Chronicle Writing

Alberto MONTANER, «La mora Zaida, entre historia y leyenda (con una reflexión sobre la técnica historiográfica alfonsí)», en Historicist Essays on Hispano Medieval Narrative in Memory of Roger M. Walker, London, Maney Publishing for the MHRA, 2005 (Publications of the Modern Humanities Research Association, 16) [ISBN 1904350313], pp. 272-352.

This book chapter, published in 2008, discusses the intellectual world in which Berossus lived. Berossus was a Babylonian priest, who lived in the early Hellenistic period, and produced a Babyloniaca in three books about the culture and history of Babylonia from the beginnings to his own time. This article focusses on the history of Babylonia in the first millennium BC. For this history he had many sources to go on. One of the most important are the Babylonian Chronicles; other sources are royal inscriptions. The article discusses the character of the Babylonian chronicles in the light of a general discussion on what historiography ideally is. A ladder of 11 characteristics, which I compiled during lectures on historiography in dialogue with students (and thus called sometimes with a pun on my name ‘the Ladder of Baconius’), was used to evaluate these chronicles as historiography. The article shows how Berossus used Babylonian chronicles for his survey of Neo-Babylonian history and he appeared to have followed closely the so-called East India House Inscription of Nebuchadnezzar for the description of the royal palace. Berossus (or was it Alexander Polyhistor?) adds a paragraph on the “Hanging Garden” of Babylon, of which there is no mention in the inscription or in any other. This anomaly gets ample discussion.
------ ADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA:    In the last seven years many important new publications appeared regarding chronicles and Berossus. I mention:
On Berossus:
Geert de Breucker, ‘Berossos (680)’, Brill’s New Jacoby Online, 2010.
--- ‘Abydenos (685)’, Brill’s New Jocoby Online, 2010
--- ‘Berossos between tradition and innovation’, in: Karen Radner, Eleanor Robson eds., The Oxford Handbook of Cuneiform Culture (Oxford 2011), 637-57
--- De Babyloniaca van Berossos van Babylon. Inleiding, editie en commentaar. PhD dissertation University of Groningen. 2012.
--- ‘Alexander Polyhistor and the Babyloniaca of Berossos’, BICS 55 (2012) 57-68.
Johannes Haubold, Giovanni B. Lanfranchi, Robert Rollinger, John M. Steele (eds.), The World of Berossos: Proceedings of the 4th International Colloquium on “The Ancient Near East between Classical and Ancient Oriental Traditions”, Hatfield College, Durham 7th-9th July 2010. Classica et Orientalia, 5. Wiesbaden:  Harrassowitz Verlag, 2013.

------ On Babylonian Chronicles:
Waerzeggers, Caroline. “The Babylonian Chronicles: Classification and Provenance.” JNES 71 (2012) 285–98.
--- ‘Facts, propaganda or history? Shaping political memory in the Nabonidus Chronicle’ in: Jason M. Silverman and Caroline Waerzeggers, Political Memory In and After the Persian Empire, Atlanta GA: Society of Biblical Literature, forthcoming.
R.J. van der Spek, ‘Coming to terms with the Persian Empire. Concluding Remarks and Responses’, ibidem.

------ On the Hanging Garden:
Stephanie Dalley, The Mystery of the Hanging Garden of Babylon. An Elusive World Wonder Traced (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2013).

