What is similar and what is different between Hobbes, Locke, and Shakespeare's concept of the ideal ruler in The Tempest? What makes a good ruler?

The similarity between each concept of an ideal or good ruler in the views of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Shakespeare, is, in general, power. In other words, the concept of an ideal or good ruler within each view has some power by which each view shares similarity with the others. That is to say, all three views emphasize power as something essential, or something constituting, what it means to be an ideal or good ruler.Of course, the differences between the expression of power in each particular view is worth identifying. The political philosophy of Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) suggests that a ruler's power over a commonwealth ought to minimize society's "State of Nature"; therefore, an ideal ruler ought to have an exact 'totalitarian power' (2.17). The political philosophy of John Locke (1632-1704) suggests that a ruler's power ought to preserve "life, liberty, health and property of its citizens"; therefore, an ideal or good ruler ought to have a certain 'governing power' (4.4). Lastly, Shakespeare's (1564-1616) philosophy of power in The Tempest is one that suggests a ruler's power, like that of the character Prospero, is something magical and effectively cunning; therefore, an ideal or good ruler ought to have a certain 'imaginative power' (1.2). While it is crucial to account for each theory having similar concepts of an ideal or good ruler with respect to a similar shared power, so too is it crucial to account for each theory having distinct concepts of what power is.

Shakespeare's The Tempest, although a fictional product of the playwright's imagination, contains deep and varied allegories that explore the nature of power and the qualities of a ruler. These are concepts that Shakespeare returned to again and again in his plays—kings gone mad, rulers usurping other rulers, and the constant plotting of one group against another to seize power.
John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, two other Englishmen who became prominent in the 1600s, just after Shakespeare's time, were equally fascinated by these questions. As philosophers, rather than playwrights, they attempted to address the nature of power and the social organization of humankind through argument and study, and came to have influential theories about politics and human nature.
Hobbes is best known for his belief that, left to their own devices, individual people with no government resort to a merciless free-for-all. In the "state of nature," what he believed was the original human condition, power and violence was the governing principle of human life. This idea led him to a belief in strong centralized power.
Locke, on the other hand, is known as the father of modern liberalism. He wrote that in a state of nature, all men are created equally, and have certain natural rights. When men enter into a social contract, it is not out of fear, as Hobbes would say, but out of a desire to organize civil life more productively. It is from this understanding of human nature that Locke decried the divine right of kings, as a source of power that has no place in human governance.
Scenes and characters in The Tempest show that Shakespeare is working out the same underlying questions that would later fascinate Hobbes and Locke. The incessant scheming and plotting, not only by Prospero but by his brother, Antonio, and the King's son Sebastian, and many other parties, seem to demonstrate Hobbes' belief that power is only acquired through strong power, rather than through reason or divine right. However, Prospero's scheming reveals a fairness and decency that is surprising from an all-powerful sorcerer, and his triumph over the myriad plots against him, with relatively little ill-will could be seen as more in line with Locke's thinking about the fundamental decency of people.
Complicating these ideas, though, is the historical context. Shakespeare, Locke and Hobbes were all living in a time of profound colonial unrest, as new colonies in America shifted the balance of the world and produced unsettling thoughts about human nature. The slave character, Caliban, in particular has been re-examined as an allusion to slavery in the New World, and his untouched island eden may also have been a reference to colonial reports from the Caribbean and elsewhere. Likewise, Hobbes and Locke both based their ideas of "the state of nature" on what they imagined to be the conditions in the New World, and many of their ideas about early human life came from shallow understandings of Native American cultures.
In these ways, The Tempest can be read from many different perspectives, and shows that Shakespeare was grappling with many of the same questions about power and rulers that has fascinated philosophers and politicians for millennia.

Name one thing the Happylife Home can't do in "The Veldt."

In "The Veldt," The children's playroom in the Happylife Home is programmed to respond to the children's thoughts. It operates based on telepathy to create the environment that the children imagine. The Home cannot really take the parents' place because it cannot make moral and ethical judgments, which include decisions about providing guidance or disciplining the children.
When George or Lydia want to change their children's behavior, their only option is to turn off the Home. Peter, however, has figured out how to program the Home to override the parents' input. With the Home unable to reject the telepathic instructions it is receiving, it is inevitable that it enacts the spoiled children's fantasy of killing their parents when they are not getting their own way.

Does the US Constitution limit fractiousness?

While the US Constitution does not prevent fractiousness (no constitution can), it can limit fractiousness by seeking to make the American government more broadly representative than just simple majority rule. Pure majority-rule democracy was widely regarded by the Founding Fathers as a direct threat to the rights of the minority, so they put safeguards into the constitution to protect certain key rights of all Americans, regardless of who was voted into power by the majority. This was meant to prevent the majority from tyrannizing and oppressing the minority.
The Constitution thus reduces fractiousness in creating a system more broadly representative by making sure the voice of the minority is taken into account and not just that of the majority. One way it achieves this goal by having two houses of Congress. If the Founding Fathers had wanted simple majority rule, they could have had 535 legislators in one chamber, in which a majority would be sufficient to pass new legislation. Instead, they gave us a Senate, in which 51 members could block the votes of the other 49 Senators as well as all members of the House, providing a major check on a potential "tyranny of the majority."

Why does Orwell choose to describe the condemned prisoners's cells as looking "like animal cages" and the handling of the prisoners as "like man handling a fish"?

When Orwell describes the prisoners and handling men, he chooses to employ words that convey cruelty and a cold, callous nature. The theme of the novel is that the government has stripped the citizens of their humanity and orchestrates daily life with a calculated cruelty, scripting everything that occurs and erasing everything subversive to their cause. The prisoners have had their humanity stripped from them, and they are caged like animals in a shelter. This description shows how far they have fallen and how despicably they are treated by the government and thought police.
The men who are handling them, on the other hand, typically are acting in a state of quasi-ignorance, not truly knowing or believing what the government's real purpose is with the prisoners—so they are, on the one hand, treating them cruelly like animals (fish) that are being tossed about only to be sliced up later, but they are also treating them efficiently and coldly, like a fishmonger performing a job. Their actions are naive, not necessarily intentionally cruel.

In George Orwell's novel 1984, the condemned prisoners are treated like animals, which is reminiscent of Orwell's novella Animal Farm. This scene illustrates the state's cold, mechanical treatment of people, thus providing a stark contrast between the revolutionaries and the government.
Orwell, who was an officer in British-controlled Burma, witnessed firsthand the interactions between a powerful state and the people it oppresses. Thus, this scene is also a criticism of such imperialism, as well as of authoritarian governments during Orwell's day, such as the Soviet Union.
In both quotes, the prisoners are likened to animals, whether a farm animal in a cage or a fish caught after a hunt. Orwell uses this type of vivid language to show that the prisoners, as well as the overall citizenry, are vulnerable in the hands of the dictatorial state.
http://www.george-orwell.org/1984/4.html

How did Carlisle and Esme in the Twilight series fall in love?

