History HubÌý permalink
Dissertation Time!
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by PJP (U2236559) on Saturday, 26th March 2011
Is anyone else on here a final year student about to embark upon their dissertation? I don't often contribute to these forums due to my embarrassing lack of knowledge but I do read them a fair bit!
I'll be doing mine on the extent to which the Great Schism affected Richard II's foreign and domestic policies, maybe with some Lollardy thrown into the mix! (Joy, I hear you shout!)
I wanted to do it on John of Gaunt (a much more interesting topic), but wrote too much about him earlier on in his reign.
If (as I supect), there are no other final year students on these boards, is there anyone else who did a history BA and/or MA and cares to share what their dissertation titles were?
(Apologies if this has been done before!) -
Message 2
Posted by PJP (U2236559) on Saturday, 26th March 2011
*wrote too much about him earlier on in my course.
-
Message 3
Posted by Minette Minor (U14272111) on Saturday, 26th March 2011
The very best of luck PJP!
Just give it your all, never be afraid to think for yourself and love your subject. The fact that you've done this shows that you care and "throw" in all you think pertinent! Enjoy it rather than panic! You won't die if it doesn't work but may triumph if you do! And don't use exclamation marks as I do.....Seems to me you love History. Go for it!
Good luck again, Minette. -
Message 4
Posted by PJP (U2236559) on Saturday, 26th March 2011
Thanks for the well wishes Minette!
I think I will gamble, I've secured myself the 2:1 but I'm far enough away from the 1st to ensure that only a gamble and an awfully high dissertation mark will get me there.
As such, I think I'll enjoy it instead of worrying about what I might get. Try and be a little different and try to be original in my thinking. Why not be a little contrary hey?
Were you fortunate enough to study history at university level yourself Minette? (I don't know if that's too personal a question for an internet forum, I do apologise if it is and feel no obligation to respond!) -
Message 5
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Sunday, 27th March 2011
Hello PJP, and all the best with the diss.
To answer on Minette's behalf, no she didn't study History at university - she studied Politics and History, concentrating on Stalin, but was only able to scrape a 2:2.
-
Message 6
Posted by Minette Minor (U14272111) on Friday, 1st April 2011
Dear PJP,
I aplogize that I haven't responded sooner and for the "interruption"! Of course it's not a very "personal" question to ask, if I hand out advice to you, then you have every right to ask!
Yes, I was fortunate enough to do my B.A. in History and Politics at Warwick University. I loved every moment of it - well virtually! I was one of the lucky ones or generation where education was for education's sake and not with the main view of getting a good job and full grants were awarded freely. How times have changed! Now my eldest daughter is studying Englsih at univ and her sister will be following in her footsteps next Autumn, so I do understand the pressures you must be under now.
I'm afraid it's true that I only got a 2.2 however, we were actually warned during the first week that it was unlikely that those of us who had chosen to take a double weighted subject were unlikely to prosper! We had to take the Basic Course in each discipline and then choose three "options" from each subject. If I'd read straight History then I would have had to do the Basic Course plus four options. I've never regretted it though although I should have worked harder yet long evenings which turned into early mornings thrashing out all sorts of matters - was Erasmus a "wuss" compared to Luther or why didn't Marxism take root in Russia and NOT in central Europe, as he thought it would? Etc., will always stay with me. It was exciting. I chose Warwick because it was an exciting place to be then, political mayhem! General Gowan of Nigerian notoriaty was in my International Relations group. "Just call me Jack"! AND the body guards?
But History was always my first love. The reason I took Politics was simply to make sense of it all. They are inter-twined in so many ways. History reflects political thought. For example without the works of so many dis-enchanted R.C.s Luther, Ersamus, Calvin and Zwingli would Henry VIII have had the nerve to break with Rome after the Great Divorce from Katherine of Aragon?
If not for Hobbes and his "Leviathan" would the Cromwellians have ever had the courage to overthrow and kill a King? And so it continues. Machiavelli constantly pops up as does Marx, for example, and knowledge of these people and their philosophies helps so much to understand why people acted as they did when they did.
I believe the difference between Further Education and Higher is that one has the tools and basic background to events and now it's your turn to think! This is so for under-graduate work and post graduate, where one is expected to work on a thesis virtually alone. Warwick like Cambridge awards B.A.s and B.Scs for Maths, showing the infinate variety of this subject. I know nothing of Maths but I knew someone who got a 1st in Maths and was so gifted, his PhD secured he took over 6 months to decide what he would choose to study. He broke new ground too! He was different, a true and independent thinker.
I really think that you are on the right track PJP. If you don't love and enjoy your subject then you will never be able to give it your "all". You obviously have the tools - hence the 2.1, so this is where you use the tools and think for yourself, be contrary or not, it's up to you. You have been trained to think. Now think! Just one last thing, don't forget "back-up" and "save"! I nearly lost over 10.000 words the other day by a slip of the mouse. I do hope that you return and let me know how you did. Incidentally, these Boards can be fun, what you sadly found was a minor skirmish, so do return.
Good Luck, Minette. -
Message 7
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Friday, 1st April 2011
If not for Hobbes and his "Leviathan" would the Cromwellians have ever had the courage to overthrow and kill a King?Ìý
Quite possibly, given that 'Leviathan' wasn't published until 1651...
