7 results
Enquête, Exaction and Excommunication: Experiencing Power in Western France, c. 1190–1245
- Stephen D. Church
-
- Book:
- Anglo-Norman Studies XLIII
- Published by:
- Boydell & Brewer
- Published online:
- 14 January 2023
- Print publication:
- 24 June 2021, pp 177-196
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Of the many components of the so-called ‘legal revolution of the twelfth century’, one of the most important was the development of new legal procedures centred around the concept and practice of inquiry (Latin: inquisitio). The rapid and widespread dissemination of these practices, both in canon and civil law, led to the emergence of a new genre of documentary record known as the inquest, or enquête. This essay maintains that records of late twelfth- and thirteenth-century ecclesiastical enquêtes offer substantial value to the study of subjects other than law and administration, and in particular to the analysis of politics and power. Rather than assessing the enquêtes existentially as elements in a history of legal thought, or of administrative procedure, or of proto-modern rationality, that is, as examples of abstracted principles divorced from the exigencies of medieval life, this study embraces the enquêtes as documents of practice, as records – imperfect as they may be – of how medieval men and women interacted with each other. When read for what they say, and not for what legal historians want to see them as representing, it becomes apparent that the enquêtes represent an under-utilized source base for the analysis of a wide variety of topics of interest to scholars of the central Middle Ages. Enquêtes prove to be ripe for studies of orality, memory, the urban patriciate, urban–ecclesiastical relations, gender norms, moneylending, and much more.
Using two enquêtes conducted in north-western France between 1190 and 1240, the current study analyses what sources of this type reveal about power and the practice of lordship. It argues several interrelated points. First, the enquêtes underscore the point that the compulsory transfer of goods from the weak to the powerful remained, in the thirteenth century, a central element in the practical exercise of power, lordship and government. Such transfers, often represented as the seizure of goods described variously as costuma, taille, nanna and preda, were understood by the powerful to reflect a core, even defining, right of lordship; they were, in a word, central components of the exercise of power, components whose basic legitimacy remained unquestioned. The customary seizure of goods (and sometimes of persons) by the powerful was, moreover, a right practised by all lords, ecclesiastical and secular, royal and seigneurial, grand and petty.
Analyzing the impact of CryoSat-2 ice thickness initialization on seasonal Arctic Sea Ice prediction
- Richard Allard, E. Joseph Metzger, Neil Barton, Li Li, Nathan Kurtz, Michael Phelps, Deborah Franklin, Ole Martin Smedstad, Julia Crout, Pamela Posey
-
- Journal:
- Annals of Glaciology / Volume 61 / Issue 82 / September 2020
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 27 July 2020, pp. 78-85
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Twin 5-month seasonal forecast experiments are performed to predict the September 2018 mean and minimum ice extent using the fully coupled Navy Earth System Prediction Capability (ESPC). In the control run, ensemble forecasts are initialized from the operational US Navy Global Ocean Forecasting System (GOFS) 3.1 but do not assimilate ice thickness data. Another set of forecasts are initialized from the same GOFS 3.1 fields but with sea ice thickness derived from CryoSat-2 (CS2). The Navy ESPC ensemble mean September 2018 minimum sea ice extent initialized with GOFS 3.1 ice thickness was over-predicted by 0.68 M km2 (5.27 M km2) vs the ensemble forecasts initialized with CS2 ice thickness that had an error of 0.40 M km2 (4.99 M km2), a 43% reduction in error. The September mean integrated ice edge error shows a 18% improvement for the Pan-Arctic with the CS2 data vs the control forecasts. Comparison against upward looking sonar ice thickness in the Beaufort Sea reveals a lower bias and RMSE with the CS2 forecasts at all three moorings. Ice concentration at these locations is also improved, but neither set of forecasts show ice free conditions as observed at moorings A and D.
Integration of genomic and clinical data augments surveillance of healthcare-acquired infections
- Doyle V. Ward, Andrew G. Hoss, Raivo Kolde, Helen C. van Aggelen, Joshua Loving, Stephen A. Smith, Deborah A. Mack, Raja Kathirvel, Jeffery A. Halperin, Douglas J. Buell, Brian E. Wong, Judy L. Ashworth, Mary M. Fortunato-Habib, Liyi Xu, Bruce A. Barton, Peter Lazar, Juan J. Carmona, Jomol Mathew, Ivan S. Salgo, Brian D. Gross, Richard T. Ellison III
-
- Journal:
- Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology / Volume 40 / Issue 6 / June 2019
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 23 April 2019, pp. 649-655
- Print publication:
- June 2019
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Background:
Determining infectious cross-transmission events in healthcare settings involves manual surveillance of case clusters by infection control personnel, followed by strain typing of clinical/environmental isolates suspected in said clusters. Recent advances in genomic sequencing and cloud computing now allow for the rapid molecular typing of infecting isolates.
