What is the Renaissance? We hear about works of art from the Renaissance period, and in history lessons, etc. but what exactly is the Renaissance?
Merriam Webster’s online dictionary defines ‘Renaissance’ as:
Renaissance
Pronunciation: \ˌre-nə-ˈsän(t)s, -ˈzän(t)s, -ˈsäⁿs, -ˈzäⁿs, ˈre-nə-ˌ, chiefly British ri-ˈnā-sən(t)s\
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: French, from Middle French, rebirth, from Old French renaistre to be born again, from Latin renasci, from re- + nasci to be born — more at nation
Date: 1845
1 capitalized a : the transitional movement in Europe between medieval and modern times beginning in the 14th century in Italy, lasting into the 17th century, and marked by a humanistic revival of classical influence expressed in a flowering of the arts and literature and by the beginnings of modern science b : the period of the Renaissance c : the neoclassic style of architecture prevailing during the Renaissance
2 often capitalized : a movement or period of vigorous artistic and intellectual activity
3 : rebirth, revival
Whereas ‘historyworld.net’ calls this the ‘Renaissance’:
The word is French for 'rebirth'. Historians first use it (from about 1840) for the period from the 14th to the 16th century, implying a rediscovery of rational civilization (exemplified by Greece and Rome) after the medieval centuries - seen as superstitious and artistically primitive. The term 'Middle Ages', also coined by historians, makes the same point in a different way - defining the medieval period merely as the gap between classical and modern civilization.
Read more: http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ac88#ixzz0RrNAjGK1.
And at history-world.org the ‘Renaissance’ is called this:
The term Renaissance, literally means "rebirth" and is the period in European civilization immediately following the Middle Ages, conventionally held to have been characterized by a surge of interest in classical learning and values. The Renaissance also witnessed the discovery and exploration of new continents, the substitution of the Copernican for the Ptolemaic system of astronomy, the decline of the feudal system and the growth of commerce, and the invention or application of such potentially powerful innovations as paper, printing, the mariner's compass, and gunpowder. To the scholars and thinkers of the day, however, it was primarily a time of the revival of classical learning and wisdom after a long period of cultural decline and stagnation.
Read more:
http://history-world.org/renaissance.htm
So from these three citations we see that the Renaissance was the period of time immediately after the Middle Ages, and was a time of great art and literature. Renaissance is French for ‘Rebirth’, so we can assume that the Renaissance is called thus because of the revival of art, science, and literature during that period, as opposed to the Medieval times that preceded it.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Wars of the Roses essay
I picked the British War of the Roses to do a report on. You might've heard of it, briefly in a history class, or in a Jeopardy question, but if you're reading this, you probably don't know what it was, and were curious enough to look it up. So I will explain a little.
The War of the Roses was a British Civil Wars fought in the mid-1400's between two Houses (noble families), Lancaster and York. The reason they are called the Wars of the Roses is because the symbol of both houses is a rose, a red one for Lancaster and a white one for York.
Right before the start of the War of the Roses, England was being ruled by King Henry VI, of the house of Lancaster, who was mentally unstable. Richard Plantagenet, the Duke of York was one of his most faithful advisors. In 1450 he returned from abroad to personally advise the king and oppose his rival, the duke of Somerset, who was another advisor to the king.
In 1453, King Henry VI got sick with some kind of paralyzing disease, so Richard of York assumed the title of Protector, which gave him control of England in the king’s absence, and he used this sudden upswing of power to try to take out the duke of Somerset. Somerset was taken to the Tower of London, under charges of incompetence.
Finally, the king recovered from his sickness in January 1455. Richard of York lost his title as Protector, the duke of Somerset was released, and the fighting came to a temporary end.
Richard of York still had a place in the court, but he missed his power as Protector and was planning to fight King Henry for the throne. He was also worried about Somerset, as he had been released from the Tower, and was making alliances with the dukes of Northumberland and Clifford. Somerset knew Richard was planning to take over the throne, and he (Somerset) wanted Henry to keep it. Since Henry was of the house of Lancaster, they became known as the Lancastrians, while York and his allies, Warwick and Salisbury, called themselves the Yorkists.
That began a long series of battles that lasted more than 30 years, and several rulers. King Henry VI was replaced by Edward IV (of York). This was probably the most important event in the War, because this was the transfer of power from Lancaster to York. If the Lancastrians hadn't kept attacking afterwards, the war would have been won.
Edward IV was succeeded by his son, Edward, but he was declared illegitimate. Edward V and his brother were those two famous royals murdered in the Tower of London. Their deaths are still shrouded in mystery. Edward V was followed by Richard III (also of York), who was the king in 1485.
By then, both the York and Lancaster houses were severely weakened, leaving them both open to attack form a foreign county. Henry VII, from Wales, saw his opportunity and attacked the Lancastrians, defeating them easily. After defeating York as well, the throne belonged to the House of Tudor; First Henry VII, and then his descendants took their turns on the throne.