-
Message 8
Posted by Minette Minor (U14272111) on Friday, 1st April 2011
PJP,
Incidentally, Hobbes' "Leviathan" was begun in 1640 with his work, "The Elements of Law Natural and Physical". "Leviathan" was the culmination of his earlier and much publicised works. Shakespeare's full portfolio of works was published in 1623, seven years after his death. His first play is believed to have been written in 1588, "Henry VI Part 1". Therefore to state that "Leviathan" was published in 1651, thereby inferring it was written then, is nonsense. -
Message 9
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Friday, 1st April 2011
That 'Leviathan' was published in 1651 is simple fact, not nonsense, and facts matter in History, however inconvenient certain people find them. If minette had claimed that 'the work of Hobbes', rather than, specifically, 'Leviathan' had facilitated the overthrow and execution of Charles I (who was, of course, already at war with his subjects in 1638...
), then she might have had a (highly dubious) point...
...but she did not.
Also, the word is 'implying',not 'inferring'... -
Message 10
Posted by raundsgirl (U2992430) on Saturday, 2nd April 2011
Always identify your sources, PJP!
That was drilled into our heads by the senior Educational Psychology tutor when I was at teacher training college
Good luck! -
Message 11
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Sunday, 3rd April 2011
If not for Hobbes and his "Leviathan" would the Cromwellians have ever had the courage to overthrow and kill a King?
Ìý
Regardless of Leviathan's year of publication, and even if - as Minette later suggests (without stating credible grounds) - the Cromwellians were in any case familiar with its intended contents before its final draft, it is still a strange question to ask.
After all, why would any regicide draw "courage" from a philosophy in which it is emphatically averred that the monarch is the absolute source and guarantee of good government, as Hobbes maintained? In Leviathan he goes even further and states unequivocally that abuse of power by the monarch is in fact an acceptable price for his subjects to pay in order to have peace. Leviathan was not only an attempt to rationalise monarchic excess as a logical feature of a "good" society, but was also by extension an attempted exoneration of those very policies of Charles Stuart to which the parliamentarians most strongly objected. How on earth Minette then reckons that it would have vindicated their own political philosophy through its diametric opposition is something that she must clarify if it is at all a point which she expects others to take seriously.
I suspect however that it is simply evidence that she does not know her Hobbes. In fact, if she did, she would be less inclined to make such ill-informed and emphatic statements of apparent fact which, on examination, prove to be without substance, and not only meaningless but downright wrong in an historical sense. She would most definitely not proffer them as "advice" to a student embarking on an historical dissertation which will largely decide his aptitude, trustworthiness and employability in matters historical for the rest of his career.
If Hobbes' Leviathan is to be recommended to PJP at all then I suggest it is the following extract which probably rates as the most apposite advice for a student about to write a dissertation. It concerns one's use of language when presenting one's thoughts to another, and especially if one wishes these theories to be considered as grounded in fact. It serves therefore both as sound advice for when writing a dissertation as well as a clear warning to beware fraudsters who will pretend to know something they don't.
"Therefore in reasoning, a man must take heed of words; which, besides the signification of what we imagine of their nature, have a signification also of the nature, disposition, and interest of the speaker; such as are the names of virtues and vices: for one man calleth wisdom what another calleth fear; and one cruelty what another justice; one prodigality what another magnanimity; and one gravity what another stupidity, etc. And therefore such names can never be true grounds of any ratiocination. No more can metaphors and tropes of speech: but these are less dangerous because they profess their inconstancy, which the other do not. "
Minette, therefore, might well believe that regicides drew "courage" from Hobbes' philosophy and on that basis executed their reigning monarch. This claim however tells us nothing of history, though much of Minette. Unless PJP plans to write a dissertation on bad historical theory I would suggest he stick to Plan A. -
Message 12
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Sunday, 3rd April 2011
Thankyou for the explanation Nordmann, for those of us who wouldn't know Hobbes from their left elbow it is good to be informed when and why we are being led up the garden path.
Minette is always so emphatic, she gives the impression that she knows what she is talking about. -
Message 13
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Sunday, 3rd April 2011
Thank you for the explanation Nordmann, for those of us who wouldn't know Hobbes from their left elbow it is good to be informed when and why we are being led up the garden path. Ìý
Nordmann's post certainly contains much food for thought, ID.
I am actually more familiar with Hobbs (frocks) than I am with Hobbes (political philosophy), but I've just been listening to the very interesting "In Our Time" programme about the great TH. Heck of a lot in it and I need to listen to it again. I am genuinely puzzled as to what Hobbes means by "sovereign authority". Perhaps Minette, Nordmann or Catigern could explain. Does "sovereign authority" *have* to mean king/monarch, or could it just mean any strong and effective *ruler* - king, dictator, even Parliament - the latter seeming to be what the Cambridge chap (can't remember his name) talking to Melvyn Bragg was suggesting when he referred to sovereign authority as being possibly a "body of persons"?
