The political, economical and ideological tussles that plagued the peace quotient of Russia in the early twentieth century led the Bolshevik party react and respond to the whole situation in a manner beyond the understanding of mere political theories. The economic low Russia that plunged into, after the Revolution, made the scenario worse for the now in power Bolshevik party, which, we must keep in mind were novice administrators. Their course of action was defined within their ideological tendencies of a Marxist response. Therefore whether what we encompass as war communism were merely pragmatic economic policies or whether they were more about the ideology is a debate that continues to intrigue historians. We will see in lots of instances that their policy took its shape due to their Marxist subscriptions rather than their understanding of what the situation demanded. Also in certain instances the two, pragmatic policies and ideological imperatives very comfortably overlapped, like in the case of nationalization and state distribution of assets. The belief, underlying the later economic policies of War Communism, that Russia was on the brink of the definitive transition to communism, had scarcely any justification in Marxist theory.
Whatever economic theories had sprung up during the time, did so due to two fold reasons, the need to fight a civil war and the Party’s notion of how to build a socialist party. David Christian calls War Communism ‘the uneasy combination of Utopian and practical elements that characterized the economic structures”.
Propaganda was a crucial tool in the eyes of the Bolsheviks. Their propaganda included all that they’d require to build the idealized socialist state they’d dreamt of before coming to power. But the economic conditions held them from painting their dreams true. To cope with a desperate situation, they turned to more radical policies and, in the process, tried to extend the sphere of centralized government control much further and faster than they had originally intended. Faced with numerous threats they start to build a coercive machinery of power, the army, a new police system, a disciplined ruling group and the fiscal machinery needed to support these structures. The defensive forces, there was a conflict whether it should be more like a socialist militia or if it should be more like the traditional trained, disciplined and mobilized.
In response to the crisis of May, 1918 about the advancing Czechs, the government announced compulsory military services for the working class and began to mobilize the Red Armies. Here was where they showed their power to go beyond ‘social support’. With the triumph of proletarian revolution, the transition to communism was imminent.
Socialists in principle believe that all members of the society should have some share in the control of society’s resources. The problem arises with the issue as to how this shared control was to be exercised. In practice, The Civil War forced the Bolsheviks to control it from the centre. Thus comes up one of their key policies, which was Nationalization of assets. In December the Supreme Council of the National Economy was set up. Soon after the October Revolution they nationalized banking and credit. As far as private industries are concerned, they began with something like Putilov, which was already closely involved in Government projects on defense. Local soviets expropriated plants on their own authority. Some of the plants were nationalized on the petition of their workers, who had driven out the old management, or even on the petition of managers who wanted protection against unruly workers. Summer of 1918, the government issued a decree nationalizing all large-scale industry, and by the autumn of 1919 it was estimated that over 80 per cent of such enterprises had in fact been nationalized. But the workers or owners or managers at times, in practice were not able to manage running these plants and industries. Because workers themselves could not keep the plants going by organizing the supply of raw materials and distribution of finished products, the plants often just closed down. So amidst an already sinking economy Russia’s industries shut down because of their inability to sustain, thus adding to the economic pressure on the government. Although in theory the entire sphere of production was in the hands of the Bolsheviks. It was a ‘centrally directed’ economy, as put by Fitzpatrick.
Many ideological theorists saw in this traces of socialism although some accepted they might have merely been the result of social and military crisis.
The second blow to the Bolshevik effort was their strategy of prohibition of free trade. It rendered them penniless by the end of Civil War. Fitzpatrick says-“From their predecessors they inherited rationing in the towns (introduced in 1916) and a state monopoly on grain which in theory required the peasants to deliver their whole surplus (introduced in the spring of 1917 by the Provisional Government).” But these weren’t enough to satisfy the huger of millions in the mass, especially in the villages. The peasants refused to sell their grains because of the unavailability manufactured goods in the market to buy. After the October Revolution, the Bolsheviks tried to increase grain deliveries by offering the peasants manufactured goods instead of money in exchange, sort of bringing back the system of barter. They also nationalized wholesale trade and, after the outbreak of the Civil War, prohibited free retail trade in most basic foodstuffs and manufactured products and tried to convert the consumer co-operatives into a state distribution network. There was even an attempt to construct a budget on a commodity rather than a money basis. Justifying this in ideological terms the explanation came in the form of the phrase 'withering away of money'. It indicated how close the society had already come to communism. In a way it was disguised runaway inflation. Such was their disillusionment that they failed to identify the difference between rampant inflation currency devaluation and the withering away of money under communism.
