change in the way they are viewed by international public opinion.
This report states that illegal government killings are bad, that they should be stopped, and that public opinion on the matter has changed, however it neglects to mention any possible solutions as to how to deal with the situation, and stop the killings. Merely looking into the matter after it has happened, does nothing to stop the killings.
spent last year attacking us instead of attacking inflation.
While Thatcher intends this as a sharp criticism of the labor government that preceded her. It is also a critique on the way elected officials in governments routinely act. There are numerous examples throughout history, (and not just in England) where politicians spend all their time belittling each other, and/or running for office that they do not bother to try and solve the nation's problems.
Hochdeutsch
This translates to high German.
Translation courtesy of Google translate.
That American soldier wasn't born, the spy thriller he's reading wasn't written, and we both thought the Wall would he demolished within a few days.
I think this line really illustrates the duration of the cold war period. "That American soldier wasn't born" indicates the long duration of the cold war conflict. "the spy thriller he's reading" not only provides evidence for the presence and popularity of the genre, and also helps to illustrate the duration of the war. And the reference to the wall that everyone thought "would be demolished in a few days" really drives home the sheer duration of the standoff.
and there is nothing for which they have less respect than for military weakness.
Is this observation why the Cold War standoff lasted as long as it did, or is it why Stalin and the Russians never attempted to attack the U. S., Britain, and their allies?
biscuit
A biscuit is a crunchy cooky, that is often served with tea. It is not the doughy bread roll that Americans refer to as a biscuit.
"If there's one thing I like it's a chocolate biscuit with my tea."
If anything indicates the British carrying on with their lives despite the war it is this. This casual statement, a complaint about the lack of a biscuit, shows how much the British tried to carry on, and how successful they were at carrying on during the war.
So Smith learned not to over-indulge his sensitivity on seeing death, or torn limb and flesh. His job was with the spark of life that survived.
I think that while Smith may have gotten used to the violence he saw, and worked to keep it from his mind in order to save others. I think these events must still have affected him. He simply learned how to do his job, in spite of the horrors he was constantly witnessing.
From that day it was Smith's war. From that day Mr. Smith was the hero of the streets to everybody but Mr. Smith. He regards himself as a "trained officer of incidents"
I think this is the main point of Marchant's article. She is showing that patriotism is not only found by going to war. She is arguing that staying home, to help with the relief efforts there, does not make one a coward.
Though looking at the blackened mortar, and ruptured walls you might wonder why.
I think that it is interesting that it takes Marchant all the way to the end of her paragraph before she mentions anything related to the war. And even then the war is only implied as the cause for the "blackened mortar, and ruptured walls". Perhaps she is trying to downplay the amount of destruction and violence, in order to help keep the morale of British citizen's high.
It is the most grievous consequence which we have yet experienced of what we have done and of what we have left undone in the last five years -- five years of futile good intention, five years of eager search for the line of least resistance, five years of uninterrupted retreat of British power, five years of neglect of our air defences.
This is a very accurate description of appeasement, and revels Churchill's disgust that such a policy was even followed in the first place.
All is over. Silent, mournful, abandoned, broken, Czechoslovakia recedes into the darkness.
This is an excellent description of how the Czech's probably felt about Germany's desire to annex the Sudetenland, and France and Britain helping the German's do it.
France and Great Britain together, especially if they had maintained a close contact with Russia, which certainly was not done
France and Britain remaining closer to Russia (USSR) might have prevented the Soviets from agreeing to rearm the Germans as well, which in addition to influence, would also have helped prevent the rise of German aggression.
I wonder if the Russians ever regretted rearming Germany, when just a few short years later, they were involved in fighting a major war against the Germans.
accumulation of deterrents against the aggressor, coupled with a sincere effort to redress grievances
This strategy seems much more likely to have worked than appeasement. Appeasement allowed Germany to make empty promises, and simply encouraged them to continue expanding. And why not? Its what they wanted to do, and the previous times, the other nations (Britain and France especially) bent over backwards to accommodate them. Whereas this strategy would have used deterrents, for instance the threat of military power, while trying to solve the problems, for instance, fixing or undoing the Treaty of Versailles that ended WWI. While there is no way to know what would have happened, I think if the Treaty had been addressed, to not be so burdensome, Hitler's audience would not have been so receptive to his arguments (the desire to get rid of the treaty was so strong, that by emphasizing the removal of the treaty's burdens, Hitler likely drew in some Germans, who would otherwise not have joined his cause). With fewer supporters, the German military would not have been as strong, so militaristic threats could have possibly held Germany in check. Of course there is also the possibility, that nothing, short of losing WWII would have stopped Hitler. That being said, Churchill's strategy would still have been a wiser strategy than appeasement.
