Weekly 8 Final Draft

Konnor Drewen

4/25/011

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

             

              Romanesque and Gothic Cathedrals had different understandings of theology mostly because of the time period. People evolve to match their environment in more ways than just physically, but spiritually. When there is a time that people need protection, either from the physical or the religious, they need a place to protect them. People have been turning to the church for hundreds of years. On the other hand when there is a time of relative peace, well then a church is no longer needed to also be a fortress. They can become a more spiritual place. By looking at a Romanesque or Gothic Cathedral there are distinct differences in the architecture; Gothic architecture is looking for further divine enlightenment, Romanesque architecture is preparing for Judgment Day.

            The first area of change that a person could see is the façade, or front of the Cathedral. In a Romanesque Cathedral there are large walls with high windows. The walls of the Cathedral, correspondingly, are also exceptionally thick. They were this way almost certainly to keep out invaders (Fig. 1). The façade of a Gothic Cathedral are different in that they are less defensive. They had low widows, and one large circular window, this allowed a large amount of light in. The walls of the Gothic Cathedrals are also much thinner. The building itself is more elegant in its design (Fig. 2).

            The reason for these incredibly different designs in structure is fear. During the 9^th – 11^th centuries, it was a time of struggle. The people in towns needed a place to be held up in to survive an onslaught if one accord. In that time religious members also believed that Judgment Day was near. They designed the Romanesque Cathedral, a building that could withstand an attack (Fig. 3). The designs for a Gothic Cathedral are less protective. The large windows and ingenious use of stained glass allowed for a more graceful appearance. Surely this was the acme of the religious life of the citizens of that era (Fig. 4).

            The second area of a Romanesque/Gothic Cathedral that should be shown interest is the interior. In the Romanesque Cathedrals the interior is a little darker with less design. The pillars of the Romanesque Cathedrals are burly and look as if they were made to defend and support (Fig. 5). In the Gothic Cathedrals, alternatively, the interior has greater sophistication. The Gothic detail on the pillars leaves behind the gruff exterior of the Romanesque period and brings forth a new and more chic scheme of the Cathedral. This change creates less of a battle ready fortress, and more of a beautiful, and spiritual place (Fig. 6).

            When change occurs in the history of people; people must change with it, creating structures that fit the time period. If the change means more defenses are needed, then build bigger walls. If defense is no longer needed, then change the walls to make it appear additionally attractive. This is how the Cathedrals express the different religious beliefs. Through the different architecture of the Romanesque and Gothic Cathedrals, people throughout time have been able to save, defend, and believe.

               

           

               

Appendix

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 6

Bibliography

Rochester Cathedral, facade, 10^th century, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rochester_Cathedral_from_the_Castle,_The_Romanesque_Facade.jpg, photo taken in 2010

Cathedral of Amiens, façade, 13^th century, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cathedral_of_Amiens_front.jpg, photo taken in 2004

Strassburg Westfassade, façade, 12^th century, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Strassburg_Westfassade_Detail.jpg, photo taken in 2005

Roskilde cathedral, interior, 12^th – 13^th century, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Roskilde_Dom01.jpg, photo taken in 2006

Trier cathedral, façade, 9^th century, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dom_St._Peter,_Trier.jpg, photo taken in 2007

Basilica di St. Remi, interior, 11^th century,  http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Basilique_St_Remi_01.jpg, photo taken in 2007

Weekly 8 Rough Draft

Konnor Drewen

4/25/011

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

             

              Romanesque and Gothic Cathedrals had different understandings of theology mostly because of the time period. Mankind evolves to match its environment in more ways than just physically, but spiritually. When there is a time that people need protection, either from the physical or the religious, they need a place to protect them. Mankind has been turning to the church for hundreds of years. On the other hand when there is a time of relative peace, well then a church is no longer needed to also be a fortress. They can become a more spiritual place. By just looking at a Romanesque or Gothic Cathedral there are distinct differences; Gothic is furthering divine enlightenment, Romanesque is preparing for Judgment Day. The Cathedrals do not have significance.

            The first area of change that a person could see is the façade, or front of the Cathedral. In a Romanesque Cathedral there are large walls with high windows. The walls of the Cathedral, correspondingly, are also exceptionally thick. They were this way almost certainly to keep out invaders (Fig. 1). The façade of a Gothic Cathedral are different in that they are less defensive. They had low widows, and one large circular window, this allowed a large amount of light in. The walls of the Gothic Cathedrals are also much thinner. The building itself is more elegant in its design (Fig. 2).

