English Essay- Lesson 105(Mark Twain)

Would you read more of Mark Twain's writings even if they were not assigned in a course? Why or why not?"


I would most definitely read more of Twain's writings, whether or not they were assigned to me in school. Personally, I find his works highly amusing and interesting, even though they are so old. With what I've glimpsed so far, I think they are exceptional and intriguing pieces of art. Mark Twain had the fine gift of expertly attracting his readers/fans with each and every story that he composed. It's nearly impossible, I think, to become bored whilst lost in one of his tales. They have a timeless air about them, one that doesn't become faded and outdated even in the modern day. This is why his books have been popular best-sellers throughout the course of three long centuries.

I specifically thought his monologue on the chambermaids was funny, as well as the dissertation on Franklin's aphorisms. He humorously discusses how Benjamin Franklin's lifestyle was modeled by many families, much to the distress of their sons. He uses himself as a reference, saying how much he detested the rigorous rules he was subjected to. Twain recalls that as a young boy, he thought his parents were too strict and overworked him. This, he claimed, was all due to what they had read in Poor Richard's Almanac. They followed Ben Franklin's guidelines to a T, believing his precepts to be the preeminent solution for their son. Like many others in their time, they found no fault with taking advice from this respectable, successful man.

It was their earnest desire that their son should turn out just as wonderfully as Franklin, once he was grown to adulthood. They thought there was only one definite way for him to flourish, as they wished him to. Wisely taking to heart every nugget of insight from the learned, knowledgable Franklin was the key.Mark Twain was quick to point out that he saw little outcome from these well-meant efforts. He didn't see any improvement or difference, as a result of the extra hours he spent in tireless study and endless toil. He makes it abundantly clear that nothing was accomplished, but does so in a classic and comical tradition.


The short sketch on bachelorhood was the other anecdote that I found hilarious. It is a brief look into the lives of working bachelors and their trials with chambermaids. Twain loudly expresses his detest for these hotel maids he encountered in his business travels. He tells how they consistently fumbled with his things while cleaning, rearranging them in the most aggravating manner. His complaints sounded a lot like those of a husband, annoyed with his meddlesome wife. It paints a perfect picture of how men and women have completely contrasting views on home organization.

Twain makes himself look like a helpless, agitated man, at the mercy of these cumbersome domestic goddesses. Always out to make his life miserable, he'd concluded that there was nothing but trouble when it came to them. He repeatedly recounts different instances, where he came home to find his boarding room in total disarray(from his perspective). I feel sure many a bachelor in Twain's time could relate to his tribulations.

Mark Twain was a witty and remarkably intelligent character, with a knack for invoking laughter in all his readers. People appreciated the comfort and distraction of merriment in the awful aftermath of the Civil War drama. It was a balm to their troubled, weary hearts to relax in the company of his novels.


So I would infer that Mark Twain's publications were hugely enjoyable to me and I would love to explore more of them in the future.

Lesson 105 Review Essay(not yet completed)

1. The tenth and eleventh centuries brought an onset of issues to the church, with debilitating conditions increasing within it's borders. The level of discipline was horrendous among the monks and only continued to go downhill, as time progressed. Bishops, abbots, and priests were chosen by laymen, who were not qualified to make this crucial decision(this was known as lay control.) This was evident by the fact that they appointed some notoriously awful popes. One such example was Pope John XII, who ruled from 955 to 964. He was a godless, cruel and depraved human being, certainly not deserving of his position at all. Pope John was known for indulging in many forms of immoral behavior, including the rape of two of his own sisters!
He also toasted to the devil himself, murdered a cardinal, and attempted sex with women visiting his domain. What was intended as a holy palace soon became a foul site and a brothel. Pope John even took a warped delight in conducting orgies, some of which took place at the holy grave-places of Saints Peter and Paul. If Pope John wasn't an indication of the the laymen's incompetence, then I don't know what is. Their conclusions were based solely on politics and never for religious reasons. They were incapable of making wise, appropriate selections, especially as they were never meant to do so. A general amount of hostilities went on between aristocratic families as well. They were all venturing, along with some emperors, for the papal office.