It has thrown a vivid light upon our preparations for defence, on their strength and on their weakness.
While Chamberlain proclaimed and justified appeasement as the solution to Germany's lust to expand her territory, based on this statement, I think he, or perhaps some of his advisors had doubts as to how well appeasement would work. If appeasement policies, would have stopped Germany, then why would the state of Britain's military matter? (in the context of an imminent war, although it is wise for nations to have strong militaries) Perhaps Chamberlain knew, but in the desire to prevent another war, he tried to deny the truth about Germany's aggression. In some ways his passionate justification reminds me of the Fifth Harry Potter book, where the ministry of magic spends nearly the entire book denying Voldemort's return, because they feared a renewal of aggression and violence.
"The Aerated Bus Company.". . .
This is an excellent example of English humor.
It is also a play on words, which connects way back to the Anglo-Saxons who brought their love of wordplay with them when they came to England.
Hence the fact that in a decade of unparalleled depression, the consumption of all cheap luxuries has increased. The two things that have probably made the greatest difference of all are the movies and the mass-production of cheap smart clothes since the war.
I think the more people would be purchasing these "cheap luxuries" in order to help combat the depressive feelings brought on by unemployment. People would buy these things in an attempt to increase their happiness. They would then buy more, when the first purchases did not have the desired effect. This cycle would repeat and lead to a large increase of purchases of this nature. Furthermore movies, in addition to being new and fascinating, can also be a form of escape, a way to avoid your problems for a few hours, while enjoying a story. They would also have increased in popularity, in part as an attempt to increase ones mood, and escape from the depressing feelings associated with unemployment.
The policy of reducing Germany to servitude for a generation, of degrading the lives of millions of human beings, and of depriving a whole nation of happiness should be abhorrent and detestable,
In addition to being abhorrent and detestable, this policy would make the Germans destitute, and increase their desire to get rid of the treaty, and get revenge on the nations that imposed the misery and poverty on them. This would make for a population that was ripe for a leader to rally them to his cause, no matter how brutal, so long as it involved revenge and getting rid of the injustice of the Treaty of Versailles. And sure enough in the 1930s, Hitler came along, and did exactly that.
While the emotions that led to this Treaty, and the desire for Germany to pay a price for the war, are justifiable, the treaty went beyond the point of justifiability. And instead of being an effective reprimand, to hopefully stop further militancy on Germany's part, it was too harsh and led to the Germans wanting revenge. This seems similar to previous revolutions. For instance the American Revolution. The American Revolution was caused by harsh policies, that the colonists had no say in. These policies led to resentment, which ultimately led to war. Likewise the harsh policies forced on Germany by the treaty of Versailles, also led to resentment, and ultimately war.
If one of us asks humbly why such and such an alteration is not made to prevent this or that drawback to a machine, she is told, with a superior smile, that a man has worked her machine before her for years, and that therefore if there were any improvement possible it would have been made. As long as we do exactly what we are told and do not attempt to use our brains, we give entire satisfaction, and are treated as nice, good children.
While overall the women enjoyed their work in the factories, the old fashioned ideas about women's inferiority to men were still prevalent. While some women saw ways that the machines could be improved, when they brought it up, in an attempt to make the work more efficient, their ideas were simply dismissed without a second thought, solely because they were women. This indicates that the women very likely only got the jobs they had in the factories, because the men were not around to do the work, which still needed to be done. This attitude was likely also influential in why it was so difficult for women to obtain suffrage. Why would you give someone the power to help shape the country's laws, when you do not believe that they are even capable of improving machines? This attitude is of course incorrect, however it was pervasive, and it needed to be changed in order for women to be seen as equal to men, and to receive the right to vote.
Is it not time, since our methods have failed and the men's have succeeded, that we should take a leaf out of their political book?"
