Menang's "Mark/Critique Me" Thread! :)

[Menang]

So, I've started this thread in hopes that someone, somewhere, who is doing or has done Renaissance, shall read and maybe give me some feedback on my practice responses.

This is practice response No. 1

I know there's probably a lot more about both Florence and Venice to be said, but I'm doing this in the context of Unit 3, AoS 1 pretty much, so there's not a lot of delving in, just more an overview of the republics. That said, I like harsh critiques.

The republic was one type of city state that existed on the Italian peninsula. Explain the characteristics of a republican government, using one or more republics to provide specific evidence. (VCAA 2005)

Although Florence and Venice strove to be seen as the paragon of republicanism during the Italian Renaissance, it is clear that politically, civic participation was limited to the patricians and thus both Florence and Venice were highly elitist city-states. In Venice, following the Serrata of 1297, political offices were limited to the 200 self-proclaimed noble families inscribed in the Golden Book. These families dominated the political scene, participated in the Great Council and elected the Doge, and thus civic participation was limited to only these nobles, and, to a lesser extent, the cittadini. In Florence, the Ordinances of Justice (1293) undermined the power of the old nobility and established the guild republic. Following the Ciompi Revolt of 1378, these republican communes gradually became more elitist until, in 1434, the guild republic gave way to the de facto rule of the Medici. Participation in the Signoria was restricted to the guildsmen, and especially to the members of the 7 major guilds, and it is clear that the populo grasso controlled the government while the populo minuto had almost no say in it. In addition to the civic participation that was emphasised by the patriciate of the republics, civic pride was also an important factor and both Florence and Venice sought to project their respective ideals. In Chancellor Bruni’s panegyric to Florence, he praised Florence’s justice, liberty and freedom and described Florence as “enemies of tyranny”, while Sanudo described Venice as a serene, pious and well-ordered city, stating that Venice was “built more by divine than human will”. In Florence especially, where the Chancellor was chosen for his humanist background, civic humanism played a big part in the lives of the patricians and humanist thought was widely disseminated amongst the wealthy, educated and socially elite men. The republics of the Italian Renaissance were ultimately undemocratic and elitist, yet intensely proud of their city state.

[binders]

soo, the characteristic of a republican government is that it is undemocratic?

you seem to have done a good job in such a small piece of explaining to what extent some specific governments
lived up to, or failed to live up to the idea of a universal suffrage type democracy, but for someone who is ignorant
of what a republic is, you could address the question more explicitly.  
maybe refer to the idea that a res publica was a state not ruled
by a monarch, but by some portion of the citizens?

** not doing renn, though i know you asked for someone who was. so feel free to ignore

[LeahT]

I'm just awestruck. I guess that's what you expect from a MacRob kid, but seriously. I would kill. Our class is just so much bludge, we haven't done a single response like that. Is it possible for you to tell me some of the extended answer questions you're given in class? I need to start extending now if I'm gunna be able to compete at the end of the year

[Russ]

You can have this, which is the workbook I used for AoS1
You obviously won't have the readings booklet it's based on but most of the questions don't require them.

Renaissance will always have a special place in my heart, I'll get around to uploading my notes eventually

I know there's probably a lot more about both Florence and Venice to be said, but I'm doing this in the context of Unit 3, AoS 1 pretty much, so there's not a lot of delving in, just more an overview of the republics. That said, I like harsh critiques.

You don't have to provide essay level detail (and in fact you shouldn't for these questions). Before you read my feedback, I'd like to point out that I'm not a Ren expert and I sure as hell don't tutor it (although I love it to death). My major problem with the response was that it didn't really address the question properly. It said to explain the characteristics of a Republican government, but you only really did civic participation (or lack thereof). You might still have been awarded a high mark, I have no idea. I got the feeling that your response would have been better suited for a more discussion based question but ask your teacher about the ideal formats.

My response would have been a lot more simplistic: I would have listed 5 elements that comprised a republic and provided a point of evidence for each. So something like:

checks and balances on power - Florentine "bag" for selection of offices
upper class citizens only - venetian golden book
prevent corruption and permanent office - Doge and the idiotic selection process (perhaps idiotic wouldn't be a good term to use though )
etc.

[LeahT]

You can have this, which is the workbook I used for AoS1
You obviously won't have the readings booklet it's based on but most of the questions don't require them.

Renaissance will always have a special place in my heart, I'll get around to uploading my notes eventually

Thankyou so much, even from a quick glance I can tell they will be very useful

[Menang]

You can have this, which is the workbook I used for AoS1
You obviously won't have the readings booklet it's based on but most of the questions don't require them.

Renaissance will always have a special place in my heart, I'll get around to uploading my notes eventually

I know there's probably a lot more about both Florence and Venice to be said, but I'm doing this in the context of Unit 3, AoS 1 pretty much, so there's not a lot of delving in, just more an overview of the republics. That said, I like harsh critiques.

You don't have to provide essay level detail (and in fact you shouldn't for these questions). Before you read my feedback, I'd like to point out that I'm not a Ren expert and I sure as hell don't tutor it (although I love it to death). My major problem with the response was that it didn't really address the question properly. It said to explain the characteristics of a Republican government, but you only really did civic participation (or lack thereof). You might still have been awarded a high mark, I have no idea. I got the feeling that your response would have been better suited for a more discussion based question but ask your teacher about the ideal formats.

