John Smith Roskell 1913–1998

2005 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gerald Harriss
Keyword(s):  
Local History ◽  
Second Century ◽  
House Of Commons ◽  
Successful Completion ◽  
Balanced Assessment ◽  
Official History ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Commons ◽  
The University

John Smith Roskell (1913–1998), a Fellow of the British Academy, defended a broadly neo-Stubbsian view of the British Parliament against the revisionists, while making a more critical and balanced assessment of the role of the Commons in what his mentor, J. G. Edwards, termed ‘The Second Century’ of its history, after 1377. Roskell brought to his work an unrivalled familiarity with the text of the parliament rolls in Britain, carefully scrutinising language and context to establish the development of the procedures and powers of the House of Commons. He steered to successful completion the official history of The House of Commons, 1386–1421, which bears the imprint of his approach. While at the University of Nottingham, he began to compile and publish in the relevant local history journals a series of biographies of speakers. During his retirement, Roskell wrote The History of Parliament covering the period 1386–1421.

Arminianism and the English Parliament, 1624–1629

1973 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 41-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hillel Schwartz
Keyword(s):  
Contemporary Literature ◽  
Orthodox Church ◽  
House Of Commons ◽  
The Commons ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Clear Idea ◽  
The University ◽  
Strong Suspicion

“Oh, Mr. Pym, this breaks the heart,” lamented Sir Richard Grosvenor in the House of Commons in 1629; “if God be God, let us follow him, and if Baal be God, let us follow him, and no longer halt between two opinions.” The Baalites, it was clear to the Commons, were the Arminians, who threatened “the very ruin and desolation if not dissolution of Religion in this land.” Such was the threat of Arminianism that when the Commons presented its Protestations on March 2, the first article read,Whosoever shall bring in innovation in Religion, or by favour or countenance, seek to extend or introduce Popery or Arminianism or other opinions disagreeing from the true and orthodox Church, shall be reputed a capital enemy to this Kingdom and Commonwealth.This was no ordinary condemnation of schism or theological haggling. The members of the Commons shared a strong suspicion of Arminianism as a political as well as religious heresy. They had a clear idea of what English Arminianism was and who was an Arminian. Before 1624, no Englishman had even been accused of Arminianism, either in Parliament or in contemporary literature devoted to religious controversies. How did the definition of English Arminianism develop between 1624 and 1629? How did Arminianism, originally a moderate Dutch Calvinism, come to be considered along with Popery as a treasonable theology?At the turn of the seventeeth century, Jacobus Arminius, Divinity Reader at the University of Leyden, had proposed a theological compromise between Supralapsarian and Infralapsarian Protestantism.

Roman Catholicism in the University of Cambridge: St Edmund's House in 1898

2008 ◽  
Vol 59 (4) ◽  
pp. 697-713 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. C. LUBENOW
Keyword(s):  
History Of Education ◽  
Roman Catholic ◽  
Roman Catholicism ◽  
Cambridge University ◽  
University Of Cambridge ◽  
University History ◽  
History Of ◽  
The University

The question in 1898 of the recognition by Cambridge University of St Edmund's House, a Roman Catholic foundation, might initially seem to involve questions irrelevant in the modern university. It can, however, be seen to raise issues concerning modernity, the place of religion in the university and the role of the university itself. This article therefore sets this incident in university history in wider terms and examines the ways in which the recognition of St Edmund's House was a chapter in the history of liberalism, in the history of Roman Catholicism, in the history of education and in the history of secularism.

scholarly journals О двух ойратских списках «Наказа Манджушри» из коллекции Н. Д. Кичикова (по материалам Кетченеровского краеведческого музея)

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 347-363
Author(s):  
Delyash N. Muzraevа ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
20Th Century ◽  
Local History ◽  
The Other ◽  
Religious Texts ◽  
Buddhist Monk ◽  
Monastic Community ◽  
History Of

