Temple of Artemis at Ephesus

The Temple of Artemis, sometimes  called the Artemisium,  was a huge, beautiful place of worship, that was built around 550 BCE  in the rich, port  city of Ephesus (located  in what is now western Turkey).  When the beautiful monument was burned down 200 years later  by the arsonist Herostratus in 356 BCE, the Temple of Artemis was built again, just as large but even more intricately decorated. It was this second version of the Temple of Artemis that was awarded a place among the Seven Ancient Wonders of the World. The Temple of Artemis was again destroyed  in 262 CE when the Goths invaded Ephesus, but the second time it was not rebuilt. Who Was Artemis? For ancient Greeks, Artemis  (also known as the Roman  goddess  Diana), the twin sister of Apollo,  was the athletic, healthy, virgin  goddess of hunting and wild animals,  often depicted with a bow and arrow. Ephesus, however, was not purely a Greek city. Although it had been founded by Greeks as a colony on Asia Minor around 1087 BCE,  it continued to be influenced by the original inhabitants of the area. Thus, at Ephesus,  the Greek goddess Artemis was combined with the local, pagan goddess of fertility, Cybele. The few  sculptures that remain of Artemis of Ephesus show a woman standing, with her legs fitted  tightly together and her arms held out in front of her. Her legs  were wrapped tightly in a long skirt covered with animals, such as stags and lions. Around her neck was a garland of flowers and on her head was  either a hat or a headdress.  But what was most pronounced was her  torso, which was  covered with a large number of breasts or eggs. Artemis of Ephesus  was not only  the goddess of fertility, she was the patron deity of the city. As such, Artemis of Ephesus needed a temple in which to be honored. The First Temple of Artemis The first Temple of Artemis was built in a marshy area long held sacred by locals.  It is believed that there was at least some sort of temple or shrine there at least as early as 800 BCE. However, when famously-rich King Croesus of Lydia conquered the area in 550 BCE, he ordered a new, larger, more magnificent temple to be built. The Temple of Artemis was an  immense, rectangular  structure made of white marble.  The  Temple was  350-feet long and 180-feet wide, larger than a modern, American-football field. What was truly spectacular, though, was its height. The 127 Ionic columns, which were  lined up in two rows all around the structure, reached 60 feet high. That was nearly twice as high as the columns at the  Parthenon in Athens.   The entire Temple was covered in beautiful carvings, including the columns, which was unusual for the time. Inside the Temple was a statue of Artemis, which is believed to have been life-sized. Arson For 200 years, the Temple of Artemis was revered. Pilgrims would travel long distances to see the Temple. Many visitors would make generous donations to the goddess to earn her favor. Vendors would make idols of her likeness and sell them near the Temple. The city of Ephesus, already a successful port city, soon became wealthy from the tourism brought in by the Temple as well. Then, on July 21, 356 BCE, a madman named Herostratus set fire to the magnificent building, with the sole purpose of wanting to be remembered throughout history. The Temple of Artemis burned down. The Ephesians and nearly the entire ancient world were stupefied at such a brazen, sacrilegious act. So that  such an evil  act would not make Herostratus famous, the Ephesians  banned anyone from speaking his name, with the punishment being death. Despite their best efforts, Herostratus name has gone down in history and is still  remembered more than  2,300  years later. Legend has it that Artemis was too busy to stop Herostratus from burning down her temple because she was helping with the birth of Alexander the Great that day. The Second Temple of Artemis When the Ephesians sorted through the charred remains of the Temple of Artemis, it is said they found the statue of Artemis intact and unharmed. Taking this as a positive sign, the Ephesians vowed to rebuild the temple. It is unclear how long it took to rebuild, but  it easily took decades. There is a story that when Alexander the Great arrived in Ephesus in 333 BCE, he offered to help pay for the rebuilding of the Temple as long as his name would be engraved on it.  Famously, the Ephesians found a tactful way  of rebuffing his offer by saying, It is not fitting that one god should build a temple for another god. Eventually, the second Temple of Artemis was finished, equal or just a bit taller in size but even more  elaborately decorated. The Temple of Artemis was well-known in the ancient world and was a destination for many worshippers. For 500 years, the Temple of Artemis was revered and visited. Then, in 262 CE, the Goths, one of the many  tribes from the north, invaded Ephesus and destroyed the Temple. This time, with Christianity on the rise and the cult of Artemis on the decline, it was decided to not rebuild the Temple. Swampy Ruins Sadly, the ruins of the Temple of Artemis were eventually plundered, with the marble being taken for other buildings in the area. Over time, the swamp in which the Temple was built grew larger, taking over much of the once-grand city. By 1100 CE, the few remaining citizens of Ephesus had completely forgotten that the Temple of Artemis ever existed. In 1864, the British Museum funded John Turtle Wood to excavate the area in the hopes of finding the ruins of the Temple of Artemis. After five years of searching, Wood finally found the remains of the Temple of Artemis under 25 feet of swampy mud. Later archaeologists have further excavated the site, but not much has been found. The foundation remains there as does a single column. The few artifacts that have been found were shipped to the British Museum in London.