My response would have been a lot more simplistic: I would have listed 5 elements that comprised a republic and provided a point of evidence for each. So something like:

checks and balances on power - Florentine "bag" for selection of offices
upper class citizens only - venetian golden book
prevent corruption and permanent office - Doge and the idiotic selection process (perhaps idiotic wouldn't be a good term to use though )
etc.

Oh yes, good point. I felt like I did talk about the "upper class only" part of the republic - (I did mention Golden Book, right...? :S), but I forgot about the checks and balances - their attempt to prevent corruption. I did think about talking about the borse, but I wasn't sure (ceebs ) how to bring it in. Thanks so much for your feedback!

I handed that in today, so I'll hopefully get some feedback from him soon.

I'm just awestruck. I guess that's what you expect from a MacRob kid, but seriously. I would kill. Our class is just so much bludge, we haven't done a single response like that. Is it possible for you to tell me some of the extended answer questions you're given in class? I need to start extending now if I'm gunna be able to compete at the end of the year

Don't worry, this is my first one for the year, so I'm sure you're not too far behind. I'll post some questions (the ones I do and the ones I don't ) that I get through this year so we can all practice, if your school doesn't end up giving you any.

[werdna]

Epic.

[Russ]

Oh yes, good point. I felt like I did talk about the "upper class only" part of the republic - (I did mention Golden Book, right...? :S), but I forgot about the checks and balances - their attempt to prevent corruption. I did think about talking about the borse, but I wasn't sure (ceebs ) how to bring it in. Thanks so much for your feedback!

I handed that in today, so I'll hopefully get some feedback from him soon.

Hopefully! I'm kinda curious to know what the advice is, I think a broader response there is better. And I should clarify, I obviously didn't mean a literal list of dot points! I never worried about connecting my points for the AoS1 10mark questions. My response would literally be jumping between them:

The concept of a "republic" during the Renaissance was multifaceted. Venice, the Serene Republic, restricted power to a select group of citizens - this can be seen through the creation of the "golden book" containing the families eligible to hold office. Another element of republicanism were the checks and balances used to prevent any single person/family from controlling the system. For example, the Florentines...etc.

[Menang]

I've gotten his feedback on this; most of the response was good, but he also thought that I should talk about the conciliar government etc.

[Menang]

Another practice! Please read and tell me what you think!

The Problematic Nature of the Renaissance
Why is it difficult for historians to accurately define what is meant by the term the Renaissance?

   Historians from the Renaissance contemporaries to the present have grappled to define the nature and time period of the Renaissance, some arguing that the Renaissance is a distinct break from the past while others arguing that there were continuities from the medieval period.

   In the height of the Renaissance itself, in the 15th and 16th centuries, writers such as Marsilio Ficino recognised that the time they were living in differed from previous periods, and Ficino, in 1492, calls the Renaissance “a golden age” which “restored to light the liberal arts, which were almost extinct”. Other Italian writers such as Petrarch (1330’s), Biondo (1439-1453) and Bruni (1442) attempted to categorise their history in a new periodisation of ancient, medieval and modern, believing that the fall of Rome marked the beginning of the Dark Ages while observing their time as the renascita – a rebirth of learning, literature and the arts. 19th century historian Jacob Burckhardt also saw the Renaissance as a distinctly new period where individualism dominated all aspects of life (politics, identity, culture, learning, society and religion), stating that “this period... led the individual to the most zealous and thorough study of himself in all forms and under all conditions”. Burckhardt’s argument that the Renaissance differed to the Middle Ages in its secularism and immorality has been highly criticised, and it is clear from the patronage both of the building and embellishment of cathedrals (such as Ghiberti’s baptistery doors) as well as of religious art (Masaccio’s Holy Trinity and Tribute Money) that the Renaissance was indeed a highly religious period. In the 20th century, historian Hans Baron argued that civic humanism and republicanism stemmed from the Milanese threat to the Florentines, while Eugenie Garin asserted that humanism, the new philosophy that would change mankind’s view of life on earth, was the divisor between the Medieval and Renaissance periods. Ultimately however, like the Renaissance contemporaries and Burckhardt, Baron and Garin agree that the Renaissance was a distinctly different era separate from prior times.

   Some historians, on the other hand, emphasise the transitional character of the Renaissance from the Middle Ages. American historian Charles Homer Haskins argued in 1927 that the Renaissance began in the 12th century, marking the beginning of the Modern World, and stated that “the Italian Renaissance was preceded by similar, if less wide-reaching, movements”, recognising “the emergences of Latin poetry and Roman law; the recovery of Greek science, with its Arabic additions, and of much of Greek philosophy…”. The Medievalists, in addition, believe that the Renaissance began as far back as the 8th and 9th centuries under the reign of Charlemagne during the Carolingian Renaissance. German historian Paul Oscar Kristeller recognised the link between Medieval scholasticism and Renaissance humanism, stating that “…the scholastic tradition persisted because early humanism did not provide a substitute in the form of a real philosophy” and thus asserted the continuities between the Renaissance and the Middle Ages. Finally, interpretations of the Renaissance as such of the French Annales School dismissed the social and economic significance of the Renaissance as an elitist movement affecting only the privileged classes of the time.

   It is clear through this diverse range of interpretations that the Renaissance is a term whose definition has been debated for its significance and its origins. Ultimately, however, the Renaissance is a period with both transitional and distinct qualities that has influenced and inspired the modern world.

[Russ]

Nothing wrong with your structure but two things:

first sentence is jumbled and needs to be edited
make a couple of statements explaining why it's so hard. don't just showcase the problems inherent (eg. burckhardt says secular, others disagree) but tell me why there is such difficulty in reaching consensus