------ Additional Addenda et corrigenda:
p. 280: On the Babylonian Chronicles of the Hellenistic Period. Note that many of the latest “chronicles”, esp. of the Parthian periods, are in fact historical sections of the Astronomical Diaries. So e.g. BCHP 18, the “Bagayasha Chronicle”.
p. 280-287 on the Babylonian chronicles. See now the articles by Caroline Waerzeggers, who discovered the origins of the chronicles as coming from Borsippa or Babylon and is very critical of the concept of “chronicle series”. She now argues that the Nabonidus Chronicle is a new creation of the early Hellenistic period.
p. 283, first line third paragraph, words are missing. Read: In my view the Neo-Babylonian collection of chronicles about the recent past is a unique and outstanding piece of historiography. Although … (etc.)
p. 286, line 8 from below: remove comma after ‘compilers’.
p. 287-8; 313: Berossus’ dedication of his work to Antiochus. See now: Johannes Bach, ‘Berossos, Antiochos and die Babyloniaka,’ AWE 12 (2013) 157-180, who argues that the book was dedicated to Antiochus II. Interesting proposition, difficult to prove. He is certainly right that the traditional dating to the third YEAR of Antiochus I (278 BC) is a wrong interpretation by Verbrugghe and Wickersham. The number refers to the “third” KING after Alexander (Tatianus, Or. Ad Graecos 36) or Seleucus (Eusebius, Praep. Evang. 10.11.8).
p. 288-9: on the question of the authorship of the astronomical sections: John Steele, ‘The ‘Astronomical Fragments’ of Berossos in context’ in: Haubold et al. eds. The World of Berossos, 107-122. He argues that the fragments belong to Berossus, but his knowledge was based on literary rather than on astronomical texts.
p. 296, n. 35. New evidence of copies on clay tablets of the Cyrus Cylinder has come to light: I.L. Finkel, ‘The Cyrus Cylinder: the Babylonian Perspective’ in I.L. Finkel ed., The Cyrus Cylinder. The King of Persia’s Proclamation from Ancient Babylon. London: I.B. Tauris 2013, 4-34.

‘LUDIE’ (PEOPLE) AND PRINCE IN CONSTRUCTIONS OF 11th–13th CENTURY CHRONICLERS (in Russian)
The book explores the relationships between people and prince in Rus’, studying the phenomenon of popular assemblies (“veche”). The author focuses on defining the descriptive principles used by the sources when depicting interactions between “people” and prince, and examines these through the prism of the chroniclers’ attitudes and narrative constructions. Attempts at recovering the historical reality behind the texts are also made, with a discussion of the social composition and competence of popular assemblies.
The first chapter surveys aspects of “social” terminology inherent in descriptions of popular unrest in the pre-Mongol narrative sources. The term “veche” and its range of meanings are examined, as are the correlations between the direct accounts of “veche” and indirect allusions to comparable situations. Specific usage of terms in the early chronicle compilations (Laurentian, Hypatian, and the Novgorod first chronicles) is scrutinized, including such terms as “liudie”, “narod”, “ves grad”, “druzhina”, “sbor”, boyare”, and “ot mala i do velika”, and this usage is analyzed against the background of similar terminology present in the Slavonic translations of Scripture, Byzantine chronographic literature, and hagiography. The author stresses that “social” terminology is fluid and lacks fixed meaning in accounts of popular assemblies.
The second chapter (“Narrative modeling in the parallel chronicle accounts”) treats the parallel accounts of conflict situations (i.e. accounts of the same conflict in two or more chronicles) and demonstrates that chronicles do not mirror the historical facts of political and social life. A sample consisting of several dozen parallel accounts enables the identification of three narrative models that guide the chronicles’ presentation: “exoneration or disapproval of a prince”, “conflicts with a prince” and “profile of a prince”. Variations in narration found in the parallel accounts are not random: a series of accounts reveals stable complexes of basic narrative elements (formants). The first two models (“exoneration or disapproval of a prince” and “conflicts with a prince”) exist in two basic versions: one that justifies and one that disapproves of a ruler. At times, these are complemented by the “neutral” version. These two versions mirror each other: formants with positive attributes are being substituted for the formants with negative attributes. For instance, the passivity of a character in one account corresponds to his active role in another; a positive profile is contrasted with a negative one. In two of the models, the chroniclers note disturbances of the “people” only if the exoneration of a prince and his conduct is intended. The general behavior of the town dwellers thus depends on the “pluses” and “minuses” set by the narrative.
The third chapter (“Composition and competence of the ‘veche’”) attempts to outline the competence resulting from the social composition of popular assemblies. Given the limitations imposed by surviving records and the narrative nature of the sources – the nomenclature of social categories is situational and artificial, and the chroniclers are often inclined to manipulate accounts of unrest – the author discusses potential ways of solving the issue of the composition of the “veche” and its competence. Unfortunately, the social composition, the number of participants, and the frequency of the assemblies are all but impossible to establish with any precision. Nevertheless, this bleak outlook is balanced by some positive inferences: one may assume that “veche” (participants in the assembly) and “druzhyna” (the princely retinue) were not isolated groups. It would appear that in times of social stability, these groups included the same individuals, embodying the society’s social elite. The groups only split when two leaders (princes) challenge each other and compete for the popular mandate. Furthermore, designations of large groups are used in the sources as substitutes for minor ones and vice versa. As a result, a prince or several high-ranking lords may represent “the whole realm”. On the other hand, when the chronicler was tasked with concealing the prince’s reprehensible conduct, “people” may stand for a few individuals of high rank.
The last chapter summarizes the chroniclers’ notions of interaction between the ruler and his people. Among the principal findings: in virtually all descriptions of “popular” activity, the chronicler nevertheless focuses on a prince as the central element of the narration; the notions of just and unjust popular assemblies depend on judgments concerning the “loyalty” and “disloyalty” shown by “people” to a ruler; the “veche” theme in the chronicles is marked by anxiety – for these are the moments of discontent that break the bond between the ruler and the people. The surviving records lack authentic statements about “veche” that would enable the recovery of the chroniclers’ attitudes toward popular assemblies. Only the parallel texts, in which the chroniclers’ notions make up the structural core of the narration, enable the retrieval of the ancient authors’ attitudes.