Objective:To facilitate rapid recognition of transmission clusters, we aimed to assess infection control surveillance using whole-genome sequencing (WGS) of microbial pathogens to identify cross-transmission events for epidemiologic review.
Methods:Clinical isolates of Staphylococcus aureus, Enterococcus faecium, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Klebsiella pneumoniae were obtained prospectively at an academic medical center, from September 1, 2016, to September 30, 2017. Isolate genomes were sequenced, followed by single-nucleotide variant analysis; a cloud-computing platform was used for whole-genome sequence analysis and cluster identification.
Results:Most strains of the 4 studied pathogens were unrelated, and 34 potential transmission clusters were present. The characteristics of the potential clusters were complex and likely not identifiable by traditional surveillance alone. Notably, only 1 cluster had been suspected by routine manual surveillance.
Conclusions:Our work supports the assertion that integration of genomic and clinical epidemiologic data can augment infection control surveillance for both the identification of cross-transmission events and the inclusion of missed and exclusion of misidentified outbreaks (ie, false alarms). The integration of clinical data is essential to prioritize suspect clusters for investigation, and for existing infections, a timely review of both the clinical and WGS results can hold promise to reduce HAIs. A richer understanding of cross-transmission events within healthcare settings will require the expansion of current surveillance approaches.
Contributors
-
- By Lenard A. Adler, Pinky Agarwal, Rehan Ahmed, Jagga Rao Alluri, Fawaz Al-Mufti, Samuel Alperin, Michael Amoashiy, Michael Andary, David J. Anschel, Padmaja Aradhya, Vandana Aspen, Esther Baldinger, Jee Bang, George D. Baquis, John J. Barry, Jason J. S. Barton, Julius Bazan, Amanda R. Bedford, Marlene Behrmann, Lourdes Bello-Espinosa, Ajay Berdia, Alan R. Berger, Mark Beyer, Don C. Bienfang, Kevin M. Biglan, Thomas M. Boes, Paul W. Brazis, Jonathan L. Brisman, Jeffrey A. Brown, Scott E. Brown, Ryan R. Byrne, Rina Caprarella, Casey A. Chamberlain, Wan-Tsu W. Chang, Grace M. Charles, Jasvinder Chawla, David Clark, Todd J. Cohen, Joe Colombo, Howard Crystal, Vladimir Dadashev, Sarita B. Dave, Jean Robert Desrouleaux, Richard L. Doty, Robert Duarte, Jeffrey S. Durmer, Christyn M. Edmundson, Eric R. Eggenberger, Steven Ender, Noam Epstein, Alberto J. Espay, Alan B. Ettinger, Niloofar (Nelly) Faghani, Amtul Farheen, Edward Firouztale, Rod Foroozan, Anne L. Foundas, David Elliot Friedman, Deborah I. Friedman, Steven J. Frucht, Oded Gerber, Tal Gilboa, Martin Gizzi, Teneille G. Gofton, Louis J. Goodrich, Malcolm H. Gottesman, Varda Gross-Tsur, Deepak Grover, David A. Gudis, John J. Halperin, Maxim D. Hammer, Andrew R. Harrison, L. Anne Hayman, Galen V. Henderson, Steven Herskovitz, Caitlin Hoffman, Laryssa A. Huryn, Andres M. Kanner, Gary P. Kaplan, Bashar Katirji, Kenneth R. Kaufman, Annie Killoran, Nina Kirz, Gad E. Klein, Danielle G. Koby, Christopher P. Kogut, W. Curt LaFrance, Patrick J.M. Lavin, Susan W. Law, James L. Levenson, Richard B. Lipton, Glenn Lopate, Daniel J. Luciano, Reema Maindiratta, Robert M. Mallery, Georgios Manousakis, Alan Mazurek, Luis J. Mejico, Dragana Micic, Ali Mokhtarzadeh, Walter J. Molofsky, Heather E. Moss, Mark L. Moster, Manpreet Multani, Siddhartha Nadkarni, George C. Newman, Rolla Nuoman, Paul A. Nyquist, Gaia Donata Oggioni, Odi Oguh, Denis Ostrovskiy, Kristina Y. Pao, Juwen Park, Anastas F. Pass, Victoria S. Pelak, Jeffrey Peterson, John Pile-Spellman, Misha L. Pless, Gregory M. Pontone, Aparna M. Prabhu, Michael T. Pulley, Philip Ragone, Prajwal Rajappa, Venkat Ramani, Sindhu Ramchandren, Ritesh A. Ramdhani, Ramses Ribot, Heidi D. Riney, Diana Rojas-Soto, Michael Ronthal, Daniel M. Rosenbaum, David B. Rosenfield, Durga Roy, Michael J. Ruckenstein, Max C. Rudansky, Eva Sahay, Friedhelm Sandbrink, Jade S. Schiffman, Angela Scicutella, Maroun T. Semaan, Robert C. Sergott, Aashit K. Shah, David M. Shaw, Amit M. Shelat, Claire A. Sheldon, Anant M. Shenoy, Yelizaveta Sher, Jessica A. Shields, Tanya Simuni, Rajpaul Singh, Eric E. Smouha, David Solomon, Mehri Songhorian, Steven A. Sparr, Egilius L. H. Spierings, Eve G. Spratt, Beth Stein, S.H. Subramony, Rosa Ana Tang, Cara Tannenbaum, Hakan Tekeli, Amanda J. Thompson, Michael J. Thorpy, Matthew J. Thurtell, Pedro J. Torrico, Ira M. Turner, Scott Uretsky, Ruth H. Walker, Deborah M. Weisbrot, Michael A. Williams, Jacques Winter, Randall J. Wright, Jay Elliot Yasen, Shicong Ye, G. Bryan Young, Huiying Yu, Ryan J. Zehnder