While Pankhurst uses this to justify violence, her argument is logical. She (and others) recognized that their peaceful law abiding methods were not working, so they adopted different more violent ones, much like the men had done before them.
while social ethics paints the motive of "Imperialism" as the desire to bear the "burden" of educating and elevating races of "children." Thus are the "cultured" or semi-cultured classes indoctrinated with the intellectual and moral grandeur of Imperialism. For the masses there is a cruder appeal to hero-worship and sensational glory, adventure and the sporting spirit: current history falsified in coarse flaring colours, for the direct stimulation of the combative instincts
Here Hobson is stating that while the main arguments used to justify, and encourage the expansion of the empire, and continued occupation of conquered territories, are based off of ethical concerns regarding educating the conquered races, are not actually the reasons why the empire continues to expand. Instead he argues that the main reason for expanding the empire is so that individuals can selfishly gain glory, or become heroes.
No doubt, in the first instance, when these conquests have been made, there has been bloodshed, there has been loss of life among the native populations, loss of still more precious lives among those who have been sent out to bring these countries into some kind of disciplined order, but it must be remembered that this is the condition of the mission we have to fulfill.
Here Chamberlain argues that the ends justify the means. While there were deaths, and violence, he feels that this was not a problem, as the countries are now better off than they were before Britain arrived.
He also shows that he favors Britain over the conquered territories, by referring to the lives of the British as being more valuable than the lives of the natives in the lands they conquered.
not yet produced a civilization in the least comparable with the Aryan [western European]. Educate and nurture them as you will, I do not believe that you will succeed in modifying the stock.
Pearson is arguing that because the negroes in Africa have not eclipsed Western European accomplishments, that there is no way they ever would, and it is therefore pointless to try. This also sounds like it may have inspired Hitler, as this is the premise of the idea he used several decades later to justify (to himself, and the world) the atrocities he, and the Nazis, would commit.
but even from an American's point of view just picture what they have lost, look at their government, are not the frauds that yearly come before the public view a disgrace to any country and especially theirs which is the finest in the world. Would they have occurred had they remained under English rule great as they have become how infinitely greater they would have been with the softening and elevating influences of English rule
Rhodes arrogance is astonishing. While American politicians have never been perfect, England's have also been less than perfect, so there is no evidence that America would have been better off, as Rhodes asserts, had she stayed under English rule. Rhodes also seems to have forgotten that it was the English policies that drove America to rebel from England in the first place. Also his arrogant assertion that even the Americans would agree that America should have stayed under English rule, makes me wonder how many Americans he actually met.
While he is extremely arrogant, I think this arrogance stems from the extreme patriotism that was very common among the English during the Victorian era. The English believed strongly that their race was the best, this thought leads naturally to the idea that all others would have been/would be better off under English rule.
absorption of the greater portion of the world under our rule simply means the end of all wars.
There is evidence to show that a homogenous culture leads to less conflict (crime, wars, etc). However I think Rhodes fails to grasp that the forcible absorption of other populations would likely only happen through the use of war. He also fails to mention assimilation. Without assimilation, conquering more of the world would lead to more wars. For example the Sepoy rebellion in India which was caused by English insensitivity (the English trying to force their beliefs on their conquered lands) to the Sepoys deeply held beliefs.
will learn many things it is profitable and good to know, and being entirely removed from all who have any knowledge of their past career will begin life afresh and be able to win a good name and character.
Since the women are learning household skills, and Dickens refers to these skills as being profitable, the women would likely have been trained to become domestic servants. The household skills would be useful for this profession, as well as for use in their own households. In order to begin afresh, where no one would recognize them, I think Dickens would have had the women find employment as a domestic servant in another town, or city, rather than somewhere else in London.
For this reason, the dwellers in cities are far less exposed to acute, and especially to inflammatory, affections than rural populations, who live in a free, normal atmosphere; but they suffer the more from chronic afflictions.
Isn't this backwards? Don't viral and bacterial infections spread more rapidly in cites, and other areas of close confinement?
comparatively high wages which the inmates of a factory, whether children or adults, obtain.
As compared to the wages for what other professions? I thought factory workers earned low wages (especially child workers) which was why it was necessary for children to work (I do not think most parents would have sent their children to work in a factory, unless they absolutely had to).
and the way to prevent an employment from being incessant, is to introduce a steam-engine into it.
