"Explain the varying incidence of witch hunts in time and place across Europebetween 1500 and 1700".
Dean Miller History 2nd MA Semester 1 3. "Explain the varying incidence of witch hunts in time and place across Europe between 1500 and 1700". Matriculation Number: 02 203015 5 Tutor: Martine van Ittersum "Explain the varying incidence of witch hunts in time and place across Europe between 1500 and 1700". It has been estimated that during the period of 1500 to 1700 around nine million 'witches' were burnt at the stake throughout the European continent. The aim of this essay is to compare and contrast different time periods and specific areas of Europe between 1500 and 1700, and critically asses how the so-called witch-craze unravelled. From the period of 1500 to 1700 witches came to symbolize superstitious aspects of popular religion. Catholic and Protestant churchmen identified and persecuted witches as part of the campaign to acculturate the masses with 'acceptable' beliefs. Witch hunts peaked during the first half of the Seventeenth Century. In the south-western states of the Holy Roman Empire alone, it is estimated that more than 300 separate witch trials resulted in the execution of 2,500 people between 1570 and 1630, almost all women - in itself not surprising as church authorities and priests were all male. Theologians and judges sought to demonstrate that accused witches embodied the kingdom of the Devil. To some extent the Catholic Reformation wanted
"Hero or Villain?" Evaluate the contribution of Napoleon Bonaparte to French history in terms of both domestic and foreign policy in the period 1799-1815.
Scott Sandoval AP European History Period B December 27, 2001 "Hero or Villain?" Evaluate the contribution of Napoleon Bonaparte to French history in terms of both domestic and foreign policy in the period 1799-1815. On August 15, 1769, on a small French governed, Italian cultured, Mediterranean Island, Corsica, Napoleon Bonaparte was born. Little did his upper-middle class parents know that on that day their miracle would write the history books and become one of the best military leaders for two centuries. Napoleon first joined the army when he graduated from school, age sixteen. He was quickly promoted to lieutenant colonel of Corsican National Guard, in 1791. Napoleon was patriotic to France and when the Corsican people revolted he fled to the mainly and took his family to with him. His first major combat came when we was assigned to quite a revolting naval base. He came out victorious and was promoted to brigadier general when he was only twenty-four years old. This was only the beginning of his career. Three years after marrying his wife, Joséphine de Beauharnais, was Napoleon's period of largest influence. This time period lasted for almost sixteen years and is known as the Napoleonic Era. During Napoleon's lifetime he acquired many territories, most of which were gained it the about 16 year span. Some believe that Frenchman Napoleon Bonaparte was the second
"How effectively does Gittings challenge the view that science is a force for good in, 'The Fox'?"
Daljit Malli "How effectively does Gittings challenge the view that science is a force for good in, 'The Fox'?" When reading this poem we can clearly see the difference between the way that Gittings portrays the fox and the way he describes Darwin and human presence on the island. The fox is portrayed as a beautiful, natural creature throughout the whole poem and Gittings talks as though he is awe of it, "Demurely as a pennant furled, Signal of peace and self won ease." The imagery set from this extract is very modest and beautiful, "pennant furled" being a flag rolled up in a curl. Flags mark territory as would the fox's "brush", but it is at ease. It is almost as though the fox is sitting at ease and peacefully; knowing that it's territory is marked. The reference to other animals such as, "Spear flight of a wedge of geese," is still very harmonious, although metaphorically Gittings is portraying is the arrow shape and speed that the geese fly in, spear flight is a fairly noiseless speed. It is certainly not as disturbing to the island and its residents as Darwin and his crew, both with the noise that they make and their un-natural presence, as Gittings later remarks on. "Kin to nothing on this desolate coast." Here Gittings clearly shows that Darwin and his men should not be on that island or that they have no natural reason to be. There is a fair amount of reference
"How justified was Gladstone in his criticism of Disraeli's foreign policy as 'reckless, territorial expansionism"?
