History 164A

Professor Sheehan
Paper Topics

These papers are an opportunity for you to explore the works that we’ve been reading so far this
semester in greater depth. To that end, I have left the topics fairly open. This is not an invitation
to vague generalities or loose interpretations or personal sentiments. I am asking you to be real
intellectual historians here. Although I suggest some directions you might consider for each
question, above all, I expect you each to develop original, specific, and sustained arguments that
you will support using ample evidence from the texts we’ve read. You are even welcome to
challenge the point of my question, if you like. If you would like to discuss your ideas with me or
your reader, please feel free.

Final note: this is not a research paper—please do not use outside readings. Your papers should
be written only from the sources that I’ve assigned for this class.

Final Final note – choose ONE of the questions!

Question 1:
“Culture, as soon as it freed itself from the bonds of the Middle Ages, could not at once and
without help find its way to the understanding of the physical and intellectual world. It needed a
guide, and found one in ancient civilization, with its wealth of truth and knowledge in every
spiritual interest… [ancient civilization] became the chief part of the culture of the age.” –Jacob
Burckhardt, The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy

Picking at least two of the texts that we have read so far, develop an argument about how
antiquity served as inspiration and/or foil for the Renaissance.

Possible avenues might include:

• the relative power of different ancient authorities;
• the persistence (or disappearance) of specific ancient philosophical questions or problems;
• exploration of the moments when antiquity is rejected;
• discussion of what kind of antiquity seen as valuable;
• investigation of how the mirror of antiquity might produce different images of the
“modern.”

Question 2:
“All Scripture inspired of God is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice.
Now Scripture, inspired of God, is not a part of the philosophical sciences discovered by human
reason. Therefore it is useful that besides the philosophical sciences there should be another
science—i.e., inspired of God.” -- St. Thomas Aquinas

Picking at least two of the texts that we’ve read so far, develop an argument about the
relationship between Christian theology and philosophy in the early modern period.

Possible avenues might include:

 • moments when theology and philosophy entwine or are separated;
• exploration of how theology and philosophy are redefined;
• applications of specific philosophical insights to theological problems, or vice versa;
• considerations of how different Christian ideals (humanist/reformed) approach this
relationship differently.

Question 3:

“To assert that men are capable of reaching the highest excellence is to imply that must be
capable of overcoming any obstacles to the attainment of this goal. The humanists willingly
recognize that their view of human nature commits them to just such an optimistic analysis of
man’s freedom and power… able to shape his own destiny and remake his social world to fit his
own desires” – Quentin Skinner, Foundations of Modern Political Thought

If this is true, then how should we understand Machiavelli? How much was his political thought
an expression of this humanist commitment? And how much a rejection? Use at least two texts,
and one of them NOT by Machiavelli, to develop your answers.

Possible avenues might include:

• the difference between Machiavelli and more ancient forms of political thought (Greek or
Christian);
• comparison of Machiavelli to other humanist text that we have read;
• differentiation among the different Machiavelli texts that we read;

ESSAY GUIDELINES

Your paper should be typed, double-spaced, using 12-point font and 1-inch margins. Proper
grammar and spelling always count! Pay particular attention to the structure of your paper. You
are constructing an argument based on an analysis of primary sources. These questions are
intentionally open-ended and a number of plausible interpretations are possible—use this
exercise to find one that is most meaningful to you.

Advice on Editing Your Work

1. BIGGEST PIECE OF ADVICE: RE-READ RE-READ RE-READ.

2. Have a friend read your essay with the writing rubric in hand: what grade would they
give you?
3. Ask yourself the following questions:
a. did I answer the question?
b. do I have a clear and concise thesis?
c. is my argument sustained throughout the paper?
d. do my paragraphs have topic sentences?
e. do these sentences support my argument?
f. do I have enough evidence to support my argument:?
i. HINT: evidence in this case means quotations from the original texts.
 ii. HINT: do NOT include enormous block quotations!! Be selective when
you quote.
g. are my quotations cited (see below)?
h. is everything except the quotations my own words?
i. HINT: Any time you use another person’s words, you need quotation
marks. Otherwise this is plagiarism.
i. do I have a conclusion?
j. did I do a spell check?
k. are the names of my authors and places correctly spelled?

Citations

All works should be cited using the page number of the work in parenthesis: e.g. (56). If it is
unclear what work you are referring to (i.e. you are moving between multiple sources), put the
last name of the author and the page number: e.g. (Smith, 56). If you are referencing any works
that are not from the class, you must include them in a bibliography at the end of the essay.

Evaluating your writing:

Argument:

1. Strongly and clearly articulated. Well reasoned. Consistent throughout the paper, from
the introduction to the conclusion. Supported by ample evidence and persuasively put.

2. Overall, convincing thesis. Articulation sometimes inconsistent or unclear. Sufficient

evidence present but occasionally may be off topic or sparse. Requires some work from
the reader to follow along.

3. Overall, unconvincing or unclear thesis. Evidence sparse or misdirected. Inconsistently

framed—changes or appears to change over the course of the paper. Much work required
of the reader to understand argument.

4. Thesis absent, or so unclear as to be absent. Poorly reasoned. Evidence lacking and

irrelevant. Off topic or otherwise misdirected.

Organization:

1. Very tightly organized. Introduction sets up the entire paper, both structure and
argument. One section flows seamlessly to the next. Paragraphs have strong transitions.
Evidence is well integrated into the paragraphs. Ends decisively.

2. Overall, clear structure. Introduction sets up paper, but may not entirely hold it together.
Sections make sense but occasionally stumble over each other. Transitions usually
present, but at times need to be supplied by the reader. Conclusion may introduce new or
peculiar ideas.
 3. Unclear structure. Introduction may have a thesis, but not necessarily the one argued in
the paper. Paragraphs have few transitions between them. New materials and themes
introduced erratically and surprisingly. Conclusion either absent or very weak.

4. Structure opaque. Introduction unrelated to the body of the paper. Paragraphs have no
tissue holding them together. Very difficult to follow for the reader.

Style:

1. Vivid and clear writing style. Grammatically sound and coherent. Interesting and
accurate use of vocabulary and other stylistic devices (metaphor, simile, analogy).
Sentences flow into each other, held together with transition words (instead, moreover,
nevertheless etc.) Sentences are appropriate in length.

2. Overall clearly written. Grammatical lapses may appear, but very infrequently
Vocabulary good. Occasional poor word choice. Sentences follow each other, but are not
knit tightly together.

3. Writing unclear and hard to follow. Frequent grammatical errors. Word usage odd or
difficult to understand. Sentences very short, or, more often, very long and convoluted.

4. Confusing writing. Requires considerable effort on the reader’s part to understand the
meaning of sentences. Word choice very awkward. Grammar such a significant problem
that the meaning of the writing is obscured.

Thinking about your grade:

An A paper will be a “1” in nearly all categories. It may be marginally weak (“2”) in one area,
but this is significantly outweighed by the strengths in the other areas. The relative strengths will
create the range between A- and A+.

A B paper will overall conform to the “2” descriptions. It may be particularly strong in one area
(“1”), or weak in another (“3”), which will give the variations within the B grade.

A C paper on average falls into the “3” zone. Again, it may have one or more stronger aspects,
but these are outweighed by significant weaknesses in other areas.

Anything Below C: L