I believe this passage as a whole discusses the political and cultural transitions that occurred in Iran following the Arab conquest, highlighting the influence of Islamic rule on the region. However, within this historical context, the role of women and the broader implications of gender dynamics are largely absent. This absence itself speaks volumes about the gender politics of the time, where historical narratives were primarily centered on male figures, both as heroes and rulers. The roles of women during the Arab conquest and subsequent rule, while not explicitly mentioned, can be inferred as secondary to the male-dominated political and military spheres. The HERO construct in this context is undeniably male, with figures like Abu Bakr, Ali, and Toghril Beg depicted as the key actors in the historical narrative. This reflects a patriarchal structure where leadership, heroism, and historical significance are exclusively associated with men, reinforcing gender definitions that align heroism with masculinity. Also, the passage’s focus on male figures as the primary agents of change underscores a cultural bias that equates heroism with male attributes such as military prowess, leadership, and political acumen. The exclusion of women from this narrative suggests a cultural definition of heroism that marginalizes female contributions and reaffirms traditional gender roles where men are the active participants in history, and women are relegated to passive roles (if mentioned at all). Within the broader historical context, comparisons can be drawn between the pre-Islamic and Islamic periods in Iran. In pre-Islamic Iran, under the Sassanid rule, women of the royal family, such as Buran, played significant roles in governance. In contrast, the Islamic conquest, as depicted in this passage, emphasizes the erasure of such female agency in favor of male-dominated leadership. This shift indicates a narrowing of the definition of heroism, increasingly centered on male figures and Islamic leaders. When compared to other historical or literary works such as the Shahnameh by Ferdowsi, where women like Rudaba and Gordafarid play crucial roles, this passage starkly contrasts in its exclusion of female figures. The Shahnameh, while still largely patriarchal, offers a more nuanced portrayal of gender roles, allowing women to exhibit qualities associated with heroism. This comparison highlights the variability in gender representation and the construction of the HERO across different cultural and historical narratives. Lastly, the language used in this passage is straightforward and historical, aiming to convey facts rather than explore gender dynamics. The choice of words and the focus on male figures reflect a patriarchal bias, where the language reinforces the association of heroism with masculinity. The lack of mention of women or gendered language suggests an underlying assumption that historical significance is inherently male, thus perpetuating a gendered narrative that excludes female perspectives. Undoubtedly, the passage reflects the patriarchal mindset of both the time it describes and possibly the time it was written or translated. The emphasis on male leaders and the exclusion of female figures indicate a deliberate or unconscious marginalization of women’s roles in history. As such, this marginalization could be a product of the cultural and political contexts in which the text was produced, where patriarchal values dictated the narratives that were preserved and transmitted. CC BY Aarushi Attray (contact)

In this excerpt from the story of Joseph, gender roles are sharply delineated, revealing the power dynamics and societal expectations of men and women within the cultural context. Joseph (as the male protagonist) embodies the traits of the HERO as—virtue, piety, and steadfastness in the face of temptation. His resistance to the advances of the governor's wife is a key moment that defines his heroism. The narrative portrays Joseph's refusal as not just a personal victory but as a demonstration of his commitment to his moral principles, which are attributes traditionally associated with male heroes in many cultures (such as duty or ‘dharma’ in Hinduism). The governor's wife, whose actions are central to the plot, represents the dangers of unchecked female desire. Her attempt to seduce Joseph is depicted as a moral failing, and her eventual confession reinforces the narrative that women’s desires must be controlled. This portrayal aligns with patriarchal views where female sexuality is often portrayed as dangerous or destructive unless it is confined within socially acceptable boundaries. When comparing the different segments of the same text, particularly the lines where the governor’s wife attempts to seduce Joseph (31-33) and later when she confesses her wrongdoing (51-53), we see a shift in the narrative focus from her initial power and agency to a more repentant and submissive role. Initially, she wields considerable power, using her position to try and manipulate Joseph. However, her eventual confession and the exoneration of Joseph highlight the underlying patriarchal values, where the woman’s role is to recognize her transgression and submit to the moral authority of the male hero. This shift reflects the gender dynamics at play—while the woman exercises agency, it is ultimately curtailed by the moral and social expectations of her gender. Joseph’s steadfastness, in contrast, remains unchallenged, further cementing his role as the HERO, whose righteousness is never in doubt. Comparing this story with other narratives of male chastity and female temptation, such as the story of Hippolytus and Phaedra, reveals a similar pattern in the portrayal of gender roles. In both stories, the male figure’s heroism is defined by his resistance to female desire. However, the outcomes for the male characters differ—Hippolytus meets a tragic end despite his virtue, while Joseph is ultimately rewarded with power and security. This difference highlights the cultural variations in the construction of the HERO: in the Greek context, the hero’s virtues do not necessarily shield him from a tragic fate, whereas in the Biblical and Quranic context, the hero’s righteousness leads to his eventual elevation. In terms of gender definitions, both stories depict female desire as a source of chaos and disorder. In both narratives, the women’s roles are largely defined by their relationships to the male protagonists, reinforcing a patriarchal worldview where female agency is limited and often portrayed as dangerous when it transgresses societal norms. From a linguistic perspective, the language used to describe the governor's wife—her scheming, her eventual confession, and her acknowledgment of guilt—emphasizes her role as a transgressor who must be brought back in line with societal expectations. The repeated references to “scheming” and “betrayal” in the context of the women involved in the story further highlight the narrative’s focus on controlling and condemning female agency that steps outside prescribed bounds. I believe the high points of this version lie in its clear moral message and the elevation of Joseph as a paragon of virtue. However, this comes at the cost of a more nuanced portrayal of the female characters, who are largely depicted in a negative light. The story’s manipulation of gender roles to reinforce the HERO’s virtue reflects the broader cultural and political context in which it was written—one where patriarchal values dominated. However, the translation and interpretation of this text over time may have further reinforced these patriarchal elements, as translators and scholars may have emphasized certain aspects of the story to align with their own cultural and moral frameworks. This is evident in the way the text frames the governor's wife’s confession, where her recognition of Joseph’s innocence and her own guilt is portrayed as a necessary and redemptive act, reinforcing the idea that true virtue lies in submission to male authority. CC BY Aarushi Attray (contact)

