Eng 3 / AP Eng: Language & Composition
2nd Quarter Literary Analysis Essay
Task
In a polished, effective, well-organized essay of 3.5 – 4.5 pages, compare and contrast how Aeschylus
and Eliot implicitly answer one of the following questions:
1.) Justice is giving to others what is due to them. What is due to human beings, and how does a
society achieve true justice for its citizens?
2.) Peace is the tranquility of order. What “order” should society seek to achieve, and how
should (or can) society achieve it?
3.) How should a society balance the differing claims of civil law, natural law, and divine law?
Your answer to these general questions must be rooted in the specific and particular characters, words,
and actions that Aeschylus and Eliot created. In other words, every claim you make about what the
author believes about these issues must be supported with appropriate quotations from the text.
Goals
The goal of this essay for you, the student, is
 to compare / contrast themes found in The Eumenides with Murder in the Cathedral;
 in making that comparison, to unpack the meaning of the play;.
 to see and appreciate the human problems with which Aeschylus and Eliot are grappling;
 and to see also how these are our problems, and to consider the value of how Aeschylus’ and
Eliot’s analyze and respond to them.
Rubric
Completion: 4 pages, typed, double-spaced, MLA format
Thesis sentence: not only clear, but also insightful
Organization: essay shows a clear and sensible structure
Evidence: quotations from plays effectively back up your claims
Content (originality, depth, creativity)
Correctness: grammar, punctuation, integrating quotations
Style: clarity of sentences
40 points
5 points
15 points
10 points
10 points
10 points
10 points
Timeline
Outline due: __________
Draft 1 due: __________
Draft 2 due: __________
Draft 3 due: __________
Outline
I.
II.
III.
IV.
Introduction: either 1.) identify a common theme between the two (regarding justice, peace, or
law), and then say how the two are different; or 2.) point out differences between the two, and
then discuss what is surprisingly common
Background: Give a brief synopsis of the socio-historical background of the plays, again
emphasizing what they have in common and how they are different
Development: Divide your topic into distinct, logical sections and carefully analyze each of those
sections.
Conclusion: In your conclusion, clearly write out your answer to one of the questions.
Quotation from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail”
“….when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro,
living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are
plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you are forever fighting a
degenerating sense of "nobodiness"--then you will understand why we find it difficult to
wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer
willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our
legitimate and unavoidable impatience. You express a great deal of anxiety over our
willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently
urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the
public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break
laws. One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying
others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I
would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral
responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey
unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."
“Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is
just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law
of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the
terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal
law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that
degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because
segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false
sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the
terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an "I it" relationship for
an "I thou" relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence
segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally
wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an
existential expression of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible
sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme
Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for
they are morally wrong.”