The War of the Roses was a British Civil Wars fought in the mid-1400's between two Houses (noble families), Lancaster and York. The reason they are called the Wars of the Roses is because the symbol of both houses is a rose, a red one for Lancaster and a white one for York.
Right before the start of the War of the Roses, England was being ruled by King Henry VI, of the house of Lancaster, who was mentally unstable. Richard Plantagenet, the Duke of York was one of his most faithful advisors. In 1450 he returned from abroad to personally advise the king and oppose his rival, the duke of Somerset, who was another advisor to the king.
In 1453, King Henry VI got sick with some kind of paralyzing disease, so Richard of York assumed the title of Protector, which gave him control of England in the king’s absence, and he used this sudden upswing of power to try to take out the duke of Somerset. Somerset was taken to the Tower of London, under charges of incompetence.
Finally, the king recovered from his sickness in January 1455. Richard of York lost his title as Protector, the duke of Somerset was released, and the fighting came to a temporary end.
Richard of York still had a place in the court, but he missed his power as Protector and was planning to fight King Henry for the throne. He was also worried about Somerset, as he had been released from the Tower, and was making alliances with the dukes of Northumberland and Clifford. Somerset knew Richard was planning to take over the throne, and he (Somerset) wanted Henry to keep it. Since Henry was of the house of Lancaster, they became known as the Lancastrians, while York and his allies, Warwick and Salisbury, called themselves the Yorkists.
That began a long series of battles that lasted more than 30 years, and several rulers. King Henry VI was replaced by Edward IV (of York). This was probably the most important event in the War, because this was the transfer of power from Lancaster to York. If the Lancastrians hadn't kept attacking afterwards, the war would have been won.
Edward IV was succeeded by his son, Edward, but he was declared illegitimate. Edward V and his brother were those two famous royals murdered in the Tower of London. Their deaths are still shrouded in mystery. Edward V was followed by Richard III (also of York), who was the king in 1485.
By then, both the York and Lancaster houses were severely weakened, leaving them both open to attack form a foreign county. Henry VII, from Wales, saw his opportunity and attacked the Lancastrians, defeating them easily. After defeating York as well, the throne belonged to the House of Tudor; First Henry VII, and then his descendants took their turns on the throne.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Almond Experiment Part One
Q: Why doesn’t almond extract taste like regular almonds?
A: We (my mom and I) looked at a Yahoo answers type thingy and that gave us a few possible explanations, assuming that the almond extract flavor is the chemical benzaldehyde.
1. That you need alcohol to release the benzaldehyde from the almonds.
2. That you need to heat the almonds in boiling water to release the benzaldehyde.
3. That benzaldehyde is only found in certain types of almonds.
So to test it out I took 5 raw almonds and boiled them in 1 cup water. After they boiled they skins would slip off, and a there was a funny mahogany tinge to the water, (and they both smelled like wet almonds) but neither the water or the almonds tasted any different. I thought that since the water looked different, maybe there was benzaldehyde in it, but it such a small dosage that it was diluted by the water.
To test this I boiled 5 almonds in 1/2 cup of water. That didn't work, either, so I gave up on boiling the almonds, concluding that you can't draw the almond flavor out of regular almonds with hot water.
So then we decided to try peach pits to see if they had that extract flavor. We thought of peach pits because when we froze peaches 2 years ago, we had to take the pit out. and sometimes, the wrinkly outer part of the shell was split open, and inside there was a seed that looked like an almond. We also found out that almonds and peaches are in the same family of nut. So if the peach pits tasted like almonds extract, we would know that you need a certain type of almond to get the benzaldehyde flavor.
When we opened up the peach pits, we found we didn't have to boil them to see if they had the almond flavor, that they didn't have a regular almond taste, but that they did have an extract taste, you could see that when you bit into them. I went online to figure out why regular almonds don't have benzaldehyde.
We found out hat regular almonds (sweet almonds) are actually a genetic mutation of wild almonds, which do have benzaldehyde. When the wild almonds mutated, they lost the benzaldehyde chemical. Anyway... we decided to see if we could make our peach pits into a homemade extract. but when we looked it up on the internet, all the recipies said to soak them in alcohol, and we don't really want to do that. So now we're stuck.
I'll write the rest of it one we finish the experiment.
A: We (my mom and I) looked at a Yahoo answers type thingy and that gave us a few possible explanations, assuming that the almond extract flavor is the chemical benzaldehyde.
1. That you need alcohol to release the benzaldehyde from the almonds.
2. That you need to heat the almonds in boiling water to release the benzaldehyde.
3. That benzaldehyde is only found in certain types of almonds.
So to test it out I took 5 raw almonds and boiled them in 1 cup water. After they boiled they skins would slip off, and a there was a funny mahogany tinge to the water, (and they both smelled like wet almonds) but neither the water or the almonds tasted any different. I thought that since the water looked different, maybe there was benzaldehyde in it, but it such a small dosage that it was diluted by the water.
