Project

INTRODUCTION

Current events have derailed the semester project as originally conceived. However, we should persevere with some sort of larger enterprise beyond reading Latin poetry and scansion.

For the rest of the term, therefore, we’ll focus on the art and the craft of the annotated bibliography. Although the annotated bibliography is a venerable milestone of any term paper, we don’t always have time to appreciate the nuances of putting one together in the mad rush to get to our final drafts.

We’ll devote the month of April to reading and annotating three articles relevant to our readings in Roman satire, and to discussing your annotations in the class. Everything will be on the table, from the bibliographic formats we use at the head of our annotations, to the points we extrapolate from each piece of scholarship, to the larger takeaways that might inform a putative term paper, to best annotating practices at large.

Satire, ancient to modern!

For the CL 310 semester project students will write a research paper on the intersections of Roman satire and modern satire. Successful projects might explore

  • How Roman satire has been transformed by later authors or artists.
  • How later authors or artists do work reminiscent of Roman satire.
  • How ancient and modern satire overlap in the subject matter and concerns.

The final outcome will be a paper of at least 3600 words, but other milestones will pave the way.

To begin, select a modern exemplar of satire that reminds you of the work that Horace or Juvenal do. For help on thinking about modern satire, consult the various entries in the online Oxford Reference. For help with the full scope of Horatian or Juvenalian satire, read their works in English.

Regardless of how you choose, your topic should be both substantial (that is, a major thread of ancient satire with clear echoes in modernity) and yet rather focused (a thread, not a whole tapestry). These requirements will probably ensure both a robust topic and a sufficient quantity of supporting scholarship.

Once you’ve chosen your topic, research your ancient and modern satirists, not only their lives and careers, but also particular exemplars of their works that seem to connect. Sometimes the connections will be overt; sometimes you might have to tease them out.


ANNOTATIONS

Compiling an annotated bibliography requires several steps, including

  • developing an appropriately scholarly topic
  • a thorough secondary source search
  • compiling a list of sources that seem relevant to your topic
  • obtaining those sources online, through inter-library loan or library shelves
  • skimming each source to prioritize its usefulness
  • reading the useful sources closely
  • annotating the useful sources

For this project, we’ll focus on the last two steps: the close reading and the annotations. To save time, everyone will annotate the same pre-selected pieces of scholarship. This process will have the added benefit of comparing annotations from peer to peer.

Each set of annotations should have three components.

(1) A bibliographic entry at top, listing the author, title, year, and other important information in a standard format (your choice).

(2) A summary of the source, its main idea or ideas, in one generous paragraph.

(2) A reaction to the source — the big takeaways — ideally in light of your project, also in one generous paragraph. For our purposes, this second paragraph should be couched as reactions in light of understanding the ancient author and/or the genre of satire at large.

In each of our three milestones you’ll produce a set of annotations on the assigned piece of scholarship. Please be sure to follow the formatting requirements and to observe the deadlines.


MILESTONES

The milestones directly below are the only ones pertinent to our reconfigured project. The old milestones from the original project follow in strikethrough.

NOTE: All written milestones must be typed and double-spaced, with numbered pages and 1.25-inch margins.


Annotated Bibliography 1
Monday, 04.06, noon (EST).

SCHOLARSHIP: Barbara Gold, “Juvenal: The idea of the Book” (2012).

Read Gold’s essay (sent to your inboxes) and annotate it per the instructions above. Submit your annotations as a PDF via email. Prof. Curley will compile your annotations into one document and send it out in advance of class on Friday, 04.10. We’ll discuss everyone’s annotations then and try to extrapolate best practices for producing annotated bibliographies.


Annotated Bibliography 2
Monday, 04.13, noon (EST).

SCHOLARSHIP: Erin K. Moodie, “Umbricius’ Farewell Tour” (2014).

Read Moodie’s article and annotate it per our instructions above. Submit your annotations as a PDF via email. Prof. Curley will compile your annotations into one document and send it out in advance of class on Friday, 04.17. As before we’ll discuss everyone’s annotations then and continue extrapolating best practices.


Annotated Bibliography 3
Monday, 04.27, noon (EST).

SCHOLARSHIP: Kirk Freudenberg, “Satire’s Censorial Waters in Horace and Juvenal” (2018).

Read Freudenberg’s article and annotate it per our instructions above. Submit your annotations as a PDF via email. Prof. Curley will compile your annotations into one document and send it out in advance of our last class on Wednesday, 04.29. As this is the final milestone, we’ll devote some time to finalizing our list of best annotating practices.


ORIGINAL MILESTONES

These milestones will help keep the project on track. Please note due dates carefully. Work may be turned in in person or submitted as attachments via email (PDFs only, please).

NOTE: All written milestones must be typed and double-spaced, with numbered pages and 1.25-inch margins.


Overview
Friday, 02.07

An in-class review of the project guidelines. This is your chance to ask the big questions before getting started.