And the frontispiece of Leviathan - why does the picture show the "sovereign" as a body made up of many *individual* people? This sovereign wields a sword (military power?) and a crozier. Does this suggest "sovereign" is simply a necessary coercive power - the supreme lawmaking authority - or does it represent the people? -
Message 14
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Sunday, 3rd April 2011
Hi Temperance
Sovereignty, according to Hobbes, is best expressed and protected when invested in the agents of commonwealth (everyone else) but only when it emanates from a single fountainhead (the monarch), the relationship between both being a covenant which both sides have equal responsibility to uphold. That it must be a monarch at the top is explained by Hobbes in terms of a single person whose authority can be described as both temporal and spiritual - a combination which precludes "presidents" or "governors" etc.
The big difference between these two however, Hobbes maintains, is in their respective responsibilities towards the maintenance and defence of that sovereign realm in which they participate. The monarch does not define his own sovereignty - it is nature itself which has invested him with it. Therefore he can only appear to work against it, no matter how badly he behaves. As its personal embodiment however he can never escape his role. On the other hand the rest of society has a huge responsibility to dispense and protect the realm, and by extension its sovereign leader.
Forgive the long quote which follows but it sums up Hobbes' unequivocal opposition to that which Minette's "Cromwellians" had set out to achieve, and shows just how silly her earlier remark was. In this quotation (from "The Rights of Sovereigns by Institution" he refers to the monarch as the sovereign, though it is true that when he discusses sovereignty elsewhere in his book he does so in the manner the "man from Cambridge" chose to focus on. It outlines why, once a monarchy has been established, it cannot be undone by its subjects without them behaving unjustly and in a vile and unmanly manner (his words).
"And consequently they that have already instituted a Commonwealth, being thereby bound by covenant to own the actions and judgements of one, cannot lawfully make a new covenant amongst themselves to be obedient to any other, in anything whatsoever, without his permission. And therefore, they that are subjects to a monarch cannot without his leave cast off monarchy and return to the confusion of a disunited multitude; nor transfer their person from him that beareth it to another man, other assembly of men: for they are bound, every man to every man, to own and be reputed author of all that already is their sovereign shall do and judge fit to be done; so that any one man dissenting, all the rest should break their covenant made to that man, which is injustice: and they have also every man given the sovereignty to him that beareth their person; and therefore if they depose him, they take from him that which is his own, and so again it is injustice. Besides, if he that attempteth to depose his sovereign be killed or punished by him for such attempt, he is author of his own punishment, as being, by the institution, author of all his sovereign shall do; and because it is injustice for a man to do anything for which he may be punished by his own authority, he is also upon that title unjust. And whereas some men have pretended for their disobedience to their sovereign a new covenant, made, not with men but with God, this also is unjust: for there is no covenant with God but by mediation of somebody that representeth God's person, which none doth but God's lieutenant who hath the sovereignty under God. But this pretence of covenant with God is so evident a lie, even in the pretenders' own consciences, that it is not only an act of an unjust, but also of a vile and unmanly disposition." -
Message 15
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Sunday, 3rd April 2011
Sorry - missed your last question. The frontispiece design you mention appears to be from the later edition produced during Charles II's reign. It is an attempt to pictorially represent the monarch as the tip of the structure (the head) in whom is imbued the dispensatory responsibility for political governance and spiritual leadership. The faces below represent the diverse agents of state who assist him in that function and without whom the function cannot make sense, let alone work. The rest of the picture represents these responsibilities as they are diversified into functions of state - in other words as the "ordinary person" experiences them.
Enough to have made Cromwell rather sick, I would have thought - and if it inspired him to regicide it was on the basis of his disgust for such a political viewpoint, not any admiration for it! -
Message 16
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Sunday, 3rd April 2011
Many thanks, Nordmann - they should have you on "In Our Time"! -
Message 17
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Monday, 4th April 2011
Hi Minette, Catigern and Nordmann,
Wonder if you have come across Jeffrey Collins's book - published in 2005 - The Allegiance of Thomas Hobbes? Is this the line of thought Minette is pursuing? Collins's study apparently offers "a revisionist interpretation of Thomas Hobbes's evolving response to the English Revolution. It rejects the prevailing understanding of Hobbes as a consistent, if idiosyncratic royalist..."
On Amazon you can "Look inside!" this incredibly expensive publication(£82.65!!). I've just started reading the introduction and I'm already confused by such statements as "among the royalists, however, he was despised as a traitor." How come?
The religious angle looks interesting, too. Must go back and read a bit more. I suppose it would help if I also try and look at what Hobbes actually said himself. A daunting prospect. -
Message 18
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Monday, 4th April 2011
... among the royalists, however, he was despised as a traitor ...
Ìý
Among the royals he was upheld as a genius.
I haven't read the book you mention but from other authors' works I'm familar with the revisionist opinion of Hobbes which attempts to blur the distinctions between him and Locke. Personally I don't buy it - and neither did either of their contemporaries.
Hobbes may have changed his tune as time went on, but not by much. His original stance regarding monarchy as stated in "The Elements of Law, Natural and Politic", for example, was that monarchy was the only viable system. By "Leviathan" this had been expanded to allow other systems viability based on the upholding of social covenant but amongst which monarchy still was the only one guaranteed success on that basis since, to Hobbes, it contained all the essential elements which contributed to good governance - other systems could only emulate this perfect model. Far from this therefore being a turnaround it was actually simply furthering Hobbes' claim that monarchy was inviolable and that those who violated it were wrong. The only softening of this stance is evident in "Behemoth", published after his death, in which he retrospectively cedes that the abolition of a monarch might sometimes be necessary, but not the monarchy itself.