Introduction. The written heritage of Kalmyk Buddhist priests, their daily practices, liturgical repertoire still remain a poorly studied page in the history of Buddhism among Mongolic peoples in the 20th century. The survived collections, clusters of religious texts prove instrumental in revealing most interesting aspects of their activities, efforts aimed at preservation of Buddhist teachings, their popularization and dissemination among believers. Goals. The paper examines two Oirat copies of the Precepts of the Omniscient [Manjushri] from N. D. Kichikov’s collection, transliterates and translates the original texts, provides a comparative analysis, and notes differences therein that had resulted from the scribe’s work, thereby introducing the narratives into scientific circulation. Materials. The article describes two Oirat manuscripts bound in the form of a notebook and contained in different bundles/collections of Buddhist religious texts stored at Ketchenery Museum of Local History and Lore. As is known, the collection is largely compiled from texts that belonged to the famous Kalmyk Buddhist monk Namka (N. D. Kichikov). Results. The analysis of the two Oirat texts with identical titles — Precepts of the Omniscient [Manjushri] — shows that their contents coincide generally but both the texts contain fragmented omissions (separate words, one or several sentences) that are present in the other. At the same time, when omitting fragments of the text addressed to the monastic community, the scribe was obviously guided by that those would be superfluous for the laity. Thus, our comparative analysis of the two manuscript copies demonstrates the sometimes dramatic role of the scribe in transmitting Buddhist teachings.

scholarly journals Le pietre di Ca’ Foscari: Ruskin e il Palazzo

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeanne Clegg ◽  
Emma Sdegno
Keyword(s):  
Grand Canal ◽  
History Of ◽  
New Ideas ◽  
The Grand Canal ◽  
The University ◽  
The City

Our contribution concerns a phase in the history of the building that gives the University its name. When Ruskin came to Venice in 1845 he was horrified by the decayed state of the palaces on the Grand Canal, and by the drastic restorations in progress. In recording their features in measurements, drawings and daguerreotypes, Ca’ Foscari took priority, and his studies of its traceries constitute a unique witness. This work also helped generate new ideas on the role of shadow in architectural aesthetic, and on the characteristics of Gothic, which were to bear fruit in The Seven Lamps and The Stones of Venice. In his late guide to the city, St Mark’s Rest, Ruskin addressed «the few travellers who still care for her monuments» and offered the Venetian Republic’s laws regulating commerce as a model for modern England. Whether or not he knew of the founding of a commercial studies institute at Ca’ Foscari in 1868, he would certainly have hoped that it would teach principles of fair and just trading, as well as of respectful tourism.

Voice in a narrative: A trialogue with Ruth Finnegan

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-20
Author(s):  
Sarali Gintsburg ◽  
Luis Galván Moreno ◽  
Ruth Finnegan
Keyword(s):  
Oral Poetry ◽  
Oral Literature ◽  
Childhood Memories ◽  
Childhood Experiences ◽  
African Languages ◽  
The Bible ◽  
History Of ◽  
The University ◽  
The 19Th Century

Abstract Ruth Finnegan FBA OBE (1933, Derry, Northern Ireland) took a DPhil in Anthropology at Oxford, then joined the Open University of which she is now an Emeritus Professor. Her publications include Oral Literature in Africa (1970), Oral Poetry (1977), The Hidden Musicians: Music-Making in an English Town (1989), and Why Do We Quote? The Culture and History of Quotation (2011). Ruth Finnegan was interviewed by Sarali Gintsburg (ICS, University of Navarra) and Luis Galván Moreno (University of Navarra) on the occasion of an online lecture delivered at the Institute for Culture and Society at the University of Navarra. In this trialogue-like interview, Ruth tells about the childhood experiences that were decisive for her interest in orality and storytelling, about her education and training as a Classicist in Oxford, the beginnings of her fieldwork in Africa among the Limba of Sierra Leone, and her recent activity as a novelist. She stresses the importance of voice, of its physical, bodily dimensions, its pitch and cadence; and then affirms the essential role of audience in communication. The discussion then touches upon several features of African languages, classical Arabic and Greek, and authoritative texts of Western culture, from Homer and the Bible to the 19th century novel. Through discussing her childhood memories, her assessment of the development and challenges of anthropology, and her views on the digital transformation of the world, Ruth concludes that the notion of narrative, communication, and multimodality are inseparably linked.