“Sequel” to Fahrenheit 451 Free Essays

Burning Bright, Burning Right It was that time of day when the afternoon barely gave away to the glorious wonders of the night. The birds had stopped chirping and the many creatures that stirred in the ruins of the city, those that found it livable, had retreated to their underground homes. It had been a decade, a lifetime since the city had been reduced to rubble. We will write a custom essay sample on â€Å"Sequel† to Fahrenheit 451 or any similar topic only for you Order Now The radiation still lingered in the air. It added a new taste, similar to the taste of an orange or a lemon. The crater from the bomb had been filled with rainwater to form a lagoon. The river’s natural current carried away the radioactive debris to the forest where, undoubtedly, the creatures of the forest would drink the contaminated water. There had been an occasional drizzle now and then soaking most of the wood in the area. Montag had managed though. He had come prepared essay writer helper. It took him three full hours to build the raft and funeral pyre in which Faber’s body now rested on. He looked at the horizon just in time to catch the everlasting rays of the sun fade to the night and began. â€Å"Faber, my dear friend; it has been awhile since we talked. Almost three months. I heard that you were shooting propaganda somewhere by the Eastern Battle; probably condemning the unworthy fools that fought against us. Remember when we first met? You called yourself a coward for not standing up to stop the madness when it was beginning. I always found it ironic that you would become the symbol of rebirth, that you would be dubbed the phoenix. A coward really, but that was not my decision to make,† he stopped and took a breath. â€Å"You were my mentor. When I was blind to the knowledge of books, you educated me; you showed me what I was missing. You were everything I could ever ask for. Granger was there for me, but you were there for me to the, I mean your, bitter end. I can remember when you were approached about the face of the phoenix. That bright day in St. Louis. â€Å"Faber, tell me what happened yesterday? I thought all was going well with your friend. He had printed books for us before†¦Ã¢â‚¬  Montag stopped. â€Å"Why won’t he do it now? † â€Å"I’m afraid that he is no longer on our side of the battle,† Faber said. â€Å"Not on our side of the battle? That’s absurd! One doesn’t just simply stop being a savior,† Montag said. Well he isn’t trustworthy anymore. He had tricked us. Pulled the wool over our eyes. We were only seeing what we wanted to see. † It was at that moment that Montag noticed the man standing in the corner of the room. He had his face turned away from us, but it was obvious he was listening to them. â€Å"You there, who are you? † â€Å"Nobody. I heard that the almighty Guy Montag and the wise Faber were in town, I simply couldn’t resist the opportunity of meeting them,† said the strange man. Montag took a good look at him. He was well dressed. He was very well dressed. It was obvious that he knew who we were and it was also obvious that he was there for a reason. His fingernails were clean; an indicator that he was no fighter. Either he was a very good ally to have, or a powerful enemy to dispose of. When he noticed Montag looking at him he gave a wry smile. He decided it was best to trample through the bush. â€Å"Why are you here and what do you want? And this time don’t be shy to tell us your real name. † Montag asked. â€Å"My oh my, the rumors about you are true. You see Mr. Montag I want to help you. You could say that I have friends in high places, places that can help you. While you have been fighting your wars silently, and rather immaturely, some of us,† he paused, â€Å"have been thinking of the bigger picture,† he stopped as he met Montag’s cool but deadly gaze. â€Å"What are you implying? † â€Å"Nothing at all. Just an offer to, how do I put this? Just an offer to help move things along. We want to take the war public,† the man said. Montag raised his eyebrows until they almost became part of his receding hairline. â€Å"I don’t know what rock you have been living under but it is obvious that you have lived a very luxurious life up until now. The war was thrown out of the shadows three years ago. † â€Å"I know that,† the man replied, â€Å"but there was never a reason. † â€Å"What? † Montag said. â€Å"For the past three years we have been fighting a war about nothing. Some say it’s about money. Others? They say the world is hungry. It’s a blind man’s game. You may be thinking about what I think. I think that the world is hungry. It’s hungry for knowledge, for books. Some of us believe it is time to throw it out in the open to light the flames under the fire. To throw something out in the open, we need a face. Somebody that will inspire and mock every policy and rule that the government symbolizes. We need a phoenix. † â€Å"I’m not interested,† Montag replied. â€Å"I was expecting that,† he answered, â€Å"That’s why I wasn’t going to ask you. † He turned to Faber and said, â€Å"We need a face but we think Montag has too much baggage attached to it. It may scare some, to see a dead man come to life. You on the other hand are a somebody that became a nobody. Your wounds have healed, have they not? Why not find the strength to rise from the ashes? Faber, why won’t you join me? † Montag stood stunned in silence. He had been rejected. Faber was sitting there looking at his damn, shaking hands. He had been offered to be the face of a rebellion, to lead a revolution; yet he sat there, solemn as a statue. Finally he spoke: â€Å"I am not a phoenix. I, at the very best, can be compared to a humble field mouse. I was a coward when it all began. I watched books burn in front of me but did nothing of it because I was too afraid to change anything. I decline your offer. † â€Å"I was also expecting that. † A sudden flash of emotion passed through his eyes, like a fox that knew his prey would