- Edited by Alan B. Ettinger, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, Deborah M. Weisbrot, State University of New York, Stony Brook
-
- Book:
- Neurologic Differential Diagnosis
- Published online:
- 05 June 2014
- Print publication:
- 17 April 2014, pp xi-xx
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Contributors
-
- By Krista Adamek, Ana Luisa K. Albernaz, J. Marcio Ayres†, Andrew J. Baker, Karen L. Bales, Adrian A. Barnett, Christopher Barton, John M. Bates, Jennie Becker, Bruna M. Bezerra, Júlio César Bicca-Marques, Richard Bodmer, Jean P. Boubli, Mark Bowler, Sarah A. Boyle, Christini Barbosa Caselli, Janice Chism, Elena P. Cunningham, José Maria C. da Silva, Lesa C. Davies, Nayara de Alcântara Cardoso, Manuella A. de Souza, Stella de la Torre, Ana Gabriela de Luna, Thomas R. Defler, Anthony Di Fiore, Eduardo Fernandez-Duque, Stephen F. Ferrari, Wilsea M.B. Figueiredo-Ready, Tracy Frampton, Paul A. Garber, Brian W. Grafton, L. Tremaine Gregory, Maria L. Harada, Amy Harrison-Levine, Walter C. Hartwig, Stefanie Heiduck, Eckhard W. Heymann, André Hirsch, Leandro Jerusalinsky, Gareth Jones, Richard F. Kay, Martin M. Kowalewski, Shawn M. Lehman, Laura Marsh, Jesús Martinez, William A. Mason, Hope Matthews, Wynlyn McBride, Shona McCann-Wood, W. Scott McGraw, D. Jeffrey Meldrum, Sally P. Mendoza, Nohelia Mercado, Russell A. Mittermeier, Mirjam N. Nadjafzadeh, Marilyn A. Norconk, Robert Gary Norman, Marcela Oliveira, Marcelo M. Oliveira, Maria Juliana Ospina Rodríguez, Erwin Palacios, Suzanne Palminteri, Liliam P. Pinto, Marcio Port-Carvalho, Leila Porter, Carlos Portillo-Quintero, George Powell, Ghillean T. Prance, Rodrigo C. Printes, Pablo Puertas, P. Kirsten Pullen, Helder L. Queiroz, Luis Reginaldo R. Rodrigues, Adriana Rodríguez, Alfred L. Rosenberger, Anthony B. Rylands, Ricardo R. Santos, Horacio Schneider, Eleonore Z.F. Setz, Suleima S.B. Silva, José S. Silva Júnior, Andrew T. Smith, Marcelo C. Sousa, Antonio S. Souto, Wilson R. Spironello, Masanaru Takai, Marcelo F. Tejedor, Cynthia L. Thompson, Diego G. Tirira, Raul Tupayachi, Bernardo Urbani, Liza M. Veiga, Marianela Velilla, João Valsecchi, Jean-Christophe Vié, Tatiana M. Vieira, Suzanne E. Walker-Pacheco, Rob Wallace, Patricia C. Wright, Charles E. Zartman
- Edited by Liza M. Veiga, Universidade Federal do Pará, Brazil, Adrian A. Barnett, Roehampton University, London, Stephen F. Ferrari, Universidade Federal de Sergipe, Brazil, Marilyn A. Norconk, Kent State University, Ohio
-
- Book:
- Evolutionary Biology and Conservation of Titis, Sakis and Uacaris
- Published online:
- 05 April 2013
- Print publication:
- 11 April 2013, pp xii-xv
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Emotions and Power in Orderic Vitalis
- Edited by C. P. Lewis
-
- Book:
- Anglo-Norman Studies XXXIII
- Published by:
- Boydell & Brewer
- Published online:
- 14 February 2023
- Print publication:
- 21 July 2011, pp 41-60
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