If, as you wonder, Minette might have thought she was pursuing a revisionist line of thought regarding Hobbism then she would have done well to avoid mentioning "Leviathan" at all, and hope that no one else had heard of it either. It wasn't for nothing that "Leviathan", and indeed Hobbes himself in later life, were such favourites of Charles II.
Personally I think she rather stupidly confused Hobbes with Locke. But even then her dates and logic are all over the place.
The religious angle to Hobbes' writing isn't really all that interesting, when you get down to it. He has a traditional view of a Judaeo-Christian deity ordering things, cites it as the ultimate source of all power on earth, and never allows mere humans the option to gainsay either the deity's perceived edicts or the presumption of its existence. Tame stuff - even for his day. -
Message 19
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Monday, 4th April 2011
Collins asks this interesting question: "Why was it that contemporaries read Hobbes's writings, particularly Leviathan, as a justification of the English Revolution and as a betrayal of royalism?" Is this a legitimate question? *Was* Leviathan interpreted (by some?) as such a justification when the work was first circulated/ published? This would seem to back up what Minette is saying.
And who's this Professor Quentin Skinner chap who "argued that Hobbes's theory of political obligation, which favoured de facto holders of sovereign power (including conquerors) over alternative claimants, constituted the feature of his political theory most resonant with the ideological climate of the Revolution"?
Think I'll watch the last episode of "The Tudors" now. My head's hurting. -
Message 20
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Monday, 4th April 2011
Crossed posts, Nordmann.
(Where's Catigern? He's posting wittily about smileys, but some thoughts about Hobbes are needed!) -
Message 21
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Monday, 4th April 2011
PJP,
I did a BA (Hons.) in History at the University of East Anglia. My dissertation was "How effective a commander was Oliver Cromwell?" - but it was much more militarily focussed so I can't really comment on Hobbes! On informing my tutor of my proposed title, he immediately asked what I meant by "effective" which just goes to show - if this isn't teaching grandmothers to suck eggs! - you need to clearly define exactly what your aims are.
My MA was in Museum Studies so only indirectly historical, but for the record the dissertation was "What moral and ethical issues are raised by military and other violence related re-enactment and living history events?" -
Message 22
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Monday, 4th April 2011
Quentin Skinner - he was the chap from Cambridge on Melvyn Bragg! "Regius Professor of History at the University of Cambridge". Crikey - posh enough even for Catigern! -
Message 23
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Monday, 4th April 2011
Collins asks this interesting question: "Why was it that contemporaries read Hobbes's writings, particularly Leviathan, as a justification of the English Revolution and as a betrayal of royalism?" Is this a legitimate question? *Was* Leviathan interpreted (by some?) as such a justification when the work was first circulated/ published? This would seem to back up what Minette is saying.
Ìý
This is going too far, I think. When "Leviathan" was published it caused much unease on the continent, especially in France, and on that basis both Hobbes and his book were unwelcome at the court in exile. There is no record, as far as I know, of any condemnation of Hobbes from that source, let alone an accusation of "betrayal". In fact Hobbes and Charles Stuart Jr maintained correspondence throughout this period and the subject never even seemed to have come up at all. By the same token, parliamentarians in England looking for philosophical justification for their actions or support for their political beliefs were equally disgruntled with the work and the man as his dogged insistence that monarchy was the best system effectively invalidated anything else worthwhile his philosophy might have contained, in their view. Hobbes found himself nevertheless seeking and receiving protection from the London parliament since his safety on the continent had been compromised, but neither he nor they were comfortable with the arrangement. The publication of a revised edition of "De Cive" did much to ameliorate his strained relationship with the Stuarts and to convince his temporary "guardians" that he wasn't in fact useful to their cause. By this time however the interregnum was nearing its conclusion and dipomatic overtures had already begun to be made to resolve the issue. Hobbes, quite rightly, kept his mouth shut and his publisher idle at this time.
And who's this Professor Quentin Skinner chap who "argued that Hobbes's theory of political obligation, which favoured de facto holders of sovereign power (including conquerors) over alternative claimants, constituted the feature of his political theory most resonant with the ideological climate of the Revolution"?
Ìý
Quentin Skinner is indeed the main man when it comes to Hobbes. Elsewhere you will find Skinner also arguing that Hobbes' interpretation of the obligations of de facto holders of sovereign power over alternative claimants was useful in justifying the move to restoration, and indeed the "glorious revolution" twenty eight years later. That's the beauty of a wishy washy political philosophy - it's flexible. It's just no good as a rallying point for those pushing a political doctrine, which is why Hobbes was suspected by all sides, and probably also why he survived into old age.
< -
Message 24
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Monday, 4th April 2011
Wow, Temp, I thought you didn't like me any more...
I'm afraid I've nowt to add re Hobbes, whom I haven't read since 1st year as an undergrad. My main remaining beef with this thread is with Minette's apparent lumping-together of Charles I's opponents as 'Cromwellians'.
"Regius Professor of History at the University of Cambridge". Crikey - posh enough even for Catigern!Ìý
I'm not especially posh, I'm afraid, being a northern interloper at Oxford with no connection, past or present, with Christ Church, which is where all the real aristos are to be found. I suppose I count myself posher than anyone at Fen Poly, though, but that says more about what I think of them than how I feel about myself...
The last time I was in That Place in East Anglia, the signs at the railway station said...
...wait for it...
'Welcome to Cambridge - Â鶹ԼÅÄ of Anglia Ruskin University' -
Message 25
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Monday, 4th April 2011
I am assuming that "Cromwellians" means anyone with nasal warts. Other than that I can't think of any sizeable group at the time which might have adopted the autonym.
-
Message 26
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Monday, 4th April 2011
Thanks, Nordmann. You - like Andrew Spencer - take the time and trouble to explain things. It is appreciated.
Must go and post something on "The Tudors" thread now. -
Message 27
Posted by Minette Minor (U14272111) on Monday, 4th April 2011
It seems to me that the reason for this post has been lost! PJP was writing his disertation and wanted some guidance or at least moral support and no one answered. I simply wanted to back him up. I think when I began to post on these boards they were gentler times, I could name many names of kindly posters now sadly gone, but there wasn't this air of competition, it was more relaxed.
All I wished to do was to make PJP feel less awkward, he may be a great contributor to the boards, I felt awkward that he did! And then the Games began! I had to be "abused" by own personal stalker and so felt I had to defuse the situation. I mentioned Hobbes! Why oh why didn't I use Hegel, Engles and Marx? More pertinent, and useful if more confusing. And the experts piled in. I apologize for being so "emphatic" Islandawn, at least Nordmann has explained all to you all.
It seems that PJP has been lost in all of this. The individual. As always.
I used to adore John Stuart Mill especially his Essay on Liberty, which I had to read at least ten times before I "got it". How I wanted to leap around the Library asking everyone to read it! I realized why I was a natural Liberal. Utilitarianism made total sense. But those days are long gone. The Liberals are no more.
As has been said, for a ministerial car and a red box the Lib Dems, who for the first time in recent history had been able to put their message across to one and all, and people actually registered to vote for them, sold out. I had thought it impossible. I'd stuffed enveloped for them, knocked on doors for them, been ridiculed for supporting them since at school! And yet when I saw Nick Clegg at the Hustings I disliked him in seconds. Instinct?
I knew Simon Hughes' parents and thought he was great when at Brecon College. Now, llike Marley's Ghost he trails his "conscience" around like a chain and I don't even feel sorry for him. ALL politicians are grey and the only mentor they have is Machiavelli. I used to be interested in politics, I actually loved it. No more. Political Philosophy is only a brain teaser, it means nothing. Sod Hobbes and his Leviathen, stupid title! Only the individual matters and the sad old "milk of human kindness". I don't care for your cliques and CABALS.
Say what you like about my lack of knowledge of Hobbes, I am trying to forget all ever knew about political philosophy. I should have read History and Banking, far more useful. Cold hard cash.
My apologies PJP, if you are still here! And best of luck. Minette. -
Message 28
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Tuesday, 5th April 2011
I mentioned Hobbes! Why oh why didn't I use Hegel, Engles [sic] and Marx?
Ìý
Probably because the rhetorical query "If not for Engels and Marx and their "Communist Manifesto" would the Cromwellians have ever had the courage to overthrow and kill a King?" would have been only slightly more ludicrous than the one you posited, I would suggest.
I could name many names of kindly posters now sadly gone
Ìý
I could name a few of them over the years too - whose contributions sadly and suddenly disappeared after personal and totally unwarranted tirades of abuse from yourself, Minette (gentler times indeed!). You may complain (with some justification) of Catigern's ad hominems which are frequently directed against you and are often cringeworthy in their abject childishness and pettiness, but the "reap what you sow" analogy springs to mind here, and it is somewhat disingenuous of you to feign innocence in this regard, just as it is to attempt to hoodwink newcomers into believing you are somehow the one maligned. At least I am assuming it is newcomers to whom you present your mendacious case. Those of us who have been contributing here for any length of time have become rather familiar with your actual behaviour and are growing all the more tired and even contemptuous of both your opprobrious behaviour and your fraudulent defences for it.
I am trying to forget all [I] ever knew about political philosophy
Ìý
On current evidence you have succeeded in your effort remarkably well. But then your past record with regard to completely forgetting history, good manners and the ability to be honest suggests that this latest achievement of yours was a doddle. -
Message 29
Posted by Thomas_II (U14690627) on Tuesday, 5th April 2011
I could name a few of them over the years too - whose contributions sadly and suddenly disappeared after personal and totally unwarranted tirades of abuse from yourself, Minette (gentler times indeed!).Ìý
Lets be fair Nordmann, those who left these boards did so not for their disagreements or even troubles with Minette.
I remember the time very well, as if it was just yesterday, when some nearly six years ago a number of up to ten to twenty members from these boards moved to set up their own history mbs. They created an equal boards, following the patterns of these Â鶹ԼÅÄ MBs. I´ve joined them as well then. But the main reason for this, was the outrage of the people upon the "topic restrictions" by the Â鶹ԼÅÄ Hosts and Moderators. This was, as far as I´m right, before Andrew Host took over these boards.
