Based on Octavius's opening speech, what strategy had Antony predicted of Brutus and Cassius in Julius Caesar?

Octavius says that Antony predicted that the enemy would stay in the hills, but they didn’t.

After Brutus and Cassius assassinated Caesar, Antony forced them to leave town by stirring the people into an angry mob during his eulogy.  Antony and Octavius formed a triumvirate with Lepidus to rule Rome, but Brutus and Cassius were not satisfied.  They formed their own armies and came against the triumvirs.  Antony predicted that Brutus and Cassius would not come to Philippi.  As Octavius points out, he was wrong.

Now, Antony, our hopes are answered:
You said the enemy would not come down,
But keep the hills and upper regions;
It proves not so: their battles are at hand;
They mean to warn us at Philippi here,
Answering before we do demand of them. (Act 5, Scene 1)

Antony had a reason for believing they would not come.  Philippi was a strategic disaster for Brutus and Cassius.  They did not have the battle advantage.  Cassius did not approve of the plan, but as usual Brutus overruled him.  This was decidedly a bad idea because Cassius had much less experience than Brutus.

Like Brutus and Cassius, Antony and Octavius disagree.  Antony feels that he knows better because he is older than Octavius and has more military experience.  When Octavius points out that Brutus and Cassius are meeting them in battle, he says that they are just posturing.

Tut, I am in their bosoms, and I know
Wherefore they do it: they could be content
To visit other places; and come down
With fearful bravery, thinking by this face
To fasten in our thoughts that they have courage;
But 'tis not so. (Act 5, Scene 1)

Antony does not feel that Brutus and Cassius are actually brave.  He thinks that they are just showing off to convince Antony and Octavius that they know what they are doing and are confident in winning the battle.  In fact, they are in real trouble.

The four men are about to meet in parley, which is a battlefield conversation.  Antony and Octavius should present a united front, but that is not easy for them to do.  Their alliance is one of necessity, not friendship.  Both are ambitious and arrogant, and each one is ready to get rid of the other at the first convenience.

Describe the Ghost of Christmas Present. Explain what it shows Scrooge, what it teaches Scrooge, and what Scrooge learns from it.

The Ghost of Christmas Present appears to Scrooge in Dickens' novel as a "jolly giant." The robed Ghost carries a cornucopia-like torch, and he can be seen around a large feast, which reinforces the "jolly giant" theme. The animated Disney film adaptation, "Mickey's Christmas Carol" actually does a good job of depicting the Ghost of Christmas Present and his massive feast in a way that remains pretty true to the Dickens' story, at least in part.

The Ghost of Christmas Present escorts Scrooge around the city, showing him Christmas warmth, cheer and festive gatherings as well as the misery and deprivation that exist in stark contrast to the holiday merriment. The Ghost shows Scrooge the home of Scrooge's impoverished clerk, Bob Cratchit, father of Tiny Tim, the oft-cited crutches-using character from the novel.

Responding to Scrooge's question about Tiny Tim upon seeing the young boy's crutch, the Ghost tells Ebenezer that Tim will die if, in effect, the future doesn't differ radically from the present. Here, and shortly after when the Ghost shows Scrooge two starving children, the giant apparition throws some of Scrooge's more callous words uttered earlier in the novel back at him in these different contexts. This highlights in a wry way for the wealthy miser how indifferent to human suffering his remarks and actions regarding the mass of poverty-stricken and working poor people had been, teaching him about the heartlessness and consequences of his miserly disposition. 

What are 10 reasons prostitution should be illegal?

It's also important to consider the other side.

1. Freedom of choice. A woman should be able to choose what she does with her body.

2. It lessens the likelihood that people will kidnap women and force them into prostitution.

3. Taxes. If it were legalized, the government could tax prostitution and use that money for schools or other useful enterprises.

