Suchergebnisse

This article examines how being "free" interacts with different constellations of ideas, in particular those associated with being a "man" in the specific context of thirteenth and fourteenth century England. It argues that manhood carried powerful emotional, rhetorical and hence political charges which were the consequence of both the Latin inheritance and its various adaptations in the course of the Middle Ages. It considers how these charges overlapped with those associated with being free. It examines a variety of reasons why these issues became particularly important in the thirteenth and fourteenth century, before analysing them in detail in the case of a particular mid thirteenth century political crisis in which issues of manhood, freedom and nation interacted in a new way. ; Este artículo examina cómo ser "libre" ("free") interactúa con diferentes constelaciones de ideas, en particular las asociadas con ser un "hombre", en el contexto específico de la Inglaterra de los siglos XIII y XIV. Se argumenta que la virilidad conlleva potentes cargas emocionales, retóricas y, por tanto, políticas, que eran consecuencia tanto de la herencia latina como de sus diversas adaptaciones en el transcurso de la Edad Media. El artículo evalúa cómo estas implicaciones se superponían a las asociadas a ser libre. Asimismo, se examinan una serie de razones por las que estos temas se volvieron particularmente importantes en los siglos XIII y XIV, antes de analizarlos en detalle en el caso de una crisis política particular de mediados del siglo XIII, en la que los temas de la virilidad, la libertad y la nación interactuaron de forma novedosa.

International audience ; The very male-centredness of John Gower's works makes it difficult to isolate masculinity as a distinct theme within them. The problem for the would-be analyst of the role of masculinity in Gower's works is thus how to make visible what is simply assumed. This article takes an original approach to Gower's work, one inspired by the German Begriffsgeschichte and the French school of textométrie, which focuses on lexicon and the use of words. An analysis of the use of 'man' confirms the male-centredness which a number of recent critics have identified in the Confessio Amantis, against an earlier tradition which emphasized Gower's sympathy for women. Even without understanding his larger moral and literary project, Gower's readers would have absorbed, without necessarily being able to say exactly why, that for him a 'man' was normally an adult male. However, the same is not so true when we move away from the specific referent of 'man' to consider the connotations of words which superficially share the same referent, such as 'manly' and 'manhood'. In such cases, it can be shown that whilst Gower mobilizes many of the common uses of these words, he neglects others. This partiality, once revealed, makes it possible to demonstrate the selectivity of Gower's presentation of manhood. This has consequences not only for understanding how his moral project was situated in contemporary society and culture, but also sheds light on a different kind of tendentiousness when he deals with actual political events. This opens up the broader question of how Gower's works might legitimately be read, whether in terms of his general authorial project, or the possible counter-readings which persisted, despite his best efforts.

International audience ; The very male-centredness of John Gower's works makes it difficult to isolate masculinity as a distinct theme within them. The problem for the would-be analyst of the role of masculinity in Gower's works is thus how to make visible what is simply assumed. This article takes an original approach to Gower's work, one inspired by the German Begriffsgeschichte and the French school of textométrie, which focuses on lexicon and the use of words. An analysis of the use of 'man' confirms the male-centredness which a number of recent critics have identified in the Confessio Amantis, against an earlier tradition which emphasized Gower's sympathy for women. Even without understanding his larger moral and literary project, Gower's readers would have absorbed, without necessarily being able to say exactly why, that for him a 'man' was normally an adult male. However, the same is not so true when we move away from the specific referent of 'man' to consider the connotations of words which superficially share the same referent, such as 'manly' and 'manhood'. In such cases, it can be shown that whilst Gower mobilizes many of the common uses of these words, he neglects others. This partiality, once revealed, makes it possible to demonstrate the selectivity of Gower's presentation of manhood. This has consequences not only for understanding how his moral project was situated in contemporary society and culture, but also sheds light on a different kind of tendentiousness when he deals with actual political events. This opens up the broader question of how Gower's works might legitimately be read, whether in terms of his general authorial project, or the possible counter-readings which persisted, despite his best efforts.

International audience ; This handbook aims to challenge 'gender blindness' in the historical study of high politics, power, authority and government, by bringing together a group of scholars at the forefront of current historical research into the relationship between masculinity and political power. Until very recently in historical terms, formal political authority in Europe was normally and ideally held by adult males, with female power being perceived as a recurrent aberration. Yet paradoxically the study of the interactions between masculinity and political culture is still very much in its infancy. This volume seeks to remedy this lacuna by considering the different consequences of the masculinity of power over two millennia of European history. It examines how masculinity and political culture have interacted from ancient Rome and the early medieval Byzantine empire, to twentieth-century Germany and Italy. It considers a broad variety of case studies from early medieval Iceland and late medieval France, to Naples at the time of the French Revolution and Strasbourg after the Franco-Prussian War, with a particular focus on the development of political masculinities in Great Britain between the sixteenth century and the present day.

