Many scholars working on the Old French ‘Song of Roland’ (from about 1100) and its Middle High German adaptation (from about 1170) have commented on the inconsistencies of the main character, the emperor Charlemagne. On the one hand, he is strong and active; on the other, he sinks into passivity and weakness. In this context, the ruler's emotions have often been seen as signs of his helplessness and, therefore, his humanity. By analyzing Charlemagne's grief and anger more closely, this article (...) aims to elaborate a different interpretation. Firstly, it shows that the contradictory depiction of the ruler's emotions is part of a strategy which brings Charlemagne into line with Christ. Thus, Charlemagne's emotions – even those apparently underlining his weakness – ultimately legitimize his position as a ruler. Secondly, there is another significant finding: Charlemagne's emotions do not simply represent the “human” part of his character, as has been suggested, but are themselves important means of power. (shrink)

Hierarchical expansions of the theory of natural selection exist in two distinct bodies of thought in evolutionary biology, the group selection and the species selection traditions. Both traditions share the point of view that the principles of natural selection apply at levels of biological organization above the level of the individual organism. This leads them both to considermultilevel selection situations, where selection is occurring simultaneously at more than one level. Impeding unification of the theoretical approaches of the multilevel selection traditions (...) are the different goals of investigators in the different subdisciplines and the different types of data potentially available for analysis. We identify two alternative approaches to multilevel situations, which we termmultilevel selection [1] andmultilevel selection [2]. Of interest in the former case are the effects of group membership onindividual fitnesses, and in the latter the tendencies for the groups themselves to go extinct or to found new groups (i.e., group fitnesses). We argue that: neither represents the entire multilevel selection process; both are aspects of any multilevel selection situation; and both are legitimate approaches, suitable for answering different questions. Using this formalism, we show that: multilevel selection [2] does not require emergent group properties in order to provide an explanatory mechanism of evolutionary change; multilevel selection [1] is usually more appropriate for neontological group selection studies; and species selection is most fruitfully considered from the point of view of multilevel selection [2]. Finally we argue that the effect hypothesis of macroevolution, requiring, in selection among species, both the absence of group effects on organismic fitness (multilevel selection [1]), and the direct determination of species fitnesses by those of organisms, is untestable with paleontological data. Furthermore, the conditions for the effect hypothesis to hold are extremely restrictive and unlikely to apply to the vast majority of situations encountered in nature. (shrink)

Ce livre est la version révisée et abrégée de la thèse de doctorat de l’auteure, effectuée dans le cadre du projet « Emotionalität in der Literatur des Mittelalters » à l’Université libre de Berlin. Bien que le mot n’apparaisse qu’en sous-titre, l’objet principal de ce livre est avant tout la colère des rois. En effet, l’auteure s’intéresse à la manière dont cette émotion est exprimée dans quatre textes de genres différents : un texte théorique, le Policratus de Jean de Salisbury; (...) un texte hi... (shrink)

The group selection controversy largely focuses on altruism (e.g., Wilson 1983; Lloyd 2001; Shavit 2004; Okasha 2006, 173ff; Borrello 2010; Leigh 2010; Rosas 2010; Hamilton and Dimond in press). Multilevel selection theory is a resolution of this controversy. Whereas kin selection partitions inclusive fitness into direct and indirect components (via influencing the replication of copies of genes in other individuals), multilevel selection considers within-group and between-group components of fitness (Gardner et al. 2011; Lion et al. 2011). Two scenarios of multilevel (...) selection are often distinguished (Damuth and Heisler 1988; Okasha 2006; Pigliucci 2010): (1) group structure only divides individual fitnesses into within- and between-group components (MLS1); and, (2) groups get their own component of fitness and also, in most definitions, a group-level adaptation (MLS2). (shrink)

In the last decades Robert Fludd’s philosophy has received increasing attention. On the other hand, his life, network, and acquaintances have been investigated in much less detail. As William Huffman rightly put it, “[o]ne of the main problems confronting someone interested in Robert Fludd is the lack of information about his formative years, as well as about his later associations”. Ron Heisler already observed that regrettably Huffman’s own account is not always accurate or complete. Scholars such as Johannes Rösche (...) have recently added more details. The aim of this article is to give scope for further research; it collects contributions by previous scholars and adds details, corrects inaccuracies, identifies hitherto nameless people with whom Fludd came into contact, and places he visited. It also takes into account current research coming from tangential fields, for instance studies on Fludd’s publisher or on philosophers such as Michael Maier, with whom he is thought to have been closely associated. (shrink)