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

Romanesque and Gothic Cathedrals played a big role in the different European civilizations, especially in the theology of religion. So because of this, the archaeologists tried to express their religious views through the structure of Romanesque and Gothic Cathedrals. Through the architecture of Romanesque Cathedrals, fortitude and sanctuary were clearly displayed in the case of an invasion occurring. In the Gothic Cathedrals, it was all about the light being shown throughout the stain glass windows that aligned the cathedral’s walls. This light represented all the glory of God that could not be described in nearly enough words, which was also a sufficient way of spreading the faith they believed in. These cathedrals stood for more than just a building of holiness; they also expressed a deeper meaning in religious theology of that time.

Throughout the years, the construction of Romanesque and Gothic Cathedrals were very different in comparison. But not only did just the structure of these magnificent buildings change, the purposes of each of them were also very distinct. The interior of both the two different cathedrals contrasts with each other (Figure 3 & Figure 6). In a Romanesque Cathedral, its columns were massive in comparison to Gothic Cathedrals’ (Figure 3 & Figure 6). For Romanesque columns were made from a thicker material (Figure 3). Therefore, making them wider in base, and even more so larger in general (Figure 3). By making Romanesque columns a greater size, the appearance of them is much more powerful (Figure 3). For this look was very essential because Romanesque Cathedrals were supposed to represent a guard for the soul. In regard to Gothic Cathedrals, they instead contained more elegant columns with a much more extensive designing and skinner widths (Figure 6). This was because Gothic Cathedrals were in more of favor for appearance than safety. With further notice to the interiors, it would seem that the same theology would present itself throughout the rest of each of the cathedrals.     

The amount of light that entered a Romanesque Cathedral greatly differed in relation to the extent of light that shown through a Gothic Cathedral (Figure 5). Since large windows only proposed a threat to their sanctuary if the need of that shelter may be, windows were not an option in the structure of Romanesque Cathedrals. Instead, they constructed soaring towers that rose above the base of the cathedral (Figure 2). This also provided them with protection, giving them the ability to launch arrows or spears throw the narrow tower windows. The variety in form and quantity of towers depended on the region in which the cathedral was built. However, Gothic Cathedrals were the reverse, for invasions were no longer a prospect. So the archaeologists were given the option to increase the amount of windows used in a cathedral (Figure 5). Because of this, light was one of the main focuses in Gothic Cathedrals. Also in the religious aspect, the light shining through into the cathedral represented God’s first creation. Towers and windows are simple things to comprehend; although, even simple things can contain a deeper meaning.

Just by the simple appearance of the exterior of the cathedrals, many contrasts can be made (Figure 1 & Figure 4). The Romanesque Cathedral looks more of like a fortress instead of a place for prayer (Figure 1). The reason behind this was because of the possibility of invasions that could take place. The sturdy, strong look of the Romanesque cathedrals was supposed to intimate the enemy (Figure 1). But protecting their lives was not the only challenge the people were faced with; they were also in preparation of Judgment Day. As for Gothic Cathedrals, many contained pointed arches to emphasis the great height of the building, and clerestory windows for the ability to brighten the central area of the cathedral (Figure 4). It is said to not judge people by their first impression, but instead take the time to determine what each person’s true self really is. This could also be said about Romanesque and Gothic Cathedrals, for their deeper meaning lies within the structure of them.  

Romanesque and Gothic Cathedrals contained a much greater meaning than looks may perceive them as. For these cathedrals, express the theology of religion that was believed at the time. From the exterior to the interior, remarkable beliefs are within the structures. Towers, windows, and columns, of both cathedrals are just some of the evidence of the faith in which each cathedral holds within. These glorious cathedrals that plummet into the sky can represent many other different aspects in the society of the people living in that era, but most importantly religious theology.                        

Appendix

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 6

Bibliography

Figure 1 - San Vittore alle Chiuse, exterior, 11^th century, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Abaziasanvittorefrasassi.jpg, photograph taken in 2006.

Figure 2 - Cluny Abbey, tower, 10^th century, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Abbaye_de_Cluny,_2010_crop.jpg, photograph taken in 2010.

Figure 3 - Basílica di San Giovanni e Paolo, interior, 13th century, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Santi_Giovanni_e_Paolo_Venice_interior_01_crop.jpg, photograph taken in 2009.  

