Show Less

Between Worlds: The Age of the Jagiellonians

Series:

Edited By Florin Nicolae Ardelean, Christopher Nicholson and Johannes Preiser-Kapeller

This volume brings together a rich variety of papers, which were given at an international conference entitled «Between Worlds: The Age of the Jagiellonians» in Cluj-Napoca in October 2010. They cover various aspects of the impact of this important dynasty on Central, Eastern and Southeastern Europe, and its reign in Lithuania, Poland, Hungary and Bohemia between the 14 th and the 16 th century. Thus, the relevance of the Age of the Jagiellonians for the transformation of Europe between the late Middle Ages and the Early Modern period becomes visible. Various approaches to the overall topic can be found in this volume, be it from the viewpoint of war and religion, frontier studies, politics, theology, historiography or art history.

Prices

Show Summary Details
Restricted access

The Bohemian Diet in the Jagiellonian Period(1471–1526). Towards a Comparative Perspective. Christopher Nicholson (London)

Extract

The Bohemian Diet in the Jagiellonian Period (1471–1526) Towards a Comparative Perspective Christopher Nicholson (London) Introduction Research on the history of parliamentary institutions in Europe has often been undertaken using comparative approaches1. Our starting point for this essay is that, broadly speaking, comparative history is a good way of doing historical research into parliamentary institutions and, indeed, many other historical phenomena. Chris Wickham observed two strong reasons why one should do comparative history. First, comparison allows us to see beyond our own narrow borders, and it stops us from viewing one particular form of historical development as “normal, normative”. In short, it prevents the his- torian from falling into a state of “cultural solipsism”2. Second, in Wickham’s view, comparative history is the closest that we can get, in a Popperian way, to testing and falsification, much as is done in the sciences. It is Wickham’s contention that comparative history is a way that a historian might prove or disprove a particular hypothesis3. With comparative history being so useful, it should be no surprise that doing this form of institutional history continues to be popular, although authors do not always state explicitly that they are presenting a piece of comparative history. Indeed, occasionally, such works suggest that they aim to place a specific case in a particular context4. Bohemia tends not to figure amongst the territories and parliaments compared and contrasted. One suspects that there is something of a lan- 1 For example, A. MARONGIU, Medieval Parliaments. London 1968;...

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

This site requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals.

Do you have any questions? Contact us.

Or login to access all content.