Romanesque Cathedrals and Gothic Cathedrals Final

Romanesque and Gothic Cathedrals were very different, especially in the way the religious theology was depicted. The Romanesque style was during the ninth, tenth, and eleventh centuries. It was a time when barbarians were attacking and there was a need for protection. However, the Gothic style was prevalent during the twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth centuries. Everyone was settling down and the idea of feudalism came into play.  There were significant differences between these two time periods. Romanesque and Gothic Cathedrals expressed different understandings about religious theology; Romanesque Cathedrals had images of Judgment Day and were made for protection, whereas Gothic Cathedrals had larger windows with stain glass images which allowed God’s light to shine through.

The first, most obvious, difference among the Romanesque and Gothic Cathedrals is the structure of the building. The Romanesque Cathedral (Figure 1) compared to the Gothic Cathedral (Figure 2) look undeniably different. The Romanesque Cathedral is very bulky. It was built for protection. During this time, the churches and cathedrals were the most important buildings in the town or village. If there was an attack, the safest place to go was the closest church. The Romanesque Cathedrals showed how important they were, religiously, to the people. The Gothic Cathedrals were also very important to the people.  Since there were not as many barbarian threats, the Cathedrals were not used for protection. They were more of a place of worship; to tell stories and express religious art. As seen in the picture, these Cathedrals had enormous stained glass windows that depicted the religious theology. The windows were a major difference between the two styles of Cathedrals.

The windows in a Romanesque Cathedral (Figure 3) look much smaller than the Gothic Cathedral’s windows (Figure 4). Size is not the only difference though. The meaning and importance of the windows is unique. In the Romanesque Cathedral the windows are small and limited because during an attack a large window would be a disadvantage. They could be easily broken and then entered. The Gothic Cathedral had many large windows. The main window in the front was called a rosette. The windows were the most important way to express theology in a Gothic Cathedral. These windows were very detailed. The windows also let in light. Light was very important in this time period. The stained glass windows gave the idea the God’s light was shining through, which was the basis of the religious theology. 

The most important difference was the art inside the cathedrals. The Romanesque Cathedrals depicted art in murals (Figure 5) while Gothic Cathedrals depicted art through the windows (Figure 6). The art in the cathedrals were religious. In the Romanesque Cathedral the murals were especially about Judgment Day and being ready. The art was hung on the walls for everyone to see. The Gothic Cathedral’s art was in the stained glass windows. They showed biblical stories and events. The light coming through the windows was just as important. These types of art both displayed religious theology, but in a unique way.

These cathedrals had a different way of expressing theology. The Romanesque Cathedrals were more about protection that was shown in the structure of the Cathedral and in the murals on the walls. The Gothic Cathedrals were more about light, which was expressed through stained glass windows. Each type of cathedral displayed a different way of conveying the religious theology. The Romanesque and Gothic Cathedrals articulated a unique method of stating the religious theology through the structure, the windows, or the art.

Appendix

Figure 1- Abazia di San Vittore

Figure 2- Cathedral of Reims

Figure 3- Tournus

Figure 4- Regensburg Cathedral

Figure 5- St. Cecilia Cathedral

Figure 6- Chartres Cathedral

 

Bibliography

Abazia di San Vittore, exterior, 11^th century, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Abaziasan vittorefrasassi.jpg, photograph taken in 2006.

Cathedral of Reims, façade, 13^th century, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Reims _Kathedrale.jpg, photograph taken in 2007.

Chartres Cathedral, interior, 12^th century, http://www.sacred-destinations.com/france/chartres-cathedral-window-photos/w14_8276.JPG, photograph taken in 2008.

Regensburg Cathedral, interior, 12^th century, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Regensburger _Dom_1.jpg, photograph taken in 2007.

St. Cecilia Cathedral, interior, 14^th century, http://www.sacred-destinations.com/germany/ cologne-st-cecilia-photos/IMG_7393b.JPG, photograph taken in 2007.

Tournus, interior, 11^th century, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tournus_43_.jpg, photograph taken in 2008.

