeling inside. He did not try to get to mad about this event and he promised not to show his real feelings; that is what make a great stoic.

           

            Seneca was also a great example of a stoic at his death, but this time for a different reason. He found out that his wife was going to kill herself after she knew he was going to die, and Seneca reacted like a great stoic would. "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." (Tacitus) This is a perfect example of how Seneca cared about others more than himself but still did not react with great emotions. Seneca had always loved his wife and when he found out about her death, he did not react the same as most people would. He was not bothered at all about the fact that his loving wife was going to commit suicide but instead gave her advice. This shows that Seneca cared more about others and how they were feeling instead of his own self. He did not try to persuade his wife to do another reasonable action because that is what great stoics would do in that sort of circumstance. This is another reason how Seneca did not react with anger and rage but rather with calmness and coolness under the pressure.

           

            Seneca did not react like most people would when faced with death. He accepted it into his life and thought of it as another stage in his life. “Seneca, quite unmoved, asked for tablets on which to inscribe his will." (Tacitus) This quote shows that Seneca was not affected by the fact that he was going to die very soon. It said he was "unmoved", which means Seneca was not very emotional about his death and did not have strong feelings about it. Death is probably the worst thing that will come into Seneca's life, but all he wants to do is inscribe his will into stone tablets. He was completely calm under such a serious circumstance that was going to affect his life. If he would have overreacted and showed his true emotions about death, he would not be setting a good example of a great stoic. But the way he reacted to his death was so unusual and he accepted all the pain that came along with death, which fits into the definition of a stoic. This is why many people believe that Seneca was a stoic and will always be a stoic in their minds.

           

Seneca will always be remembered for the way he reacted at the time of his death. Most people in his situation would get extremely upset and get very emotional. Seneca on the other hand did not react at all in any of the ways listed. He did not get emotional when facing death and he did not get upset either. He pretty much hid his true emotions inside of him so his feelings would not affect the lives of the others around him. He accepted death even though it is the worst thing that would enter his life and really dealt with all the pain that came with it. It is not that Seneca was not emotional at all because he did have his own emotions inside, but he refused to show them because of how stoic he was at the time of his death. As a result, he was calm and collected when faced with death and he really cared about others more than himself, which was the case with his wife. There are many ways that Seneca represents a stoic and it is hard to even argue if Seneca was a stoic because there are many examples during the last part of his life.

Work Cited

Tacitus, (1998, May). Retrieved Apr. 4, 2011, from http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/tacitus-ann15a.html

Classwork Essay

Stoicism is the ability to endure pain and hardship  while retaining the ability to contain one's emotions; Seneca, at his death, was the perfect example of a stoic.

Seneca, at his death, was a great example of how a stoic acts and shows his or her emotions. First of all, Seneca did not freak out or get emotional that he was going to die, but rather he was very calm and accepted it. " Upon this the tribune asserted that he saw no signs of fear, and perceived no sadness in his words or in his looks. He was accordingly ordered to go back and to announce sentence of death." This quote is saying that any normal person would be scared if they were going to die soon and they would be very upset and sad. Seneca acted as the complete opposite as the normal person and he did what most people would not do. He controlled his emotions so that he would not express his feelings inside himself and was calm under all the pressure. He took in all the pain that he was feeling as soon as he knew he was going to die and did not express any of the pain he was feeling inside. He did not try to get to mad about this event and he promised not to show his real feelings; that is what make a great stoic.

Seneca was also a great example of a stoic at his death, but this time for a different reason. He found out that his wife was going to kill herself after she knew he was going to die, and Seneca reacted like a great stoic would. "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." This is a perfect example of how Seneca cared about others more than himself but still did not react with great emotions. Seneca had always loved his wife and when he found out about her death, he did not react the same as most people would. He was not bothered at all about the fact that his loving wife was going to commit suicide but instead gave her advice. This shows that Seneca cared more about others and how they were feeling instead of his own self. He did not try to persuade his wife to do another reasonable action because that is what great stoics would do in that sort of circumstance. This is another reason how Seneca did not react with anger and rage but rather with calmness and coolness under the pressure.

Seneca did not react like most people would when faced with death. He accepted it into his life and thought of it as another stage in his life. " Seneca, quite unmoved, asked for tablets on which to inscribe his will." This quote shows that Seneca was not affected by the fact that he was going to die very soon. It said he was "unmoved", which means Seneca was not very emotional about his death and did not have strong feelings about it. Death is probably the worst thing that will come into Seneca's life , but all he wants to do is inscribe his will into stone tablets.

Required Daily 33

Quotes from The Death of Senecus:

• " 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."
• " Upon this the tribune asserted that he saw no signs of fear, and perceived no sadness in his words or in his looks. He was accordingly ordered to go back and to announce sentence of death."
• "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."
• "So he had directed in a codicil of his will, when even in the height of his wealth and power he was thinking of his life's close."

Quotes from Marcus Aurelius Antonius:
Meditations, 167 CE:

• "From my mother, piety and beneficence, and abstinence, not only from evil deeds, but even from evil thoughts; and further, simplicity in my way of living, far removed from the habits of the rich."
• "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."
• " 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 learned from him also consistency and undeviating steadiness in my regard for philosophy; and a disposition to do good, and to give to others readily, and to cherish good hopes."
• "From Maximus I learned self-government, and not to be led aside by anything; and cheerfulness in all circumstances, as well as in illness; and a just admixture in the moral character of sweetness and dignity, and to do what was set before me without complaining."