ÌÇÐÄTV

Intermediate essay category prize: Sarah Inchley (History) with their essay entitled: ‘To what extent was Joan of Arc’s femininity central to her contemporary reception before 1456?’ The adjudicators in this category said,

"This paper demonstrates an exceptional level of originality and analytical maturity. By shifting the focus from Joan of Arc's well-documented masculine transgressions to the vital role of her preserved femininity, the author offers a highly nuanced contribution to gender history. The quality of research is remarkably advanced; the student displays impressive critical skills in handling complex primary source bases—such as the 1431 trial records, rehabilitation testimonies, and Christine de Pizan's Le Ditié—while maturely acknowledging their textual limitations. Furthermore, the essay engages sophisticatedly with secondary literature, confidently challenging and building upon the established frameworks of leading scholars. Written with elegant prose, precise terminology, and impeccable structural clarity, the argument seamlessly connects themes of prophetic tradition, witchcraft allegations, and the liminality of medieval cross-dressing. To successfully argue that femininity was not incidental but a central determinant in Joan's contemporary reception is a testament to the author's outstanding historical skills. This work represents undergraduate scholarship of high level, making it fully deserving of academic recognition."

Final year category prize: Rebecca Dickinson (SMLC) with their essay entitled: ‘In what ways and to what effect do Golden-Age authors engage with figures from classical mythology?’ The adjudicators in this category said,

"This essay distinguished itself through the consistency, originality and maturity of its analysis. From the outset, this essay demonstrates an impressive command of both the primary texts and the relevant scholarship. The breadth of reading is matched by a mature ability to synthesise existing research into a coherent and persuasive argument, while never allowing secondary literature to overshadow the author's own critical voice. Instead, the essay uses scholarship thoughtfully and confidently to support an interpretation that is both independent and convincing. What particularly distinguished this submission was the strength of its analytical approach. Rather than simply identifying examples of classical mythology in Golden Age literature, the essay explores with precision how and why myth is reworked by Garcilaso de la Vega and Francisco de Quevedo to serve different literary and cultural purposes. Its central argument, contrasting Garcilaso's adaptation of mythology within Petrarchan conventions with Quevedo's later satirical reconfiguration of the same traditions, is sustained consistently throughout and supported by close, insightful textual readings. The essay also displays an excellent understanding of the wider intellectual and historical context in which these authors were writing. It situates the texts within Renaissance humanism, courtly culture and the evolution of literary traditions, demonstrating an appreciation of the dynamic relationship between classical inheritance and early modern innovation. Importantly, the essay does not simply reproduce established interpretations but makes a thoughtful contribution of its own, offering fresh observations that deepen our understanding of these works and their engagement with classical myth. What ultimately made this essay stand out was the confidence with which it combined rigorous historical research with detailed literary analysis. Every point is carefully evidenced, every comparison is purposeful, and the argument develops with clarity and intellectual maturity. It is a piece of work that reflects not only considerable diligence and scholarship but also genuine critical insight. For these reasons, we believe that this essay should be the recipient of the Greg Wells Prize. It exemplifies the qualities that the prize seeks to recognise: outstanding research, analytical excellence, and an original, thoughtful contribution to the study of Renaissance literature and culture."

Dissertation category prize: Jakob Reid (History) with their essay entitled: ‘‘A Gate That Must Not Fall’: Urban Space and Authority in the Anabaptist Kingdom of Münster, 1534–1535.’ The adjudicators in this category said,

"This is a very thoroughly researched, elegantly written, and highly original investigation into the use of urban space as a means of enforcing authority during the Münster rebellion and Anabaptist kingdom of 1534-1535. The excellent introduction helps set the scene for an outstanding dissertation, of a quality which is rarely found at UG academic level. The exemplary survey of existing scholarship and the ability to examine, summarize and critique a significant body of works shows a remarkable engagement with both primary and secondary sources, which are dealt with sensitivity and acumen. The scholarly argumentation and tripartite structure is admirably clear. This dissertation was a real delight to read and a significant contribution to the field.