It has long been established that the crisis of 1066 generated a florescence of historical writing in the first half of the 12th century. Emily A. Winkler presents a new perspective on previously unqueried matters, investigating how historians' individual motivations and assumptions produced changes in the kind of history written across the Conquest. She argues that responses to the Danish Conquest of 1016 and the Norman Conquest of 1066 changed dramatically within two generations of the latter conquest. Repeated conquest could signal repeated failures and sin across the orders of society, yet early 12th-century historians in England not only extract English kings and people from a history of failure, but also establish English kingship as a worthy office on a European scale

It has long been established that the crisis of 1066 generated a florescence of historical writing in the first half of the twelfth century. Emily A. Winkler presents a new perspective on previously unqueried matters, investigating how historians' individual motivations and assumptions produced changes in the kind of history written across the Conquest. She argues that responses to the Danish Conquest of 1016 and the Norman Conquest of 1066 changed dramatically within two generations of the latter conquest. Repeated conquest could signal repeated failures and sin across the orders of society, yet early twelfth-century historians in England not only extract English kings and people from a history of failure, but also establish English kingship as a worthy office on a European scale. Royal Responsibility in Anglo-Norman Historical Writing illuminates the consistent historical agendas of four historians: William of Malmesbury, Henry of Huntingdon, John of Worcester, and Geffrei Gaimar. In their narratives of England's eleventh-century history, these twelfth-century historians expanded their approach to historical explanation to include individual responsibility and accountability within a framework of providential history. In this regard, they made substantial departures from their sources. These historians share a view of royal responsibility independent both of their sources (primarily the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle) and of any political agenda that placed English and Norman allegiances in opposition. Although the accounts diverge widely in the interpretation of character, all four are concerned more with the effectiveness of England's kings than with the legitimacy of their origins. Their new, shared view of royal responsibility represents a distinct phenomenon in England's twelfth-century historiography.

It has long been established that the crisis of 1066 generated a florescence of historical writing in the first half of the twelfth century. Emily A. Winkler presents a new perspective on previously unqueried matters, investigating how historians' individual motivations and assumptions produced changes in the kind of history written across the Conquest. She argues that responses to the Danish Conquest of 1016 and the Norman Conquest of 1066 changed dramatically within two generations of the latter conquest. Repeated conquest could signal repeated failures and sin across the orders of society, yet early twelfth-century historians in England not only extract English kings and people from a history of failure, but also establish English kingship as a worthy office on a European scale. Royal Responsibility in Anglo-Norman Historical Writing illuminates the consistent historical agendas of four historians: William of Malmesbury, Henry of Huntingdon, John of Worcester, and Geffrei Gaimar. In their narratives of England's eleventh-century history, these twelfth-century historians expanded their approach to historical explanation to include individual responsibility and accountability within a framework of providential history. In this regard, they made substantial departures from their sources. These historians share a view of royal responsibility independent both of their sources (primarily the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle) and of any political agenda that placed English and Norman allegiances in opposition. Although the accounts diverge widely in the interpretation of character, all four are concerned more with the effectiveness of England's kings than with the legitimacy of their origins. Their new, shared view of royal responsibility represents a distinct phenomenon in England's twelfth-century historiography.

By tapping into the vast reservoir of undertreated early English documents and texts, the collected studies explore how individuals living in the late tenth through fifteenth centuries engaged with the authorizing culture of the Anglo-Saxons.

This book throws light on the relevance and role played by translations and translators at times of serious discontinuity throughout history. Topics explored by scholars from different continents and disciplines include war, the disintegration of transnational polities, health disasters and revolutions - be they political, social, cultural and/or technological. Surprisingly little is known, for example, about the role that translated constitutions had in instigating and in shaping political crises at both a local and global level, and how these events had an effect on translations themselves. Similarly, the role that translations played as instruments for either building or undermining empires, and the extent to which interpreters could ease or hamper negotiations and foster new national identities has not been adequately acknowledged. This book addresses all these issues, among others, through twelve studies focused not just on texts but also on instances of verbal and non-verbal communications in a range of languages from around the world. This interdisciplinary work will engage scholars working in fields such as Translation Studies, History, Modern Languages, English, Law, Politics and Social Studies.

Inspired by studies of Carolingian Europe, Kingship, Society and the Church in Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire argues that the social strategies of local kin-groups drove conversion to Christianity and church building in Yorkshire from 400-1066 AD. It challenges the emphasis that has been placed on the role and agency of Anglo-Saxon kings in conversion and church building. It moves forward the debate surrounding the 'minster hypothesis' through aninter-disciplinary case study.The kingdom of the Deirans stretched from the Humber to the Tees and the North Sea to the Pennines between 600 and 867. The Scandinavian kings at York probably established anadministration for much of this area between 867 and 954. The West Saxon kings incorporated it into an English kingdom between 954 and 1066 and established the 'shire' from which the name Yorkshire derives.Members of Deiran kin-groups faced uncertainties that predisposed them to consider conversion as a social strategy. Their decision to convert produced a new social fraction - the 'ecclesiastical aristocracy' - with a distinctive but fragile identity. The 'ecclesiasticalaristocracy' transformed kingship, established a network of religious communities, and engaged in the conversion of the laity. The social and political instabilities produced by conversion along withthe fragility of ecclesiastical identity resulted in the expropriation and re-organization of many religious communities. Nevertheless, the Scandinavian and West Saxon kings and their nobles allied with wealthy and influential archbishops of York, and there is evidence for the survival, revival, or foundation of religious communities as well as the establishment of local churches.

William of Poitiers served William the Conqueror for many years as one of his chaplains. His Gesta Guillelmi is a first-hand account of the momentous events of William's reign, and one of the most important sources for the history of the period. This new edition, with facing-page English translation of the Latin text, provides the first complete English translation, as well as a full historical introduction and detailed notes.