‘The word “power” (pouvoir) is vague in French.’ Thus Georges Duby, writing in 1991 about women and power. Although he proceeded in this context to provide a precise definition of power, his comment is perhaps more significant than even Duby realized. For while Duby intended merely to set the stage for his subsequent analysis, he inadvertently touched upon a central fact that describes many of the dozens of books and articles written over the past twenty years employing the word ‘power’ either in their titles or, more rarely, in their methodological apparatus. While studies of power, then, are ubiquitous, what an author means by power is often less well articulated, even vague. Of course any sort of lexical imprecision, or, perhaps, lexical malleability, serves a double function in the contexts both of everyday communication and of the writing of history. The very ubiquity of a word or concept like power as a tool for historical analysis renders it at once powerless, because of its semantic vagueness, and powerful, because each reader is capable of infusing it with meaning on an individual, and highly subjective, basis. That is to say that imprecision lends potency to a concept, for the meaning that is lacking in the word itself can be and is supplied in every context by those who hear, read, or experience the concept in question. Given this fact, it is perhaps not surprising that historians have only hesitantly ventured to define power with precision; the limitations of any such definition would serve to localize and, to a degree, minimize the efficacy of power as a concept. That Duby chose in 1991 to define power rather precisely as the range of meanings ‘expressed by the Latin term potestas …, that is, the power to command and punish’, is thus somewhat surprising, and not a little disappointing. For one thing, by limiting power conceptually to the ability to command and punish, Duby closed off other potential ways of thinking about power, ways that might have led him to conclude differently about the capacity of women to exercise power. Furthermore, the real question is whether the words for power were vague in medieval Latin, not in modern French, or, at least, whether specific authors writing in medieval Latin also found power to be a vague concept.
5 - Henry I, Count Helias of Maine, and the Battle of Tinchebray
- Edited by Donald F. Fleming, Janet Pope
-
- Book:
- Henry I and the Anglo-Norman World
- Published by:
- Boydell & Brewer
- Published online:
- 10 March 2023
- Print publication:
- 19 April 2007, pp 63-90
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
On 28 September 1106, King Henry I of England defeated his older brother, Duke Robert Curthose of Normandy, in battle near Tinchebray in southern Normandy. For all that this battle allowed Henry to reunite the two parts of his father’s regnum under one ruler, the coup de grace at Tinchebray was delivered not by Henry himself, nor by his familia. Instead, Henry’s allies, the troops of Maine and Anjou under the command of Count Helias of Maine, led the charge that broke Curthose’s line and delivered Normandy to Henry. Tinchebray has been ably studied by several recent historians, including Warren Hollister, and this paper has no intention of further considering the tactics or consequences of Henry’s great victory. What has not been as carefully considered as the battle itself, however, is the significance of the presence of Count Helias in Henry’s army. Aside from some comments by Hollister, themselves partly indebted to an earlier version of this paper, the presence of Helias in the Norman host (as well as that of Geoffrey Martel, count-inwaiting of Anjou) has been taken for granted. Yet the Manceaux in general and Count Helias in particular could hardly have been expected to love William the Conqueror or his sons. Ever since the first Norman conquest – of Maine, in 1063 – the Manceaux had chafed at the Norman yoke, rebelling twice against the Conqueror and in turn being thrice subjected to the full weight of William’s military might. The resistance of the Manceaux to Norman rule became such a trope in western France in the late eleventh century that Orderic Vitalis was famously led to gloss the Latin word for Maine as ‘canine madness’ and, by consequence, to essentialize the impudent and rebellious nature of its inhabitants. The death of the Conqueror changed little in this regard, for the Manceaux continued to revolt against his sons, rising against Robert Curthose in 1088–89 and against William Rufus in 1098–1100. During this period, one of the chief opponents of Norman rule was Helias, son of the castellan-lord of La Flèche and eventual count of Maine.