Carlisle originally met Esme in the year 1911, when she was sixteen years old and had broken her leg after falling from a tree. Carlisle, a compassionate vampire doctor, treated her and then moved on with his life. Esme was greatly moved by her encounter with Carlisle and fell in love with him. Ten years later, in 1921, Carlisle and Esme met again, in much graver circumstances. Esme had just lost her young child to a deadly fever, and, in unbearable emotional pain, decided to end her life. Esme jumped from a cliff and was taken to the local hospital, on her deathbed. Carlisle turned Esme into a vampire to save her life. When Esme awoke, she was surprised to see the man she fell in love with standing by her bedside. The two fell in love and became inseparable.

How is anachronism used in "Araby" by James Joyce?

Anachronism occurs when events in a story are portrayed in a way that is not chronologically accurate (when the sequence of events is told out of order, for instance). Flashbacks are a perfect example of this; they break up the linear chronology of the story. In "Araby" by James Joyce, anachronism is used throughout the first half of the story before giving way to a specific, linear narrative.
The first paragraph starts everything off by describing the setting in an ambiguous manner:

North Richmond Street, being blind, was a quiet street except at the hour when the Christian Brothers' School set the boys free. An uninhabited house of two storeys stood at the blind end, detached from its neighbours in a square ground. The other houses of the street, conscious of decent lives within them, gazed at one another with brown imperturbable faces.

There is no specific time frame or reference to a season. The only thing the reader knows is that the story appears to be set in the past, almost as if it were written as a memory. The next paragraph goes back and forth between describing a priest who died prior to the narrator moving into the house and some of the narrator's more recent exploits. It is only once we get to the third paragraph that we are given any reference to when the story might be set:

When the short days of winter came dusk fell before we had well eaten our dinners. When we met in the street the houses had grown sombre. The space of sky above us was the color of ever-changing violet and towards it the lamps of the street lifted their feeble lanterns.

The reader gets the sense that the story will be set at some point during the winter months. The narrator's activities are again described in a general sense. There is no specific day or time that the story is taking place; it simply gives a history of what the narrator would typically do during this time period.
The story then gets slightly more specific: "Every morning I lay on the floor in the front parlour watching her door." Again, there is no specific time setting, just the idea of a daily routine. Joyce does this as a way of giving a wide variety of background information in order to set up the latter part of his story. The author then continues the "routine" narrative structure to showcase the length of time in which the narrator has been infatuated with Mangan's sister. "Every morning" turns into "Saturday evenings," giving the impression that this has lasted for many weeks. It is not until the sixth paragraph that a specific time is outlined:

One evening I went into the back drawing-room in which the priest had died. It was a dark rainy evening and there was no sound in the house. Through one of the broken panes I heard the rain impinge upon the earth, the fine incessant needles of water playing in the sodden beds.

At first it appears as though the first five paragraphs act as a sort of "montage" leading up to this particular event. However, the very next paragraph jumps again, this time to when Mangan's sister first speaks to the narrator. This importance of this experience is highlighted by the fact that multiple paragraphs are devoted to it. Though the information gathered thus far gives a good backstory for the narrator's feelings toward Mangan's sister, this is the primary encounter that directly influences the second half of the story. In promising to buy her something from the bazaar, the narrator's "quest" has begun.
From there, the reader experiences a few more time jumps before settling in to the main events of the story; this time, however, the "routine" narrative gives way to specific days and times. From "that evening" to "Saturday morning" to when the narrator "came home to dinner," there is finally a linear timeline for the reader to follow. The final two pages are devoted to the aforementioned "quest," in which the narrator travels to the bazaar.
Though it is not as explicit as some other stories in terms of telling the story outside of a coherent and chronological order, "Araby" definitely has moments in which anachronism is used.
Note: The author's original spelling has been left intact in the above quotes (e.g., "neighbours" instead of "neighbors").

What are some examples of loyalty, with quotes, in Night?

In chapter 1, the Wiesel family's former maid, Maria, visits the family and begs them to come stay with her at a shelter she has prepared. Elie's father refuses but tells Elie and his sisters they can go if they want to. "Naturally, we refused to be separated."
In chapter 3, at the first selection, Elie is waved to the left; however, he waits to see which way his father is waved, planning to join his father whichever way he goes.
In chapter 4, Franek wants Elie's crown. Elie refuses, so Elie's father is beaten because he cannot march correctly. Elie tries to teach his father to march, but Elie's father cannot get it right. Finally, Elie gives up his crown to save his father.
In chapter 4, the young pipel is tortured and murdered because he, and the oberkapo he served, refused to give up the other names of the people who were involved in the theft of the weapons.
In chapter 5, Elie and his father know they will either stay in the camp together or evacuate the camp together. There is no question of being separated.
In chapter 6, Elie and his father stay together while running. They also make sure to wake each other up so they won't starve to death. An example of disloyalty is when Rabbi Eliahu's son abandons him during the run.
In chapter 7, Elie frantically wakes up his father when the other prisoners think he is dead and are going to throw him off the train. Also, in chapter 7, Elie's father calls Meir Katz over to save him. Another example of loyalty in chapter 7 is when the father catches two pieces of bread: one for himself and one for his son. An example of disloyalty is when the son kills his father for his two pieces of bread.
In chapter 8, Elie remains physically loyal to his father, finding him after the air raid and giving his father his rations. However, he also shows disloyalty by his thoughts, when he hopes he won't find his father after the raid. Also, he shows some disloyalty when he thinks that perhaps he should be having his father's rations. In addition, his thoughts after his father dies are that he is "free."

What landmark book did King James I authorize for publication in 1611?

In 1611, King James I (also known as King James IV, as he was the king of both England and Scotland) authorized the publication of what is commonly referred to as the King James Bible.
Though this was a landmark publishing, it was not the first time that the publishing of an English translation of the Bible had been authorized by a monarch. The Great Bible (1535) and the Bishops' Bible (1568) were both commissioned by King Henry IV and his daughter Queen Elizabeth I respectively.
However, these two texts lack the notoriety of the King James Bible, which remains one of the most important books in world history, particularly in the English-speaking world. Despite the immense importance the text would take on throughout the next four hundred years, King James I himself was rather blasé about commissioning it. It was not seen as an act of great importance, especially since there were already Bible translations that appeared to suit people well enough. Surpassing those expectations, The King James Bible has been the most influential of all Bible translations, in part due to its literary merits, beauty, and powerful articulation.
This is not to say that the translation is perfect and without discrepancies. As stated before, there is some debate to this day as to how much creative liberty the tasked translators took with their work. After all, there were approximately fifty of them.