be his. I haven’t even introduced myself yet. Here I am, trying to convince you to start a revolution with me, yet you do not even know my name. My name is Hubert Hoag. † He looked nothing like the man Montag had seen on the parlor walls. Albeit he was short like him, but he must have lost weight. A quick glance at Faber showed that he wasn’t the least bit surprised. â€Å"Faber I know that you failed when it began. I also know that you aren’t exactly the bravest but this is your chance at redemption. You can finally fix the mistakes you made when it was all beginning,† Hubert said. Montag was back in the forest with Granger. He remembered what he had said. That it was the right kind of mistakes to be where they are now. Montag opened his mouth to protest but was interrupted by Faber. â€Å"I’ll do it,† Faber said in a sharp whisper. â€Å"I’ll do it,† he said with more confidence. I’ll start a rebellion. † Hoag gave a smile like he knew that the stars would align for him. He stood up and said, â€Å"Excellent. I’ll be in contact with you soon. † We didn’t see Hoag for three months. When we were contacted; things changed. Things changed fast. Faber was soon an international icon. He looked younger and radiated power. Hoag and his friends dressed him in the image of the revolution and soon there were ads and posters everywhere. That was then. Now things had changed. Montag was back in the ashes of the city. The scurrying of various animals in the bones of the dead brought back his fond memories of Faber. The sun was nowhere to be seen. It was behind the mountains, hiding, like Faber. He turned to the one animate body of Faber. â€Å"How does it feel Faber? To start a revolution. When they look back in history, whether or not we won the war, you will be remembered. But your arrogance got the best of you. You were no humble field mouse. You looked at yourself as the new phoenix. You had risen from the ashes of the old and were ready to guide mankind to this new age. Spending time with Hoag got the best of you. Soon you were thinking like them. You words were weak and empty. You became the image that you were trying to fight. You became a problem,† Montag said. He looked around. It was around midnight. Not even the moon showered him with its pale glowing light. He lit a match. A match that he had used such a long time ago to burn others, to burn his problems. And then he was somewhere else, thinking about how a decade ago he had the same problem with another. The wise words of Beatty rang in his head: â€Å"Don’t face a problem, burn it† â€Å"Beatty, I’ve done just that. † He looked on to see the body of Faber leaning against the funeral pyre in such a way that it would collapse into a beautiful red flower once the match had engulfed the small raft. He thought of the phoenix. â€Å"Faber, you were to be the phoenix. The rebirth of man rising from the ashes. You were a failure. Maybe all we need to do is burn the ashes one more time. † How to cite â€Å"Sequel† to Fahrenheit 451, Papers

Othello Essay Thesis Example For Students

Othello Essay Thesis The Undiscovered CountryNothing is certain but death. It is the only inevitability in life, the great equalizer, the future to which humanity grows, leans, reaches. Yet the fear of death is a constant one, universal and unavoidable. Hamlet deeply experiences this fear of death and it is in his most famous soliloquy that he voices his dread and confusion concerning this inevitable end, closer in time and mind perhaps, given his present circumstances. All the soliloquies in Hamlet, and indeed in all of Shakespeares works, serve to characterize, and it is through this method of characterization that one is most clearly aware of the strengths, weaknesses and conflicts of the speakers. In Hamlet, the To be or not to be soliloquy fleshes out Hamlets tragic flaw, illustrating the debilitating effects of fear on action. An intentionally ambiguous speech, this soliloquy is subject to numerous interpretations, each lending itself to a slightly different characterization of Hamlet. Whether Haml et speaks of his own impending death, or his fathers untimely one, depends upon the interpretation. We will write a custom essay on Othello Thesis specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now One interpretation of this speech is that Hamlet speaks of his fathers death. Hamlets meeting with the Ghost has brought the idea of a disagreeable afterlife into his mind. The Ghost speaks only fleetingly of his state in the afterlife, but what he says is potent and terrifying. He speaks of, sulfrous and tormenting flames (1.5.6), being forced, to fast in fires (1.5.16), and tells Hamlet, But that I am forbid/ To tell the secrets of my prison house, / I could a tale unfold whose lightest word/ Would harrow up thy soul, freeze thy young blood, / Make thy two eyes, like stars, start from their/ spheres, / Thy knotted and combin#61672;d locks to part, / And each particular hair to stand an end, / Like quills upon the fearful porpentine. / But this eternal blazon must not be/ To ears of flesh and blood (1.5.18-28). It is not surprising that Hamlet should dwell on death and the afterlife after hearing these tormented words. His speech, following this interpretation, shows his obsessive c oncern for his father and his fear that a similar fate will be visited upon himself. He is terrified for his father, trapped in a fiery hell, and wishes to release him from that damnation. But he fears for himself as well and cannot move beyond his fear. Thus he is unable to act when faced with such a picture of death as painted by the Ghost. He fears that by acting he will be risking the terrible fate that his father has been dealt. He fears that by saving himself, he will be further damning his father. In order to free his father, he must act. But in acting, he risks being thrown into the terrible world his father inhabits. He is unable to move beyond this conflict and is hence paralyzed by uncertainty and