Nonneseter kloster i Bergen var Noregs største og rikaste kvinnekloster, men mykje er uklart kring grunnlegginga av klosteret. Nyare forsking har synt at klosteret høyrde til benediktinarordenen, ikkje cisterciensarordenen. Dateringa er mest sannsynleg 1120-talet heller enn 1140-talet. Med denne nye kunnskapen er det verd å diskutere på nytt opplysingane om at Nonneseter var stifta av «fremfarne Konger og Dronninger». Denne artikkelen diskuterer nærare kor vidt kongsbrørne Øystein (d. 1123) og Sigurd (d. 1130) og dronningane deira, Ingebjørg og Malmfrid, kan ha hatt grunnar for å grunnleggje eit kvinnekloster ved byen Bergen, og om det er sannsynleg at eit av desse kongepara, eller begge, har stått som stiftarar av Nonneseter.
St. Mary’s convent (Nonneseter) in Bergen was once Norway’s largest and wealthiest monastic community for women. Although much is still unclear regarding its history, research undertaken in the past few years proves that Nonneseter was not Cistercian, as formerly believed, but Benedictine. Up until now, 1146 was set as a terminus post quem for its foundation, because it is known from other sources that the Cistercian house Lyse, founded in 1146, was Norway’s first Cistercian monastery. Now that we know Nonneseter was not Cistercian, it is worth taking a closer look at both its foundation and its founders. On stylistic and material grounds, the date of the remaining base of Nonneseter’s bell tower can be estimated to the 1120s. The tower fits with a stage in the building programme started by King Øystein in ca. 1110, but rather than seen as part of a complex prior to the women’s convent, it is more likely that Nonneseter itself dates back to the 1120s. In a royal letter from 1528 it is claimed that Nonneseter was founded by kings and queens. In the past, it was seen as more likely, however, that Bishop Sigurd, the founder of Lyse, founded Nonneseter. Still, the 1528 statement is supported by the fact that the grounds and several properties of Nonneseter must have been royal donations. And now that it is clear Nonneseter was Benedictine and older than formerly believed, there cannot now be any reason for assuming that Bishop Sigurd founded it. It would be more natural to look at the kings and queens of the 1120s: brothers and co-rulers King Øystein (d. 1123) with Queen Ingebjørg, and King Sigurd (d. 1130) with Queen Malmfrid. Not only did they have good reason to found a convent, but the two kings are also described elsewhere as monastic founders.
Artikkelen diskuterer endringer i normer for politisk deltagelse og autoritet med utgangspunkt i kommunestyrene som ble opprettet i 1837. Artikkelen har to hoveddeler. I den første diskuterer jeg ulike forestillinger om lokalfellesskap under eneveldet. Jeg drøfter hvordan disse forestillingene påvirket riksforsamlingsvalgene i 1814, og viser at Grunnlovens stemmerettsbestemmelser bygde på eldre forestillinger om allmuen som den økonomisk selvstendige delen av befolkningen. Denne diskusjonen danner utgangspunkt for artikkelens empiriske hoveddel. Her diskuterer jeg hvordan normer for deltagelse, lederskap og utenforskap kommer til uttrykk i virksomheten til fire kommunestyrer mellom 1837 og 1850. I samtiden ble formannskapslovene forstått som en komplettering av Grunnloven, og mange historikere har tolket dem i et demokratiseringsperspektiv. Jeg argumenterer likevel for at kommunestyrene tilpasset eldre normer til det nye politiske systemet, og at tilpasningen delvis var betinget av sosioøkonomiske interesser hos dominerende grupper i det stadig mer klassedelte bondesamfunnet.
This article is about changes in norms and attitudes to political authority and participation, as institutions of local self-rule were established in Norway in 1837. In the first of the two main parts, I discuss different notions of local community during the period of absolutism. An economic-juridical notion defined the community as comprising the male heads of tax-paying households, who met at the local assemblies (ting). A broader notion was the ecclesiastical idea of congregation, which in principle included all individuals – including women, children and others, normally under the authority of the head of the household. What they had in common was a notion of subordination under the absolute king. Versions of both of these notions were used as criteria for participation in elections to the constitutional assembly at Eidsvoll in 1814. However, the constitution ended up by reserving voting rights for tax-paying male citizens. Thus, in the new constitutional state, the political community was defined according to the economic-juridical notion of community, now expressed in modern terms such as «citizenship». In the second part, empirically the main one, I investigate how notions of community and political authority were expressed in the municipal councils established in 1837. At the time, these were seen as «completing» the constitution, and thus central to the development of an increasingly democratic Norwegian state after 1814. This has also been a dominant view among historians. However, I argue that in many respects the municipal councils perpetuated older norms of authority and participation. I try to show how the notions of community discussed in the first part of the article were adapted to the new political framework. I also discuss how the socio-economic make-up and political interests in different communities conditioned this adaptation.