What are the defining moments of Atticus's leadership character in the movie To Kill a Mockingbird? This is based on the book Defining Moments by Joseph Badaracco Jr. What type of leadership traits does Atticus have? How did he model the way?

The character of Atticus Finch may not be considered a leader by some readers and viewers of the film. His leadership qualities are not manifested in the ways society expects. Atticus leads by example as a father, as a lawyer, and as a member of society.
First, Atticus has a clear sense of his principles and beliefs. By remaining true to those principles, he demonstrates integrity. Atticus also demonstrates that it takes more strength to exercise self-control than it does to lash out, which is often construed as weakness.
Throughout the story, there are countless examples of Atticus's leadership, but none is as defining as his decision to represent Tom Robinson. Scout asks Atticus if he'll win the case, and he tells her no, they won't win. When Scout asks her father why he's going to defend Tom if he isn't going to win, Atticus replies, "Simply because we were licked a hundred years before we started is no reason for us not to try to win." Regardless of the consequences, Atticus acts according to the dictates of his conscience.

Using the novel Of Mice and Men, answer the following question below in ACE-IT format (assertion, citation, explication, interpretation, termination): How can dreams and aspirations positively affect people's lives and relationships?

Although the ranch hands' dreams are ultimately not realized, for much of the novel it seems like things might turn out well for them. George and Lennie arrive at the ranch already sharing the dream of owning a small farm.
A: Candy's life improves as he becomes friends with George and Lennie through sharing their dream of owning a farm. C: The three men discuss this plan, including Candy’s financial contribution, in chapter three. E: They continue to discuss the plans in chapter four. I: Candy has grown old alone, except for his dog, in the semi-nomadic life of a ranch hand. He wants to settle down and have both security and friends in his old age, and he is happy to put his life savings to good use. T: The entire plan collapses after Lennie kills Curley's wife and George kills Curley. The reader does not know if Candy will remain friends with George.

What did the natives think about the Europeans?

This question is not an easy question to answer, because most of the historical accounts and records we have today were written or told by Europeans. We cannot know for certain what the Native Americans thought of the Europeans, but we can learn how the bigger part of the Native American population reacted to the arrival of the Europeans on their land.
At first encounter, the Native Americans were rather surprised by the physical appearance of the Europeans, especially the men. Many Europeans were traveling on their ships for a very long time, and so they didn't have a lot of time to maintain their personal hygiene; they had long beards and have not bathed for days and maybe even weeks, and many of them were sick. According to several sources, the Native Americans weren't exactly fascinated by the arrival of the Europeans and were actually somewhat wary of the situation; they realized that other people have arrived on their land and decided to wait and see what their intentions were. The majority of the Native Americans, however, were kind and hospitable. Some of them even thought that they could trade with some of the Europeans, as the Europeans had iron and steel.

Who was Lauren Slater?

Lauren Slater (b. 1963) is a writer and psychotherapist who has published nine books; she has degrees from Harvard University and Boston University. She currently practices in Concord, Massachusetts. Her most well-known work is Prozac Diary (1998), a key contribution to the literature about American psychiatry and medication. In Blue Dreams (2018), she has also written about the pharmaceutical industry’s development of drugs like Prozac. Other works concerned with psychology and psychiatry include Inside Skinner’s Box (2004), which traces the history and ethics of psychological experiments. Love Works Like This (2002) is a more personal work relating her own experience of pregnancy and her early years of motherhood. In Lying (2000), she addresses questions of truth, fiction, and responsibility in writing the memoir.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/therapists/lauren-j-slater-concord-ma/451115

Who benefits the most from mercantilism?

First, a working definition of mercantilism: under mercantilism, a nation strives to export more than it imports and it hopes to hoard gold and silver as a result. In the case of the colonists under the leadership of Great Britain, they were to export their raw materials to the mother country and the mother country was to sell them finished products. In order to further streamline the process, Britain barred the colonists from trading certain goods with other countries and all British goods had to be shipped on British ships.
This led to a monopoly that favored the British government over the colonists. The colonists, capable of creating their own industries, were impeded by being told that all raw materials must be shipped to Great Britain. The colonists also had to take whatever Britain was willing to pay while Britain had access to the world's markets. All of this would lead to colonial resentment after the period of salutary neglect ended in 1763 with the ending of the Seven Years' War.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/mercantilism.asp

Imagine that you were an American voter, living in the year 1828 in the election between Andrew Jackson of the Democratic Party and John Quincy Adams of the National Republican party. Which candidate would you have voted for, and why? Be certain and discuss, for the candidate for whom you choose to vote, the policy positions he held, and explain why those positions led you to vote for him.

When you are asked to imagine yourself as a voter in the United States in 1828, there are several restrictions you must acknowledge and several decisions you must make about your identity. First, at that time, only white men were allowed to vote: at the federal level, African American men’s right to vote was recognized only in 1868, and the voting rights of all women, regardless of race, only in 1920. Other restrictions and requirements were also in place, depending on the state, such as property ownership. In addition, consider your experience in relationship to your opinion of the candidates: Are you satisfied with President Adams’s performance in office, or do you think the country is ready for a change?
Another important factor is the state and part of the country in which you reside, as sub-national loyalties significantly affect voters’ perception of the issues and the relative merits of the candidates. If you live in the north, perhaps you will view J. Q. Adams as the better option: having served in the Senate from Massachusetts, he understands the northern people’s needs. Adams’s ticket further supports the north, as his vice presidential candidate, Richard Rush, is from Pennsylvania. If you live in the south, you might identify with Andrew Jackson, a former Senator from Tennessee and former Governor of Florida. And you will note that his ticket is more regionally balanced, as his running mate, Martin Van Buren, hails from New York.
President Adams had been raised in national politics, as his father had not only served as president but was also one of the Founding Fathers. J. Q. Adams was a federalist as much as the senior Adams, but he recognized the need to change with the times. You would likely consider whether the reforms of the National Republican party still uphold the values of traditional federalism or have adapted far enough to the kind of Republican vision a larger, and ever-growing, nation requires today.
Indeed, the domestic concerns of the nation, especially in light of the rapid westward expansion, need to address issues such as transportation but balance the costs with reasonable taxes. Both candidates favor additional taxation, but the allocation of the resources and the states’ ability to administer their own budgets (in contrast to federal oversight) are places where their platforms differ. Jackson and Van Buren have crafted a platform that favors states’ rights, including the controversial issue of slavery. As western states are added to the Union, should slavery be allowed there? Is this a federal government decision, or should each state decide for itself?
In evaluating President Adams’s contributions so far, you can evaluate what he delivered based on his earlier promises, and what he did not achieve. Although protection of American industry through tariffs was a point of agreement in 1824, the tariffs that were subsequently enacted may have done more harm than good. Do you favor expanding this system to guarantee further protection? Or do you think that the financial burden outweighs any competitive advantage?
You may also notice that in this electoral campaign, much more than in 1824, the Jackson side in particular is actively seeking your vote with many novelty items. If you decide to support him, you might attend one of his rallies wearing an “Old Hickory” campaign button.
https://millercenter.org/president/jqadams/campaigns-and-elections

https://web.archive.org/web/20160706144856/http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/charters_of_freedom_13.html

Who is the main character of "The Bass, the River, and Sheila Mant?