Romanesque Cathedrals and Gothic Cathedrals Rough Draft

Romanesque and Gothic Cathedrals were very different, especially in the way the religious theology was depicted. The Romanesque style was during the ninth, tenth, and eleventh centuries. It was a time when barbarians were attacking and there was a need for protection. However, the Gothic style was prevalent during the twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth centuries. Everyone was settling down and the idea of feudalism came into play.  There were significant differences between these two time periods. Romanesque and Gothic Cathedrals expressed different understandings about religious theology; Romanesque Cathedrals had images of Judgment Day and were made for protection, whereas Gothic Cathedrals had larger windows with stain glass images which allowed God’s light to shine through. The architecture in the cathedrals does not mean or show anything about the religious theology.

The first, most obvious, difference among the Romanesque and Gothic Cathedrals is the structure of the building. The Romanesque Cathedral (Figure 1) compared to the Gothic Cathedral (Figure 2) look undeniably different. The Romanesque Cathedral is very bulky. It was built for protection. During this time, the churches and cathedrals were the most important buildings in the town or village. If there was an attack, the safest place to go was the closest church. The Romanesque Cathedrals showed how important they were, religiously, to the people. The Gothic Cathedrals were also very important to the people.  Since there were not as many barbarian threats, the Cathedrals were not used for protection. They were more of a place of worship; to tell stories and express religious art. As seen in the picture, these Cathedrals had enormous stained glass windows that depicted the religious theology. The windows were a major difference between the two styles of Cathedrals.

The windows in a Romanesque Cathedral (Figure 3) look much smaller than the Gothic Cathedral’s windows (Figure 4). Size is not the only difference though. The meaning and importance of the windows is unique. In the Romanesque Cathedral the windows are small and limited because during an attack a large window would be a disadvantage. They could be easily broken and then entered. The Gothic Cathedral had many large windows. The main window in the front was called a rosette. The windows were the most important way to express theology in a Gothic Cathedral. These windows were very detailed. The windows also let in light. Light was very important in this time period. The stained glass windows gave the idea the God’s light was shining through, which was the basis of the religious theology.  

The most important difference was the art inside the cathedrals. The Romanesque Cathedrals depicted art in murals (Figure 5) while Gothic Cathedrals depicted art through the windows (Figure 6). The art in the cathedrals were religious. In the Romanesque Cathedral the murals were especially about Judgment Day and being ready. The art was hung on the walls for everyone to see. The Gothic Cathedral’s art was in the stained glass windows. They showed biblical stories and events. The light coming through the windows was just as important. These types of art both displayed religious theology, but in a unique way.

These cathedrals had a different way of expressing theology. The Romanesque Cathedrals were more about protection that was shown in the structure of the Cathedral and in the murals on the walls. The Gothic Cathedrals were more about light, which was expressed through stained glass windows. Each type of cathedral displayed a different way of conveying the religious theology. The Romanesque and Gothic Cathedrals articulated a unique method of stating the religious theology through the structure, the windows, or the art.

Appendix

Figure 1- Abazia di San Vittore

Figure 2- Cathedral of Reims

Figure 3- Tournus

Figure 4- Regensburg Cathedral

Figure 5- St. Cecilia Cathedral

Figure 6- Chartres Cathedral

Bibliography

Abazia di San Vittore, exterior, 11^th century, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Abaziasan vittorefrasassi.jpg, photograph taken in 2006.

Cathedral of Reims, façade, 13^th century, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Reims _Kathedrale.jpg, photograph taken in 2007.

Chartres Cathedral, interior, 12^th century, http://www.sacred-destinations.com/france/chartres-cathedral-window-photos/w14_8276.JPG, photograph taken in 2008.

Regensburg Cathedral, interior, 12^th century, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Regensburger _Dom_1.jpg, photograph taken in 2007.

St. Cecilia Cathedral, interior, 14^th century, http://www.sacred-destinations.com/germany/ cologne-st-cecilia-photos/IMG_7393b.JPG, photograph taken in 2007.

