Week 8: Essay

Week 8: Essay

Question: How do Romanesque and Gothic Cathedrals express different understandings about religious 

theology?

            In life, there are so many things that affect people’s decisions and actions that go unnoticed. The Romanesque and Gothic cathedrals were enormously affected by the political and social situation of their time, as well as, the theological views expressed by the people alive at that time. Outside forces impacted how these buildings were constructed. Religion, though, was largely a part of what the cathedral’s stood for. The designs of the cathedrals tell you about the peoples’ faith and what they believed about God. Both kinds of cathedrals were highly dependent on the current political situations, but still deeply reflected the theological virtues of the people and both have important religious meanings.

            The Romanesque cathedrals appear often like fortresses. They were built partially as a place for the community to go for safety when outside invaders would attack because of the political unrest. In the pictures of the exterior and interior of the cathedrals, the walls are look to be built to withstand attacks and stand strong like a fortress (Figure 4 and Figure 5). The style seen there is typical Romanesque style architecture. In the exterior picture, it even show towers which can be used to fight back against enemies and high windows for protection. Also, in the interior, the same thickness and roughness is found. The theological influences can also be seen inside. During the Romanesque period of time, people were focused on the coming of the judgment day. Therefore, their religious places reflected that with dark cold enviorments. Romanesque reflected those religious views; therefore it expressed understandings of religion and theological virtues, as well as, the political situation.

            Gothic cathedrals, constructed after the Romanesque period, had a different completely different view cosmetically, but still also represented theological and religious understandings. Pictures below demonstrate the openness and large illuminated windows found in the Gothic cathedrals that caused a warmer environment for the people (Figure 1 and Figure 2). In these pictures, the Gothic cathedrals are noticeably more decorative. These seem to be more in depth and have tons of religious pictures and art all around. Extravagant windows and large pictures really make these cathedrals distinct form the Romanesque cathedrals. The focus of religion by this point in history was letting the light of God into the lives of the people. You see this displayed especially in those large windows that cathedrals were unable to have in the Romanesque period due to imposing invaders that might destroy them. Theology can be clearly seen in Gothic cathedrals, in addition to the every present social and political situations that seem to have an ever present touch on the church.

            One key point that has determined the difference between the two styles of cathedrals or the architecture is the windows. In the first picture, Romanesque windows are viewed (Figure 6), but in the other picture Gothic windows are seen (Figure 3). The Romanesque windows are high and up away from the ground helping to create the fortress and tough feel Romanesque cathedrals bring. They also were designed to keep out invaders and keep the people inside protected. The theological idea of judgment day, strongly observed at this time backed this up the design of these windows also. It may have encouraged people of that time to always look up to God and forward to the future. The gothic windows, on the other hand, were open and let tons of light in supporting their message of letting god’s light into their lives. These windows represent what their religion was all about. Something, that was as simple as the windows, was designed in a way that even a theological understanding could be found in it.

            Romanesque and Gothic cathedrals express to people an understanding about theology, religion, and showed the major beliefs people of that time had. These cathedrals also had practical political and social consideration put into them, but only in addition to the more important religious meanings they display. While Romanesque cathedrals appear as fortresses, they were designed with the religious thoughts on judgment day; the gothic cathedrals were built for their time too, but also showed the people’s theology of opening up to God’s light. Therefore, both had a religious presence in their architecture. Romanesque and Gothic cathedrals express understandings about religious theology, though they are different in looks and design.

Appendix

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 6

Bibliography

Figure 1 - Saint Michel et Gudule de Bruxelles, facade, 13^th to 15^th century, http://commons.wiki media.org/wiki/File:Saints-Michel-et-Gudule_Luc_Viatour.jpg, photograph taken in 2008.

Figure 2 – Duomo di Orvieto, facade, 14^th century, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Duo mo_of_Orvieto.jpg, photograph taken in 2005.