Either Ure is ignorant of how busy workers in factories with steam engines truly were, or he is using propaganda in order to argue against potential labor laws, which would increase labor costs.
It is the standard of the London Cab Horse
This statement creates a very powerful final argument. After equating the life of the poor as equal to, or worse than that of an African forced into slavery, he drives his argument home by essentially stating that London cab horses have a better life than England's poorest people did.
And when once the poor girl has consented to buy the right to earn her living by the sacrifice of her virtue, then she is treated as a slave and an outcast by the very men who have ruined her
The women in this situation must have had a very unhappy life. First to be at the point where selling yourself is the only way to get enough money to eat, and then to be treated horribly by everyone else (those who paid her, as well as society as a whole), would make life even worse. Once a woman got to this point, it would be nearly impossible for her to improve her life in any way.
I seldom did awake spontaneously;
With a fourteen hour workday, time to eat before and after, and commuting would have left about eight hours to do anything around the house, or sleep (assuming thirty minutes n the morning and evening for meals and each commute). This is not a lot of time, in addition to being famished, the children were likely sleep deprived. In addition to making it hard for the children to wake up in the morning, their exhaustion would have made accidents at work more likely.
With what intervals for refreshment and rest? -- An hour at noon. Then you had no resting time allowed in which to take your breakfast, or what is in Yorkshire called your "drinking"? -- No.
These poor children must have been hungry. As they did not have time for breakfast before heading to the factory, and only one meal during the fourteen to sixteen hours they worked. Even if the noon meal was large, these children would still have been famished by the time they got home, and were able to have something else to eat.
It is vain to expect virtue from women till they are, in some degree, independent of men;
Wollstonecraft states that the only reason women are not virtuous is because they are dependent on men. She argues that if women were no longer dependent on men that they would be much more virtuous than the presently are. In some ways she is managing to insult both men and women with this statement. She insults the men by implying that they are a bad influence on the women, and the reason that they are not virtuous. She then insults the women by assuming that they cannot possibly have the inner strength to be virtuous, while being dependent on men.
When erring, erring on the better part, And in the kinder spirit; placable, Indulgent oft-times to the worst desires
Here Wordsworth is justifying some of the worse actions of the French revolution, which he refers to as errors. He acknowledges that they may have committed errors (going to far, executing as many as they did perhaps?). However he then states that the errors were committed with good intentions, and a product of human nature, almost as though he is excusing the brutality as a common mistake.
When it becomes necessary to do anything, the whole heart and soul should go into the measure, or not attempt it. That crisis was then arrived, and there remained no choice but to act with determined vigor, or not to act at all. . . .
Paine is justifying the actions of the French people in response to Burke's opinions. While Burke felt that the French were too aggressive in their overhaul of their government, Paine is arguing that they were justified, as they simply carried out their revolution whole-heartedly, as they should have, owing to the fact that they decided to rebel in the first place.
By following wise examples you would have given new examples of wisdom to the world. You would have rendered the cause of liberty venerable in the eyes of every worthy mind in every nation. You would have had a free constitution; a potent monarchy; a disciplined army, a reformed and venerated clergy; a mitigated but spirited nobility, to lead your virtue
Here, Burke is implying that the French acted rashly in their desire for revolution. He feels that they went too far, and tried to undo too much. It seems as though Burke is predicting that the French have set themselves up with a Government that is destined to fail. It is almost as though Burke could foresee the turbulent years ahead for the French government (Napoleon and another revolution).
Michaelmas
Michaelmas occurs on the 29th of September. Michaelmas was traditionally one of the four dates during the year that servants were hired, rent was due, or leases begun. It was also the time when debts needed to be paid. It was also seen as the end of harvest, and the beginning of autumn.
It is also a celebration of St. Michael, and the celebration, usually involving a feast with a goose as the main dish, was seen as a way to encourage protection from the coming darker and colder months ahead.
http://www.historic-uk.com/CultureUK/Michaelmas/
So Mrs. Bennet would have found this newsworthy because Bingley was moving in before the traditional day when a new tenant would move into a leased property.
Assuming, then, my postulate as granted, I say that the power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man.