In this article, some tentative conclusions are drawn on the relationship between history writing and national identity formation in the Scandinavian countries in the period from the eighteenth century to the present day. It is based on the results of a European Science Foundation programme on the writing of national histories in Europe and of accompanying publications, in particular the eight-volume book series ‘Writing the Nation’ published by Palgrave Macmillan between 2008 and 2015.
In this article, some tentative conclusions are drawn on the relationship between history writing and national identity formation in the Scandinavian countries in the period from the eighteenth century to the present day. It is based on the results of a European Science Foundation programme on the writing of national histories in Europe and of accompanying publications, in particular the eight-volume book series ‘Writing the Nation’ published by Palgrave Macmillan between 2008 and 2015. While not an expert on Scandinavian history, the author relates his view of developments in Scandinavia to more general developments in Europe, in so doing emphasising both differences and similarities with the Scandinavian countries. Moving from a discussion of Enlightenment historiography to Romanticism and increasing professionalisation of the historical sciences in the second half of the nineteenth century, the impact of two world wars and the crisis of liberalism in interwar Europe are discussed in connection with the historiographical position of Scandinavian countries during the Cold War and post-Cold War period. The article looks in particular at the question of borderlands and the issue of Scandinavianism. With due attention given to both institutionalisation and professionalisation of the historical sciences, the article deals with the diverse ways in which historical writing underpinned the development of national identity in Scandinavian countries.
Artikkelen drøfter Jens Arup Seips bestemmelse av kildekritikken som historieforskningens sentrale metode. Som et alternativ til ‘kritisk empirisme’, lanseres begrepet modernisme som et redskap til å historisere Seips forståelse av historieforskningens oppgave. Felles for modernismen i historievitenskapen og i den estetiske sfære var opplevelsen av et radikalt historisk oppbrudd. Historien fremstod ikke lenger som en organisk utviklingsprosess, men som radikalt kontingent. Kildekritikkens oppgave ble å «dekonstruere» tradisjon for å kunne «konstruere» historie. Seips metodiske refleksjoner foregikk i et spenningsfelt mellom denne modernismen og et hermeneutisk krav om innforlivelse med og ydmykhet for fortiden. Studien trekker veksler på et omfattende upublisert og tidligere uutnyttet materiale.
Jens Arup Seip (1905–1992) was one of the most influential Norwegian historians of the 20th century. This article is about Seip’s definition of source criticism, which he saw as the essential method of historical inquiry. The concept of modernism is introduced in an effort to historicize Seip’s understanding of history as a science. In historiography, much as in art, literature, and architecture, modernism emerged from the early 20th-century experience of a radical break with the past. History no longer appeared as organic, progressive, and meaningful, but rather as radically contingent. Source criticism was redefined and radicalized accordingly. Its task was now to deconstruct tradition, as conveyed in the source material as well as in historiography, in order to prepare for a fresh construction of history on distinctly modernist presuppositions. The program called for a systematic confrontation and ‘correction’ of the historical sources from the standpoint of the disillusioned modern subject. The historian’s authority to construct history became in this sense «autonomous» (R. C. Collingwood) – emancipated from the embrace of tradition. The article traces modernism as a tradition in Scandinavian historiography, beginning with Kristian Erslev and Erik Arup in Denmark, Lauritz and Curt Weibull in Sweden, and Seip’s teacher Edvard Bull Sr. in Norway. In conclusion, Seip’s methodological doctrines, while reflecting strong modernist assumptions, remained in a fundamental sense committed to a more hermeneutical definition of the historian’s métier: In order to execute his modernist authority, the historian must have familiarized himself with the past through long-lasting acquaintance with its traces. The ambivalent coexistence of modernism and hermeneutics in Seip’s thought seems to give a clue to his identity as a historian.