Figure 3 – Minden Cathedral, windows, 14^th century, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:20 10-10-24_Minden,_Dom_014.jpg, photograph taken in 2010.

Figure 4 – Celles, facade, 5^th century, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Celles_JPG00.jpg , photograph taken in 2005.

Figure 5 – Église de Saint Saturnin, interior, 7^th century, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/ File:Romanesque_church_inside,_Saint-Saturnin,_Auvergne,_France.jpg, photography taken in2004.

Figure 6 – Minden Cathedral, windows, 14^th century, http://commons.wikimedia.org/ wiki/File:2010-10-24_Minden,_Dom_037.jpg, photograph taken in 2010.

Week 8: DRAFT

Week 8: DRAFT

Question: How do Romanesque and Gothic Cathedrals express different understandings about religious 

theology?

            In life, there are so many things that affect people’s decisions and actions that they never even realize. The Romanesque and Gothic cathedrals were enormously affected by the political and social situation of their time, as well as, the theological views expressed by those people. Outside forces impacted how these buildings were constructed. Religion, though, was largely a part of what the cathedral’s stood for. The designs of the cathedrals tell you a lot about the peoples’ faith. Both kinds of cathedrals were highly depended on the current political situations, but still deeply reflected the theological virtues of the people and both have important religious meanings. (Both Kinds of cathedral’s architecture was only dependent on the current situation of their locations and their political problems instead of theological reasons.)

            The Romanesque cathedrals appear often like fortresses. They were built to in part be a place for the community to go for safety when the Vikings or other invaders would attack because of the political unrest. In the pictures, of the exterior and interior of the cathedrals, the walls are found to be built to withstand attacks and stand strong like a fortress (Figure 4 and Figure 5). The style seen there is typical Romanesque style architecture. In the exterior picture, it even show towers which can be used to fight back against enemies and high windows for protection. Also, in the interior, the same thickness, roughness is found. The theological side can also be seen inside. During the Romanesque period of time, people were focused on the coming of the judgment day. Therefore, their religious places reflected that. Romanesque reflected those religious views; therefore it expressed understandings of religion and theological virtues, as well as, the political situation.

            Gothic cathedrals, constructed after the Romanesque period, had a different completely different view cosmetically, but still in the end also represented theological and religious understandings. Pictures below demonstrate the openness and large illuminated windows found in the Gothic cathedrals (Figure 1 and Figure 2). In these pictures, the Gothic cathedrals are noticeably more decorative. These seem to be more in depth and have more religious pictures all around. Extravagant windows and large pictures really make these cathedrals distinct form the Romanesque cathedrals. The focus of religion by this point in history was letting the light of God into their lives. You see this displayed again especially in those large windows that cathedrals were unable to have in the Romanesque period due to imposing invaders. Theology can be clearly seen in play in Gothic cathedrals, in addition to the every present social and political situations ever present touch on the church.

            One key point that has determined the difference between the two styles of cathedrals and architecture is the windows. In the first picture, Romanesque windows are viewed (Figure 6), but in the other picture Gothic windows are seen (Figure 3). The Romanesque windows are high and up away from the ground helping to create the fortress and tough feel Romanesque cathedrals bring. The theological idea of judgment day, strongly observed at this time backed this up. It may have encouraged people of that time to always look up to God and forward to the future. The gothic windows were open and let tons of light in supporting their message of letting god’s light into their lives. These windows represent what their religion was all about. Something, that was as simple as the windows, was designed in a way that even a theological understanding could be found in it.

            Romanesque and Gothic cathedrals express to people and understanding about theology, religion, and showed them the major beliefs they had. These cathedrals also had practical political and social uses, but they still gave religious meanings more importantly as well. While Romanesque cathedrals appear as fortresses that it was, they were designed with the religious thoughts on judgment day; the gothic cathedrals were built for that time, but also showed its theology of opening up to God’s light. Both had a religious presence in their architecture. Therefore, Romanesque and Gothic cathedrals express understandings about religious theology, though they may be different.