In the narratives, Hippolytus is depicted as a paragon of chastity and self-discipline, qualities that define his heroism within the cultural context of ancient Greece. His rejection of Phaedra's advances is rooted in his dedication to the goddess Artemis and his adherence to a code of moral purity. This portrayal aligns with the ideal of the male hero as one who resists temptation and remains steadfast in his principles, even at the cost of his own life. Phaedra, on the other hand, embodies the complexities of female desire within a patriarchal society. In Euripides' Hippolytus, her passion for Hippolytus is portrayed as an uncontrollable force that ultimately leads to her destruction and the downfall of Hippolytus. Her role as a woman who transgresses the boundaries of acceptable female behavior highlights the dangers of unchecked female desire, reinforcing the cultural belief that women’s emotions must be controlled and contained. The tragedy of Phaedra is not just her unfulfilled love but also the societal constraints that define her actions as inherently destructive. Pausanias' reference to the myth of Phaedra and Hippolytus, as discussed in the source, offers a more subdued version of the narrative, focusing less on the psychological torment of Phaedra and more on the broader mythological context. This difference in emphasis reflects varying cultural attitudes towards gender and heroism. While Euripides explores the inner turmoil of his characters, highlighting the destructive power of female desire, Pausanias presents a more neutral account, possibly influenced by the historical and cultural lens through which he viewed the myth. When comparing the versions of the Phaedra and Hippolytus story in Euripides and Pausanias, it is evident that Euripides' version is more focused on the emotional and psychological aspects of the characters, particularly Phaedra. Euripides' portrayal of Phaedra’s inner conflict and her ultimate decision to falsely accuse Hippolytus after he rejects her advances emphasizes the tragic consequences of her unbridled passion. In contrast, Pausanias’ version is less concerned with the emotional depth of the characters and more with the events themselves, reflecting a different approach to the narrative that is more aligned with the recording of history and myth rather than the exploration of character psychology. This difference in focus can be attributed to the cultural and political contexts in which these works were created. Euripides, writing in a period of Athenian democracy, was likely influenced by the social and philosophical debates of his time, including those related to gender and the role of women in society. Pausanias, writing in a later period, may have been more influenced by the desire to preserve and record myths as part of the cultural heritage, leading to a more straightforward recounting of the story. Comparison Between Individual Works: When comparing the story of Phaedra and Hippolytus with other similar narratives, such as the story of Joseph, we see a recurring theme of male chastity and female desire. In both stories, the male hero is depicted as morally superior, resisting the advances of a woman who is driven by passion. This resistance enhances the hero’s status as a figure of virtue and integrity, while the woman’s desire is portrayed as dangerous and destructive. However, there are also significant differences: In the story of Joseph, his refusal leads to his imprisonment, but he is ultimately vindicated and rises to a position of power. In contrast, Hippolytus’ rejection of Phaedra leads to his death, underscoring the tragic nature of Greek heroism, where even the most virtuous are not immune to the whims of fate. Lastly, Euripides' language is rich in emotional intensity, capturing the turmoil and despair that drive the characters to their tragic ends. Phaedra’s monologues, in particular, offer insight into her conflicting emotions, torn between her illicit love for Hippolytus and her sense of duty and shame. I find Pausanias’ account is more straightforward and less emotionally charged. His language is more descriptive and factual, focusing on the sequence of events rather than the inner lives of the characters. This difference in linguistic style reflects the different purposes of the texts: Euripides’ play is a work of drama intended to evoke strong emotions and provoke thought, while Pausanias’ account is more concerned with documenting the myth for posterity. To critique, however, Euripides’ use of emotionally charged language and complex character interactions can be seen as a reflection of the intellectual and cultural climate of classical Athens, where issues of gender, morality, and human nature were hotly debated. Pausanias’ more restrained language, on the other hand, reflects his role as a chronicler of myths, where the emphasis is on preservation rather than interpretation. CC BY Aarushi Attray (contact)

