In his 1964 monograph, historian Keith Thomas challenged the prevailing view that early modern European magic was merely a collection of disjointed superstitions destined to be instantly dissolved by the rise of mechanical philosophy. Instead, Thomas posited that astrology and witchcraft served as coherent, albeit non-empirical, frameworks for explaining misfortune before the maturation of institutionalized insurance and systematic medicine. Critics, however, argue that by functionalizing belief systems in this manner, Thomas inadvertently minimized the genuine theological anxieties of the era. Nonetheless, his work successfully shifted the scholarly focus from the validity of occult practices to their social utility. In doing so, he did not merely redefine magic; he altered the parameters of historical inquiry itself.
Which of the following best describes the rhetorical function of the final sentence of the passage?
- It characterizes the ultimate impact of Thomas's scholarship as a fundamental transformation of historical methodology rather than a simple thematic revision.Cevap
- BIt offers concrete evidence to resolve the debate between Thomas's functionalist view of magic and his critics' theological objections.
- CIt restates the primary claim of Thomas's critics to emphasize the limitations of his historical monograph.
- DIt signals a transition from the theoretical debate about early modern magic to a discussion of Thomas's subsequent academic achievements.