Weekly 8: How do Romanesque and Gothic Cathedrals express different understandings about religious theology?

            Romanesque and Gothic Cathedrals were built in thousands of different countries and cities throughout Europe. They started in about the 6^th century and lasted until about the 16^th century. Romanesque Cathedrals and Gothic Cathedrals are extremely different in the way they are built and the designs that they have. Romanesque and Gothic Cathedrals both define major differences and beliefs about religious theology in their different ways of architecture.

            Romanesque Cathedrals roughly began in about the 6^th century and ended in the 10^th century; when Gothic Cathedrals began. Romanesque Cathedrals were built more like a bomb shelter than a church. They didn’t have many windows, and they were made out of brick or stone to assure protection against enemies (see figure 1). In case a war would ever break out or an invasion would occur, the cathedrals were the buildings that the people of the town would go to for shelter. Also, many Romanesque Cathedrals were circular or semi-circles (see figure 2). Romanesque Cathedrals were built this way because it allowed more support for the cathedrals, and it also allowed to wall to be thicker and more protective. Romanesque Cathedrals seemed as if they were more for the protection of the people, then the worship of God.

            Gothic Cathedrals formed from Romanesque Cathedrals, and lasted from about the 10^th century to the 16^th century. They were more elaborate and decorative than Romanesque Cathedrals, and they consisted of many windows and beautiful designs (see figure 3). When the Gothic Cathedrals began, the reason for many windows was to allow the light of God in; to be able to let God shine into the Cathedrals and fill the Cathedrals with his presence through the sunlight. Also, these Cathedrals were meant to be noticed and they were meant for the purposes of worship. Gothic Cathedrals couldn’t be missed by anyone, and they had a massive amount of detail and artwork built into them (see figure 4). When Gothic Cathedrals were built, it was obvious that these Cathedrals were meant to show God worship, and not serve the community with protection.

            Between Romanesque and Gothic Cathedrals, there are extreme differences between the designs and the thought/planning put behind these two types of structures. The architects behind the Romanesque Cathedrals were more focused on safety then they were on appearance. Romanesque Cathedrals were practically plain and simple, and were used strict purposes only (see figure 5). On the other hand, Gothic Cathedrals are the complete opposite. The architects behind the Gothic Cathedrals wanted their Cathedrals to be noticed and they wanted them to be gorgeous. They consisted of high peaks, beautiful sculptures, and colossal stain glass windows (see figure 6).

Both Romanesque and Gothic Cathedrals had a huge impact on the medieval time period, but they impacted in different ways. Romanesque Cathedrals showed a darker, more war-like side in history. Gothic Cathedrals showed a more elegant, loving, brighter side in history. Even though both types of Cathedrals are extremely different, they showed the world today how quickly beliefs and virtues can change.

Figure 1 -  Xhignesse

Figure 2- The rotunde of Saint George

Figure 3- Cathedral of Amiens

Figure 4- Milan cathedral

Figure 5- Castañeda

 

Figure 6- Cathedral of St Etienne of Bourges

GRANDMONT, Jean-Pol (Producer). (2005). Xhignesse JPG02.jpg [Web]. Available from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Xhignesse_JPG02.jpg

Borak, Matt (Producer). (2005). Rotunde-of-St.-George-at-Rip.jpeg [Web]. Available from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rotunde-of-St.-George-at-Rip.jpeg

(2006). Cathedral of Amiens front.jpg [Web]. Available from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cathedral_of_Amiens_front.jpg

(2002). MailaenderDom.jpg [Web]. Available from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MailaenderDom.jpg

(2005). Castañeda2.jpg [Web]. Available from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Casta%C3%B1eda2.jpg

(2005). Bourges - 002 - Low Res.jpg [Web]. Available from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bourges_-_002_-_Low_Res.jpg

Weekly 7

          Once Rome was split into two different sections, they faced many problems with invaders and war. Both sides of the Roman Empire were decreasing slowly, but surely. Finally, both sides of Roman territory had been over-powered by different empires, and the Roman Empire was now nothing but a memory. The Roman Empire wasn’t transformed into a new empire; the Roman Empire had collapsed due to changes of power and constant attacks. 

