This article analyzes the transformations of the concept of charism from its original use by Paul in the first century to its latest post-Weberian derivations in the 21st century. It defends the convenience of recovering the original Pauline concept, in order to apply it to historical realities, concretely those referring to medieval Europe. His goal is refund the discussion on charism to the historical and theological disciplines, beyond the presentist orientation of the social sciences. In particular, I emphasize the distortion of ignoring the theological and spiritual origin of the whole discussion on charism, and of the concept itself, in order to avoid a decontextualization that would lead to antiquarian alienation or presentist solipsism.

From the 1970s onwards, postmodern, postcolonial and feminist criticism has reactivated the disapproval of the canon. Its academic and pedagogical usefulness remains challenged by historians who have generally been skeptical of its critical worth, its role as an instrument of hierarchization and standard of quality. Both the justification for the existence of the canon in history - which affects its content and function - and the criteria for the selection of an alleged canon of history - which affects its form and is concretized in a list - has been questioned. Nevertheless, in the early 2000s, there were major debates in some northern European countries about the development of historical canons as part of their historical education. These precedents show that the canon has its detractors and generates controversy, but in the end it matters. On the basis of a flexible definition and dynamic application, this article examines the place of the canon in (and of) history, arguing its relevance in historiography: its formation, key turning points, convenience, usefulness, and the desirability of its existence itself. This leads to questions such as: What are the epistemological conditions that make the durability of certain historical works and the discarding of others possible? What determines the systematic inclusion and exclusion of texts in bibliographical lists or in the indexes of the histories of historiographies? Why do the major canonical works usually imply a break with the past but, paradoxically, remain there when later works enter the list?

What is the classic in history? What is a classic in historical writing? Very few historians and critics have addressed these questions, and when they have done so, it has been only in a cursory manner. These are queries that require some explanation regarding historical texts because of their peculiar ambivalence between science and art, content and form, sources and imagination, scientific and narrative language. Based on some examples of the Western historiographical tradition, I discuss in this article to what extent historians should engage the concept of the classic - as has been done for literary texts. If one assumes that the historical text is not only a referential account but also a narrative analogous to literary texts, then the concept of the classic becomes one of the keys for understanding the historical text - and may improve our understanding not only of historiography, but of history itself. I will argue in this article that it is possible to identify a category of the classic text in some historical writings, precisely because of the literarity they possess without losing their specific historical condition. Because of their narrative condition, historical texts share some of the features assigned to literary texts - that is, endurance, timelessness, universal meaningfulness, resistance to historical criticism, susceptibility to multiple interpretations, and ability to function as models. Yet, since historical texts do not construct imaginary worlds but reflect external realities, they also have to achieve some specific features according to this referential content - that is, surplus of meaning, historical use of metaphors, effect of contemporaneity without damaging the pastness of the past, and a certain appropriation of literariness. Without seeking to be normative or systematic, this article focuses on some specific features of the historical classic, offering a series of reflections to open rather than try to close a discussion on this complex topic.

Stereotypes present the medieval period as grotesque and even terrifying. From his deep knowledge of that period, the author proposes an alternative, liberating and luminous vision. Because life in the Middle Ages average may have been harder than ours, but it was also more beautiful. Without omitting the errors, Jaume Aurell emphasises the most sublime values, using a theatrical structure in three Acts: the first presents the characters, from Constantine to Charlemagne; the second, the choral elements, from the feudal lords to the merchants; and the third, the settings, from the hell of the pandemics to the paradise of the poets and artists. The text, informative and rigorous, thus frames the centuries that separate Constantine from Leonardo da Vinci.

This book aims to provide a new perspective on the subject, dealing with the events (historical events and intellectual discourses) connected with the political theology rather than with the imaginary or fictional, and more based on an interdisciplinary approach (from the more theoretical and deductive political philosophy and theology to the more practical and inductive law history, intellectual history, political history, and art history). It thus explores in depth the practices of political theology through history - focusing on philosophical and intellectual discourses, historical gestures, liturgies, art, representations, and symbols.

This book deals with the way historical genres are theorized and practiced in the twenty-first century. In the context of the freedoms inspired by postmodernism and enabled by the development of innovative textual and graphic platforms, new theories of history view genres as flexible living forms that inspire more creative and experimental representations of the past. New ways of articulating history compete with the traditional model of historical prose. Acknowledging the current diversity in theories and practices, and assuming the historicity of historical genres, this book engages the reality of historical genres today and explores new directions in historical practice by examining these new forms of representing the past. Thus, without denying the validity of traditional and conventional forms of history (and arguing that these forms remain valid), this book surveys the production of what might be considered new historical genres practiced today, in which the idea of "practical past" is put in practice. Preceded by the introduction and two theoretical articles on historical genres, some of the new forms of history analysed in this book are: historical re-enactments, gaming history, social average, graphic narratives and first-person narratives of, memoirs of trauma, and film-history. This book was originally published as a special issue of Rethinking History.

Volume 22 of Ideas collects part of the fruits of AEDOS' seminar room on Jaume Aurell's book Genealogía de Occidente. Claves històriques del món actual. The author justifies the elaboration of Genealogy of the West in the lack of "self-esteem" that is present in many Westerners today. The issue behind this is obvious: the importance of being true to oneself - and not only to others - is undoubtedly a feature of Western civilisation, and this implies self-criticism and, without too much effort, reflection on whether Westerners themselves have been consistent in their deeds with their reasons. In a second step, the problem arises as to whether the promotion of reflection and freedom of expression, as understood in the West, does not generate a guilt complex with respect to its culture, which is based precisely on the extent to which the historical phenomenon we call "Westernisation" has taken place.