Pope Leo IX made some attempts to make amends for the terrible events going on in the church. He was a follower of moderate reform, where he tried desperately to put a stop to simony and clerical marriage(Simony was the illegal sale of church offices and clerical marriage was the marriage of the clergy.) He firmly believed in the legitimate appointment of popes and bishops, ones who were actually respectable applicants. Pope Leo himself rose to his status in the proper way, to show he wasn't a hypocrite in his conviction. However he still didn't deal with the root problem;which was limiting the laymen's ability to appoint church officials at all.

2.Pope Gregory VII and King Henry IV had a heated disagreement, over the roles of church and state during this time. It was an intense conflict, to say the very least, one that brought dire consequences to King Henry. Pope Gregory was passionate about reinstating the pope's power and also ending the practice of lay control. He thought it was scandalous that they had been allowed to decide on bishops, without holding a church office. So he set out to stop what he looked upon as a highly inappropriate custom.
He also wanted to put his foot down and end the act of lay investiture. This was where laymen would endow bishops with their symbols for spiritual authority. King Henry, on the contrary, was astounded when he found out Gregory's plans for change. It was his opinion to accept ritual as it was, and not generate radical reform. In rebellion to Gregory, King Henry went ahead and invested a new bishop in Milan, Italy. The Pope was in favor of keeping the old bishop, who was instated by a insurgent movement. He was apt to warn Henry of his impending punishment, but the king recklessly persisted. Naturally, afterwards, he was overthrown by Pope Gregory at the Council of Worms. Gregory even went as far as to liberate the King's subjects from loyalty.Realizing the gravity of his error, Henry's attitude became contrite and broken after some time.

Desperate for restitution, he traveled in the bitter snow of the Alps to reach Canossa. After three long nights, he was at last able to retain Gregory's forgiveness. Shocking as it was, he fell right back to his old ways after recanting and being granted pardon! The pope proceeded to excommunicate him once again, for such impudence. Eventually Gregory won the battle between them, returning the papacy to it's rightful spot of authority.
This bitter fight between Henry and Gregory was symbolic, because it paved a fine line between church and state. It showed that their roles were not to be confused with each other,where one would dominate completely over the other.






3. Christendom during the 1100s was a universal religion that overshadowed every part of the world. It was an understand pact between people everywhere, something that brought them all together in cohesive integration or "unity'. Evidence of this brotherhood abounded everywhere. Monasteries would frequently send their monks from one country to another, to minister to people. The gospel was spread quickly throughout the globe in this manner.

What were the problems besetting the Church in the tenth and eleventh centuries? What was "moderate reform"?

(2) Describe the events that took place during the conflict between Pope Gregory VII and Henry IV. What was at stake?

(3) What was Christendom?

Western Civ. Week 20

(1) Describe the ninth- and tenth-century invasions. Apart from the physical destruction involved, how did they affect life in the West?

(2) Describe feudalism and manorialism.

(1).The 9th and 10th centuries were a disastrous time for the Carolingian Empire, one of uncontrolled insanity and destruction. Pandemonium was dominant throughout western Europe, with frequent attacks from three primary groups, the Muslims, Magyars, and the Vikings. These assaults were particularly violent and brutal, when attempted by the warlike, vicious Vikings. This fierce, tireless tribe dealt out terror and villainy without fail, leaving a trail of bloodshed in their wake. They became such a prevalent part of the scene, that a new prayer was added to the Catholic church"From the fury of the Norseman, good Lord deliver us." The inhabitants of these fear stricken provinces were beside themselves to know what to do. The kings were powerless to protect the citizens of their dominion, completely undependable for aid or provision.They were weak and unstable, exerting no measure of their authority. Order was dissolved altogether, and it was soon the norm to live in constant alarm and distress. Everyone was searching vainly for direction and peace, in light of the chaos surrounding them from every quarter. The Muslims overwhelmed them in Spain, whilst the Vikings were raiding cities throughout France,and the Magyars were invading Germany and Northern Italy.