Appendix

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 6

Bibliography

Figure 1 - Saint Michel et Gudule de Bruxelles, facade, 13^th to 15^th century, http://commons.wiki media.org/wiki/File:Saints-Michel-et-Gudule_Luc_Viatour.jpg, photograph taken in 2008.

Figure 2 – Duomo di Orvieto, facade, 14^th century, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Duo mo_of_Orvieto.jpg, photograph taken in 2005.

Figure 3 – Minden Cathedral, windows, 14^th century, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:20 10-10-24_Minden,_Dom_014.jpg, photograph taken in 2010.

Figure 4 – Celles, facade, 5^th century, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Celles_JPG00.jpg , photograph taken in 2005.

Figure 5 – Église de Saint Saturnin, interior, 7^th century, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/ File:Romanesque_church_inside,_Saint-Saturnin,_Auvergne,_France.jpg, photography taken in2004.

Figure 6 – Minden Cathedral, windows, 14^th century, http://commons.wikimedia.org/ wiki/File:2010-10-24_Minden,_Dom_037.jpg, photograph taken in 2010.

Week 7: Roman Empire Essay

Week 7

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

            The Roman Empire was a great and glorious empire spanning over large amounts of land and existing as the main power for centuries. At one point existing as a prosperous invader and center of trade, it eventual came to an end. The end of this great power is in fact the larger, more debated issue. Many people believe that the Roman Empire simply declined and fell, but others have different theories saying that the Roman Empire actually evolved and transformed into something new because of the influence the incoming cultures had on it.

            One of the main arguments supporting the theory that the Roman Empire simply declined and fell is due to the fact that Barbarians came and burned some of Rome and destroying parts.

Henri Pirenne, a historian during the 1920’s who supports the transformation theory, says that, “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).” According to Henri Pirenne, their way of life did not immediately change. Therefore, this proves that they only began to come together during this time and form as one to create something else. Also, Pirenne indicates that the Barbarians attempted to preserve what was left of the Roman way of life. He did not however say that they intentionally attempted to erase them, because this is not true. The Roman Empire then evolved as a result of the barbarians and their invasion.

            Edward Gibbon writes on the fall of the Roman Empire that, “Since the first discovery of the arts, war, commerce, and religious zeal have diffused, among the savages of the Old and New World, those inestimable gifts: they have been successively propagated; they can never be lost. We may therefore acquiesce in the pleasing conclusion that every age of the world has increased, and still increases, the real wealth, the happiness, the knowledge, and perhaps the virtue, of the human race (Edward Gibbon: General Observations on the Fall of the Roman Empire in the West).” This is an example of how nothing in history can truly be lost or forgotten. The virtues, customs, practices, and more travel on through time by people. To completely erase the influence of any civilization is near impossible. This is quite simply as Gibbon’s states a key important part of the human race and what it is.  This also supports the theory that the Roman Empire transformed and did not decline and fall.

Finally, another historian completely discredits all others supporting the theory of a transformation over time. It says in the article that the historians, “… see a transformation occurring over centuries, with the roots of medieval culture contained in Roman culture and focus on the continuities between the classical and Medieval worlds. Thus, it was a gradual process with no clear break (Decline of the Roman Empire, 2011).”  This completely describes the major reasoning behind the idea that the Roman Empire simply transformed into something else. The first important part in this is that it states that this occurred over a period of a couple centuries. It also says that it was a gradual process. Plus, that it had no clear defining break meaning that it could not then have had an end. People would have been able to find a clear stopping point to the empire. This proves most strongly that the Roman Empire evolved and transformed into something new overtime.

The Roman Empire did not dissolve or decline and fall, but it transformed over time. While people may have entered into it, they only brought along their culture and added it into the already existing cultures. The Barbarians, unlike some claim, also did not come to intentionally destroy the empire. Instead, gradually over centuries many cultures evolved and something new was transformed out of it. Therefore, we should be more concern, not with when it ended, but what it became.