Tournus, interior, 11^th century, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tournus_43_.jpg, photograph taken in 2008.

Weekly Final

            The Roman Empire was one of the greatest civilizations in history. The Roman Empire went through many momentous changes. The empire did not fall however.  The primary source of Edward Gibbon and the paper by Toynbee gave examples of the changes of the empire. The Roman Empire evolved into something new; the new weapons, Christianity, and the arts were great examples of this evolution.

            The weapons that the Roman Empire had were incredibly important to its evolution. It was said, “The military art has been changed by the invention of gunpowder; which enables man to command the two most powerful agents of nature, air and fire. Mathematics, chymistry, mechanics, architecture, have been applied to the service of war; and the adverse parties oppose to each other the most elaborate modes of attack and of defence.” (Gibbon) The Romans had come up with their most lethal weapon: gunpowder. They could easily take down their enemies if they had the right leader in command. They were also learning more and more about the science of military, so they would have more evolved weapons. Their enemies would be taken by surprise if they had to encounter an unknown, new weapon. The Romans also had to come up with a better plan for self-defense, which they did. The Romans did find and use new weapons, which was a huge advantage.

            The Roman Empire was changing their artilleries and military tactics, and they were also changing their culture and arts. Gibbon stated, “The benefits of law and policy, of trade and manufactures, of arts and sciences, are more solid and permanent; and many individuals may be qualified, by education and discipline, to promote, in their respective stations, the interest of the community.” (Gibbon) The people were being educating and learning more than they ever had in the past. They were also learning things like law, trade, arts, and sciences so they could benefit their community. The people were making such an impact on the empire. Together, all the people were helping their empire evolve and change. Without this knowledge the Roman Empire would not have lasted.

            The most important change the Roman Empire faced was the tolerance of Christianity. Some said that Christianity ‘killed’ the Roman Empire, but other disagreed and said, “Christianity is a transitional thing which bridges the gap between one civilization and another…” (Toynbee) Christianity was a huge step for the empire. It definitely changed it though. This quotation explained how Christianity was filling the gap of empty space that the Roman Empire had made for itself. Christianity helped the Empire become more accomplished. It helped take the final step into becoming the new Byzantine Empire.

            The Roman Empire did not fall; it went through many significant changes. The people found new ways of defense and weapons. They became more knowledgeable, especially in the arts and sciences. The Empire also learned to accept Christianity, which would influence everyone in and around the Empire for a long time. The Roman Empire did evolve into something new; it became the great and amazing Byzantine Empire, which would rule for a very long time. 

Sources:

Gibbon, E. (n.d.). Medieval Sourcebook: Gibbon: The Fall of the Roman Empire   . FORDHAM.EDU. Retrieved April 12, 2011, from http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/gibbon-fall.html

Toynbee, A. (n.d.). Arnold Toynbee - Christianity and Civilization. Welcome to MYRIOBIBLOS - The Etext Library of the Church of Greece. Retrieved April 12, 2011, from http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/toynbee.html

Weekly Rough Draft

            The Roman Empire went through many momentous changes. The empire did not fall though.  The primary source of Edward Gibbon and the paper by Toynbee gave examples of the changes of the empire. The Roman Empire evolved into something new; the new weapons, Christianity, and the arts were great examples of this evolution. The Roman Empire did not evolve into something new; it declined and fell because of the military and the problems with their enemies, especially the Barbarians.

            The weapons that the Roman Empire had were incredibly important to its evolution. It was said, “The military art has been changed by the invention of gunpowder; which enables man to command the two most powerful agents of nature, air and fire. Mathematics, chymistry, mechanics, architecture, have been applied to the service of war; and the adverse parties oppose to each other the most elaborate modes of attack and of defence.” (Gibbon) The Romans had come up with their most lethal weapon: gunpowder. They could easily take down their enemies if they had the right leader in command. They were also learning more and more about the science of military, so they would have more evolved weapons. There enemies would be taken by surprise if they had to encounter an unknown, new weapon. The Romans also had to come up with a better plan for self-defense, which they did. The Romans did find and use new weapons, which was a huge advantage.

