Katherine Lovell -- Bridging Ancient Civilizations Through Written History

   General comment to everyone:  Be sure you articulate why you are calling some things 
   *borders* or *boundaries* (i.e. things that divide some place from another place or 
   some people from others, while at the same time forming a connection between them).  
   Some of you seem to be using those words almost as synonyms for "differences," but there is 
   more to it than that because you aren't always working in the idea of simultaneous 
   *separation* and *connection*. 

   Your opening paragraph seems to get too much into the details of *how* the
   Egyptians are "opposite" from the rest of humanity rather than just 
   articulating the idea that Herodotus sees them that way and thus structures
   that whole section of Book II of the Histories around the idea of a border
   between cultures.  The thesis itself is OK, but this paragraph doesn't set
   it up as well as it might.

   The opening sentence of the second paragraph is pretty much a repetition
   of what you just said (apart from the idea of "value in both cultures").  
   That seems like a weak statement compared to what Herodotus says about 
   Egypt having "more marvels and monuments that defy description than any 
   other" that you use much later on.  I think you can take it for granted that 
   Herodotus sees "value" in his own culture, so it would make more sense to move 
   that quotation into the first paragraph or to the start of the second to introduce 
   the main body of the paper.

   For the rewrite, try to move some of the detail from the first paragraph 
   into the later paragraphs and expand on some of the points there.  For instance, 
   the idea that the Egyptians circumcize their male children because they prize 
   "cleanliness" and "purity" over "beauty" seems like a really interesting point 
   that you don't discuss in the detail it deserves.  It says a lot about Greek 
   attitudes too, of course!

   Back in the opening paragraph -- I would not say that Egypt had "developed 
   off of" Greek advancements at this time, for two separate reasons.  First, 
   and less importantly, say "developed from" not "developed off of."  Second, 
   and more importantly, you are leaving out Herodotus's consistent idea that 
   Egypt is one of the oldest civilizations.  For him the cultural influences are 
   all going from Egypt to Greece, not the other way.  

   On page two, you are careful to say that "opposite" does not imply a 
   negative judgment.  I agree with you there.  But saying ``opposite'' 
   means "against the rest of the human race" also has a negative connotation
   and that sounds as though it might undermine your argument even though it's 
   pretty clear you don't mean it that way.  How about this: opposite = as different 
   as possible from (or even diametrically opposed to).  

   Similarly, you provide a clear explanation that the word "barbarian" here
   just means "non-Greek-speaking" but you only do that on page 3 and you 
   have used the word before.  That means that the negative connotations that
   go with that word for us are (in effect) introduced even though you don't mean to do 
   that.  

   In terms of the attached rubric, I think the paper is pretty much all at the
   "Proficient" level.  The main things to work on are the "Cohesion" aspects
   of the Structure catgory, and how the opening paragraph will articulate your 
   thesis.

   A final request: In the future, I would prefer that you *not* leave all the 
   "edits" in the versions of papers you submit.  If you want to keep a copy 
   for yourself tracing those changes, that is fine.  But I find this version difficult 
   to read(!)

   Content:  B+

   Mechanics: B+