Figure 4 - Notre-Dame de Reims, facade, 12^th century, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cathedral_Notre-Dame_de_Reims,_France.jpg, photograph taken in 2004. 

Figure 5 - Saint Chapelle, choir, 13^th century, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Paris-SainteChapelle-Interieur.jpg, photograph taken in 2009.

Figure 6 - Basilica of Saint Denis, interior, 7^th century, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:StDenis_Chorumgang.JPG, photograph taken in 2005. 

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

Romanesque and Gothic Cathedrals played a big role in the different European civilizations, especially in the theology of religion. So because of this, the archaeologists tried to express their religious views through the structure of Romanesque and Gothic Cathedrals. Through the architecture of Romanesque Cathedrals, fortitude and sanctuary were clearly displayed in the case of an invasion occurring. In the Gothic Cathedrals, it was all about the light being shown throughout the stain glass windows that aligned the cathedral’s walls. This light represented all the glory of God that could not be described in nearly enough words, which was also a sufficient way of spreading the faith they believed in. These cathedrals stood for more than just a building of holiness; they also expressed a deeper meaning in religious theology of that time. Theses cathedrals did not stand for anything involving religious theology; instead they were just a building of holiness.        

Throughout the years, the construction of Romanesque and Gothic Cathedrals were very different in comparison. But not only did just the structure of these magnificent buildings change, the purposes of each of them were also very distinct. The interior of both the two different cathedrals contrasts with each other (Figure 3 & Figure 6). In a Romanesque Cathedral, its columns were massive in comparison to Gothic Cathedrals’ (Figure 3 & Figure 6). For Romanesque columns were made from a thicker material (Figure 3). Therefore, making them wider in base, and even more so larger in general (Figure 3). By making Romanesque columns a greater size, the appearance of them is much more powerful (Figure 3). In regard to Gothic Cathedrals, they instead contained more elegant columns with a much more extensive designing and skinner widths (Figure 6). This was because Gothic Cathedrals were in more of favor for appearance than safety. With further notice to the interiors, it would seem that the same theology would present itself throughout the rest of each of the cathedrals.      

The amount of light that entered a Romanesque Cathedral greatly differed in relation to the extent of light that shown through a Gothic Cathedral (Figure 5). Since large windows only proposed a threat to their sanctuary if the need of that shelter may be, windows were not an option in the structure of Romanesque Cathedrals. Instead, they constructed soaring towers that rose above the base of the cathedral (Figure 2). The variety in form and quantity of towers depended on the region in which the cathedral was built. However, Gothic Cathedrals were the reverse, for invasions were no longer a prospect. So the archaeologists were given the option to increase the amount of windows used in a cathedral (Figure 5). Because of this, light was one of the main focuses in Gothic Cathedrals. Towers and windows are simple things to comprehend; although, even simple things can contain a deeper meaning.

Just by the simple appearance of the exterior of the cathedrals, many contrasts can be made (Figure 1 & Figure 4). The Romanesque Cathedral looks more of like a fortress instead of a place for prayer (Figure 1). The reason behind this was because of the possibility of invasions that could take place. The sturdy, strong look of the Romanesque cathedrals was supposed to intimate the enemy (Figure 1). As for Gothic Cathedrals, many contained pointed arches to emphasis the great height of the building, and clerestory windows for the ability to brighten the central area of the cathedral for the light represented God’s first creation (Figure 4). It is said to not judge people by their first impression, but instead take the time to determine what each person’s true self really is. This could also be said about Romanesque and Gothic Cathedrals, for their deeper meaning lies within the structure of them.       

Romanesque and Gothic Cathedrals contained a much greater meaning than looks may perceive them as. For these cathedrals, express the theology of religion that was believed at the time. From the exterior to the interior, remarkable beliefs are within the structures. Towers, windows, and columns, of both cathedrals are just some of the evidence of the faith in which each cathedral holds within. These glorious cathedrals that plummet into the sky can only represent religious theology.                       

Appendix

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 6

Bibliography

Figure 1 - San Vittore alle Chiuse, exterior, 11^th century, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Abaziasanvittorefrasassi.jpg, photograph taken in 2006.

Figure 2 - Cluny Abbey, tower, 10^th century, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Abbaye_de_Cluny,_2010_crop.jpg, photograph taken in 2010.

