Answer:
In "The Devil and Tom Walker," Washington Irving describes how the devil strikes a deal with a petty and miserly man, Tom Walker, and the consequences of that deal. Irving uses a third-person omniscient point of view to tell the story. This point of view allows the author to give readers the private and intimate details about Tom’s life and character that would not have been discernable from any other point of view. For example, he describes Tom’s unhappy marriage:
Her voice was often heard in wordy warfare with her husband; and his face sometimes showed signs that their conflicts were not confined to words.
At the same time, Irving is able to distance himself from the story while dryly commenting on everything that happens. For example, he describes Tom’s new business:
In proportion to the distress of the applicant was the hardness of his terms. He accumulated bonds and mortgages; gradually squeezed his customers closer and closer, and sent them at length, dry as a sponge, from his door.
If the story was told in the first person point of view (by the protagonist Tom), the readers would get intimate but inaccurate details about the story because it would be twisted by Tom’s biases. Through the third-person omniscient point of view, the author is able to make important commentary on the hypocrisy and greed in American society.
Explanation:
"What object was stolen and what person / organization"
Theft is a crime against property, consisting in seizing other people's property, using force in things or violence or intimidation in people. It is precisely these two modes of execution of behavior that differentiate it from theft, which only requires the act of empowerment.
B.) Peasants on manors and under feudalism owed financial obligations to the lord.
C.) New agricultural techniques changed the open field system of manorialism.
D.) The growth of cities decreased the decreased the importance of feudalism.
Answer:
Feudalism and the manorial system impacted the social life of Europeans establishing that Unlike slaves, peasants retained legal rights in manorialism and in the feudal arrangement.
Explanation:
On the first hand during Manorialism and feudalism, slaves didn't have legal rights, they were individuals with only one purpose, to execute every order their lord or owner gave them. Slavery was a legal activity and landlords or owners had legal rights to the purchase of slaves and execute power over them.
On the second hand, peasants were individuals that entered agreements to landlords to use their lands, produce and pay them for that. Also, many of them had to follow their liege command when an order was executed. They gained wealth in exchange but they could be punished if they didn't answer the call of their liege.
This statement is true.