Las setenta y cuatro crónicas seleccionadas para este libro permitieron concluir que, en el nuevo milenio, en varias capitales y cabeceras municipales del país, hay miles de personas que libran una batalla diaria por acceder a este recurso básico.

Estos talleres propiciaron un estimulante diálogo entre culturas regionales, generaciones, oficios, saberes, disciplinas y miradas al agua en medio de la diversidad territorial. La mayoría de los participantes jamás había escrito una crónica, y los que tenían experiencia con la escritura no habían experimentado con ese género. Otros comprendieron la desaprovechada cercanía entre la historia y el periodismo, el periodismo y la literatura. En los talleres aprendieron a encontrar su propia voz y a recoger las voces de otros para lograr esa polifonía que pide el género.

This article analyses the short chronicle De la duce de Luxembourg et conte de Chiny written by Nicolas de Naves (ca. 1472 – 1546) in 1521. The author of this historical work retraces the dynastic succession of the county (and later duchy) of Luxembourg from the 11th century (Conrad I) up to the Burgundian period (Charles the Bold). The original manuscript is lost, but four copies are known to survive. It is argued here that the emperor Charles V himself commissioned this study. To date, Nicolas de Naves is mainly known for his outstanding political career as he was the first president of the provincial council of Luxembourg. However, he should also be considered among the earliest « Luxembourgish » historians. Based on Nicolas de Naves’ text, this article also raises the question of the role of dynastic continuity in the late medieval and early modern duchy of Luxembourg in the larger context of identity constructions in the Burgundian-Habsburg state into which the duchy was incorporated in 1443.

This article explores the significance of writing history for a late medieval Antwerp patrician family. In recent historiography, these families (in this case Van Halmale)  have not received the attention they deserve, in part because their social status is difficult to pin down. Although members of the family Van Halmale had knightly titles and performed deeds of arms on the battlefield and during tournaments, their noble status was not undisputed. Both a chronicle and a tournament diary written by different members of the Van Halmale family reflect the aspirations of a dominant social category in the late medieval towns of Brabant, Flanders, and Holland. Their writings reflect how these men perceived themselves and how they wanted their contemporaries and peers to perceive them. In that sense the writing of history was indeed a means for nobles (and would-be-nobles) to justify (or to claim) their privileged position. Their works helped them to express their identity as powerful aldermen, firmly rooted in an urban environment but with open minds for the world of princes and (inter)national politics.