4. It is a victimless crime. Nobody is harmed, so long as safe sex takes place so that no diseases are transferred.

5. Morality. Why should it be immoral to pay for/sell something that can be had at no cost?

6. Employment. More people could find jobs if it were legitimate work.

7. Lessens violence. In any illegal enterprise, there is a greater chance for violence. If prostitution were legal, it would be safer for those involved.

8. It would help the economy.

9. Health. If it were legal, and laws demanded certain things such as condoms, it could prevent many health issues such as HIV and other STDs.

How do Holden and Phoebe reverse roles at the end of the novel?

Throughout the novel, Holden expresses his desire to run away from everything.  He can't stand all of the phonies that are around him.  He can't figure out a way to interact in a positive way with just about anybody.  He can't stand the two teachers that he interacts with.  He's simply fed up with everything.  He tries to convince Sally to run away with him, but she flatly refuses.  As a last ditch cry for attention, Holden writes Phoebe a letter that explains his plans to leave and run away.  

Amazingly, Phoebe meets Holden at the museum with a suitcase of her own.  She plans to run away with Holden.  

She put the suitcase down. "My clothes," she said. "I'm going with you. Can I? Okay?"

That causes Holden to get upset, and then he refuses to run away.  That's the role reversal.  Holden wants to now stay while Phoebe wants to go.  Holden becomes the voice of reason and Phoebe is the person acting emotionally and impulsively.  

"Did you mean it what you said? You really aren't going away anywhere? Are you really going home afterwards?" she asked me.

"Yeah," I said. I meant it, too. I wasn't lying to her. I really did go home afterwards.

In Ralph Waldo Emerson's "Self-Reliance," what does he mean by the passage, "[We are] guides, redeemers and benefactors, obeying the...

In this passage, Emerson is using language with religious connotations to make the point that everyday people aren't meant to be followers or passive bystanders on the sidelines. Everyone should take up the roles we usually reserve for a few, special leaders — the roles of

• guides (showing others the way),


• redeemers (helping themselves and others break free from sins and oppressive moral constraints), and


• benefactors (doing deeds that benefit the world).

By taking these active roles, people are doing God's work ("obeying the Almighty effort") and making spiritual progress ("advancing on Chaos and the Dark").

By itself, that may not sound like a very unusual message, especially to the modern reader. It's common nowadays to hear that everyone should be an activist and try to improve the world. But if you look what precedes this statement, you can see that Emerson is talking about something more radical.

He is telling the reader, in effect, "Don't take direction from anyone else, not even people who are regarded as intellectual or spiritual authorities." If men like Moses, Plato, and Milton are great, it's because they were true to their own beliefs and spoke their minds. We should be doing the same.

The temptation is that we will be intimidated by authority, tradition, or public opinion. We'll decide that our personal intuitions aren't trustworthy, and therefore we'll defer to the judgment of others — act as if we are "minors and invalids in a protected corner."  But that's the opposite of the lesson we should take from the likes of Moses, Plato, and Milton. Instead of ceding our own judgment to great men, we should learn from their example and trust in our own instincts:

"They teach us to abide by our spontaneous impression with good-humored inflexibility then most when the whole cry of voices is on the other side."

How would you compare and contrast "Rain" by Edward Thomas and "Dulce Et Decorum Est" by Wilfred Owen?

Upon first glance, “Rain” by Edward Thomas and Wilfred Owen’s “Dulce Et Decorum Est” seem like remarkably disparate poems. Thomas’ piece initially reads like an almost prayerful meditation on the awe-inspiring pervasiveness of Nature, whereas Owen’s classic World War I poem is a vivid description of the atrocities of war and a scathing critique of jingoistic songwriters and poets. Additionally, Owen utilizes a formal ABAB rhyme scheme while Thomas eschews this convention.