The Vikings or Norseman were a group of Scandinavians, known for being wild and uncivilized to say the least. They were notorious for their merciless attitude, burning down cities and ravaging the towns to take their gold and silver. These experienced warriors also forced their victims into slavery The Muslims, who came from Africa, were also well practiced in the art of looting. They were eager to kidnap people in the places they encountered, in addition to stealing spoils. The Magyars played their own role in the misery of these raids, by torching French monasteries and bringing home the plunder.












(2) Feudalism was one of two methods or systems that people resorted to, in their desperate search for security
during the invasions. It was an exchange between a local townsperson and a member of the nobility, commonly referred to as a Lord. The Lord would give a portion of his land to a designated person who would agree to work on it as a vassal, or a holder of land.The vassal was given a land grant that afforded him his income and expected to give guidance to his Lord.  As a trade-off, he would be protected by the Lord from the ruthless tribes of Vikings, Muslims etc., as they swept throughout the countryside. Lords were specifically known for ensuring that widow, orphans and the poor were taken care of.

Manorialism was similar to feudalism, but instead was a relationship between a "serf" and a Lord. The serf would maintain the land of his Lord, in return receiving food and protection. Their basic needs were fulfilled in abundance, as long as they farmed and kept the Lord's land in fine condition. 

Week 19 Review- short essay

1) What do you learn about Islam from the Koran selections you read?

2) What kind of person emerges from the Procopius portrayal of Justinian?

1. The religion of Islam is a solely monotheistic religion. Above everything and everyone, Allah is to be revered and respected no matter what. Under no circumstances is any follower of Islam to disgrace the name of their god, or to lose faith in him. Allah is seen as all-knowing and aware of every daily activity of his followers. Nothing slips past his omnipotent eye, and he is swift to punish those who dishonor him. He is also quick to reward men who are loyal and convert the "lost'

to the way of Allah. It is strongly emphasized that Islam is the only true,benefical religion to adopt. It is also the primary goal of every Islamic believer to further the cause of spreading their creed. They are expected to give money and time up for the purpose of charity. This is one of the fundamental pillars of Islamic tradition, that of "giving in charity"

Another core block in the foundation is the supremacy of Allah over the entire earth. In the mind of Muslims, the existence of other gods does not occur to them. Muhammad, the founder of Islam delivered the Koran from the very mouth of Allah, as his messenger. It was directly dictated to him and is considered the only legitimate source of truth, the full embodiment 

of Allah's teaching. Muslims shape their lives around the Koran and abide strictly by it's precepts and standards of morality. 

They don't dare rebel against Allah, as this would surely result in severe punishment and eternal damnation. Yet Allah will bestow generous blessings and provisions in the afterlife, to those who keep true to the path. For those who go astray or lead others to do so, they can be assured of their demise. It is permissible also for Muslims to personally assist in the murder of such traitors, as evidenced in Surah(chapter) 47:5.

The self-redemption of a soul by good works is the final point I will touch on. Sins can be abolished if one will simply perform small acts of penance, so that Allah will save them. Repentance is another journey to forgiveness from transgressions as well."Righteous deeds" are definitely deemed an acceptable method to the efficient removal of evil from the heart of a human being.

2. Procopius's paints a picture of a lawless, inhuman man in the form of the Byzantine emperor Justinian I. Although his outward appearance is shown positively, inwardly he was a villain and a monster. He dealt harshly as an emperor with unfair measures, handing out cruel punishments without a fair trial to his subjects. He would take anything a person said against another and run with it, to the point of execution or imprisonment. Justinian was a professional liar, notorious for being dishonest and not upholding the veracity. He was also very fickle and undependable, never in the same frame of mind for a given amount of time. He was prone to lash out at someone he had only recently applauded. Eager to kill and annihilate, Justinian would plunder cities, take prisoners, and enslave persons for no valid reason. It seems probable that perhaps he found some warped amusement from the torture & pain of other humans. He never considered the outright scandalous nature of his behavior, or felt any guilt about how he treated anyone.