Malthus argues that the population is growing faster than the food supplies necessary to keep them alive. While his argument, was likely supported by his observations, he fails to take technological improvements into account. For instance the same amount of land can feed many more people now than it could several hundred years ago, because agricultural technology has improved. Had Malthus considered this aspect, then perhaps his conclusions about population size and subsistence would not be nearly so dire.
every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its product may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.
Smith is describing how a free capitalist economy works. While the business owner goes into business in order to support himself, and make money. Motives that appear selfish, in reality they end up being altruistic, and beneficial for the economy, because in order for the businessman to make money, he needs to provide a good or service that others want or need. This identification of a society's need for the purpose of wealth gaining, which ultimately ends up bettering the economy and the society, is the concept Smith refers to as the "invisible hand".
but against reason was hindered to show my reasons.
The fact that the King was not allowed to make his defense, is not surprising, as these same people excluded the majority of the Hose of Lords and House of Commons from having any say in the matter. I wonder how the normal citizens felt about their king being condemned and executed in such a manner. Were they upset? Or were they supportive? Were they concerned that so much of their representation was prevented from having a say in the matter?
the enjoyment of the property he has in this state is very unsafe, very insecure. This makes him willing to quit this condition which, however free, is full of fears and continual dangers; and it is not without reason that he seeks out and is willing to join in society with others who are already united, or have a mind to unite for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates,
This is the reason that Locke feels men will submit to the government of others. It also argues for a small government, who's only purpose is to provide protection, without otherwise interfering with individual freedoms.
Having therefore entire confidence that his said highness the prince of Orange will perfect the deliverance so far advanced by him and will still preserve them from the violation of their rights which they have here asserted and from all other attempts upon their religion, rights, and liberties, the said lords spiritual and temporal and commons assembled at Westminster do resolve that William and Mary, prince and princess of Orange, be and be declared king and queen of England.
Would parliament still have crowned William and Mary King and Queen if they had decided to reject this Bill of Rights?
that they should be bound by laws in which they have no voice at all!. . .
This is a very strong argument, and it is another argument that was later used by the colonists in the Declaration of Independence. I think it is interesting to see how similar political ideas which originated in England, were later used by the colonists. It seems that while the English government was willing to give these rights to those living on English soil, they were unwilling to give them to the colonists.
Here men of this and this quality are determined to be the electors of men to the parliament, and they are all those who have any permanent interest in the kingdom, and who, taken together, do comprehend the whole interest of the kingdom.
Ireton is implying that permanent residents of Britain who do not own land, would somehow not care about the welfare of Britain as a whole. He is arguing that merely owning land makes someone better able than someone who does not own land to determine the best course for the country.
living under such laws, such a government, as may give themselves the best assurance of their lives, and property of their goods; nor in this must or do I forget the privileges of both Houses of Parliament, which this day's proceedings do not only violate, but likewise occasion the greatest breach of their public faith that (I believe) ever was heard of.
The king is arguing that the parliament is taking dangerous liberties by putting him on trial, and that this should be very frightening for those living in England
compelled to make or yield any gift, loan, benevolence, tax, or such like charge without common consent by act of parliament; and that none be called to make answer, or take such oath, or to give attendance, or be confined, or otherwise molested or disquieted concerning the same, or for refusal thereof; and that no freeman, in any such manner as is before mentioned, be imprisoned or detained; and that your majesty would be pleased to remove the said soldiers and mariners;
This sounds a lot like the U. S. Declaration of Independence. Many of the rights the parliament is demanding from the king are similar to those the American colonists would demand about 150 years later. It seems that the English kings did not realize that the very things the English subjects disliked, would be the same things the English subjects who moved to the American colonies would dislike. If the English kings had not been so power hungry, and treated the colonists with the same rights the English in England wanted and ultimately achieved, then America's history could be very different.
And where he sees the law doubtsome or rigorous, he may interpret or mitigate the same.
James believes in the absolute authority of the king. Not only is the king above the law, but he makes and interprets the laws as well
yet it lies in the power of no Parliament, to make any kind of law or statute without his scepter be to it, for giving it the force of a law.
Here the king is asserting his authority. He is saying that while parliament can make rules, they do not have the force of law without the king's approval. This reduces parliament to the role of advisor.