            Once Diocletian came to power, he changed and transformed the government into something Rome had never seen before. “He established the tetrarchy (293A.D.), naming Maximianus as co-Augustus, and Galerius and Constantius as two subordinate Caesars. This experiment in power-sharing lasted only a short time. Constantius' son, Constantine (the Great), with dynastic ambitions of his own, set about defeating his imperial rivals and eventually reunited the Western and Eastern halves of the empire in 324A.D” (Lightfoot 2000 para. 7). Diocletian thought he was doing the right thing by turning the Roman Empire into a tetrarchy, when he clearly wasn’t. He had too many people in power, and eventually someone was going to tear apart the new form of government. Constantius’ son soon decided to rebel against the tetrarchy, and reunited the two sides of the Roman Empire that Diocletian had established not long before that. Also, how come it was that easy for Constantine to reunite the Roman Empire and rebel against the tetrarchy? No man can overthrow the Roman tetrarchy unless they have a strong source of power, or the Roman tetrarchy was extremely weak. This shows that either Constantine had gained power because his father was already favored in the Roman government, or that Diocletian’s Roman tetrarchy wasn’t even strong enough to keep itself together.

            After Constantine had established the new form of Roman government and moved the capital, things began to fall downhill when certain people within the Roman Empire started to form their own opinions and plans. “Driving many of the Germanic tribes—including the Visigoths—into the Roman provinces. What began as a controlled resettlement of barbarians within the empire's borders ended as an invasion. The emperor Valens was killed by the Visigoths at Adrianople in 378A.D., and the succeeding emperor, Theodosius I (r. 379–95A.D.), conducted campaigns against them, but failed to evict them from the empire. In 391A.D., Theodosius ordered the closing of all temples and banned all forms of pagan cult. After his death in 395A.D., the empire was divided between his sons, Honorius (Western Roman emperor) and Arcadius (Eastern Roman emperor)” (Lightfoot 2000 para 8.) Once again, the Roman Empire couldn’t control the people inside the empire. As soon as the Germanic tribes killed the emperor, it showed other tribes that, they too, could over rule the Roman Empire. Also, when Theodosius I thought he was controlling everything by starting campaigns against the Visigoths and didn’t make them leave the empire, he made them more upset when he closed the temples and ended pagan cults. When he did this, it didn’t fix anything; he just made the people more upset because their freedoms and worship places had been banned. This also played a huge part in the fall of the Roman Empire.

            Finally, the last factor that brought Rome to its fall was constant conflict and attacks. “In the west, constant attacks from German invaders such as the Visigoths broke the struggling empire down piece by piece until Italy was the only territory left under Roman control. In 476, the barbarian Odoacer overthrew the last Roman emperor, Romulus Augustus, and Rome had fallen” (History para. 2). The Visigoths continuously tore down the Roman Empire in the West until there was nothing left except for Italy. While the West was getting attacked, the barbarians overthrew Romulus Augusta in the East. Roman was completely helpless and now there was nothing left of them. Romulus Augusta would be the last Roman Empire in history.

            The Roman Empire was completely destroyed by 476. New tribes and cultures had taken over what used to be the Roman Empire, and turned it into their own territories and small empires. Rome lasted as long as it possibly could, trying to fight invaders and wars endlessly. But, eventually Rome couldn’t fight any longer and the Roman Empire had ceased to exist.

Byzantine Empire. (2011). The History Channel website. Retrieved 9:30, April 12, 2011, from

http://www.history.com/topics/byzantine-empire.

Lightfoot, C. (2000, October). The roman empire (27 b.c.–393 a.d.). Retrieved from http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/roem/hd_roem.htm

Draft Weekly 7

Once Rome was split into two different sections, they faced many problems with invaders and war. Both sides of the Roman Empire were decreasing slowly, but surely. Finally, both sides of Roman territory had been over-powered by different empires, and the Roman Empire was now nothing but a memory. The Roman Empire wasn’t transformed into a new domain; Rome slowly weakened and fell to the end of its rule. The Roman Empire was transformed into a new domain; Rome didn’t slowly weaken and fall to the end of its rule.

            Once Diocletian came to power, he changed and transformed the government into something Rome had never seen before. “He established the tetrarchy (293A.D.), naming Maximianus as co-Augustus, and Galerius and Constantius as two subordinate Caesars. This experiment in power-sharing lasted only a short time. Constantius' son, Constantine (the Great), with dynastic ambitions of his own, set about defeating his imperial rivals and eventually reunited the Western and Eastern halves of the empire in 324A.D” (Lightfoot 2000 para. 7). Diocletian thought he was doing the right thing by turning the Roman Empire into a tetrarchy, when he clearly wasn’t. He had too many people in power, and eventually someone was going to tear apart the new form of government. Constantius’ son soon decided to rebel against the tetrarchy, and reunited the two sides of the Roman Empire that Diocletian had established not long before that. Also, how come it was that easy for Constantine to reunite the Roman Empire and rebel against the tetrarchy? No man can overthrow the Roman tetrarchy unless they have a strong source of power, or the Roman tetrarchy was extremely weak. This shows that either Constantine had gained power because his father was already favored in the Roman government, or that Diocletian’s Roman tetrarchy wasn’t even strong enough to keep itself together.