fear. This interpretation characterizes Hamlet as a tortured man, unable to move beyond his grief, unable to act in the face of that grief, unable to reconcile thought with action because of his fear. That Hamlets musings are a result of his fathers death is but one interpretation of the speech. Perhaps the most common interpretation is the idea that Hamlet is contemplating suicide. This contention probably results from an isolated reading of the soliloquy. Taken out of context, it seems evident that Hamlet is considering taking the path of self-slaughter (1.2.136). It is the most basic interpretation of the speech, especially considering the words, To be or not to bethat is the question (3.1.64). However, Hamlet knows that suicide is contrary to the law of God and is concerned with what will happen to him after his death, should he choose this sin. In his speech he is conflicted between being and not being or, if one accepts the suicide interpretation, between whether he should choose to live or whether he should choose to die. His life is unbearable but it can be ended. However, the question of the afterlife remains. Hamlet is torn between living a tortured life or risking a tor tured eternity. By the end of the speech, Hamlet seems to have come to the conclusion that it is better to live an intolerable life than to risk the unknown world of death and the punishment one might suffer there. Thus does his fear result once more in his inability to act as he wants. But Hamlet is not blind to this, his tragic flaw. He is well aware of his shortcomings and understands that his tendency to overanalyze does not lead to action, but rather stops his intended actions cold. This reading of the soliloquy serves to emphasize Hamlets depression and hopelessness. It also paints the picture of Hamlet as something of a coward, as willing to die himself as to live and deliver vengeance upon his fathers murderer. Although it may seem clear on the surface that Hamlet is contemplating suicide, that interpretation does not fit well into the plot of the play. Considering that Hamlet has just decided to trap Claudius into a confession, it does not follow that he would flirt with suicidal thoughts. Nevertheless, it is clear that Hamlet has cause to fear death. The last main interpretation of this soliloquy is that Hamlet does not fear death because of the sin of suicide but rather, that of murder. This explication of the speech makes the most sense given Hamlets character and the direction of the plot to that point. Hamlet clearly intends to kill Claudius. This irrefutable fact has been continuously illustrated throughout the play. Hamlet, however, is indecisive, hesitant, and slow to act. He thinks too long and too deeply. And the thought that most occupies his mind is that of death. It is not too difficult to guess why. Not only has he had to suffer the sudden death of his father, but he has also suffered through the tortured moanings of that fathers ghost. He has promised the ghost that he will avenge his fathers death and kill Claudius, his fathers murderer. It is no wonder Hamlet is plagued with thoughts of death. In the To be or not to be soliloquy, Hamlet is haunted by what may happen to him after he kills Claudius. He seems to have accepted that he too may die. But he fears what will happen after death more than he fears the death itself. He has heard his fathers terrifying portrait of the afterlife. He has been raised to believe that murder will result in eternal damnation. These are the thoughts that plague him as he weighs his options. He can kill Claudius and risk an infinity of punishment, or he can live a tortured life at Claudius side, and be assured of his place in heaven. At the end of the speech Hamlet has not come to any solid conclusions. His only realization is that, conscience does make cowards of us all (3.1.91). He is well aware of his immobilized posi tion, but is powerless to lean decisively in either direction. This interpretation presents a Hamlet that is less weak, less depressed, less selfish, less cowardly than the other interpretations. In this reading Hamlet is stronger, more focused, and more in control. Nevertheless, he is paralyzed by thought, unable to act, unwilling to bend. .u5da5d9f39fe33ceb11d029471b1f4eba , .u5da5d9f39fe33ceb11d029471b1f4eba .postImageUrl , .u5da5d9f39fe33ceb11d029471b1f4eba .centered-text-area { min-height: 80px; position: relative; } .u5da5d9f39fe33ceb11d029471b1f4eba , .u5da5d9f39fe33ceb11d029471b1f4eba:hover , .u5da5d9f39fe33ceb11d029471b1f4eba:visited , .u5da5d9f39fe33ceb11d029471b1f4eba:active { border:0!important; } .u5da5d9f39fe33ceb11d029471b1f4eba .clearfix:after { content: ""; display: table; clear: both; } .u5da5d9f39fe33ceb11d029471b1f4eba { display: block; transition: background-color 250ms; webkit-transition: background-color 250ms; width: 100%; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #95A5A6; } .u5da5d9f39fe33ceb11d029471b1f4eba:active , .u5da5d9f39fe33ceb11d029471b1f4eba:hover { opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #2C3E50; } .u5da5d9f39fe33ceb11d029471b1f4eba .centered-text-area { width: 100%; position: relative ; } .u5da5d9f39fe33ceb11d029471b1f4eba .ctaText { border-bottom: 0 solid #fff; color: #2980B9; font-size: 16px; font-weight: bold; margin: 0; padding: 0; text-decoration: underline; } .u5da5d9f39fe33ceb11d029471b1f4eba .postTitle { color: #FFFFFF; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 600; margin: 0; padding: 0; width: 100%; } .u5da5d9f39fe33ceb11d029471b1f4eba .ctaButton { background-color: #7F8C8D!important; color: #2980B9; border: none; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: none; font-size: 14px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 26px; moz-border-radius: 3px; text-align: center; text-decoration: none; text-shadow: none; width: 80px; min-height: 80px; background: url(https://artscolumbia.org/wp-content/plugins/intelly-related-posts/assets/images/simple-arrow.png)no-repeat; position: absolute; right: 0; top: 0; } .u5da5d9f39fe33ceb11d029471b1f4eba:hover .ctaButton { background-color: #34495E!important; } .u5da5d9f39fe33ceb11d029471b1f4eba .centered-text { display: table; height: 80px; padding-left : 18px; top: 0; } .u5da5d9f39fe33ceb11d029471b1f4eba .u5da5d9f39fe33ceb11d029471b1f4eba-content { display: table-cell; margin: 0; padding: 0; padding-right: 108px; position: relative; vertical-align: middle; width: 100%; } .u5da5d9f39fe33ceb11d029471b1f4eba:after { content: ""; display: block; clear: both; } READ: Pompeii catastrophe EssayIn this, Hamlets most famous soliloquy, Shakespeare presents the audience with a myriad of different insights into the play. This is accomplished by his allowing the speech to be slightly ambiguous in meaning. Through separate readings of the speech, one can arrive at different conclusions about Hamlets character. Within each distinct interpretation can be found the different motivations, fears, concerns and preoccupations of Hamlet. These in turn point to different shadows, different flaws, and thus, different insights into the character of one who would be less real for their The Undiscovered CountryNothing is certain but death. It is the only in evitability in life, the great equalizer, the future to which humanity grows, leans, reaches. Yet the fear of death is a constant one, universal and unavoidable. Hamlet deeply experiences this fear of death and it is in his most famous soliloquy that he voices his dread and confusion concerning this inevitable end, closer in time and mind perhaps, given his present circumstances. All the soliloquies in Hamlet, and indeed in all of Shakespeares works, serve to characterize, and it is through this method of characterization that one is most clearly aware of the strengths, weaknesses and conflicts of the speakers. In Hamlet, the To be or not to be soliloquy fleshes out Hamlets tragic flaw, illustrating the debilitating effects of fear on action. An intentionally ambiguous speech, this soliloquy is subject to numerous interpretations, each lending itself to a slightly different characterization of Hamlet. Whether Hamlet speaks of his own impending death, or his fathers untimely one, dep ends upon the interpretation. One interpretation of this speech is that Hamlet speaks of his fathers death. Hamlets meeting with the Ghost has brought the idea of a disagreeable afterlife into his mind. The Ghost speaks only fleetingly of his state in the afterlife, but what he says is potent and terrifying. He speaks of, sulfrous and tormenting flames (1.5.6), being forced, to fast in fires (1.5.16), and tells Hamlet, But that I am forbid/ To tell the secrets of my prison house, / I could a tale unfold whose lightest word/ Would harrow up thy soul, freeze thy young blood, / Make thy two eyes, like stars, start from their/ spheres, / Thy knotted and combin;#61672;d locks to part, / And each particular hair to stand an end, / Like quills upon the fearful porpentine. / But this eternal blazon must not be/ To ears of flesh and blood (1.5.18-28). It is not surprising that Hamlet should dwell on death and the afterlife after hearing these tormented words. His speech, following this interpretation, shows his obsessive concern for his father and his fear that a similar fate will be visited upon himself. He is terrified for his father, trapped in a fiery hell, and wishes to release him from that damnation. But he fears for himself as well and cannot move beyond his fear. Thus he is unable to act when faced with such a picture of death as painted by the Ghost. He fears that by acting he will be risking the terrible fate that his father has been dealt. He fears that by saving himself, he will be further damning his father. In order to free his father, he must act. But in acting, he risks being thrown into the terrible world his father inhabits. He is unable to move beyond this conflict and is hence paralyzed by uncertainty and fear. This interpretation characterizes Hamlet as a tortured man, unable to move beyond his grief, unable to act in the face of that grief, unable to reconcile thought with action because of his fear. That Hamlets musings are a result of his fathers death is but one interpretation of the speech. Perhaps the most common interpretation is the idea that Hamlet is contemplating suicide. This contention probably results from an isolated reading of the soliloquy. Taken out of context, it seems evident that Hamlet is considering taking the path of self-slaughter (1.2.136). It is the most basic interpretation of the speech, especially considering the words, To be or not to bethat is the question (3.1.64). However, Hamlet knows that suicide is contrary to the law of God and is concerned with what will happen to him after his death, should he choose this sin. In his speech he is conflicted between being and not being or, if one accepts the suicide interpretation, between whether he should choose to live or whether he should choose to die. His life is unbearable but it can be ended. However, the question of the afterlife remains. Hamlet is torn between living a tortured life or risking a tor tured eternity. By the end of the speech, Hamlet seems to have come to the conclusion that it is better to live an intolerable life than to risk the unknown world of death and the punishment one might suffer there. Thus does his fear result once more in his inability to act as he wants. But Hamlet is not blind to this, his tragic flaw. He is well aware of his shortcomings and understands that his tendency to overanalyze does not lead to action, but rather stops his intended actions cold. This reading of the soliloquy serves to emphasize Hamlets depression and hopelessness. It also paints the picture of Hamlet as something of a coward, as willing to die himself as to live and deliver vengeance upon his fathers murderer. .uefb6354b4d52c0593e4e2877eca9875c , .uefb6354b4d52c0593e4e2877eca9875c .postImageUrl , .uefb6354b4d52c0593e4e2877eca9875c .centered-text-area { min-height: 80px; position: relative; } .uefb6354b4d52c0593e4e2877eca9875c , .uefb6354b4d52c0593e4e2877eca9875c:hover , .uefb6354b4d52c0593e4e2877eca9875c:visited , .uefb6354b4d52c0593e4e2877eca9875c:active { border:0!important; } .uefb6354b4d52c0593e4e2877eca9875c .clearfix:after { content: ""; display: table; clear: both; } .uefb6354b4d52c0593e4e2877eca9875c { display: block; transition: background-color 250ms; webkit-transition: background-color 250ms; width: 100%; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #95A5A6; } .uefb6354b4d52c0593e4e2877eca9875c:active , .uefb6354b4d52c0593e4e2877eca9875c:hover { opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #2C3E50; } .uefb6354b4d52c0593e4e2877eca9875c .centered-text-area { width: 100%; position: relative ; } .uefb6354b4d52c0593e4e2877eca9875c .ctaText { border-bottom: 0 solid #fff; color: #2980B9; font-size: 16px; font-weight: bold; margin: 0; padding: 0; text-decoration: underline; } .uefb6354b4d52c0593e4e2877eca9875c .postTitle { color: #FFFFFF; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 600; margin: 0; padding: 0; width: 100%; } .uefb6354b4d52c0593e4e2877eca9875c .ctaButton { background-color: #7F8C8D!important; color: #2980B9; border: none; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: none; font-size: 14px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 26px; moz-border-radius: 3px; text-align: center; text-decoration: none; text-shadow: none; width: 80px; min-height: 80px; background: url(https://artscolumbia.org/wp-content/plugins/intelly-related-posts/assets/images/simple-arrow.png)no-repeat; position: absolute; right: 0; top: 0; } .uefb6354b4d52c0593e4e2877eca9875c:hover .ctaButton { background-color: #34495E!important; } .uefb6354b4d52c0593e4e2877eca9875c .centered-text { display: table; height: 80px; padding-left : 18px; top: 0; } .uefb6354b4d52c0593e4e2877eca9875c .uefb6354b4d52c0593e4e2877eca9875c-content { display: table-cell; margin: 0; padding: 0; padding-right: 108px; position: relative; vertical-align: middle; width: 100%; } .uefb6354b4d52c0593e4e2877eca9875c:after { content: ""; display: block; clear: both; } READ: None Provided4 EssayAlthough it may seem clear on the surface that Hamlet is contemplating suicide, that interpretation does not fit well into the plot of the play. Considering that Hamlet has just decided to trap Claudius into a confession, it does not follow that he would flirt with suicidal thoughts. Nevertheless, it is clear that Hamlet has cause to fear death. The last main interpretation of this soliloquy is that Hamlet does not fear death because of the sin of suicide but rather, that of murder. This explication of the speech makes the most sense given Hamlets character and the direction of the plot to that point. Hamlet clearly intends to kill Claudius. This irrefu table fact has been continuously illustrated throughout the play. Hamlet, however, is indecisive, hesitant, and slow to act. He thinks too long and too deeply. And the thought that most occupies his mind is that of death. It is not too difficult to guess why. Not only has he had to suffer the sudden death of his father, but he has also suffered through the tortured moanings of that fathers ghost. He has promised the ghost that he will avenge his fathers death and kill Claudius, his fathers murderer. It is no wonder Hamlet is plagued with thoughts of death. In the To be or not to be soliloquy, Hamlet is haunted by what may happen to him after he kills Claudius. He seems to have accepted that he too may die. But he fears what will happen after death more than he fears the death itself. He has heard his fathers terrifying portrait of the afterlife. He has been raised to believe that murder will result in eternal damnation. These are the thoughts that plague him as he weighs his options . He can kill Claudius and risk an infinity of punishment, or he can live a tortured life at Claudius side, and be assured of his place in heaven. At the end of the speech Hamlet has not come to any solid conclusions. His only realization is that, conscience does make cowards of us all (3.1.91). He is well aware of his immobilized position, but is powerless to lean decisively in either direction. This interpretation presents a Hamlet that is less weak, less depressed, less selfish, less cowardly than the other interpretations. In this reading Hamlet is stronger, more focused, and more in control. Nevertheless, he is paralyzed by thought, unable to act, unwilling to bend. In this, Hamlets most famous soliloquy, Shakespeare presents the audience with a myriad of different insights into the play. This is accomplished by his allowing the speech to be slightly ambiguous in meaning. Through separate readings of the speech, one can arrive at different conclusions about Hamlets character. Within each distinct interpretation can be found the different motivations, fears, concerns and preoccupations of Hamlet. These in turn point to different shadows, different flaws, and thus, different insights into the character of one who would be less real for their

Iliad and Achilles Dearest Friend free essay sample

