Research Paper utilizing primary sources
Length: 1500 words – include word count at end of paper
Double-spaced, 12-point font, typed
One-inch margins on all sides
This paper is to be submitted by the beginning of class on March 18th. Requests for extensions will not be entertained after February 13th. Late papers will not be accepted.
The research paper is your opportunity to learn how to “do” Roman history. Your aim, in the finished paper, is to present to the professor evidence of your ability to gather together evidence, organize an argument with it, draw conclusions from it, and articulate your findings in clear and concise English. A research paper is not a narrative summary of what a primary source says (i.e., “then Caesar did this, and after saying this, he went there and met Cleopatra and they had an affair”). There are, in my opinion then, three main elements to an ancient history paper: research, organization, and presentation. If you do good research but write so poorly that I cannot find a complete sentence that makes sense, your good research will not be visible and your mark will be abysmal. Conversely, if you write wonderful crisp prose with not a piece of solid ancient evidence behind it, your mark will still be abysmal. A good paper balances the three elements.
Since this is an introductory course to ancient history, I have selected topics that require ONLY the use of primary sources. There are 4 topics available: two on Caesar, one on the emperor and one on slaves. I do not want you to attempt to use any modern scholarship for the topics on the emperor and slaves – it is too much for you to deal with both the ancient texts and the opinions of modern scholars at the same time. For the Caesar topics you may need to read some modern scholarship on Plutarch and Suetonius as authors, but I do not want you to use any modern scholarship on Caesar. There is too much for you to properly control at this point. This assignment is designed to get you reading and thinking about the ANCIENT TEXTS.
The paper is to follow an accepted scholarly format like that of the Modern Language Association Style Sheet or the University of Chicago Manual of Style. One style manual that may be helpful, and which Koerner has, is M. Rampolla’s Pocket Guide to Writing in History (2001).
Whichever style you use there must be footnotes or endnotes. In text, parenthetical references, for example,
“The sky is blue (Bablitz, 2001, 54). Because the sky is blue, it’s sunny.”
are not acceptable in history papers as they encourage the use of only one source for any one statement.
There must be a clear thesis statement in the opening of the paper that states what you are going to argue in your paper and provides a overall road map of the layout of your paper. If, after reading the opening few paragraphs, I sit back and say to myself “where is this paper going?” and I cannot provide an answer for myself, then your thesis is weak. If you are uncertain of how to do a proper thesis see me or Mr. Bourne.
There must be a title page and bibliography.
Proofreading is important! Marks will be deducted for errors in spelling, grammar, and punctuation. “It is” and “its” must be used correctly. Contractions (e.g., haven’t, don’t) should not appear in formal writing.
I insist that your paper be properly documented. This means that any information that you learned from a source must be properly footnoted. Having lots of footnotes indicates that you’ve spent time reading the texts and shows that you have come to understand both their arguments and contents. There is a misconception that a paper should not have many footnotes. Perhaps in other fields this is the case, such as creative writing where you are encouraged to come up with something completely your own and original. In History, however, we rely on primary texts for our evidence. This does not mean that we are not looking for original ideas, rather any original idea must be SUPPORTED. To do that you must find the evidence that backs up your idea in the primary texts.
The rules for plagiarism are very exact. There are two forms of plagiarism: Complete Plagiarism and Reckless Plagiarism (this and the below are taken from the UBC Faculty of Arts booklet for students “Plagiarism Avoided: Taking Responsibility for Your Work”).
“Complete plagiarism exists when an entire essay is copied from an author, or composed by another person, and presented as original work” (UBC calendar)
Reckless plagiarism is best described by giving a number of examples:
* “Taking phrases, sentences, paragraphs, or statistical findings from a
variety of sources and piecing them together into an essay;”
* “Taking the words of another author and failing to note clearly that they
are not your own. In other words, you have not put a direct quotation
within quotation marks;”
* “Using statistical findings without acknowledging your source;”
* “Taking another author’s idea, without your own critical analysis, and
failing to acknowledge that this idea is not yours;”
* “Paraphrasing (ie rewording or rearranging words so that your work
resembles, but does not copy, the original) without acknowledging your
source;”
* “Using footnotes or material quoted in other sources as if they were the
result of your own research; and”
* “Submitting a piece of work with inaccurate text references, sloppy
footnotes, or incomplete source (bibliographic) information.”
One footnote per paragraph is not acceptable. If everything from a paragraph of your paper is from one primary source you may be slipping into narrating what the primary text says and this is not good History.
Documenting ancient texts properly is required for this term of this course. It is far more precise than other methods. In this method you cite the book and chapter of the ancient work, which details can be found at the top of the page or at the beginning of each paragraph. So, Suet. Aug. 32 is the documentary shorthand for the 32nd section/paragraph of the Life of Augustus written by Suetonius. In this system there is no need to cite the page of the translation; no matter what translation is used the titles of the book and the sections/paragraphs remain constant.
Suet. Aug. 32.
If you have multiple references from the same author and life in any ONE footnote:
Suet. Aug. 32, 44, 55.
If you have multiple references from different authors in any ONE footnote:
Suet. Aug.100; Plut. Caes. 52; Tac. Ann. 4.32.
