3 ms·
I wouldn't call "treatment of 'witches'" a field, per se. That aside, I agree it wasn't a "golden age". It was, if anything, a diversion in the flow of the riv
by IAmBroom 1y ago
I wouldn't call "treatment of 'witches'" a field, per se.
That aside, I agree it wasn't a "golden age". It was, if anything, a diversion in the flow of the river of Western history: humanism, prostestantism, perspective in drawing, and a noticeable increase in technical invention and scientific formalism truly changed the status quo permanently and markedly.
- anovikov 1y agoRenaissance is a lot older than that. Renaissance was over by 1527, merely a decade after the 95 Theses when Protestantism was just getting started, still haven't had any cultural impact - and the rest of the things mentioned not started at all. "Scientific formalism" arguably started with Newton's "Principia Mathematica" whole 160 years later.
- AnimalMuppet 1y agoThat's oddly specific. What's your criterion for "Renaissance over", and why does it fit 1527? I mean, if you're defining "Renaissance" as "High Renaissance only", and "over" as "sack of Rome", then yes, I suppose that fits. But the High Renaissance is only about 40 years, whereas the Renaissance is much larger.