International audience ; This handbook aims to challenge 'gender blindness' in the historical study of high politics, power, authority and government, by bringing together a group of scholars at the forefront of current historical research into the relationship between masculinity and political power. Until very recently in historical terms, formal political authority in Europe was normally and ideally held by adult males, with female power being perceived as a recurrent aberration. Yet paradoxically the study of the interactions between masculinity and political culture is still very much in its infancy. This volume seeks to remedy this lacuna by considering the different consequences of the masculinity of power over two millennia of European history. It examines how masculinity and political culture have interacted from ancient Rome and the early medieval Byzantine empire, to twentieth-century Germany and Italy. It considers a broad variety of case studies from early medieval Iceland and late medieval France, to Naples at the time of the French Revolution and Strasbourg after the Franco-Prussian War, with a particular focus on the development of political masculinities in Great Britain between the sixteenth century and the present day.

Late medieval English king operated in an increasingly public political society. Monarch sound it expedient to persuade their people of the rectitude of their politics, and the English public found ways to express their opinions, from petitioning to gossip and rebellion. This article examines some of the consequences of this state of affairs. In particular: What effect did the public nature of kingship have upon the relationship between ideals of conduct applicable to kings and norms of masculinity which applied to al men? This question is addressed by comparing proclamations of Edwards III (1327-77), and reports of treasonous words under Henry VI (1422-61), with earlier attacks on Edward II (1307-27). The first two were judged by ideals of manhood which applied to all men. The latter was criticized for potentially manly pursuits which were nonetheless inappropriate for a king. Still, it would be unwise to impose a developmental narrative on these diverse political circumstances. The variety of interpretations of manhood available made it possible to criticize or praise kings as manly or unmanly according to particular political circumstances. What is certain, however, is that the public nature of kingship made the king´s manhood a powerful political tool throughout this period. ; Los Reyes de Inglaterra durante la baja Edad Media actuaban en el marco de una sociedad política cada vez más abierta. Los monarcas consideraban oportuno persuadir a su gente de la rectitud de su política, y el público inglés encontró mecanismos para expresar sus opiniones, desde la elevación de peticiones, a la murmuración y la rebelión. Este artículo examina algunas de las implicaciones que estas cuestiones plantean. En particular: ¿qué efecto tuvo la naturaleza pública de la monarquía sobre la relación entre los ideales de comportamiento aplicables a los reyes y las normas de masculinidad aplicables a todo hombre? Trataré de responder a esta cuestión comparando las proclamaciones de Eduardo III (1327-77) y las acusaciones de injurias al rey durante el reinado de Enrique VI (1422-61), con algunos ataques efectuados con anterioridad contra Eduardo II (1307-27). Los dos primeros fueron juzgados con arreglo a ideales de virilidad aplicables a todo hombre. El último fue criticado por conductas potencialmente masculinas que sin embargo eran inadecuadas para un rey. De todos modos, sería imprudente aplicar una narrativa secuencial a estas circunstancias políticas diferentes. La variedad de las interpretaciones disponibles sobre la virilidad posibilitaba la crítica o el elogio de los reyes por su hombría o su falta de ella, dependiendo de las circunstancias políticas concretas. Lo que es seguro, sin embargo, es que la naturaleza pública de la monarquía hizo de la hombría del rey un poderoso instrumento político a lo largo de este período.