He exemplified, or rather was the epitome of a man who took advantage of his prestige and position. He was heedless and impulsive, creating chaos in his empire. While his intention was to bring order, his acts and laws were instead stepping-stones to mayhem. Under his dominion, there were inevitable riots and revolts, because of his horrible decisions. He outraged many in his kingdom, and soon had a reputation for being strongly disliked.

 Justinian I

Lesson 90 - Week 18 Review

1) What was the Carolingian Renaissance, and why was it significant?

The Carolingian Renaissance was a period of "rebirth" and reconstruction during the reign of Charlemagne. This great king of the Franks made many tireless efforts to rebuild his empire to an orderly and honorable estate. His goal was that the realm no longer be uncivilized and undivided, rampaged by Barbarians. He was passionate for education, establishing many schools at monasteries and abbeys. Primarily, he sought for the proper tutelage of the clergy and laity. But it was his desire that an education should be a accessible resource, both for the rich and the poor. Charlemagne was a Christian and wanted the Germanic groups under his control to convert to this faith. Yet he also desired to retain ancient Roman literature and architecture in his endeavors, without cherishing their pagan beliefs. This was the heart of this revival, to renew Rome's timeless, classic and beautiful works. Their Latin language was kept alive, thanks to the masterly reprinting of it by philosophers/scholars. Namely, Alcuin of York and Paul the Deacon offered their services, copying out manuscripts for Charlemagne. He found monks who might complete the task of finding/writing out the most accurate Biblical texts.

Carolingian "minuscule" was also an enormous achievement, because it created a much more intelligible form of writing. Before it's creation, most documents were very painful and difficult to read. They were oftentimes composed all in capital letters, or without spaces between words! One can imagine that people had little motivation to read such things.Afterward, however, there was a integrated system of writing style that everyone in Europe came to employ. Scholars could better comprehend each other's translations, even if they came from different parts of the kingdom.

Charlemagne also had an impact with Carolingian architecture, when he built a court chapel, the Palace of Aechen. With the help of talented artists, this chapel was modeled and constructed after the style of the old Byzantine Empire. This palace still exists today and is the finest relic of Carolingian architecture. 

3) Who was the Venerable Bede, and why was he significant?

St. Bede was a Roman Catholic and English monk, born in 673. He was trained at the early age of 7, at the Benedictine monastery of St.Peter. He is largely renown because he wrote the Ecclesiastical History of the English People. This was an impressive account of Christian churches in Britain, which Bede published when he was 59. It would come to be a popular,reliable reference on the Anglo-Saxon history and make Bede the "Father of English history". 

The Venerable Bede opened people's eyes to a time period in English history that they'd been ignorant of before. He translated more than forty books, spanning topics like nature, astronomy, and poetry. The first "martyrology" was the brain-child of Bede's, a retelling of the lives of saints. 

English Paper: James Fenimore Cooper, "The Deerslayer"

500 words: "How fair was Twain's critique of Cooper's literary style?""

The Deerslayer story was flat out the most boring, confusing, and strange story that I've ever read. It was very difficult to decipher what on the earth the point of the story was, or why anything was taking place. There wasn't any clearly defined plot, or basis for the story whatsoever. As far as good writing goes, it was certainly not a page-turner that would ignite any excitement in readers at all. There isn't so much as a glimmer of purpose in this short novel, that would make someone keep on reading. Usually in a book, there is some figurative "mountain" to be climbed, or obstacle to be conquered. This gives the tale drive and grounds. A talented writer knows how to captivate and hold his readers attention, by employing such an effective method. 

James Fenimore Cooper is the last person I would think of, in terms of a gifted and skilled author. His novel made little to no sense, and is not remotely appealing. It blows my mind that people actually paid to read this appalling work. I can't for the life of me understand what piqued their interest in Cooper's series of Leatherstocking Tales. Yet, bizarre as it is, they continued to buy each accompanying book in the series. Without fail, his devoted fans would devour what they probably thought were masterpieces. 

