Format: around 8 pages, double-spaced, 12-point font (Times New Roman for length-measurement purposes), 1-inch margins. Number your pages and include
your name in the Word document (.doc or .docx). Include a bibliography and document each statement with the page (or book/chapter if using an online source) reference in footnotes.
Sources: You may integrate some background material if it strengthens your argument, but do not undertake extensive secondary research. The analysis of the primary text should be the focus of the paper, and the argument should be supported with evidence from the primary text. If you need background information, first try the translator’s introduction. It is not a goal of this assignment to consider scholarship related to the primary text or author or paper topic; therefore, consideration of scholarship will take focus away from the primary text and result in a paper that does not fit the assignment’s requirements.
Documentation:
• You must include a reference to the text whenever you draw on a source, either with a direct quote or a paraphrase. Every statement, whether paraphrase or direct quote, based on a primary source or secondary work, should be supported by a reference. When in doubt, include a reference: too much documentation is better than too little. If you do not include references, you open yourself up to charges of plagiarism. Your papers will be screened with plagiarism detection software that will identify borrowings from other students’ papers and internet sources as well as features that indicate that a paper was written with the aid of Artificial Intelligence.
• With respect to footnote frequency in the paper, you can follow these guidelines:
o Put a footnote after direct quotations.
o For paraphrases, you can have a footnote after several sentences or at the end of the paragraph.
o Put footnotes at the end of the sentence. Put only one note per sentence,
separating sources with a semicolon and putting them in the order that you
address them in the sentence. You can also add words to illustrate their
contribution.
• Chicago/Turabian is the preferred documentation system for history papers. Guidelines. The full publication information for your sources must appear in the first footnote for that source and in the bibliography.
Quoting and Paraphrasing:
• Well-chosen quotations will help you stay close to your source but be careful not to overload your paper with long excerpts. It is better to quote pertinent portions as you analyze them rather than include a large block quotation. Though, if you must include a large block quotation, it must be single-spaced and indented on both sides and not included in quotation marks. Paraphrase when you draw on the content rather than the specific wording. Paraphrasing is generally best for facts, historical context, and plot summary unless you are engaging with an author’s opinion.
• Quotations and evidence cannot prove your point without your discussion/explanation/interpretation of the quotation/piece of evidence. Introduce quotations rather than having them as a stand-alone sentence.
• In Chicago Format, the order is as follows: punctuation followed by quotation marks (if needed) followed by footnote number.
Argument:
Focus on some aspect of your chosen primary source and make an argument about it. Do not simply discuss source criticism or describe the content of the source. Some tips for formulating and making an argument:
• Arguments are usually the answers to questions.
• The argument puts forth one answer to a question that has more than one possible answer.
• Nearly all topics require some statement and consideration of the work’s author and context. Remember, you are investigating a topic through the author’s view, so your argument and findings will provide more information about the author than about his or her subjects. For example, rather than using Livy’s work to argue that Romulus was good, use Livy’s work to argue that Livy viewed Romulus as good because… (analyzing why he viewed Romulus as good and what that reveals about Livy’s view of politics, etc.).
• The paper topic must be about the author’s (or primary source’s) own time, not later.
If you want to compare a source to an earlier source, that is fine, but the paper must focus on the time of the source that you have chosen for your paper deadline.
• Avoid counterfactuals, or arguments based on events that didn’t happen. Analyze what did happen as opposed to what might have happened. Imagination and
speculation come into play when proposing reasons to explain why something that occurred occurred.
• Although a comparison of modern and historical practices can sometimes be a useful tool for brainstorming a question and/or grabbing the audience’s attention, strive to understand the past rather than critique it.
• Convey your argument through the presentation and interpretation of evidence drawn from your source(s). If you have carefully read the entire source in its entirety, it can be appropriate to make arguments based on the absence of evidence.
• Often, you’ll find evidence in your source that does not fit your argument. It is
important to acknowledge this contradictory evidence and explain it in some way.