Figure 3 - Basílica di San Giovanni e Paolo, interior, 13th century, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Santi_Giovanni_e_Paolo_Venice_interior_01_crop.jpg, photograph taken in 2009.   

Figure 4 - Notre-Dame de Reims, facade, 12^th century, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cathedral_Notre-Dame_de_Reims,_France.jpg, photograph taken in 2004.  

Figure 5 - Saint Chapelle, choir, 13^th century, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Paris-SainteChapelle-Interieur.jpg, photograph taken in 2009.

Figure 6 - Basilica of Saint Denis, interior, 7^th century, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:StDenis_Chorumgang.JPG, photograph taken in 2005.  

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

             During the evolution of the Roman Empire there were many sacrifices that were made. A great amount of art was lost, cities and roads were destroyed, and trade routes became extinct (Shenkman, 1993). But most importantly, all of Europe’s peace was demolished by the invasions from the Germanic tribes (Shenkman, 1993). However, there was also one major favorable event that also took place during this time, which was the abolition of slavery (Shenkman, 1993). Many historians mistake this progression as the Roman Empire completely falling because of all the losses it had to endure. Rather than simply declining and falling, the Roman Empire evolved into a new kind of civilization over a great length of time.     

One historian, Lucien Musset, who studies the barbarian invasions says, “The Roman Empire did not fall, did not decline, it just transformed but so did the Germanic populations which invaded it. (Decline of the Roman Empire, 2011)” Clearly, Musset also agrees that the Roman Empire was not lost. Instead, stating that it transformed. However, he adds to this belief by saying that the other barbarian tribes that did invade the Roman Empire were also influenced somehow. Therefore, this caused not only the Roman Empire to transform but the Germanic tribes too. Also, meaning that the Roman Empire was influential to the barbarian tribes just as much as the tribes were to the empire. This assumption is very logical, and probably did happen over the time of this evolution. Throughout history, more evidence in this influence of the Roman Empire and Germanic tribes is present. Therefore, this could not have happened if the Roman Empire “fell”.

Henri Pirenne, the author of Pirenne Thesis published in the 1920s, states, “It holds that even after the barbarian invasions, the Roman way of doing things did not immediately change; barbarians came to Rome not to destroy it, but to take part in its benefits, and thus they tried to preserve the Roman way of life. (Decline of the Roman Empire, 2011)” By this statement, Pirenne also adds that the evolution of the Roman Empire did not happen right after the barbarians invaded. Instead, he suggests that this progression took time to finally grow and prosper into a new civilization. Another comment is that the barbicans purpose for the Roman Empire was not to demolish the civilization, but instead retain the Roman Empire’s culture. This suggests that the Roman Empire really did not fall at all, but was really an evolution in history. However, if the Roman Empire did become extinct, then how could the Germanic tribes even want to maintain Roman traditions in there new civilization?       

 “The decay of Rome has been frequently ascribed to the translation of the seat of empire; but this history has already shewn that the powers of government were divided rather than removed. (Gibbon, 1996)” Meaning that even though it may seem like the Roman Empire’s main emperors were permanently being removed, they weren’t. Instead, they were just divided into other provinces in Europe. The Roman Empire could therefore be easily confused by the head of power being removed, which is actually an untrue statement. They still claimed an equal amount inheritance of legions and provinces (Gibbon, 1996). But more importantly, they also possessed an equal amount of power as they did before (Gibbon, 1996). And because of this, the barbarian leaders did not have complete control over the new civilization. In reality, they were just as equal to the emperors who came before from the Roman Empire. Since there were still Roman emperors, an assumption can be made that the Roman Empire still did exist even if changes were made by the invasions. 

            Many historians who study the “fall” of the Roman Empire, most likely think it is just that a fall, but really it was a progression. This means that the Roman Empire never really did become extinct. Instead, it evolved into one civilization with the Germanic tribes that invaded. Many reasons support this thesis such as that the barbarians’ main purpose for the invasion was not actually to destroy the empire but to preserve its culture. Another being that after the invasion there were still Roman emperors which actually did possess power over certain provinces just as before. History itself can be interpreted wrongly very easily. Because of this, many historians still believe that the Roman Empire actually did “fall”.     

