One way to interpret the gods in Greek myths is to see them as personifications of forces in nature like the sea or lightning, or of abstract concepts like wisdom or forethought. Yet Baldwin says this kind of reading is “an error” that takes the charm out of these tales and reduces their “precious gold into utilitarian iron.” Why might Baldwin believe this? What happens to characterization or other literary elements in the story if we read the gods as personifications instead of literally?

General rochambeau general washington by

Write about 50 words explaining whether or not this passage supports that explanation. in the introduction, you heard genghis khan’s explanation of why the mongols were successful conquerors in his time. the mongols were illiterate . . and perhaps no more than 700,000 in number. . they were herdsmen on the grassy plains north of the gobi desert, south of siberia’s forests. before the year 1200, the mongols were fragmented, moving about in small bands headed by a chief, or khan, and living in portable felt dwellings. the mongols endured frequent deprivations [hardships] and sparse areas for grazing their animals. they frequently fought over turf, and during hard times, they occasionally raided, interested in goods rather than bloodshed.

Why is the federal reserve managed under the oversight of the federal government? the fed is responsible for printing and coining money. the fed is responsible for collecting income taxes. the fed is responsible for the government’s money. the fed is responsible for paying off government debt.(the first option isn't correct i tried that one)edit: the answer is the fed is responsible for the government’s money.