The unnamed narrator is the story's main character, or protagonist. He is a boy of fourteen who lives (at least for the summer) next to the Mant family, who have rented the cottage nearest his family's. He quickly develops feelings of a romantic, infatuate nature for Sheila, the middle daughter, and he works up the nerve to ask her out, only at the very end of August. She is three years his senior and seems mostly unaware of his existence. However, she agrees to go to a little festival that has live music with him one night, in his canoe, and when he learns that she finds fishing to be "boring" and "dumb," he is anxious to prevent her from realizing that he has actually hooked a massive bass while they've been making their way down the river. In the end, he cuts the line and sets the bass free and Sheila goes home with someone else anyway; he says that he never made that same mistake—of choosing a girl over a fish—again.

From the movie Hugo, what​ ​is​ ​the​ ​role​ ​films​ ​play​ ​in​ ​perpetuating​ ​stereotypes​ ​in​ ​contemporary​ ​society?

Hugo is a 2011 film directed and produced by Martin Scorsese. The film is based on Brian Selznick's book The Invention of Hugo Cabret.
Perhaps the most important stereotype presented in the film has to do with lack of identity due to the loss of a parent. Viewers see the typical fears associated with the loss of a parent and the uncertainty of what comes after this loss. Hugo, after his father's death, fears that he will be placed in an orphanage. The stereotype of the lost child is prevalent here. Hugo, as a lost child, should amount to nothing. This stereotype is perpetuated through the character of his uncle, Claude. Claude is an alcoholic and does not want to take care of his nephew. Yet, in the end, Hugo proves to be far more than a lost child. He successfully fixes the animatronic (which his father was unable to complete), and he finds a home and family who loves and appreciates him.
True to typical film endings, the hero (Hugo) is able to overcome all obstacles and prove that he is more than an orphaned son. The stereotype of the underdog's success may be, for some, the most prevalent stereotype of the film. As with most films, the "down-and-out" protagonist, after facing numerous seemingly insurmountable challenges, succeeds. Unfortunately, in the real world, this is not always the case.

What are some types of irony in "EPICAC"?

There are three kinds of irony: verbal, dramatic, and situational. The story "EPICAC" by Kurt Vonnegut is built on dramatic irony: certain information is revealed to us as readers but not to the characters of the story.
The irony of "EPICAC" is that the computer is actually the one who made Pat fall in love. Though the narrator tells EPICAC that a human can never love a machine, in reality, Pat has only fallen in love because of the machine.
There is also a little bit of situational irony in the poems. Though the narrator convinces Pat to marry him and promises her a poem for every anniversary, he has no reason to believe that he will actually be able to compose a new poem every year. He doesn't want to think about it; after all, has a year until the next poem needs to be written.
The truth is, he shouldn't be able to give her a new poem for each anniversary, especially after EPICAC has died. However, there is situational irony in the fact that EPICAC's parting gift was a huge collection of poems, giving the narrator exactly what he needs to continue making Pat happy—something he couldn't do without the computer, but the computer also couldn't do without him.
http://typesofirony.com/the-3-types-of-irony/

Discuss the formal aspects of 'mask of anarchy' in terms of voice, diction, rhyme scheme, meter and figurative language. What are some of the Romantic characteristics of the poem?

Shelley's poem is an allegorical commentary on political events in England, particularly the Peterloo Massacre of August 16, 1819. Written in 91 stanzas, the poem is written in trochaic tetrameter with an AABB rhyme scheme, although many of the lines contain only seven syllables and end on a stress.
The poem describes the coming of the figure of Anarchy to London. The allegorical nature of the poem allows Shelley to describe the political situation in England using heightened language:

Last came Anarchy; he rode On a white horse, splashed with blood; He was pale even to the lips,Like Death in the Apocalypse

Anarchy is, of course, the British government ("And he wore a kingly crown / And in his grasp a sceptre shown"), which had brutally put down a protest for democratic reform at Peterloo. The specter of Anarchy is opposed by the figure of Hope ("a maniac maid, / And her name was Hope, she said: / But she looked more like Despair;").
The Romantic elements of the poem include, of course, the championing of the common people over aristocrats, the use of supernatural or mythic figures to represent current events, and the reliance on emotion and emotionally charged imagery to make his point. While many had died at Peterloo asking for electoral reform, in Shelley's poem the forces of Anarchy are defeated by the "mist" of freedom:

As flowers beneath the footstep waken, As stars from night's loose hair are shaken, As waves arise when loud winds call, Thoughts sprung where'er that step did fall.And the prostrate multitudeLooked—and ankle deep in blood,Hope, that maiden most serene,Was walking with a quiet mien:And Anarchy, the ghastly birth, Lay dead earth upon the earth;

Shelley's poem was meant to be a kind of emotional call to arms on behalf of democracy, but it did not appear in print until 1832, due to government censorship of political dissent.

In chapter 1, what does George tell Lennie that he never forgets?

George wants Lennie to remember several things in chapter one, most notably that when they go to the ranch to apply for jobs the next day, Lennie has to be very quiet and let George do all the talking. But George tells Lennie that the thing he never forgets is their dream of owning their own farm. When Lennie asks George to again tell him about the farm they will someday buy, George says:

You got it by heart. You can do it yourself.

Nevertheless, George begins to recite the familiar story. Lennie shows he remembers it by breaking in with familiar refrains, such as that they are going to

live off the fatta the lan’ . . .

The dream of owning their own place sustains the two of them in their uncertain life, in which they travel from job to job. Being together and repeating the story of the farm gives them hope that one day this dream might come true.

I need to write a teaser with NO spoilers in order to capture peoples attention for them to want to read these 2 short stories. It has to be 2 separate teasers.