The definition of a tragic hero was a great or virtuous character in a dramatic tragedy that was destined for downfall, suffering, or defeat. A tragic hero was a literary character who made an error of judgment or had a fatal flaw that, combined with fate and external forces, brings on tragedy. A tragic hero is usually good, but makes bad decisions, associated with a tragic flaw that haunts the character throughout the story. In the Iliad, Achilles played a large role in the battle between the Greeks and the Trojans. In the beginning of the book, Achilles’ prize possession was taken from Agamemnon. For much time, he was being childish, lamenting over his stolen lovely haired women. When the Greeks were in a battle with the Trojans, he was still too upset to come and fight with the Greeks. Agamemnon really wanted him to come, so he bribed him with towns, rivers, and more respect, but he still refused. We will write a custom essay sample on Iliad and Achilles Dearest Friend or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page Later on in the story, Achilles’ friend died, Patroclus, so he came back to battle mainly to kill Hector, a Trojan. Though, Achilles was a tragic hero, he still was a great character who will always be remembered. Swift footed Achilles murdered several Trojans, scared off enemies, and killed Hector, an enemy of the Greeks. Achilles still remained a tragic hero because his flaw was to act selfish, mainly come to war to seek revenge, and didn’t return back to battle for the right, heroic reasons. Achilles was called a tragic hero because his flaw was to be selfish. A selfish person lacked consideration for others and was concerned with their own pleasure. In the Iliad, Achilles mostly cared about himself. For example, Agamemnon stole Achilles’ prize possession. For this reason, Achilles refused to join the war because he was angry with Agamemnon. Achilles stated, â€Å"But listen while I tell you exactly how I want things to be: ‘I want you to win me great honor and glory in the eyes of all Greeks, so that they give my lovely women back to me and provide splendid gifts as well (18:115). ’† When Achilles’ dearest friend, Patroclus, went to war with his army, Achilles wanted Patroclus to wear his armor because he would win him honor, glory, and some splendid gifts as well. Achilles flaw was to be selfish because he didn’t care about Patroclus as much as he should of; he mainly focused on winning himself glory and honor. Achilles was suffering rom his stolen woman because he didn’t come back to battle to help Patroclus in war. Knowing Achilles, he would’ve been the first one to Patroclus’ aid, but instead he chose to weep and sit at home. Achilles’ flaw interrupted him from doing what he should have been doing. He cared too much about a tragic loss that it got in his way of being a â€Å"true hero. † Before Patroclus had left for battle, Achilles mentioned to him that he would be in good hands with his army and they should be ready to battle. Achilles was in a state of downfall because he was suffering from loss or defeat, and let his selfish flaw get in his way from being heroic. Achilles was a still a hero, though a tragic hero, who was respected by the Greeks, yet repeatedly made mistakes. His pride, arrogance, and selfish flaw got in his way of his ability to resolve conflicts peacefully. For example, if Achilles tried to settle a fair agreement with Agamemnon that included Achilles fighting in the war in return for his prized possession, it would have been more â€Å"hero like. † Achilles’ stubborn personality, risked lives of other Greeks because Achilles was the â€Å"hero† and was not doing â€Å"his job† correctly. Achilles was a tragic hero because he was selfish, and mainly came back to war to get revenge. A Trojan, whose name was Hector, killed Achilles’ friend, Patroclus, in battle. Achilles was devastated and wanted to revenge on Hector by coming into the battle. Achilles strong- mindedly said, â€Å"Hector, no doubt you imagined, as you stripped Patroclus, that you would be safe. It was I, and I have brought you down (22:332). † Achilles was trying to say, Hector will not get away from what had done, and would do whatever it took to hunt down Hector until he was dead. If Achilles was not a tragic hero, he wouldn’t have let tragedy get in his way, by not joining the battle from the start because he was whimpering over a loss. Also, he would have showed the Greeks what a great hero he was; in defeat, rise to the occasion to help people in need of support. Although he killed many Trojans, and helped out his peers, his main purpose was to murder Hector. This quote goes relates to Achilles being a tragic hero because he was in a time of downfall and needed a reason to get back up. Achilles was a tragic hero because he was selfish, mainly came back to battle for revenge, and didn’t come back to war for the right, heroic reasons. If Patroclus had never died, Achilles would have still been weeping over his prize possession and be watching many of Greeks die. Bending over Patroclus’ dead body, Achilles said â€Å"So then, Patroclus, since I too am going below, but after you, I shall not hold your funeral till I have brought back here the armor and the head of Hector, who slaughtered you in your greatness. Achilles wouldn’t give up until he brought back Hector and his armor. He would have him killed no matter what circumstances and would even risk his own life to kill Hector. Achilles was a tragic hero because he was in a time of defeat, and suffered from losses that he wanted to end, but he returned for the wrong reasons; mainly to kill Hector because he murdered Patroclus and to let the Trojans get a taste of their own medicine. Also, he was not standing up for his people when he knew they needed help. If Achilles wanted to kill Hector because he had been killing so many of the Greeks and got in the way of winning the battle, it would make him more of a hero, instead a tragic hero. Swift footed Achilles was considered a tragic hero. He was selfish, came back to battle for revenge, and didn’t come back to war for the right, heroic reasons. If Achilles was a real hero, he would’ve tried to save lives and protect â€Å"his country. † The Iliad shows that there doesn’t always have to be great, heroic heroes, there also are tragic ones too. For example, spider – man is a true hero because he helps save lives of people who are in danger and protects â€Å"his town† from monsters. Even though he had a very hard life, he still helped people and wanted to make â€Å"his town† proud. This was an example of real hero, and the opposite of Achilles in the Iliad. If you compare spider – man to Achilles, they have a lot of similarities, but different approaches to what a real hero was.