            The Roman Empire was changing their artilleries and military tactics, and they were also changing their culture and arts. Gibbon stated, “The benefits of law and policy, of trade and manufactures, of arts and sciences, are more solid and permanent; and many individuals may be qualified, by education and discipline, to promote, in their respective stations, the interest of the community.” (Gibbon) The people were being educating and learning more than they ever had in the past. They were also learning things like law, trade, arts, and sciences so they could benefit their community. The people were making such an impact on the empire. Together, all the people were helping their empire evolve and change. Without this knowledge the Roman Empire would not have lasted.

            The most important change the Roman Empire faced was the tolerance of Christianity. Some said that Christianity ‘killed’ the Roman Empire, but other disagreed and said, “Christianity is a transitional thing which bridges the gap between one civilization and another…” (Toynbee) Christianity was a huge step for the empire. It definitely changed it though. This quotation explained how Christianity was filling the gap of empty space that the Roman Empire had made for itself. Christianity helped the Empire become more accomplished. Christianity helped take the final step into becoming the new Byzantine Empire.

            The Roman Empire did not fall; it went through many significant changes. The people found new ways of defense and weapons. They became more knowledgeable, especially in the arts and sciences. The Empire also learned to accept Christianity, which would influence everyone in and around the Empire for a long time. The Roman Empire did evolve into something new; it became the great and amazing Byzantine Empire, which would rule for a very long time.

Sources:

Gibbon, E. (n.d.). Medieval Sourcebook: Gibbon: The Fall of the Roman Empire   . FORDHAM.EDU. Retrieved April 12, 2011, from http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/gibbon-fall.html

Toynbee, A. (n.d.). Arnold Toynbee - Christianity and Civilization. Welcome to MYRIOBIBLOS - The Etext Library of the Church of Greece. Retrieved April 12, 2011, from http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/toynbee.html

Final Stoicism Essay

            In Tacitus’ description of the Death of Seneca, the author described details of the emperor’s life, but he also wrote about the examples of stoicism. 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.

            Tacitus described Seneca’s stoicism by giving examples. He talked about how Seneca appeared in public and how he talked and approached people. He stated, “…he saw no signs of fear, and perceived no sadness in his words or in his looks.” (Tacitus). This quotation is basically the definition of stoicism. Seneca did not show fear and he never looked sad when he was talking or writing. Seneca was a strong man who did not vocalize his emotions.

            The Death of Seneca continued with more descriptions of the emperor, which gave the reader more examples of stoicism. Tacitus wrote, “He had no reason," he said, “for preferring the interest of any private citizen to his own safety, and he had no natural aptitude for flattery…” (Tacitus).  This described Seneca’s control of his emotions and feelings. He did not have to concern himself with any common citizen. He also did not have to give compliments or gratitude. Tacitus continued about Seneca and how he dealt with his almost unlimited wealth and power. He said, “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.” (Tacitus). When Seneca was on the brink of death, he did not care about his money or power. In reality, he was thinking about the end of his life.  Being able to control these feelings was what made Seneca a stoic.

            Tacitus then went on to explain more about Seneca’s death. He described that the pain he put on himself, “…allowed the blood to escape but slowly, severed also the veins of his legs and knees.” (Tacitus) He was slowly bleeding to death without screaming, gasping, or showing pain. He did not show any emotion. Seneca was very stoic, especially during his death. Tacitus also stated, “Worn out by cruel anguish, afraid too that his sufferings might break his wife's spirit, and that, as he looked on her tortures, he might himself sink into irresolution, he persuaded her to retire into another chamber.” (Tacitus) This shows how Seneca hid his pain from his wife. He did not want to hurt her spirit. Seneca was a stoic because of these examples. He was not concerned with his power; he kept those emotions and values hidden. He was thinking of one important thing: his life.

