Title of the paper is centered on the first full page (after the title page). The title of the source, "Res Gestae" is inserted in place of "Source Chosen." Note that you need to insert the title of the actual source text (and not the editor's introductory title for it -- such as "Ancient History Sourcebook" or, in A/O "Daoism: the Way That Is and Is Not" [Doc. #23]). (In this last example, the source comes from "The Classic of the Way and Virtue.")  NB: On the internet, it is not possible to double space text.  Your papers, however, should be double-spaced with NO additional spacing between paragraphs (but one blank line between sections).

The heading for the first section -- Part A. Document Analysis -- appears one line underneath the title, left aligned. I have underlined it for clarity, but you do not have to do this.

Skip a line and then type the title for the first subsection of Part A: "1. Evaluation of the Evidence." Again, I have chosen to italicize this heading to facilitate on-line readibility; it is not required. The two paragraphs the follow must be DOUBLE SPACED (this is not possible on web-based documents, so you will not see it here).

The first of the two paragraphs in this section focus on the facts of authorship. Here most of this information is straightforward, for the text has a known author (Augustus). It also has a clear date of "publication." If the source has an anonymous author, you would need to note this and then discuss what we do know about her/him. Keep in mind that all of the sources presented in the Andrea/Overfield reader have been edited and translated. You do not need to mention this. Moreover, the "Andrea/Overfield" reader, in this sense is not the author of the text. Also, if the specific date of the text is unknown, you should be certain to discuss the general period in which it was written (and/or recorded).

Your discussion of the document should indicate the larger context from which it its taken (here: a public inscription) and any information about when it was written (or why it is available to us).

With these sentences, I discuss why some of this background information is useful. I clearly state which culture the document illustrates and some of the types of information it reveals about it (Rome).

Indication of the type of text (that is, its genre): a memoir or testament. Note that I also briefly indicate the general characteristics of a history (you would also need to do this, when talking, for example, of a religious text, a letter, a poem, etc.) (In other words, what features define a text as a memoir?) Note that in this particular example, the discussion of the genre occurs only indirectly.  Pieces of the definition occur in both paragraphs of A1 (e.g. references record of "own accomplishments," and also the second sentence of the 2nd paragraph).

This second paragraph treats the issues of source reliability and bias. Again, in this particular case, the issue of reliability poses few problems. We know (from the editor) that Augustus actually wrote this text and that he did indeed do most of what he claims.

Conversely, the discussion of "why" Augustus wrote this text requires a lot more reflection on the tone and content of the document (the editor's information about where the inscription was originally located - as well as the opening paragraph are crucial here). That is, Augustus regards his purpose as "setting the record for posterity."

However, this same language as well as the information Augustus decides to include here (and what we can assume that he has excluded) also reveal that Augustus presents a highly biased -- because so highly personal -- account of his record. Thus, it is important in this context to state that we have to correct for this bias when reading the source. In other words, Augustus cannot be taken solely on his word. (NB: Having said this here, it is ESSENTIAL that you follow through on this when writing the actual essay.)

The heading for the second section -- 2. Source Content -- appears two lines after the previous paragraph.

The description of the source content outlines the primary areas that are treated in the text: IN ORDER. For this particular document, the summary is pretty brief but it still fulfills the basic purpose: it demonstrates a clear understanding of the source and the central aspects of its content. [In your own essays, it is important that your summary refer to ALL the major aspects of your source. ]

Header for third section -- 3. Historical Utility -- appears two lines under previous paragraph.

These are the major categories under which I could place the information that appears in this source. I have tried to be as exhaustive as possible, even if some of these refer to only minor details in the text. They are specific to this source. Although some of them may appear in other documents, you will have to decide for yourself -- based on your own textual analysis -- what is present. You should note two characteristics of this list. First, each of the points (or themes) is relatively abstract. That is, none of them specifically describes the content of the text. Therefore, I state "political institutions" instead of listing the Senate, the triumvirs, and the other offices of the Roman state. It is essential that your categories also be abstract in this sense. In other words, you need to describe the features and characteristics of the document from the perspective of its content rather than list the content itself. Just as we did in class with this text, you must classify the contents as a first step to writing about it. Second, this list reflects information present in the entire source, not just a part of it. The order of these points is not so critical, but you do need to demonstrate that you have worked through the entire source. Finally, I would point out that in some of the texts, several of your points might refer to aspects of this civilization that can be derived from the way in which the text is written. This is also a legitimate approach to the assignment.

