Essay Question of Mine.

Compare and contrast Linear and Cyclical time; explaining how it affects culture, and realate it to Native Americans and Europeans.

Mid Term

Abstract: The statement to "cultivate a skeptical faith, avoid dogma, listen and watch well, try to clarify and define ends the better to chose means" made by Landes concerning the trend of the past 600 years is only half right. Support for this essay comes of knowedge from The World Is Flat by Friedman, The Wealth and Poverty of Nations by Landes, and wikipedia.com. The importance of this is to show that countries do follow a trend, but do not see the "ends".

From the beginnings of Humanism, through the Reformation, The Scientific Revolution, The Industrial Revolution, and now in the Flattening or the World, change is constant. But is the trend of all those years, as Landes says in his book The Wealth and Poverty of Nations, that we should "cultivate a skeptical faith, avoid dogma, listen and watch well, try to clarify and define ends the better to chose means"? More simply, is the tendency in attempting betterment and progress to never trust someone else's Truth, to challenge, to be aware of others success, and finally to first look at the consequences of actions before acting on them, so as to find the best way to get to the desired outcome.

Humanism started the close of the Middle Ages and was the beginning of the Renaissance. Humanism began with the belief that although God and getting to heaven were important to them, their lives on earth could have meaning and purpose as well. People began focusing more on the sensual human experience, most drastically expressed through art and its change from the middle ages to the Renaissance.

Eventually Humanism developed into not just believing that the individual life has meaning of its own, but it caused people to begin to question The Church's authority. The humanistic Revolution pushed "skeptical faith". Humanism made people wonder about other aspects of life besides religion and caused them to question long held beliefs; "avoiding dogma". People began to learn from Greek literature and philosophies, and they became even more skeptical of the ways in which they had been living and The Church which had taught them these things. Humanism seems to follow (Middle Ages to the left, Renaissance to the right)

most of Landers definition of the "trend", in that it caused questioning; but were the people basing their questions and actions on an end goal? Were they planning ahead and using the best means to get to a predestined outcome? Could they have for-see the Reformation and Scientific Revolution? Or did they happen as an unpredicted affect?

Erasmus was a Humanist who, although he did not want division in the church, played a part in bringing about the Reformation. He made editions of The Old Testament, and added into it Humanistic touches, and would criticize the Catholic Church. Though he played his part in causing people who read his works to question some of the practices of their Catholic religion he remained a catholic himself, and it was Martin Luther who really made the Reformation happen. Luther wrote his 95 theses, or criticisms of The Church which were printed, distributed, and read by hundreds. Eventually Luther broke away completely from The Catholic Church, with a religion or his own, and many followed him. Among many of Luther's ideas, was his institution of "solo scriptora" meaning that the truth is in the text and you find it yourself, what you find is truth for you, and only you can find it. Luther challenged The Church and it's dogma, the Reformation gave many people a more skeptical faith in their superiors, but was Martin Luther planning for the end outcome of his revolt? Was it really his plan for hundreds of religions to break off of each other after his example? Could he possibly have been thinking that the shake in Catholic authority would help bring about the Scientific Revolution?

Humanism through the Reformation brought questioning, skepticism, and rebellion from The Church, there wasn't a better time for science to follow suite then while the flame for answers was flaring. The Scientific Revolution came about and tested Faith, tradition, The Church, and formerly believed science. The publication of Diderot's Encyclopedia created conflict with some of it's articles that contradicted Church doctrine. Galileo, following the Copernican idea of a sun centered universe, shook Europe with his work to prove heliocentricism over the traditionally believed earth centered universe theory. As science pulled away from tradition and The Church people were put in a place where they would have to believe science that said it had proof, or their religious faith that said it had Truth. Was the Scientific Revolution testing other's truths, learning from others, and challenging dogma and faith? Yes. But was the plan of the scientists and those who followed them to be the start of a continuing and worsening science versus religion, creation versus a godless universe battle? Was it their plan to lead into Industrializing Europe and beyond? Could they have thought all that?

Science and it's machine inventions such as the steam engine and spinning wheel fueled the Industrial Revolution. Farmers, due to new farm equipment, were able to produce more food than was needed for their family, and so were able to sell it. Because people could now purchase food, not every one needed to be a farmer. This freed people to be able to work in factories.

