Remember to include discussion of the Approaches to Learning (ATL's) in your reflections. This discussion needs to be specific and well-illustrated with clear examples. For specific language related to each of the ATL's, please click here.
This will be after one of the early sessions with your supervisor where you outline:
Guiding Questions:
I was attracted to Anna Comnena's The Alexiad as a result of some extra readings which formed part of my IB History course (Crusades). As the first female historian, she stands in a unique place in terms of historiography, something which appealed to me as both a woman and budding historian. I was initially considering writing about her accounts of the First Crusade but quickly found the topic to be far too wide in scope. A reading of Paul Magdalino's article "The Pen of the Aunt" helped refocus me on the issue of historical purpose, i.e., why she wrote the history she did. I have now allocated time to reading historical accounts of Manuel I's reign to decide how closely the events Anna mentions in her history of her father's reign (Alexius) so as to validate my current hypothesis- that Anna intended the work as a celebratory account of her father so as to cast a negative light on the rule of her nephew Manuel I. My current list includes Runciman, France, Macrides, Christomides, and Hill.
This reflection session will usually fall somewhere in the middle to latter half of your EE process, usually before the first draft is completed.
Guiding Questions:
I was finding it hard to come up with a satisfactory counter to the question of accuracy and authenticity which feature prominently in modern readings of her work. Historians ranging from Edward Gibbon and John France to the more direct Howard-Johnson paper which completely challenges her authorship effectively negated my hypothesis entirely. Using Magdalino and Hill as a focus point, I re-read key sections of The Alexiad and mapped out her account against the policital events of Manuel I's reign and quickly discovered some interesting overlaps (building works, military campaigns, relations with the West, etc.). Though occasionally obscure and subtle, the criticisms emerge by means of an unspoken comparison which Byzantine readers of her account would have well understood. This approach is providing me with a suitable counter to the aforementioned criticisms. I have also begun structuring my work accordingly with sections devoted to historical context followed by a section on The Alexiad which compares and contrasts events from Alexius' time with those of Manuel's. I am considering a chapter on the historiographical tradition of Byzantium but may integrate it into the main body in the end.
This final reflection should be written BEFORE the Viva Voce meeting. It should:
Guiding Questions
I am very pleased with how the essay has turned out. Skills wise, I had no problems with referencing which I picked up quickly though integrating source analysis did prove a challenge at times due to my narrative tendencies. I believe I've been able to challenge the orthodox interpretations of Anna's work as a piece of fantasy fiction at the hands of a disgruntled woman by showing that Anna was effectively using one of the few weapons still permitted her in her diminished political state- the power of words- to criticize the existing leadership. Hill's works proved of particular use to me as they examined female power in a broader context and thus gave me a framework for interpreting what Anna was able to do within the context of her time.
