Please write one essay (2-4 pages) which responds either to #1 or #2, then another which responds either to #3 or #4. Turn in your work to me by Noon, May 2.

1.          The Kagan text refers to the "continuity between the Middle Ages and the Renaissance" (p. 318), as does Colin Morris. Peter Burke went further when he argued that "This idea of the Renaissance is a myth" (Sherman, 169). Yet the lecturer emphasized the many and significant changes in character between the Medieval Period and the Renaissance -- the Burckhardtian discontinuity. Explain how/why these historical interpretations differ. Following that explanation, show (in luxurious detail of the evidence) how the Individualism of Abelard/Heloise is essentially similar, or different, from that of Pico della Mirandolla.

2.          There are various theories of what life was like, generally, for medieval women. Some historians see women as unfairly oppressed. Others see a growing equality in gender relations since New Testament times. For example, comparing Kagan (pp.277ff) and Sherman (p.114) the dualities of each author's explanation seem.... similar or different? How do these these ideas compare with the life and character of Heloise? Was she oppressed? Unequal because of her gender? Exploited? Explain with examples.

3.          The crusades bring up a great deal of controversy.   Kagan, Sherman, the lecturer and various other primary sources all agreed that .... what?  Was there significant agreement as to causes and/or nature of the First Crusade? Or was there essential disagreement? Was the crusade an instrument of oppression? Colonial aggrandizement? Interference? Greed? Or a search for a moral peace? Protection of victims? Genuine papal concern or corrupt papal conquest? Ideals of truth, justice and the 'western way'? Some other?

4.     The First Crusade produced many sources, mostly positive in terms of justifying the crusade. After digesting all these sources (and points of view), consider: Was the First Crusade a Just War, or not? In other words, do you see the major thrust of the sources as consistent with Just War Criteria? Do you see evidence that supports a 'contra' view? Cite your evidence, reasons, arguments and then conclude as the evidence leads you.

NOTE:

So, the point is that no one answer is the only best answer.   On the other hand, all best answers respond with some precise ideas, details and explain a larger historical significance in the response.

       All these questions are open-ended (i.e., no 'answer book'), so construct your arguments with your own thought, back them up with much evidence, explain how that evidence supports your line of thinking, then conclude clearly even if you do present two or more sides to the inquiry. Your thinking, and your expression of it, matters more than any particular conclusion. So, please, gain depth through the use of the sources.