One of the most delicate balances was to be built on the rungs of the peasantry. The sensitive crowd had to be dealt with, especially after being subjected to a horrible economic scenario, for which the government was totally accountable. The basic problem the Bolsheviks faced with the peasantry was the unavailability of food. State procurements of grain were not improved either by outlawing private grain trading or by offering manufactured goods instead of money in payment. The State had a whole Red Army to feed. They had little choice but to take the peasants' produce by persuasion, cunning, threats, or force. The Bolsheviks adopted a policy of grain requisitioning; they called it Prodrazverstka. It included sending workers' and soldiers' brigades-usually armed, and if possible provided with some goods for barter-to get the hoarded grain out of the peasants' barns. These took a toll on the class that once was in their league.
The impact of the war communism policies was profound. It left every section of the society affected, mainly bruised after the depressing years of Civil War. . In the first place, they tried to facilitate grain procurements by splitting the village into opposing groups. Believing that the growth of rural capitalism had already produced significant class differentiation among the peasants, the Bolsheviks expected to receive instinctive support from the poor and landless peasants and instinctive opposition from the richer ones. They therefore began to organize village Committees of the Poor, and encouraged them to co-operate with Soviet authorities in extracting grain from the barns of richer peasants. But the poorer peasants were now in a better position to have really aroused to the angst of being the underprivileged, therefore rendering their attempt a failure.
Though the Bolsheviks had let the peasants have their way in 1917-18, their long-term plans for the countryside were quite as disruptive as Stolypin's had been. They disapproved of almost every aspect of the traditional rural order, from the mir and the strip system of dividing the land to the patriarchal family. The Bolsheviks' real interest was large-scale agriculture, and only the political imperative of winning over the peasantry had led them to condone the breaking up of large estates that took place in 1917-18. On some of the remaining state lands, they set up state farms (sovkhozy). They were the socialist equivalent of large-scale capitalist agriculture, with appointed managers supervising the work of waged agricultural labourers. The Bolsheviks preferred collective farms (kolkhozy) in political terms to traditional or individual small-holding peasant farming. The collective farms did not divide their land into strips, like the traditional peasant village, but worked the land and marketed produce collectively.
Coming to the policies affecting the working classes, the Bolsheviks had egalitarian instincts rather than a strictly egalitarian policy in practice as far as wages were concerned. In the interests of maximizing production, the Bolsheviks tried to retain piece-work in industry, though the workers regarded were not happy with this kind of payment. Shortages and rationing reigned the Civil War period but that’s hardly an achievement even though it helped bridgethe gap between the urban and the rural. In fact, the rationing system under War Communism favoured certain categories of the population, including Red Army personnel, skilled workers in key industries, Communist administrators, and some groups of the intelligentsia.
When it came to factories, as to who runs them and how, they were always in support of managers appointed by the State, centrally guided and directed. But this varied from place to place. Some factories continued to be run by elected workers' committees. Others were run by an appointed director, often a Communist but sometimes the former manager, chief engineer or even owner of the plant. In yet other cases, a worker or group of workers from the factory committee or local trade union was appointed to manage the plant, and this transitional arrangement-halfway between workers' control and appointed management-was often the most successful.
Ideologically their utopian texts were mainly Marx and Engels, the all encompassing explanation of all their policies. Lenin's State and Revolution (1917) where he suggested that administration would ultimately cease to be the business of full-time professionals and would become a rotating duty of the whole citizenry. Lenin’s approach was highly realistic and he believed more in meeting the situation demands than following Marxist ideals to the letter.
The ethos of revolutionary liberation and the cause of the women and the family formed a major part of the Bolshevik concern. The Bolsheviks supported the emancipation of women, as most members of the Russian radical intelligentsia had done since the 1860s. By the end of the Civil War, laws that made divorce easily attainable, removed the formal stigma from illegitimacy, permitted abortion, and mandated equal rights and equal pay for women were enacted. The Bolshevik Party established special women's departments (zhenotdely) to organize and educate women, protect their interests, and help them to play an independent role.
