Like this:

After talking with Sir on Wednesday, my topic has changed yet again.

I felt that the old one had limited depth, it was good, but i felt that all i would be doing is recalling the opinions of modern sources instead of actually discussing or looking at an actual topic.

After some discussion about how wonderful IVES is
Particularily discussing his opinions on Wosely, and the strange link there is between Wosely, Henry,Anne and Henrys letters to Anne.

I found that it is strange that Ives reveals that Anne and Wosely didn’t like each other all that much, Yet some of the love letters form Henry to Anne were written by Wosely.

This got us talking about sources, and that no matter how much i really research the sources are either heavily biased, or they have been interpreted so many times that all we have is opion upon opinon of who Anne Boleyn was.
In a very Postmodernist view, although we read against the grain of the sources, we will never really know who Anne Boleyn was.

I have two therories regarding this;

1- Anne Boleyn was used where the historian saw fit. (this is very E.H Carr) She could almost be a saint to the prodestants, while to the catholics she was the reason that the monarchy broke with the church.

2- The sources themselves are so biased and there are no (?) documents that are actually written by Anne. Visual sources we could say are the closest thing that potrays the “real” Anne Boleyn. However what do the written sources of her era say about her? What about the sources written after her death?

I like this topic alot more. I think that i’ll be using Ives alot, particualarily the section on sources and on Courtly Love. He is very Ranke, yet the way he writes come across as very Carr. I may use some of Lindsay, but i’m still not sure.

More Later
Liz

Advertisement