I have been debating what to do with your first paper.  Basically, you answered the questions in the Adam Smith PDF, which of course was not the assignment at all.  However, it does mean that you did a good job of breaking down the Adam Smith reading.  You didn’t talk about the Galbert of Bruges reading at all, which was half of the assignment.

So, based on what you have written, I am willing to give you a 70% on the assignment.  I will also let you re-write the assignment if you would like to get a higher grade.  If you choose to re-write the assignment, make sure you are clear what you are supposed to be doing! 

The primary source analysis paper assignment asks you to take two primary sources, attached below, and figure out how they are in conversation with each other.  The two sources are both from northwest Europe (one Flanders, which is medieval Belgium, the other Britain).  They are separated from each other in time by nearly six centuries.  Both, however, are concerned with major topics in this course: the tributary system, and how it changes.  

The first source is from a chronicle written by a monk, Galbert of Bruges, concerning the count of Flanders in the early twelfth century.

The second is an excerpt from the writings of the economist Adam Smith, writing in the mid-to-late eighteenth century.

Consider the following, as you read the sources.  What does Smith think the purpose of the tributary system (feudalism, as he describes it) was?  What does Galbert of Bruges think the purpose was? Is one of these two men in better position to judge the functions of the tributary system?  Why?  Does Smith’s understanding of the tributary system shape his description of its demise?  Why does he think it declines?

To add some more thoughts…  What are the roles and responsibilities of the elites and non-elites in the tributary system?  How do the documents describe those responsibilities?  How does Smith see that changing?  What does Smith see taking the place of those changing roles and responsibilities?

Technical details:

Papers should be 2-3 pages, double-spaced, written in a normal (Times New Roman or similar– no Arial or Lucida, I know the tricks), 12 point font.  Normal 1-inch margins all around.  There is no need for a title page, or extensive headings; just your name, your section, and a brief title is all you need.

The two primary sources, as well as any other material you use, must be cited.  Papers should also include a bibliography/works-cited page (which is not part of the 2-3 pages of the assignment).  History uses the Chicago Style, and so shall we in this class.  A link to the Chicago style guide is provided below.  We will address the specifics of citations and formatting next week in class.

http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide.html