18. stoljeće bilo je zlatno doba bosanskih franjevačkih kronika. Najpoznatije među njima su kronika fojničkog samostana fra Nikole Lašvanina, kronika sutješkog samostana fra Bone Benića, te kronika kreševskog samostana fra Marijana Bogdanovića. Njima valja pridodati još jedno djelo historiografskog karaktera, “Pregled starina bosanske provincije” iz pera fra Filipa Lastrića. Mogući razlozi za procvat kroničarskog žanra mogu se tražiti u globalnim trendovima, poput porasta pismenosti, pojave katoličke obnove, odnosno projekta reforme post-tridentske crkve, te procesa konfesionalizacije, koji je potrebu za afirmiranje i očuvanje zasebnog manjinskog identiteta u opasnosti od asimilacije u dramatičnim okolnostima rata i poraća, nemira i nestabilnosti, stavio u prvi plan. U Bosni ključni nosioci katoličke reforme bili su franjevci, jedini pripadnici Katoličke crkve sa službeno reguliranim statusom i pravom djelovanja na području pod osmanskom vlašću. Kako su kroničari ujedno bili i visoki predstavnici franjevačke zajednice u Bosni, njihova djela ne predstavljaju samo pasivni opis događaja, nego, dolazeći iz pera samih protagonista, istovremeno i franjevački odgovor na izazove pred kojima se katoličanstvo u osmanskoj Bosni našlo.

The paper deals with the sources of the Primary Chronicle and Novgorodian First Chronicle in their accounts of Rus’ history «beginning» («поча ся прозывати Руская земля», «начало Рускои земли»). Special attention pays to the discrapancy in the dates 6360/852 or 6362/854 years and these entries content variety.

The campaign of Rus’ against Constantinople in 941 was reflected in several sources. In particular, the Primary Chronicle (Povest’ vremennykh let) put it under right 6449 / 941 year while the Novgorod First Chronicle of the Younger Recension along with several compilations of the Chronograph for the Great Narration’s circle placed the event under 6428 / 920. The prominent scholar Alexey Shakhmatov offered explanation for such different dating, creating a theory where both chronicle have a common core influenced by the earliest Chronograph. In his concept Povest’ vremennykh let in fact is not the “Primary” chronicle but is secondary after the Novgorod Chronicle. Textual analysis is complicated because all accounts are based on George Hamartolos’s text and sometimes versions differ one from another in the smallest detail. However, a comprehensive comparison of all data allows us to reconstruct the interrelations of these writings. It turns out that the compiler of the Novgorod First Chronicle produced contamination from fragments of the Chronograph for the Great Narration and borrowings from Povest’ vremennykh let itself, i.e. the Novgorod chronicle was created later than both of its sources.

This article examines a late eighteenth-century innovation in the composition and revision of dynastic chronicles in the Thai language. In chronicles and chronicle passages composed at this time, internally-diverse political networks – the subjects or armies of one monarch or another – are regularly identified as single "ethnic" groups as never before. This transition is traced through three periods of chronicle (re)writing. Compositions from the Ayutthaya period (1351-1767) focus overwhelmingly on the actions of specific individuals. The diverse population, army, and nobility of a kingdom are not endowed with a single ethno-political identification, and are not allowed important roles in the narratives as corporate entities. In extant chronicle texts from this period, the ethnic term "Thai" does not appear at all. In chronicle narratives of the late eighteenth century, however, we can see the tentative introduction of the ethnic term "Thai" as one of the two communities supporting King Taksin (r. 1767-1782) along with “Chinese”, and a dramatic trend towards the ethno-political identification of the armies from the Irrawaddy valley kingdoms as “Burmese”. Finally, beginning in the last decade or so of the eighteenth century, the diverse peoples and armies of Bangkok were glossed frequently as “Thai”, and even the peoples of Bangkok’s tributary kingdoms were assigned ethno-political identities that distinguished them socially and politically from the “Thai” in Bangkok. In late eighteenth and nineteenth century chronicle compositions, the politicization of ethnonyms facilitated the narration of a chronic history of aggression and deceit not just between certain newly-ethnicized kingdoms, but also between their newly distinguishable sets of officials and subjects. Early twentieth-century historians, in turn, drew from these ethnicized royal chronicle narratives to craft a nation-centered history for modern Thailand. Indeed, the political circumstances that motivated late-eighteenth century chroniclers to promote loyalty to the crown through the repetition of ethnicized us-versus-them narratives of history remain powerful even today.