"How justified was Gladstone in his criticism of Disraeli's foreign policy as 'reckless, territorial expansionism"? Benjamin Disraeli was a divisive personality; he divided political opinion in his own time and has divided historical opinion posthumously. Some historians see him as a great statesman and father of the modern Tory Party, whereas others question the importance of him as a historical figure at all. The historical intrigue of Disraeli lies in his volatile with his opponent William Ewart Gladstone leader of the Liberal Party. The lead politicians of their day, the pair verbally sparred over many issues but none so frequently as Foreign Policy. Gladstone learnt early on in his career after the Crimean War, that his personal mantra of "Peace, Retrenchment, and Reform" didn't sit well with an imperial foreign policy, whereas for Disraeli the empire was the glittering jewel in Britain's crown as leading world power. Disraeli has been credit by many as a shrewd political thinker, and his idolization of Imperial Britain is seen by many as merely an effective device for uniting the electorate with jingoistic rhetoric. This essay will argue that Gladstone's criticism of Disraeli is misplaced, his actions were not reckless but carefully considered, and while some of his decisions were ethically debatable they were meticulously calculated to bring the Tory Party, (and
"How were Surrealists' interests in dreams and the unconscious reflected in the aesthetic and stylistic features of Un Chien andalou?"
Question 7: "How were Surrealists' interests in dreams and the unconscious reflected in the aesthetic and stylistic features of Un Chien andalou?" Largely free of production constraints, short, experimental and deliberately shocking, Un Chien andalou is considered by many to be one of the most notorious expressions of surrealism on film in the last century. At its most radical, the surrealist movement asked us to rethink fundamentally our preconceptions about cinema; to challenge and subvert. The film allowed the rapid entry of its two young directors, Luis Bunuel and Salvador Dali, into the Surrealist movement. Films of this movement had been unsuccessful (for example, those of Man Ray and Antoine Arnaud) up until this point; Robert Short explaining that 'Part of the trouble was that Surrealism meant automatism - absolute fidelity to the voice of the unconscious unsullied by rational intentionality. And filmmaking cannot do without forethought, rehearsal and a certain technical expertise.'1 Bunuel himself clarifies that the film's plot is the result of a "conscious psychic automatism', and, to that extent, it does not attempt to recount a dream, although it profits by a mechanism analogous to that of dreams.'2 The surrealists were greatly influenced by Sigmund Freud, the Austrian founder of psychoanalysis. They were especially receptive to his distinction between the 'ego'
"I am who I remember being." Does this express the truth about personal identity over time?
"I am who I remember being." Does this express the truth about personal identity over time? When answering the above question we must analyse the nature of personal identity over time. The problem of personal identity is problematic, as we need to analyse and distinguish what exactly makes a person. We firstly need to distinguish between the body, the brain, personality, the mind and the soul. Some of these provide better identity criteria than others, as the existence of such entities as a soul are hard to prove. The two main groups we can identify a person under are that of a physical identity, and that of a psychological or mental identity. We must also be aware of the distinction of numerical and qualitative identity. The two forms of identity are both problematic when relating them to personal identity. Numerical identity requires us to be numerically exact when comparing two people over time. If we assume that a person is fundamentally a human body then we would use numerical identity to determine if we are indeed the same person we were five years ago. Biologists would perhaps suggest that we are simply a complex series of matter brought about by evolutionary processes. Our thoughts are nothing more than chemical reactions in the complex matter of our brains and there is no distinction between our thoughts and our bodies. Our brains are simply parts of our bodies,
"I think, therefore I am." Descartes was one of the first philosophers to delve into the idea that humans were more than just flesh and blood.
"I think, therefore I am." Descartes was one of the first philosophers to delve into the idea that humans were more than just flesh and blood. How a person judged their environment and formed their opinions justified their existence. He began to question how anyone could know anything for sure, if no one was certain of the reasoning behind it. Descartes began to doubt and disbelieve everything in order to ascertain the truths of the world. He formed the notion that, perhaps, the physical world did not exist, but was rather an image created by a powerful and malevolent demon in his mind. He was of the opinion that humans knew very few truths about their world, given that they held to traditional assumptions without questioning the integrity of these common-held beliefs. This lead to Descartes questioning the divine appointment of the King, from which Descartes' effect on the French Revolution becomes apparent. Whilst he lived between 1596 and 1650, over one hundred years before the Revolution began, Descartes' belief was carried through to become a fundamental aspect of the Revolution; questioning the King's right to govern as the sole autocrat. Descartes held that by means of questioning alone, certain self-evident truths would become apparent from which the remaining content of science and philosophy could be derived. Through these truths, the remainder of the physical world
"In 1848 Europewas ablaze with revolutionary fervour affecting most countries. Germanywas affected but differently to the rest of Europe. To what extent was this the case?"