Topic Selection
Sunday, 02.23, 11:00 PM

At least 300 words declaring which exemplar(s) of modern satire you want to work on, and how they remind you of ancient satire. Provide a rationale for your choices. This should be the outcome of some thoughtful preliminary work, not just wishful thinking on your part.


Preliminary Bibliography
Sunday, 03.29, 11:00 PM

A list of at least 10–12 secondary sources, listed in a standard bibliographic format, that seem helpful to understanding the themes and critical issues of your topic.


Annotated Bibliography
Sunday, 04.12, 11:00 PM

A list of 6 secondary sources, listed in a standard bibliographic format, that have proven helpful to understanding your topic. Split the sources between ancient and modern: 3 sources on ancient satire, 3 on the modern (or vice versa). Annotate only book chapters, articles, and essays. Do NOT try to annotate entire books.

Each entry must be accompanied by two paragraphs of annotations:

(1) A summary of the source, its main idea or ideas.

(2) Your reaction in light of how your project is developing — how the secondary source has informed your view of the primary sources.

NOTE: Annotate the works that have proven most helpful to you in exploring your topic. These 7 will form the bibliographic “core” of your paper, BUT they should not be the only works on the bibliography of your paper. As noted earlier on this page, the bibliography of your final paper will likely incorporate helpful sources from your preliminary bibliography, as well as sources you’ve discovered since this milestone.


Rough Draft
Sunday, 04.26, 11:00 PM

The rough draft should, at this early stage, represent 50–60% of your final paper. Many matters pertaining to structure and content should be settled, if not reasonably well developed. Gaps are acceptable, provided there are cogent summaries of what is missing.

Include an unnanotated version of your annotated bibliography (including any new sources located since April 12), and use footnotes or in-line citations to refer to your sources (see under “Final paper,” below).


Rough Draft Meetings
Week of 04.27

Having read your rough drafts, Prof. Curley will meet with you for about 30 minutes to discuss the direction of your paper and to offer advice. Come to your meeting prepared to take notes.


Final Paper
Wednesday, 05.06, 11:00 PM

Your final paper should be at least 3600 words in length, with numbered, double-spaced pages and 1.25-inch margins. Include an up-to-date but unnanotated bibliography.

Employ footnotes or endnotes (one or the other) only when in-line citations are impractical, or to address issues in the main body of the paper that need further explanation, clarification, or support. Follow the helpful guidelines for in-line citing in the Skidmore Guide to Writing.

The paper should be free of careless mistakes in spelling and usage. It should read like the product of several months’ work, not several hours’.


BIBLIOGRAPHIES

The second bibliography will be annotated an consist of 6 secondary sources. It will not only carry over many entries from the first bibliography, but also offer comprehensive notes on each. The notes must consist of two paragraphs: one summarizing the secondary source’s main ideas, another offering your reaction — how it informs your view of the primary sources.

A source might address Roman satire in its original authors, or focus on later variants, or do something in between. Regardless, it practically goes without saying that the annotated bibliography should discuss only those sources that have proven useful to you.

Over the course of the semester, you will compile three bibliographies as you research your topic:

(1) The first will be preliminary, a formatted list of 10–12 secondary sources that seem pertinent: articles, essays, and book chapters. You need not have read them all.

(2) The second bibliography will be annotated an consist of 6 secondary sources. It will not only carry over many entries from the first bibliography, but also offer comprehensive notes on each. The notes must consist of two paragraphs: one summarizing the secondary source’s main ideas, another offering your reaction — how it informs your view of the primary sources.

A source might address Roman satire in its original authors, or focus on later variants, or do something in between. Regardless, it practically goes without saying that the annotated bibliography should discuss only those sources that have proven useful to you.

(3) The third bibliography, unannotated, will be appended to your paper and incorporate all of the secondary sources that have shaped your thinking and that you cite in the paper itself. It will likely include the 6 sources of your annotated bibliography, helpful sources from the preliminary bibliography that you didn’t annotate, and other sources that you’ve discovered after both milestones.


PAPER

The successful paper will be grounded in both modernity and antiquity, doing justice to both ancient and modern satire. It will be informed by our reading of Horace and Juvenal this semester, and it will also build upon the relevant scholarship.

There are many directions your paper could take. Here are some questions to help you focus your research.

  • What do we know of the satiric tradition before Horace or Juvenal? What contributions did these poets make to the genre, such as its subject matter or its themes? How do you account for these contributions?
  • What has changed in later satire? What has remained the same? If there are changes, does the satirist seem to have invented them on their own, or do they come from an intermediary tradition? Can any of the changes be explained by differences in genre or medium?
  • How would you situate later satire in the contexts of its times? Were modern satirists part of a movement? What social or political issues were they addressing?
  • What impact have the later versions had on the tradition? Should they be considered variations on Horace or Juvenal? Or do they supercede them, just as Horace and Juvenal superceded their own models?

You need not answer all of these questions in your paper, but you should reflect on them as you proceed.