The question mentions two stories; however, I only see reference to Shirley Jackson's "The Lottery." I can help with a teaser about that particular story.
I am not sure how long your teaser needs to be. It does make a difference, because some educators think "teaser" and "tagline" are essentially the same thing. I do not consider those two terms interchangeable. A "tagline" is one sentence that is intended to peak audience attention. A tagline is often very vague. "Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water" is the tagline from Jaws 2. It's an interesting line, but it doesn't really tell anything specific.
For your teaser, I think that you are being asked to write a brief paragraph about "The Lottery." It would be similar to something that you would read on the back cover of a book or the back of a DVD movie box. "The Lottery" starts in a fairly happy and cheery way. A town of people is gathering in a town square for some kind of traditional festivity. The story ends in a horribly graphic way. One of the townspeople is stoned to death because of an archaic tradition. That's where you want to lead your reader with your teaser. I can't write your teaser for you, but perhaps you could start it off like the following:
"In a village that harbors strange traditions, people gather at the town square. A box is placed in front of the gathering crowd, and names are called one by one. As each name is read, a mixture of relief and apprehension slowly makes its way through the crowd."

How does Mr. Bennet treat Mrs. Bennet in Pride and Prejudice?

In Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice, Mr. and Mrs. Bennet are well known for their roles in intervening (or not) in their children’s marital prospects, but they also serve as a cautionary tale in what can happen when an unsuitable marriage choice is made.
Throughout the novel, Mr. Bennet makes it clear that he has no respect for his wife. He treats her with disdain and ridicule and implies that enduring marriage to her is a trial. His disdain and disregard for her feelings are sometimes obvious to everyone but her, but sometimes even his feelings are clear even to her, as in his response to her accusation that he does not care about her “poor nerves”: “You mistake me, my dear. I have a high respect for your nerves. They are my old friends. I have heard you mention them with consideration these twenty years at least” (p. 2).
He not only seems to care little for all the things that cause her distress but also seems to take delight in being the cause of her distress. For example, in the beginning of the novel, he deliberately withholds information about visiting Charles Bingley even though he knows it would immediately put his wife’s mind at ease.
Perhaps the most startling display of disrespect for his wife comes after Elizabeth rejects Mr. Collins’ proposal and he defies Mrs. Bennet’s demand for Elizabeth to reconsider: “An unhappy alternative is before you, Elizabeth. From this day you must be a stranger to one of your parents. Your mother will never see you again if you do not marry Mr. Collins, and I will never see you again if you do” (p. 83). Such words not only demonstrate the lack of any real respect for his wife but also forewarn of the unhappy result of making a poor choice of spouse.

In the book, Mr. Bennet treats Mrs. Bennet with resigned acceptance. He is aware that his wife is his intellectual inferior and possesses poor judgment in many matters. However, being a faithful husband, Mr. Bennet has elected to stay married to his wife. That said, many of the couple's interactions center on Mrs. Bennet's daily irritants and her all-consuming goal of marrying off their daughters.
Knowing that he has little choice but to listen to his wife's complaints, Mr. Bennet relies on sarcastic humor to divert Mrs. Bennet. The text tells us that Mrs. Bennet is a woman of "mean understanding, little information, and uncertain temper." Knowing that Mrs. Bennet is incapable of deep introspection, Mr. Bennet uses humor to reduce marital friction between them.
For instance, when Mrs. Bennet chides her husband for refusing to visit Mr. Bingley in Chapter One, Mr. Bennet asks how his visiting the bachelor can affect their daughters' futures. Upon hearing this, Mrs. Bennet indignantly suggests that he's deliberately being obtuse. Certainly, she's thinking of Mr. Bingley marrying one of their daughters. Here's the rest of the conversation:

"I see no occasion for that. You and the girls may go, or you may send them by themselves, which perhaps will be still better, for as you are as handsome as any of them, Mr. Bingley may like you the best of the party."
"My dear, you flatter me. I certainly have had my share of beauty, but I do not pretend to be anything extraordinary now. When a woman has five grown-up daughters, she ought to give over thinking of her own beauty."
"In such cases, a woman has not often much beauty to think of."

From the above passage, we can see that Mr. Bennet skilfully wields sarcastic humor to divert Mrs. Bennet's attention. He may be resigned to living with her, but that doesn't mean he won't indulge in a bit of fun at her expense sometimes.

What is the conflict in the story "Miss Esther's Guest" by Sarah Orne Jewett?

The conflict in a story is the element in the narrative which presents a struggle or challenge to the protagonist. This is a very gentle story, but it certainly has a conflict. Miss Esther Porley, the protagonist, has resolved at the beginning of the story to open up her house to a fellow lodger. It has been too long since her mother died and she feels that she is not being sufficiently generous with what she has: she wants to open up her house for the use of someone who lives in the city and might have need of country air. She specifically states that she would not like a "girl" or a rowdy young man, and expresses a preference for an older person—meaning an old lady. This message is passed along to the Committee in town, but unfortunately, this committee does not know Miss Esther, and they do not interpret her wishes as she had expected.
The conflict in the story, then, comes when Miss Esther Porley arrives at the station, expecting an old lady, and finds nobody there but "one clean-faced, bent old man with a bird-cage in one hand." This immediately fills Esther with apprehension. She had not expected a man, and indeed she is anxious about what others on the platform will think of her if she approaches this old man unaccompanied. The story is set in a time period where men and women did not generally mix without chaperones unless they were married, so the presence of Mr. Rill instead of the expected old lady presents Miss Esther with a considerable challenge; indeed, she is "enraged with the Country Week Committee."
Ultimately, however, although Esther has not had a man in her house for "fifteen years, at least," she decides to give Mr. Rill a chance and invite him into her house. The result of this decision on her part proves to be momentous, as she finds him to be not at all like "other men," and when the time comes for him to leave, neither party is at all happy about it. At the end of the story, Miss Esther confides that Mr. Rill has determined to come back to live with her permanently–and has left his bird at the house as if as a promise.

In what way is the poem "The Darkling Thrush" an attempt by the speaker or poet to search for meaning in the world?

The speaker in the poem is melancholic and "fervourless." He "leans upon a coppice gate" as the sun sets ("The weakening eye of day") and ponders the century that's almost over, as well as the century that's about to begin. The poem was first published in 1900. He is also surrounded by the "dregs" of Winter and images of death (described with the words "haunted," "corpse," and "death-lament") pervade the poem. He metaphorically describes the previous century as a "corpse." The implication is that the speaker has no hope for the coming century and sees no meaning in life.
In the third stanza, however, he hears and then sees an "aged thrush" and this thrush gives him some hope, and seems to offer some meaning. The thrush sings "full-hearted" and "fling(s) his soul / Upon the dying gloom" even though he is "aged" and "frail." This offers the speaker some "blessed Hope," and meaning seems to lie in that hope. The speaker is "unaware" as to where the thrush derives this hope from, but the fact that he has it seems enough to at least temporarily appease the speaker's melancholic mood. The thrush's hope suggests to the speaker that there may be some meaning after all, even if he is "unaware" of what it is.

What did Tiger go to the road construction company to do in A Brighter Sun?