Bibliography

Decline of the Roman Empire. (2011, April 9). Retrieved April 12, 2011, from Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_the_Roman_Empire#Theories_of_a_fall.2C_decline.2C_transition_and_continuity

Gibbon, E. (1996). General Observations on the Fall of the Roman Empire in the West. Retrieved April 12, 2011, from Internet Medieval Sourcebook: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/gibbon-fall.html

Shenkman, R. (1993). The Fall of Rome. Retrieved April 12, 2011, from Legends, Lies, & Cherished Myths of World History: http://www.tamos.net/~rhay/romefall.html

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

            During the evolution of the Roman Empire there were many sacrifices that were made. A great amount of art was lost, cities and roads were destroyed, and trade routes became extinct (Shenkman, 1993). But most importantly, all of Europe’s peace was demolished by the invasions from the Germanic tribes (Shenkman, 1993). However, there was also one major favorable event that also took place during this time, which was the abolition of slavery (Shenkman, 1993). Many historians mistake this progression as the Roman Empire completely falling. Ultimately, the Roman Empire evolved into another civilization over a great length in time. Ultimately, the Roman Empire was drastically destroyed.    

One historian, Lucien Musset, who is studies the barbarian invasions says, “The Roman Empire did not fall, did not decline, it just transformed but so did the Germanic populations which invaded it. (Decline of the Roman Empire, 2011)” Clearly, Musset also agrees that the Roman Empire was not lost. Instead, stating that it transformed. However, he adds to this belief by saying that the other barbarian tribes that did invade the Roman Empire were also influenced somehow. Therefore, this caused not only the Roman Empire to transform but also the Germanic tribes to meaning that the Roman Empire was influential to the barbarian tribes just as much as the tribes were to the empire. This assumption is very logical, and probably did happen over the time of this evolution. Throughout history more evidence in this influence of the Roman Empire and Germanic tribes is present. Therefore, this could not have happened if the Roman Empire “fell”.

Henri Pirenne, the author of Pirenne Thesis published in the 1920s, states, “It holds that even after the barbarian invasions, the Roman way of doing things did not immediately change; barbarians came to Rome not to destroy it, but to take part in its benefits, and thus they tried to preserve the Roman way of life. (Decline of the Roman Empire, 2011)” By this statement, Pirenne also adds that the evolution of the Roman Empire did not happen right after the barbarians invaded. Instead, he suggests that this progression took time to finally grow and prosper into a new civilization. Another comment is that the barbicans purpose for the Roman Empire was not to demolish the civilization, but instead retain the Roman Empire’s culture. This suggests that the Roman Empire really did not fall at all, but was really an evolution in history. However, if the Roman Empire did was extinct, then how could the Germanic tribes even want to maintain Roman traditions in there new civilization?       

 “The decay of Rome has been frequently ascribed to the translation of the seat of empire; but this history has already shewn that the powers of government were divided rather than removed. (Gibbon, 1996)” Meaning that even though it may seem like the Roman Empire’s main emperors were permanently being removed, they weren’t. Instead, they were just divided into other provinces in Europe. The Roman Empire could therefore be easily be confused by the head of power being removed, which is actually an untrue statement. They still claimed an equal amount inheritance of legions and provinces (Gibbon, 1996). But more importantly, they also possessed an equal amount of power as they did before (Gibbon, 1996). And because (Shenkman, 1993)of this, the barbarian leaders did not have complete control over the new civilization. In reality, they were just as equal to the emperors who came before from the Roman Empire. Since there were still Roman emperors, an assumption can be made that the Roman Empire still did exist even if changes were made by the invasions. 

            Many historians who study the “fall” of the Roman Empire, most likely think it is just that a fall. But really, it was instead a progression. Meaning that the Roman Empire never really did become extinct, but it evolved into one civilization with the Germanic tribes that invaded. Many reasons support this thesis such as that the barbarians’ main purpose for the invasion was not actually to destroy the empire but to preserve its culture. Another being that after the invasion there were still Roman emperors which actually did possess power over certain provinces just as before. History itself can be interpreted wrongly very easily. Because of this, many historians still believe that the Roman Empire actually did “fall”.     

