An old handout that may be useful to some.
- gks
In lecture and in sections, we keep repeating the historian's mantra: "argument from evidence." This mysterious construct is at the heart of any good history essay. Let me explain a little bit more about what we mean by argument and evidence.
· Your argument is the message of your paper, the general point you are making, your thesis. It is your interpretation.
If you were writing on John of Salisbury's Policraticus, your argument might say, simply: John is ambivalent on the question of tyrannicide. You might explain: John takes both sides of the issue. He discourages people from killing tyrants and encourages them to kill tyrants.
Or you might go further. You might argue: John defends tyrannicide, and in so doing, limits the power of the monarch. You might elaborate: John does stress the divine nature of kingship, but he emphasizes the responsibilities of the monarch. According to John, the good ruler must rule for the good of his subjects. This is a better (more interesting, more perceptive) argument.
· You will find your argument through close attention to the text. What does the text say? What is unstated, but important? What does it mean? What is the context? Although you state your argument near the beginning of your paper, you will only find it at the end of your researches.
· Not all arguments are equal. Not at all.
Some bad arguments
"Einhard presents a positive picture of Charlemagne."
This is just too simple. You have to argue more than this.
"Einhard presents a biased view of Charlemagne."
Still too simple. You must be more specific. What is Einhard's bias?
"Benedict's Rule is a handbook for tyranny."
Though stated elegantly, this is Whig history. It suggests that the essay that follows will skirt the important question: how did Benedict's monastery work?
"Cicero was wrong when he said . . ."
We aren't asking you to agree or disagree with the text, but rather to make sense of it, to understand it, to place it in its historical context.
Some better arguments
"John of Salisbury defends tyrannicide, and in so doing, limist the power of the monarch."
"The Magna Carta may be a feudal document, but it reveals the idea of constitutional limits on monarchy."
"Einhard's Life of Charlemagne shows the weakness of Charlemagne's government. As we see in Einhard, Charlemagne is the state; there is no state without Charlemagne."
· Your argument is the linchpin of your paper. Be sure to give it a prominent place. Be sure your reader knows what your argument is. Generally, writers state their argument at the end of their introduction and restate it at the beginning of their conclusion. This formula may be varied, but your reader must know your argument from the beginning of your paper.
· Thus, your title should do more than announce your subject; it should capture the central idea of your paper. A bad title: "John of Salisbury's Policraticus". A better one: "John of Salisbury's Policraticus: The Limits of Kingship".
· Your argument is what holds the paper together. Everything in your paper should speak to your argument. Everything should be explanation of, evidence for, or elaboration on your argument.
· A good argument alone does not make a good paper. Indeed, you can write a bad paper with a good argument. You must support your argument, defend your thesis. Which is to say, you need evidence.
· For the papers we have assigned, your evidence is the text you are analyzing, or rather, selected passages from the text. Do not quote (or cite) the textbook or an editor's introduction as evidence for your argument. You may (and often will want to) quote (short) passages from the text, passages that are essential to your interpretation. But this does not advance your argument. Evidence on its own is meaningless. You must explain your evidence, you must interpret it.
· Think carefully about what evidence you want to consider. In a two to three page paper there is no room for non-essentials. Give priority to evidence-- those sentences, passages, metaphors, allusions, images, etc.--that most strongly supports your argument.
· You should also consider those passages that seem directly to contradict what you are saying. You cannot simply ignore those parts of the text which are unwieldly. You must explain them or face the fact that your argument is insufficient. For example, if you write about John of Salisbury and argue that he encourages tyrannicide, you must deal (somehow) with his objections to tyrannicide (or rethink your argument).