Answer:
I do believe the republican party is becoming more radical if that's what you're asking. When the US parties started, the republican party was republican and the democratic party was republican. This is because at the time neither believed in equality among people. As time moved on the Democrats said that people should be equal, making them more centralist. The new democratic views such as affordable healthcare less military funding are not socialist or radical democratic, they are basic international democratic values. Whereas the Republican party has only become more conservative and is now pushing for things like deportation and physical borders. Those are not International Republican values, those are radical Republican values.
<span>The Edict of Milan occurred in 313 and the Council of Nicaea happened in 325 during the time when Christianity was accepted by Rome. The Edict of Milan officially legalized Christianity in the Roman Empire. The Council of Nicaea was a Christian council called by the Roman Emperor in hopes of settling some of the theological disputes present in the early church.</span>
<span>During the latter part of the eighteenth century the drama in France had steadily declined from the glorious position which it had achieved in the reign of Louis XIV. The genius of Voltaire, by its stage-reforms and innovations, had partially stayed the downward movement in tragedy, and the philosophic Diderot had sought to substitute for mirthful comedy a new species--the serious--which should be an agent of social reform, and in fact the consummation of dramatic art as a mirror of life.</span>
Classical tragedy had been weighted down by the artificiality of the court in every direction, and thus made a beautiful monster. The plays of the new style, vaguely called drames, were intended to be true to life and to inculcate the proper principles of society. The idea had already been advanced in the dreams of various social philosophers, but for obvious reasons no attempt had been made to reduce it to practice. Diderot, though an able writer in other departments, failed as a dramatist, but some who had adopted his idea had better success. The most remarkable dramatist of the period, however, was Beaumarchais, who boldly revived the old Spanish comedy of intrigue. He not only surpassed his predecessor in the skillful framing of plots, but drew his characters with peculiar truth. His dialogue was brilliant with flashes of wit, and his plays were charged with social satire. His Figaro, with its searchlight illumination of the old régime, became a warning beacon of the approaching Revolution. But taken altogether, the drama of this period is rather of historic interest than actual value. It consists of imitations of the great works of the classic age, themselves imitations of antiquity, or imperfect attempts at reform and extension. It became thoroughly mechanical and lost artistic value. "French tragedy," said Goethe, with not undue severity, "is a parody of itself."
The passages through the Mediterranean for reaching the Indian Ocean were occupied by the Arabs, and they were requesting large amounts of money or goods for passing through, and also the waters were very insecure because of the pirates. So Portugal was trying to find a way around Africa to reach the Indian Ocean and thus India, so that it can continue with trade of the goods from the Asian continent and keep its wealth and power on the global scene.
