Search Results

In: Revisiting Unity and Diversity in Federal Countries
In: Federalism as Decision-Making
The principal aim of this book is to revisit the basic theme of “unity and diversity” that remains at the heart of research into federalism and federation. It is time to take another look at its contemporary relevance to ascertain how far the bifocal relationship between unity and diversity has evolved over the years and has been translated into changing conceptual lenses, practical reform proposals and in some cases new institutional practices. This book is structured around four main parts: (1) the evolving conception of diversity over time and across continents; (2) the interplay between unity and diversity in complex settings; (3) federalism as decision-making and new institutional practices that have been put forward and tested; and (4) constitutional design and asymmetrical federalism as a way to respond to legitimate and insisting claims and political demands.

From the perspective of an ancient historian, medievalists’ struggles to define the chronicle genre and particularly to construe it in terms of medieval novelty are difficult to understand. As this article argues, the chronicle is a very old genre, in fact the oldest historical genre, with roots in the Ancient Near East. We trace the genre from those Near Eastern roots to their Greek and Latin successors and then to their eventual combination with the tradition of Hellenistic apologetic chronography in the work of Julius Africanus and Eusebius. In the Latin West, a native Roman tradition, that of lightly-annotated consular fasti known as consularia, was hybridized with chronicles on a Greek model and became the dominant form in late antiquity, indeed the only chronicle form transmitted directly to the Middle Ages. This late ancient chronicle, we conclude, is the model for all medieval development of the genre.

In: The Medieval Chronicle VI
In: Revisiting Unity and Diversity in Federal Countries
In: Revisiting Unity and Diversity in Federal Countries
In: Revisiting Unity and Diversity in Federal Countries
In: Revisiting Unity and Diversity in Federal Countries

The term annals/annales as it is generally used by modern medievalists – to describe Easter tables with infrequent historical notations or similar works without the Easter table apparatus – is inaccurate and can be dangerous, because it can give us a false idea of the development and nature of medieval historiography. The word was never used with this strict meaning in the Middle Ages, when it generally meant only ‘history’ or ‘written record of the past’ and after c.1200 gradually came to be used as a synonym for chronicles as well, a development that arose from a misunderstanding of descriptions of early Latin historiography in Cicero and the newly popular Aulus Gellius. Therefore annals and chronicles were never contrasted in the Middle Ages as two distinct genres as they often are today. Believing that they were distinct genres with separate origins leads to erroneous conclusions about the works described by medieval authors as ‘annals’, the development of these works, and their relationship to chronicles. We should, therefore, call such works ‘chronicles’, which is what they are, and in order to distinguish them from other types of chronicles, like those of Jerome or Sigebert, we should use a term like ‘paschal chronicles’ or ‘Eastertable chronicles’.

In: The Medieval Chronicle VIII