Bibliography

Decline of the Roman Empire. (2011, April 9). Retrieved April 12, 2011, from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_the_Roman_Empire

Edward Gibbon: General Observations on the Fall of the Roman Empire in the West. (n.d.). Retrieved April 12, 2011, from Medieval Sourcebook: : http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/romans/fallofromanrepublic_article_01.shtml

The Fall of Rome. (n.d.). Retrieved April 12, 2011, from http://www.tamos.net/~rhay/romefall.html

Week 7: Roman Empire RUFT DRAFT

Week 7: RUFT DRAFT

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

            The Roman Empire was a great and glorious empire spanning over large amounts of land and existing as the main power for centuries. At one point existing as a prosperous invader and center of trade, it eventual came to an end. The end of this great power is in fact the larger, more debated issue. Many people believe that the Roman Empire simply declined and fell, but others have different theories. In fact, the Roman Empire actually evolved and transformed into something new. These people are correct in their thinking that the Roman Empire simply declined and then fell to an inevitable end.

            One of the main arguments supporting the theory that the Roman Empire simply declined and fell is due to the fact that Barbarians came and burned some of Rome and destroying parts.

Henri Pirenne, a historian during the 1920’s who supports the transformation theory, says that, “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).” According to Henri Pirenne, their way of life did not immediately change. Therefore, this proves that they only began to come together during this time and form as one to create something else. Also, Pirenne indicates that the Barbarians attempted to preserve what was left of the Roman way of life. He did not however say that they intentionally attempted to erase them, because this is not true. The Roman Empire then evolved as a result of the barbarians and their invasion.

            Edward Gibbon writes on the fall of the Roman Empire that, “Since the first discovery of the arts, war, commerce, and religious zeal have diffused, among the savages of the Old and New World, those inestimable gifts: they have been successively propagated; they can never be lost. We may therefore acquiesce in the pleasing conclusion that every age of the world has increased, and still increases, the real wealth, the happiness, the knowledge, and perhaps the virtue, of the human race (Edward Gibbon: General Observations on the Fall of the Roman Empire in the West).” This is an example of how nothing in history can truly be lost or forgotten. The virtues, customs, practices, and more travel on through time by people. To completely erase the influence of any civilization is near impossible. This is quite simply as Gibbon’s states a key important part of the human race and what it is.  This also supports the theory that the Roman Empire transformed and did not decline and fall.

Finally, another historian completely discredits all others supporting the theory of a transformation over time. It says in the article that the historians, “… see a transformation occurring over centuries, with the roots of medieval culture contained in Roman culture and focus on the continuities between the classical and Medieval worlds. Thus, it was a gradual process with no clear break (Decline of the Roman Empire, 2011).”  This completely describes the major reasoning behind the idea that the Roman Empire simply transformed into something else. The first important part in this is that it states that this occurred over a period of a couple centuries. It also says that it was a gradual process. Plus, that it had no clear defining break meaning that it could not then have had an end. People would have been able to find a clear stopping point to the empire. This proves most strongly that the Roman Empire evolved and transformed into something new overtime.

The Roman Empire did not dissolve or decline and fall, but it transformed over time. While people may have entered into it, they only brought along their culture and added it into the already existing cultures. The Barbarians, unlike some claim, also did not come to intentionally destroy the empire. Instead, gradually over centuries many cultures evolved and something new was transformed out of it. Therefore, we should be more concern, not with when it ended, but what it became.