            After Constantine had established the new form of Roman government and moved the capital, things began to fall downhill when certain people within the Roman Empire started to form their own opinions and plans. “Driving many of the Germanic tribes—including the Visigoths—into the Roman provinces. What began as a controlled resettlement of barbarians within the empire's borders ended as an invasion. The emperor Valens was killed by the Visigoths at Adrianople in 378A.D., and the succeeding emperor, Theodosius I (r. 379–95A.D.), conducted campaigns against them, but failed to evict them from the empire. In 391A.D., Theodosius ordered the closing of all temples and banned all forms of pagan cult. After his death in 395A.D., the empire was divided between his sons, Honorius (Western Roman emperor) and Arcadius (Eastern Roman emperor)” (Lightfoot 2000 para 8.) Once again, the Roman Empire couldn’t control the people inside the empire. As soon as the Germanic tribes killed the emperor, it showed other tribes that, they too, could over rule the Roman Empire. Also, when Theodosius I thought he was controlling everything by starting campaigns against the Visigoths and didn’t make them leave the empire, he made them more upset when he closed the temples and ended pagan cults. When he did this, it didn’t fix anything; he just made the people more upset because their freedoms and worship places had been banned. This also played a huge part in the fall of the Roman Empire.

            Finally, the last factor that brought Rome to its fall was constant conflict and attacks. “In the west, constant attacks from German invaders such as the Visigoths broke the struggling empire down piece by piece until Italy was the only territory left under Roman control. In 476, the barbarian Odoacer overthrew the last Roman emperor, Romulus Augustus, and Rome had fallen” (History para. 2). The Visigoths continuously tore down the Roman Empire in the West until there was nothing left except for Italy. While the West was getting attacked, the barbarians overthrew Romulus Augusta in the East. Roman was completely helpless and now there was nothing left of them. Romulus Augusta would be the last Roman Empire in history.

            The Roman Empire was completely destroyed by 476. New tribes and cultures had taken over what used to be the Roman Empire, and turned it into their own territories and small empires. Rome lasted as long as it possibly could, trying to fight invaders and wars endlessly. But, eventually Rome couldn’t fight any longer and the Roman Empire had ceased to exist.

Byzantine Empire. (2011). The History Channel website. Retrieved 9:30, April 12, 2011, from

http://www.history.com/topics/byzantine-empire.

Lightfoot, C. (2000, October). The roman empire (27 b.c.–393 a.d.). Retrieved from http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/roem/hd_roem.htm

Seneca Final

Stoicism

At the time, Seneca and Nero were extremely good friends. But, Nero became paranoid and suspected Seneca of trying to kill or go against him. Due to this paranoia, Nero sent Natalis to tell Seneca that he would be put to death or he could commit suicide. Before and during his death, Seneca was completely stoic and cared much more about his wife, who was also killing herself with him, than about his own death and pain. 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.

In book that Tacitus wrote about Seneca, he stated: "Upon this the tribune asserted that he saw no signs of fear, and perceived no sadness in his words or in his looks." (Tacitus) This quote was explaining Seneca’s response to Natalis when Natalis told Seneca Nero’s death wish for him. Seneca didn’t cry or try to fight Natalis, nor was he scared or worried. He acted as he normally would to any person he was talking to, without showing any signs that he was upset or that he planned on committing suicide. Seneca simply accepted Nero’s death wish, and followed through with the procedure.

Another quote from Tacitus’ book that described and explained Seneca’s stoicism is: “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) Seneca only asked to write his will, without even showing that this death he was soon to encounter bothered him at all. He told his friends about what he was leaving to them, and didn’t discuss his death or try to explain to them what he was feeling. He told them that all he could leave them was the reward of his friendship. There was no crying or sadness in his voice; he remained stoic the entire time.

“At the same time he called them back from their tears to manly resolution, now with friendly talk, and now with the sterner language of rebuke.” (Tacitus) Seneca told his friends that he didn’t want them to cry either, that they should have stayed in the same, normal state that he was staying in. He was being friendly and talking to them as if they were holding a normal conversation about anything. He refused to let his death get to him; he stayed in a calm and friendly state at the time. But, once he heard that his wife was going to kill herself also, he began to show emotions.

