“Montaillou Paper”

.

Emanuel Le Roy Ladurie, Montaillou: The Promised Land of Error (New York: George Braziller, 2008). ISBN 978-0-8076-1598-0 (Hybrid Source that Combines Primary and Secondary Material)
Book listed above must be used!

Given that Montaillou is a hybrid work that combines primary and secondary source material, your paper will be a hybrid work as well, divided into two related but distinct parts. Part One, which will be pages 1 – 3, will be a review that directly addresses, in a fluid and coherent narrative, the same questions you address for your oral presentations (to be found in “Week One” under the “Modules” tab). For help with this section, you should have a look at some reviews that were done of the book when it was first published, including:

– Leonard Boyle’s in the Canadian Journal of History, vol. 14 (December 1979), pages 455 – 457
– David Herlihy’s in Social History, vol. 4 (October 1979), pages 517 – 520
– P. S. Lewis’ in The English Historical Review, vol. 92 (April 1977), 371 – 373

There are numerous other reviews available via JSTOR.

Part II of the paper (pages 4 – end) will concentrate on the primary source material. For this section, you will also draw on the Inquisitorial Record of Jacques Fournier, which Le Roy Ladurie used heavily. Thanks to Prof. Nancy Stork, it may be found in English translation at http://www.sjsu.edu/people/nancy.stork/jacquesfournier/. The central question of Part II is, “How does Montaillou and Fournier’s Inquisitorial Record inform your understanding of heresy and dissent in the later Middle Ages?” While formulating your response, consider the social (e.g., personal relationships – including with women and children), economic (e.g., the importance of poverty), and religious (e.g., the enthusiasm of both the orthodox and heretical players) evidence. For every point you make, there should be quoted primary evidence (in italics in Montaillou), to support your argument.

This will be a 10 – 12 page paper, so that Part II will run between 6 and 8 pages. It will be double-spaced, formatted with one-inch margins, typed in 12-point font, and include footnotes and a bibliography done according to the Chicago Manual of Style. It is due both electronically (see the link provided in “Week Fourteen” under the “Assignments” tab) and in hard copy class on Wednesday, December 2. Use the handout, Tips for Better Historical Writing, to guide you. Below I’m providing you the questions that I had mentioned above for (part 1 which will be pages 1-3)
I. How to Read your Book or Article

1. Read introduction and conclusion carefully, taking good notes on both.

2. Look over Table of Contents or subheadings closely, trying to determine the layout of the book or article and the structure of its argument.

3. Read the first and last paragraphs of each chapter (if you’re presenting on a book) or of the article closely, taking good notes.

4. Look at footnotes and endnotes, coming to terms with the primary and secondary sources on which the author(s) has drawn. Again, take good notes here.

5. Finally, go back and read the rest of each chapter (if you’re presenting on a book) or of the article, this time just making note of the minor points and ideas that have struck you.

II. Questions to Ask your Book or Article

(Note that certain questions will be more appropriate for some books than for others. Address the ones that apply and feel free to ask your own.)

1. In one sentence, what is the author’s (or authors’) thesis?

2. Beyond the thesis, what minor points does the author(s) make?

3. Who is the intended audience? What about the book or article suggests that the author(s) had a particular audience in mind?

4. What kinds of sources does the author(s) use to construct his or her argument?

5. Does the author(s) treat the subject in a balanced way? Or is there a noticeable bias in the book or article? Support your opinion with one or two examples.

6. If there are a number of years that separate the publication of the book or article and the period it covers, how might the context in which the author(s) wrote have influenced his/her treatment of the subject?

7. How does the author(s) construct his/her argument? In other words, what does the chapter or article structure reveal about the way the author(s) has approached his/her subject?

8. Does the author(s) apply theory to make sense of his/her evidence? If so, whose theory does s/he apply?

9. Is the author(s) writing against a particular author or school of thought? If so, who is s/he (or what is it) and why does your author(s) feel the need to correct past scholarship?

10. Are you convinced by the thesis? By the minor arguments? Why or why not?

11. Is there a particular anecdote, story, sentence, etc. that you think captures the essence of the book or article? What is it?

12. Does the author(s) raise unanswered questions and suggest a direction for further research?

13. Overall, what did you think of the book or article and why?

WRITER MUST HAVE THE BOOK

“Montaillou Paper”.