Bibliography

Decline of the Roman Empire. (2011, April 9). Retrieved April 12, 2011, from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_the_Roman_Empire

Edward Gibbon: General Observations on the Fall of the Roman Empire in the West. (n.d.). Retrieved April 12, 2011, from Medieval Sourcebook: : http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/romans/fallofromanrepublic_article_01.shtml

The Fall of Rome. (n.d.). Retrieved April 12, 2011, from http://www.tamos.net/~rhay/romefall.html

Essay on Stoicism and the Death of Seneca FINAL (how far i had gotten)

Week 6: Essay on Stoicism and the Death of Seneca

In times of trouble and hardships, people are left confused, flustered, and wondering what to do. Many philosophies have been produced under this puzzling question of what is the best way to handle crises during the years. One of these philosophies produced is stoicism. It can often be seen in practice by the politicians and various important people of the ancient times. Stoicism is the belief that when one is confronted with hardships one must control his emotions; the events surrounding the death of Seneca are a perfect example of stoicism in action.  

One example of Seneca’s stoicism can be seen in Tacitus’s account on his death. Part of it reads, “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 ….”(Tacitus, 1998). Seneca just finding out about his death almost immediately began writing his will and preparing for his death. Like Tacitus said, Seneca was “unmoved”. He did not panic or let the emotions of the moment get to him. Completely unfazed by the news, he set to the humdrum tasks of his will and the distribution of his personal items despite the fact that his life was ending in front of his very own eyes. The stoic characteristics of controlling emotions come out in this quote, as well as the stoicism of carrying on threw hardships, making Seneca a perfect example.

Another example of this is in Tacitus account where he wrote, “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. She declared, in answer, that she too had decided to die, and claimed for herself the blow of the executioner. There upon Seneca, not to thwart her noble ambition, from an affection too which would not leave behind him for…”(Tacitus, 1998). At first, the stoicism may not seem evident in this passage, but it can be found if you look at it closely. First notice that Seneca showed a sense of compassion for his wife; although, stoicism does not forbid one to love another person. Therefore, this is not a valid argument of him falling away from his stoicism. Stoicism, though, is more importantly when he allows his wife to die with him. He was not panicking telling his wife that he loves her and comforting her as most people would do to their loved ones; he was dealing with it as if it were a business deal. If Seneca remained stoic with the person who he seemingly loved the most, this shows his deep commitment to his stoic persona.

Seneca’s stoicism can be continually seen all throughout Tacitus’s writings and quotes from that time period.  One great example of this is the quote, “Even at the last moment his eloquence failed him not; he summoned his secretaries, and dictated much to them which, as it has been published for all readers in his own words, I forbear to paraphrase” (Tacitus, 1998). At the very last moment of his life, even then, he was held together in his stoicism. The hardship of death could not sway him from it. He kept going even when everything around him was going wrong portraying a true stoic. Dictating his final words, he stayed true to stoicism till the very end of his life even when most would not.

Throughout Seneca’s life, he remained constant in his stoic persona. When death and hardships stared him in the eyes, he remained calm and poised dealing with the humdrum business work of the whole ordeal. Even his beloved wife, he momentarily sympathized with but still did it as if only to set the record straight and handle the logistics on the situation they found themselves in. When people are presented with a crisis, their true colors come out, and Seneca displayed the true colors of stoicism. He died the same way he lived his entire life. Seneca was a true stoic who is a perfect example for stoicism then and now.

Bibliography

Tacitus: The Death of Seneca, 65 CE. (1998, May). Retrieved April 6, 2011, from Ancient History Sourcebook: http://www.fordham.edu/HALSALL/ancient/tacitus-ann15a.html

Week 6: Essay on Stoicism and the Death of Seneca RUFT DRAFT

Week 6: Essay on Stoicism and the Death of Seneca

In times of trouble and hardships, people are left confused, flustered, and wondering what to do. Many philosophies have been produced under this puzzling question of what is the best way to handle crises during the years. One of these philosophies produced is stoicism. It can often be seen in practice by the politicians and various important people of the ancient times. Stoicism is the belief that when one is confronted with hardships one must control his emotions; the events surrounding the death of Seneca are a perfect example of stoicism in action.  Stoicism is the belief that when one is confronted with hardships one must control his emotions; the death of Seneca is not the best example of stoicism.