Alberto MONTANER, «Historicidad medieval y protomoderna: lo auténtico sobre lo verídico», e-Spania: Revue interdisciplinaire d’études hispaniques médiévales et modernes [ISSN 1951-6169], vol. 19 (octobre 2014), accesible en línea en <http://e-spania.revues.org/24054>; DOI: 10.4000/e-spania.24054.

The Grand Narrative Revisited. Contemporary Flemish Novelists Take Up The Challenge To Create Plots Of The Flat World (on the chronicle as condition and form of writing)
Both in literature and philosophy it is assumed that the beginning of
post-modernity coincides with the end of the so-called grand narrative. Referring
to Philippe Lacoue-Labarthe’s last book L’“Allégorie”, one could claim that since
then, literary (re)presentation manifests itself as essentially ‘chronic’ and nonallegorical.
Moreover, in the wake of Thomas Friedman’s The World is Flat the
twenty-first century is often referred to as an all-visible flat world. This flatness,
however, both extends and challenges the postmodern end of the grand narrative.
After all, a world without reverse might be particularly suitable for an allencompassing
story. This seems to be the conclusion drawn by the remarkable
and comparable recent novels of three Flemish literary writers. Putting to the test
existing ideas of literary presentation of post-modernity, they return to the grand
narrative while at the same time subscribing to the main characteristics of
contemporary literature.

Currently, most Hungarian historians are firmly convinced that the Magyar forces caused a destructive defeat of the army of the German King Louis the Child in the battle near Bratislava on July 4-5, 907. Several
centuries had elapsed before the event was brought to attention by a first historian. It was the Bavarian humanist and chronicler Johannes Turmair (1477-1534) also called Aventinus. Aventinus’ writings in
the work Annalium Boiorum libri septem indeed did get into concise abstracts of chronicles or necrologies, but since the end of the 19th century it was discussed whether his data are credible, although it was
exactly thanks to the Magyar offensive that the region of Central Europe got into written sources. The first reference of Vienna is connected to the Magyar raids and the name Bratislava also appears thanks
to the battle of the year 907. Aventinus was quoted for the first time in the Hungarian historical work by János Nadányi in the end of the 17th century. Another author to mention the event was the theologian
Matej Bel, who was the rector in Bratislava since the year 1714 and pointed out the entry regarding the city name. Aventinus was seen as fully trustworthy by Juraj Pray (1723-1801) in the work Annales veteres Hunnorum, Avarum et Hungarorum. He was followed by his student, a Jesuit, Stefan Katona. From the beginning of the historical method of source criticism until the end of the 19th century, Aventinus’data were not doubted, for example with the Bratislava historian T. Ortvay. The period of unequivocal acceptance of Aventinus was ended by the scientific-popular work of J. Szalay and L. Baróti. A serious turnaround was brought by the work of Gy.Pauler (1900), who, until today, remains to be a decisive figure of the medievalistics in Hungary. Pauler did not
attribute any credence to Aventinus; he located the battle of the Magyars in the year 907 near Bánhida, not far from the town of Tata. Thereafter, opinions on Aventinus varied; however, military-historical works
relied on his work. Some historians even later on mentioned the event of the year 907 only marginally or did not refer to it at all. An exception is represented by the work of the archaeologist I.Bóna, who saw this event as a success of the Magyar conquest of the Carpathian Basin and shifting of the Magyar border zone significantly westward. The 1100th anniversary of the event is a good opportunity for re-evaluation
of the predicative capability of Aventinus.