I am definitely on the side of Mark Twain, in his harsh and rather amusing criticisms of Cooper's awful writing. He is adamant and clear about the negative opinion he harbored towards this god-awful specimen. I would agree whole-heartedly, with the proof he offers as to the horrible state of this book. He professes that in order to compose an excellent novel, there needs to be straightforwardness. It should be obvious what the idea behind the story is, which is for sure not the case. As he says, quote, "A tale should accomplish something or arrive somewhere." It's just two men,Hurry and Deerslayer, wandering in the woods, completely isolated from the civilized world. James doesn't even imply why they are out there, hunting and trapping in Indian territory. He does say that Hurry is intent on visiting Tom Hutter and hopes to marry his beautiful daughter, Judith. This is mainly because this strong, proud man hopes to inherit some of Hutter's land, in this wilderness. 

So this could perhaps be the hint of a sort of "plot", with a possible romance between Judith and Hurry. But, again, nothing in the story is simple or easy to understand. If anything, the theme of Deerslayer should be vagueness. Another specific criticism that Twain has of Cooper is how poorly constructed the characters are. There is little in their personalities that can be related to, or that a person could identify with. It's also not clear who's the good and bad guys are, or who we should be "rooting" for. The people in the story are dull and undeveloped and have no plausible reason for existing.

Twain points out these and many other flaws in the story, calling them Cooper's "literary offenses". He humorously jokes that of 115 possible rules, James Fenimore has broken 114 of them. Obviously, this is an exaggeration he's making in trying to get his intentions across. 
Basically, he's sarcastically proclaiming that the book is terrible and not worth reading at all. 

Western Civilization Short Essay: Two Topics

1) Discuss the shift in power from the Merovingians to the Carolingians. Why did it occur, and how?

(2) What was the significance of the Papal-Frankish Alliance? What were two factors that helped make the alliance possible?

1.  The Merovingians were extremely incompetent in ruling the Kingdom of the Franks, lacking ambition and drive to accomplish anything. They fought constantly amongst themselves and could not be relied upon to be good leaders.There was an epidemic of brothers and cousins murdering each other in cold blood, chaos that ensued with the death of Clovis(their king).In the seventh century the Frankish army even committed the atrocity of sacrificing women and children to appease the spirits of battle. In addition, many of the Merovingian Dynasty rulers were incapable mental defectives and children!

The Carolingian Dynasty's members had the prominent office of "mayor of the palace". This position was a lot like prime minister, or executive over governmental affairs. The Carolingians were frustrated, because they were in essence doing almost all the King's work. He was only holding his title in theory, without any power. The Merovingian kings were only performing their ceremonial duties. Pepin, a member of the dynasty, eventually decided to appeal to a higher authority for assistance. This was because he couldn't directly claim the rights, without being accused of stealing them illegally. He went to Pope Stephen and inquired if the role of king might be handed over to him and to the Carolingians. His premise was that his peers were far more deserving of control of the kingdom.The pope was gracious in bestowing his blessing, and agreed to grant Pepin's request. 

The Frankish kingdom was then handed over to the Carolingian Dynasty, which brought peace and order to Europe. Pepin the Short was crowned king by Pope Stephen II in 751, which ushered in the monarchy of the Carolingians.

2. The Papal-Frankish alliance was a deal made between the papacy(the popes) and the kingdom of the Franks.The Franks were a note-worthy group of people, because they were the only Barbarian group who converted instantly to the Catholic faith. Other Barbarian groups became followers of the Arian religion, later changing to Catholicism.

 The popes were in dire need of protection from their enemies, The Lombards. The rulers of the Eastern Byzantine Empire couldn't be depended on for security any longer. The Byzantine emperors also made the popes lives miserable, by meddling in affairs of the church. In their desperation, the popes turned to the Western Frankish kingdom for help.The Franks agreed to do so, in exchange for the popes help in another matter. Pepin wanted to make the Carolingians the legitimate kings of the Kingdom of Franks. It was impossible for him to achieve this unless he procured the popes guidance. So, there was an exchange made between the Franks and the popes. Pepin was victorious in defeating the Lombards, winning over their territory which he gave to the papacy. This land would later be referred to as the "papal states". Pope Stephen was eager to give his permission, in order for Pepin to gain control of the Frankish empire. In this way, both parties lended a hand to the others, and were equally rewarded in their individual pursuits.