Description
I have attached the 2 papers that you wrote when we worked together before. Based on these 2 papers, please write a reflection letter answering the questions below.
In a substantial paragraph, explain why you chose this essay, and how this essay best represents your capabilities as a writer. Specifically:
Tell us the position that you take in this essay, and why you took this position.
Tell us what was the most convincing evidence you used in support of that position and why.
Tell us any other aspect of this essay that you’re proud of.
Then, in another paragraph, explain how the essay you discussed is different from the other essays in your portfolio. You might consider:
Are these differences the result of a different audience, purpose, or context for the essays?
Are some differences because these are different types of essays?
Do the differences represent changes in your writing skill?
In a separate paragraph for each paper:
Tell us how these essays demonstrate your growth as a writer. Or, if you’d prefer, tell us how these essays reveal to you what you’d still like to work on as a writer. Either way, refer to specific examples within your essays to help you explain this.
Finally, feel free to discuss what factors (tutors? professors? peers? a new-found commitment to writing?) have aided your growth as a writer.
If there’s anything else you want to tell us about your writing, please include it in your reflection.
No formatting requirement. 300 – 500 words
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Comparative Analysis of Medea and Lady Macbeth
Introduction
In the context of classical tragedy, Euripides’ “Medea” and William Shakespeare’s
“Macbeth” stand as enduring works, each reflecting the timeless struggles of their protagonists.
This paper aims to conduct a comparative analysis of the tragic heroines, Medea and Lady
Macbeth, examining the shared and distinctive elements that characterize their narratives.
Rooted in their respective societies, both characters exhibit a relentless ambition for power and
societal elevation. This analysis will analyze their shared tendencies toward vengefulness,
exploring the motivations and consequences of their pursuits. Furthermore, an examination of
their experiences with guilt and conscience will illuminate the complexities of their moral
landscapes. Evaluating their responses to societal expectations of gender identity, the paper
will highlight both commonalities and variations. Finally, by scrutinizing their strengths and
weaknesses, this analysis seeks to unveil fundamental human aspects that connect these
characters, transcending cultural and temporal boundaries.
Comparative Analysis of Medea and Lady Macbeth
Ambition
In Euripides’ “Medea,” the central character, Medea, manifests a profound ambition for
power and elevated status within the rigid framework of ancient Greek society. Her unwavering
determination to secure a prominent position is vividly captured in her resolute declaration, “I
would rather stand three times in the front line of battle than bear one child.” (Euripides, pg. 24)
This poignant statement not only underscores her vehement rejection of traditional gender
roles but also illuminates her relentless pursuit of agency and recognition (Euripides, 2022).
Medea’s ambition serves as a catalyst for the ensuing tragic events, as her quest for a position
beyond societal expectations propels her towards actions that challenge the very fabric of her
world.
In Shakespeare’s “Macbeth,” Lady Macbeth similarly harbors ambitions for power and
social prominence. This aspiration is eloquently expressed in her famous soliloquy, “Unsex me
here, / And fill me from the crown to the toe topful / Of direst cruelty”(No Fear Shakespeare, pg.
12) reflecting a fervent desire to cast aside societal constraints associated with femininity and
embrace a more assertive, masculine role. Like Medea, Lady Macbeth’s ambition is intricately
tied to a longing for influence and a coveted position of authority (Lohse, 2016). Her character
serves as a poignant exploration of the consequences of unchecked ambition and the
transformative power it can wield over individuals.
Comparatively, the ambitions of Medea and Lady Macbeth intersect in their audacious
pursuit of power, challenging entrenched gender norms. Both heroines, in their distinct cultural
contexts, seek agency beyond the confines of their prescribed roles, thereby showcasing a
shared defiance against societal expectations. However, their motivations diverge subtly, with
Medea’s ambition stemming from a desire for personal agency and Lady Macbeth’s driven by a
thirst for political influence (Lohse, 2016). These nuanced distinctions in motivation underscore
the unique contexts that shape the characters, enriching the exploration of their ambitions and
setting the stage for the tragic trajectories that unfold in their respective narratives.
