@phdthesis{Schellbach2021,
  author    = {Schellbach, Konrad},
  title     = {Erdbeben in der Geschichtsschreibung des Fr{\"u}h- und Hochmittelalters},
  series = {Historical catastrophe studies},
  journal   = {Historical catastrophe studies},
  publisher = {de Gruyter},
  address   = {Berlin},
  isbn      = {978-3-11-061998-0},
  issn      = {2699-7231},
  doi       = {10.1515/9783110620771},
  pages     = {XII, 354},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {"Terrae motus factus est magnus". In diesen und {\"a}hnlichen Worten erinnern mittelalterliche Geschichtsschreiber stets an das versp{\"u}rte Eintreten von Erdbeben. F{\"u}r die ereignisgeschichtliche Rekonstruktion der historischen Seismizit{\"a}t besitzt das Verst{\"a}ndnis, dieser seit dem Fr{\"u}hmittelalter zunehmend standardisiert gebrauchten Narrativen, einen hohen Wert. Daher ist es wichtig, mit den bislang nahezu unerkannt geblieben Intentionen, Vorstellungsstrukturen und Argumentationsstrategien fr{\"u}h- und hochmittelalterlicher Geschichtsschreiber bekannt zu werden. Ausgehend von den antiken Urspr{\"u}ngen ermittelt diese Arbeit die Bandbreite einer auf "terrae motus" aufbauenden, spezifisch mittelalterlichen Traditionsbildung und setzt sie in den Kontext zum Wissens- und Erfahrungshorizont fr{\"u}h- und hochmittelalterlicher Gelehrter. Erdbeben besaßen ein außerordentliches hermeneutisches Potential f{\"u}r das mittelalterliche Weltverst{\"a}ndnis. Somit sind mittelalterliche Erdbebenbeschreibungen hinsichtlich ihrer deskriptiven Qualit{\"a}t und argumentativen Wertigkeit verschieden. Die Historiographie- und Ideengeschichte sowie die seismologische Parametrisierung von mittelalterlichen Erdbeben wird von diesem Wissen gleichermaßen profitieren.},
  subject      = {Deutschland},
  language  = {de}
}
@misc{Angelow2004,
  author    = {Angelow, J{\"u}rgen},
  title     = {Kontexte ungleicher Deutung : zur Rezeption Friedrichs II. im geteilten Deutschland},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-7410},
  year      = {2004},
  subject      = {Friedrich (Preußen},
  language  = {de}
}
@article{McNamara2021,
  author    = {McNamara, James},
  title     = {Lost in Germania},
  series = {Unspoken Rome: Absences in Latin Texts},
  journal   = {Unspoken Rome: Absences in Latin Texts},
  editor    = {Geue, Tom and Giusti, Elena},
  publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
  address   = {Cambridge},
  isbn      = {978-11-0884-304-1},
  doi       = {https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108913843.012},
  pages     = {201 -- 218},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Tacitus' Germania is notable for its absences: lacking a preface and programmatic statements, and being the only ethnographic monograph to have survived from Greco-Roman antiquity, readers have often leapt to fill in its perceived blanks. This chapter aims at redressing the effects of overdetermined readings by interpreting the text's absences as significant in their own right.},
  language  = {en}
}
@book{OPUS4-63165,
  title     = {Tacitus' Wonders},
  editor    = {McNamara, James and Pag{\´a}n, Victoria Emma},
  publisher = {Bloomsbury},
  address   = {London},
  isbn      = {978-1-350-24172-5},
  doi       = {10.5040/9781350241763},
  pages     = {viii, 281},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {This volume approaches the broad topic of wonder in the works of Tacitus, encompassing paradox, the marvellous and the admirable. Recent scholarship on these themes in Roman literature has tended to focus on poetic genres, with comparatively little attention paid to historiography: Tacitus, whose own judgments on what is worthy of note have often differed in interesting ways from the preoccupations of his readers, is a fascinating focal point for this complementary perspective. Scholarship on Tacitus has to date remained largely marked by a divide between the search for veracity - as validated by modern historiographical standards - and literary approaches, and as a result wonders have either been ignored as unfit for an account of history or have been deprived of their force by being interpreted as valid only within the text. While the modern ideal of historiographical objectivity tends to result in striving for consistent heuristic and methodological frameworks, works as varied as Tacitus' Histories, Annals and opera minora can hardly be prefaced with a statement of methodology broad enough to escape misrepresenting their diversity. In our age of specialization a streamlined methodological framework is a virtue, but it should not be assumed that Tacitus had similar priorities, and indeed the Histories and Annals deserve to be approached with openness towards the variety of perspectives that a tradition as rich as Latin historiographical prose can include within its scope. This collection proposes ways to reconcile the divide between history and historiography by exploring contestable moments in the text that challenge readers to judge and interpret for themselves, with individual chapters drawing on a range of interpretive approaches that mirror the wealth of authorial and reader-specific responses in play.},
  language  = {en}
}