In this passage from the Shahnameh, the roles of Siawosh and Soudabeh illustrate deeply entrenched gender norms within the cultural context of ancient Iran. Siawosh is depicted as the ideal male hero: strong, handsome, virtuous, and destined for greatness, as foretold by the stars. His heroism is built upon his physical prowess, his lineage, and his moral integrity, which sets him apart as a figure of reverence and admiration. In contrast, Soudabeh embodies a more complex role—her desires and actions, driven by passion and longing, place her in opposition to the traditional virtues expected of women in this cultural context. I believe Soudabeh’s role in the story is multifaceted. On one hand, she is a queen, a position that grants her power and influence. On the other hand, her actions are driven by her desire for Siawosh, which challenges the expected behavior of a woman in her position. Instead of being the nurturing, supportive figure often expected of women in epic literature, Soudabeh becomes an antagonist, driven by personal desires that ultimately contribute to Siawosh’s downfall. Her actions highlight the peril of female power when it strays from the path of propriety, reinforcing a patriarchal view that aligns women’s virtue with their subservience and modesty. Soudabeh’s desire for Siawosh and her subsequent manipulation of King Kay-Kavous reflect a gendered power dynamic that portrays women’s influence as potentially dangerous when not checked by male authority. Siawosh, in resisting Soudabeh’s advances and ultimately obeying his father’s command, reinforces the idea of the male hero’s integrity and the importance of filial obedience in maintaining social order.

Additionally, when comparing the story of Siawosh to the Ramayana, a similar dynamic is seen between Sita and Ravana, where Sita’s resistance to Ravana’s advances reinforces her purity and devotion to Rama, thus elevating her status as an ideal woman within the epic. Unlike Soudabeh, who is driven by personal desire, Sita’s character is defined by her unwavering commitment to her husband, which aligns with the patriarchal ideals of female virtue. This contrast highlights how different cultural contexts shape the construction of gender roles within their respective epics.

Lastly, The linguistic value of this passage lies in its portrayal of fate and character through a rich narrative style that intertwines descriptive imagery with foreshadowing. The passage uses elevated language to emphasize Siawosh’s virtues, enhancing his stature as a hero in the reader’s eyes. The use of phrases such as “goodly mien,” “tall and strong,” and “the world held not his like” not only conveys Siawosh’s physical and moral attributes but also reinforces the idea of predestination, as his virtues are paradoxically the very traits that lead to his downfall. The translation captures the grandeur of the original text but also reflects the patriarchal mindset of the time, particularly in its portrayal of Soudabeh’s actions as inherently dangerous and subversive. The linguistic choices in describing Soudabeh—her eyes “filled with his beauty” and her soul “burned after him”—depict her desire as both overwhelming and destructive. This portrayal is indicative of the cultural and political context in which the text was translated and compiled, where female desire is often seen as a threat to social order. However, these linguistic elements reinforce traditional gender roles and the construction of the hero. The language used to describe Soudabeh's actions simultaneously suggests a bias that reflects the patriarchal values of the time, where women's power and influence are often depicted negatively when they diverge from the expected norms of female behavior. CC BY Aarushi Attray (contact)