• Acknowledging and refuting counterarguments can be one of the most powerful ways to convincingly present your argument.
Organization:
• Give a descriptive title that conveys your topic. Begin with an introduction that mentions your topic, source, and argument/findings. You may want to try to engage the audience by opening with a provocative statement or quote that encapsulates your theme. Give enough details about your findings to guide the reader: for example, instead of “Livy provided lessons in good rulership,” try “Livy provided lessons in good rulership by highlighting past rulers’ piety and willingness to make peace.”
• Be sure to make clear transitions between ideas. Transitions from one paragraph to the next are most important, but within paragraphs you will sometimes need transitions as you shift from one (related) idea to another. Strong transitions show that you understand how your argument flows. Start each paragraph with a strong topic sentence to indicate the paragraph’s main contribution to the paper. Avoid one-sentence paragraphs.
• Often thematic organization, with each paragraph devoted to a single theme, is more effective than using an organization that follows the organization of the primary source or chronology.
Writing:
• Use active rather than passive voice for clearer, more concise sentences. Write “Livy described Romulus” instead of “Romulus was described by Livy.” You can use the search feature to identify all the “to be” verbs (is, are, was/were) and then try to revise the sentence to avoid these.
• Actions within a historical source can be in present or past tense. Livy lived in the past, so all tenses related to his activities should be in the past tense (wrote, highlighted, etc.). Although texts and past authors do in some sense speak to us, use a verb of writing (narrated, etc.) rather than speaking (said, told, etc.).
• Avoid contractions (don’t, hasn’t, etc.) in formal academic writing.
• Hyphenate when a compound is used as an adjective: during the ninth century, Einhard described eighth-century events.
• Numbers below 101 should be spelled out: fifth century, etc. An exception is round
numbers such as “five hundred.”
• Proofread! Spell check utility is useless for extra words, missing words, misused words, and proper names.
Doing History from Primary Sources:
Questions to Consider The questions below are basic questions that all historians should ask themselves when using written primary sources for historical investigations. So consider these questions when you read the primary sources in preparation for classroom discussions and your paper.
• Type of source (chronicle, law code, biography, poem, etc.). What seems to be the formal requirements of the source genre? Does the author seem to have observed them? What models were available to the writer? Does he/she mention any earlier writers by name? What constraints could the genre place on the writer?
• Author: what is known (name; dates; location; social, educational, cultural background, other works, etc.); author’s mentality and personality as it emerges from the source (including literary ambitions and talent, literary models, likes and dislikes, favorite metaphors); stated purpose of author; unstated purposes of author (that you can gather from your reading); intended audience and possible audiences. What prejudices seem to shape the account? How can you use the author’s prejudices to gain additional insights into the author and his/her world?
• Subject of source; date of events described (earliest event, latest event, majority of events); date of composition in relation to date of events. Author’s sources: eyewitness? derived data? other sources stated by the author or deduced by you or the translator? How reliable were his/her sources? How reliable does the author’s use of them appear to be? Any significant silences? How qualified was the author to describe these events?
• Context: When was the source written (years; at what stage of author’s career/life?). Under what circumstances? In what historical context? Where? What constraints does the situation of composition place on the account? What does the author seem to take for granted about his/her world (that isn’t explained but we today want more explanation)?
• Critique: How do the factors above affect the selection and presentation of the source’s evidence? How do they affect the source’s value for a topic? How can we use them to make the source give up “indirect information” (information the source did not intend to reveal about the author, era, society, etc.)? What is the argument of the work (or, for narratives, the author’s explanation for why the events described occurred)? What does the work reveal about the themes in history, such as politics, the economy, religion, culture, and society (and more specific themes such as the role of women, conversion, etc.)? How does this author’s view compare to the view of the other authors in the course? Why are they different (or similar) and what does this reveal about historical change (or continuity)?
