The first meeting of Themes and Approaches in Early Modern History was on Monday. We're a small group and everyone's interests seem to be quite different so I think it'll be an interesting year. Definitely a challenging one. The reading for this class alone is huge. Thankfully it's fortnightly.
Today I went to the first of the School of History postgrad skills training seminars. It was on writing essays for the MLitt. It was interesting and definitely useful, but also very daunting. What is expected of us now is so much more than at undergrad level. Although this is hardly a surprise, it's a lot to take on board and a significant upping of the game. We were told, rather kindly, not to be surprised if our first essay mark is crap.
I've spent the rest of the day reading, although still less than I want or need to get through in a day. In preparation for the next Approaches class, I looked at a couple of articles the periodization of the Early Modern. In short, both were arguing that calling it "the Early Modern period" is at best unhelpful. I've spent the day with the gnawing doubt that maybe my period doesn't actually exist.
Good start to the year.
- Jeroen Duindam, “Early Modern Europe: Beyond the Strictures of Modernization and National Historiography,” European History Quarterly 40 (2010)
- Randolph Starn, ‘Review Article: The Early Modern Muddle,’ Journal of Early Modern History 6 (2002)