Vengefulness
In Euripides’ “Medea,” the narrative pivots on the axis of Medea’s profound pursuit of
revenge, catalyzed by her husband Jason’s betrayal. The extent of her vengeful determination is
encapsulated in her chilling proclamation, “I am resolved to take my children, my own flesh and
blood, away from here. Then there is vengeance to be taken on my enemies.” (Euripides, pg. 57)
This declaration underscores the depth of her resolve and introduces the tragic trajectory that
unfolds. Medea’s vengefulness is not merely a reaction to personal betrayal; it becomes a force
that shapes the very contours of the narrative, driving her to unthinkable actions in her quest
for retribution (Lohse, 2016).
Similarly, in Shakespeare’s “Macbeth,” Lady Macbeth embarks on a path of vengeful
pursuits, albeit with distinctions in motive. Her vengefulness is intertwined with political
ambitions as she goads her husband toward regicide, driven by a desire for power. Lady
Macbeth’s vengeful motives are articulated in her plea to the spirits to “unsex” her (No Fear
Shakespeare, pg. 12), highlighting her willingness to forsake traditional femininity to achieve
her ruthless objectives. Her vengefulness is, therefore, a means to a political end, starkly
differing from the more personal and familial motivations that propel Medea.
In comparison, the vengeful motives of Medea and Lady Macbeth converge in their
willingness to defy societal norms and commit heinous acts in pursuit of their goals. However,
their underlying motivations diverge significantly; Medea seeks revenge for personal betrayal
and the loss of her familial unit, while Lady Macbeth’s vengefulness is embedded in her political
aspirations (Jan, 2018). These distinctions add layers to their characters, illustrating the
interplay between personal and political motivations in the tragic canvases painted by Euripides
and Shakespeare.
Guilt and Conscience
In Euripides’ “Medea,” the exploration of guilt and conscience is explained, revealing
layers of moral complexity within the character of Medea. Her experience of guilt becomes
evident in the aftermath of her horrific actions, notably when she reflects, “Do I not seem, then,
to be the most wretched of women? Of all human beings the most polluted?” (Euripides pg.24)
This introspective moment unveils the depth of Medea’s internal struggle, demonstrating a
conscience that grapples with the consequences of her vengeful deeds. The presence of guilt in
Medea’s character adds a dimension of tragic humanity, challenging simplistic categorizations
of her as a mere archetype of revenge.
In Shakespeare’s “Macbeth,” Lady Macbeth’s experience of guilt unfolds with haunting
intensity. Her sleepwalking scene, wherein she compulsively attempts to cleanse her hands of
imagined bloodstains, offers a poignant glimpse into the torment of her conscience. Her
sleepwalking soliloquy, “Out, damned spot! Out, I say!”(No Fear Shakespeare, 61) encapsulates
the psychological toll of guilt, revealing a conscience that is relentlessly haunted by the
repercussions of her complicity in the murderous deeds committed by her husband. Lady
Macbeth’s descent into madness is a stark portrayal of the corrosive effects of guilt on her
psyche.
Both Medea and Lady Macbeth grapple with the weight of guilt, showcasing a shared
vulnerability beneath their outwardly formidable exteriors. Their guilt stems from their
involvement in morally reprehensible actions, and both are compelled to confront the
consequences of their choices. However, the nature of their responses to guilt differs
significantly. While both experience psychological distress, Medea’s introspective selfquestioning contrasts with Lady Macbeth’s more explicit descent into madness (Jan, 2018).
These variations in their responses highlights the distinct psychological landscapes crafted by
Euripides and Shakespeare, adding complexity to the portrayal of guilt in tragic narratives.
Gender Identity
In Euripides’ “Medea,” the character’s relationship with her gender role is complex.