‘Sita Sings the Blues’ by Nina Paley is an animated film that tells the story of Sita (husband of Rama) from the ancient Indian epic, the Ramayana. The film combines a somewhat autobiographical component in the form of music (the blues), thus providing a unique, engaging, and feminist interpretation of Sita’s story. The animation blends Indian art with contemporary visuals and1920s jazz vocals performed by Annette Hanshaw. While I found ‘Sita Sings the Blues’ much more engaging and easier to understand than Valmiki’s Ramayana, there are key differences in gender roles and the progression of gender roles based on the period of the source. In Valmiki’s Ramayana, Sita embodies the ideal wife and woman, adhering to the expectations of duty, loyalty, and purity, especially through specific moments: following Rama to exile, suffering abduction by Ravana, and undergoing a trial by fire to prove her chastity. In "Sita Sings the Blues," Sita retains these qualities but is given a voice through blues music, which adds emotional depth and modern feminist commentary. This version portrays Sita as more vocal about her emotions and frustrations, highlighting her humanity. Interestingly, Valmiki’s Sita is defined by her relationship to Rama and her adherence to dharma. Her heroism is in the uplifting of her duty (or ‘dharma) by showing devotion to Rama as a woman’s role is often confined to being devoted to her husband. Paley’s Sita challenges this by expressing her inner life, thus redefining heroism to include emotional resilience and the right to question unjust treatment."Sita Sings the Blues" critiques this by juxtaposing traditional scenes with contemporary animation and blues songs, thereby emphasizing the restrictive nature of these roles and advocating for a more nuanced understanding of gender dynamics. In Valmiki’s text, heroism is predominantly male-centered, defined by physical strength and adherence to dharma while Paley’s adaptation redefines heroism to include emotional expression and resilience, allowing Sita to provide a platform for her to voice her pain and strength— a form of expression that woman is culturally told to hide but has been growing into a form of strength in modern times with growing recognition of female rights, the “#MeToo Movement, and more. From a linguistic perspective, Valmiki’s text is rich in poetic language and cultural references, but the patriarchal mindset of the time is evident in the language, which often marginalizes female perspectives. The text’s portrayal of gender roles reflects the socio-political context of ancient India. The linguistic innovation of ‘Sita Sings the Blues’ combining traditional dialogue with modern American English and blues lyrics creates a unique narrative voice. This blend serves to bridge cultural and temporal gaps, making the story accessible and relevant to contemporary audiences. The adaptation strives to promote feminist reinterpretation though can also be seen as an imposition of modern values on an ancient text, potentially overshadowing the original cultural context. CC BY Aarushi Attray (contact)

Valmiki. The Ramayana. Translated by R. K. Narayan, Penguin Classics, 2006.

Paley, Nina. Sita Sings the Blues. Directed by Nina Paley, 2008, http://www.sitasingstheblues.com/watch.html.

This passage highlights Sita’s duty as a wife to share her husband’s fate and accompany him in exile. She argues that a wife must share with her husband. Rama’s fate, as she cannot find refuge or protection from anyone else but him. Throughout the Book, Rama tries to dissuade by describing the difficulties and horrors of the wilderness; however, Sita emphasizes that her love and commitment transcend fear and discomfort while emphasizing that her happiness stems from being benign with him rather than living in luxury. Sita’s speech simultaneously highlights the traditional gender roles and stereotypical expectations placed on both men and women. The idea of a ‘hero’ is identified with masculinity and being warrior-like (physical toughness). Sita refers to Rama as the ‘best of heroes’ and dismisses the idea of leaving the hand as suggesting that it would be "unworthy of a warrior's fame" and bring "shame" to a "monarch's son." This emphasizes the societal expectation that a hero must uphold his honor and strength, particularly in the context of his relationships and duties. Additionally, Sita's declaration that "the wife alone, whate'er await, must share on earth her husband's fate" underscores the patriarchal norm that a woman's place is with her husband, highlighting her role as a devoted and submissive partner. This builds on the cultural- and somewhat universal- stereotype that a woman’s role, as a wife, heavily resides in her being a devoted and submissive partner to her husband. When comparing different translations and adaptations of the Ramayana, variations in the portrayal of gender roles can be observed. For instance, in some modern adaptations, there may be a subtle shift towards portraying Sita with more agency and independence, reflecting contemporary views on gender equality. However, in traditional versions, such as those by Valmiki and other ancient translators, the patriarchal mindset is more pronounced. Yet, Sita's role is predominantly defined by her loyalty and subservience to Rama. The language used to describe Rama and Sita's roles reflects the societal norms and expectations of the time. Phrases such as "unworthy of a warrior's fame" and "the wife alone, whate'er await, must share on earth her husband's fate" reveal the deeply ingrained gender roles and the emphasis on male heroism and female subservience. However, the linguistic value of the work also lies in its expressive qualities as Sita’s heart-touching lines: "through tangled thorn and matted grass," illustrate the depth of her love for Rama. Ultimately, the translations differ based on the politics of the time and culture. CC BY Aarushi Attray (contact)

Valmiki. The Ramayana. Translated by Ralph T.H. Griffith, Project Gutenberg, 2009, Book II: Canto XXVII.: Sítá’s Speech, https://sacred-texts.com/hin/rama/ry105.htm. Accessed 4 Aug. 2024.

Valmiki. The Ramayana of Valmiki. Translated by Hari Prasad Shastri, Shanti Sadan, 1952.

This is a test for annotation.