Paper 2

Goals

• To deepen your understanding of one play in Aeschylus's trilogy Oresteia, and the mythological thought it reflects
• To read critically both original source material -your play, in translation- and scholarly arguments about that play
• To develop an interesting, valid argument about the ideas reflected in your play
• To advance your argument persuasively in written form, citing evidence from the text of your play and explaining how it proves your insights
• To use a professional scholar's published arguments about your play as a point of departure for your own argument: that is,
  • as a model of how insight, evidence, and argument can be combined to demonstrate an interpretation persuasively
  • as suggestions about some of the ideas your play may reflect; but note!!
  • the goal of this exercise is not necessarily to agree with or to disagree with a professional scholar, but to build a convincing demonstration of your own ideas, from the evidence of the ancient source; use the published scholarly argument you are working with as a model and point of reference; verify the scholar's assertions for yourself from our course-material

Procedure

• For your principal focus in this exercise, choose either:
  • Agamemnon
  • Libation Bearers
  • Eumenides
  • (even as you explore your play in greater depth, your insights will illuminate other plays within the Oresteia, and other mythological material as well)
• In conjunction with your play, read in Simon Goldhill's The Oresteia the following (a copy of Dr. Goldhill's book is on reserve in Cudahy library, PA3825 .A6 G64 1992):
  • BOTH section 2.5, "The Oresteia, Introduction: Plot and Plotting" (pp. 22-26), AND EITHER
    • sections 2.6-8, "The Oresteia, A Charter for the City? (pp. 26-53) OR ELSE
    • sections 2.9-12, "The Oresteia, The Mortal Coil" (pp. 53-81)
• Think about the following issues:
  • How does Goldhill's overall interpretation apply to your play?
  • What pieces of evidence does Goldhill identify as important for his interpretation?
  • What arguments does Goldhill build on his evidence?
  • How does he construct his arguments?
  • Do you agree with Goldhill? To what extent? Why or why not?
  • What additional evidence do you see that could confirm Goldhill's arguments?
  • What additional evidence do you see that could modify Goldhill's conclusions in any way?
• Focus on a particular section of your play where you judge you have the most to add to what Goldhill argues, either extending his interpretation, refining it, or modifying it, to yield an even better understanding of your play
• Define the point you are going to write your essay to prove
• Assemble the evidence you need to prove your point
• Articulate the arguments that will show how your evidence proves your point
• Make sure you have taken into account any relevant contrary evidence or counter-arguments that could undermine your point, and show why they do not invalidate your point, after all
• Organize your evidence and arguments so they will explain your analysis clearly and persuasively
• Write up your essay in 5-6 typed, double-spaced pages. References to Goldhill's sections may follow short-form reference in parentheses, such as (Goldhill, 53); include full bibliographical information at the back of your paper, outside the page-count.
• For additional guidance, see Dr. Long's Strategic Guide to writing academic papers
• For insight on how university professors evaluate student essays, see the criteria on Grading Papers prepared and copyrighted (2002) by the Derek Bok Center for Teaching and Learning of Harvard University
• If you have ever had problems using apostrophes correctly, see this web-page: let's put an end to the troubles!
• Hand in your essay at the start of class Thursday, 21 November