Home rule and the liberal party, 1899–1906

1963 ◽  
Vol 13 (52) ◽  
pp. 316-348 ◽  
Author(s):  
H.W. McCready
Keyword(s):  
Party Politics ◽  
Home Rule ◽  
House Of Commons ◽  
Liberal Party ◽  
Financial Measures ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
History Of ◽  
Liberal Reform ◽  
The Commons ◽  
Pros And Cons

Gladstone’s dramatic commitment of the liberal party to a policy of home rule for Ireland in 1886 was followed by the Grand Old Man’s two attempts at turning his policy into legislation. The first home rule bill, that of 1886, was defeated in the house of commons and then in a general election: the second, that of 1893, was overwhelmed in the house of lords and then dropped by Gladstone’s fourth government. Though the Gladstonian commitment remained and the liberal party continued to be a home rule party — and though the pros and cons of the union of 1800 remained the major structural feature of British party politics — it was not until 1912 that the liberals did anything further about their major Irish policy. For most of the period 1893-1912 they were, of course, impotent in opposition and consequently in no position to take the initiative on home rule. In 1906, however, they won a landslide victory over their unionist opponents and it is striking that this electoral victory and the great impulse it gave to one of the most dynamic governments in the whole history of British liberalism was not followed, as had the last two liberal victories under Gladstone, by the introduction of a third home rule bill. Had the liberal landslide of 1906 been put behind another home rule measure the whole history of the matter would certainly have been radically different. The house of lords would have been easily overwhelmed; the great advance in constitutional reform for Ireland would have been carried in a spirit of liberal reform rather than of political surrender; the development of Sinn Fein would have been frustrated or at least diverted. But the liberal victory of 1906 was not so used. Home rule was postponed and sidetracked and was taken up again only when the liberal party once more desperately needed Irish votes in the budget election which followed the rejection of Lloyd George’s financial measures by the lords in November 1909. The home rule banner was hoisted afresh by Asquith, the prime minister, in his Albert Hall speechof 10 December 1909 and the third home rule bill appeared in due course in 1912 in direct — and significant — succession to the budget and the parliament act for both of which the Asquith government needed Irish support in the commons.

Parties and Issues in Early Victorian England

1966 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 95-114 ◽  
Author(s):  
William O. Aydelotte
Keyword(s):  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
Political History ◽  
The Other ◽  
House Of Commons ◽  
Victorian England ◽  
Parliamentary Reform ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Government ◽  
Political Oratory

It has never been established how far, in the early Victorian House of Commons, voting on issues followed party lines. It might in general seem plausible to assume — what political oratory generally contrives to suggest — that there are ideological disagreements between parties and that it makes a difference which of two major opposing parties is in control of the Government. This is, indeed, the line taken by some students of politics. A number of historians and political observers have, however, inclined to the contrary opinion and have, for various reasons, tended to play down the role of issues in party disputes. Much of what has been written on political history and, in particular, on the history of Parliament has had a distinct anti-ideological flavor.One line of argument is that issues on which disagreement exists are not always party questions. Robert Trelford McKenzie begins his study of British parties by pointing out that Parliament just before 1830 was “divided on a great issue of principle, namely Catholic emancipation,” and just after 1830, on another, parliamentary reform. He continues: “But on neither issue was there a clear division along strict party lines.” The distinguished administration of Sir Robert Peel in the 1840s was based, according to Norman Gash, on a party “deeply divided both on policy and personalities.” The other side of the House at that time is usually thought to have been even more disunited. It has even been suggested that, in the confused politics of the mid-nineteenth century, the wordsconservativeandradicaleach meant so many different things that they cannot be defined in terms of programs and objectives and that these polarities may more usefully be considered in terms of tempers and approaches.

scholarly journals Slavistics at St. Petersburg and Greifswald Universities (results of cooperation)

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 691-708
Author(s):  
Harry Walter ◽  
◽  
Valerij M. Mokienko ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz ◽  
State University ◽  
Peter The Great ◽  
The Status ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Government ◽  
The University ◽  
Academy Of Sciences ◽  
Slavic Studies

