History and the written word in the Angevin Empire, (c.1154-c.1200)
It is axiomatic that later twelfth-century England witnessed a growth in the sophistication of government and a related proliferation of written records. This period is also noted for its prolific and distinctive historical writing - which was often written by administrators and reproduced administrative documents. Taking these connected phenomena as its starting point, this study investigates how the changing uses of, access to and attitudes towards the written word affected the writing of history. Conversely, it also seeks to understand how historiography - which had long been associated with the written word - shaped contemporary assumptions about the written word itself. It assesses why historians quoted (and versified) so many documents in their histories, and traces structural similarities between chronicles and other contemporary forms of documentary collection. In doing so, it suggests that the apparently 'official' documents reproduced by histories are better thought of as social productions that told stories about the past, for and about those holding public office. It suggests that by rewriting documents as history, historical writing played a fundamental role in committing them to memory - and
Bainton, Willliam Henry J.
History and the written word in the Angevin Empire, (c.1154-c.1200). It is axiomatic that later twelfth-century England witnessed a growth in the sophistication of government and a related proliferation of written records. This period is also noted for its prolific and distinctive historical writing - which was often written by administrators and reproduced administrative documents. Taking these connected phenomena as its starting point, this study investigates how the changing uses of, access to and attitudes towards the written word affected the writing of history. Conversely, it also seeks to understand how historiography - which had long been associated with the written word - shaped contemporary assumptions about the written word itself. It assesses why historians quoted (and versified) so many documents in their histories, and traces structural similarities between chronicles and other contemporary forms of documentary collection. In doing so, it suggests that the apparently 'official' documents reproduced by histories are better thought of as social productions that told stories about the past, for and about those holding public office. It suggests that by rewriting documents as history, historical writing played a fundamental role in committing them to memory - and
history write_word empire axiomatic later twelfth_century england witness growth sophistication government related proliferation write_record period also_note prolific distinctive historical write often write administrator reproduce administrative document taking connect phenomenon start_point study_investigates change access attitude_towards write_word affect write_history conversely also seek historiography long associate write_word shaped contemporary assumption write_word itself ass historian quote many document history trace structural similarity chronicle contemporary form documentary collection suggest apparently official_document reproduce history well think social production tell_story past hold public office suggests rewrite document history historical write played fundamental role commit memory