“Having spoken these and like words, meant, so to say, for all, he embraced his wife; then softening awhile from the stern resolution of the hour, he begged and implored her to spare herself the burden of perpetual sorrow, and, in the contemplation of a life virtuously spent, to endure a husband's loss with honourable consolations.” (Tactitus) Seneca shows his concern for his wife and how she wants to die with him. He tries to convince her not to do it, and showed extreme emotion in trying to stop her. He never mentioned how much it hurts him or how scared he is to die; all he wants to do is convince her not to kill herself. He showed completely concern and emotion for her.

Seneca barely showed any emotion at the time of his death or before his death. The only emotion he did show was to his wife, about her own death. He showed great stoicism and never let anyone know if he was scared, sad, upset, etc. Seneca was an amazing stoic.

                                 

Tacitus, Initials. (65 CE). Death of seneca [Annals Book 15].

Retrieved from http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/tacitus-ann15a.html

Seneca

Stoicism

At the time, Seneca and Nero were extremely good friends. But, Nero became paranoid and suspected Seneca of trying to kill or go against him. Due to this paranoia, Nero sent Natalis to tell Seneca that he would be put to death or he could commit suicide. Before and during his death, Seneca was completely stoic and cared much more about his wife, who was also killing herself with him, than about his own death and pain. 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.

In book that Tacitus wrote about Seneca, he stated: "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 was explaining Seneca’s response to Natalis when Natalis told Seneca Nero’s death wish for him. Seneca didn’t cry or try to fight Natalis, nor was he scared or worried. He acted as he normally would to any person he was talking to, without showing any signs that he was upset or that he planned on committing suicide. Seneca simply accepted Nero’s death wish, and followed through with the procedure.

Another quote from Tacitus’ book that described and explained Seneca’s stoicism is: “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.” Seneca only asked to write his will, without even showing that this death he was soon to encounter bothered him at all. He told his friends about what he was leaving to them, and didn’t discuss his death or try to explain to them what he was feeling. He told them that all he could leave them was the reward of his friendship. There was no crying or sadness in his voice, he remained stoic the entire time.

“At the same time he called them back from their tears to manly resolution, now with friendly talk, and now with the sterner language of rebuke.” Seneca told his friends that he didn’t want them to cry either, that they should have stayed in the same, normal state that he was staying in. He was being friendly and talking to them as if they were holding a normal conversation about anything. He refused to let his death get to him; he stayed in a calm and friendly state at the time. But, once he heard that his wife was going to kill herself also, he began to show emotions.

Daily 1- Week 6

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.

1. "When the tribune reported this answer in the presence of Poppaea and Tigellinus, the emperor's most confidential advisers in his moments of rage, he asked whether Seneca was meditating suicide. Upon this the tribune asserted that he saw no signs of fear, and perceived no sadness in his words or in his looks."
2. "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. At the same time he called them back from their tears to manly resolution, now with friendly talk, and now with the sterner language of rebuke."

Death of Seneca

1. "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."
2. "From Diognetus, not to busy myself about trifling things, and not to give credit to what was said by miracle-workers and jugglers about incantations and the driving away of daemons and such things; and not to breed quails for fighting, nor to give myself up passionately to such things; and to endure freedom of speech; and to have become intimate with philosophy; and to have been a hearer, first of Bacchius, then of Tandasis and Marcianus; and to have written dialogues in my youth; and to have desired a plank bed and skin, and whatever else of the kind belongs to the Grecian discipline."
3. "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."
4. "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: he had the power of readily accommodating himself to all, so that intercourse with him was more agreeable than any flattery; and at the same time he was most highly venerated by those who associated with him: and he had the faculty both of discovering and ordering, in an intelligent and methodical way, the principles necessary for life; and he never showed anger or any other passion, but was entirely free from passion, and also most affectionate; and he could express approbation without noisy display, and he possessed much knowledge without ostentation."
5. "From Alexander the Platonic, not frequently nor without necessity to say to any one, or to write in a letter, that I have no leisure; nor continually to excuse the neglect of duties required by our relation to those with whom we live, by alleging urgent occupations."
6. "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. 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. He was accustomed to do acts of beneficence, and was ready to forgive, and was free from all falsehood; and he presented the appearance of a man who could not be diverted from right rather than of a man who had been improved. I observed, too, that no man could ever think that he was despised by Maximus, or ever venture to think himself a better man. He had also the art of being humorous in an agreeable way."

Ancient History Sourcebook:
Marcus Aurelius Antonius:
Meditations, 167 CE Book One