There must, therefore, be an uniform experience against every miraculous event, otherwise the event would not merit that appellation. And as an uniform experience amounts to a proof; there is here a direct and full proof, from the nature of the fact, against the existence of any miracle
Hume provides a good definition for miracles, however he then goes on to say that his definition proves that miracles did not happen. He seems to contradict himself in his eagerness to deny the existence of miracles.
Rule I. We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
This is a very rational scientific approach to studying things and drawing conclusions form those observations. It is a more concise way of expressing Bacon's ideas about drawing conclusions from evidence.
to sweep away all theories and common notions, and to apply the understanding, thus made fair and even, to a fresh examination of the particulars
Here bacon is arguing that one must remove all preconceived notions and start fresh, so as to be better able to analyze the evidence collected, to determine what it actually shows, rather than trying to fit it into ones existing ideas about how something works. An example of how this ideology changed the field of science is in astronomy with the acceptance of the heliocentric model, and tossing out the geocentric model which had been accepted up until about this time. While some of the discoveries which led to this were not made by English astronomers (some were), their findings would not have been as widely accepted, nor would they have realized what the evidence was pointing to if they had not adopted Bacon's idea of abandoning theories and analyzing the evidence for what it actually shows.
The men of experiment are like the ant; they only collect and use: the reasoners resemble spiders, who make cobwebs out of their own substance. But the bee takes a middle course; it gathers its material from the flowers of the garden and of the field, but transforms and digests it by a power of its own.
This is a great analogy which demonstrates that Bacon believes Science is best studied by collecting information and then analyzing that information yourself and coming to a conclusion, rather than only gathering information, or only analyzing information others have previously collected.
I myself will take up arms, I myself will be your general, judge, and rewarder of every one of your virtues in the field.
I think some may have still been questioning her authority because of her gender. In this statement, she is trying to show that she is just as strong, and worthy of her authority as any man (king) in her place would be.
Moreover, as the pope taketh upon him to give the temporal sword, or royal and imperial power to kings and princes; so doth he likewise take upon him to depose them from their imperial states, if they be disobedient to him,
If the pope truly had this power, then I wonder why any sovereigns of nations would willingly submit. I think Cranmer uses this argument to appeal to Mary's authority, perhaps he hopes she will decide she does not like someone else having the authority to overthrow her rule, and will rethink her allegiance to the Catholic church, and spare his life in the process.
as long as you have private property, and as long as cash money is the measure of all things, it is really not possible for a nation to be governed justly or happily.
This sounds like communism.
Sir John Fastolf
Fastolf was a Norfolk knight and landowner. Paston became close to Fastolf, soon becoming his lawyer. While it took place after this letter was written, John Paston was named Fasolf's sole heir which lead to a much contested will. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/middle_ages/pastonletters_01.shtml
Paston and her husband were landowners
Margaret Paston was married to John Paston. They are 3rd generation landowners, so relatively new. John's grandfather, Clement, acquired the land during the black death. While they had an eventful life, they are best known for their surviving letters, which are some of the few which remain from this period. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/middle_ages/pastonletters_01.shtml
my secret is revealed to everyone who sees me.
What was Margaret's secret?
There was, and poor, the Parson to a town, Yet he was rich in holy thought and work.
This description of the parson is idealistically perfect. It provides a stark contrast with the worldly monk
This charter was rejected and decided to be null and void by the King and the great men of the realm in the Parliament held at Westminster in the same year
A medieval publicity stunt!
they forced to go with them
Because Froissart is against the peasant's revolt, did the marauding peasants actually force those they met to join in, or were their later additions voluntary participants?
where, forgetting themselves in their multitude, and neither contented with their former cause nor appeased by smaller crimes, they unmercifully planned greater and worse evils and determined not to desist from their wicked undertaking until they should have entirely extirpated the nobles and great men of the kingdom.
The negative tone Froissart uses indicates that he was not in favor of the peasant's revolt. He also seems to imply that the peasants would have had greater success if they ceased their revolt after small victories, rather than trying to completely overthrow the nobles.
nor should I have the lawful right to punish them, since they are free men.
While the abbot is angry about potentially losing profits from the dean's new mill, this shows that he also fears losing any of the power he has over the burgesses, by controlling the mill they need to grind their corn with.
It is difficult for me to talk with you about animals, for I have learned one thing, under the guidance of reason, from Arabic teachers; but you, captivated by a show of authority, are led around by a halter. For what should we call authority but a halter?
