The ending of Tvrdica is one of its most debated features. After a tangle of arranged marriages, secret loans, and the theft of the casket, the wealthy Anselme is revealed to be the long-lost father of Valère and Mariane, and everything is resolved at once. Some readers find this convenient resolution unsatisfying, while others see it as a deliberate comic convention. An essay about the ending asks students to take a position on a real interpretive question.

A good prompt might ask whether the ending strengthens or weakens Molière's critique of greed. A student could argue that the neat reunion undercuts the satire by letting everyone escape consequences, while another might say that Harpagon's continued obsession with the casket shows that nothing has really changed. Both are defensible if supported by the text. The quality of the reasoning, not the conclusion, should determine the grade.

To grade fairly, make sure students understand the conventions of comedy in Molière's era, where sudden reunions and revelations were common endings. Without that context, some will dismiss the ending as lazy writing. Provide a short note on comic conventions, and then reward essays that consider whether Molière is following or subverting them. This keeps the discussion informed rather than based on modern expectations alone.

Judging Interpretive Arguments

Look for essays that connect the ending to what comes before it. A student who argues that the resolution is unearned should point to specific earlier moments and explain what the audience expected instead. Similarly, a student who defends it should show how it fits the pattern of the play's humor. Essays that discuss the ending in isolation tend to feel thin.

• Takes a clear position on the effect of the ending
• Connects the final scenes to earlier moments in the play
• Considers the conventions of seventeenth-century comedy
• Addresses what happens to Harpagon and why it matters
• Supports claims with accurate references to specific events

Common Misreadings

Students sometimes misremember the details of the resolution, including who is related to whom and what Harpagon gains or loses. Check factual claims carefully, because an argument built on a misunderstanding of the plot cannot succeed. A quick note referring them to the relevant scene can clear this up. Accuracy is a precondition for good interpretation.

Another misreading is assuming that the ending must reform Harpagon, as in a morality tale. Because he remains focused on his casket, some students conclude that Molière failed to complete the story. Feedback can ask them to consider whether the lack of reform is itself the point. This reframing often leads to more sophisticated essays.

Efficient Grading of Interpretive Essays

Because interpretive essays can vary widely, rubrics should focus on the qualities of the argument rather than the particular view taken. Criteria such as clarity of position, use of evidence, and engagement with counterpoints work well. Reading a few essays on each side before assigning scores can help calibrate your expectations. This reduces the temptation to favor the interpretation you prefer.

AI grading tools can help maintain this balance by applying the same criteria to every essay and highlighting gaps in evidence or reasoning. Teachers can then devote their attention to evaluating the originality and persuasiveness of each argument. This is especially useful when many students write on the same prompt and the essays begin to blur together. The tool supports consistency, and the teacher supplies the final judgment.