Author: AYE THUZAR

Montaigne was a thinker who reinvented the essay more than 500 years ago. His thoughts on a variety of topics feel like they could be written today. A great example of this is his remarks about foreigners. The dominant description of people from distant lands in Montaigne’s day was to depict them as something less than a human, savages even capable of practicing cannibalism. In the 18th century, many writers went the other direction, describing primitive others as better than “civilized” people because they were not spoiled by the modern world. 

In the Essays Montaigne takes a skeptical approach to the question, insisting that studying other cultures requires close attention to facts and details, not the opinions of others, however convincing. The tendency of European travelers of Montaigne’s time was to criticize the cultural practices of others as uncivilized and even dangerous. Montaigne maintains that the more carefully and dispassionately one considers an unknown person, the less likely one will apply his own prejudices to his analysis. It is important to understand Montaigne’s approach. Skepticism in his conception does not deny another person’s opinion but insists on verifiable proof (skepticism, for example, doesn’t refuse to believe in God, but doubts in his existence until reliable evidence). As a result, Montaigne is comfortable believing in the superiority or inferiority of another civilization if one or the other proves more convincing.

 

Christine de Pizan is an author whose best known work, The Book of the City of Ladies, attempts to destroy the argument that women are weak and useless creatures by building an entire city on the exploits of great women who came before her. She uses an argumentative strategy where she highlights in these women the very qualities they were reputed not to have. One such woman is Queen Dido, who is depicted by great male writers such as Virgil in the Aeneid as a great force of nature who loses herself in her passions, particularly in her love for Aeneas. Pizan chooses to attack the traditional image of Dido by emphasizing her unmatched ability to outwit her perceived enemies.

Pizan’s Dido is a master in various forms of cleverness. In her main example of Dido’s ability to plan and act out feats of great cunning, Pizan explains how Dido maneuvers to prevent Dido’s brother, Pygmalion the king, from stealing the great wealth of her husband, whom the king has murdered. Dido always anticipates Pygmalion’s actions and reacts in such thoughtful and clever ways that she thwarts his efforts at every turn. It is as if he can read into the heart of this horrible person. When she decides to leave her native town and go somewhere else, she realizes that the king will have her chased down and she schemes accordingly to remain alive and to keep her husband’s fortune.

Later, when she has arrived in Africa and managed to win a vast parcel of land for her people with the great cowhide trick, Dido learns that Pygmalion is chasing her again. She doesn’t defeat him again with her superior army but with great planning and strategy. She knows she needs people by her side, so she gathers her people and tells them her plan. Everyone agrees to stay by her side because she is loyal and persuasive. She acts very cleverly and wins over her brother. This description of Dido as a clever, level-headed is a wonderful opposition to the depictions by Virgil, Dante, and others.

 

In The Tragedy of Hamlet, all characters help to show the theme of appearance versus reality. There are many minor roles we can consider in this play. The characters I will focus my analysis on are Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. They both appear to be good and honest. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Hamlet’s childhood friends but Claudius hires them to work for him. They betray Hamlet by spying on him and informing Claudius about his activities. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern represent the friends in life who can get you killed. Even though their role in this play is minor, their characters teach us, in the end, how betrayal can get you killed. 

 

Many plays present a unified perspective on a theme. The author gives readers a single way to look at the characters and events inside a story. In the Oresteia, however, Aeschylus encourages us to consider the situations and problems in the play from different points of view. Two points of view are notable and radically different: those of Agamemnon and Clytemnestra. The core of that revolves around the murder of Iphigenia and how both of them view the events. Clytemnestra refuses to accept Agamemnon’s motives and feels forced to take her revenge on Agamemnon for the deed. Agamemnon considers it his obligation to sacrifice his daughter while Clytemnestra sees his action as a horrible lapse of betrayal.

After reading the play, I think Agamemnon didn’t have any choice but to sacrifice his daughter. I think he could have saved his daughter if he had the chance. Every father loves his children more than anything, and a dad’s love for his daughter counts the most. I think Agamemnon was left with no choice but to kill his daughter. The reason is Agamemnon could sail to Troy and succeed in the war. I think Agamemnon decided to kill his daughter because they had been hoping for a victory for so long. He was desperate.

Clytemnestra considers things differently, and she decides to kill Agamemnon because his actions were terrible. She decided to lure him, after he returns to Argos, decides to welcome him as if she is not bothered, and even lays out a carpet for him to walk on. Clytemnestra is angry about her daughter’s death but she doesn’t show her anger and pretends to be nice to him. She is a good actor and plans her revenge well. It is a strange end to a tragic story.