Despite these obvious differences, however, upon closer examination, the two pieces share some common threads. Indeed, both texts evoke a sense of hopelessness and address the powerlessness of their respective speakers in the face of death. More specifically, the poets discuss the tremendous suffering that occurred during World War I. Thomas writes about the war through metaphors and a remarkable sense of restraint. The introspective speaker of “Rain” ponders his own mortality and hopes for his colleagues to remain safe:

“But here I pray that none whom once I loved / Is dying tonight or lying still awake /Solitary, listening to the rain” (49).

These lines emphasize the speaker’s close relationship with his brothers in arms. Later in the poem, Thomas provides a potent metaphor for the young men devastated by WWI, calling them “Myriads of broken reeds all still and stiff” (49). His choice of “myriads” foregrounds the enormous number of men affected by the violence of the war.

Owen’s treatment of the violence of war is more abrasive, but just as powerful, as Thomas’ subtle imagery. “Dulce Et Decorum Est” shares a melancholic atmosphere with “Rain.” Much like “Rain,” Owen’s poem emphasizes hopelessness in the midst of death. In the most devastating scene in the piece, a soldier is powerless to stop the violent death of his young colleague who suffocates in a poison gas attack:

“Gas! GAS! Quick, boys!— An ecstasy of fumbling,

Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;

But someone still was yelling out and stumbling,

And flound'ring like a man in fire or lime...

Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light,

As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.

In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,

He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning." (99-100).

Owen is more direct than Thomas in illustrating the effects of war, but both poems powerfully give readers a glimpse into the horrors of war. While the poets’ approaches differ, both poems examine mortality and a begrudging acceptance of the inevitability of death in the face of the Great War.

I pulled my textual evidence from The Bloodaxe Book of 20th Century Poetry.

Why is the forest the chosen setting for Goodman Brown's journey?

The author Nathaniel Hawthorne probably chose the forest for its visual effect and its aura of as-yet untamed wildness. The forest is the opposite of civilization. It is very old and full of wild creatures, including, perhaps, wild Indians. It is a place where people would naturally go to become wild creatures themselves. It is a place where they can hide from their town neighbors and do anything they want. They can make as much noise as they want without being heard by anyone of importance.

Many contemporary people like to go to the national parks in order to get away from civilization for a while and live more primitive-type lives close to nature. There is something very exhilarating about being among the fragrant pine needles and tall trunks. We can all respond to Hawthorne's description of the mysterious forest, although we do not necessarily want to indulge in devil-worshiping orgies. Most of us would like to escape from civilization for a while and enjoy simpler lives.

We can understand why both Young Goodman Brown and his sweet little wife, whose name is Faith, might get tired of being so righteous and inhibited all the time and might feel an impulse to go a little bit wild on occasion. The same would be true of their neighbors, one of whom is named Goody Cloyse. They are all living under a spotlight, so to speak. They have to be prim and proper all the time. They all have their secrets, as is revealed in the ceremony in the forest.

This night it shall be granted you to know their secret deeds: how hoary-bearded elders of the church have whispered wanton words to the young maids of their households; how many a woman, eager for widows' weeds, has given her husband a drink at bedtime and let him sleep his last sleep in her bosom; how beardless youths have made haste to inherit their fathers' wealth; and how fair damsels—blush not, sweet ones—have dug little graves in the garden, and bidden me, the sole guest to an infant's funeral.

By digging "little graves in the garden," the speaker, who is presumably the devil himself, means that some unwed girls secretly gave birth to babies and killed them at birth and buried them in unmarked graves in their gardens. 

Young Goodman Brown and his wife and all their neighbors live in a very small, constricted world. The forest is the only place where they can congregate for any sinful purposes. In Hawthorne's novel The Scarlet Letter, it is in the forest that the Reverend Arthur Dimmesdale has his secret meetings with Hester Prynne, the mother of his child. And no doubt it was in the forest where they conceived the little girl named Pearl. The early American settlers were surrounded by forests, and they may have felt the trees beckoning to them mysteriously. 

Robert Frost speaks of the mysterious attraction of dark, whispering trees in his poem "Stopping By Woods on a Snowy Evening." 

The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep.