Week 1

Meeting 1    8/27 Introductory exercise: “In a Grove” – what happened (From –> To)? Organizing and evaluating
                  evidence; “Questions and Answers” (Q&A) sheet.

Difficulty with seating arrangements in the room – both large tables/chairs and moveable desks, but not enough
of either. We’ve requested that room be outfitted with moveable desks, only.

Introductory exercise: Distributed xerox copies of the short story, “In a Grove.” The testimonies which make up
the story were already shuffled to randomize the order in which they are read, collectively; but the continuation
page of testimony #7 needs to be positioned after #7.

          – on 11x17" sheet, formulate (in whatever manner seems satisfactory) an overview of what the available
     evidence suggest happened in terms of historical chronology (before, during, and after the events in the
     grove). Note the testimony number in parentheses, eg., (7). You will find conflicting evidence, which you
     should include. This sheet becomes an example of the structure of argument (SoA) worksheets we will be
     using this semester.

          – fold a sheet of paper in half, lengthwise. Write “Questions” on the left side, “Answers” on the right
     side. As you proceed through the short story, jot down your questions as they emerge; note the testimony
     number in parentheses. If subsequent testimony answers a question, write it down and also note the
     testimony number in parentheses. If you do not find answers to questions, leave them blank. This
     exercise is an example of the Q&A notebooks you will be keeping.

Group discussion of your findings.

Distributed and highlighted several sections of the syllabus.

Homework: (1) Complete the SoA sheet on what happened, including multiple accounts and citations for the
testimony numbers where you located evidence. (2) Complete the Q&A sheet. (3) Review the syllabus. (4) Read
chs 1-4 in Hillerman’s Dark Wind; note in margins any items you would have written on a Q&A sheet, if you
were keeping one.


 Meeting 2    8/29     “In a Grove” – why it happened (Because)? Structure of argument –> thesis statement.
                      Hillerman, chapters 1-4; shuffle and basic groups (Worksheets: S, SoA, TC + Q&A notebook).

Set up chairs in five groups of four/five, each.

Discuss any questions about the syllabus, especially expectations and figuring the course mark.

Discussion of “In a Grove” testimonies, Q&A sheets, and SoAs about what happened (From –> To).
 –> is any one account most persuasive, based on weighing the evidence?
 –> evidence & speculation about why it happened?
 –> stepping back from the accounts and the evidence to interpret the author’s message (thesis statement).

Hillerman exercises:
 – Summation (S) worksheet: a few lines that summarize happenings in each chapter; do 1 & 2 together.
 – SoA worksheet: this time, we’ll use this worksheet to keep track of Chee’s case-load; begin w/ ch. 3.
          – TC (Thematic Clustering) of potential evidence (for citation in discussion or writing): Chee’s
     methodology and manner of detective reasoning. For example, looking for the logical/the expected (21),
     noting the page number where you found the evidence; asking questions (22); posing possible scenarios
     (21).

Homework: Read Hillerman, Dark Wind, chs. 5-21; continue the SoA for the case-load, noting breaks in each, only (not
minor details. Continue with TC on Chee’s methodology and manner of detective reasoning. Please purchase a Composition notebook and bring to class.


Week 2

Meeting 3   9/3  Hillerman, chs. 5-21 (continue SoA and TC). Weekly Reading & Writing (R&W) log.

Seating by basic groups, set up on basis of the worksheets handed in on Thursday and the information
sheets.

“In a Grove”: facts, traces, and evidence; criteria for selection of evidence; working from a hypothesis
that’s verifiable and falsifiable; role of feelings, intuition, and personal points of view in selection of
evidence.

Hillerman:
          – purpose of the SoA is to establish how Hillerman constructed his novel.
          – purpose of the TC (thematic cluster) sheets is to assess how Hillerman depicts Chee’s methods
         of detection.

           Does Chee construct an interpretation/explanation from the evidence he considers reliable? Does
           he construct a plausible narrative of what may have happened for the crimes he’s investigating?
                                                                                      Or
           Does Chee discover evidence that progressively helps him re-construct what actually happened?

         Are there parallels, with either approach, to what historians do and how they do it?
                      – Q&A notebook: setting it up and how to use it.

Introducing the Weekly Reading and Writing Logs.


Meeting 4   9/5  Due: Hillerman, chs. 22-30  (SoA and TC). Schama, 3-20, 66-70, 319-30.  Stone, “History and
          Post-Modernism,” and “History and Post-Modernism, III”; entries in Q&A Notebook.

Returned Hillerman worksheets handed in on Tuesday. Place Hillerman SoA and TC in group folder and
hand in; we herewith begin an out-of-sync schedule, deferring discussion of remainder of Dark Wind to
Tuesday (after instructor has reviewed the worksheets).

Group discussions of assigned pages in Schama:
 – what event is he describing? What facts about it does he cite? Assume?
 – whose perspectives on this event are presented?
 – what traces of this event exist?
  –> from those traces, what evidence does Schama extract/select?
                              –> how does he interpret this event? That is, what kind of narratives does he
               construct or re-construct?
 [during group discussions, instructor will review/check entries in the Q&A notebooks, then
return them]
 General discussion of Schama.

Distribute handout on Novick’s chapter.

Homework: Summation (S) worksheet, several sentences to short paragraph, on Novick’s discussion of
the background to the objectivity question -- what constitutes evidence about the past and how historians
should access and interpret it. Jenkins, all front matter - 26 (S worksheet on Jenkins’ view of the
objectivity question), 59-70 (no worksheet required); read all relevant notes, 71-77. Entries for both
Novick and Jenkins in Q&A Notebook; what questions do you have about their treatment of the
objectivity question. Maintain R&W log sheets; to be handed in on Tuesday.


                                                                                        Week 3

 Meeting 5   9/10 Put in group folders S worksheets on the objectivity question in Novick (selection from That Noble Dream) and Jenkins (all front matter - 26), and the R&W log.

Review the continuum chart on historical objectivity that we preliminarily sketched out at the last meeting:

                              \_____________________________________________________/

                     Unrealizable/                                                                                        Ideal goal/
                     undesirable                                                                                            Attainable
                        post-modern                                                                                      Modern

In Q&A notebooks, turn to page on Schama and write the following questions about his narrative concerning the death of General Wolfe:
 – What kinds of traces/evidence does he consider acceptable for an historian to use?
 – Does he think a real past exists, independent of how historians represent it?
 – Where should I place Schama’s narrative on my continuum, and why?

Discuss Stone’s “note” about the three threats to the professional definitions of history (its subject matter, data, and problem) that have resulted in “a crisis of self-confidence” among historians (“History and Post-Modernism, I”):
 – linguistics/de-construction: new definitions of texts and truth.
 – cultural and symbolic anthropology: the real, the imagined, and semiotic codes.
 – New Historicism: a variant on the linguistic and the symbolic emphasis on language as the medium through which reality is constructed.
     “History and Post-Modernism, III”:
 – Why include a list of 6 expectations of professional history (in the 1940s and 1950s) if his point was solely to draw attention to Spiegel’s article?
 – unpack Stone’s usage of  “the real,” “perceptions and representations of reality,” “reality itself,” “history,” “fact and fiction.”
     Why did Stone go ballistic at the publication of Dead Certainties?

In Q&A notebooks, turn to page on Stone and write the following questions about his contributions to the debate in Past & Present:
 – How does he believe historians should access and interpret and interpret the past?
 – What is his position on the historical objectivity question, and where should he be placed on the continuum?

Discussion of the elements of detective reasoning, as represented by Hillerman’s character, Jim Chee. Return to the objectives and questions raised in meeting 3, when the novel was first assigned:
 – purpose of the SoA is to de-construct Hillerman’s novel: what did you find? Which cases intertwined?
 – purpose of the TC (thematic cluster) sheets is to assess how Hillerman depicts Chee’s methods of detection:
  What are Chee’s “signature” approaches to solving a case?

          Does Chee construct an interpretation/explanation from the evidence he considers reliable? Does he construct a plausible narrative of what may have happened for the crimes he’s investigating?
                                                                                      or
             Does Chee discover evidence that progressively helps him re-construct what actually happened?

             Are there parallels, with either approach, to what historians do and how they do it?

Homework: Read Evans, 1-63 (intro + two chapters) and prepare a TC – that is, cluster potential evidence for two themes: historical objectivity (what it is, is it possible, etc.) and the interpretation of evidence (proper and improper). Read Jenkins, 53-57; no worksheet required.


Meeting 6   9/12 Evans, 1-63 (and relevant notes, 221ff); TC on two themes, historical objectivity and  the interpretation of evidence (proper and improper). Jenkins, 53-57; no worksheet.

General comments about the purpose of the different worksheets – the process of learning vs. certifying that you “got it right.”

Discussion of the elements of detective reasoning, as represented by Hillerman’s character, Jim Chee. Return to the objectives and questions raised in meeting 3, when the novel was first assigned:
         – purpose of the SoA is to de-construct Hillerman’s novel: what did you find? Which cases intertwined?
         – purpose of the TC (thematic cluster) sheets is to assess how Hillerman depicts Chee’s methods of detection:
  What are Chee’s “signature” approaches to solving a case?

          Does Chee construct an interpretation/explanation from the evidence he considers reliable? Does he construct a plausible narrative of what may have happened for the crimes he’s investigating?
                                                                                      or
 Does Chee discover evidence that progressively helps him re-construct what actually happened?

 Are there parallels, with either approach, to what historians do and how they do it?

Discussion of the windmill case in terms of these questions. Does Chee find out who killed Musket? Does he find out what Musket’s role was in the drug business? How West found out about it? Etc.
 

Summation worksheet on Novick, That Noble Dream (chapter on European background): S worksheets should respond to the assigned focus, in this instance a summation/overview of Novick’s argument about the assigned topic,  objectivity, in the German form that American students confronted when they trained there in the nineteenth century, how they misunderstood its meaning, and what the Americans came to believe that objective historians are supposed to do with “the facts” they uncover:

     – What is the German meaning of objectivity? How/why did the American scholars training in Germany come to misunderstand it? How did the misunderstood version become established as professional dogma?
      – what constitutes “facts” within the German idealist model?
     – Objective historians are supposed to discover “what actually happened.” What constitutes the evidence to do this? How is it to be done?

 Jenkins, Re-Thinking History: Questions we’ll discuss on Tuesday:

 – what does he mean by “doing history”?
 – what’s the difference between history and the past?
 – what’s his distinction between traces and evidence?
 – does he think a historical reality existed outside our attempts to interpret it?
 – what are his – “heartland” concepts (15-19)?
 – how does a professional historian practice?

Stock-taking on current thinking and understanding of the objectivity question with respect to what constitutes evidence and the role of the historian.


Week 4

Meeting 7    9/17 Evans, 65-137 (and relevant notes); continue TC. Jenkins, 36-53. R&W log.

Comments on the TCs handed in last week: some check-minuses given; some not handed in at all. Clarify expectations for the TC – enter page numbers and brief phrase, in your own words, where the assigned themes appear in the reading. Avoid writing out quotations. Before handing in the TC due today, write out a brief stock-taking of your current understanding and what you would continue and/or do differently on the one due at the next meeting.

Jenkins, Re-Thinking History: What is involved in “doing history” as distinct from “doing” other disciplines (fields of study)?
 – Introduction: reflexive philosophies of history; discourses; “doing history.” Reflexive philosophies of history; British variant on “doing history” vs. U.S. usage and expectations (carries over to use of “historiography” and when it is appropriate to introduce history workshops).

 Jenkins, Chapter 1 [seminar discussion]:
          – history vs. the past (6).
          – “discoursing” (8).
          – the landscape as example of historical reality (9).
          – historical epistemology: personal constructions of the past vs. license (10-11).
          – “heartland” concepts and ideology (15-19).
          – professional and popular history: process flow-chart for making histories (20-26).

Stock-taking on current thinking and understanding of the objectivity question with respect to what constitutes evidence and the role of the historian.
         – discuss the opening paragraph expectations for the review essay on Mattingly’s The Armada.
         – Q&A Notebook: on sheet for Novick, write “What is objectivity?” and “What is the objectivity question?”
         – Think through this for next meeting, and jot down answers & any new questions.

Evans, In Defense of History.
         Discuss Introduction as seminar: Post-modernism is a viable challenge to historiography; historians should take it seriously, but not let the critiques from other disciplines, or proponents within history, simply roll over them.



Meeting 8  9/19    Evans, 139-220 (and relevant notes); continue TC. Print copy of Diarium from course web site, using 1" margins top & bottom, 1.5" margins left and right. Font size of your choosing. Bring to class.

        Group responsibilities for Chap. 1: What is modern history as it has emerged since the 19th century? Von Ranke generally acknowledge as a key founding figure of modern professional history because he challenged self-serving, tendentious orientation of Enlightenment historians, but incorporated philosophe-inspired source criticism from the field of philology, which was modeling itself on the natural sciences. But mis-perception of what von Ranke meant by setting goal of history as finding out what actually happened–he meant essentially, and therefore was not an espouser of neutral objectivity as Anglo-American professionalizing historians made him out to be from the late 19th century until the present. By the 1980s, the notion that history should model itself on the natural sciences eventuated in an extreme, anti-narrative orientation by the cliometricians.

         Discuss Chap 2 as seminar, responding to the question, Is history a science or a genre of literature? Evans concluded that history as a discipline (Wissenschaft) is a science in the “weak” sense, like astronomy–“an organized body of knowledge acquired through research carried out according to generally agreed methods,” with public presentations after peer review (62), but not in the “strong” sense -- “frame general laws or predict the future.” Evans also thinks history is an art (can be skillfully presented in form and language on par with other literary works of art), and partly a craft (on-the-job training in working with materials and tools on the apprenticeship model) (63).

The main issues in Evans, chapters 3-5:

         Are there historical facts? Clarify Elton’s formulation of the strict objectivist position. Note especially his discussion of traces and facts (65; 77).
          Evans ascribes much of the problem to a “semantic confusion” (66) – clarify his order of precedence in historical reasoning (66), his reformulation of the objectivity question (69-70), his endorsement of theory in history (what permits us to read against the grain; 72), and how he chides Elton for insisting that there is a single correct correspondence between a source and the relevant event/fact in the past (73). He recommends “academic tolerance” (74) – we can both discover and imaginatively interpret evidence.
          Also Evans on how chance affects what traces survive, and how we can develop interpretations therefrom (75-80).
          Chapter concludes with a section (80-87) on the extreme post-modern obliteration of any viable distinction between history and fiction.

Questions for chapter 4: According to Evans,
        what constitute legitimate uses of evidence and interpretation?
        How viable are post-modern critiques of professional historians’ uses of evidence and interpretation?

 Question for chapter 5. Does Evans think one can establish historical causality? How do his views compare with Evans'?

Distribute blank calendar sheets. Explain how to undertake the first, inductive and chronological, stage of the research process on the G-F controversy. Connect what we are about to undertake to Evans’ comments about the jigsaw puzzle metaphor for making sense of the past to a present audience (75-80).
 

For next meeting: Q&A Notebook: Any answers to the questions posed at last meeting about the certainty/probability of Chee’s evidence, and his interpretation of it, concerning Musket, West, West’s son, etc. and the drug smuggling case?
 

Homework: R&W log for the past week. Print all G-F documents, using same margins as for Diarium. Organize all documents chronologically, cutting pages where necessary; be sure to note the source on each piece, and date if necessary.  Compile a tentative calendar (in pencil) of events, working first from the Diarium, JHoC, and the member’s minutes of meetings.


Week 5

Meeting 9     9/24 Due: R&W log. Have printed all G-F documents, using same margins as for Diarium. Prior to class meeting, organize all documents chronologically, cutting pages where necessary; be sure to note the source on each piece, and date if necessary.  Compile a tentative calendar (in pencil) of events.

Evans: Complete group presentations on chapter 1.
         – Chap 2: overview of SoA and Evans’ conclusion about whether history is an art or a science.
         – Chap 3: pointed out TC entries on objectivity and interpretation of evidence. Next task: formulate a preliminary thesis    statement that hypothesizes Evans’ position on both topics – due Thursday.

Goodwin-Fortescue project:
         – organizing primary sources chronologically: discuss problems encountered; calendar issues; preliminary review of substantive issues.

         – constructing a narrative: SoA, working from the calendar and the chronological organization of primary sources.

Homework: (1) Prepare an SoA that gives an overview of what happened in the G-F dispute each day (include abbreviated source citations that permit you to confirm your evidence). (2) In Q&A notebook, make entries by days of any questions as prepare the SoA. (3) Preliminary Thesis statement for Evans: based on intro and chaps 1-3, what does he argue about historical objectivity and how historians ought to interpret evidence?



Meeting 10     9/26 Due: SoA on G-F dispute (may be an expanded version of the calendars prepared earlier). Preliminary thesis statement for Evans.

G-F project:
         – discussed expectations for the partial first draft of the research paper.
         – draft of thesis paragraph: introduce reader to when & where –> brief overview of the dispute
                   –> identify an interesting/significant topic
                            –> preliminary thesis statement, in which you hypothesize the outcome of the dispute vis-a-vis the topic just identified.

         – chronological organization of the primary documents (at least the four that cover the entire dispute: Diarium, Journal of HoC, Montague Journal, Belvoir Mss.). Discussed various ways this expectation is being met.
                  – checked for completion. Will re-check a few on Tuesday that were incomplete. (This is part of the preparation mark)

         – SoA and Calendars:
                  –> what happened? How? Why?
                               –> developing an overview of the dispute.
                                        –> selecting an interesting topic on which to focus.
                                                     –> the accordion narrative.

Evans: Discussed several preliminary thesis statements.
         – what is Evans’ position on the objectivity question?
         – ideally, what does Evans think historians should/can do and still meet disciplinary expectations.
         – will continue discussion on Tuesday. Review chapter 3.
         – Tuesday, keep following questions in mind for chapter 4: What constitute legitimate uses of evidence and interpretation? How viable are post-modern critiques of professional historians’ uses of evidence and interpretation?

Homework: R&W log for past week; Revise/expand SoA on the G-F dispute; update Q&A notebook on G-F, by days; draft of the thesis paragraph for research essay (including what was noted above); bring Hacker style manual to class.



 
 

Week 6

Meeting 11 10/1     R&W log. Discuss revised SoA and Q&As. Bring draft of opening paragraph(s) of research paper, containing an introduction to the dispute and your interpretation of what happened (your thesis statement). Use of Hacker, Pocket Style Manual, 3rd ed.

Evans and Jenkins in agreement on the order of precedence used by practicing historians (working from Evans, 66-68):
         – historians locate traces of the past.
                  –> facts are traces of events/happenings in the past about which professional historians are in general agreement. Preferably, those traces should be primary sources.
         – historians develop hypotheses <–> interpretations.
         – evidence: traces & facts that historians use to support their interpretations.

 There is a never-ending feedback loop between evaluating new traces/evidence in light of existing interpretations. What does the following quotation from Evans suggest about his position on the objectivity question: “I would be wrong, therefore, to suppose that the historian’s work begins at the archive door. In reality, it begins long before. The historian formulates a thesis, goes looking for evidence, and discovers facts” (67-68).

Continued discussion of the thesis statements about Evans’ position on historical objectivity and what he considers appropriate historical interpretation of evidence.
         – every thesis statement should have declarative (an assertion about the authors position) and explanatory (the “because statement) components.
         – discussed the expectations for the thesis statement at the end of the thesis paragraph for the research essay. Some self-assessment of the thesis paragraph before handing it in.

Distributed cover sheet for the forthcoming first draft of the research essay. Explained expectations and how to use the cover sheet as a check-list toward accomplishing those expectations.
         – explained use of Hacker for the notes and the list of abbreviations.

Homework: revise thesis paragraph and write at least one substantive paragraph of the research essay on G-F dispute.



Meeting 12     10/3

Reviewed common problems in the opening paragraphs of the research essay handed in at the previous meeting:
         – inconsistencies in the overviews of the dispute: some too little to identify what happened, when, and where; others have far too much detail that really belongs in the body of the paper.
         – thesis statements: should not be a question, or a statement of what you intend to do.
         – avoid “I believe” and “I feel.”
         – avoid openings that contain universal assertions about history, life, etc.
         – possible parallels to current events belong in the Afterword.
         – double-space, 12-point font.

 Expectations for first draft: a corrected first draft, in which you have eliminated typos, corrected grammar, syntax, and diction.
         – title page.
         – list of abbreviations used in text and notes.
         – thesis paragraph + a working draft covering the entire dispute.
         – notes: at least one paragraph with superscripts, plus accompanying endnotes; rest may be parenthetical.

Discussed a number of substantive questions about the dispute:
         – what was outlawry in 1604 England?
         – what transpired at the Buckinghamshire “election” that February?
          – first and second knight positions.
         – what dates/calendar to use?
         – King in Parliament; upper and lower house of Parliament.
Homework: R&W log.  Mattingly, preface through chapter i; “A General Note on Sources” (405-09). Then be sure to read the notes (410 ff.) to this chapter, and each chapter hereafter, as soon as you’ve finished each chapter.



 
 

Week 7

     ***  10/7         Draft of partial research essay due in V-J’s box, 301 Morrill Hall, by 3:00 p.m.
 


Meeting 13     10/8
R&W log:
         – clarify what you did (read Evans, read in G-F docs, writing research paper, etc.)
         – may use codes: R = reading, W = writing.
         – be sure to indicate amount of time spent, rounded to nearest quarter hour.

Q&R Notebooks: turn to page where you asked what historians meant by objectivity – write out a short definition.
         – turn to page(s) on Evans: refer to pp. 66-68, and your TCs, and then write a few sentences about the order of precedence (traces, facts, interpretation, and evidence).

 Mattingly, preface: what was his purpose in writing this book? Does he write anything that indicates his view on historical objectivity?
         – ToC: what does it suggest about Mattingly’s SoA?
                  –> recurring assignment as prep for class discussion: keep an SoA, by chapter.
         – the calendar issue.
Mattingly, chapter I and notes: what traces exist about the execution of Mary, Queen of the Scots?
         –> what is Mattingly’s interpretation, and what evidence does he select to support it?
                  –> are any of the traces/evidence ambiguous, problematical, or uncertain?
                 – recurring assignment as prep for the review essay: keep a TC on evidence (first, that which the author considers straight-forward and that which he considers ambiguous, problematical, and uncertain; and second, how his interpretation is affected by the evidence he selects).

Homework: read Mattingly, chs. II - IX; keep an SoA of main happening(s) in each chapter, and a TC on how Mattingly selects evidence and interprets it.


Meeting 14     10/10     Mattingly, chapters ii - ix; SoA and TC due.

Discussed information items in the assigned Mattingly chapters.
Board-work and discussion: SoA for chaps i-ix.

Homework: Mattingly, chapters x-xvi; continue preparing SoA and TC, as instructed.



 
 

Week 8

Meeting 15      10/15     Due: R&W log. Mattingly, chapters x - xvi, including SoA and TC.

Group preparation, followed by seminar discussion, of the following:

Group
   2         1. What was “the Enterprise of England”?
                  Plus, review SoA for chapters i-ix.                  For the SoA, clarify the major message in each chapter.
                                                                                        Do these messages reflect an emerging argument?
   4         2. SoA for chapters x-xvi.

   1         3. Analyze M’s selection of evidence from
                the traces – focus on ambiguous incidents.         For questions 3 & 4, work from TCs.
                                                                                        Where does M fit in the debate about historical objectivity?
   3         4. Analyze M’s emerging interpretation.

For Thursday, prepare chapters xvii-xxiv. Groups 1 and 3 continue with current questions. Group 2 continue with refining the Enterprise issue, and focus on the maps on web site concerning the naval engagements. Group 4 prepare to lead discussion on the SoA for chapters xvii-xxiv.


Meeting 16         10/17 Mattingly, chapters xvii - xxiv.

Group presentations:
         group 2: meaning of “the Enterprise of England.”

         group 3 (M’s interpretation): religion/ideology; possible English bias; great-person view of history.

         group 1 (M’s use of evidence): complexity of human reactions; how he handles differences in witness accounts; how he deals with questionable or biased accounts; how he presents the evidentiary base for different, yet viable, interpretations of the past.

         group 4: Main messages in chapters 13-17, and connections among them.
 

V-J’s four Cs in historiography:
 chronology
 context
 causality
 contingent events

For Tuesday: group 2 will present overview of initial naval engagements. All groups will complete Mattingly with their respective responsibilities in mind.


Week 9

Meeting 17         10/22 R&W log. Mattingly, chapters xxv - epilogue.

Group 2 presentation on naval engagements: recurring themes include sea-worthiness, ordnance, weather, strategies, leadership/seamanship.

Reports by other groups on their respective themes.

Distribute cover sheet for review essay on Mattingly. Discuss expectations, including form and length (note the number of words on the title page).

For Thursday: Ignore schedule of assignments. Instead, review historiography readings (Evans, Noble, Schama, etc.) and prepare a draft of the thesis paragraph to the review essay.


Meeting 18     10/24

Hand in draft of thesis paragraph for check-off.

Basic groups: finish discussing Mattingly.

Review thesis paragraphs and Mattingly in shuffle groups (with at least one person from each basic group represented):
         Kaarina, Ryan, Francyine, Andy, Gary
         Renée, Jacob, Chris, Michele, Amanda
         Liz, Maureen, Jason, Adrian
         Josh, Caren, Kate, Ana

Discuss thesis paragraphs and expectations for the review essay:
         Some don’ts – rhetorical questions; use of “certainly,” “clearly,” and “obvious,” etc.); universal truisms about life, history, etc.; inserting a continuum graph in lieu of prose; left/right instead of post-modern and objectivist.

         Many thesis paragraphs are too long. In many instances, material could be usefully shifted to the concluding paragraph.

         Be sure to include because statements – eg., Stone is essentially a modern objectivist because . . . .


Week 10

          *** 10/28     Review essay due in V-J’s box, 301 Morrill Hall, by 3:00 p.m.


Meeting 19         10/29 R&W log. Bring document pack in chronological order. Scan-read Carrier, 75-98. Revised topic for the final research essay.

Hand in revised topics.

In basic groups, individual presentations of Mattingly’s interpretation of “the Enterprise of England,” the methodology he employed to support that interpretation, and where he fits in the debate about historical objectivity.

G-F research process and project:

         – review expectations for the accordion narrative –> organize focused topics by categories-research shuffle groups.

         – trolling documentary literature for evidence vs. the documents dominating the narrative.

         – the introduction: how approach secondary literature on the event and your topic within that event?

Chapter in Carrier –> Hexter (anthology; intro and article).

For Thursday: read Hexter, and prepare two SoAs, one on intro and the other on the article.