Bibliography

Decline of the Roman Empire. (2011, April 9). Retrieved April 12, 2011, from Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_the_Roman_Empire#Theories_of_a_fall.2C_decline.2C_transition_and_continuity

Gibbon, E. (1996). General Observations on the Fall of the Roman Empire in the West. Retrieved April 12, 2011, from Internet Medieval Sourcebook: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/gibbon-fall.html

Shenkman, R. (1993). The Fall of Rome. Retrieved April 12, 2011, from Legends, Lies, & Cherished Myths of World History: http://www.tamos.net/~rhay/romefall.html

Stoicism

When something happens either good or bad, feelings are naturally produced in the process. Now the problem is what should be done with those feelings? Should a person act on their emotions? Or should they instead hide their feelings? Stoicism is the belief that when confronted with hardships that one has to control his or her emotions; the events surrounding the death of Seneca are a perfect illustration of stoicism in action.

Seneca deeply believed in the philosophy of stoicism. “Upon this the tribune asserted that he saw no signs of fear, and perceived no sadness in his words or in his looks. (Tactius, 1998)” This description of Seneca was said from a tribune, who was an official elected by the plebeians to protect their rights, after the tribune asked Seneca if he was considering suicide. From this, Seneca shows how good he was at controlling his emotions both in the way he held himself and how others perceived him as. He clearly is not easily affected by what happening around him or what others think of him. By this unclaimed amount of emotion, Seneca is the perfect role model for stoicism.  

Later when Seneca’s beloved wife found out about his death order, she insisted to die with him. He replied, “There upon Seneca, not to thwart her noble ambition, from an affection too which would not leave behind him for insult one whom he dearly loved, replied: ‘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. (Tactius, 1998)” In the philosophy of stoicism, there is also the belief that no matter what happens, the task must be completed. In this circumstance, the goal was to die in glory. Seneca’s wife was willing to give up her own life, the ultimate sacrifice, in result of reaching her aspirations. Because of this Seneca, himself, respected her decision. The death of Seneca proves to be the perfect example of the philosophy of stoicism in many different events such as this one.

“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. (Tactius, 1998)” This not only shows how driven Seneca was, but also how he did not let his emotions effect his actions. He did not care about the wealth or power but only to die in glory. His ambitions were his only priority in life, regardless of his current surroundings or feelings. Seneca, himself, strongly believed in and lived his life by the philosophy of stoicism.         

Bibliography

Tactius. (1998). The Death of Seneca. Retrieved April 4, 2011, from Ancient History Sourcebook: http://www.fordham.edu/HALSALL/ancient/tacitus-ann15a.html

Practice Rough Draft

When something happens either good or bad, feelings are naturally produces. Now the problem is what should be done about those feelings? Should a person act on their emotions? Or instead should they hide their feelings? Stoicism is the belief that when confronted with hardships that one has to control his or her emotions; the events surrounding the death of Seneca are a perfect illustration of stoicism in action. Stoicism is the belief that when confronted with hardships that one has to control his or her emotions; the events surrounding the death of Seneca are the complete opposite view on the philosophy of stoicism.

Seneca obviously believed in the philosophy of stoicism. “Upon this the tribune asserted that he saw no signs of fear, and perceived no sadness in his words or in his looks. (Tactius, 1998)” This description of Seneca was said from a tribune, who was an official elected by the plebeians to protect their rights, after the tribune asked Seneca if he was considering suicide. From this, Seneca shows how good he was at controlling his emotions both in the way he held himself and how others perceived him as. He clearly is not easily affected by what happening around him or what others think of him. By this unclaimed amount of emotion, Seneca is the perfect role model for stoicism.          

Later when Seneca’s beloved wife found out about his death order, she insisted to die with him. He replied, “There upon Seneca, not to thwart her noble ambition, from an affection too which would not leave behind him for insult one whom he dearly loved, replied: ‘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. (Tactius, 1998)” In the philosophy of stoicism, there is also the belief that no matter what happens, the task must be completed. In this circumstance, the goal was to die in glory. Seneca’s wife was willing to give up her own life, the ultimate sacrifice, in result of reaching her aspirations. Because of this Seneca, himself, respected her decision. The death of Seneca proves to be the perfect example of the philosophy of stoicism in many different events such as this one.

“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. (Tactius, 1998)” This not only shows how driven Seneca was, but also how he did not let his emotions effect his actions. He did not care about the wealth or power but only to die in glory. His ambitions were his only priority in life, regardless of his current surroundings or feelings. Seneca, himself, deeply believed in and lived his life by the philosophy of stoicism.  