In the first half of a years since they started, the other boards seemed to go very well, but as I was posting on both boards, I ceased to post on the other and stuck on the Â鶹ԼÅÄ. I don´t know whether the other boards are still running, some members like Paul Ryckier may be able to tell about that.
I would - rather than to blame Minette - put the activities on these boards in account by considering what it is like to newcomers to attract them to stay and post on the Â鶹ԼÅÄ History MBs.
Maybe it was that "competitive attitude" on these boards in the past, that made them vivid. But we all had to go through the time when some trolls were on here to spoil threads and causing lots of trouble. They´re gone and this is to thank Andrew Host in the first place, because he managed it to get rid of them.
I wasn´t intended to advocate Minette, just to point out a few things from the past of these boards, that seems important to me.
In a time, when Â鶹ԼÅÄ MBs one after another are getting closed down, I think it would be better to use the time we are able to post on here. Nobody knows the time when the Â鶹ԼÅÄ is going to close these boards as well, the decision will be made without hearing the contributors, but the time left after the announcement, will be short. On the last closed Â鶹ԼÅÄ MBs it was less than a fortnight.
Regards,
Thomas -
Message 30
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Tuesday, 5th April 2011
Lets be fair Nordmann, those who left these boards did so not for their disagreements or even troubles with Minette.
Ìý
You are not referring to the same people as I am, Thomas. Many people cease contributing here for many reasons - I am only addressing those who Minette has attacked.
Ask Minette to forward you the "reply" she made to raundsgirl just a few weeks ago, for example. Only Minette has a copy of it now since the moderators quite rightly deleted it, but unfortunately not until after the damage had been done and a prospective contributor had been publicly, grossly, extremely personally and cruelly insulted by Minette for daring to voice an opinion contrary to her own, and in her first attempt to engage in a discussion here.
Her frequent factual errors are not an issue in my book, except in that they present opportunity for debate in their correction and in that sense serve a purpose here. What I object to is the blatant dishonesty in her posts when attempting to "defend" her behaviour in the above regard, or more often simply denying it and thus fraudulently attempting to make herself out to be the "victim". It is all very childish, and all too often serves to derail discussion threads in which it is inserted. -
Message 31
Posted by Thomas_II (U14690627) on Tuesday, 5th April 2011
In reply to Minette Minor:
... but there wasn't this air of competition, it was more relaxed.Ìý
The air of competition was always on here, sometimes more and less. Maybe you´ve either missed to realise that or you didn´t take part in threads where "the air of competition" was leading.
For some of the posters who left these boards, the term of "relaxed" meant to them too much, as to say they were bored. Like that man from NI (I can´t remember his name right now) who was involved in some threads about the troubles there and who told me about the "Work Houses" for the first time. He also posted interesting messages. Well he once told me, that the activity on the History MBs are that low that he decided to post on other Â鶹ԼÅÄ MBs. He had his arguments with Cass at the time, but nobody would suppose that he left these boards because of Cass.
How I wanted to leap around the Library asking everyone to read it! I realized why I was a natural Liberal. Utilitarianism made total sense. But those days are long gone. The Liberals are no more.
As has been said, for a ministerial car and a red box the Lib Dems, who for the first time in recent history had been able to put their message across to one and all, and people actually registered to vote for them, sold out. I had thought it impossible. I'd stuffed enveloped for them, knocked on doors for them, been ridiculed for supporting them since at school! And yet when I saw Nick Clegg at the Hustings I disliked him in seconds. Instinct?
I knew Simon Hughes' parents and thought he was great when at Brecon College. Now, llike Marley's Ghost he trails his "conscience" around like a chain and I don't even feel sorry for him. ALL politicians are grey and the only mentor they have is Machiavelli. I used to be interested in politics, I actually loved it. No more. Political Philosophy is only a brain teaser, it means nothing. Sod Hobbes and his Leviathen, stupid title! Only the individual matters and the sad old "milk of human kindness". I don't care for your cliques and CABALS. Ìý
I´m sorry that you´ve been awaked from your dreams by such a harsh way, but maybe you´ve seen politics more from the idealistic point of view than from the "real politics" one.
It has become natural for political parties that, once they get into power, they have to deal with real politics and this also means to betray ideas they stood for before.
If you don´t have your own picture what Liberalism means to yourself, then it is no wonder that you´re so much disappointed.
Anyway, cheer up yourself
-
Message 32
Posted by Thomas_II (U14690627) on Tuesday, 5th April 2011
You are not referring to the same people as I am, Thomas. Many people cease contributing here for many reasons - I am only addressing those who Minette has attacked.Ìý
It appears to me that this might be the case indeed, Nordmann. But how can you be sure of that Minette was the reason for them to leave these boards, unless they´ve told you so.
Ask Minette to forward you the "reply" she made to raundsgirl just a few weeks ago, for example. Only Minette has a copy of it now since the moderators quite rightly deleted it, but unfortunately not until after the damage had been done and a prospective contributor had been publicly, grossly, extremely personally and cruelly insulted by Minette for daring to voice an opinion contrary to her own, and in her first attempt to engage in a discussion here.Ìý
I think I can spare to ask her, because she probably won´t doing this and I´m not intended to bring such a post back on here. I know her as a more impulsive poster and if she misbehaved the way you said, it´s very regrettable to notice that.