Meeting 20 10/31

Discuss introduction to the research essay:
        1st paragraph: Opening sentence(s) should establish time/place of events. Then give an overview of G-F dispute and a literature review of scholarly interpretations on aspects of the dispute other than your focus topic.

        2nd paragraph: State your focus topic (what it is/any necessary definitions, etc.). Then follow with a literature review of scholarly interpretations on the topic
              –> Establish a research problem in form of a question (scholarly interpretation(s) set forth earlier in this paragraph that you intend to confirm or challenge).
              --> Your thesis statement for this research essay – what will be argued in the Historical Narrative section, and the significance of this argument with respect to existing scholarly interpretations of the G-F dispute (on which you will elaborate in the Afterword).

Discussed Hexter’s introduction (from the OCR version on the course web site): modern notion of “freedom” is not articulated until the Petition of Right – after the G-F dispute in 1604. At that time, medieval concept of “liberties” applies – discussed definitions and distinctions.

For Tuesday: Revise thesis paragraph from first draft of the research essay as a two-paragraph introduction, as discussed in class.


Week 11

Meeting 21 11/5     R&W log. Draft of introduction due.

Peer review of introduction, followed by discussion of the expectations.

Discussed Hexter’s article on the G-F dispute (from the course web site):
         – his topic, focusing on the Humble Answer and the Form of Apology and Satisfaction.
         – how his article reflects the accordion narrative.
         – transparencies showing Hexter’s thesis and documentation notes: substantive vs. pure citations.
         – how one can use notes to locate prospective sources, both primary and secondary. We focused on the article by Lindquist, which is available on the course web site.

For Thursday:  In McGurk, write brief summaries, by section/sub-section, of chapters 1, 7, 8 (entire chapters); For conclusion, only summarize following sections: parliament, Tudor despotism, centralization of authority, and Elizabeth’s later reign. Print/Read Lindquist article.


Meeting 22 11/7 Hand in McGurk summations.

 Established research shuffle groups to people with contiguous topics can meet together. Sat in shuffle groups.

 Distributed and discussed sheet detailing the format and expectations for the final draft of the research essay.

 Brief discussion of Lindquist.

For Tuesday:  Revise introduction and the narrative of the research essay on G-F. Print a copy and bring to class for peer review.


Week 12

Meeting 23 11/12 R&W log. Draft of Intro + narrative due.

Shuffle groups: discuss chapters in McGurk, prepare presentations, and discussed as a class.

Distributed new sheet, modified in light of Tuesday discussion, setting forth expectations for final draft.

Distributed peer review sheets for the intro + narrative; exchanged drafts; bring completed peer review sheets to class on Thursday.

Distributed copies of additional secondary readings, by groups.

For Thursday: Complete peer review sheet. In Graves (course pack, available from SBS), summarize/outline major developments in chapter 1 (entire); chapter 2 (sections on institutional developments, and parliamentary trinity, only); chapter 3 (sections on institutional developments, and legislation and politics, only). In chapter 4, write thesis statements for each of the major interpretations discussed in section on historiography of Eliz parliaments. In chapter 5 (entire) summarize/outline major developments. In chapters 6, 7, 8, scan read and take notes on matters of significance to your topic, only.


Meeting 24 11/14 Graves worksheets. Peer review sheets.

Hand in worksheets prepared for assignments in Graves.

Sit in shuffle groups: Discuss peer review sheet –> return to drafters.
         – Red-line topic, research question, thesis statement, topic sentence of each (expanded) paragraph.
         – then discuss hang-fire questions on the primary sources.
         – Red-bracket secondary authors mentioned in the intro and narrative.
          – at this point, should have included Carrier, McGurk, Graves, and Hexter.
          – Q&A notebook entries.
          – Update on secondary readings; how might they be included in lit review and afterword?
          – expectation that everyone check all secondary sources included on the web site.

For Tuesday: Review Lindquist – what is his thesis? Depending on individual topics, where in the intro lit review should one place a brief thesis statement covering his argument? Who should work his argument into analysis in the narrative and into the afterword (on significance of the dispute)? Locate the Hirst article among the Interpretive Studies, print opening pages (more if on your topic).
        Hand in the red-lined intro + narrative, plus the peer review sheet, prepared this week, along with a revised introduction and complete draft of afterword. Incorporate all commonly assigned secondary readings to date in intro and afterword. Will discuss continuum, so bring notes/readings to class as needed. Must return all borrowed secondary materials; may sign out again if someone else does not want to consult it.


Week 13

Meeting 25     11/19     R&W log. Revised Intro + afterword due, plus the draft of narrative from last week.