            The reason for these incredibly different designs in structure is fear. During the 9^th – 11^th centuries, it was a time of struggle. The people in towns needed a place to be held up in to survive an onslaught if one accord. In that time religious members also believed that Judgment Day was near. They designed the Romanesque Cathedral, a building that could withstand an attack (Fig. 3). The designs for a Gothic Cathedral are less protective. The large windows and ingenious use of stained glass allowed for a more graceful appearance. Surely this was the acme of the religious life of the citizens of that era (Fig. 4).

            The second area of a Romanesque/Gothic Cathedral that should be shown interest is the interior. In the Romanesque Cathedrals the interior is a little darker with less design. The pillars of the Romanesque Cathedrals are burly and look as if they were made to defend and support (Fig. 5). In the Gothic Cathedrals, alternatively, the interior has greater sophistication. The Gothic detail on the pillars leaves behind the gruff exterior of the Romanesque period and brings forth a new and more chic scheme of the Cathedral. This change creates less of a battle ready fortress, and more of a beautiful, and spiritual place (Fig. 6).

            When change occurs in the history of Mankind; Mankind must change with it. If the change means more defenses are needed, then build bigger walls. If defense is no longer needed, then change the walls to make it appear additionally attractive. This is how the Cathedrals express the different religious beliefs. Through the different architecture of the Romanesque and Gothic Cathedrals, people throughout time have been able to save, defend, and believe.

               

           

               

Appendix

Figure 1

Trier cathedral, façade, 9th century, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dom_St._Peter,_Trier.jpg, photo taken in 2007

Figure 2

Strassburg Westfassade, façade, 12th century, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Strassburg_Westfassade_Detail.jpg, photo taken in 2005

Figure 3

Rochester Cathedral, facade, 10th century, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rochester_Cathedral_from_the_Castle,_The_Romanesque_Facade.jpg, photo taken in 2010

Figure 4

Cathedral of Amiens, façade, 13th century, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cathedral_of_Amiens_front.jpg, photo taken in 2004

Figure 5

Basilica di St. Remi, interior, 11th century,  http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Basilique_St_Remi_01.jpg, photo taken in 2007

Figure 6

Roskilde cathedral, interior, 12th – 13th century, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Roskilde_Dom01.jpg, photo taken in 2006

Weekly 7 Final Draft

Konnor Drewen

4/12/011             

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

            The Roman Empire was a powerful and omnipotent creature in its time. The Romans controlled most of the known world; from Italy west, and Greece east. (Fig. 1)  There was not much in the world that could stop the force that was the Roman Empire. Unfortunately, that is the problem with vast, powerful civilizations; something with that much power will inevitably fall. It is the natural effect of excessive enormity. The Roman Empire is a perfect example of an omnipotent nation in its time, and as history teaches, omnipotent nations will unavoidably decline and fall.     

Edward Gibbon said, “The arms of the republic, sometimes vanquished in battle, always victorious in war, advanced with rapid steps to the Euphrates, the Danube, the Rhine, and the Ocean; and the images of gold, or silver, or brass, that might serve to represent the nations and their kings, were successively broken by the iron monarchy of Rome” (Gibbon, 1776). The reason this quote was used was to prove that the Roman Empire was all powerful. Whoever got in the way anywhere in the world would be crush by the might of Roma. The wealth of the other civilizations was taken then destroyed for the glory of Roma. This is a fact that the Roman Empire was unable to be stopped, but the one thing that always stops civilizations and causes them to fall is time.

            “The rise of a city, which swelled into an empire, may deserve, as a singular prodigy, the reflection of a philosophic mind. But the decline of Rome was the natural and inevitable effect of immoderate greatness” (Gibbon, 1776). This is another reason assisting in explaining why the Roman Empire did not evolve but breakdown. It had too much power. The Romans may have been wise, and strong, but all of that land that influential could not be controlled by one nation for long. Eventually people would want that power and rise up against it. When that happened they fought like warriors but when the brunt of the world was bearing down against their civilization, there is nothing they could do but fall.