In the novel A Brighter Sun, Tiger goes looking for a job at the road construction company. Having tired of working as a planter and, more importantly, tired of poverty, he decides that he has a greater calling for his life and resolves to change his status. Thus, he joins a road construction company when the Americans come through around wartime and need roads built.
Because of his knowledge—slightly higher than those around him, as he is able to partially read and write—he is given a position with some status at the construction company. He is a surveyor and has some limited authority over the others in his position. This job begins to give him some of the respect and higher income he felt he needed to achieve a better status.

How does Mary Shelley get us to sympathize with a monster? Where does she succeed and fail? Why does she do this?

Mary Shelley's Frankenstein creates moral tension between the two central characters: Victor Frankenstein, a young Genoese science student who has assembled and animated a creature using dead bodies, and the unnamed creature he creates. While the opening of the novel builds considerable animosity toward the character of the creature through the eyes of Victor, the creature's own description of his struggle to join humanity and his mistreatment at the hands of his creator and others leads to a more complicated portrait of his emotional landscape and moral choices. While the novel does not suggest that all his actions are defensible (for example, his murder of Victor’s younger brother is not excused), it does raise the question of the extent to which the trauma he has endured can make us sympathetic to the deep sorrows he expresses and the rage with which he responds.
Frankenstein is an epistolary novel (a novel told through letter writing) in which the stories of individual characters are often told through retellings by other characters in and beyond the letters of Captain Walton to his sister. When Walton first encounters Victor Frankenstein in the icy waters through which Walton hopes to discover passage to the North Pole, Frankenstein's own story comes to dominate the novel, and the frame narrative of Walton's expedition moves to the sidelines. As a result, the early descriptions of the "monster" Victor has created are told only by Victor himself, whose disgust with the creature becomes the reader's first emotional barometer for evaluating the character.
This changes dramatically in chapter 10, in which Victor encounters his creation. While Victor expresses rage at the murders the creature has committed, the creature, in turn, demands that Victor hold himself accountable for his choice to abandon his own creation upon first sight. In a directly stated allegory for human paternal abandonment, the creature tells the story of his own confused and terrified quasi-infancy, in which, without his creator, he fumbles into the nearby forest alone:

It was dark when I awoke; I felt cold also, and half frightened, as it were, instinctively, finding myself so desolate. . . . I was a poor, helpless, miserable wretch; I knew, and could distinguish, nothing; but feeling pain invade me on all sides, I sat down and wept.

Upon encountering this, the novel's reader—perhaps for the first time—is asked to evaluate the impact of Victor's abandonment on his vulnerable pseudo-child.
The novel further makes room for sympathy for the creature as he discovers the dangerous way humans respond to his physical body, whereupon he hides in the cottage of a French family: a brother and sister named Felix and Agatha; their aging father; and, later, Felix's wife. As he slowly learns language by eavesdropping on their conversations, the creature develops a strong attachment to the family. He begins to crave acceptance from them, and fantasizes that he can earn—through hard study—a place in their hearts:

My thoughts now became more active, and I longed to discover the motives and feelings of these lovely creatures; I was inquisitive to know why Felix appeared so miserable and Agatha so sad. I thought (foolish wretch!) that it might be in my power to restore happiness to these deserving people. . . . I formed in my imagination a thousand pictures of presenting myself to them, and their reception of me. I imagined that they would be disgusted, until, by my gentle demeanour and conciliating words, I should first win their favour and afterwards their love.

This combination of intellectual maturation and deep affection for the family introduces to the reader a level of emotional complexity in the creature which contradicts the earlier portrayals of him as wholly demonic. In chapter 15, when the creature is attacked by the family during his attempt to bond with them, his initial pain at being abandoned by Victor is redoubled. Using the notebook he found among Victor's possessions in his first hours of life, the creature begins to plan systematic and murderous revenge against his creator.
This turn toward violence, while not exonerated by the novel, merits evaluation in the context of the creature's fuller emotional landscape. The novel ends with the creature, in the wake of Frankenstein's death, expressing deep remorse for his actions and entangled in his complicated love for Victor and anger toward himself:

But it is true that I am a wretch. I have murdered the lovely and the helpless; I have strangled the innocent as they slept and grasped to death his throat who never injured me or any other living thing. I have devoted my creator, the select specimen of all that is worthy of love and admiration among men, to misery; I have pursued him even to that irremediable ruin. There he lies, white and cold in death. You hate me, but your abhorrence cannot equal that with which I regard myself. I look on the hands which executed the deed; I think on the heart in which the imagination of it was conceived and long for the moment when these hands will meet my eyes, when that imagination will haunt my thoughts no more.

The novel does not neatly tie up the moral conclusion of this complicated relationship. Both characters leave the story in the novel's final moments (one through death and one through self-imposed exile), unable to undo the choices they have made and anguished by the consequences of those choices. In this way, in both their sympathetic attributes and their unforgivable ones, Victor and the creature end the novel most closely resembling one another.

How do citizens find their matching spouses in The Giver?

Jonas's uniform, highly structured society is founded on the principles of Sameness and tightly controlled by the Committee of Elders. The Committee of Elders is responsible for making every significant decision in the community, which includes controlling the birthrate, matching spouses, organizing households, and deciding specific occupations for each citizen in the community. In Jonas's society, independence and human agency are virtually nonexistent. Citizens do not get to choose their spouses and must apply for a spouse. After applying for a spouse, the Committee of Elders carefully examines the citizen's personality traits and compatibility factors in order to choose the perfect, most compatible partner for them. The citizens have absolutely no say in who they marry and the Matching of Spouses is controlled by the Committee of Elders. Once a couple is matched, they are monitored for three years before they are allowed to apply for a child, which is also out of their control and chosen by the Committee of Elders.

In The Giver, everything is controlled, from what jobs the citizens have to how many children they can raise. One example of this is the ceremony called the Matching of Spouses. The Committee of Elders, who run the society, oversee these kinds of ceremonies. Just like they determine what job each twelve-year-old is best suited to, they also assign spouses. The Committee of Elders considers each person's personality, as well as "disposition, energy level, intelligence, and interests." A person can apply for a spouse, and it may take a long time before the Committee of Elders decides upon a suitable match. They want the husband and wife to complement each other.
Once a pair has been married and observed for three years, they may apply for children. They can be granted one male child and one female child, who are birthed by Birth Mothers.
In this society, citizens don't have choice, because the Committee fears that people will choose wrong. They cannot choose who they marry. Their spouse is assigned to them.

After Rikki-tikki-tavi kills Karait, how does he feel?