This is a great metaphor. Adelard must have noticed that most people merely followed and obeyed the lords and nobles without ever really thinking for themselves. Adelards thoughts may have led to the chartering of towns. As chartering a town removed authority from the local lord, and would not have happened unless some (or perhaps many) began to think that they would be better off with less authority from their local lord.
And no private man nor stranger shall bargain for or buy any kind of merchandise coming into the city before a burgess of the guild merchant, so long as the guildsman is present and wishes to bargain for and buy this merchandise;
While guilds were established in chartered towns. This guild regulation is very similar to a privilege that the lord's would enforce in their unchartered towns. The only differences being that a guildsman must be present at the time of the merchant's arrival, and more people had the option of bidding first (one lord, many guildsmen). It is interesting that even though chartered cities became chartered in order to gain more freedom, that the guilds stepped in almost immediately after and removed most of those freedoms from those who aren't part of the guild. Which makes me wonder what percentage of townsfolk were not a member of a guild? And what would happen if two (or more) guildsmen wanted the same merchandise? Would the first to arrive then get first bid?
Among the noble cities of the world that Fame celebrates the City of London of the Kingdom of the English, is the one seat that pours out its fame more widely,
William Fitz-Stephen is very proud of London. His pride and love for the city is evident throughout his piece. In this description, Fitz-Stephen argues that London is superior to all other cities. The strongly favorable language he uses, and the lack of anything negative mentioned about the city, are the two points that he mainly uses to make his argument.
to be quit of toll, stallage, lastage, pontage [taxes for having a stall, attending markets, and using a bridge], and all other customs throughout all our land and throughout the ports of the sea.
These fees typically levied by the lord were often main factors in towns deciding to become chartered. While they might lose the protection of the lord, each resident would have fewer monetary obligations to pay. In addition they would have much more freedom, including the freedom to set up their own defense. Making the lord useless in the eyes of the town leaders who decided to charter their town.
those sons who hold land ought to do suit of court, or obtain the lord's grace to redeem the suit at the will of the lord, on account of the great loss which has by this means been suffered by the lord.
If the son needs to ask permission of the lord before being able to use the land his father left after death, what happens to the son if the lord says no, he can't hold the land?
you have decided to submit in a temporal sense yourself and your kingdom to him to whom you knew them to be spiritually subject,
The pope is referring to King John willingly turning over his kingdom to the pope, however I think this might be creative reasoning on the part of the pope, as the impression I got from reading, was that King John was an unwilling participant.
For tribute they will give you spears, poisoned point and ancient sword, such war gear as will profit you little in the battle.
It is interesting that neither side wasted any time before resorting to violence after this was said.
2. If, however,
The church privilege referenced refers to that of sanctuary. Where a criminal could go for up to forty days without being apprehended. He could then either face trial, or leave the country. This was based on the belief that force could not be used in churches.
and that there this controversy should be decided.
The deciding of this controversy is the main point of the document. It shows the importance that these ancient people put on their religion, and demonstrates that they were capable of solving a major dispute between two different groups in a nonviolent manner, despite the warrior background of the Anglo-Saxons, and the prior conflicts between the Celts and Anglo-Saxons
No nation indulges more profusely in entertainments and hospitality.
This is interesting, because it shows the assimilation of the Germanic Anglo-Saxons culture into the English culture. To this day the English are very hospitable people. It is clear from this document that the Germans brought this part of their culture with them when they moved to Britain.
that she is her husband's partner in toil and danger,
This is interesting because in most societies in this period, women were seen as inferior to men.
For example, a number of bell barrows alsopossess the external bank characteristic of quite different forms of monument
Perhaps these barrows were transitional barrows? This would be the case if styles of barrows changed gradually over time. Some would be distinctly different from each other, while others would have elements of both styles, indicating that they were created between the styles of the others, as newer styles became more popular, and older styles less popular.
the living were separated from the dead by a ditch
This separation could possibly indicate some ancient spiritual belief or superstition about the living going about their everyday activities too close to burial sites. Or the separation could be these ancient people's way of showing respect for the dead, or even a symbolic representation of grief (the mound growing larger and thus further separating the dead from the living, as grief for the deceased fades).