The essay will focus on two of these topics: "Transition from Republic to Empire" and "Political Leadership."

Place the header "Part B. Interpreting the Past" two lines under the list presented in Section 3 of Part A.

The paragraphs of Part B constitute your formal essay. These paragraphs MUST be double-spaced (although, again, I cannot do so with this web-version).

The first paragraph of the essay must accomplish two objectives. First, it must draw the reader's attention to the specific point you wish to raise. In this case, since I have chosen to focus on the importance of Octavian/Augustus (his political leadership) for the transition from the Roman Republic to the Empire. I have decided to introduce my essay by referring to two other well known figures of the late Republic, one of whom (Julius Caesar) also figures in the source. I then introduce the reader to the source I am using for my essay, namely the "Res gestae," Augustus' own "drama." Second, the essay must present a specific interpretation about the culture or civilization. After narrowing the reader's attention to Augustus and ancient Rome, I state my argument (or thesis) that Augustus' "Res Gestae" shows that Augustus did indeed restore authority and stability to Rome. However, contrary to his claims, he really did not revive the Republic. All real power lay in the hands of Augustus (the princeps). This thesis also serves to alert the reader to the basic structure of the essay. It will a) first discuss how Augustus claimed to have restored the Republic and then b) demonstrate the problems with these assertions. A good introduction must do ALL of these things.

This paragraph begins the development of the first point: Augustus wants people to believe that he has saved and restored the Republic. The first sentence functions as the topic sentence: it is the major argument I am making at this point. In support of this point, I highlight the specific acts that Augustus describes as efforts to "protect", "defend" or "reestablish" the Republic. Thus, in part, my argument here relies on Augustus' own word choice and constant references to the word "Republic."

The use of the square brackets here and here indicate that I have modified the verb from the source text so it fits grammatically in the sentence.

A key part of the support for my position comes from the reading and analysis of the source text. This too is a REQUIREMENT for the paper. Because I am making an argument about the language in the text, it is essential that I quote it directly. With regard to the formatting for the quotes, you should pay attention to three things. First, you will probably have to invent some sort of referencing system - at the least page and column numbers (since this document is relatively short, I have just numbered each paragraph sequentially so I only have to refer to para 2 or para 3) - to make your references more precise. Second, you should not repeat the A/O Document number with every reference, the first time will suffice for this paper. In other words, keep these in-line references brief. Third, pay special attention to the formatting at the end of the quote. The close quote comes first, then the page/column reference in parentheses, and finally the sentence period (just as in the text above).

This paragraph adds additional support for the first main point. The first sentence links the paragraph to the previous one ("saving the Republic") and alerts the reader to the fact that the previous idea will now be refined further by focusing on other aspects of the restoration. [Note here, the use of the word "princeps" or "prince" refers to Augustus' main title after 28 BCE. It makes it possible to cut down on the use of the word "Augustus".]

This paragraph begins the discussion of the second point: Augustus' "restoration" was a sham, for all real power was concentrated in his hands. The first sentence furnishes the transition between the two major points. The second sentence establishes the new point. It first asserts that the "restored" institutions of the Republic are but shadows of their former selves.

This paragraph buttresses the argument made in the previous paragraph and extends it further. First, I concentrate on the consequences of Augustus' "restorations" to reveal that true independence of action was not to be expected. Second, I use a close analysis of the references to the Senate in the "Res Gestae" to demonstrate that Augustus doesn't show it (remember the Senate is a singular institution, thus all pronouns referring to it must also be in the singular) to be major political players.

The square brackets here are used to indicate a reference within a parenthetical statement. (For all the scientists and mathematicians, note that this is the reverse of what you might expect. )

Just like the first paragraph, this final paragraph performs three vital functions. First, it restates the basic position that I've argued throughout the body of the essay. But, instead of just reiterating the topic sentences of the previous paragraphs, I use this opportunity to state my thesis in a more conclusive fashion. Third, I lead the reader's attention outward, away from the narrow focus of the paper and to the larger issues to which it speaks. In this instance, I raise a question about the source itself. Why is it that Augustus spins his record this way? The answer to this question, to which I devote the final sentences, allows us to return to the issues raised in the introduction: Augustus' importance for understanding the rise of the Roman Empire. This broadening (or contextualization) is important, too. Although I do not want you to cite other texts as sources of information, I do expect that you are familiar with course information as you undertake your analysis and can situate your discussion in the larger context of what is happening in world history.

Okay, I'm showing off here a little. This reference to things that "lie in our stars" is an allusion to a famous passage in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar.