‘The Outhwaite controversy’: a micro-history of the Edwardian land campaign

The concept of micro-history has not yet been well explored within historical geography. This paper employs the idea but with a more overtly spatial emphasis, by relating the national discourse surrounding the land question in Edwardian Britain to one of its local manifestations. In particular, we consider the attacks made by the radical ‘single-taxer’ Liberal MP R.L. Outhwaite upon the Duke of Norfolk and his estate at Arundel, Sussex. Outhwaite levelled charges of feudal land monopoly leading to poor housing and rural depopulation on the Duke's Sussex estate, and contrasted this with the wealth being transferred from the Duke's extensive properties in Sheffield to reconstruct the castle at Arundel. The Duke and his agent, Mostyn, responded fiercely to the allegations. This local struggle for political power and capital is set against the wider situation during the tense years leading up to the Great War. The intersection between the two scales of enquiry demonstrates how the national level of political debate became more complex and fractured at the local level, how actors at the local level were also moving on wider stages, and the interconnecting processes. Further questions about the utility of micro-history are raised as a result.     

St Anselm and the English investiture controversy reconsidered

The Investiture Controversy in England has generally been viewed as a two-sided contest between king and pope. But in reality the struggle was between three parties — king, pope, and primate. St Anselm, devoted to his duties as God's steward of his office and its privileges, worked against both King Henry I and Pope Paschal II to bring into reality his idea of the proper status of the primate of all Britain. Anselm had a vision of a political model which he conceived as God's ‘right order’ in England, and all his efforts were directed toward fulfilling this vision.The Investiture Contest may be divided into two parts. The first phase began when Anselm was thwarted by Henry I's duplicity in the archbishop's attempt to force the king to accept the decrees of Rome at the height of a political crisis. Anselm may have seen these decrees as beneficial to the Canterbury primacy. From 1101 to 1103, Anselm wavered between supporting either party completely, meanwhile securing from Paschal all the most important privileges for the primacy of Canterbury. Each time Paschal refused to grant a dispensation for Henry, as Anselm requested, he granted Anselm a privilege for the primacy. Thus Anselm's vision of the primate as almost a patriarch of another world, nearly independent of the pope, was fulfilled by 1103.At this point, Anselm abandoned his vacillation between king and pope, and worked seemingly on behalf of Paschal, but in reality on behalf of the Canterbury primacy. During this second phase, Anselm's political adroitness becomes clear by a correlation, never before made, between the church-state controversy and Henry's campaign to conquer Normandy. By careful maneuvering and skilful propaganda, Anselm forced Henry to choose between submitting to the investiture decree or failing in his attempt to conquer Normandy. At the settlement, a compromise was worked out, Henry conceding on investitures, and Paschal conceding on homage. But investiture was only secondary to Anselm. He ended the dispute not when Henry submitted on investitures, but only when he had gained from Henry concessions which made the primate almost a co-ruler with the king, as his political vision demanded. Only after a public reconcilliation with his archbishop did Henry feel free to complete the Norman campaign.Thus the Investiture Controversy was a three-way struggle. Both king and pope compromised, each giving up some of their goals. But Anselm emerged from the contest having won nearly all his political objectives.     