The Way to Freedom is Alone essays

The Way to Freedom is Alone essays In the 13th chapter of Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes writes ...men have no pleasure, but on the contrary a great deal of grief, in keeping company, where there is no power able to over-awe them all. The unconventional premise that ungoverned humans are solitary beings echoes throughout Hobbes political philosophy. This is a very difficult ideology to have at the center of such a work. The vast majority of the worlds population holds the opposite stance. Most people believe that humans are naturally communal beings. Thomas L. Pangles Political Philosophy and the God of Abraham addresses mans natural inclination to be part of a group. Birds fly in flocks, fish swim in schools, and man has his tribe. That is as natural as you can get. Banishment from ones tribe (once) meant death. Alone, one is assumed susceptible to the attack of foes. Being alone is largely equated with weakness. There is a commonly held fear of being alone. This is why the mindset found in Leviathan is quickly rejected. In order to understand what Hobbes attempts to communicate by stating men have no pleasure...in keeping company, it is essential to establish his alternative to having company. Hobbes statement about men not finding pleasure in the company of others is often dismissed because of a misunderstanding. A reader of Leviathan could easily equate being alone with loneliness. After reading this passage many times in context, one may decide quite the opposite. Hobbes wrote of solitude, rather than loneliness. Solitude is desirable and voluntary, whereas loneliness is unnecessary and involuntary. Superficially the two seem alike, but truly they are very different. Many famous literary works speak highly of solitudes power. Henry David Thoreau wrote in Walden: I never found the companion that was so companionable as solitude. Solitude is not...

A Case Study of Property Developing Firm Using Soft System Methodology Dissertation

A Case Study of Property Developing Firm Using Soft System Methodology - Dissertation Example The author of the essay "A Case Study of a Property Developing Firm Using Soft Systems Methodology" assumes that SSM study fits the concept of action research arising first in the behavioral sciences. Researchers view of the limitations of studying complex real social events in a laboratory, the artificiality of splitting out single behavioral elements from an integrated system. The action-research method fits the Soft System Methodology in which it involve in a change progress, in the system itself, as a means to both practical action and an experience relevant to the research aim of developing systems concepts. Being concerned with intervention in purposeful systems, the action researcher, unlike natural scientists, can express his research aims as hopes but cannot with certainty design them into his ‘experiences’. He is prepared to react to whatever happens in the research situation. He has to follow wherever the situation leads him or stop the research. This study advocates that the continues use of SSM on the property development help firms on the organization learning, this allow users to learn from their action systematically, as well as generating creative problem solving strategies for their growth and continuity. The strength of SSM comes from familiarity of the systems and knowledge of users; however, users need patient and practice to be able to explore the usefulness of SSM. Lastly, SSM seems to be a useful tool for large co-operations, which consist of many people, departments and operation entities.

History The World Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words - 5

History The World - Essay Example This schism between the two churches is noticeable even today. In the West, there were hurdles of economic and geographical reasons as well. Western Europe was far removed from the new trade routes and geographically, it was difficult for any kind of unity to develop. Then a series of invasions from c. 700 to 1000 also put a halt on European development, making the spread of Christianity more difficult in these times. Later on, there would be philosophical and cultural obstacles. For instance, the debate between ‘Reason’ and ‘Faith’ began after 1000 CE and the creation of schools and rise of scholarly activity led to the development of subjects like ‘natural philosophy.’ The emphasis shifted to law, medicine, nature and other subjects that humans could fully comprehend. The power that religion enjoyed previous over the masses began to dwindle. We see therefore that the spread of Christianity into Europe and China was fraught with obstacles of various sorts: cultural, political, philosophical and intellectual. It would take Christian missionaries many years to be able to successfully overcome these obstacles to their efforts at spreading the message of