Late medieval English king operated in an increasingly public political society. Monarch sound it expedient to persuade their people of the rectitude of their politics, and the English public found ways to express their opinions, from petitioning to gossip and rebellion. This article examines some of the consequences of this state of affairs. In particular: What effect did the public nature of kingship have upon the relationship between ideals of conduct applicable to kings and norms of masculinity which applied to al men? This question is addressed by comparing proclamations of Edwards III (1327-77), and reports of treasonous words under Henry VI (1422-61), with earlier attacks on Edward II (1307-27). The first two were judged by ideals of manhood which applied to all men. The latter was criticized for potentially manly pursuits which were nonetheless inappropriate for a king. Still, it would be unwise to impose a developmental narrative on these diverse political circumstances. The variety of interpretations of manhood available made it possible to criticize or praise kings as manly or unmanly according to particular political circumstances. What is certain, however, is that the public nature of kingship made the king´s manhood a powerful political tool throughout this period. ; Los Reyes de Inglaterra durante la baja Edad Media actuaban en el marco de una sociedad política cada vez más abierta. Los monarcas consideraban oportuno persuadir a su gente de la rectitud de su política, y el público inglés encontró mecanismos para expresar sus opiniones, desde la elevación de peticiones, a la murmuración y la rebelión. Este artículo examina algunas de las implicaciones que estas cuestiones plantean. En particular: ¿qué efecto tuvo la naturaleza pública de la monarquía sobre la relación entre los ideales de comportamiento aplicables a los reyes y las normas de masculinidad aplicables a todo hombre? Trataré de responder a esta cuestión comparando las proclamaciones de Eduardo III (1327-77) y las acusaciones de injurias al rey durante el reinado de Enrique VI (1422-61), con algunos ataques efectuados con anterioridad contra Eduardo II (1307-27). Los dos primeros fueron juzgados con arreglo a ideales de virilidad aplicables a todo hombre. El último fue criticado por conductas potencialmente masculinas que sin embargo eran inadecuadas para un rey. De todos modos, sería imprudente aplicar una narrativa secuencial a estas circunstancias políticas diferentes. La variedad de las interpretaciones disponibles sobre la virilidad posibilitaba la crítica o el elogio de los reyes por su hombría o su falta de ella, dependiendo de las circunstancias políticas concretas. Lo que es seguro, sin embargo, es que la naturaleza pública de la monarquía hizo de la hombría del rey un poderoso instrumento político a lo largo de este período.

Résumé Quelle est la relation entre langue et nation en Angleterre à la fin du Moyen Âge ? On identifie la langue anglaise au peuple d'Angleterre dès le xiii e siècle, et le roi se sert de cette association puissante. Mais au même moment, la langue française, déjà la langue de la noblesse, devient la langue de la loi et du Parlement anglais. Cet article explore cette situation complexe où les identités sociales, professionnelles et nationale s'entrecroisent, notamment dans les requêtes au Parlement.

Los Reyes de Inglaterra durante la baja Edad Media actuaban en el marco de una sociedad política cada vez más abierta. Los monarcas consideraban oportuno persuadir a su gente de la rectitud de su política, y el público inglés encontró mecanismos para expresar sus opiniones, desde la elevación de peticiones, a la murmuración y la rebelión. Este artículo examina algunas de las implicaciones que estas cuestiones plantean. En particular: ¿que efecto tuvo la naturaleza pública de la monarquía sobre la relación entre los ideales de comportamiento aplicables a los reyes y las normas de masculinidad aplicables a todo hombre? Trataré de responder a esta cuestión comparando las proclamaciones de Eduardo III (1327-77) Y las acusaciones de injurias al rey durante el reinado de Enrique VI (1422-61), con algunos ataques efectuados con anterioridad contra Eduardo II (1307-27). Los dos primeros fueron juzgados con arreglo a ideales de virilidad aplicables a todo hombre. El último fue criticado por conductas potencialmente masculinas que sin embargo eran inadecuadas para un rey. De todos modos, sería imprudente aplicar una narrativa secuencial a estas circunstancias políticas diferentes. La variedad de las interpretaciones disponibles sobre la virilidad posibilitaba la crítica o el elogio de los reyes por su hombría o su falta de ella, dependiendo de las circunstancias políticas concretas. Lo que es seguro, sin embargo, es que la naturaleza pública de la monarquía hizo de la hombría del rey un poderoso instrumento político a lo largo de este período. ; Late medieval English kings operated in an increasingly public political society. Monarchs found it expedient to persuade their people of the rectitude of their policies, and the English public found ways to express their opinions, from petitioning to gossip and rebellion. This article examines some of the consequences of this state of affairs. In particular: What effect did the public nature of kingship have upon the relationship between ideals of conduct applicable to kings and norms of masculinity which applied to all men? This question is addressed by comparing proclamations of Edward III (1327-77), and reports of treasonous words under Henry VI (1422-61), with earlier attacks on Edward II (1307-27). The first two were judged by ideals of manhood which applied to all men. The latter was criticized for potentially manly pursuits which were nonetheless inappropriate for a king. Still, it would be unwise to impose a developmental narrative on these diverse political circumstances. The variety of interpretations of manhood available made it possible to criticize or praise kings as manly or unmanly according to particular political circumstances. What is certain, however, is that the public nature of kingship made the king's manhood a powerful political tool throughout this period.

Résumé Comment se fait-il que, dans l'Angleterre du bas Moyen Âge, le bien commun soit devenu l'un des principes clef pour justifier une énorme variété d'actions politiques ­ qu'il s'agisse des rebellions nobiliaires, de la politique du roi, des travaux municipaux ou des droits de pêche ? Cet article considère la transition entre deux époques dont les historiens ont examiné la terminologie du bien commun : la communitas ou la communauté du royaume du xiii e siècle, et le common weal du milieu du xv e .