What are the two things that are being compared (metaphor) in Emerson's, "to draw a new circle"?

Did you mean
Emerson's essay, entitled "Circles"?

In "Circles" Emerson
compares the eye and horizon to circles with all of nature following this pattern:"The eye
is the first circle; the horizon which it forms, the second; and, throughout nature this primary
figure is repeated without end."

Emerson also states that "our
culture is the predominance of an idea which draws after it this train of cities and
institutions.For example, the Puritan culture of Colonial America had its concept, or idea of
God being actively involved in one's life; the Puritans built their colleges for the instruction
of young men in the ministry of this faith.The cities and institutions were citadels of this
faith: "one circle leads to another with the primary figure repeated." The original
ideology is the first circle; the "train of cities and institutions" are cultural
horizons, the second circle.

The emanaitng self becoming a widening circle is
the .Emerson writes that the key to every man is his thought; all his facts are clarified by a
"certain helm" of thought.The central beliefs of a man are the "helm" of his
thought that lead him to the widening circles of thought and culture.

Why did M. Loisel expect his wife to be pleased to receive the invitation from the Minister of Education?

M. Loisel
expected his wife to be pleased at the invitation from the Minster of Education because they
were invited to a grand dress-up event, and M. Loisel knew how much his wife loved luxury and
finery.

To his great surprise, she is not pleased, and he says to her that he
thought she would be happy because:

You never go out, and
this is such a fine opportunity. I had awful trouble to get it. Everyone wants to go; it is very
select, and they are not giving many invitations to clerks. The whole official world will be
there.

Madame Loisel is unhappy, however, because she
feels she has nothing suitable to wear and will, therefore, be looked down upon by the other
women at the ball. She cannot bear the thought of not shining and standing out against other
people. She is also unhappy that she has no jewels to wear. When her husband suggests flowers,
that is not good enough. Madame Loisel is not content to go to the ball and be able to look at
other people and enjoy the event: she wants others to admire her. That is why she makes the
fateful decision to borrow the diamond necklace.

What are the symbols in the novel and what do they mean? for example like when nat symbolizes kit as the small little bird that has gobbled up a...

As the novel
progresses, the ship called the Dolphin becomes an important symbol. At first the Dolphin
symbolizes Kits home in Barbados. Indeed, it is a link to the beautiful island where she lived
with her grandfather. To her the Dolphin means home and happiness and freedom. Later in the
story, the Dolphin comes to represent Nat, the one person who championed her at the inquiry. At
the end she finds herself looking for the ship to come to Wethersfield.

Explain the use of enjambment in Thomas Lux's poem "A Little Tooth." In other words, what is the effect of Lux choosing to break the lines in his poem...

The
enjambment in Thomas Lux's poem, "A Little Tooth," serves several purposes. For
example, in the phrase, "It's all / over," beginning on the last line of the first
stanza and concluding on the first line of the second stanza, the word "over" is
emphasized because of the pause that precedes it, created by the line break. This emphasis helps
to convey the finality of the phrase, and, in the context of the poem, the finality of the end
of the baby's first stage of life. The pause between "It's all" and "over"
might also suggest the speaker's reluctance to let go of their baby's first stage of life. It's
as if the speaker, as the baby's father, wants to hold in his mind for as long as possible the
memories of those precious first years of his baby's life.

In the second
stanza, there is enjambment of the phrase, "she'll fall / in love." The enjambment
here suggests the sense of time seeming to pass so quickly, from the perspective of a parent
watching his child grow up. At one moment the child is still a toddler, learning to walk and
falling over when she loses her balance, and the next moment the child is a teenager, falling
"in love with cretins." When the clause, "she'll fall / in love" is
interrupted after "fall," having followed the clause, "she'll learn some
words," the reader will naturally assume that the "fall" describes the fall of a
toddler learning to walk. However, the word "fall" immediately takes on a completely
different, metaphorical meaning when it is continued on the next line, and followed with the
words, "in love." Thus, in the time it takes to read the full clause, the reader will
have processed both interpretations, mirroring the feeling that the father has, in hindsight,
that his daughter has grown up so quickly.

There is another example of
enjambment in the third stanza, where the phrase, "rue / nothing" begins at the end of
the first line and continues at the beginning of the second. The pause at the end of the first
line, after the word "rue," implies for a moment that the parents regret the time that
has passed. However, when the phrase is continued on the next line, the reader understands that
the parents actually regret "nothing." The initial surprise of the completely
different meaning, in combination with the slight pause created by the line break, helps to make
the idea that the parents have no regrets all the more emphatic.

What are some motifs and examples of symbolism in Kazuo Ishiguro's Never Let Me Go and Mary Shelley's Frankenstein?

If we were to compare symbols and motifs
between byand Frankenstein by Mary Shelley, there
would be quite a few intriguing overlaps! Both novels share the motif of fantasy: characters in
both Ishiguro and Shelley's stories imagine themselves in alternate realities in order to cope
with their current circumstances. Ishiguro's Ruththe best friend of the novel's ,
Kathyfrequently encourages her friends to embark on make-believe adventures that serve to
distract them from their inescapable futures of becoming donors, the clones that exist merely to
give their originals healthy, functional organs.

