Writing Assignment: Spring 2018 DUE DATE: You must turn in electronic copy of your paper through SafeAssign on the course’s Blackboard site by Friday, May 4th, 2018. Late essays will be marked down in proportion to how late they are, unless prior notification is given. Comments will be returned electronically with your papers. ASSIGNMENT: Write an argument-driven, interpretive historical essay answering one of the following questions. The essay should be 5-7 complete pages. Your answer should be based on the readings listed in the syllabus. 1) All of the primary sources we have discussed in class – Plato’s The Trial and Death of Socrates, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, both Einhard’s and Notker the Stammerer’s Lives of Charlemagne, and Machiavelli’s The Prince – all either represent or appeal to “classical antiquity” as models for emulation or inspiration relevant to the authors’ contemporary times. Looking back at all five texts, find the instances where each author invokes antiquity. How are these instances similar or different? What do the different ways in which the authors invoke classical antiquity demonstrate about the contemporary problems and issues of Plato, St. Paul, Einhard, Notker the Stammerer, and Machiavelli? How are these issues similar or different? 2) The primary source texts we read in class can all be understood as didactic – meaning that they are written to teach or explain something to the readers. What are the texts trying to teach the readers? Are the lessons universally applicable or meant only for a specific audience in a particular time and place? Defend your position. 3) Morality is a central theme in all the texts covered in the course. Using at least 2 of the primary source readings discussed this term, define what morality is for the authors whom you choose. Is it a constant and unchanging thing, or is it contingent for each individual author? Provide examples from at least two texts to support your answer. Consider how the historical context in which works were written accounts for the similarities and/or differences in each author’s understanding of morality. 4) Consider the portrayals of Charlemagne by his two biographers. Based on this information, and what we know about the historical context of 9th-century Europe, what kind of advice would Machiavelli have had for Charlemagne? Does Charlemagne fit Machiavelli’s understanding of a Prince? Why or why not? Then, consider the life of Charlemagne from the point of view of Socrates and of St. Paul. Was he a “moral person” who lived a “good life?” Why or why not? 5) This is a class on the history of “Western Civilization.” All the primary source documents which we read in class are considered to hold foundational ideas which define “Western Civilization.” Based on your reading of all the primary sources for this class, what are the ideas? 6) In reading these texts, what stands out to you as an especially significant difference in the mindsets of the readers and writers who lived in the times and places in which they were written? In other words, what do we learn from these texts about how the way people thought about social life changed between the times of Plato and Notker the Stammerer, or between those of St. Paul and Machiavelli (for example)? Be sure to base your answer on evidence from the texts, as well as your own creativity and what you learned from the course. Feel free to emphasize what stayed the same across time periods instead, as long as it is not something obvious (e.g. they all had rulers and ruled, all had laws or writing, etc.). 7) Write a dialogue (à la Plato) between any two of the authors we read in this class about a current event or personage of your choosing. Use this to highlight the points upon which they may agree or disagree. Be creative but be careful – the dialogue should accurately reflect the worldview of the authors you choose, as you understand them, not just be totally fanciful. In other words, prove that you actually read the books! • • • • • • • • • General guidelines Your paper is expected to be 5-7 double-spaced pages in length. The format should be double-spaced, with 1-inch margins and 12-point font. Attach your pages together, ideally with staples. You don’t need a title, but having one would probably make your TAs/graders happier. The paper must contain a fully-developed argument supported by evidence from the relevant primary sources from the class. This means that you should advance a claim about rather than a simple summary of the points presented in the primary source documents you discuss. Please answer whichever essay question you choose in its entirety. Partial or incomplete answers cannot and will not receive top marks. Paper drafts: We encourage you to send us rough drafts via email so that we can discuss your developing arguments, style, and organization. If you would like for us to look at electronic or paper drafts, please submit them to us no later than Monday, April 30th. You may also use the UIC Writing Center located at 105 Grant Hall for assistance with the organization, argument, and mechanics of your essay. Outside research is not expected for completing this assignment. Your attendance in lecture and discussion, as well as careful engagement with the texts themselves, will be enough to answer the essay questions. However, by the same token, you are expected to do a very close and detailed reading, and think about, all the sources provided. This assignment is meant primarily for you to demonstrate an understanding of historical events and ideas rather than advance your opinion. Therefore, remember always to refer to the texts for examples; this is how you demonstrate that you have actually read and understood the material. Plagiarism, or the taking of someone else’s ideas or words without proper attribution to the author and source, is a serious academic offense. DO NOT DO IT. Plagiarism on this or any assignment submitted in the class will result in disciplinary action, up to and including expulsion. When you quote someone else’s ideas or words please remember to cite the source and/or indicate with quotation marks. Avoid long quotations from the texts – you should make your argument in your own words and use quotations merely to support it, not dominate your whole paper. Use parenthetical citations for in-text quotes, and include the page number. For example: “’What is the use of these little napkins?’ he asked. ‘I can’t cover myself with them in bed.’” (Notker the Stammerer, Two Lives of Charlemagne, p. 133). • Include a bibliography at the end of your paper, listing all of the sources you that you use in Chicago style format. For example: Machiavelli, Niccolò. The Prince. Edited and translated by David Wootton. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1995. • Please proofread your papers for proper grammar and spelling. Also remember, that historical texts exist and are written about in the present tense, while historical events happened in the past, and are therefore discussed in the past tense. • If you have any questions, please to not hesitate to ask us. Writing Assignment: Spring 2018 DUE DATE: You must turn in electronic copy of your paper through SafeAssign on the course’s Blackboard site by Friday, May 4th, 2018. Late essays will be marked down in proportion to how late they are, unless prior notification is given. Comments will be returned electronically with your papers. ASSIGNMENT: Write an argument-driven, interpretive historical essay answering one of the following questions. The essay should be 5-7 complete pages. Your answer should be based on the readings listed in the syllabus. 1) All of the primary sources we have discussed in class – Plato’s The Trial and Death of Socrates, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, both Einhard’s and Notker the Stammerer’s Lives of Charlemagne, and Machiavelli’s The Prince – all either represent or appeal to “classical antiquity” as models for emulation or inspiration relevant to the authors’ contemporary times. Looking back at all five texts, find the instances where each author invokes antiquity. How are these instances similar or different? What do the different ways in which the authors invoke classical antiquity demonstrate about the contemporary problems and issues of Plato, St. Paul, Einhard, Notker the Stammerer, and Machiavelli? How are these issues similar or different? 2) The primary source texts we read in class can all be understood as didactic – meaning that they are written to teach or explain something to the readers. What are the texts trying to teach the readers? Are the lessons universally applicable or meant only for a specific audience in a particular time and place? Defend your position. 3) Morality is a central theme in all the texts covered in the course. Using at least 2 of the primary source readings discussed this term, define what morality is for the authors whom you choose. Is it a constant and unchanging thing, or is it contingent for each individual author? Provide examples from at least two texts to support your answer. Consider how the historical context in which works were written accounts for the similarities and/or differences in each author’s understanding of morality. 4) Consider the portrayals of Charlemagne by his two biographers. Based on this information, and what we know about the historical context of 9th-century Europe, what kind of advice would Machiavelli have had for Charlemagne? Does Charlemagne fit Machiavelli’s understanding of a Prince? Why or why not? Then, consider the life of Charlemagne from the point of view of Socrates and of St. Paul. Was he a “moral person” who lived a “good life?” Why or why not? 5) This is a class on the history of “Western Civilization.” All the primary source documents which we read in class are considered to hold foundational ideas which define “Western Civilization.” Based on your reading of all the primary sources for this class, what are the ideas? 6) In reading these texts, what stands out to you as an especially significant difference in the mindsets of the readers and writers who lived in the times and places in which they were written? In other words, what do we learn from these texts about how the way people thought about social life changed between the times of Plato and Notker the Stammerer, or between those of St. Paul and Machiavelli (for example)? Be sure to base your answer on evidence from the texts, as well as your own creativity and what you learned from the course. Feel free to emphasize what stayed the same across time periods instead, as long as it is not something obvious (e.g. they all had rulers and ruled, all had laws or writing, etc.). 7) Write a dialogue (à la Plato) between any two of the authors we read in this class about a current event or personage of your choosing. Use this to highlight the points upon which they may agree or disagree. Be creative but be careful – the dialogue should accurately reflect the worldview of the authors you choose, as you understand them, not just be totally fanciful. In other words, prove that you actually read the books! • • • • • • • • • General guidelines Your paper is expected to be 5-7 double-spaced pages in length. The format should be double-spaced, with 1-inch margins and 12-point font. Attach your pages together, ideally with staples. You don’t need a title, but having one would probably make your TAs/graders happier. The paper must contain a fully-developed argument supported by evidence from the relevant primary sources from the class. This means that you should advance a claim about rather than a simple summary of the points presented in the primary source documents you discuss. Please answer whichever essay question you choose in its entirety. Partial or incomplete answers cannot and will not receive top marks. Paper drafts: We encourage you to send us rough drafts via email so that we can discuss your developing arguments, style, and organization. If you would like for us to look at electronic or paper drafts, please submit them to us no later than Monday, April 30th. You may also use the UIC Writing Center located at 105 Grant Hall for assistance with the organization, argument, and mechanics of your essay. Outside research is not expected for completing this assignment. Your attendance in lecture and discussion, as well as careful engagement with the texts themselves, will be enough to answer the essay questions. However, by the same token, you are expected to do a very close and detailed reading, and think about, all the sources provided. This assignment is meant primarily for you to demonstrate an understanding of historical events and ideas rather than advance your opinion. Therefore, remember always to refer to the texts for examples; this is how you demonstrate that you have actually read and understood the material. Plagiarism, or the taking of someone else’s ideas or words without proper attribution to the author and source, is a serious academic offense. DO NOT DO IT. Plagiarism on this or any assignment submitted in the class will result in disciplinary action, up to and including expulsion. When you quote someone else’s ideas or words please remember to cite the source and/or indicate with quotation marks. Avoid long quotations from the texts – you should make your argument in your own words and use quotations merely to support it, not dominate your whole paper. Use parenthetical citations for in-text quotes, and include the page number. For example: “’What is the use of these little napkins?’ he asked. ‘I can’t cover myself with them in bed.’” (Notker the Stammerer, Two Lives of Charlemagne, p. 133). • Include a bibliography at the end of your paper, listing all of the sources you that you use in Chicago style format. For example: Machiavelli, Niccolò. The Prince. Edited and translated by David Wootton. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1995. • Please proofread your papers for proper grammar and spelling. Also remember, that historical texts exist and are written about in the present tense, while historical events happened in the past, and are therefore discussed in the past tense. • If you have any questions, please to not hesitate to ask us. The following selection is a philosophical approach to the question of slavery taken from the Roman world. They are originally from The Discourses of Epictetus, which were published as lecture notes written down in 108 A.D. by Arrian, a student of the philosopher Epictetus. Epictetus himself was born a slave in present-day Turkey – his name in Greek actually means “added to one’s hereditary property.” This was in 55 A.D., well after the Roman Republic had been replaced by an Empire. Epictetus became the property of a wealthy secretary to the emperor Nero who had himself once been a slave, and so he grew up in Rome quite close to the upper reaches of society and was allowed to study philosophy, more privileged than the vast majority of slaves in the Roman Empire. After Epictetus was granted his freedom, he began to teach philosophy in Rome until the Emperor Domitian expelled all philosophers from the city, retiring to Greece until his death. Epictetus was known as one of the main advocates of Stoicism. This was a philosophy that originated in Greece after the death of Socrates but became quite popular in the Roman Empire, with several Roman emperors adopting it before the period when Christianity became the official state religion. Stoics believed that true happiness came from making oneself indifferent to the fortunes and misfortunes of daily life, which comes through in the excerpt. In reading this passage, think about how educated Romans thought about their place in society. How did the Romans justify slavery? Does this passage help us understand how Romans (who had lived under a Republic) could come to terms with living under an Empire? Also, since this Stoic philosophy existed at the same time as Christianity and was influenced by the dialogues in Plato’s The Trial and Death of Socrates, how would you relate the ideas of these three philosophies? Of Freedom (Discourses 4.1) He is free who lives as he likes; who is not subject to compulsion, to restraint, or to violence; whose pursuits are unhindered, his desires successful, his aversions unincurred. Who, then, would wish to lead a wrong course of life? “No one.” Who would live deceived, erring, unjust, dissolute, discontented, dejected? “No one.” No wicked man, then, lives as he likes; therefore no such man is free. And who would live in sorrow, fear, envy, pity, with disappointed desires and unavailing aversions? “No one.” Do we then find any of the wicked exempt from these evils? “Not one.” Consequently, then, they are not free. If some person who has been twice consul should hear this, he will forgive you, provided you add, “but you are wise, and this has no reference to you.” But if you tell him the truth, that, in point of slavery, he does not necessarily differ from those who have been thrice sold, what but chastisement can you expect? “For how,” he says, “am I a slave? My father was free, my mother free. Besides, I am a senator, too, and the friend of Caesar, and have been twice consul, and have myself many slaves.” In the first place, most worthy sir, perhaps your father too was a slave of the same kind; and your mother, and your grandfather, and all your series of ancestors. But even were they ever so free, what is that to you? For what if they were of a generous, you of a mean spirit; they brave, and you a coward; they sober, and you dissolute? “But what,” he says, “has this to do with my being a slave?” Is it no part of slavery to act against your will, under compulsion, and lamenting? “Be it so. But who can compel me but the master of all, Caesar?” By your own confession, then, you have one master; and let not his being, as you say, master of all, give you any comfort; for then you are merely a slave in a large family. Thus the Nicopolitans, too, frequently cry out, “By the genius of Caesar we are free!” For the present, however, if you please, we will let Caesar alone. But tell me this. Have you never been in love with any one, either of a servile or liberal condition? “Why, what has that to do with being slave or free?” Were you never commanded anything by your mistress that you did not choose? Have you never flattered your fair slave? Have you never kissed her feet? And yet if you were commanded to kiss Caesar’s feet, you would think it an outrage and an excess of tyranny. What else is this than slavery? Have you never gone out by night where you did not desire? Have you never spent more than you chose? Have you not sometimes uttered your words with sighs and groans? Have you never borne to be reviled and shut out of doors? … Why, then, do you still call yourself free? Why do you boast your military expeditions? Then he calls for a sword, and is angry with the person who, out of kindness, denies it; and sends presents to her who hates him; and begs, and weeps, and then again is elated on every little success. But what elation? Is he raised above desire or fear? Consider what is our idea of freedom in animals. Some keep tame lions, and feed them and even lead them about; and who will say that any such lion is free? Nay, does he not live the more slavishly the more he lives at ease? And who that had sense and reason would wish to be one of those lions? Again, how much will caged birds suffer in trying to escape? Nay, some of them starve themselves rather than undergo such a life; others are saved only with difficulty and in a pining condition; and the moment they find any opening, out they go. Such a desire h .