Tijdschrift voor Geschiedenis - Volume 123, Issue 1, 2010

In the early imperial age, the Christian minority within Roman society was repeatedly rejected and misunderstood. This antipathy was expressed in vicious accusations including ones of immoral sexual conduct and cannibalism, which incidentally also triggered the prosecution of Christians. At the end of the second century, other forms of polemic arose: authors who had studied Christian customs attacked the content of Christian teachings. In an attempt to examine and explain these allegations in their historical context, we discuss the misconceptions surrounding certain elements of the Eucharist, as well as the personal motives of pagan authors, and a literary topos.

‘In 1621, the year of renewed war, the archduke Albert died. As he lay dying, he urged the infanta, who would now be left to rule alone, to rely henceforth on the advice of Rubens.’ Some thirty years ago, this was how the British historian Hugh Trevor-Roper described the beginnings of Peter Paul Rubens’s diplomatic career. Although well-written and stirring one’s imagination, this quotation may seem somewhat alien to historians living in the twenty-first century. This article aims to reconsider Rubens’s first steps on the diplomatic scene, thereby critically evaluating existing historiography and paying close attention to the historical context that surrounded his diplomatic activities. The Antwerp painter-diplomat is presented here as an ambitious political agent and a harsh competitor, always on the lookout to further his ‘career’ and to fulfil his social ambitions.

Aleksandr Nicolaevič Pypin (1833-1904), ethnographer, historian, and journalist, was born in Saratov and was a cousin of radical journalist and revolutionary Nikolaj Gavrilovič Černyševskij (1828-89). Pypin graduated from St. Petersburg University and in 1857 received his doctorate. He was the author of about 1200 publications, including three great compilations: A History of Russian Ethnography, A History of Russian Literature, and A History of Slavic Literature. Pypin became one of the leading authorities in Slavic literature and culture. He undertook a trip to several Slavic countries, where he collected material for his publications. He began his career at St. Petersburg University, where he became a professor in 1860. It turned out to be a brief career. In 1861, because of government reaction to student unrest, he resigned together with his liberal colleagues. Pypin began to write for the ‘thick’ journals, publishing in Sovremennik and later in Vestnik Evropy, where he became one of the most active contributors. His support for his revolutionary cousin and his association with other radicals further complicated his life and career. It attracted the wrath of the Russian government. Only a few years before he died his talents were officially recognized, and in 1891 he became a member of the Academy of Sciences.

In September 1942, during the eighteenth Monument Day, the department of Education, Science, and Cultural Protection announced long-awaited plans for a new museum at an as-yet unspecified location on the former Zuiderzee, devoted to collecting and exhibiting what remained of the Zuiderzee culture. S.J. Bouma, the department’s spokesman and new director of the Open Air Museum, was not a folklorist but an architect. Close co-operation between J.K. van der Haagen (from the same department), Bouma, and H.E. van Gelder (from the government commission in charge of museums) led in 1934-44 to various reports and recommendations. Enkhuizen was chosen as the museum’s future home. At the war’s end there was still no definitive decision regarding the Zuiderzeemuseum. Moreover, Bouma – still hard at work on the museum’s design – was subpoenaed by the Arnhem Tribunal in 1946 to account for his wartime activities. He was exonerated in 1947, and the following year he was appointed director of the Zuiderzeemuseum, which (still in modest form) opened its doors in 1950. The museum had already benefited greatly from Bouma’s plans and ideas. One wonders if there would even have been the Zuiderzeemuseum without Bouma.

During the German occupation of the Netherlands the dispossession and resale of Jewish property could be realized only with the assistance of the public notaries. Their behavior was supposed to be constrained by the Notaries Law and professional ethics, but many cooperated willingly, even though those who refused were not prosecuted by the German authorities. After the war the question arose of what action should be taken against those who had co-operated. Behind closed doors a deal was made between the notaries and the Minister of Justice to exculpate all notaries. The notaries were to make a restitution of their profits, allowing for costs, and the restituted funds were allotted to a public purpose. The deal caused a conflict between the Minister of Justice and the special prosecutor, when the Minister acted to withdraw the tribunalcases against those notaries who had co-operated in the large-scale alienation of Jewish property.

In this article Duco Hellema presents an overview of recent publications about the 1970s. He distinguishes three images of this decade. The first is that of a period of necessary neoliberal reorientation, temporarily hindered by social democratic and union stubbornness. The second is that of a decade of social malaise, individualism, and religiouslyinspired conservatism, tendencies that reacted against the progressive rationality and consensus of the previous period. The third is that of an era of leftism, socialdemocratic dominance, and of a reform-oriented spirit in general. Synthesizing the three images, the ‘long seventies’ emerge as a period of radical changes, that started in the years 1966-67. From the early 1970s conservative counter-movements began to grow and gained strength under the conditions of economic recession and social malaise. The second half of the 1970s was characterized by a political standstill, a deadlock between reform-oriented and conservative tendencies. At the start of the 1980s, the ‘long seventies’ came to an end, as neo-liberalism triumphed in most western countries. These changes had a remarkable global character and could be observed – be it in different forms – all over the world. Therefore, Hellema argues, it is necessary to develop a more global perspective on the seventies.

Slovenia, with its unique position between Western and South Eastern Europe, and with its diversified past, has much to offer a historian. In this article we focus on the dichotomy between civil and ethnic nationalism and the traditional linking of those two theoretical variants of nationalism respectively to Western and Eastern Europe. Thanks to the exceptional character of Slovenia, we can modify existing theories about nationalism and approve current scepticism regarding the idea of a dichotomy between Western and Eastern nationalisms. The research will be based on sources of political discourse, such as scientific periodicals, cartoons in newspapers, and political programs of the period 1980-91, in which Slovenia was developing towards democracy.