Medea challenges traditional gender norms through her actions and rhetoric, highlighting her
rejection of the conventional roles imposed upon women in ancient Greek society. Her
statement, “I would rather stand three times in the front line of battle than bear one child,”
(Euripides pg. 21) articulates her disdain for the traditional expectations of motherhood and
domesticity. Medea’s rejection of societal norms pertaining to women’s roles shows her desire
for agency and autonomy beyond the confines of traditional gender expectations, marking a
significant departure from the expected feminine ideals of her time.
Conversely, in Shakespeare’s “Macbeth,” Lady Macbeth’s relationship with her gender
role is characterized by her willingness to forsake traditional femininity in pursuit of power. Her
invocation to the spirits to “unsex” (No Fear Shakespeare, 12) her highlights her desire to
transcend the perceived limitations imposed by her gender. Lady Macbeth associates femininity
with weakness, seeking to embody a more assertive and ruthless persona traditionally
associated with masculinity. Her rejection of conventional gender roles is intertwined with her
ambition for political power, emphasizing her willingness to subvert societal expectations to
achieve her objectives (Jan, 2018).
Comparatively, both Medea and Lady Macbeth exhibit a rejection of traditional gender
roles prevalent in their respective societies (Jan, 2018). They challenge the constraints placed
upon women, demonstrating a shared defiance against societal expectations of femininity.
However, their motivations and approaches differ; Medea seeks personal agency beyond the
confines of traditional roles, while Lady Macbeth’s rejection of femininity is linked to her
pursuit of political power. These distinctions in their attitudes toward gender roles highlight the
diverse motivations and societal pressures that shape their characters, enriching the
exploration of gender identity in tragic narratives.
Conclusion
In this comparative analysis of Euripides’ “Medea” and Shakespeare’s “Macbeth,” the
tragic heroines, Medea and Lady Macbeth, exhibit profound similarities and differences that
illuminate the enduring complexities of their characters. Both women defy societal
expectations, sharing a relentless ambition for power and societal elevation that challenges
traditional gender norms. Their vengeful pursuits, though convergent in audacity, reveal
distinct motivations. Medea seeking revenge for personal betrayal and Lady Macbeth driven by
political aspirations (Jan, 2018). The exploration of guilt exposes divergent responses, with
Medea’s introspective self-questioning contrasting Lady Macbeth’s explicit descent into
madness (Jan, 2018). While both reject traditional gender roles, Medea’s rejection stems from a
quest for personal agency, while Lady Macbeth’s is entwined with political aspirations. In
conclusion, the tragic portrayals of Medea and Lady Macbeth transcend temporal and cultural
disparities, showing the timeless resonance of their struggles against societal expectations and
the complex interplay of ambition, revenge, guilt, and gender identity in the human experience.
References
Euripides. (2022). Medea. Gildan Media LLC aka G&D Media.
Jan, L. (2018). The different representation of lady Macbeth’s character and performance in a
stage and a film production. GRIN Verlag.
Lohse, R. (2016). Lady Macbeth, King Duncan and the witches. Why are the characters of
Shakespeare’s “Macbeth” still discussed today? GRIN Verlag.
A Textual Analysis of the Gods Enlil and Shamash in Gilgamesh as
Rendered by David Ferry
Introduction
This paper looks at the roles and qualities of the gods Shamash and Enlil in David Ferry’s
reimagining of the Gilgamesh epic. The goal is to reveal the various characteristics, powers, and
interactions of these deities within the context of the narrative. By exploring how Shamash and
Enlil interact with mortals and other gods, the paper hopes to get insight into their role in
developing the themes and dynamics of this ancient Mesopotamian epic. The paper hopes that
this research will provide a better understanding of the roles that these gods perform and their
impact on the story’s development.
Analysis
Power of gods
Shamash is considered the god of justice and the sun, plays a central role in the epic. His
primary powers encompass fairness, truth, and the maintenance of moral order. As the sun god,
Shamash holds a dual significance, he not only provides literal illumination to the world but also
serves as a symbol of enlightenment and the clarity of vision “O Shamash, my son Gilgamesh is
going to the Forest on your errand, to kill the demon hateful to the sun god” (29). This radiant
deity is deeply ingrained in the moral fabric of the society.