            “Beyond the Rhine and Danube the northern countries of Europe and Asia were filled with innumerable tribes of hunters and shepherds, poor, voracious, and turbulent; bold in arms, and impatient to ravish the fruits of industry; The barbarian world was agitated by the rapid impulse of war; and the peace of Gaul or Italy was shaken by the distant revolutions of China; the Huns, who fled before a victorious enemy, directed their march towards the West; and the torrent was swelled by the gradual accession of captives and allies; the flying tribes who yielded to the Huns assumed in their turn the spirit of conquest; the endless column of barbarians pressed on the Roman Empire with accumulated weight; and, if the foremost were destroyed, the vacant space was instantly replenished by new assailants” (Gibbon, 1776). This particularly long quote is telling of the final acts against the Roman Empire that caused it to fall. It was attacked by barbarians and the Huns until it finally collapsed under the equal weight of its foe. They were attacked again and again by the enemy and even if the wave of attackers was defeated it would be replaced by another almost as quickly as it had been destroyed. The Roman Empire, so powerful, could not have taken on the constant onslaught for long so it had nothing to do, but collapse.  

            The Roman Empire; dominant, unstoppable, and sagacious, could have ruled for longer but, the thing that stops empires is much stronger; time. The Romans did not evolve, they fell, but they fell with pride. They fought till the end, and lost. They may have lost, but people still remember their power today.  The greatness and the glory was so overpowering that they did not become some other civilization over the course of hundreds of years; they were born Roman and they fell being Roman.

Fig. 1

Bibliography

Gibbon, E. (1776). Edward gibbon, the decline and fall of the roman empire (1776-1788). Retrieved from http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/gibbon_decline.html

Ефрон, E. (Photographer). (1900). Roman emperor map . [Web]. Retrieved from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Roman_Emperor_map.jpg?uselang=en-gb

Weekly 7 Rough Draft

Konnor Drewen

4/12/011

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

            The Roman Empire was a powerful and omnipotent creature in its time. The Romans controlled most of the world; from Italy west, and Greece east.  There was not much in the world that could stop the force that was the Roman Empire. Unfortunately, that is the problem with huge, powerful civilizations; something with that much power will inevitably fall. It is the natural effect of excessive enormity. The Roman Empire is a perfect example of a world controlling nation, and as history teaches us world controlling nations will unavoidably decline and fall.    The Roman Empire evolved because there are symbols of them all over Europe still today.

            Edward Gibbon said, “The arms of the republic, sometimes vanquished in battle, always victorious in war, advanced with rapid steps to the Euphrates, the Danube, the Rhine, and the Ocean; and the images of gold, or silver, or brass, that might serve to represent the nations and their kings, were successively broken by the iron monarchy of Rome” (Gibbon, 1776). The reason this quote was used was to prove that the Roman Empire was all powerful. Whoever got in the way anywhere in the world would be crush by the might of Roma. The wealth of the other civilizations was taken then destroyed for the glory of Roma. This is a fact that the Roman Empire was unable to be stopped, but the one thing that always stops civilizations and causes them to fall is time.

            “The rise of a city, which swelled into an empire, may deserve, as a singular prodigy, the reflection of a philosophic mind. But the decline of Rome was the natural and inevitable effect of immoderate greatness” (Gibbon, 1776). This is another reason assisting in explaining why the Roman Empire did not evolve but breakdown. It had too much power. The Romans may have been wise, and strong, but all of that land that influential could not be controlled by one nation for long. Eventually people would want that power and rise up against it. When that happened they fought like warriors but when the brunt of the world was bearing down against their civilization, there is nothing they could do but fall.

            “Beyond the Rhine and Danube the northern countries of Europe and Asia were filled with innumerable tribes of hunters and shepherds, poor, voracious, and turbulent; bold in arms, and impatient to ravish the fruits of industry; The barbarian world was agitated by the rapid impulse of war; and the peace of Gaul or Italy was shaken by the distant revolutions of China; the Huns, who fled before a victorious enemy, directed their march towards the West; and the torrent was swelled by the gradual accession of captives and allies; the flying tribes who yielded to the Huns assumed in their turn the spirit of conquest; the endless column of barbarians pressed on the Roman Empire with accumulated weight; and, if the foremost were destroyed, the vacant space was instantly replenished by new assailants” (Gibbon, 1776). This particularly long quote is telling of the final acts against the Roman Empire that caused it to fall. It was attacked by barbarians and the Huns until it finally collapsed under the equal weight of its foe. They were attacked again and again by the enemy and even if the wave of attackers was defeated it would be replaced by another almost as quickly as it had been destroyed. The Roman Empire, so powerful, could not have taken on the constant onslaught for long so it had nothing to do, but collapse.  

            The Roman Empire; dominant, unstoppable, and sagacious, could have ruled for longer but, the thing that stops empires is much stronger; time. The Romans did not evolve, they fell, but they fell with pride. They fought till the end, and lost. They may have lost, but people still remember their power today.  The greatness and the glory was so overpowering that they did not become some other civilization over the course of hundreds of years; they were born Roman and they fell being Roman.

Stoicism Final Draft

Konnor Drewen

4/6/011

Stoicism

            Seneca was a different kind of person in his time, but he still followed similar beliefs as others. The beliefs that emotion holds you back and should not be expressed. That is that if someone has trouble in their life whether it be a death or another unhappy experience that they must push forward and not let anything get in their way. If they let any emotion into their life then they will not be able to accomplish what they want to in their life. Stoicism is a belief that when confronted with hardships you must not show emotion because it will hold you back; Seneca is a perfect illustration of this belief. 

                        "Seneca, quite unmoved, asked for tablets on which to inscribe his will, and, on the centurion's refusal, turned to his friends, protesting that as he was forbidden to requite them, he bequeathed to them the only, but still the noblest possession yet remaining to him, the pattern of his life, which, if they remembered, they would win a name for moral worth and steadfast friendship” (Tacitus). Even after Seneca is told of his death sentence he is still “quite unmoved.” He was even forbidden to write down his will so in this case his stoicism is un-refutable. He controlled himself so as to show the guards that he was not afraid. He would gladly accept death because he was dying with honour and resignation.

            “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. 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). The stoicism in this act is one of endurance and knowing what has to be done. He died and did not fight against the ruling of death against him. In the end taking his own life was what Seneca did not only cutting his arteries but drinking the poison the prisoners drank in Athens to be put to death.  He felt that if he was to die let it by his own hand.

            "When the tribune reported this answer in the presence of Poppaea and Tigellinus, the emperor's most confidential advisers in his moments of rage, he asked whether Seneca was meditating suicide. Upon this the tribune asserted that he saw no signs of fear, and perceived no sadness in his words or in his looks” (Tacitus). This is a good reason for Seneca a perfect example because in this quote it says that he showed no emotion. He had no signs of fear or sadness for saying that Natalis had been sent to him and had complained to him in Piso's name because of his refusal to see Piso. After the sentence of death was to be carried out Seneca still showed no emotion. He had no reason to give them the joy of seeing him afraid.

            Seneca was an exceptional stoic in his life; not showing emotion and letting done what had to be done. Through the last days of his life he would have endured great troubles, but he faced them proudly. He did not show the people condemning him that he was afraid, if he was afraid at all. Even as he was told that he could not write down his will he stayed “quite unmoved.”  In the end he even took his life to complete the fullness of his impassiveness. The intellect and indifference in his time of death demonstrates how Seneca is the image of stoicism.

           

Stoicism Rough Draft

Konnor Drewen

4/6/011

Stoicism

            Seneca was a different kind of person in his time, but he still followed similar beliefs as others. The beliefs that emotion holds you back and should not be expressed. That is that if someone has trouble in their life whether it be a death or another unhappy experience that they must push forward and not let anything get in their way. If they let any emotion into their life then they will not be able to accomplish what they want to in their life. Stoicism is a belief that when confronted with hardships you must not show emotion because it will hold you back; Seneca is a perfect illustration of this belief.  Seneca was not a perfect image of stoicism, for he showed fear in the final minutes of his death by begging for death.

            "When the tribune reported this answer in the presence of Poppaea and Tigellinus, the emperor's most confidential advisers in his moments of rage, he asked whether Seneca was meditating suicide. Upon this the tribune asserted that he saw no signs of fear, and perceived no sadness in his words or in his looks” (Tacitus). This is a good reason for Seneca a perfect example because in this quote it says that he showed no emotion. He had no signs of fear or sadness for saying that Natalis had been sent to him and had complained to him in Piso's name because of his refusal to see Piso. After the sentence of death was to be carried out Seneca still showed no emotion. He had no reason to give them the joy of seeing him afraid.

            "Seneca, quite unmoved, asked for tablets on which to inscribe his will, and, on the centurion's refusal, turned to his friends, protesting that as he was forbidden to requite them, he bequeathed to them the only, but still the noblest possession yet remaining to him, the pattern of his life, which, if they remembered, they would win a name for moral worth and steadfast friendship” (Tacitus). Even after Seneca is told of his death sentence he is still “quite unmoved.” He was even forbidden to write down his will so in this case his stoicism is un-refutable. He controlled himself so as to show the guards that he was not afraid. He would gladly accept death because he was dying with honour and stoicism.