Graves, Elizabethan Parliaments: Returned worksheets and reviewed/discussed major points in each chapter.
 
         – Pre-Tudor Parliaments: definitions; emergence of Parliaments as extensions of monarch’s council, with HoL not formalized until 16th century; concept of King and Parliament.

         – Pre-Reformation Parliaments: formalization of procedural uniformity; three readings of bills; privileges; King-in-Parliament.

         – Reformation Parliaments: “sovereignty of the King-in-Parliament, together with the supremacy and omnicompetence of statute, were the most important institutional developments” (11). Absenteeism; grants by grace –> rights and privileges. Conciliar factions.

         – 1558-1559: Religious divisions; dominance of the monarch within Queen-in-Parliament, but some assertiveness from HoC; Crown dominance in localities via lords and gentlemen appointed to administer justice, defense, etc. Historiography of Eliz Parliaments: 1. Evolutionary development of parliaments, interrupted by Tudor despotism. 2. Whig (orthodox) interpretation – Neale and Notestein – evolution, but politically assertive HoC, not Tudor despotism. 3. Revisionist interpretation – Elton and disciples – harmony reigned throughout Tudor period, with parliaments focused on developing/asserting legislative roles and functions.

Discussed draft of Afterword, red-lining and reviewing expectations:
         – the recap of the thesis (but not further discussion of it); historical significance by comparing, in detail, your thesis with the secondary literature affected by your findings (which are confirmed, challenged, or both).

         – the “objectivity question” should be defined, in form of a question; all the defining elements of the two extreme positions on the continuum should be established at the outset; situate all authors from the historiography component of the course, plus your self, on the continuum; then explain your position in terms of the methodology used in the historical narrative.

Due Thursday: preliminary “poster” on the objectivity question. Continue readings in secondary sources.

 


Meeting 26     11/21     Poster for objectivity question.

Returned drafts from 11/12 and 11/19, and commented on general patterns in terms of the expectations set forth in the sheet distributed a few weeks ago.

Reviewed the posters on the objectivity question.

Discussed Graves’ assessment of Tudor Parliaments – what is his thesis, and how does it compare to the three historiographical interpretations set forth in chapter 4?

Due Tuesday: Draft of the entire research paper.


Week 14

Meeting 27       11/26         R&W log. Draft of entire research paper.

Distribute 11x17" sheets to class for use on final examination exercises.

Distribute marking cover sheet for the research paper – clarify expectations and grading criteria, as necessary. Cover sheet to be attached to one copy of the research paper.

Red-line drafts: title page; pagination; all sections; introduction – lit review, research problem, thesis; narrative – circle endnote numbers in two paragraphs, and then compare the notes with Hacker; afterword – recapitulation of thesis (not continuing substantiation) + historical significance (bracket secondary authors discussed); note in margins where you define objectivity question, characterize the extremes; bracket authors situated; circle own name; discussion of methodology.

In the historical narrative, select three unresolved questions/issues from primary sources – write out in Q&A notebook. Discuss in research shuffle groups while instructor checks off drafts.

Return drafts and comment.

Shuffle to final poster presentation groups: Distribute final examination exercises. Select three in each group to present on Tuesday, three on Thursday of last week of classes. Discuss final examination project on Schama’s “Death of a Harvard Man” and the “poster presentations” of argument and historiography in research essay.

Due Tuesday, 12/3: R&W log. “Poster presentations” for half the class. Schama, “Death of a Harvard Man,” chapters 1 & 2; SoA for both chapters; intimations of Schama’s thesis?


          ***     11/27    Two copies of final draft of research essay due in V-J’s box, 301 Morrill Hall, by 4:45 p.m. Will not be picked up until Monday at noon, however.


No class on Thursday 28 November – Thanksgiving Day break.


Week 15

Meeting 28     12/3     R&W log. “Poster presentations.” Schama, “Death of a Harvard Man,” chapters 1 & 2; SoA for both chapters; intimations of Schama’s thesis?
 

 Meeting 29     12/5     “Poster presentations.” Schama, “Death of a Harvard Man,” chapters 3 & 4; SoA for both chapters; intimations of Schama’s thesis?
 

   ***      12/6     Course processfolio, organized according to the check-list provided, due by 3:00 p.m. in 301 MH (look for a box marked HST 201- 5 on counter near V-J’s mailbox).
 


   Final Exam Period     12/12 (Thursday) 12:45 - 2:45 p.m., in regular classroom.     R&W log. Course evaluations. History, fiction, and post-modernism in Schama and Hillerman – detective vs. historical reasoning.