Karina Bez- 1st grade Cerp 1- 1-Explain the existing relationship between people and land in Britain in the

period studied in Semester II. When the Anglo-Saxons settle in Britain, a new period in history begins. These civilizations, which came from what we now call Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands, were very different from the Romans, in fact they were much like the Celts if we take into consideration their way of living and infrastructure. They lived in small villages with houses made out of mud, wood and straw and enjoyed feasting, listening to riddles, poems and stories. Regarding land, Kings, Thanes and churls possessed land, slaves on the contrary did not. They based the work of the land by the open field system which consisted in the use of the land communally. Each village had two or three large fields (several hundred acres each), divided into many narrow strips of land. They were cultivated by individuals or peasants families. The fields of cultivated land were unfenced but there were rights to be followed. The system started as a two field one and became into a 3 field one. The two field system consisted in: one land planted with wheat, barley or rye and the other and the other was left fallow until next season to recover fertility. However, by using this method they ran the risk of losing the whole crop if pests or any other natural condition threatened the harvest and consequently famine would be inevitable. That is the reason why the three field system was created. It was based on leaving just one third of the land fallow, another third was planted with oats, barley and legumes in autumn and harvested in late summer and the last third was left fallow with cattle to pasture on it fertilizing it at the same time. The following season the planting fields would be rotated in order to add different nutrients to the soil. Besides that, the Anglo-Saxons used a heavier plough which needed between 6 or 8 oxen to be pulled, which if it had not been for the

Cooperative way of affording it, most of them would not have been able to get hold of it. Unfortunately, capitalism made this system come to an end since the sense of community was replaced by ownership, selling and buying. I strongly believe that the feudal system was and is of paramount importance since it paved the ground for what we call nowadays cooperative work. It showed how people were able not only to make ends meets, which was so difficult at those times, but also shared a sense of belonging to something. It must have helped the community in every single aspect since peoples were united times of prosperity but difficult ones as well. If harvest was not good for ones, the same applied to all members of the group, making it easier to find solutions. This system made it easier to apply rules since everyone was benefitted by them. Later in time when the Normans invaded Britain William the Conqueror had to consider a way of having nobles and the church at his side and at his disposal without losing his own power. He makes use of the existing feudal system in England, that is to say, he gave land to both but he kept a bigger portion for himself. The land was not free, lords and bishops had to pay taxes and help the king in war times by supporting him with knights. They also had to pay homage to the king (an oath in which they swear to be loyal to him). There was a chain in this system of feudalism because lords gave land to lesser nobles, knights and other freemen in exchange for military service or the rent. Consequently the noble had serfs to work on his own land. This system was a very successful one since as I mentioned before it worked as a chain. Every person played an important role in it because it helped the king sustain himself with the taxes and everyone received something in exchange creating a relaxed atmosphere in a sense. At the same time, as it was thought at that

time, they were also serving the king and it was something anyone would feel proud of. This system shows how long was the distance between nobles and ordinary people called freemen, since they were the ones who had to do the hard work without a payment in accordance. This resembles our present situation in which middle class that is to say working class, still supports the economy of a country and does not receive privileges for doing so. 2-Development of the political/legal organizations in Britain (from Anglo-Saxon times to Henry VIII) The Anglo-Saxons established many kingdoms, that is why there were several Kings in those times in Britain. Some of the most renown were Offa (King of Mercia), Oswy (Nurthumbria),Ethelbert (Kent) among others. The administration of the land was divided into shires (counties in Norman times), in which a shire reeve was assigned as the kings local administrator. As mentioned earlier in answer 1, there was a division of social classes: the kings, thanes, churls, soldiers and slaves .Thanes (lords) were the most important men in the village, they owned land and reported to the king. They were in charge of making people follow the rules. Churls were freemen who owned their lands, too. Soldiers followed in rank and lastly, slaves who on the contrary, were not free. They were usually criminals or prisoners captured in war. There was a manor or large house where local villagers paid taxes, justice was administered and soldiers met there. Crime was seen as damage caused against society as a whole rather than to individuals. There was a sense of kinship which caused the family to pay for crimes committed by a member of it. In the tenth century all freemen from the age of 12 took an oath to obtain from and denounce any major crime fostering a sense of social community and responsibility.

The King ruled with a council of thanes and bishops called witan. They advised the king and kept him from abusing his powers. The shire court met twice a year and the hundred court every 4 weeks to discuss any case which need to be solved. When people committed a crime they could be executed. In other cases the wergild (wer: man; girld: tribute,gold,money) was applied, consisting in a payment to the victim or familys victim. If the person could not pay he became the victims family slave. Mutilation was also a form of payment. Every part of the body had a wergild price correspondence in shillings. Depending on the social status of the victim was the price imposed. For instance, if you killed a thane you had to pay more than if you killed a churl. People could also claim themselves non guilty. In such circumstance they had the possibility of resorting to oath helpers. These were people who support the accused innocence. Otherwise, if that was not the case, the accused could undergo trial by ordeal. They believed that God would prove his or her innocence at the time of the trial. There were two different trials: by water and by heat. In the trial by water the person was thrown into a pond. If he sank he was considered innocent. In the trial by heat the person had to carry a hot iron bar or put the hand in boiling water to take an object. In both cases the person was considered innocent if after three days the hand started to heal. Although such practices are considered inhumane and even nonsense in these days, the important fact is that the Anglo Saxons believed in a kind of judiciary system which is the basis for the English judiciary system nowadays. When the Normans settled, the social rank was nearly the same as the one held by the Anglo Saxons, however, here the role of the Church played a major role. Bishops had the same status a nobles and lords. The monarch was in charge of order and justice. Lords collected taxes and controlled people. Knights (soldiers in AS times) had to be prepared to go to war. Freemen were in charge of doing the hard