Moreover, Shamash is not merely a distant celestial figure but is actively engaged with
mortals. In the epic of Gilgamesh, he emerges as a benevolent guide and protector. When
Gilgamesh and Enkidu embark on their perilous quest, Shamash aids them in navigating the
treacherous Cedar Forest and offers crucial assistance in their battles. “When Shamash sees
him setting out on the road, or in the mountain passes, or entering the Forest, may Shamash
guard and keep him safe” (29). This highlights his role as a guardian and guide for those who
seek his divine counsel.
Within the divine hierarchy, Shamash enjoys a position of respect and authority. He is a
trusted figure among the gods and is frequently called upon in the divine council. His judgments
are esteemed for their fairness and wisdom, making him the go-to deity for resolving conflicts
and disputes among the divine beings. Shamash’s enduring presence in the epic exemplifies his
dual nature as a radiant sun god and a paragon of justice. “Then Enlil said that Enkidu must die
but Gilgamesh, the gifted, must not die. And Shamash said: ‘The two of them went together,
companions on my errand into the Forest. Why then should Enkidu, who went, companion, into
the Cedar Forest on my errand, why should he die?’ (46).
On the hand, Enlil, another prominent god, governs the elements of air, wind, and
storms. His divine purview extends to controlling and unleashing destructive natural forces,
which are vividly portrayed in the epic of Gilgamesh when he sends calamities to challenge the
heroes. Enlil’s decisions wield immense influence throughout the narrative, as evidenced by his
dispatching of the Bull of Heaven to punish Gilgamesh and Enkidu for their defiance, setting off
a series of trials and conflicts. ‘They have killed the Bull of Heaven and killed Huwawa. One of
them must die, the one of them who felled the tallest cedar’ (46).
Enlil’s authority extends over the natural world and the affairs of both gods and mortals.
As one of the chief deities in the epic, his commands are held in the highest regard, and his
actions ripple through the epic’s unfolding events. His dominion over the forces of nature
underscores the ancient reverence for the powerful and sometimes capricious deity of air and
storms “Huwawa’s mouth is fire; his roar the floodwater; his breath is death. Enlil made him
guardian of the Cedar Forest, to frighten off the mortal who would venture there” (26).
Controls
Shamash, the god of justice and the sun, exercises control over vital aspects of life and
nature. As the sun god, Shamash holds sway over daylight, and his presence signifies the dawn
and the warmth of the sun’s rays. “O Shamash, my son Gilgamesh is going to the Forest on your
errand, to kill the demon hateful to the sun god” (29). In the epic, this aspect of Shamash’s
control is highlighted when he aids Gilgamesh and Enkidu during their journey. His radiance
offers them light and guidance in the darkness of the Cedar Forest and symbolizes
enlightenment and clarity.
Furthermore, Shamash’s domain extends to the realm of justice and moral order. He is
associated with fairness and truth. Mortals often seek his guidance and protection when facing
ethical dilemmas or in need of divine intervention. His role as the dispenser of justice
underscores his control over the moral aspects of life, ensuring that actions align with ethical
standards “Then Enlil said that Enkidu must die but Gilgamesh, the gifted, must not die. And
Shamash said: ‘The two of them went together, companions on my errand into the Forest. Why
then should Enkidu, who went, companion, into the Cedar Forest on my errand, why should he
die?’ (46)”.
Enlil, on the other hand, controls the more formidable forces of nature, specifically air,
wind, and storms. Enlil’s powers are portrayed as potentially destructive and capricious. In the
epic, he is responsible for sending the Bull of Heaven as a punishment, a creature that wreaks
havoc and threatens the balance of the natural world ‘They have killed the Bull of Heaven and
killed Huwawa. One of them must die, the one of them who felled the tallest cedar’ (46). Enlil’s
control over the elements of air and storms is indicative of his dominion over the unpredictable
and often destructive forces of nature.