To test this I boiled 5 almonds in 1/2 cup of water. That didn't work, either, so I gave up on boiling the almonds, concluding that you can't draw the almond flavor out of regular almonds with hot water.
So then we decided to try peach pits to see if they had that extract flavor. We thought of peach pits because when we froze peaches 2 years ago, we had to take the pit out. and sometimes, the wrinkly outer part of the shell was split open, and inside there was a seed that looked like an almond. We also found out that almonds and peaches are in the same family of nut. So if the peach pits tasted like almonds extract, we would know that you need a certain type of almond to get the benzaldehyde flavor.
When we opened up the peach pits, we found we didn't have to boil them to see if they had the almond flavor, that they didn't have a regular almond taste, but that they did have an extract taste, you could see that when you bit into them. I went online to figure out why regular almonds don't have benzaldehyde.
We found out hat regular almonds (sweet almonds) are actually a genetic mutation of wild almonds, which do have benzaldehyde. When the wild almonds mutated, they lost the benzaldehyde chemical. Anyway... we decided to see if we could make our peach pits into a homemade extract. but when we looked it up on the internet, all the recipies said to soak them in alcohol, and we don't really want to do that. So now we're stuck.
I'll write the rest of it one we finish the experiment.
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Significantly improved HP essay
WHY DO SOME CHRISTIANS OBJECT TO HARRY POTTER?
WHY SHOULDN’T THEY?
Why They Object:
1. Magic
2. Place
3. Violence
4. Language
5. Rule-Breaking
1. Magic
The first and most obvious reason for a Christian to object to Harry Potter is that it is about a wizard, who can do magic and whose friends (and enemies) can do magic. In Deuteronomy 18:10-12, we read, "There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, or one who practices witchcraft, or a soothsayer, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, or one who conjures spells, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. For all who do these things are an abomination to the LORD, and because of these abominations the LORD your God drives them out from before you."
The Christians who object to Harry Potter say that this is the sort of thing that Deuteronomy warns us from. They say that Harry Potter is promoting paganism in those who read it.
I disagree. J.K. Rowling has said on video that SHE DOES NOT BELIEVE IN MAGIC, so she’s not trying to instruct her readers on casting spells, etc. And also, J.K. Rowling has said in interviews that she has always intended for her book to have Christian themes. “To me, the religious parallels have always been obvious," Rowling said. "But I never wanted to talk too openly about it because I thought it might show people who just wanted the story where we were going.” She used specific Bible quotations (Matthew 6:21 and 1 Corinthians 15:26) in Book 7 and said, “I think those two particular quotations he finds on the tombstones ...they sum up, they almost epitomize, the whole series." So the books can’t really be encouraging people to paganism if they were intended to have Christian themes, could they?
2. Place
Another reason Christians might object to HP is the place. Books like Narnia and Lord of the Rings are set in their own world with their own rules, so the magic in them is not really forbidden. Harry Potter is set in Britain, so it is certainly closer to real life than Narnia.
However, I think it still isn't quite the real world. Wizards and witches in the books have little or nothing to do with Muggles usually (except for Mr. Weasley), and they see themselves as living in their own little world within a world. “About our world, I mean. Your world. My world. Yer Parent’s world.” Hagrid illustrates this difference between the Wizarding and Muggle worlds to Harry in Book 1, page 50.
3. Violence
There are a lot of deaths and torturing and bad people in the Harry Potter series; they are definitely not books for little kids. It you or your family thinks that that makes them inappropriate reading material, and then that is your choice according to your standards. I think it is ok, though, because it teaches a lesson about the importance of standing up against evil.
4. Language
I don’t like bad language any more than the next person, but it’s not the like the HP’s are filled with profanity. There are probably only about 10 bad words in the entire series. I wish there wasn’t any at all, but it’s not like they’re really bad.
5. Rule-Breaking
This is really only one that parents would object to. Throughout the series, Harry lies, cheats, and breaks school rules. Usually he does it because he is trying to help his friends, however. If a mom or dad feels like this is inappropriate for his/her kids to be reading, then before they read the book you should sit the kid down and tell them that just because Harry does it doesn’t mean that it is right.
I personally think that Harry’s misdemeanors are a very important part of the book; they show that he, like us, is not perfect, even if he is trying to be good.
So here we see not only the reasons The HP book could be bad, we see whether or not they are reasonable- and some of them are- but if they are not, we see why not, and we also see why they could be good. In the end, though, is your choice if you think the HP book are something you want to read, and if they are something you would want your kids to read. You have to judge them to your standards and your family’s standards; I’m just trying to give you something to help with that.
Of course, it’s impossible to fairly judge a
book that you have never read :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