Britain excelled and for a long period of time led Europe at industrialization. Britain pulled ahead because they saw the benefit of producing goods in an industrialized way and how it would be good for their economy. For a long time other countries, like Spain, did not follow the example. Spain, having great wealth from the New World chose not to take part in industrializing their country and bought instead of keeping up exports to maintain their wealth. However, when countries like France and Germany finally decided they needed to follow Britain's example, they did the smartest thing they could have; they didn't start at the beginning and work their way to Britain's present position. Instead they started right with the newest ideas, forms of machinery and practices. This in turn brought them ahead of Britain who, instead of embracing the ideas and advances of other countries, clung to their secret, but old ways of doing things, falling some what behind. The Industrial Revolution is the perfect example of "listening and watching well". When Britain took the leap into industrializing they were doing just that, they realized the advantage and took it. The rest of Europe when it followed the example of Britain, and continued to push forward also was "listening and watching well". But were the owners of the factories and the inventors of the new machines and other technologies aware of the huge part they were playing in progressing the economic flatness of the world? Could they have known they were bringing about our society today?

From the beginning of industries we have moved to where we are now: an ever flattening economic world. Technology is progressing rapidly as we try to keep up with it. Out sourcing, in sourcing, off shoring, supply chaining, and automating and informing all come with it. Countries are connected, businesses are connected, ideas and information are shared and spread quickly and easily. The flattening of the world is also a good example of "listen and watch well". People who succeed in The Flat World are people who are conscious of the advances made around them and who not only keep up, but stay ahead and never let their neighbor learn something without taking advantage of the knowledge, putting it to use and building off of it. But as these technologies and advancements progress seemingly always greater, farther, and faster, are we even looking to an "end"?

Clearly, from the Humanistic Revolution to the Flat World, the trend has been, as Landes stated, to "cultivate a sceptical faith, avoid dogma, listen and watch well". The Humanists were skeptical of faith, the men of the Reformation avoided dogma, those in the Scientific Revolution were both skeptical of faith and avoiding dogma, the Industrial Revolution and The Flat World both exemplify times of listening and watching well. The end of Landers statement however, "try to clarify ends, the better to choose means" does not really hold true. The early Humanists, the Reformists, Scientists, and Industrializers could not have seen the ends, or rather, beginnings that would eventually come of their actions, and in the flattening world in which we live, we aren't looking for ends.

History of the Newport Public Library

Emily Thibeault

Ms. Lind & Mr. Viles

Honors English & History

12/18/07

Thibeault

Outline

I. Introduction

A. The Newport Public Library assists people and fulfills its mission statement.

II. Sub-topic One

A. Mission Statement

1. Living up to

III. Sub-topic Two

A. Newport Public Library Association

1. Founded

2. Becoming a member

3. Dissolved

IV. Sub-topic Three

A. Locations

1. Town Hall

2. Present Building

B. Donations

1. Land

2. Money

V. Sub-topic Five

A. Historical Society

1. Library and Historical Society together

VI. Sub-topic Six

A. Friends of the Library

1. Support and Fundraising

2. End

VII. Sub-topic Seven

A. Current Librarians

1. Who

2. Positions

Sub-topic Eight

A. What is in the library

1. Books

2. Computers

IX. Sub-topic Nine

A. Technological increase

1. People coming

2. Inter Library Loan

X. Conclusion

A. Mission Statement and Community

Thibeault 2

Emily Thibeault

Ms. Lind & Mr. Viles

Honors English & History

12/18/07

History of the Newport Public Library

The Newport Public Library has been around for over one hundred years. Over this time it has changed in many ways, keeping up with the time and technology. From its beginnings to its present state now, the Library has been growing and expanding; and will continue to do so. The Library has been an important part of the Newport community and has assisted the people in many ways; and still does.

The Newport public Library’s mission statement is separated into three parts and reads as follows:

1. To select, organize, preserve, and make freely available to the people of the community printed and other materials within the limitations of space and budget, which will aid them in the pursuit of information, education, culture and recreation.

2. To keep up to date in the field of information technology focusing on practical applications related to Library Science.

3. To preserve and develop an environment in the library that is “user friendly” and safe for the patrons and staff (Archives).

Since the library was founded in the late 1800’s it has been following closely the words of the mission statement and always working to improve.

