While your primary-source analysis is broad and non-committal, the final paper will demand that you choose one specific question or closely related set of questions to explore. These should be related to the course and reflect what you have learned this semester. For this paper, you should use the source you have adopted and analyzed to develop a clear argument that addresses themes we have explored in HIST 4150. In so doing, you should incorporate at least four primary sources and two secondary sources from the course syllabus. In addition, you should bring at least two works of credible and recent scholarship into your essay. These can be deployed in a wide variety of ways, from establishing necessary background and context to offering up points of view that confirm, challenge, or nuance your own conclusions.

For the second part of the project, you will build on what you did in the primary-source analysis
by asking more narrowly how we might use this source to deepen our understanding of a
particular question informed by the course readings. Here you will add secondary sources (at
least two) in order to help establish context and frame your argument.

This is what the professor said about the primary source analysis I have attached:

This is a strong start. You have chosen a great source, or rather set of sources. In focusing on legal procedure, you highlight a very important central theme of the “legal revolution.” As you work more, be sure to focus on the actual primary source sections translated by Brasington (such a Bulgarus’s letter), distinguishing those from Brasington’s own commentary (which is useful in its own right, but as secondary scholarship, not a primary source). I think all the questions you suggest could be worth exploring. Some might work better if you looked at other primary texts included in Brasington’s work, such as the calumny oath — how did this change over time or how did different writers deal with this important phenomenon? Your focus on the influence of Roman law on canonical procedure is key, so keep your eye on how this reflects broader patterns in the “legal revolution” of the High Middle Ages. My main point of critique (which you can work on for the final paper) is that you deal a little more with the context for these sources (which Brasington can help you with, though other works will also be useful). Who was Bulgarus, for instance. Here you might also find Manlio Bellomo’s book The Common Legal Past of Europe to be helpful. I have attached the bellomo book he was referring to as well.

For the two works of credible and recent scholarship these are the two you should use:

Roman Law:

Allan Chester Johnson, Paul Robinson Coleman-Norton, and Frank Card Bourne, trans. Ancient Roman Statutes (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1961).https://books.google.com/books?id=0P8KAQAAIAAJ&pg=…

Canon law:

Gratian, Treatise on Laws (DD 1-20), with the Ordinary Gloss, trans. Augustine Thompson and James Gordley (Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 1993). https://www-jstor-org.electra.lmu.edu/stable/j.ctt1d9npn (let me know if you have trouble accessing any of the sources)

Lastly, I have attached the Course syllabus so you can choose any 4 primary sources and 2 secondary sources that you feel work best in the paper.