Eilert Sundt. A founding father of the social sciences in Norway

The cult of St Nicholas spread in Scandinavia and northern Rus' in approximately the same period, namely in the last decades of the 11th and the first decades of the 12th centuries. In spite of such a correspondence, the dissemination of the cult in the two adjacent regions has been treated as two separate phenomena. Consequently, the growing popularity of the cult in Scandinavia has traditionally been dealt with as an immanent part of the transmission of the Catholic tradition, and a similar phenomenon in northern Rus' has been discussed with reference to the establishment of Orthodox Christianity. By contrast, the evidence analysed in this article shows that the establishment of the cult of St Nicholas in the two regions was an intertwined process, in which the difference between Latin Christendom and Greek Orthodoxy played a minor role. The early spread of this particular cult thus suggests that, as far as some aspects of the cult of saints are concerned, the division between Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity in Northern Europe was less abrupt in the 11th and 12th centuries than has been traditionally assumed. This was due to the fact that the medieval cult of saints was not limited to the liturgy of saints, but was a wider social phenomenon in which political and dynastic links and cultural and trading contacts across Northern Europe often mattered more than confessional differences. When we leave the liturgy aside and turn to kings, princes, traders and other folk interacting across the early Christian North, then the confessional borders are less useful for our understanding of how some aspects of Christian culture were communicated across Northern Europe in the first two centuries after conversion.     

Thomas Jefferson and the Rise of the Supreme Court

American constitutional history in the early national period seems at times to be a conversation—or an argument—among Virginians. There's James Madison, George Washington, George Mason, John Taylor of Caroline County, Judge Spencer Roane, John Randolph of Roanoke, to mention only some. At the center of this constellation were John Marshall and Thomas Jefferson.     

Napoleon,Jefferson, and the Louisiana Purchase

Why did Napoleon sell Louisiana to the United States? Unfortunately, he left very few written traces of his Louisiana policy and, therefore, historians disagree. Their explanations tend to emphasise one of three factors: the diplomacy of President Thomas Jefferson; France's coming war with Britain; or the impact of the black rebels of the French colony of Saint-Domingue (present-day Haiti). The most heated disagreements revolve around the differing assessments of the role played by Jefferson. This article argues that Jefferson played no role in Napoleon's decision to sell the colony. It acknowledges that the British were crucial, because war with Britain meant that Louisiana would be lost to France. But why was Louisiana undefended? The troops Napoleon wanted to send there never arrived. They went instead to Haiti. And they remained there. If black resistance in Haiti had collapsed quickly, as Napoleon expected, there would have been thousands of French soldiers in Louisiana by the spring of 1803, when the French war with Britain began. By defeating Napoleon, the men whom Jefferson deemed ‘cannibals’ made it possible for him to acquire Louisiana and achieve what an eminent US historian has called his ‘greatest triumph’.     

Thomas Jefferson and the American Indian Nations: Native American Sovereignty and the Marshall Court

The Cherokee Removal Cases — Cherokee Nation v. Georgia ¹ and Worcester v. Georgia ² —stand as the dramatic last act of the Marshall Court era. Thomas Jefferson was long dead by the time of the removal of the American Indians from the land north and south of the Ohio River. Yet in many ways the Cherokee Removal Cases that bedeviled Marshall in his final years on the Court were Jefferson's revenge, the first bitter fruits of policies adopted during his presidency that created the political and legal environment for the Indian Removal Act of 1830 and the Cherokee Nation litigation itself. This Jeffersonian legacy is ironic, given that Jefferson as a scholar, diplomat, and Secretary of State was an ardent supporter of Indian sovereignty and eventual citizenship. Yet these views were subordinated during his presidency to concerns of what we would term "national security," to preserve the Union, and to advance the interests and needs of his political party.     

The Later Jefferson and the Problem of Natural Rights

Abstract

The late Jefferson presents a puzzle to scholars. In his last years the author of the Declaration of Independence strongly opposed the Missouri Compromise and set important precedents for the political strategy of the antebellum South. This essay argues that these problematic aspects of Jefferson's career are more closely linked to his natural rights doctrine than is generally recognized and extend tendencies already present in Jefferson's draft of the Declaration. Unlike previous scholars who explain Jefferson's problematic politics by his racism or the inherent selfishness of Lockean natural right, I argue that the core flaw in Jefferson's natural rights doctrine is the encouragement it gives to self-righteousness. Because he responded to the problem of slavery in a spirit of angry self-defense, Jefferson's understanding of natural rights blinded him to the ways in which his actions strengthened slavery and undermined his own most cherished political achievements.     

博物馆融入多元人群的理论建构与现实实践

西方博物馆学研究在关注博物馆与"人"的问题时存在着一类倾向,即愈发强调人群的多元性.这种倾向以强调曾经被忽视或边缘化的人群以及人群内在的差别性为主要特点,同时,学界也惯于以"官方"与"非官方"这样的二元关系解释此类现象.对于中国而言,中国博物馆已有诸多收藏、展览、教育等实践均呈现出关照多元人群的一面,但从其关照的人群范...