Norske misjonskvinner havnet på midten av 1800-tallet i et dilemma mellom det tradisjonelle kvinneidealet i det norske samfunnet slik det var beskrevet i «Hustavlen» i Luthers lille katekisme, og vekkelseskristendommens personlige tro og ansvaret for å bringe evangeliet videre slik det er beskrevet i «Misjonsbefalingen». En av de ledende misjonskvinnene var Henriette Gislesen, som virket i krysningspunktet mellom disse idealene. I løpet av 1850-tallet publiserte Gislesen flere bøker der hun argumenterte for det tradisjonelle kvinneidealet som Gud og mannen underdanig i det offentlige livet, samtidig som hun i sin virksomhet som kvinneforeningsleder brøt med det samme idealet i sin iver i misjonens tjeneste.
In the mid-19th century a new meeting place for Norwegian women was formed with the establishment of missionary associations in homes, where women connected with the Norwegian revival movement gathered to sing, pray, listen to sermons, and to produce handwork for sale in bazaars for the benefit of missionary activity. The author of religious literature Henriette Gislesen became a leading figure in their formation, both locally in Tromsø and nationally through a network she had established as a resident in a succession of districts in Norway. In this work, women were accused of rebelling against the view in the Lutheran Church of women’s place in society, namely the home, and for being spokespersons for women’s emancipation. In several of her books Gislesen wrote that she never had any intension of rebelling against the traditional Lutheran view, pledging that the woman was like a white lily in the field – beautiful to look at and fragrant for her two masters: the Lord and her husband. She acted at the same time as an organizer and preacher in women associations, arguing for the necessity of salvation for everyone. To some extent Henriette Gislesen personified the dilemma experienced by women’s missionary associations in unwillingly becoming mouthpieces for a modern view of femininity in society.
I dansk historieskrivning er der en stærk tradition for at tolke den grundlov, der blev vedtaget i juni 1849, i lyset af en senere udvikling af parlamentarisme og moderne demokratiske idealer. Denne artikel søger at gøre op med denne whig interpretation ved hjælp af sammenligning med Eidsvollforfatningen og eksempler fra den politiske debat i årtierne op til grundlovens vedtagelse og ved hjælp af en læsning af grundlovens for størstedelen endnu bevarede ordlyd at argumentere for, at junigrundloven var tænkt som en slags blandet forfatning, monarchia mixta, hvis ideal er en ligevægt mellem statsmagtens dele.
The Oldenburg absolutist regime was abolished in 1814 in Norway when it was ceded to Sweden, and in Denmark proper in 1848-49. The Danish constitution of 1849 states that «the form of government is limited monarchical» («Regeringsformen er indskrænket-monarkisk»), a term taken directly from the Norwegian constitution of 1814. ‘Limited monarchy’ is officially translated as ‘constitutional monarchy’, which reflects the most common interpretation of the constitution in present-day politics and scholarship. This, however, is a Whig interpretation. The original purpose of the monarchia limitata as a form of government in Norway and Denmark was to find a way of establishing a new form of rule in which the hitherto absolute power of the sovereign could be divided between the elements of the state. The Norwegian constitution was based on the principle of popular sovereignty, whereas the Danish constitution was granted by the King. In both cases, however, the power was divided between the monarch and representatives of the people in accordance with some of the principles of a monarchia mixta, and an ideal of a balanced constitution, in both countries granting full executive power to the monarch. The principle of parliamentary rule was not implemented until the 1880s in Norway and 20 years later in Denmark, in both cases without the wording of the constitutions being changed, only the interpretations.
Artikkelen diskuterer kildekritikk og sagaforskning med utgangspunkt i Lauritz Weibulls radikale kildekritikk, i sammenheng med to andre, lignende bidrag av Halvdan Koht og Sigurður Nordal. Mens Weibulls tradisjonskritikk fortsatt er like aktuell, må hans skarpe skille mellom tilnærmet sikre fakta og større synteser basert på disse betegnes som foreldet. Det blir videre pekt på at der er en sammenheng mellom det strenge utvalget av kilder og brødrene Weibulls feiltolkning av dansk historie på 1100-tallet. Omvendt har nyere retninger, som utnytter de berettende kildene som levninger og analyserer de grunnleggende trekk ved middelalderens samfunn og politiske kultur, en mulighet til å gi en bedre tolkning, tross de problemer som knytter seg til en slik fremgangsmåte.
The article takes its point of departure in Lauritz Weibull’s radically critical attitude to the sagas and other narrative sources from the early Middle Ages presented in his book from 1911. Two similar studies are compared: Halvdan Koht’s interpretation of Snorri’s Heimskringla as the expression of a continuous struggle between monarchy and aristocracy and Sigurður Nordal’s examination of the relationship between the sources for the history of St. Olav. The former illustrates the importance of the bias of the sources, while the latter forms a parallel to Weibull’s approach by its close examination of the tradition. The rest of the article deals with the importance of these contributions today. Weibull’s critical examination of the development of the tradition is emphasized, whereas his sharp distinction between a small core of reliable information and the rest of the tradition, which is regarded as worthless, is rejected, as this can be shown to have led to a wrong interpretation of the relationships between the monarchy, the Church and the people in Denmark in the 12th century. By contrast, more attention is paid to oral tradition, in accordance with recent developments in philology. However, the main importance of the narrative sources lies in the information these provide about political culture, attitudes and norms. The historian should use all available material as general background, whether literally true or not, rather than relying on «common sense», which often tends to be personal experience based on 21st-century conditions.
Artikkelen vil visa korleis den utdjupa kontakten mellom den norske og sovjetiske landsorganisasjonen som vart etablert ved inngangen til 1970-talet, var eit uttrykk for og aktivt element i utviklinga av det som har vore kalla «den europeiske avspenninga». Denne strategien, basert på at menneskeleg kontakt og dialog kunne bryta ned fiendebilete og gi eit breiare feste for avspenningspolitikk enn det reine supermaktsdiplomatiet, vart fasthalde også då det internasjonale klimaet vart kraftig forverra frå slutten av 1970-talet. Artikkelen er eit innspel i diskusjonen om brytninga mellom dialog- og konfrontasjonsstrategiar i norsk og europeisk politikk i åra fram mot Gorbatsjovs maktovertaking.
This article discusses the relationships between Norwegian and Soviet confederations of trade unions from 1970 until Gorbachev came to power in 1985. Empirically, it is based mainly on the archives of the Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions (LO). The relationships between the two confederations have to be viewed in connection with a distinct European détente policies followed by the German east policy under Brandt and the process leading to the Helsinki Declaration in 1975. Fairly extensive bilateral contact between the Norwegian and Soviet trade union movement was generated based on the idea that détente should have a broader basis than traditional diplomacy allowed for. Personal encounters across the Iron Curtain were considered as important in building trust and demounting enemy images. The peace and détente perspective underlying this activity was anchored in the new Western European and Nordic confederations of trade unions, where the Norwegian LO played an active role. During the "second Cold War" from the late 1970s the LO kept firmly to strategies of détente and critical dialogue towards its Soviet counterpart. This was a period of polarisation in the Norwegian and European security policy debate. The LO became part of the European movement against nuclear rearmament at a time of ice front between the superpowers. This strategy is discussed in relation to the Danish Cold War debate. It is argued that the LO strategy was not solely based on an equilibrium policy, where solidarity with those who wanted democracy in the east was sacrificed at the altar of European détente. The article argues, finally, that transnational movements which helped to make the Iron Curtain more porous should be included in a multi-faceted analysis of the process that transformed the Cold War and in the end laid to rest the entire Cold War system.