After the conquest of Mexico-Tenochtitlan, the Mexica elites had to rethink their political role in the new society, which included rewriting their histories. One of the first colonial manuscripts containing Mexica histories was the Codex Mendoza, a document produced in 1541 by Mexica upon a request of Viceroy Antonio de Mendoza. The purpose of this article is to analyze the Codex Mendoza’s first section and highlight how the genre of European chronicles was used to structure the alphabetic texts, which are interspersed with the pictorial texts of native origin. It is argued here that the pictorial texts were reduced to illustrations for the Castilian alphabetic texts which, in turn, describe a set of information very similar to what is found in Castilian chronicles. The arrangement of the Codex Mendoza’s history and its Castilian texts demonstrate that native peoples’ pre-Hispanic submission to the Mexica have been projected forward in time, aiming at forming part of the Castilian domains appropriated after the conquest of Mexico-Tenochtitlan and the creation of the Viceroyalty of New Spain.

Book Review. This article is published with Brepols Publishers as a Gold Open Access article under a Creative Commons CC 4.0: BY-NC license. The article is also freely available on the website of Brepols Publishers:  https://www.brepolsonline.net/doi/abs/10.1484/J.EUPHR.5.128816  under this same license.

A obra literária de J. Rentes de Carvalho (Vila Nova de Gaia, 1930), constituída por mais de vinte títulos publicados na Holanda desde 1968, só há relativamente pouco tempo começou a despertar em Portugal a atenção que merece. O Grande Prémio de Literatura Biográfica 2010/2011, atribuído pela Associação Portuguesa de Escritores (APE) ao diário Tempo Contado, é uma das manifestações mais evidentes de um reconhecimento que felizmente se vai intensificando.
Mazagran – Recordações & Outras Fantasias, que reúne cento e quatro crónicas escritas ao longo de várias décadas, surge enquadrado no projeto de edição portuguesa dos livros do autor, e vem consolidar o nome de J. Rentes de Carvalho junto da crítica e dos leitores. Definimos estes textos como “crónicas”, mas também poderíamos usar os termos, que configuram igualmente géneros do discurso, “memórias”, “apontamentos biográficos”, “confissões”, “cartas”, “relatos” ou “diários de viagem” e outros afins. Do primeiro ao último texto há um “pacto autobiográfico” (Phillipe Lejeune) que permite ao autor assumir-se a si mesmo como o centro de uma escrita em que convergem inúmeros temas e motivos, múltiplas personagens ou personalidades, emoções, sentimentos e registos que vão da melancolia à ironia, ao humor e à sátira.
Nestas crónicas, J. Rentes de Carvalho, que saiu de Portugal no início da década de 1950 e se fixou na Holanda, não idealiza nem nega Portugal e os portugueses; e também não mitifica nem abomina a Holanda e os holandeses. A propósito de um acontecimento particular ou de uma tendência mais ou menos generalizada, o autor procura sempre equilibrar a emoção e a razão, a generalização e a análise, e por isso cada um destes textos impõe-se ao leitor como pensamento pessoal e lógico que expõe a superficialidade do senso-comum, as obsessões e os aspectos típicos tanto da vida portuguesa como da holandesa e do mundo ocidental em geral. [...]

REVIEW–DISCUSSION

TOWARDS A NEW APPRECIATION OF MALALAS AND THE CHRONOGRAPHIA

Mischa Meier, Christine Radtki, and Fabian Schulz, edd., Die Weltchronik des Johannes Malalas. Autor—Werk—Überlieferung. Malalas Studien 1. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2016. Pp. 310. Hardback, €58.00. ISBN 978-3-515-11099-0.

In this article I examine how state formation in the revolutionary and
Napoleonic period was experienced by inhabitants of the Dutch
island of Ameland. I focus on chronicling and petitioning, two
activities that were performed by ordinary people. The
microhistorical perspective adopted in this article reveals more
continuity in the way political transformations were experienced
than an institutional outlook might suggest. Between 1780 and
1815 the Netherlands developed from an oligarchic confederacy
of local administrative units into an autocratic and centralized
monarchy. Yet the people of Ameland continued to understand
political authority and political representation very much in old regime
terms.