Session 122: Crossing Historiographical Borders?
Monday 6 July 2020, 11.15-12.45
|Organiser:||Bénédicte Sère, Département d'histoire, Université Paris Ouest Nanterre La Défense|
|Moderator/Chair:||Stephen Church, School of History, University of East Anglia|
|Paper 122-a||Why Is the Cross Channel Debate about Angevin 'Empire' Unsolvable?|
Index terms: Historiography - Modern Scholarship, Political Thought
|Paper 122-b||Is the Concept of Constitutionalism Translatable?|
Index terms: Ecclesiastical History, Historiography - Modern Scholarship, Political Thought
|Paper 122-c||'Law [is] itself the solution': German Constitutionalism, Late Medieval Courts, and the Gateway of Decisions|
Index terms: Historiography - Modern Scholarship, Political Thought, Politics and Diplomacy
Often, academic discussions turn to be conversations at cross purposes, when scholars coming from different countries, use the same words but do not precisely figure out the same concepts. Historiographical borders can indeed be extreme, especially when it comes to discussing political ideas, which meanings are often deeply entangled with the national history narratives or current conceptions of law. This session will search to cross over these borders by exploiting these misconceptions and the reasons why concepts such as ’empire’, ‘modern state’, or ‘constitutionalism’ create misunderstandings between medievalists. Of course, these misunderstandings are also entangled with odds in attempts to conceptualize medieval realities, but our discussions shall focus on the reception of historiographical concepts.