Prior to killing Karait, the young mongoose named Rikki-tikki-tavi has encountered the big black cobra Nag and his "wife," Nagaina. He is feeling quite proud of himself at this time and is increasing in confidence because he is able to avoid an attack from the rear by Nagaina.
Rudyard Kipling spends time in this story from The Jungle Book developing the character of Rikki-tikki-tavi. He explains that it is the character of a mongoose to not be afraid of anything.

It is the hardest thing in the world to frighten a mongoose, because he is eaten up from nose to tail with curiosity. The motto of all the mongoose family is "Run and find out," and Rikki-tikki was a true mongoose.

Rikki-tikki-tavi was raised by his mother to know the purpose of his life was to kill and eat snakes. She also taught him how desirable it is to live in the house of men, so Rikki quickly bonds with the family that saves him.
After his encounter with Nag and Nagaina, Rikki encounters Karait. The narrator tells readers that Karait is more dangerous than Nag and Nagaina because his body is so small. If Rikki misses or strikes Karait in the wrong place, he could die. Before the encounter, Kipling explains that the idea that a mongoose knows about a magic herb to protect it from a snake bite is a myth. All they have is their courage and quickness in defense against an attack from a snake.

He went away for a dust bath under the castor oil bushes, while Teddy's father beat the dead Karait. "What is the use of that?" thought Rikki-tikki. "I have settled it all"; and then Teddy's mother picked him up from the dust and hugged him, crying that he had saved Teddy from death, and Teddy's father said that he was a providence, and Teddy looked on with big scared eyes. Rikki-tikki was rather amused at all the fuss, which, of course, he did not understand.

This passage explains how Rikki is feeling after killing Karait. He doesn't understand why Teddy's father strikes at the snake, because he knows with total confidence that he killed the snake himself. He also doesn't understand Teddy's mother's crying. The parents think that it has been divinely ordained that Rikki has come into their lives to keep their family from the danger of snakes. But to Rikki, he's simply doing what mongooses do—and that is killing snakes. He thinks about eating Karait after killing him, which his mother taught him to do, but the family is keeping him well fed with eggs, bananas, and raw meat, so he is satisfied, and decides that eating the snake will only slow him down.

After he has killed Karait, we are told that Rikki-tikki-tavi is "thoroughly enjoying himself." He doesn't seem to experience any guilt or remorse for killing the snake. On the contrary, however, we are told that the snake is very dangerous and could have done significant damage to the family. Rikki-tikki-tavi seems to draw impulsively upon his instincts as a mongoose, knowing that he should not eat the whole snake because this would make him full and would slow him down. Instead, he springs onto the snake's back and delivers a bite which paralyzes him, and then leaves the snake. Feeling that he has settled the matter, he is puzzled by Teddy's mother's screams, but enjoys the subsequent petting and fuss he receives for having dispatched the dangerous snake and saved Teddy from death. He doesn't understand why he is being petted, as to him the killing of the snake was simply instinctive and not a valorous act, but he enjoys it all the same.

Why do you think the Akkadians and other invaders adopted Sumer's culture?

I believe that the Akkadians adopted Sumerian culture because it was considered to be more sophisticated and advanced compared to theirs. Sumer was viewed as the place where civilization began. Sumerians had developed a writing system and took part in the development of architecture, sciences, and mathematics. For example, they built walled cities that were characterized by public buildings, unconventional and innovative water systems, and agricultural land. In addition, Sumerians had the cuneiform writing system, which was later adopted and used to develop the Akkadian writing system.
Akkadians moved to the south of Mesopotamia, where they took control over Sumer. As with many invasions throughout history, it is likely that the Akkadians adopted Sumerian culture because it made them more powerful and dominant compared to their neighbors in the region.

How do the constant bird references fit into Cervantes's theme of Chicano identity?

"Beneath the Shadow of the Freeway" is a poem by Lorna Dee Cervantes. Cervantes was born in San Francisco with Mexican and Native American ancestry. Much of her writing deals with themes of identity, especially as she considers what it means to be Chicano.
In this poem, she talks about her mother and grandmother, and the different advice they gave her. Birds are often a symbol of freedom. In her poem, I believe that they they can symbolize beauty, hope, and/or renewal.
The first reference to birds comes in the third section with the mention of seagulls. Before this, at the end of the second section she says:

Myself: I could never decide.

She then describes the seagulls as having "indecisive beaks." Based on these lines, it might indicate that the speaker sees herself in the seagulls, and possibly connects the flocks of birds to the "flock" of the women in her family.
The male mockingbirds in the third section are a way for the speaker's grandmother to talk about the missing men in her life without having to focus on the negative: the beautiful image of mockingbirds "singing" for their wives is used in contrast to mention of the drunken man who left.
The image of mockingbirds returns again at the end of the fifth section, and again it feels like an attempt to find beauty despite the pain.
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poets/lorna-dee-cervantes

How does the story "A Rose for Emily" exemplify modernism?

The story exemplifies the tension between the New South and the Old, between a world of certainty and order and the much more chaotic modernist world, where all the old uncertainties have been undermined.
We see this tension illustrated right throughout the story. Miss Emily represents the old world, and she is placed on a pedestal by the townsfolk as the last surviving link to a supposedly more gracious past. Yet modernity cannot be stalled forever. The town needs to function and taxes raised for that precise purpose. This means that Miss Emily must contribute her fair share. However, because of her exalted status in town, Emily is able to cut a sweetheart deal with the local authorities which means she doesn't have to pay any taxes. That's definitely a win for the Old South.
Another win is Miss Emily's being able to buy rat poison without specifying the precise purpose for doing so. Modern laws require her to do precisely that, but Emily triumphs in her brief battle of wills with the pharmacist and once again gets a pass.
Modernism eventually triumphs over the forces of the Old South, but by then it's too late. It's only when the source of that revolting stench emanating from the Grierson residence is finally revealed that the modern world triumphs over the old. We can see this as a prime illustration of a key aim of modernist literature, namely to reveal what's really lurking beneath the surface of the ostensibly ordered, respectable world in which we live.