The article offers a review on the history of Slavic studies at St. Petersburg and Greifswald universities from the era of Peter the Great to present day. The role of Professor Lyudmila Verbitskaya is highlighted who always actively supported the activities of the Department of Slavic Philology (for example, she approved the initiative to create a department of Ukrainian studies in the early 2000s). Thanks Verbitskaya, St. Petersburg University was historically recognized as the first university in Russia founded by Peter the Great in 1724, which was proven by archival materials stored in Greifswald. Peter the Great, in the assembly hall of the University of Greifswald in September 1712, at a meeting of the Academic Council received a proposal from the President of the German Academy of Sciences Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz on the establishment of a university in St. Petersburg with a European status. The status of the first university was officially recognized by a decree of the Government of the Russian Fed- eration in 1999 when the 275th anniversary of the founding of St. Petersburg State University was celebrated. As the Rector of St. Petersburg University, Verbitskaya in 2006 concluded an inter-university agreement with the Rector of the University of Greifswald Professor Jürgen Kohler. Slavic scholars and professors from St. Petersburg and Greifswald Universities collaborate closely. One of the active pedagogical and scientific areas of such cooperation is Slavic studies, which have long combined the efforts of Russian and German philologists.

scholarly journals Еміль Балецький - дослідник закарпатських українських говорів (другий етап наукової діяльності) До 100-річчя від дня народження

2019 ◽  
Vol 64 (1) ◽  
pp. 13-26
Author(s):  
ЄЛИЗАВЕТА БАРАНЬ
Keyword(s):  
Assistant Professor ◽  
Russian Language ◽  
State University ◽  
Second Stage ◽  
Slavonic Language ◽  
History Of ◽  
University Of Budapest ◽  
The University ◽  
The Russian Language

Emil Baleczky (his pseudonyms: E. Latorchanin, O. Vyshchak, and his cryptonym: E. A.) is one of the most prominent personalities in the history of Ukrainian studies in Hungary in the twentieth century. His main scientific interests include Transcarpathian dialectology and historical lexicology of the Ukrainian language. The second stage of the scientist's professional carrier is connected with the University of Budapest, where in 1951, Emil Baleczky was appointed head of the Department of the Russian Language at the Institute of Foreign Languages, and at the same time assistant professor of the Russian Institute at the University. Among the scientific interests of Emil Baleczky was the investigation of lexical units commonly used in Transcarpathia, first of all, in terms of their etymology. Among the achievements of the researcher, special attention must be paid to Emil Baleczky's attempt to determine the origin of some borrowed words, including those originally Slavic, which are common in the Carpathian Ukrainian dialects. Emil Baleczky performed a deep etymological and lingual-geographical analysis of the word урик, урюк, орек in the Ukrainian language, that of the word дюг widespread in Precarpathian Ukrainian, Polish, and Slovakian dialects, and also that of the noun kert in Transcarpathian Ukrainian dialects. The author devoted a separate paper to the study of the origin of dialecticisms like фотляк, csulka ~ csurka, бôшн’ак, булґар’, валах, ґириґ, тôўт, and циганин, investigated the etymology of the terms of national dishes widespread in Carpathian Ukrainian dialects, in particular of the token бáник. He considered the role of the Old Church Slavonic language in the history of the Carpathian Ukrainian dialects. According to his contemporaries, it is known that Emil Baleczky did not maintain official connections with the Soviet Transcarpathians but was surprisingly well-informed about the scientific processes in his native land. He analyzed the works contained in the two editions of the Dialectological Collection of Uzhgorod State University. In addition to examining the issues raised, Baleczky complemented, specified, and sometimes criticized the achievements of his colleagues, which indicates his deep knowledge of Transcarpathian Ukrainian dialectology. Thus, we can state that Emil Baleczky's works testify the high professionalism of the author, his profound knowledge in the field of synchronic and diachronic dialectology. The love of Transcarpathian dialects inspired the researcher to study them thoroughly as well as to present the research results to the general public of Slavists. The main area of Emil Baleczky's scientific interest until the end of his life was Ukrainian linguistics, particularly Transcarpathian Ukrainian dialectology. The aim of this paper is to present the Emil Baleczky's achievements in the field of Transcarpathian Ukrainian dialectology, focusing on the period from 1957 to 1979.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document