St Anselm and the English investiture controversy reconsidered

The Investiture Controversy in England has generally been viewed as a two-sided contest between king and pope. But in reality the struggle was between three parties — king, pope, and primate. St Anselm, devoted to his duties as God's steward of his office and its privileges, worked against both King Henry I and Pope Paschal II to bring into reality his idea of the proper status of the primate of all Britain. Anselm had a vision of a political model which he conceived as God's ‘right order’ in England, and all his efforts were directed toward fulfilling this vision.The Investiture Contest may be divided into two parts. The first phase began when Anselm was thwarted by Henry I's duplicity in the archbishop's attempt to force the king to accept the decrees of Rome at the height of a political crisis. Anselm may have seen these decrees as beneficial to the Canterbury primacy. From 1101 to 1103, Anselm wavered between supporting either party completely, meanwhile securing from Paschal all the most important privileges for the primacy of Canterbury. Each time Paschal refused to grant a dispensation for Henry, as Anselm requested, he granted Anselm a privilege for the primacy. Thus Anselm's vision of the primate as almost a patriarch of another world, nearly independent of the pope, was fulfilled by 1103.At this point, Anselm abandoned his vacillation between king and pope, and worked seemingly on behalf of Paschal, but in reality on behalf of the Canterbury primacy. During this second phase, Anselm's political adroitness becomes clear by a correlation, never before made, between the church-state controversy and Henry's campaign to conquer Normandy. By careful maneuvering and skilful propaganda, Anselm forced Henry to choose between submitting to the investiture decree or failing in his attempt to conquer Normandy. At the settlement, a compromise was worked out, Henry conceding on investitures, and Paschal conceding on homage. But investiture was only secondary to Anselm. He ended the dispute not when Henry submitted on investitures, but only when he had gained from Henry concessions which made the primate almost a co-ruler with the king, as his political vision demanded. Only after a public reconcilliation with his archbishop did Henry feel free to complete the Norman campaign.Thus the Investiture Controversy was a three-way struggle. Both king and pope compromised, each giving up some of their goals. But Anselm emerged from the contest having won nearly all his political objectives.     

The Meaning of Normality: the controversy about the mental health campaign in Sweden 1969

At the height of the Swedish welfare society, a campaign with the aim of promoting mental health issues within the Swedish labour market was launched. The title and purpose of the campaign, ‘Mental health – an action of increased understanding and solidarity at work’, was to illuminate mental health issues at work. Surprisingly to the organizers, the mental health campaign stirred up major opposition, especially from the political left. The idea of mental hygiene in an industrial and workplace setting, a cross-breed between the values of the Human Relations School and psychiatric science, was received with deep mistrust. The campaign caused an agitated debate in the media about power relations between employers and employees. The political disagreements were exposed in a number of articles in the daily newspapers and in the evening papers during the summer of that year. This article undertakes an investigation of the campaign literature and the media debate. The interpretation of the debate highlights different opinions about the meaning of normal mental health. Four different views of normality and mental health which demonstrate the complexity of the issue are presented. Mental health could mean adjustment and harmony, it could be a medical weapon to suppress the working class, it could even mean a neutral state of absence of mental problems, or lastly it could be a claim for the right to live a normal life.     

A reappraisal of the controversy of Dax and Broca

Paul Broca is unanimously recognized as the founder of neuropsychology. Helis development of the scientific method to map mental functions onto brain topographpy has been enormously influential. Nevertheless, Dax's paper on the left hemisphere dominance for speech was written and published before Broca explicitely proposed the same theory. Probably, Broca was aware of the paper prior to 1865, but he never acknowledged Dax's original theoretical contribution. On the contrary, he always claimed to be the first to espouse the theory of left hemisphere dominance for language and never quoted Marc Dax (Broca, 1877 p 536), 'I do not like dealing with the questions of priority concerning myself. That is the reason why I did not mention the name of Dax in my paper'. In our opinion, the weight of evidence reported here suggests that the theory of the left hemisphere dominance for speech must be attributed equally to Dax and Broca, and henceforth should be called 'the theory of Dax-Broca'.     

构建网络舆论战基础学科群的思考

在阐述构建网络舆论战基础学科群必要性的过程中,简要分析网络舆论战与不同学科的内在关系,阐明了网络舆论战研究的众多适用学科,并就如何构建我国网络舆论战基础学科群提出了粗浅的建议。     

The formation of use-wear polish on flint: beyond the “deposit versus abrasion” controversy

Use-wear polish on flint has previously been attributed to deposition or attrition. Scanning electron microscope observations indicate that some “deposits” are components of the original flint, while other “deposits” result from contact with different materials. The polish seems to be the result of both attrition and a thin layer of amorphous silica.