Thibeault 3

The Newport Library Association started on April 22, 1899 (Archives). This association was made up of a small group of members who paid and kept the library going. In order to be a part of the Newport Library Association you had to be recommended, and then your admission was put to a vote which would then decide if you would be included. After some years all adults in the town of Newport were technically considered members of the Newport Library Association, and all were invited to help vote library trustees until 2000 (Archives). On May 10th, 2000 the Library Association dissolved (Archives) and the Town of Newport took over the duties of the Association. The Town of Newport now takes care of the library’s needs. All of the library’s funding comes from The Town of Newport, and the staff is also hired by it.

The Newport Library was not always in its present building. It was first opened in the Newport Town Hall; next to the Police Department. At this time the library was quite small, only a few hundred books were in the collection and people who used the library paid dues. The building that now houses the Newport Library was built in 1954 (Archives). The library could not have been built had it not been for the Newport Women’s Club who bought the property on Main Street that it stands on in 1937 from Dr. L. H. White, and donated it (Archives).

Another huge benefactor towards the building of the library on Main Street was Mrs. George Payne. Mrs. Payne donated seven thousand dollars in memory of her husband; George Payne. This donation was enough money to complete the library construction, and a room inside was dedicated “The George J. Payne Reading Room” in the Payne’s honor (Archives).

Thibeault 4

The Newport Historical Society and The Newport Public Library were not always in two separate buildings as they are now. When the building on Main Street was constructed both the Historical Society and the library were in it. The library with all its books held the top ground floor room, while the Historical Society kept its history in the bottom floor of the building.

Tillie Burke formed a Newport addition of the nation wide Friends of the Library group (Leigh) in 1988 (Archives). The Friends of the Library sponsored many fundraising and just fun not money related events for the library, such as art shows, Children’s book Week, teas, candidate nights, writing contests, reading groups, and book sales. The Friends of the Library ended between 2000 and 2001 when the Town of Newport began taking over from the Library Association and the situation involving money and funding became confusing. It is expected to start up again in time (Leigh).

The current librarians are Mrs. Leigh, a “Full time part time librarian” in her own words; meaning she is at the library ever hour it is open, but because of the number of hours she works she is considered part time by the state. The other librarian is Mrs. Brenda, and actual part time librarian, who among other things is always in charge of the Friday Craft after Mrs. Leigh’s Story Time.

The library is now planning another move to expand and create a safer environment for its users and also to converge once again with the Newport Historical Society. The new building will be built across the street from the current building, and is planned to get started in the fall of 2008 but still need 200 thousand more dollars (Leigh), and as Mrs. Leigh said “they plan on it, that doesn’t mean it is going to happen.”

Thibeault 5

The library has a 6,000 dollar budget a year. Usually Mrs. Leigh spends 300 dollars on adult books and 200 on children’s books a month (Leigh). She tries to get one or two non fiction books each month but as she says “I consider this more of a fiction library. That’s what people around here want. I do try to keep up the non fiction section though.” The library has been keeping up with the times with five computers along the wall for easy access to the internet, or just for writing papers.

Many technological advances have been made in the past years such as the ease of being able to research and read online. It has been speculated that this would cause a drop in the number of people who come to the library, but Mrs. Leigh says “Not at all. Not here. Not everyone has a computer. So people come to use them. And people still like books.” One of the many technological advances made by the Library is the removal of the card catalogue, which has been replaced by the Solar Maine Catalogue (Leigh), which allows then to take part in Inter Library Loan.

The Newport Library is a very important part of the community. It provides a resource for information and friendly assistance and by keeping up with technology it helps the community stay updated. The Newport Public Library has grown and changed buildings, those in charge of it and its librarians are constantly working to better the library experience for the residents of Newport. By keeping up with technology and the continual work toward perfection the library is living up to its mission statement, and creating a positive affect on the town of Newport.

Thibeault

Works Cited

Benouski, Genie. Internal Library Archives

Leigh. Personal interview. 12/15/07

Thibeault

Works Consulted

Brenda. Personal Interview. 12/15/07

The Industrial Revolution. Mental or Physical?

Abstract: The process of the Industrial Revolution represented primarily a mental revolution. Sources for the essay includes: The Wealth and Poverty of Nations by David S. Landers, schoolshistory.com, and library.thinkquest.org. The importance of this paper is to show how revolutionary changes can't just be physical, and that they have to be accepted by people, and will change the way people see the world around them.