Emanuel Le Roy Ladurie, Montaillou: The Promised Land of Error (New York: George Braziller, 2008). ISBN 978-0-8076-1598-0 (Hybrid Source that Combines Primary and Secondary Material)
Book listed above must be used!

Given that Montaillou is a hybrid work that combines primary and secondary source material, your paper will be a hybrid work as well, divided into two related but distinct parts. Part One, which will be pages 1 – 3, will be a review that directly addresses, in a fluid and coherent narrative, the same questions you address for your oral presentations (to be found in “Week One” under the “Modules” tab). For help with this section, you should have a look at some reviews that were done of the book when it was first published, including:

– Leonard Boyle’s in the Canadian Journal of History, vol. 14 (December 1979), pages 455 – 457
– David Herlihy’s in Social History, vol. 4 (October 1979), pages 517 – 520
– P. S. Lewis’ in The English Historical Review, vol. 92 (April 1977), 371 – 373

There are numerous other reviews available via JSTOR.

Part II of the paper (pages 4 – end) will concentrate on the primary source material. For this section, you will also draw on the Inquisitorial Record of Jacques Fournier, which Le Roy Ladurie used heavily. Thanks to Prof. Nancy Stork, it may be found in English translation at http://www.sjsu.edu/people/nancy.stork/jacquesfournier/. The central question of Part II is, “How does Montaillou and Fournier’s Inquisitorial Record inform your understanding of heresy and dissent in the later Middle Ages?” While formulating your response, consider the social (e.g., personal relationships – including with women and children), economic (e.g., the importance of poverty), and religious (e.g., the enthusiasm of both the orthodox and heretical players) evidence. For every point you make, there should be quoted primary evidence (in italics in Montaillou), to support your argument.

This will be a 10 – 12 page paper, so that Part II will run between 6 and 8 pages. It will be double-spaced, formatted with one-inch margins, typed in 12-point font, and include footnotes and a bibliography done according to the Chicago Manual of Style. It is due both electronically (see the link provided in “Week Fourteen” under the “Assignments” tab) and in hard copy class on Wednesday, December 2. Use the handout, Tips for Better Historical Writing, to guide you. Below I’m providing you the questions that I had mentioned above for (part 1 which will be pages 1-3)
I. How to Read your Book or Article

1. Read introduction and conclusion carefully, taking good notes on both.

2. Look over Table of Contents or subheadings closely, trying to determine the layout of the book or article and the structure of its argument.

3. Read the first and last paragraphs of each chapter (if you’re presenting on a book) or of the article closely, taking good notes.

4. Look at footnotes and endnotes, coming to terms with the primary and secondary sources on which the author(s) has drawn. Again, take good notes here.

5. Finally, go back and read the rest of each chapter (if you’re presenting on a book) or of the article, this time just making note of the minor points and ideas that have struck you.

II. Questions to Ask your Book or Article

(Note that certain questions will be more appropriate for some books than for others. Address the ones that apply and feel free to ask your own.)

1. In one sentence, what is the author’s (or authors’) thesis?

2. Beyond the thesis, what minor points does the author(s) make?

3. Who is the intended audience? What about the book or article suggests that the author(s) had a particular audience in mind?

4. What kinds of sources does the author(s) use to construct his or her argument?

5. Does the author(s) treat the subject in a balanced way? Or is there a noticeable bias in the book or article? Support your opinion with one or two examples.

6. If there are a number of years that separate the publication of the book or article and the period it covers, how might the context in which the author(s) wrote have influenced his/her treatment of the subject?

7. How does the author(s) construct his/her argument? In other words, what does the chapter or article structure reveal about the way the author(s) has approached his/her subject?

8. Does the author(s) apply theory to make sense of his/her evidence? If so, whose theory does s/he apply?

9. Is the author(s) writing against a particular author or school of thought? If so, who is s/he (or what is it) and why does your author(s) feel the need to correct past scholarship?

10. Are you convinced by the thesis? By the minor arguments? Why or why not?

11. Is there a particular anecdote, story, sentence, etc. that you think captures the essence of the book or article? What is it?

12. Does the author(s) raise unanswered questions and suggest a direction for further research?

13. Overall, what did you think of the book or article and why?

WRITER MUST HAVE THE BOOK

WE ACCEPT