The Monster in
Frankenstein understands himself to be grotesque and frightening after
attempts to interact with humans go awry from their reactions to his physical appearance. To
cope with his inability to interact with humans, the Monster hides in a hovel that is attached
to the small home of the De Laceys. From this hovel, the Monster is able to fully observe the
family and their whereabouts. The Monster observes immense love and care within this family and
in turn imagines himself to be loved and cared for. The Monster states,

The gentle manners and beauty of the cottagers greatly endeared them
to me; when they were unhappy, I felt depressed; when they rejoiced, I sympathised in their
joys.

Through intense observation, the Monster is able to
envision himself as existing amongst the family.

Another significant motif in
both novels is that of the unreliable narrator. Kathy, Ishiguro's protagonist, tells her story
from thirty years' remove, detailing her childhood as she now sees it as an adult. This time
lapse forces the reader to question how much Kathy truly remembers from her childhood and what
biases she has accumulated over the years that may color her view of the past. Kathy is also the
only character who is able to tell her story firsthand; therefore, we do not fully know the
stories of the surrounding characters.

Similarly, in
Frankenstein, Shelley layers the novel such that we hear the entire story
of Victor and his Monster through a mere observer, Robert Walton, who happens to be working on a
ship alongside Victor. So, while we read the story of Victor and his monster, and we hear from
both Victor and the Monster, the reader must remember that the narrative is
all filtered through Robert's interpretation of the story.

A symbol both
novels share is that of the artificial body. Ishiguro creates a world in which clones are
produced in order to prolong the lives of the original humans. Kathy and Ruth, along with their
friend Tommy, have been artificially produced for the express purpose of benefiting other human
beings. These characters struggle to feel autonomy over their own bodies as they realize they
merely exist for their viable organs. The Monster, too, understands his body to be
"artificial" when he learns his originsthat he was created in a lab by
Victor.

The artificial body in both novels represents a wide array of ideas
and themes. Firstly, both authors use the artificial body to explore questions of control. Who
owns our bodies, and who is allowed to control them? Who are we if our body is not ours? Both
authors also use the artificial body to explore questions of ethicsin Ishiguro's case we wonder,
to what end do we strive for longer lives? At what cost? In Shelley's we may ask, to what end do
we seek to demonstrate our mastery and genius over a certain subject? And what lives will we
sacrifice to explore our craft?

imagine you are given the opportunity to travel back in time, but only to a point in time within the Roman Empire (approximately 500 BCE - 500 AD)....

How you answer this question really depends
on your interests and, to some extent, your personality. The latter point is simpler: do you
wish to live in exciting, tumultuous, dangerous times? These are not in short supply, but if you
are the type of person who thrives on adrenaline, I think I would choose the end of Julius
Caesar's career and his assassination. The aftermath of this was actually not as chaotic as, for
instance, Shakespeare depicts. Brutus and Cassius were not driven out of Rome by an angry mob.
It would still, however, be fascinating (and far from safe) to see for oneself how these events
unfolded. Or you might want to join Pliny the Younger to see the eruption of Vesuvius for
yourself. If you prefer something less sensational, then there are plenty of relatively peaceful
periods under such emperors as Trajan, Hadrian or Marcus Aurelius, or in the middle years of the
Republic, from which to choose.

If you are interested in Christianity. I
would not choose Bethlehem at the birth of Jesus. There is considerable dispute about whether
Jesus was even born in Bethlehem (some scholars argue that he actually came from Nazareth, where
he grew up, others say Jerusalem) and even if he was, there would probably not be much to see. I
imagine it would be far more interesting to go to Galilee when Jesus was preaching there, or
even to be present at the crucifixion. Or you might follow Paul and Barnabas to witness the
development of the early Church or take a seat at the Council of Nicea.

My
personal choice, for what it is worth, would be to go to Rome at the height of the Augustan Age.
Perhaps around 25 BCE. At this point, Virgil was still alive and working on the
Aeneid. Horace had published some of his major works and Augustus, secure
in his power after the Battle of Actium, ruled over a flourishing city, every aspect of which
would be of interest to historians and anthropologists, to say nothing of the discoveries to be
made in architecture, art, literature, music and thousands of aspects of daily
life.

In A Wrinkle in Time, what does Mrs. Murry mean when she says, . . . just because we dont understand doesnt mean that the explanation...

Mrs
Murrays comment gets to the heart of the books theme. First, the quote suggests that the
universe is bigger than what we know about itthat while things might happen that seem
inexplicable, or impossible, they simply serve to point out that there is so much we dont
understand. They may seem impossible now, but thats only because we havent figured out the
reason yet. In this sense the quote can be understood as an expression of faith in human
rationality and understanding. Second, it could mean that there might be other kinds of
explanations beyond the rational or scientific. In this sense, the quote affirms that their are
different kinds of intelligences required to fully understand the universe, and that rationality
might not be able to offer the true explanation. In this case, the quote is a kind of
affirmation of faith.