Renaissance Midterm Paper: Topic

Looking back on the topics we've covered so far, do you find that they come together into a coherent picture of a "Renaissance" civilization, that could be defined by certain general characteristics?  In other words, do you subscribe to the "broad" definition of Renaissance (it's a distinct culture with certain shared, distinctive characteristics) or to the narrow definition (it is ONLY an artistic-intellectual movement centered on emulation of antiquity-- on any other potentially unifying theme one finds only variety and contradiction)?  

To answer this question, you need to choose certain themes to investigate and argue either that they are broadly shared across different spheres of activity, or they are not. Possibly unifying themes are those we have often discussed in class: secularism (vs. religious piety), individualism (vs. types or group identities), egalitarianism (vs. elitism), emphasis on appearance over reality (or not), greatness (or weakness) of humanity, materialism/concern with commercial issues, etc. The different spheres of Italian life we have examined include vernacular literature, business, politics/political writing, philosophy, art, religion.

Two important notes: 1) you cannot argue that the Renaissance is a distinctive culture with shared characteristics, using "widespread emulation of antiquity" as your proof. The emulation of antiquity is the NARROW definition; if you want to argue this is a coherent culture, you need unifying themes beyond this. 2) you should probably cover two themes, each in 3 to 3.5 pages. Some people are successful in arguing three themes, of which one they are able to do very briefly (because it is a simple one to prove). One theme alone would probably only be capable of earning an A if it were quite nuanced and sophisticated. I've seen it done, but I do not recommend it for everyone. Often 7 pages on a single theme just means there's lots of empty 'filler' and repetition which ought to have been cut, and the paper, with insufficient content, cannot rise above a B.

some more guidelines in writing papers:

-Formulate a clear thesis and state it right away.  No vague generalizations, no prefatory warmup comments-- please!

-Consider both sides of the question.  If you're arguing for unity, you should consider the arguments for disunity and explain why you find them less persuasive.  And vice versa.  You are like a trial lawyer: you must not only make your own case but address (and refute) the evidence of the opposing side, if you want to be convincing. 

-Back up your observations with direct, relevant evidence from the texts-- whose relevance you explain before or after quoting!  Historians can and indeed should speculate; but they cannot invent information or explanations out of thin air.  The difference between the two is evidence.

-You can organize it any way you wish, but there must be some kind of clear organizing principle. 

NOTE: You will not be able to cover every relevant theme; you will not be able to discuss every work we've read.  You must choose wisely!

-finally, proofread your work.  Cut out needless repetition, empty phrases, and vagueness.  Just as an efficient machine has no unnecessary parts, your essay should have no unnecessary words.  You must be concise to stay in the page limit!  And the page limit is 7 pages.