The Industrial Revolution posed both mental and physical revolution; but primarily mental, because every invention and new process starts with a mental idea, every new process takes human mental acceptance to be used and thrive, the way it effected people for and against it, because of the changes in ideas about class and how people perceived each other, how spirituality changed, and how the mental changes still show up today.

Every invention or process starts with a mental thought process; more specifically, a scientific thought process. At the core of every invention is a scientific thought process. The water frame, which was one of the biggest machine contributors to the Industrial Revolution, works by the force of moving water to move paddles on a wheel, causing it to turn. This rotation would then be channeled to the machinery it was powering. Before all this could happen, someone likely empowered by the Scientific Revolution, had to process the ideas. They had to put together the ideas of the power of water, the ability of one objects motion to affect another, and how to make that useful. Then experiments could be made, and then the water wheel could be put together to power multiple machines and allow factories to be possible.

The steam engine had to go though the process of scientific thought to get to it's best point. From a steam powered pump of water, to blowing air for furnaces, it evolved through the work of James Watt into an engine instead of just a pump. From there it was developed further through science and invention to be used for trains and to power machinery for factories.

Every invention starts with a mental Scientific thought process, that will bring the physical aspects to life. Once the physical part of the revolution starts more mental changes occur. A change has to happen in the minds of the people for them to accept the new physical developments. Otherwise, the physical changes would not continue and there would not be any revolution at all.

Before many of the machines and factories of the Industrial Revolution were put in full motion, the way people lived and worked was different. There were no, or very few factories; most people supported themselves. Almost every person, with the exception of some artisans, was their own farmer, many things were on barter basis, and businesses were mostly held in the home. As better farming tools and techniques became available, farmers were able to produce more food then just needed by their own families. Being able to buy food instead of having to grow it yourself, freed up some people to have the opportunity to have other jobs. As factories began to be set up, the positions were filled by those who no longer had to farm for their needs. I the factory products were produced cheaper and more rapidly than if the same products were being made by specialized workers in their home by hand. The factories took job away from most of these specialized workers, but they also allowed for more products than were necessary for the area so they were able to be sold for extra profit for the country.

This was a big change, and in order for it to take place the mentality of the people had to undergo much change itself. It took time for people to accept and adapt to the new machines and the new way of working that they brought with them. It was an extreme mental change for them to go from the thinking of a person who works in his home making four pairs of socks a day, to some one working in a factory helping to produce hundreds a day. Or someone who farmed for himself and his family, and now produces enough for multiple more people. Most people eventually adapted the way they thought about work to fit the new ways in which they were being expected to work; but some refused. The people who clung to the old ways and were against what the revolution was pushing for were called Luddites. Luddites were protesters who often broke machinery to make their point. They protested because of the jobs that were being lost due to machinery, the reducing of wadges, and the quality of what was being produced. The Luddites did not mentally accept the changes coming at them so in consequence did not go along with the revolution presented before them. Because they did not change mentally from the old ways, they were not revolutionized themselves; if every person had acted in this same way, the revolution wouldn't have had much of an affect.

The Industrial Revolution caused huge change in the way people thought about each other. Mostly because of the development of factories, social classes were once again very pronounced. The Under Class of poverty stricken and mostly jobless people were at the very bottom. Next came the broad category of Working Class. The Working Class ranged from unskilled workers at the bottom, to skilled at the top. After the Working Class came the Middle Class; mostly merchants, and then the Upper Class. The Upper Class was reestablished due to people who excelled at commerce and industry. Where before people were on a more equal level, the Industrial Revolution heightened the class separation. Upper class factory owners would look down on the working class who worked for them, and the higher parts of the working class felt they should not associate with the lower part of their class.

The mental state of people's minds changed more than just in class distinctions. Making money became the biggest priority. People started spending more time away from their families and church to make more and more money. Competition was more heated. People wanted the best possible, and if their neighbor had better, they wanted to get better than that. People's mindsets changed and became more affixed with material things.

The Industrial Revolution was primarily a mental revolution, and many of the mental affects can be traced to today. Most people's priorities are still centered around money in one way or another, and people compete more than ever to be at the top and to have the best. Though there were physical aspects to the Industrial revolution, because the machines helped power the changes; but the changes happened in the mind, and all the beginnings of anything physical, starts with something mental.

Truth Can Not Contradict Truth. So When Do We See The Truth?