The political power also changed hands by the end of the Civil War. Their war communism strategies created a separate wing to handle administration altogether. At first, the central government (Council of People's Commissars) seemed the hub of the new political system. But by the end of the Civil War, there were already signs that the Bolshevik Party's Central Committee and Politburo were tending to usurp the government's powers, while at local level the party committees were becoming dominant over the soviets. The Bolsheviks' political thinking revolved around the belief that society was divided into antagonistic classes, and that the political struggle was a reflection of the social one, and that members of the urban proletariat and other formerly exploited classes were the revolution's natural allies. The internal conspiracy was all the more threatening coming from the old privileged class because, as both theory and the reality of foreign intervention in the Civil War demonstrated, it was backed by the forces of international capitalism. Bolsheviks believed, it was necessary not only to eliminate the old patterns of class exploitation but also to reverse them.
This primacy of party over state organs was to become a permanent feature of the Soviet system. Fitzpatrick rightly puts it-“Lenin, the realist, wanted a real government, not some kind of improvised directorate, just as he wanted a real army, real laws, and perhaps even, in the final analysis, a real Russian Empire. It was a party with authoritarian tendencies, and one that had always had a strong leader-even, according to Lenin's opponents, a dictatorial one.” The party's authoritarian, illiberal, rough, and repressive traits may well have been reinforced by the influx of working-class and peasant members in 1917 and the Civil War years. The peasants came to see the Civil War as a struggle between socialist parties and therefore they chose to remain indifferent to it.
There was shift from spontaneity to discipline thus reinforcing the ideals of socialism. Secret police, The Cheka, rigid press censorship, suppression of internal opposition, apparently democratic constitution, again and again revealed a disguised form of extreme socialism, only failing to acquire a totalitarian form, as of now. The Civil War had murdered the democratic traditions of revolutionary underground ever. It was almost as if opposition was intolerable. Instead a new ruling group was formed, organized and managed by the Communist party. Thus Socialism had already taken roots.
Friday, December 10, 2010
Humanism:the making of Renaissance
To begin with, I believe what we need to clarify is whether Renaissance is to be studied as a period or a movement. Renaissance, literally means ‘rebirth’. The concept of labelling the cultural achievements of a particular period under the broad title of Renaissance I think is unfair, because due importance needs to be given to variety and diversity of the way in which the ideology of the period was professed. Instead what we must look at is the birth of a new idea, that of revolutionizing art and different facets of it. Burke specifies that Renaissance should be seen as a movement rather than as an event or a period. Firstly it would encompass more than the general cultural achievements of the chronological time span. And secondly it would explain the underground eventualities in other words the underlying instruments of Renaissance.
Renaissance simply put is the study of a revival. Revival of what? That which was lost in antiquity, hence merely the cumulative outcome of humanistic studies. It is the study of the extraordinary cluster of cultural achievements, placed within a particular context, often identified as an elite movement.
Often the birth of Renaissance has been synonymously associated with the advent of modernity. Because it professes a novelty that previous ages hadn’t probably witnessed. Or even if they had, it must not have been as diverse and widespread as Renaissance was. However Burke disagrees with this view, saying that one must dissociate Renaissance with Modernity. The very idea behind a movement is to revive the culture of the distant past: a doctrine that contradicts the notion of progress or modernity. He views the culture of Western Europe as one culture co-existing and interacting with others, among which were the Byzantine and the Islamic cultures, both of which had their own Renaissances of Greek and Roman antiquity.
Humanism as a discipline could be defined as a collection of all that needs to be studied to study the human, the individual. The aspects of entities created, modified and involved into by the humans. Chronologically its development can be dated to the fourteenth and turn-of-the fifteenth century. It emerged probably as a response to the challenge of medieval scholastic education, which emphasized on practical, pre-professional and scientific studies. In the refined civilization that was the Renaissance, the humanists believed they were the ancients reincarnate.
They spread the gospel of eloquence and wisdom, which would enable a human to engage in a civic life effectively. This was to be accomplished through the study of the studia humanitatis, today known as the humanities: grammar, rhetoric, history, poetry and moral philosophy. Although logic was one of surprisingly missing elements of Renaissance humanism. It was a movement to revive the cultural—and particularly the literary—legacy and moral philosophy of classical antiquity. With every aspect of Humanism was embedded the sense of Renaissance, the revival of what is lost in antiquity.
