Sample Hum. 110 paper
Take a look at the commentary in red for recommendations on how the following writing selection has been successful and how it might be improved. Orange passages indicate some (though certainly not all) portions of the text that contain grammatical/spelling errors or that could simply be rephrased to clarify the passage's meaning. If you click on any of these passages you will be referred to resource guides, handouts, etc. that describe the rules and conventions related to the particular issue. Perhaps you can see some problems with the text that the editor did not . . .
Untitled
[It goes without saying that the content of your paper is what really counts, but it is important to remember that writing a paper is an exercise in rhetoric. The first thing that readers look for on a paper is the title, just because that is what their experiences as readers have led them to expect. An untitled paper may be excellent-- as this paper proves to be-- but one that does have a title may intrigue
Jean-Pierre Vernant writes in his book entitled The Origins of Greek Thought that, "the origin of rational thought must be seen as bound up with the social and mental structures peculiar to the Greek city" and that this way of reasoning was "separate from religion with its own vocabulary, concepts, principles and theoretical aims." With the advent of democracy and the polis, Greeks were being encouraged to examine their surroundings rather than just accept their lack of control as was necessary during periods such as the early Mycenaean kingships. The prime example of this new type society can be found in the city of Athens. Here we see a community committed to rule by men free to exercise their power of reason. No longer would men be subject to the whims of others, the responsibility was now on them to be active members of society. We see this drastic switch to the virtues of reason quite clearly in the work of the Athenian historian Herodotus. Herodotus depicts a method of reasoned historical exploration so advanced from the works of earlier writers such as Homer, where there is absolutely no questioning of fact, that we are compelled to examine exactly how he derives the body of his narratives. What constitutes proof for Herodotus is rational analysis of historical occurrences based on a variety of explanatory tools. [This is an extremely effective introduction. The writer begins with an interesting quotation and proceeds to explain it in terms of the paper's subject matter. Notice how the paragraph makes general references to various places, periods, and ideologies of Greek antiquity and gradually focuses in on the concept of history in Herodotus' Athens. The introduction concludes with a direct thesis statement that, though it might specify the "tools" to be discussed in succeeding paragraphs or designate a general outline for the paper's argument, does give the reader an idea of where the paper is headed. Take a look at the Introductions handout.]
In order to better understand precisely how Herodotus arrives at conclusions about the events he discusses it helps to examine specific instances where his method is clearly illustrated. By looking carefully at these examples, we are able to draw broad conclusions that help define exactly what constitutes proof for Herodotus . [This statement is helpful: the writer might consider incorporating it into the thesis statement for tighter organization.]
A good example of Herodotus' method of historical analysis can be found in the story of Helen (2.113-120). Here we see a familiar tale systematically reconstructed to give a vastly different outlook on the causes and underlying historical facts that make up the event. Herodotus tells the story of Helen and the Trojan War as a battle fought on false grounds. He tells the story of Paris stealing away Helen and then getting washed up on the Egyptian coast by a big storm. Here, in the court of Proteus, Paris was forced to leave Helen and escape quickly in fear of death. Therefore, when the Greeks approached Troy and asked for Helen's return, it was simply an impossible request; as Herodotus writes, "(the Trojans) did not give Helen back because they had not got her (2.120)." The Greeks did not believe the Trojan's story and thus the horrible battle began.
Herodotus begins by telling the above story as related to him by the priests. Yet, unlike writers such as Homer, he does not take only myth as truth. Herodotus questions the validity of the myth by using tools of logic and reason. Herodotus looks at the situation surrounding the "myth" and evaluates it in his own terms. Herodotus uses two major tools to prove his outlook, and by outlining them we get a good picture of some of the broad analytical approaches that he adheres to.[It might be wise to consider how one defines the major terms of a paper. The term "myth", for example, has a variety of meanings. Is a myth always entirely false?]
He begins by using the fact that the statue of Aphrodite, now standing at the former site of Proteus' court, is referred to as "the stranger." Since this is the only statue of Aphrodite referred to as such, he concludes that there must be a rational reason why. This reason, he believes, is because of the story of Helen related above. Here we see Herodotus taking into account anthropological details and his own logical observations to supplement the myth. In order to further validate the story of the priests Herodotus uses a form of literary analysis. In doing so he, very conveniently, explicitly outlines for us the vast differences between Homer's use of myth and his practice of rational analysis. He looks at three passages from the Iliad and the Odyssey and pulls out details that point to Homer acknowledging Helen being at Proteus' court. Although this does not prove Herodotus' account outright, it is an effective critical tool in analyzing the event and adding some validity to his analysis.
The specific tools he uses, though, are not of primary importance.[A dangerous statement!! The thesis states that the paper will deal with Herodotus' means of historical discourse in light of the explanatory "tools" evidenced in his writing. It is important to refer back to one's thesis frequently and to be consistent in how one approaches it.] Simply the fact that Herodotus is questioning the authority of the myth is, in reference to the earlier writers we have read so far, astonishing. Herodotus seems in clear rebellion of myth when he writes, "I think Homer was familiar with (the story of Helen at Proteus' court); for though he rejected it as less suitable for epic poetry than the one he actually used, he left indications that it was not unknown to him (2.115)." Here Herodotus is attacking Homer for his subjectivity when he implies that he gave a false account of the story in order to further his aims of being a good poet. We see, again, the direct contradiction between Homer's one-sided account of a situation and Herodotus' more objective reasoning.