Truth is sought by all people; whether to find purpose, how something works, how to deal with things, or to find what is real. How to define and discern Truth has created conflict for many years; starting strongly around the 1600-1700's during the Scientific Revolution and Enlightenment, and continuing today, where Faith and what scientific progress has to say clash.

Before the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment people generally found Truth based on logic and science, but ultimately Faith. For anything involving religion, tradition, or things that would attempt to disprove long believed tradition, faith was the superior and deciding factor. From the Scientific Revolution and Enlightenment came the idea of the need for materialistic evidence for truth. That the evidence or opinion of a number of scientifically learned men could over rule long believed matters of faith. Neither way is bad in itself; but when materialistic views attempt to disprove and throw out matters of faith, conflict arises between people on either side; and those confused and stuck between the two. Some examples of this in history would be the battle between Heliocentricism and Geocentricism, and the scientific contributions in the Encyclopedia that went against Church teachings. Conflict still rises in modern times with the idea of Creation versus The Big Bang Theory and Evolution.

Copernicus proposed the idea of Heliocentricism (a sun centered universe) but Galileo was the one to really bring about conflict with the Church through his publicity of the Copernican idea and his continuing effort to show the evidence he believed to prove it as truth. The Church was opposed to this because it had always taught that the earth was the center of the universe due to other scientist's (such as Bacon) beliefs, and ultimately the scriptural passages of the Bible that seem to suggest an earth centered universe. Galileo said all the proof could be seen through his telescope; that there was enough material evidence to prove his theory, and faith was not necessary. The Church however did not agree. If it came down to having faith in the Bible and the scientists who believed in the teachings of the Bible, or believing Galileo and his material evidence, it was obvious for them to choose faith. Galileo still held to his Heliocentric Copernican ideas because the material evidence was more to him than faith.

The Encyclopedia was created in the in the 1700's by Diderot and a few contributors. The Encyclopedia was a resource to things of every subject; math, science, history, food, specialized skills, and more. It was a relatively new concept to have such a variety of information available to practically anyone, and consequently the Encyclopedia became very popular. Some of the scientific articles in the Encyclopedia were written based on the beliefs of scientists who believed what they thought to be truth due to the form of logic they had used to arrive at their conclusion. For them the logic was enough to prove the idea as truth. Some of these logic derived scientific "truths" contradicted church tradition and teaching. The Church disproved these ideas because it did not believe that the logic used by some scientists was enough to over rule the faith they had in their long held traditional teachings. Diderot believed that the logic used by these scientists and himself was enough proof for truth, but the Church was afraid of publishing true facts along with Diderot's ideas that went against church teachings. The Church did not feel that these ideas were well enough proven and that having them written in a book with proven facts could confuse the people.

The beginning of the world is very controversial today. Christian Creationists have faith in the Bible and God, that the world was created by God. In the past one hundred years another idea for the origin of the world has become widely accepted called The Big Bang Theory which simply put says that due to density and temperature the universe has expanded to it's present state. This theory totally throws out the idea of God creating the world, causing conflict that is still unresolved. The scientists and those who follow them believe the evidence found in favor of The Big Bang Theory is enough to suffice for truth. Those opposing believe that the evidence is not substantial enough and that their faith in God is more solid than the evidence presented against his existence. Neither side gives way for the other because if one is true, the other is utterly wrong.

Another theory that is conflicting with creation is the Evolution Theory. The Evolution Theory was proposed by Charles Darwin, and is the idea that over time animals and plants have evolved to their present state slowly from a previously existing form. This theory conflicts with Creation because it says that humans animals and plants evolved, and in creation God created the animals and plants and then humans from dust and bone. If evolution were to be truth then the Bible, the basis of all Christianity, and any other evidence to prove otherwise would be wrong. Many modern scientists firmly believe in evolution, but people who believe in creation of life by God generally stand against evolution because of their faith and the belief that the theory is not firm enough to be truth. But the Evolution Theory holds enough ground for many to take it as truth.