The leading intellectual feature of the era was the recovery, to a certain degree, of the secular and humane philosophy of Greece and Rome. The primary humanist ideology was the rebirth of individualism, which, developed by Greece and Rome to a remarkable degree, had been suppressed by the rise of a caste system in the later Roman Empire, by the Church and by feudalism in the Middle Ages. The Church considered individualism to be identical with arrogance, rebellion, and sin. Medieval Christianity restricted individual expression, fostered self-abnegation and self-annihilation, and demanded implicit faith and unquestioning obedience. The humanists worked in favour of the general emancipation of the individual. The writings of Dante, and particularly the doctrines of Petrarch and humanists like Machiavelli, emphasized the virtues of intellectual freedom and individual expression.
In Italy, the humanist educational program won rapid acceptance and, by the mid-fifteenth century, many of the upper classes had received humanist educations. Some of the humanists we study are Petrarch, Coluccio Salutati and Leonardo Bruni, they were great collectors of antique manuscripts. Giovanni brought 200 ancient Roman manuscripts from Constantinople. Many worked for the organized Church and were in holy orders (like Petrarch), while others were lawyers and chancellors of Italian cities, like Petrarch's disciple, Salutati, the Chancellor of Florence, and thus had access to book copying workshops. Among the ones who were a part of the order of the church were Cardinal Basilios Bessarion, Aeneas Silvius Piccolomini (Pope Pius II), Pope Nicolas V. Humanism was identified in two contexts, one in that of Rome and the other in that of Florence. Renaissance humanists borrowed from Socrates, Plato and Cicero was their happy, natural and wholesome enjoyment of human life.
The emphasis was not only on learning, but also of bringing back the impact and assessment of classical texts, preferably in their original language. Hence there was this interest in the study of Latin and Greek, so that ancient Roman and Greek texts could be revived. Humanists literally hunted for manuscripts of classical texts, from Petrarch onwards. Bruni, Salutati and some of his colleagues are considered a part of the bracket of civic humanists, a slight variation of the stereotypic humanists. Civic humanism is basically the application of principles of humanity in public life, stressing on morals, ethics, although slightly non-aligned towards the Church’s perspective on the same.
Renaissance also saw the deviation from the dominance of Christian influence to the revival of paganism, again owing to the most fundamental Humanistic principle-reviewing that which has been forgotten, or perhaps (as some humanists believed) deliberately buried. The paganism of Ancient Greece and Rome had been lost for about one thousand years, when Europe followed the warning of Augustine against becoming too engrossed in earthly affairs. Humanism directly and indirectly revived the pagan scale of virtues. When men like Petrarch and his fellow humanists read pagan literature, they were infected with the secular outlook of the Greeks and Romans. This view, however, of the Renaissance as a return to "paganism", although popular in the nineteenth century, is no longer accepted by historians. Nevertheless, the discovery of classical philosophy and science would eventually challenge old beliefs.
Renaissance Neo-Platonists, such as Marsilio Ficino, whose translations of Plato were still used into the nineteenth century, attempted to reconcile Platonism with Christianity, according to the suggestions of the early Church fathers, Lactantius and Saint Augustine. Petrarch, a devout Christian, worshipped the pagan eclecticism of Cicero. Much humanist effort went into improving the understanding and translations of Biblical and early Christian texts.
Why we consider Renaissance a different period is because of the perceptible shift that can be noticed in the culture of the preceding times. In Brunelleschi’s architecture the shift from Gothic tradition of the medieval times is visible in the semicircular arches(replacing pointed ones), flat tops of doors and windows instead of arches. There seemed to be an emphasis on architecture of antiquity (alla antica), and Florentine Baptistery (12th century architecture). Brunelleschi followed classical and medieval models in whatever he designed. Other Florence humanists include Alberti and Donatello. Donatello’s contribution is very well known, his revival of ancient Roman sculpture, David and the equestrian statue of the professional soldier “gattamelata”.
Decline in depiction of civic values occurs with the incoming of the Medicis around 1434. Landino, Poliziano and Ficino were humanists who illustrated this trend. Landino wrote extensive commentaries on Virgil and Dante, while Ficino wrote comprehensively on Plato. Whatever be the case, the emphasis was on the revival of precious past.
