How to get an A-

For the last paper, most students received around a C: C-, C+ or just plain old C. You all want to know how to do better, so here's the best paper so far this semester - it received an A-. Take the time to read the whole paper. What makes a good paper is not one good paragraph, but how the whole thing hangs together.

First, the choice of theme. If you choose something that is obviously of central importance to a novel, it is hard to say anything new about it. You won't impress anyone by pointing out that Romeo and Juliet is about love, or that Peter Pan is about childhood. You need to show that you have spotted things that aren't obvious to the average reader after one reading of the novel. At the same time, they must be integral to the novel. Top hats are mentioned in 1984, but that doesn't mean an essay about the history of top hats and their role in one of the greatest films ever made would be a suitable choice of topic when writing about 1984.

This paper focuses on the place of Aristotle in Medieavel thought, with a particular focus on St. Thomas Aquinas. The student gathers together enough references to Aquinas to indicate that he is a significant off-stage presence. It is particularly nice to have Jorge's mention of "...the Dominican buried by Abo." We have been told earlier in the book that Abo's claim to fame is he helped carry the body of Thomas Aquinas down a staircase (a difficult job, since St. Thomas was very fat). So an alert reader will see that Jorge is here referring to St. Thomas Aquinas. But the average reader, hurrying to get to the conclusion of the novel, might not remember which Dominican Abo buried. And there is an interesting point: Jorge is condemning Aquinas, yet he does not mention him by name. The same is true of the Condemnations of 1277 - as the student immediately points out.

Why does this matter? St. Thomas Aquinas is considered by many to be the definitive Catholic thinker. In the context of contemporary Catholic theology, citing Aquinas' opinion is a way of demonstrating that this opinion is acceptable to orthodox Catholics. Brothels should be legal; a newly conceived foetus does not have a soul (but still, it would be a mortal sin to kill it); if you are dying of hunger, and you take the food you need from someone wealthy without permission, that is not theft. These are ideas that many liberals agree with. A liberal who cites Aquinas on these topics guards against the accusation that they are being unorthodox. How could anyone accuse St. Thomas Aquinas of being a heretic? St. Thomas was, after all, a member of the Dominican Order, the same order that Bernardo Gui belongs to. The Dominican Order was founded in order to combat heresy by preaching sound, orthodox Catholicism, and it was the Dominicans who ran the Inquisition.

As Humberto Eco reminds us, St. Thomas' work was treated with suspicion by conservative thinkers in the Middle Ages because of his devotion to Aristotle. Traditionally, Christian philosophers had drawn on the writings of Plato for inspiration, but, partly as a result of Muslim influence, there was a resurgence of interest in Aristotle. St. Thomas wanted to show that, despite what some people thought, Aristotle's philosophy was not a threat to Christianity. This, in turn, creates a dilemma for Jorge. He thinks that by giving legitimacy to Aristotle's works, St. Thomas had undermined the Church. But to openly condemn St. Thomas (who is characterized by Adso as 'the angelic doctor') would be to invite questions about one's own orthodoxy. Who is Jorge to hold a saint to account for heresy?

Jorge, I would argue, really is a heretic. Here, I'm speaking on behalf of William of Baskerville. William does see heresy as dangerous, because it is a threat to the social order. It is preferable to have a society where people submit to the law voluntarily than one where the only way to enforce laws is by violence. If the law is enforced with gross injustice, people will rise up and violence will be the result. That is why William believes the vocation of the Franciscan order is to bring the lost back into the fold - to make sure that nobody is excluded from the benefits of civilization. But it remains true that the Church does have an important role to play as the source of social unity. What restrained European nations from trying to wipe each other out in wars, or different social classes from settling conflicts with violence, was the sense that they were all Christians together. In order to play this essential role, the Church has to maintain its unity. Heresy is dangerous because it undermines that unity: if the Church cannot speak with one voice, it will not have a voice at all. Without the voice of the Church, how much more violent would the Middle Ages have been?

Jorge is like a rogue agent. He has ceased to be answerable to his superiors in the organization, and has taken the law into his own hands. It is like a CIA agent deciding that he is going to assassinate Gaddafi, or a Chavez supporter taking it upon himself to plant bombs in Bogota. Such a person damages their own organization by failing to follow discipline. The irony is that not only does Bernardo fail to catch the real murderer, it is William, not Bernardo, who uncovers someone whose heresy truly threatens the structure of the Church from within.

Many of the papers students submitted about The Name of the Rose condemned the evils of the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages. The trouble is not offense that might be caused to Catholics, but the offense to Umberto Eco. Within some genres, it is acceptable, even expected, to portray characters and institutions in stark, unsubtle terms. 1984 is an example. As I said many times, Orwell is giving us a blue-print of totalitarianism, so he portrays a society where totalitarianism works like clockwork. O'Brien never has a moment's hesitation - he really does anticipate every move his enemies might make. But Eco is trying to give us a taste of historical reality. In that kind of novel, the ability to paint in subtle shades is much valued. Characters should combine good and bad traits, like real people. Of course, Eco does not portray the Church as a wonderful, blessed institution, free from any taint of evil. The dark side of the Church is apparent. But if he portrayed it as without redeeming features, like the Galactic Empire in Star Wars, of Voldemort's Death Eaters in Harry Potter, or indeed The Party in 1984, that would be a failure as a novelist. Do not take him for some conjurer of cheap tricks!

So, the chosen theme is a good one. But that isn't the end of the matter. Many other students chose good themes but did not receive an A. So next, notice that the paper is well-researched. Not only is there a mention of the Condemnations of 1277, we are told about the debate between intellectualists and voluntarists. This, in turn, is applied to the question of Adso's "sin": his act of love with the girl. Once again, there is close attention to the text: Adso himself reflects on the action in the light of Aquinas' teaching. Also, we have here some added value. You get no marks for pointing out that this scene is of great importance, but using the Aristotelian theory to analyze Adso's actions gives us a deeper level of understanding. As well as the work of Aquinas himself, the student quotes two sources, one by Christopher Toner from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and a book by James Walsh. What is important is that the student has read these works carefully. Anyone can feed a term into J-STOR, come up with a dozen arguments, and pick a few random sentences to insert into the paper. Real research involves using sources with discrimination; better to read and understand two sources, than to quote without thought from ten.

The paper is not perfect. For example, the final jump from Voluntarism and Intellectualism to Particularism and Internalism takes place without any advance preparation, and no real explanation is offered. And while one sees the connection between Jorge and Augustine, is there really a link between Jorge and Jon Duns Scotus - (an Oxonian Franciscan (like William), whose works fell under such suspicion that, to this day, the word "Dunce" is used as an insult for stupid people)? The point is not that this paper is perfect, but that even in expressing disagreement with it, I have to engage my whole mind.

So: it can be done! Keep on trying.

Back to PHI 3882