Reassessing the Virtue of Andreia in the Odyssey and the Greek Novel

By Brittany Coffman

Instructor Resources


In the first half of the class, we have read the Odyssey and some of the ancient Greek novels, and you have been asked to write blogs and two featured-writer papers on selected topics of these texts. Now it is time for you to produce an extensive research paper (3000-3600 words), in which you engage with at least 6 pieces of related scholarship. The topic will be chosen in one-on-one meetings with me, and this piece will undergo multiple stages of drafting, peer-review, and revision. The process (e.g., the stages of drafting, development, and responding to feedback) will be just as important to your final grade as the outcome.

This is the suggested structure for your paper, and you will be asked to submit an outline that follows this structure.


It should be catchy and not too long!


Prelude: a general description of the work (1 sentence max.).
Shared context: general scholarly belief about a text or a topic.
Problem: something within the text(s) that is still not understood.
Claim (WHAT?): it should be a response to a problem.
The Significance of your Claim (SO WHAT).
Definition(s): give definition of notions that are difficult to understand and are relevant to your topic. You can write these definitions both in a new paragraph (especially if there is more than one) or before you mention the significance of your claim. Usually these definitions are given with the help of secondary scholarship.
Metadiscourse: in a new paragraph, summarize the different steps of your arguments, using the 'I' language. 'In the first section of the paper, I will …. In the second section, I will …


The main corpus should focus on your evidence, which is based on the selected ancient texts.

Divide the main corpus of your paper into different sections, each of which should have a heading.

Think carefully about how to order your evidence – whether chronologically or based on relevance.

Please begin each section with a short segment introducing the section. This short segment can last a paragraph or two, and should mention the main point of the section and its distinctive themes.

From section 2 onwards, this short segment should explain the transition between the different sections.


Prelude: quick summary of the problem.
Restating the Claim (WHAT?)
The Significance of the Claim (SO WHAT?)
Further and Larger Implications of your Claim (NOW WHAT?)

For the use of secondary sources, please use the following guidelines:

Where should you include secondary resources?

a) Shared Context (necessary)
b) Claim (not necessary, but please check how your claim relates to the scholarship you are reading)
c) Definitions (if required)
d) Presentation of Evidence (at least in two points of your evidence)
e) Conclusion – for the significance or the larger implication of your claim (but this is not necessary).

How should you include secondary resources?

a) Summary: very appropriate for the Shared Context.
b) Paraphrase: when writing the paraphrase, please manage the changes in an appropriate way, avoiding using the same words of the secondary sources. Paraphrase is very good for the counter-arguments, usually to be put in the footnotes.
c) Quotation: block quotation or drop in quotation. Quotation is very good for your definitions and for your discussion of evidence.

How to attribute a source: explicitly or not? Both options work well. The choice between them depends whether it is important to highlight the name of the scholar.

a) Explicitly: Konstan argues that in the Greek novel fidelity does not imply abstinence from sexual relationship with people who are different from one's wife or husband.
b) Implicitly: In the Greek novel fidelity does not imply abstinence from sexual relationship with people who are different from one's wife or husband. Footnote: See Konstan 1994, page.

The rubric for this paper will be as follows:


Strive for a paper that has a clear structure and covers the abovementioned points.


Strive for:

1) a paper that has an original thesis (claim)
2) a paper that uses evidence that is both original and thoughtful.

Just to clarify, 'original' is a claim/ idea which makes me thing 'ah, I have never thought about that,' and a successful paper convinces me of something 'original'.


Strive for:

1) a paper that introduces and engages a scholarly shared context.
2) a paper that is able to enter into constructive dialogue with at least six pieces of scholarship, each of which is either summarized or paraphrased or quoted (see above for guidelines on this matter). Scholarship should be used at least for the shared context and the presentation of the evidence. Bibliographical references are given in the footnotes in the Chicago Style. Plagiarism must be avoided.
3) a paper that maintains an objective rhetorical stance.


Strive for:

1) a paper whose evidence well relates to claim, and is enough rich to prove the claim.
2) a paper within which passages from the ancient texts are included in the main corpus


Strive for:

1) a paper that contains clear and lucid sentences following the main rules described in Williams's Style (e.g. avoiding nominalizations, making main characters subjects and making important actions verbs).
2) a paper that has a nice flow in transitions.
3) a paper that has absolutely no grammatical errors.