work like farming and the serfs had to stay in their feuds with no rights at all. Nobles, lords and knights had to pay an oath to the king to show their loyalty. Christianity was already installed in Britain but it was with the Synob at Whitby that the King decided to support the Roman Church instead of the Celtic. Monasteries were educating people since most of them were illiterate. This was intensified by King Alfred the Great who was a very religious man concerned in the education of his peoples. Besides, he established a written code of law based on the teachings of the Bible. This helped maintain social order and advocated justice as well. He also maintained diplomatic relations with neighbouring kings and princes. In the Tudor age the power which the King with his nobles and the Church had once had was in decline, especially after the Magna Carta and the Black death later on. King John made his part on this situation since he proved to be very unpopular not only with the working class people but also with nobles, merchants and the Church. He increased taxes, had arguments with the pope, and took the role of a jury in many occasions. Apart from that he lost nobles land when he lost Normandy. He brought such discomfort among them that nobles forced him to sign the Magna Carta. It aimed at: controlling the taxes getting higher which could be regulated by the parliament , peoples had the right to free from a dishonest king, the law of the land was superior to any Kings law, merchants had the right to do business and set up without inconvenience, the Church was free to take inner decisions especially choosing bishops without the interference of the King, last but not least freemen had the right to a proper trial. Taking the Magna Cartas content it is clear that nobles cared about their own security and rights since freemen as it is mentioned in the

codes were just a minority of the population. However, it is the basis of the English citizens right and was also adopted by the Americans because it not only refers to a fair trial but also refers to freedom in a much wider sense than ever before and consequently can be closely related to human rights, a big issue nowadays. Henry the VIII, who belonged to the period called the Tudor Age, played an important role in the English Reformation in which he declared himself supreme head of the Church of England. As the Pope did not give him his consent to divorce from his wife and remarry another he decided to take action and separate from the Roman Church. Such determination was secured by The Acts of succession and the Act of Supremacy. Henry ordered the clergy to preach against superstitious images, relics, miracles and pilgrimages and to remove candles from religious settings. After his separation from the pope, the Church of England was not under Romes control. Those who rebelled against this were executed. Many other people were not opposed to the separation since the role of the Roman Church was more worried in collecting money than helping the ones in need.

3-If you were to go back in time to the 14th. Century and you were a survivor of the Black Death; would you consider the Plague as the Armageddon? How would you position after it? Support your answers. Give examples. If I were in such position, with no doubt I would have resorted to the belief that God had let me live for one reason. After struggling with life in the fourteenth century, which must have been extremely hard, seeing people one love die and suffer, I would have become a much stronger person, otherwise I would have died. In times of hardships, it is common to get nearer the spiritual side. It must be shocking at some point, but once you are able to endure you start wondering why didnt I die the same way we ask ourselves why did this happen to me? when something unwanted happens. Maybe it is the kharma one has to pay in this life for another, but I doubt whether this thought would have come to my mind in the fourteenth century. I suppose that would be inclined to believe that life was a present for me and as in life what you give is what you receive, I would spend the rest of my life trying to help those in need. I do not see myself taking care of the wounded people in the war like the red cross volunteers since I am not fond of blood and surgeries at all but I see myself teaching young children how to read and write or helping those who lost their families. Well, to sum up, I would try to find the way of giving the favour back to someone who is in trouble. Life is a circle and if something I have learned from reading history is that there has always been present the need for good actions since bad ones outnumber by large. If we want to make a better place we have to start by committing ourselves to making the change. I feel that not only miseries are copied, good actions are contagious too. Luckily!

4- ESSAY 300 words If we teach language without teaching at the same time the culture in which it operates, we are teaching meaningless symbols... Evaluate this statement. Teaching culture should go hand in hand with teaching language, since they cannot be separated. When we learn a new language we have to bear in mind what the language itself and the speakers of such language went through to be what they are today. Language is the main carrier of the idiosyncrasy of peoples. We can tell social and educational background by hearing someones speech. That is one of the reasons why we as teachers should put emphasis on recognizing and letting students identify when language is appropriate or not in different situations. As one of the main goals of teaching a language is communication, we cannot forget about how misleading it can be not to be aware of the different accents, expressions, slang used by members in different English speaking countries, for instance. Another important feature concerns with common attitudes related to the way people interact with those from the same community and outsiders as well. This can tell us a lot about interactional patterns and are useful at the time of getting in touch with members of peoples from a particular culture. A clear example of this is when Americans are described as informal and straight to the point people. This is mainly due to the way their culture was formed. They are used to being in contact with people from all around the world and do business. Besides that, coming from a country of such leadership has made them confident enough to establish relationships in a kind of superiority standpoint. British people, on the other hand, are regarded as cold and extremely formal. With no doubt monarchy has had that effect on its citizens, where every word should be proper enough to resemble the Queen. These and many other aspects build us as a society. From the moment we are born we carry our ancestors idiosyncrasy and for

that reason if we are to teach a language we must closely relate the causes and consequences of a nations culture to understand differences and be tolerant. Both qualities are difficult to acquire and to teach. Human beings tend to see differences as a drawback and we tend to criticize those who are not like us. Teaching culture is a great opportunity to get rid of such misconceptions and start accepting people regardless their cultural backgrounds. In conclusion, by teaching culture not only will we facilitate the learning process and increase the target language but also it will help understand the world and its inhabitants in context through real examples and participants.