Personal Qualities or Attributes
Shamash is characterized by his role as a just and fair deity. He upholds moral order and
ethical standards, intervening to assist Gilgamesh and Enkidu in their quests. Shamash is also a
guiding and protective figure, offering guidance and protection to mortals during their journeys.
As the god of the sun, he symbolizes enlightenment and clarity, dispelling darkness and
obscurity both literally and metaphorically. Shamash’s respected position among the gods
underscores his role as a moral authority in the epic “Then Enlil said that Enkidu must die but
Gilgamesh, the gifted, must not die. And Shamash said: ‘The two of them went together,
companions on my errand into the Forest. Why then should Enkidu, who went, companion, into
the Cedar Forest on my errand, why should he die?’ (46)”.
Enlil, in contrast, exhibits capriciousness and immense power. He can be unpredictable
and arbitrary in his actions, as seen when he sends the Bull of Heaven as punishment for
Gilgamesh and Enkidu’s defiance. Enlil’s primary attribute lies in his control over natural forces,
particularly air, wind, and storms. His authority among the gods and the weight of his
commands contribute to the tension between divine interests and mortal affairs in the
narrative.
Interactions
Shamash interacts with humans in a benevolent and guiding manner. He aids Gilgamesh
and Enkidu during their journey by providing them with guidance and protection. Shamash’s
interactions with mortals demonstrate his concern for their well-being and his willingness to
intervene to assist them when needed. He is seen as a deity who illuminates the path for
humans, both literally as the god of the sun and metaphorically as a source of moral guidance.
In his interactions with other gods, Shamash is respected among the divine council. His
judgments are considered just and wise, and he plays a role in resolving disputes among the
gods. While he maintains his authority, Shamash’s interactions with fellow deities are generally
harmonious, reflecting his role as a moral authority and a source of ethical guidance.
Enlil’s interactions with humans often take on a more challenging and adversarial tone.
He is responsible for sending the Bull of Heaven to punish Gilgamesh and Enkidu for their
defiance “Give me the Bull of Heaven that I may punish Gilgamesh the king, who has found out
and told about the foulness of the goddess” (42). This action sets in motion a series of trials and
conflicts for the heroes, highlighting Enlil’s role as a god who can bring adversity and tests to
mortals.
Among other gods, Enlil’s interactions vary. He holds a high rank in the divine hierarchy
and commands authority, which is recognized by other deities. However, his decisions, such as
sending the Bull of Heaven, can create tensions among the gods, as they must grapple with the
consequences of his actions. Enlil’s interactions with his divine peers showcase the complex
dynamics, where the actions of one god can have far-reaching effects and provoke discussions
and disagreements among the divine assembly.
Quality of gods
Shamash embodies positive qualities of justice and fairness, serving as a moral compass
in the epic of Gilgamesh. His commitment to upholding ethical standards and moral order is a
commendable aspect of his character (33). Additionally, Shamash’s role as a guiding and
protective deity showcases his benevolence and his willingness to intervene for the well-being
of mortals. His symbolization of enlightenment and clarity as the god of the sun is another
positive trait, illuminating both the literal and metaphorical paths for humans. However, there
is the potential for favoritism as he aids Gilgamesh and Enkidu, which could raise questions
about his impartiality. “When Shamash sees him setting out on the road, or in the mountain
passes, or entering the Forest, may Shamash guard and keep him safe” (29).
Enlil, on the other hand, is a deity with divine authority and control over natural forces,
which can be seen as positive attributes in the divine hierarchy. His power ensures the efficient
resolution of divine matters and the maintenance of balance in the natural world. However,
there are negative aspects to his character (46). Enlil’s capriciousness and unpredictability, as
demonstrated in sending the Bull of Heaven without regard for mortal consequences, can lead
to chaos and adversity. His adversarial role in relation to humans, often bringing challenges to
their lives, adds complexity to his character and presents challenges for the mortals in the epic.
References
Ferry D. (1992). Gilgamesh : a new rendering in english verse (1st Noonday Press). Noonday
Press.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