Because of the conflictions between finding truth through only materialistic science or using faith, many things have changed. Firstly, Galileo and Copernicanism, and the articles against church teaching in the Encyclopedia brought stronger questioning of the Church, and more than that, it made science seem separate from religion; where before they went hand in hand. The church tried to compromise with Galileo by having him write a book showing both views equally on what the center of the universe was and have the Pope's opinion placed in the book. But Galileo firmly believing in his sun centered universe wrote a completely biased work that insulted the Pope. The compromise failing the separation between modern science and religion grew. Now, with the Big Bang Theory and Evolution, modern science is often completely against religion all together, so that if you wanted to believe in the science of today it would be almost impossible to have religion at the same time. Some compromises have been tried, such as the idea that the seven days were not literally seven days but a longer span of time allowing for evolution to take place, or that if there was a Big Bang, God caused it to happen. For the most part though Christian people believe these theories go against God and their faith, and that the evidence is no where close to enough for it to replace their truth. Religion and modern science have never been more separated.

What it comes down to is there are people who will believe material evidence, but when it challenges a matter of their faith, Faith prevails. This is because they will trust their religious tradition and God more than the evidence that another man can put before them. There are also people who need materialistic evidence that can be presented before them; that they can use their senses to try to comprehend. They need something that is on their level, not above them; they will trust that, and find it truth before they will consider something that is beyond their comprehension, as faith would require. Both sides know that if one alone is right the other must be wrong. There can not be two conflicting truths; they would not be true. So one side must be right, but neither will give in to the other. Both these views will continue to exist, and so long as they do, conflict can not be avoided.

Consilience

Galileo, Cigoli, and The Church, all came together to create a significant, unique, impact on the world. The three, through their friendship, conflictions, and impacts on each other, all combined as one to foster the beginning of a conflict still going on today.

Galileo Galolei (2/15/1564 - 1/8/1642 pictured at right) was an Italian astronomer, and also mathematician, philosopher and physicist. Galileo studied and found proof for Copernicanism; the belief that the planets and earth revolve around the sun, opposing the belief that heavenly bodies orbited the earth. Some of his other astronomy accomplishments were: Improving the telescope, discovering four of Jupiter's satellites, observing sun spots, and craters and mountains in the moon. Unfortunately, due to his Copernican ideas and writings he was called to Rome and eventually put under house arrest.

Lodovico Cardi (1559-1613), is an Italian architect and painter who is better known as Cigoli. His paintings are very religious related, and one of the most famous of his is "The Sacrifice of Isaac." (pictured at left) He was a student of Buontalenti; who decorated the Boboli Gardens, and was also a member of the Accademia del Disegno; which is an art school in Florence, and the first drawing school in Europe.

The Church in the Renaissance time was still a big political part of the world as well as religious; practically as it had been in the Middle Ages. The head of the Church; the Pope, was set up in Rome, with bishops and priest spread throughout Europe to administer to the laymen. The Church handled the spiritual well being of the people, many financial issues, and had a huge influence on political matters and who got into different offices.

Galileo Galolei and Cigoli were good friends, who helped and influenced each other. Cigoli helped to get Galileo into the Accademia del Disegno where he learned chiaroscuro. It was with the help of this technique, that while looking at the moon with his telescope Galileo came to the conclusion that the moon had mountains and craters; instead of just seeing blotches and wondering about the discoloring. Galileo's discoveries concerning the moon's surface caused his friend Cigoli to incorporate these ideas into his painting. Cigoli's painting "Assumption of the Virgin" (pictured at right) shows the Virgin Mary standing on a cratered moon, where before paintings depicted the moon as smooth.

The Church had a very large influence on Cigoli's art. This is clearly evident simply by the fact that all his known pieces are of religious scenes. In a time when Humanism was flourishing, Cigoli could very likely have painted other images and not have been out of place, but he chose to paint on a holy level, because of his Christain faith and the influence that it had on him. Though as in his "Assumption of the Virgin" he chose to incorporate scientific elements he learned from Galileo, but did not stray from his religious theme.

The Church affected Galileo in a big way as well. The common belief before Copernicus and even for a time after him, was that the earth was the center of the universe and that the planets and sun went around it. Copernicus, however, proposed the idea that the sun was the center of out universe. Galileo adopted this theory and through his studies began to adamantly preach it. The Church and other scientists such as Bacon, disapproved of this because it went against what they taught, and after some time Galileo was condemned as "suspected of heresy," and placed under house arrest until he died.