One example of Seneca’s stoicism can be seen in Tacitus’s account on his death. Part of it reads, “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 ….”(Tacitus, 1998). Seneca just finding out about his death almost immediately began writing his will and preparing for his death. Like Tacitus said, Seneca was “unmoved”. He did not panic or let the emotions of the moment get to him. Completely unfazed by the news, he set to the humdrum tasks of his will and the distribution of his personal items despite the fact that his life was ending in front of his very own eyes. The stoic characteristics of controlling emotions come out in this quote, as well as the stoicism of carrying on threw hardships, making Seneca a perfect example.

Another example of this is in Tacitus account where he wrote, “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. She declared, in answer, that she too had decided to die, and claimed for herself the blow of the executioner. There upon Seneca, not to thwart her noble ambition, from an affection too which would not leave behind him for…”(Tacitus, 1998). At first, the stoicism may not seem evident in this passage, but it can be found if you look at it closely. First you will notice that Seneca showed a sense of compassion for his wife; although, stoicism does not forbid one to love another person. Therefore, this is not a valid argument of him falling away from his stoicism. Stoicism, though, is more importantly when he allows his wife to die with him. He was not panicking telling his wife that he loves her and comforting her as most people would do to their loved ones; he was dealing with it as if it were a business deal. If Seneca remained stoic with the person who he seemingly loved the most, this shows his deep commitment to his stoic persona.

Seneca’s stoicism can be continually seen all throughout Tacitus’s writings and quotes from that time period.  One great example of this is the quote, “Even at the last moment his eloquence failed him not; he summoned his secretaries, and dictated much to them which, as it has been published for all readers in his own words, I forbear to paraphrase” (Tacitus, 1998). At the very last moment of his life, even then, he was held together in his stoicism. The hardship of death could not sway him from it. He kept going even when everything around him was going wrong portraying a true stoic. Dictating his final words, he stayed true to stoicism till the very end of his life even when most would not.

Throughout Seneca’s life, he remained constant in his stoic persona. When death and hardships stared him in the eyes, he remained calm and poised dealing with the humdrum business work of the whole ordeal. Even his beloved wife, he momentarily sympathized with but still did it as if only to set the record straight and handle the logistics on the situation they found themselves in. When people are presented with a crisis, their true colors come out, and Seneca displayed the true colors of stoicism. He died the same way he lived his entire life. Seneca was a true stoic who is a perfect example for stoicism then and now.

Bibliography

Tacitus: The Death of Seneca, 65 CE. (1998, May). Retrieved April 6, 2011, from Ancient History Sourcebook: http://www.fordham.edu/HALSALL/ancient/tacitus-ann15a.html

Eleven-Point Critique

Eleven-Point Critique (for peer reviews and grading of final drafts)

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 sourcable 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

your ability to construct an academic argument.

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

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

Week 6: Daily Blog Day 1 – Monday, April 4, 2011 REQUIRED

Daily Blog Day 1 – Monday, April 4, 2011

Question: Required Daily - 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.

Quotes from the Death of Seneca:

• “Seneca, quite unmoved, asked for tablets on which to inscribe his will, and, on the centurion's refusal, turned to his friends, protesting that as he was forbidden to requite them, he bequeathed to them the only, but still the noblest possession yet remaining to him, the pattern of his life, which, if they remembered, they would win a name for moral worth and steadfast friendship.”
• “Even at the last moment his eloquence failed him not; he summoned his secretaries, and dictated much to them which, as it has been published for all readers in his own words, I forbear to paraphrase.”

Quotes from book One of M. Aurelius’ Meditations:

• “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.”
• “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; and that his disposition was to keep his friends, and not to be soon tired of them, nor yet to be extravagant in his affection; and to be satisfied on all occasions, and cheerful; and to foresee things a long way off, and to provide for the smallest without display; and to check immediately popular applause and all flattery; and to be ever watchful over the things which were necessary for the administration of the empire, and to be a good manager of the expenditure, and patiently to endure the blame which he got for such conduct;….”