What I object to is the blatant dishonesty in her posts when attempting to "defend" her behaviour in the above regard, or more often simply denying it and thus fraudulently attempting to make herself out to be the "victim". It is all very childish, and all too often serves to derail discussion threads in which it is inserted.Ìý
Agreed, Nordmann. I would support such twisting either. -
Message 33
Posted by Thomas_II (U14690627) on Tuesday, 5th April 2011
I would support such twisting either.Ìý
Correction, it should be read "I wouldn´t support such twisting either". -
Message 34
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Tuesday, 5th April 2011
Sorry but can we get back to the topic now?
Minette is an attention seeker and has ever sought to side-line topics onto a discussion of herself, I've fallen for it myself many times and am heartily tired of it.
Debate Minette's historical opinions by all means but her frequent, over long and self centered ramblings would, like with any child, be best ignored. -
Message 35
Posted by Thomas_II (U14690627) on Tuesday, 5th April 2011
In reply to islanddawn:
Sorry but can we get back to the topic now?Ìý
Of course, but I´ve never had to write a dissertation and consquently, I better cease to post on this topic, as far as I don´t have to respond to a post.
For your other paragraphs: I got your message. -
Message 36
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Tuesday, 5th April 2011
...Catigern's ad hominems which are frequently directed against you and are often cringeworthy in their abject childishness and pettinessÌý
Fair comment - I only use the tactics I do when dealing with Minette because of their proven effectiveness in making her explode and splutter... -
Message 37
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Tuesday, 5th April 2011
Well I suppose we could all now start howling, "Burn the witch!" or break into a rousing chorus of "What a day for an auto-da-fe!".
Please, please can we *all* get back to good humour and history? Catigern and Minette *have* both acted like twits, but no twit is irredeemable. (As a recovering twit myself, I do hope not.) Little birds in their nest agree, children, or get their necks wrung.
PJP - apologies - you've really only received good advice here from raundsgirl, Anglo-Norman and Nordmann (his comments about the careful use of language). I've never done a History dissertation, so I'm no use at all. I do agree with A-N though - think about the wording of your title very, very carefully.
Sorry about all the Thomas Hobbes stuff. All very interesting, but not what your thread is about.
Please don't hold back from contributing because of "embarrassing lack of knowledge"! I know very little about Richard II - only what Shakespeare has written - a thread on him (Richard II that is) would be good. Was he really as useless as they say? -
Message 38
Posted by Andrew Spencer (U1875271) on Thursday, 7th April 2011
Dear PJP
I hope you enjoy writing your dissertation, sounds like a really good topic that you have chosen. The Great Schism had a huge effect on European geo-politics and one wonders had England had a more effective king on the throne that Richard during the 1370s and 1380s then he might have taken more advantage of the situation.
Richard is a fascinating king, trapped by the events of his youth and a man who failed to grasp the lessons of what proper kingship was all about. I hope you enjoy writing your dissertation, it's a great chance to really go into things in deoth and establish your own opinion and back it up.
My dissertation was on Bishop John Grandisson of Exeter, bishop from 1327 to 1369, so just before Richard's reign.
All the best
Andrew -
Message 39
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Thursday, 7th April 2011
Welcome back, Andrew! Can I tempt you over to the 'Cult of Henry VI' thread - someone has just asked whether 'longshanks' was 'just evil'...
If you join us, I promise not to mention either the Boat Race or this year's 'University Challenge'...
-
Message 40
Posted by Minette Minor (U14272111) on Friday, 8th April 2011
Dear Nordmann and Islandawn,
I take it you do not like me. You have never met me and know little of me apart from what you wish to believe. Sadly I have a passion for History but think it unlikely that I have ever driven anyone from the Boards, that was unfair. If I believed that I had I would be mortified. I don't think as you do, in "personalities" simply in what people write. I believe in fairness, you appear to carry notebooks around in which you record what people have said. Why? This Board is about History. It is not a popularity contest.
I could say all manner of things about you but choose not to. I actually like Raundsgirl and her posts and hold Thomas II in high regard as well as many other people. You have no idea of what I think. I can only wonder why I cause you such anger. If you like I could real through my "removed posts" and let you know what was said, but that would not be allowed. But such venom shocks me.
Yet I am the venomous one, I must remember that! Such childishness. Perhaps on my part as well as yours but I really have no recall of the viscious attacks you state I have made. This is a debating society/board not a place to win friends! That is for Real Life. Why do you bother? Life is simply too short.
Minette. -
Message 41
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Friday, 8th April 2011
...in high regard as well as many other people.Ìý
Cheers, Babe!
-
Message 42
Posted by Thomas_II (U14690627) on Monday, 11th April 2011
In reply to Minette Minor:
I actually like Raundsgirl and her posts and hold Thomas II in high regard as well as many other people.Ìý
Thanks for that, Minette.
Dear Nordmann and Islandawn,
I take it you do not like me. You have never met me and know little of me apart from what you wish to believe. Ìý
I´ve the same impression, obviously from what the mentioned members posted on these boards, addressed to you.
Sadly I have a passion for History but think it unlikely that I have ever driven anyone from the Boards, that was unfair.Ìý
Keep up with your passion for History and post on these boards as long as they´re open. I do not believe that you´ve driven anyone from these boards. Such assertions aren´t proved yet and as long as those you might had been driven away from here by your posts don´t say so, it is left to everyone to assume whether this might had been the case or not.