Year 11 IB History 2003 - The 1848 Revolution & Germany "In 1848 Europe was ablaze with revolutionary fervour affecting most countries. Germany was affected but differently to the rest of Europe. To what extent was this the case?" To a certain extent, Germany was affected differently to other European countries. Although many European countries were under revolution, they were affected in different ways. The Europeans wanted universal suffrage and economic improvement as well as an end to the old monarchy. The main difference was the fervent desire for unification. The causes of the revolution were similar - economic and social deterioration, but the outcomes were assorted. France had no trouble in acquiring a republic, but had difficulty in running it. Austria's racial differences caused disputes over the Diet language. The revolutions in Austria were successful in shaking the Hapsburg Empire in the beginning, however it eventually failed because of the conflicting economic goals of the middle and lower classes. Germany was after unification. There was no complication by racial differences, there was a mass of peasants to support revolts, a King that was initially willing to attempt to unite Germany, yet the revolution failed. The revolutions affected each country similarly in trying to bring down the long-standing monarchy, however outcomes of each were
"From her arrival in 1568, Mary Stuart posed a major threat to the security of Elizabeth and her government". How far do you agree with this judgement?
"From her arrival in 1568, Mary Stuart posed a major threat to the security of Elizabeth and her government". How far do you agree with this judgement? Mary's Threat Politically Religiously Internationally Self Inflicted Mary's arrival in England triggered the discontent among some Catholic sympathisers to become prevalent, as Mary provided a clear leader to focus their religious dissatisfactions with the moderately Protestant settlement imposed by Elizabeth. This is why religious motivations behind some of the laity were the most dangerous threat from Mary. Political advantages from individuals supporting Mary are contributory factors to threaten Elizabeth, without the laity's religious motivations however they cannot amount to a crucial significance. International implications from Mary's presence were potentially huge but were never anything more than potential. All these factors revolving around Mary that threatened Elizabeth were compounded by the way Elizabeth mismanaged situations. Mary can be seen as the reaction pathway in the threat towards Elizabeth, she does not do much herself to endanger Elizabeth, however she provided the discontented with the motivation to threaten Elizabeth because she was the next Catholic heir. Those who felt discontented about Elizabeth's moderate Protestant settlement now had a clear leader to focus their ambitions of a Catholic
"Khrushchev's leadership was a failure," Do you agree?
"Khrushchev's leadership was a failure," Do you agree? There is a lot of debate about Khrushchev being a good leader. There is no doubt that Khrushchev was much less ruthless than Stalin, but was he a good leader? I will look further into this statement and then come to a conclusion if Khrushchev's leadership was a failure. Khrushchev started out well; he knew he couldn't carry on Stalin's ruthless regime, so he separated himself from Stalin by making the secret speech in February 1956, "Stalin used extreme methods and mass repressions at a time when the revolution was already victorious." Even though this was a risky move by Khrushchev and he made a lot of enemies, it showed the sense of character of Khrushchev. The Virgin Land scheme was a good idea for Khrushchev, but made a big mistake, after a good first season the failure to rotate crops and use fertilisers to feed the earth which caused soil erosion. Windstorms were partly to blame for this, but rightly Khrushchev was heavily blamed. Harvests in 1963 were so bad the USSR had to buy large amounts of grain from the US and Canada. Khrushchev made big steps into the unknown which was space. A race with the US to get into space first was won by the USSR. In 1957 the USSR launched two space satellites into space, Sputnik 1 and Sputnik II. Four years later Khrushchev got the first man into space, Yuri Gorgerin.