            In Tacitus’ Death of Seneca, he described the emperor in detail. These descriptions explained how Seneca was a stoic. He wrote about how Seneca controlled his emotions and feelings around common people. He also described how he dealt with his own wealth and power. Tacitus finally describes how Seneca was only concerned with his death and nothing else. He demonstrated stoicism, especially toward the end of his life.

Halsall, P. (1998). Ancient History Sourcebook: Tacitus: The Death of Seneca. FORDHAM.EDU. Retrieved April 5, 2011, from http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/tacitus-ann15a.html

Daily 34

Required Daily: Summarize and Compare Gibbon to Toynbee on the End of the Roman Empire.

In Edward Gibbon’s observations about the End of the Roman Empire, he describes the people, the places, and the things the Empire had or was losing. He talks about the “virtues and vices” of the Empire. He explains how the fall of the Roman Empire was going to happen eventually anyway because of the wars, the strangers, the people who did not have freedom, and the people who did not want to follow the emperors. He goes on to talk about the changing of the capital to Constantinople and about the emperor, Constantine. He talks about how Christianity was one of the causes of the fall of the empire because it brought the military down; it discouraged the common people, and cost money because of all the charities. He also mentions the enemies the Romans had to deal with, like the Huns and the Barbarians. Gibbon does talk about the positive sides of the empire though. He mentions the important new weapons, military tactics, and trading goods and resources.

In Tonybee’s observations about the End of the Roman Empire, he talks about religion more than anything, especially towards the end of his essay. He also mentions war and the downfall of it. He talks mainly about the connection between Christianity and civilization. He continues on to say how he does not agree with what Gibbon and a man named Frazer had to say. Tonybee does not agree that Christianity was the cause of the downfall, but that it was a consequence of it. Gibbon’s writing was more about the end of the empire. He gave examples, but he was dark about it. Tonybee’s writing is more recent and more opinionated. He talks about religion more than Gibbon did, but he proves his point that Christianity was not the cause of the fall of the empire. 

In Class Writing Final

            In Tacitus’ description of the Death of Seneca, the author described details of the emperor’s life. In his description, he talks about his stoic nature. 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.

            Tacitus described the stoicism in Seneca by giving examples. He talked about how Seneca appeared in public and how he talked and approached people. He stated, “…he saw no signs of fear, and perceived no sadness in his words or in his looks.” (Tacitus, 65 C.E.). This quotation is basically the definition of stoicism. Seneca did not show fear and he never looked sad when he was talking or writing. Tacitus also wrote, “Seneca, quite unmoved, asked for tablets on which to inscribe his will…” (Tacitus, 65 C.E.). The men were threatening to kill him, but he was “unmoved.” He did not show any sign of fear or angst toward the men or the situation. Seneca was a strong man who did not vocalize his emotions.

            The Death of Seneca continued with more description of the emperor, which gave the reader more examples of stoicism. Tacitus wrote, “He had no reason," he said, “for preferring the interest of any private citizen to his own safety, and he had no natural aptitude for flattery…” (Tacitus, 65 C.E.).  This described Seneca’s control of his emotions and feelings. He did not have to concern himself with any common citizen. He also did not have to give compliments or gratitude. Tacitus continued about Seneca and how he dealt with this almost unlimited wealth and power. He said, “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.” (Tacitus, 65 C.E.). When Seneca was on the brink of death, he did not care about how much money or power he had control of, in reality, he was thinking about the end of his life.  Being able to control these feelings was what made Seneca a stoic.

            Tacitus then went on to explain more about Seneca’s death. He described the pain he put on himself, “…allowed the blood to escape but slowly, severed also the veins of his legs and knees.” (Tacitus, 65 C.E.) He was slowly bleeding to death without screaming, gasping, or showing pain. He did not show any emotion. Seneca was very stoic, especially during his death. Tacitus also stated, “Worn out by cruel anguish, afraid too that his sufferings might break his wife's spirit, and that, as he looked on her tortures, he might himself sink into irresolution, he persuaded her to retire into another chamber.” (Tacitus, 65 C.E.) This shows how Seneca hid how much pain he was in from his wife so that he would not hurt her spirit. Seneca was a stoic because of these examples. He was not concerned with his power; he kept those emotions and values hidden. He was thinking of one important thing: his life.