There are instances in The Histories where Herodotus is even more "scientific" in his reasoning than in the example above. In Book Two he hypothesizes why the Nile floods. Herodotus begins by outlining the theories held by three scientific beliefs and then goes on to refute them with his own. He argues each one systematically to disprove its validity. For instance, when he explores the argument that the flooding of the Nile is caused by winds he writes, "In fact, however, these winds on many occasions have failed to blow, yet the Nile has risen as usual; moreover, if these winds were responsible for the rise, the other rivers which happen to run against them would certainly be affected in the same way as the Nile-and to a greater extent, in that they are smaller and have a less powerful current (2.20)." Here, instead of solely dismissing the theory as myth, we see Herodotus rationally and scientifically refute the claim.
In this paragraph, as well, we see another explicit mention of the myth vs. reason theme discussed above. Herodotus attacks those who accept fact without questioning when he writes, "Anyone who can use his wits about such matters will find plenty of arguments to prove how unlikely (certain claims are)....(2.21)." He goes on to attack myth again when he writes of the author of a certain theory, contending that, "his account is a mere fairy-tale depending upon unknown quantity and cannot therefore be disproved by argument." It is language such as "mere fairy-tale" that shows Herodotus' distaste for claims not based upon reason. Herodotus is eager and willing to state that he has moved well beyond the days of myth to a sophisticated method of rationality.
Matters become slightly more complicated when Herodotus accepts explanations of historical occurrences that we know to be scientifically impossible. An example of this is found in Herodotus' explanation of why the Phygians are more ancient than the Egyptians. Herodotus begins by telling us that the Egyptians, before the reign of Psammetichus, once believed that they were more ancient than the Phygians. He goes on to tell us of the "ingenious method" used by Psammetichus to settle the question of which race was more ancient than the other. The story goes that Psammetichus took two infants, one Phygian and one Egyptian, and put them in a controlled atmosphere where they would not hear any language. Whichever dialect they first spoke would most obviously be the more ancient one. Since they first spoke the Phygian language, then clearly the Phygian race was older. The modern mind would be inclined to dismiss Herodotus' sense of reason on the grounds that this story is obviously, by our 20th century standards, myth. Yet, it is not the validity of Herodotus' tools of science that we are exploring here. The fact that Herodotus, a man who lived some 2400 years ago, had a different concept of reality than we do today proves nothing. Herodotus' uses this story as an example of how a common myth is refuted by reason. The simple fact that Herodotus is outlining for us how a myth (that of the Egyptians believing in their antiquity over the Phygians) was destroyed by a rational experiment (that of Psammetichus), makes even the instances where he accepts explanations that we would deem to be false fit in perfectly with his general theme of myth vs. reality. For it is not the tools of reasoning used in his day that Herodotus is critical of, it is the lack of reasoning all together. [This is a very effective strategy of winding down the paper's argument and leading into the conclusion. The writer demonstrates why the topic is really worth considering for the modern intellectual although, again, the terms used in this paragraph remain vague. "Reason", "rationality", "history", "modern" and so forth are relatively ambiguous and multi-faceted words. The writer ought to give the reader a sense of their use in this paper early on in the argument.]
Herodotus shows us, through his method of critical analysis, that he is indeed a "modern" historian. Although he may not have the same concept of reality as our 20th century historians, he nonetheless gives us an example of a fully developed method of modern rational inquiry. It is this emphasis on rationality that sets both Herodotus and the Athenian Polis so far apart from early Greek society, and so much closer to our own. [A rather conventional conclusion, but in this case it seems to work. The reader is left with a general sense of closure. Take a look at the Conclusions handout.]
[In this case, the writer has provided a brief explanation of the thought process that led him to the subject matter ultimately conveyed in the paper. This is a GREAT way of checking your organization while writing a paper! It is interesting, incidentally, that the writer's style in this rather informal note is extremely accessible and well organized. This student might consider doing some writing exercises to experiment with different voices. It may be that his most effective voice is a less formal one. Although it is important to address academic subjects with some degree of seriousness, one should not feel obligated to use academic-sounding jargon. Write clearly and directly! Your readers will appreciate it!] N.B.- In my outline of this paper I planned to explore the example of Cleomenes' madness. I was going to take into account the issue of Herodotus' worldview of the "Hubris Cycle", of excess leading to ruin, to explain why the initial explanation of Cleomenes' madness seemed most plausible to him. While writing this part of my essay I ran into two problems on two separate levels of thought.
At first, I thought that the whole explanation of Herodotus' worldview did not fit my thesis very well and I rushed back to my introductory paragraph to see if I could adjust it somehow to better represent this example. In examining my thesis, though, I found that it was in fact applicable to the story of Cleomenes' madness. Simply the fact that Herodotus is exploring more than one option in coming to a conclusion about the truth of an event shows his rational process. The tools he uses are secondary to the more general method of rational analysis he embraces.
Yet, I was still not satisfied with the case of Cleomenes. Since I had already established Herodotus' process of rational analysis I felt that giving an example of a historical event where he is not explicit about the tools he uses would not be as clear of an example as the ones I ended up using. I felt that diving into a analysis of Herodotus' world view would draw focus away from the greater argument at hand.
This paper addresses some very interesting abstractions (reason, history, myth, etc.), but the argument would be much clearer if these abstractions were contextualized for the reader toward the beginning of the paper. Some of these terms may have several meanings or special applications (depending on the discipline for which one is writing) and indiscriminate uses of them may obscure important issues. Also, it would be a good idea to reformulate the thesis statement so that it lends more of a structure to the paper. The introduction and conclusion indicate that the writer of this paper is experienced and a very sophisticated thinker, but the paper's ideas become a little scattered toward the middle. Simply revising a thesis statement can radically change the organization and overall quality of an essay!