11 Point Critique

News Flash: Starting tomorrow, April 7th, we will stop doing dailies. Instead, we will be concentrating on the weekly essays. This week's rough draft we are finishing in class. From then on, every Wednesday you will have a rough draft due for Peer review (you'll receive participation credit: P/F for having the draft ready). On your rough draft, please underline the thesis statement and in a different color prove it is an opinion by writing the opposite side; underline one quote properly cited with in-text citations for each body paragraph; make bold your four-sentence analysis of each quote; analysis should explain how the quote serves to support your thesis. After peer review, a final draft will be due on Fri by Midnight.

1. 5 paragraphs -- 5 to 7 sentences per paragraph.

2. Clear, coherent thesis statement expressing an opinion to be argued in the paper.
3. One quote or piece of source able evidence properly cited in APA format per body paragraph / proper in-text citation format (author, date). APA format bibliography at end of paper. Use top-notch sources (BBC, Met Museum, Nat Geo, Internet History Sourcebook, school-library based databases, etc.)

4. Four sentences per body paragraph analysis. This is your own analysis demonstrating how the evidence supports your thesis.

5. Solid conclusion demonstrating the validity of the argument.
6. Emphasis: Put strongest evidence in the fourth paragraph.

7. No 1st or 2nd person personal pronouns (I, we, us, me, my, myself, you, etc.)

8. Academic Tone: No slang, no contractions, make it coherent and readable.
9. Avoid generalizations -- give specific information; I'm not looking for you to write an "encyclopedia" article. I'm looking for
10. your ability to construct an academic argument.

11. Avoid unnecessary information: "more" quotes doesn't mean a "better" paper.

12. Original and honest writing voice and a creative and remarkable take on the subject.

Who was Augustine of Hippo?

             Augustine of Hippo was born on November thirteen, three hundred fifty four. More commonly he is known as Augustine, St. Augustine, St. Austin, St. Augoustinos, Blessed Augustine, or St. Augustine the Blessed. He was a bishop of Hippo Regius, but he was also a philosopher and a theologian. Augustine spoke Latin and lived in the Roman African Province. Then in the summer of three hundred eighty six, he converted to Christianity. After that, he gave up his career in rhetoric, quit his teaching position at Milan, and stopped thinking about any ideas of marriage. Instead, he spent the rest of his life devoted to God. He wrote over hundred different works in Latin. Some of the things he wrote about were the events that took place in his early life, his faith such as why God gave us free will, and some other earlier works that he wrote at the end of his life close to death. His writing was very inspiring to fellow Christians and was influential towards Western Christianity. When Augustine was sick in bed, a man came to him. He said that in a dream he was told to come to Augustine to ask him to make one of his relatives whole again. Augustine laid his own hands on the man’s sick relative. Then by the time they both left, the sick relative was cured. On August twenty eight, four hundred thirty Augustine died from his previous illness. He is now a pre-eminent Doctor of the Church and a patron of the Augustinian religious orders. Also he became the patron saint of brewers, printers, theologians, sore eyes, and many cities and dioceses.       

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.

The Death of Seneca
“Upon this the tribune asserted that he saw no signs of fear, and perceived no sadness in his words or in his looks.”

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

“There upon Seneca, not to thwart her noble ambition, from an affection too which would not leave behind him for insult one whom he dearly loved, replied: ‘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.’”

“Seneca, as his aged frame, attenuated by frugal diet, allowed the blood to escape but slowly, severed also the veins of his legs and knees.”

“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.”

Meditations

“From my grandfather Verus I learned good morals and the government of my temper.”

“…and with respect to those who have offended me by words, or done me wrong, to be easily disposed to be pacified and reconciled, as soon as they have shown a readiness to be reconciled; and to read carefully, and not to be satisfied with a superficial understanding of a book; nor hastily to give my assent to those who talk overmuch…”

“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 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.”

“In my father I observed mildness of temper, and unchangeable resolution in the things which he had determined after due deliberation; and no vainglory in those things which men call honours…”

“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 too his habit of careful inquiry in all matters of deliberation, and his persistency, and that he never stopped his investigation through being satisfied with appearances which first present themselves…”

“…but he showed sobriety in all things and firmness, and never any mean thoughts or action, nor love of novelty.”