            “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. 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). The stoicism in this act is one of endurance and knowing what has to be done. He died and did not fight against the ruling of death against him. In the end taking his own life was what Seneca did not only cutting his arteries but drinking the poison the prisoners drank in Athens to be put to death.  He felt that if he was to die let it by his own hand.

            Seneca was an exceptional stoic in his life; not showing emotion and letting done what had to be done. Through the last days of his life he would have endured great troubles, but he faced them proudly. He did not show the people condemning him that he was afraid, if he was afraid at all. Even as he was told that he could not write down his will he stayed “quite unmoved.”  In the end he even took his life to complete the fullness of his impassiveness. The intellect and indifference in his time of death demonstrates how Seneca is the image of stoicism.

News Flash

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.

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.

Daily Blog 3 Week 9

Konnor Drewen

4/6/011

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

            Gibbons approach to the end of the Roman Empire was more to say that any empire of above moderateness will eventually fall because of its pure stature and greatness. He also said that it could have been because of the decay of Roma, but less likely because Roma had been divided before and it did not become removed.  Christianity had some influence on the decline and fall of the Roman Empire according to Gibbon. The clergy successfully preached the doctrines of patience. The active virtues of society were discouraged. Gibbon said that faith, zeal, curiosity, and the more earthly passions of malice and ambition kindled the flame of theological discord; the church, was distracted by religious factions, whose conflicts were sometimes bloody; the attention of the emperors was diverted from camps to church councils; the Roman world was oppressed by a new species of tyranny; and the persecuted factions became the secret enemies of their country. Toynbee has one of the oldest views in which Christianity was the destroyer of the civilization. He also says that before we accept the role of Christianity and of the other religions in social history which represents these religions as being mere instruments for assisting in the process of civilization, in every instance of the parent-and-child relation between civilizations, we find a church intervening between the parent civilization and the daughter civilization. Toynbee finds that if you look at the histories of the ancient civilizations of South-Western Asia and Egypt, you find there an elementary higher religion in the form of the worship of a god and a related goddess.

Daily Blog 2 Week 9

Konnor Drewen

4/5/011

Who was Augustine of Hippo?

            Augustine of Hippo was born on 13 of November 354 CE in Tagaste, which is modern day Souk-Ahras. He is also known as St. Augustine or Blessed Augustine. He received a Catholic education. His mother had him sign with the cross and enrolled with the catechumens. Once when ill he asked to be baptized but after he was cured he turned down the sacrament. During his life, his morals and faith went through a great crisis. In the year, 373, Augustine and his friend Honoratus fell into the hands of the Manicheans. Augustine devoted himself to his sect with all the ardor of his character; he read all its books, adopted and defended all its opinions. In the year 383 CE Augustine, at the age of twenty-nine, feeling something drawing him left for Italy, but his mother suspected his departure and was so scared to be separated from him that he resorted to leaving under cover of the night. When he was then forty two, he was to occupy the See of Hippo for thirty-four years. He was known as defender of truth and the shepherd of souls. He preached frequently, sometimes for five days consecutively, his sermons touched many people in his time. He wrote letters which helped to solve many problems in known world. He struggled to fight against all errors. Although the struggles of his time were many he was able to help many people with his teaching which was why he was successful as bishop of Hippo.

Daily Blog 1 Week 9

Konnor Drewen

4/4/011

Quotes

"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."

"Where are your maxims of philosophy, or the preparation of so many years' study against evils to come? Who knew not Nero's cruelty? After a mother's and a brother's murder, nothing remains but to add the destruction of a guardian and a tutor."

“From Apollonius I learned freedom of will and undeviating steadiness of purpose; and to look to nothing else, not even for a moment, except to reason; and to be always the same, in sharp pains, on the occasion of the loss of a child, and in long illness; and to see clearly in a living example that the same man can be both most resolute and yielding, and not peevish in giving his instruction; and to have had before my eyes a man who clearly considered his experience and his skill in expounding philosophical principles as the smallest of his merits; and from him I learned how to receive from friends what are esteemed favours, without being either humbled by them or letting them pass unnoticed.”

“From Rusticus I received the impression that my character required improvement and discipline; and from him I learned not to be led astray to sophistic emulation, nor to writing on speculative matters, nor to delivering little hortatory orations, nor to showing myself off as a man who practises much discipline, or does benevolent acts in order to make a display.”