Cigoli, Galileo, and the Church all played a role in creating a huge impact on the world. Cigoli's influence on Galileo helped him to make discoveries and keep studying astronomy, which lead to his further enthralment in Copernicanim. Galileo's testaments to the Copernican theory brought opposition from the Church. Neither the Church nor Galileo changed their minds at the time. This was the first serious science versus religion conflict, and not the last.

These three separate, though related, components: Galileo, Cigoli, and the Church, brought the beginning of a still on going struggle between some aspects of modern science and religion. Today there is still controversy between religious beliefs and what is accepted as scientific facts or theories. The theory of Evolution being the most conflicting of them all, because unlike Galileo who only questioned one aspect in the religious belief system, evolution throws out the whole idea of the existence of God at all. From the simple beginnings of science and religious friction, has come the complete displacement of God through science, which once went along with religion.

Political Map Of Europe

Revolution

In order for a Revolution to occur it takes more then just one aspect of life to cause a big enough change. However, the most causative piece of PERSIA in revolution is Society. Society is, according to dictionary.com, "an organized group of persons associated together for religious, benevolent, cultural, scientific, political, patriotic, or other purposes." Therefore most all other aspects of PERSIA (politics, economics, religion, intellect, and aesthetics) fall in some way under Society, until as the cause for revolution behind society grows, these other aspects blow up into their own causes.

In the Middle Ages practically every person was Catholic. Society was based around Catholicism. People went to church together, and all had the same ideas about getting to heaven and what that meant for them. As the Renaissance started coming in things began to slowly change. Tim Parks in Medici Money expresses how the people began getting upset with how some of the Church men were dealing with society. How some church officials were said to have disregard their vows of chastity, or commit such sins as usury, when they were quick to punish lay men for such offenses. Perhaps it was not how church men were dealing with society, but the fact that they were in it so much that was upsetting. The problems that people and some clergy and officials of the Church had with the mistakes of other church officials and popes grew, until this piece of society exploded into it's own piece of the cause of revolution.

Social classes in society play a part in bringing about revolution. Jacques Barzun in From Dawn to Decadence, explains how in France there were two types of people, peasants and nobles. Eventually artisans and merchants were able to make more money and rise above the peasants, but because of the way of society, they could not rise into a very high social standing, even if they were more rich then all the nobles around, because they were not born into the title. Tim Parks also demonstrates the separation of class when he writes about how there were regulations on what people who were plebs could and could not wear, and even eat. Eventually such obvious separation of classes and regulations on the lower class becomes infuriating, for the plebs, and/or those who feel as though they are more fit to be in high noble classes but can't get there. These things will lead to another cause for revolt, leading to possible revolution.

When societies values are changing and the government, whatever type it may be, or a large amount of the population, is not going with these changes, it causes friction, and quite possibly revolution. In the American Revolution the people of America were tired of the way the king in England was not treating them how they wanted. The were tired of the excessive taxes, tired of not having the representation they wanted, tired of trade regulations, and were becoming more interested in more liberal, democratic and republic ideas. England was not compromising and neither were the Americans. Result? Revolution. In the French Revolution the low classes of France wanted change. For years the poor and middle class had wanted change and they didn't seem to be getting it from the nobles and the King, and then by the time they had a few nobles on their side pushing for them it was too late. They had gotten to the point where it was all or nothing, some change wasn't going to satisfy them, they wanted liberty, and they would kill for it. Result? Revolution. In the time of Medici Money, the values of people were changing. The people were becoming frustrated with funding all the petty wars going on, and as Humanism flowed in people's attachment to the church, though still rather strong, began to change, and art changed. The Church and the governing system were not quite ready for this, and clashes rose up. Result? Revolution. In Germany, Martin Luther's religious values were changing. He brought out completely different ideas about religion, one being "Solo Fidelis," by faith alone, another being "Solo Scriptora," by script alone, meaning only the Bible has authority. Needless to say the Church wasn't impressed, but Luther wouldn't change, and he gathered followers. Result? Well, Revolution of course.

There is no one cause for revolution. Revolution needs causes from multiple aspects of PERSIA to take place. When friction starts to happen in more than one aspect, that is when the beginning of a revolution is formed. When analyzing revolution to find the most causative part of PERSIA in revolution, Society is the root. The other parts of PERSIA are important because of society, because of how they affect the way people live and interact with each other, which is society. From within society each other aspect of PERSIA grows until it explodes into its own huge cause for revolution, but unless the other parts affect society, they will not bring about a revolution.