As far as Rome is concerned, it emerged only due to Florentian incluences. And within a few years, in the middle of the 15th century Rome was more of a centre of humanism than Florence was, The two Popes Nicholas V and Pius II have made several contributions to Renaissance, in a humanistic approach. Nicholas commissioned a series of translations of Greek classics into Latin, asking another humanist Poggio to translate Xenophon. He also got Lorenzo Valla, another leading humanist from Rome to translate Thucydides. He received a treatise on architecture from Alberti. The papal chancery offered employment to humanists, allowing scholars from all over Italy to get together. The Humanist popes built libraries, museums(one of the first in the world), repaired walls and doors, aqueducts, new bridges. They also undertook the project of St. Peter’s Basilica, the magnificent structure where artists like Michelangelo, Boticelli, Bernini and Raphael have also displayed their mastery. Pope Paul II built the fountain complex and gave Vatican city its characteristic look. Therefore in the spread of Renaissance, as we can see, humanists played a characterizing role.
And the fact that antiquity to them was not just confined to ancient Greece and Rome comes across when we discover their studies on Hebrew and Arabic texts too. So the extent of humanistic, as in hard core humanism, in the Renaissance culture is evident from the character and incentive that lies behind the creation of every piece of work in the period. Therefore I do not see why should the credibility of the statement that Humanistic approaches did have a major influence in the birth, the spread and the character of Renaissance, be questioned.
Renaissance simply put is the study of a revival. Revival of what? That which was lost in antiquity, hence merely the cumulative outcome of humanistic studies. It is the study of the extraordinary cluster of cultural achievements, placed within a particular context, often identified as an elite movement.
Often the birth of Renaissance has been synonymously associated with the advent of modernity. Because it professes a novelty that previous ages hadn’t probably witnessed. Or even if they had, it must not have been as diverse and widespread as Renaissance was. However Burke disagrees with this view, saying that one must dissociate Renaissance with Modernity. The very idea behind a movement is to revive the culture of the distant past: a doctrine that contradicts the notion of progress or modernity. He views the culture of Western Europe as one culture co-existing and interacting with others, among which were the Byzantine and the Islamic cultures, both of which had their own Renaissances of Greek and Roman antiquity.
Humanism as a discipline could be defined as a collection of all that needs to be studied to study the human, the individual. The aspects of entities created, modified and involved into by the humans. Chronologically its development can be dated to the fourteenth and turn-of-the fifteenth century. It emerged probably as a response to the challenge of medieval scholastic education, which emphasized on practical, pre-professional and scientific studies. In the refined civilization that was the Renaissance, the humanists believed they were the ancients reincarnate.
They spread the gospel of eloquence and wisdom, which would enable a human to engage in a civic life effectively. This was to be accomplished through the study of the studia humanitatis, today known as the humanities: grammar, rhetoric, history, poetry and moral philosophy. Although logic was one of surprisingly missing elements of Renaissance humanism. It was a movement to revive the cultural—and particularly the literary—legacy and moral philosophy of classical antiquity. With every aspect of Humanism was embedded the sense of Renaissance, the revival of what is lost in antiquity.
The leading intellectual feature of the era was the recovery, to a certain degree, of the secular and humane philosophy of Greece and Rome. The primary humanist ideology was the rebirth of individualism, which, developed by Greece and Rome to a remarkable degree, had been suppressed by the rise of a caste system in the later Roman Empire, by the Church and by feudalism in the Middle Ages. The Church considered individualism to be identical with arrogance, rebellion, and sin. Medieval Christianity restricted individual expression, fostered self-abnegation and self-annihilation, and demanded implicit faith and unquestioning obedience. The humanists worked in favour of the general emancipation of the individual. The writings of Dante, and particularly the doctrines of Petrarch and humanists like Machiavelli, emphasized the virtues of intellectual freedom and individual expression.
In Italy, the humanist educational program won rapid acceptance and, by the mid-fifteenth century, many of the upper classes had received humanist educations. Some of the humanists we study are Petrarch, Coluccio Salutati and Leonardo Bruni, they were great collectors of antique manuscripts. Giovanni brought 200 ancient Roman manuscripts from Constantinople. Many worked for the organized Church and were in holy orders (like Petrarch), while others were lawyers and chancellors of Italian cities, like Petrarch's disciple, Salutati, the Chancellor of Florence, and thus had access to book copying workshops. Among the ones who were a part of the order of the church were Cardinal Basilios Bessarion, Aeneas Silvius Piccolomini (Pope Pius II), Pope Nicolas V. Humanism was identified in two contexts, one in that of Rome and the other in that of Florence. Renaissance humanists borrowed from Socrates, Plato and Cicero was their happy, natural and wholesome enjoyment of human life.