I say to that, that if someone is fed up with these boards then he / she leaves anyway, to take it as an excuse for doing so by claiming it´s about your posts, is quite right unfair.
I don't think as you do, in "personalities" simply in what people write. ....
This is a debating society/board not a place to win friends! That is for Real Life. Why do you bother? Life is simply too short.Ìý
These seems to be some of the real reasons for why some people left these boards and never came back.
Through the years, since I know you on these boards, you´ve had some great deals of arguments and debates with various posters on here, but there were always some people who joined the debate with you. I´m rather sure, there will be people on here joining debates with you (again) as long as these boards are open.
This thread was - imo - last week nearly in danger to drift into a "Minette-bashing" thread, but it hasn´t turned into that (yet) and I hope it won´t. Either way, it has left a bad taste to me.
Regards,
Thomas -
Message 43
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Wednesday, 13th April 2011
PJP
Going back to your OP I read it with some concern. For a start why apologise for your chosen theme? I find that quite incredible..
You seem to assume that this is an essentially boring or rather undynamic field of study, while I would think exactly the reverse.
Rather old now, but if you have not encountered it as a specialist in this field I would recommend G.G. Coulton's "Medieval Panorama" first edition 1938 Cambridge University Press. Writing as Europe was plunging into a new Dark Age Coulton writes with an acute awareness of the overall nature of the Middle Ages forged initially in "The Cauldron of God's Wrath".
The work also draws on Coulton's wider writing as a leading historian of the Medieval Church and Lollardy. And he brings out very clearly the impact of the Black Death and the way that it encouraged an existing tendency towards freethought and questionning from places like Paris and Padua. The seismic changes involved in the Great Schism that resulted from this shifting of the ground are surely dramatic enough, and from a purely English point of view (and after all English foreign policy had England as its foundations) there were all those uncertainties asociated with the economic and social forces that were unleashed in the aftermath of the Black Death.
And presumably when dealing with foreign policy- especially in this period- you will be dealing with the relationship between the English court and the two papal courts.
Dom David Knowles has a very interesting chapter in "Saints and Scholars" on John Wyclif. It is obvious that as a Cambridge historian and also a Benedictine monk, Professor Knowles may well have been given privileged access to the Wyclif material stored in the Roman archives: material which tests the venerable Knowles' Christian charity to breaking point. He describes Wyclif's work in the letters that he sent out like ICBM's as blue-prints for the revolution that came with the Reformation.
Presumably there was some co-operation with the English state involved in the suppression of this material.
And, as if the wider issues were not enough, there were all the particularities and issues involved with Richard II himself- a child King, and then as was implied by the manner of his death a gay man in an age of macho-chivalry.
As for my own studies, I do not recall doing a dissertation. My final year specialisation was the Soviet Economy of Stalin's Five Year Plans- a course specifically designed for students taking joint History and Economics, which I was not. I studied History at Bristol and got a 2/2.
My other thought was to wonder why you should be interested in other people's dissertations at this point..
Just get on with your own and make sure that you "get a life" as well. Among many weird things I imposed upon myself in my student days, in addition to taking perhaps very challenging options for me, was the discipline of getting away from the desk and the books- not least the day before exams begin.
As in preparing for major games, get the hard work in early so that you can pull your foot off the accelerator. If you have any brains give them a chance of being able to function well when it really counts- and avoid brain-fag.
Cass -
Message 44
Posted by PJP (U2236559) on Thursday, 21st April 2011
Wowzers, I've just remembered this post and seen how many replies it has! To be honest, I totally forgot I posted this as I was caught up in the dissertation itself but thank you for all the kind replies, best wishes and advice.
I've skimmed the responses and taken some of it on board but I must confess, I ignored the off topic debate!
For anyone interested, it's all going well, half way through.
The first chapter examines the Great Schism's effect on the hundred years war, the Despenser crusade, Richard's marriage to Anne of Bohemia and the English invasion of Scotland in 1385. I argue that traditional historiography places too much emphasis on England exploiting the schism and thus neglects the fact that Rome in turn exploited English desire to fight the French.
The second chapter is currently being written (hence my break to check this board!) and looks at lollardy. Did the Great Schism encourage lollardy? Did Lollardy drive attitudes towards the schism? And perhaps most importantly, was Richard II influenced by the lollard movement in any way? His fathers close associates and some of those surrounding him in his early years had lollard links, Wyclif himself was even Gaunt's patron. Did this lollard influence lessen Richard's haste to end the schism? I think perhaps so!
And finally, I will look at the statute of provisors and praemunire in the final chapter, as well as the concordat with the papacy signed at the end of Richard's reign to see if direct papal relations offer us any insight into the affect of the Great Schism on English politics. This chapter is not researched fully yet!
I think the influence of the Great Schism on England in Richard II's reign has perhaps been underplayed by historians, there is not a great deal written specifically on the English reaction to the Schism aside from Perroy's seminal work which is only in French and so sadly I can not read of reference!! I have made that clear in my introduction though.
Will quickly comment on the Richard II thread and then won't be back until it's handed in!
Have a good few weeks one and all.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.