*(put them in alphabetical order, by author)
If you are still unsure of the method, come and see me or, if you are unsure of the proper abbreviations of ancient authors and their texts, check the list in the front of the Oxford Classical Dictionary. There are two copies (one in the stacks, one in reference of Koerner). DE5 .O9 1996.
I will not accept anything off the web as a viable reference for a university level paper. The one exception: the Perseus website which contains relatively reliable primary texts in translation.
The History department has a very helpful writing website. You can use it for everything where I do not disagree with them (ie if, in the above, I contradict what the site says – follow what I say above). Check it out, there is much useful information.
http://www.history.ubc.ca/writingcentre/
NB: The abovementioned skills are ones you need to learn in order to communicate effectively with others, whether through a paper for a university course or a report/memo at your place of employment. While you may not need to properly note a reference to Suetonius, you will always be expected to follow the conventional “lingo” of your profession. As such, just as you would lose much of your effectiveness by circulating a report riddled with poor prose and typos, you will equally lose in a university course.
If a paper does not reflect a clear effort to meet the above requirements (thesis statement, plagiarism, proofreading, notation), it will be returned unmarked on March 12th in class. You will have one day to correct it, making no changes to the content of the paper itself, and you will resubmit it on March 14th (in class). You can either print the new fixed copy on the back of your first draft or submit both the old copy with my remarks and a new fixed copy. I would suggest that you attend class on March 12th. If you do not pick up the paper on that day, it will be marked as is and the mark will reflect your failure to follow the instructions.
Paper topics:
1. Compare the characterization of Julius Caesar by Plutarch and Suetonius. This is not a question about Caesar the man but rather a question asking you to consider how the two biographers use the same, or different, facts to present their characterization of Caesar.
2. Caesar was reputed to be a master of the art of war. According to Plutarch and Suetonius, why was Caesar so successful in his military endeavours? Where does one author emphasize or mention different aspects of his military career that the other ignores? Why do you think this is?
3. Examine the relationship between the Roman emperor and the urban masses of Rome as found in the writings of Suetonius and Tacitus. How did the masses make their opinions known to the emperor? How did the emperor attempt to affect the opinions of the masses?
4. What do we learn about the lives of slaves from within the writings of Suetonius and Tacitus? What jobs did they do? What was the relationship between master and slave like?
VII. Marking Criteria
Mark
Band Mark
Ex 40 Mark
Ex 20 Criteria for essays and other non-language elements Criteria for language elements
A
80-100 %
A+
90-100
A
85-89
A-
80-84
32-40
36-40
34-35
32-33
16-20
18-20
17
16 Outstanding work which displays wide knowledge, awareness of the current state of thinking on the subject, critical analysis, independence of mind, initiative, and intellectual rigour. Clearly prepared, with a well-structured argument, avoiding irrelevance. Originality is rewarded, but is not a necessary requirement. Primary sources are prevalent and used effectively to support the argument. Work showing: a very high level of grammatical knowledge: command of a wide range of vocabulary, and awareness of differences of register and idiom; ability to translate passages with very few misunderstandings.
B
68-79%
B+
76-79
B
72-75
B-
68-71
27-31
31
29-30
27-28
14-15
15
14 Well-organised, detailed and logical work, showing a thorough understanding of the subject as taught, with evidence of additional study. There should be no significant deficiencies in competence in the subject. Primary sources are incorporated and effort is made to use them to support the argument, though this attempt may not be successful. Work showing: no recurrent basic grammatical errors; knowledge of a wide range of vocabulary, with some awareness of differences of register and idiom; ability to translate most of a passage correctly, but only a few significant errors.
C
55-67%
C+
64-67
C
60-63
C-
55-59
22-26
26
24-25
22-23
11-13
13
12
11 Work that displays overall competence and an understanding of the basics of the subject. The answer contains reasonably good information, but there may be only limited evidence of additional, independent study. There may be insufficient discussion, and conclusions may not always be adequately supported. Primary sources either do not appear or are lifted from secondary sources. Work showing: a sound grasp of basic grammar and vocabulary; ability to understand the general sense of a passage, but a number of errors.
D
50-54%
20-21
10
Work that displays adequate comprehension of basic facts and principles, but may also contain significant gaps or errors of detail, some irrelevance, and poorly constructed argument; it may be largely descriptive, rather than arguing a case; or it may fail to focus properly on the question set. Work showing: some knowledge of basic grammar and vocabulary; parts of a passage are translated correctly, but there are significant misunderstandings and errors.
F
25-49%
10-19
5-9 Work that displays very weak comprehension of basic facts and principles, and may well also contain significant gaps or errors of detail, some irrelevance, poorly constructed argument or no argument at all Work showing: weak knowledge of basic grammar and vocabulary ; parts of a passage are translated correctly, but there are numerous, significant misunderstandings and errors.
F
0-24%
0-9
0-4 Work that displays inadequate understanding of basic facts and principles, and which may include significant errors, omissions or irrelevance, and raises doubts about the candidate’s grasp of the essentials of the subject; or work which is plagiarised. Work showing: major shortcomings in grammar and vocabulary; very little of a passage is translated correctly.
