Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 22 items for

  • Author or Editor: Edward Roberts x
  • Search level: All x
Clear All
Titoist Yugoslavia is a particularly interesting setting to examine the integrity of the modern nation-state, especially the viability of distinctly multi-ethnic nation-building projects. Scholarly literature on the brutal civil wars that destroyed Yugoslavia during the 1990s emphasizes divisive nationalism and dysfunctional politics to explain why the state disintegrated. But the larger question remains unanswered—just how did Tito’s state function so successfully for the preceding forty-six years. In an attempt to understand better what united the stable, multi-ethnic, and globally important Yugoslavia that existed before 1991 Robert Niebuhr argues that we should pay special attention to the dynamic and robust foreign policy that helped shape the Cold War.


Though Germanic vernaculars enjoyed different statuses in relation to Latin in England and on the continent, authors of documents in both regions made specific choices concerning their use of language. This chapter explores how these linguistic decisions were sometimes signalled and what they imply through a comparative study of self-conscious language-use in Anglo-Saxon and Frankish legal documents, including both royal diplomas and ‘private’ (i.e. non-royal) charters, between c.700 and c.900. The enquiry focuses on significant cases of code-switching between Latin and Germanic vernacular. We identify and compare how charter scribes signalled a switch in language, as for instance in documents where Latin prose is interrupted with a qualifying phrase to describe something in a Germanic language. In addition, we examine instances of specific linguistic awareness in charters, including explicit references to the theodisca (usually continental Germanic language) and saxonica (usually Old English) languages.

These code switches and identifications of language reveal an acute linguistic consciousness on the part of the draftsmen and offer an opportunity for direct comparison between two cultures whose diplomatic practices have often seemed to be markedly different. In both regions the most frequent use of Germanic vernacular in charters came in descriptions of land and boundaries (though in England, Old English could also be employed for other purposes and in different sections of a charter). While acknowledging the pragmatism of transmitting certain pieces of information in the vernacular, we argue that the use of the vernacular in descriptions of landscape and property was often also an assertion of territoriality and a meaningful representation of identity. The status of Latin as the standard language of written communication in both regions has hitherto tended to lead scholars to suppose that Germanic insertions and qualifying phrases were included in charters purely to facilitate communication in societies with relatively low Latin literacy. Our study, by contrast, shows that the vernacular could be invoked quite deliberately, that it could be exploited as a means of engendering social inclusion or exclusion, and that it ultimately conveyed intentions and meanings which went far beyond simple clarification.

In: The Languages of Early Medieval Charters
This is the first major study of the interplay between Latin and Germanic vernaculars in early medieval records. Building on previous work on the uses of the written word in the early Middle Ages, which has dispelled the myth that this was an age of ‘orality’, the contributions in this volume bring to the fore the crucial question of language choice in the documentary cultures of early medieval societies. Specifically, they examine the interactions between Latin and Germanic vernaculars in the Anglo-Saxon and eastern Frankish worlds and in neighbouring areas. The chapters are underpinned by an important comparative dimension on account of the two regions’ shared linguistic heritage and numerous cross-Channel links.

Contributors are: Stefan Esders, Albert Fenton, Robert Gallagher, Wolfgang Haubrichs, Charles Insley, Kathryn A. Lowe, Rosamond McKitterick, Rory Naismith, Janet L. Nelson, Edward Roberts, Annina Seiler, Marco Stoffella, Francesca Tinti, Kate Wiles, Bernhard Zeller.

See inside the book.
In: Canadian-American Slavic Studies


One disagreement that divides students of globalization and national development is the influence of international capitalism on economic growth and human welfare in developing countries. Another is the role of national states in harnessing global markets to serve broad-based human welfare. Those in the “neoliberal” camp view international capitalism as an unalloyed benefit that spurs economic growth, but consider strong, interventionist states counterproductive and repressive. Critics of globalization view international markets with skepticism, but champion the need for strong redistributionist governments in spreading both wealth and welfare. Using a maximal sample of LDCs (N=131) over the longest time period possible (1960–2007), we employ pooled time-series analysis with country fixed effects to determine whether a prima facie case can be made for either perspective. Regressing both economic growth and changes in infant mortality, our results broadly justify a “neoliberal” perspective in the contemporary development of LDCs, but some forms of government spending also contribute to prosperity and human welfare (i.e., education and the military), which tempers our conclusions.

In: Comparative Sociology
In: Deterritorializing/Reterritorializing
In: Deterritorializing/Reterritorializing
In: Deterritorializing/Reterritorializing