The emphasis was not only on learning, but also of bringing back the impact and assessment of classical texts, preferably in their original language. Hence there was this interest in the study of Latin and Greek, so that ancient Roman and Greek texts could be revived. Humanists literally hunted for manuscripts of classical texts, from Petrarch onwards. Bruni, Salutati and some of his colleagues are considered a part of the bracket of civic humanists, a slight variation of the stereotypic humanists. Civic humanism is basically the application of principles of humanity in public life, stressing on morals, ethics, although slightly non-aligned towards the Church’s perspective on the same.
Renaissance also saw the deviation from the dominance of Christian influence to the revival of paganism, again owing to the most fundamental Humanistic principle-reviewing that which has been forgotten, or perhaps (as some humanists believed) deliberately buried. The paganism of Ancient Greece and Rome had been lost for about one thousand years, when Europe followed the warning of Augustine against becoming too engrossed in earthly affairs. Humanism directly and indirectly revived the pagan scale of virtues. When men like Petrarch and his fellow humanists read pagan literature, they were infected with the secular outlook of the Greeks and Romans. This view, however, of the Renaissance as a return to "paganism", although popular in the nineteenth century, is no longer accepted by historians. Nevertheless, the discovery of classical philosophy and science would eventually challenge old beliefs.
Renaissance Neo-Platonists, such as Marsilio Ficino, whose translations of Plato were still used into the nineteenth century, attempted to reconcile Platonism with Christianity, according to the suggestions of the early Church fathers, Lactantius and Saint Augustine. Petrarch, a devout Christian, worshipped the pagan eclecticism of Cicero. Much humanist effort went into improving the understanding and translations of Biblical and early Christian texts.
Why we consider Renaissance a different period is because of the perceptible shift that can be noticed in the culture of the preceding times. In Brunelleschi’s architecture the shift from Gothic tradition of the medieval times is visible in the semicircular arches(replacing pointed ones), flat tops of doors and windows instead of arches. There seemed to be an emphasis on architecture of antiquity (alla antica), and Florentine Baptistery (12th century architecture). Brunelleschi followed classical and medieval models in whatever he designed. Other Florence humanists include Alberti and Donatello. Donatello’s contribution is very well known, his revival of ancient Roman sculpture, David and the equestrian statue of the professional soldier “gattamelata”.
Decline in depiction of civic values occurs with the incoming of the Medicis around 1434. Landino, Poliziano and Ficino were humanists who illustrated this trend. Landino wrote extensive commentaries on Virgil and Dante, while Ficino wrote comprehensively on Plato. Whatever be the case, the emphasis was on the revival of precious past.
As far as Rome is concerned, it emerged only due to Florentian incluences. And within a few years, in the middle of the 15th century Rome was more of a centre of humanism than Florence was, The two Popes Nicholas V and Pius II have made several contributions to Renaissance, in a humanistic approach. Nicholas commissioned a series of translations of Greek classics into Latin, asking another humanist Poggio to translate Xenophon. He also got Lorenzo Valla, another leading humanist from Rome to translate Thucydides. He received a treatise on architecture from Alberti. The papal chancery offered employment to humanists, allowing scholars from all over Italy to get together. The Humanist popes built libraries, museums(one of the first in the world), repaired walls and doors, aqueducts, new bridges. They also undertook the project of St. Peter’s Basilica, the magnificent structure where artists like Michelangelo, Boticelli, Bernini and Raphael have also displayed their mastery. Pope Paul II built the fountain complex and gave Vatican city its characteristic look. Therefore in the spread of Renaissance, as we can see, humanists played a characterizing role.
And the fact that antiquity to them was not just confined to ancient Greece and Rome comes across when we discover their studies on Hebrew and Arabic texts too. So the extent of humanistic, as in hard core humanism, in the Renaissance culture is evident from the character and incentive that lies behind the creation of every piece of work in the period. Therefore I do not see why should the credibility of the statement that Humanistic approaches did have a major influence in the birth, the spread and the character of Renaissance, be questioned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)