In multimedia, watch the video "Woman Slaps Man, Rejects Advances." Then compose an analysis of any intentional torts present in the video. If you find that an intentional tort was committed, please indicate who committed the tort, the criteria for that tort to be successful, and how the actor's actions fit the requirements of the tort. https://youtu.be/WBflMuarvk4

According to the Legal Information Institute (LII) at Cornell, "common intentional torts are battery, assault, false imprisonment, trespass to land, trespass to chattels, and intentional infliction of emotional distress."
Here we definitely have a battery by the man against the woman. The elements of battery are (1) harmful or offensive, (2) contact, and (3) without consent. The woman is clearly offended by the man's "familiarities" in caressing her cheek and repulses his overture forcefully. With battery, the contact need not be harmful. If someone spits on a purse being held by a woman, that could be a battery. The contact must have been intentional; if the man had had a seizure and had touched the woman involuntarily, that would not be a battery.
However, when the woman slaps the man, was that also a battery? It was intentional and harmful contact, but in being so familiar, did the man consent to the possibility that he might be rejected with a slap, or did he waive his right to complain? An argument can be made for either battery or not against the man.
We may also have an assault, but only if the man intended that the woman fear or feel threatened by his contact. According to LII, assault "is generally defined as intentionally putting another person in reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact." A successful argument would show that the woman felt some fear or apprehension as the man moved forward to complete his contact. Again, there are arguments for and against.
We should also consider the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), not only by the man against the woman, but also by the woman against the man, because the woman tells the man she "once ruined a man's career," which implies she could also ruin his if she chose. According to the LII, the elements of IIED are that (1) the defendant acts, (2) does so outrageously, (3) the act is done for the purpose of causing harm so severe that it affects the plaintiff's mental health, and (4) the plaintiff's mental health is so affected by those acts. Here, the woman has indeed acted, but it is not clear that the other elements have been met. Likewise, the man appears to be aggressively flirting, but it would be hard to prove that he intended to cause mental harm to the woman.
A good law school answer to this question will go through all of the elements of battery, assault, and IIED and explain why the elements have or have not been met. But because the question asks about "intentional torts," an excellent answer would also briefly address the other intentional torts (false imprisonment, trespass to land and chattels) and why they do not apply in this case.

What is the significance of the ointment gift from Haymitch in The Hunger Games?

At this point in the plot, Katniss has been trapped in a tree by the Careers with a tracker jacker nest over her head. She has been badly burned and does not have much hope of escape or survival in her precarious situation. During the anthem, Katniss tries to saw the limb which holds the tracker jacker nest but doesn't quite finish before the anthem's conclusion. She slides back to her fork in the tree when she finds a gift: the ointment.
This is significant because it gives her hope in a couple of ways. First, she had begun to feel that Haymitch had given up on her. Now she is certain that he is outside the arena fighting for her and with her, securing gifts on her behalf. Second, it provides insight that she has a base of support outside the arena. This ointment is almost miraculous; it heals injuries on contact almost immediately. When Katniss rubs it on her wounds, it "transform[s] all the angry red patches to a soft baby-skin pink" and helps her leg wound as well, though that one takes a bit more medicine because it burned deeper.
Katniss realizes the extreme cost of such medicine and knows that "many sponsors have contributed to buy this one tiny pot." Since it provides her the physical ability to continue in the games, it is "priceless" to Katniss.

What is the purpose of the Sigemond and Heremod digressions?

The poet uses Sigemond and his killing of the dragon as a positive comparison with Beowulf even though the results of their respective fights are vastly different—Sigemond kills his dragon and takes the dragon's hoard whereas Beowulf kills the dragon and saves his kingdon, but dies in the process. The main point of the Heremod digression, however, is to point up the difference between a bad king, who fell victim to "floods of sorrow" and betrayed his duties as king, and Beowulf, who has already shown his ability to protect his people and his stronghold (Heorot). A secondary but perhaps equally important reason for the digression is to discuss kingship. Even though Beowulf's fight with Grendel appears as the centerpiece of the poem—the action that readers remember—it is just one episode in the long life of a king who ultimately is known and loved for having created a powerful and peaceful kingdom for the Geats and who dies protecting his people from evil (the dragon).
https://www.owleyes.org/text/beowulf/read/xiii

When was King Lear originally performed and published?

The first known performance of King Lear was on St. Stephen's Day (26 December) in 1606. It was first published in 1608, and also appears in the First Folio of 1623, a collection of 36 of Shakespeare's plays entitled Mr. William Shakespeare's Comedies, Histories, & Tragedies, edited by Shakespeare's colleagues John Heminges and Henry Condell.

What were impacts of Berlin conference on Europe?

There were two Berlin conferences that had impacts on European history. The more significant of the two occurred from 1884 to 1885. It dealt with the division of Africa into spheres of influence, occupation, and colonization. The second, far smaller one, took place in early 1954 and it attempted to determine the fate of occupied Germany and Austria after World War II (1939–1945).
Fourteen nations met at the first conference in Berlin. The fate of Africa was determined largely by four of the nations: Germany, France, Britain, and Portugal. These were the main colonial powers in Africa. Belgium and Italy would eventually colonize parts of Africa. The result of the conference was a disaster for Africa. The continent was divided arbitrarily in ways that did not reflect its ethnic or linguistic differences. African nations did not regain their sovereignty until after World War II.
After the defeat of Germany in 1945, that nation and Austria were divided into zones of occupation between America, Britain, France, and the USSR. In 1954, these four nations tried to agree on the political fate of occupied Germany and Austria. However, because of the Cold War, there was no agreement. This second conference ended in stalemate.

Describe the encounter between Beowulf and Grendel's mother.

Following the death of her son, Grendel's mother attacks Herot, kills Esher, and flees with her son's claw. Beowulf follows the monster to the entrance of her lair, which is at the bottom of a dangerous, monster-infested lake. He proceeds to put on woven mail armor to protect him from Grendel's mother's claws and leaps into the lake with Unferth's sword named Hrunting. Grendel's mother then grabs onto Beowulf and drags him into her underwater lair, which is actually a battle hall.
Beowulf initially strikes Grendel's mother's head with Hrunting, which does not harm the monster at all. He then throws away his ineffective sword and proceeds to fight Grendel's mother with his bare hands. The two engage in a long struggle, and Beowulf begins to tire. When Beowulf stumbles, Grendel's mother manages to stab him with a knife, but his chain-mail saves his life.
Beowulf then spots a magical ancient sword from the days of the giants on the wall of the battle hall and uses it to kill Grendel's mother by striking her in the neck with the sword. After Beowulf kills Grendel's mother, he proceeds to decapitate her and swims to the surface of the lake.

Why does Marian hide the apple?

Marian hides the apple before entering the old ladies' home. This tells us an awful lot about what kind of person she is. For Marian is a very selfish individual. She only visits old ladies' homes and similar institutions to gain points as a Campfire Girl. She doesn't turn up at these places out of the goodness of her heart or because she wants to help people, but simply to gain credit for being charitable. Her selfish motivations are reflected in the act of hiding the apple. Marian doesn't want to share the apple with any of the ladies in the home. They're already taking enough of her time; she'll be damned if they're getting any of her food as well.
The impurity of Marian's intentions is illustrated further when she emerges from the old ladies' home after a truly uncomfortable experience there. Marian retrieves her hidden apple and takes a large bite out of it. Just as Eve in the Garden of Eden sinned by eating of the Tree of Knowledge, so Marian has sinned through her selfishness and lack of concern for any of the old ladies at the home.