            In Tacitus’ Death of Seneca, he described the emperor. These descriptions explained how Seneca was a stoic. He wrote about how Seneca controlled his emotions and feelings around common people. He also described how he dealt with his own wealth and power. Tacitus finally describes how Seneca was only concerned with his death and nothing else. Seneca, the emperor, was a stoic and he demonstrated it, especially towards his death.

Halsall, P. (1998). Ancient History Sourcebook: Tacitus: The Death of Seneca. FORDHAM.EDU. Retrieved April 5, 2011, from http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/tacitus-ann15a.html

In Class Writing Rough Draft

            Stoicism is the ability to endure pain and hardship while retaining the ability to control one’s emotions; Seneca, at his death, was a perfect example of a stoic. When someone reads Tacitus’ description of the Death of Seneca, the author described details of the emperors’ lives, but he also writes about the examples of stoicism.

            Tacitus described the stoicism in Seneca by giving examples. He talked about how Seneca appeared in public and how he talked and approached people. He said, “…he saw no signs of fear, and perceived no sadness in his words or in his looks.” (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/tacitus-ann15a.html). This quotation is basically the definition of stoicism. Seneca did not show fear and he never looked sad when he was talking or writing. Seneca was a strong man who did not vocalize his emotions.

            The Death of Seneca continued with more description of the emperor, which gave the reader more examples of stoicism. Tacitus wrote, “He had no reason," he said, “for preferring the interest of any private citizen to his own safety, and he had no natural aptitude for flattery…” (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/tacitus-ann15a.html).  This describes Seneca’s control of emotions and feelings. He did not have to take concern himself with citizen. He also did not have to give compliments or gratitude. Being able to control these feelings is what made Seneca a stoic.

            Tacitus continued about Seneca and how he dealt with this almost unlimited wealth and power. He said, “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.” (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/tacitus-ann15a.html). When Seneca was on the brink of death, he did not care about how much money or power he had control of, in reality, he was thinking about the end of his life. Seneca was a stoic because of example like this one. He was not concerned with his power; he kept those emotions and values hidden. He was thinking of one important thing: his life.

            In Tacitus’ Death of Seneca, he described this emperor as being a stoic. He wrote about how Seneca controlled his emotions and feelings around common people. He also described how he dealt with his own wealth and power. He finally describes how Seneca was only concerned with his death at the end. Seneca, the emperor, was a stoic. He had power, but he controlled his feelings. 

Daily 33

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.

These quotes are from Tacitus’ description of the Death of Seneca.

1.      “…he saw no signs of fear, and perceived no sadness in his words or in his looks.” This quote describes how Seneca showed no emotion.

2.      “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.” He was not thinking about his power. He was thinking about the end of his life.

3.      “…preferring the interest of any private citizen to his own safety, and he had no natural aptitude for flattery…” This quote shows how he did not want to show passion or provide others with compliments.

These quotes are from Book One of M. Aurelius’s Meditations

1.      “abstinence, not only from evil deeds, but even from evil thoughts; and further, simplicity in my way of living, far removed from the habits of the rich.” This shows how he did not need expensive things.

2.      “…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.” This quote explains how he did not choose sides or get involved in other peoples’ business.

3.      “ I learned not to be led astray to sophistic emulation, nor to writing on speculative matters, nor to delivering little hortatory orations, nor to showing myself off as a man who practises much discipline, or does benevolent acts in order to make a display; and to abstain from rhetoric, and poetry, and fine writing; and not to walk about in the house in my outdoor dress, nor to do other things of the kind; and to write my letters with simplicity” This quote describes his simplicity in his acts, clothes, and writing.

4.      “…undeviating steadiness of purpose; and to look to nothing else, not even for a moment, except to reason; and to be always the same…” This is shows how his feeling never changed.

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

 http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/marcuaurelius1.html