No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

Taking as its focal point the debate conducted in the 1810s and 1820s between Jean-Baptiste Say and Jean-Charles-Léonard Simonde de Sismondi around the question of whether production was limited by the extent of consumption, this thesis is intended to contextualize the works of the two pre-eminent Francophone political economists of the post-revolutionary period. In his <i>Traité d’économie politique, </i>first published in 1803, Say advanced the idea that the expansion of productive output was itself the surest means of guaranteeing an expanded market, an argument that appeared to rule out the possibility of a general glut in the market. Sismondi’s <i>Nouveaux principes d’économie politique, </i>published in 1819 in response to Say and those, such as David Ricardo, who had subsequently adopted a similar position, argued that the indefinite advance of productivity Say promised would be checked by society’s real capacity for consumption, itself determined not by productivity <i>per se</i>, but by the distribution of income. This was, both emphasised, a critical point on which to diverge, with far-reaching implications for thinking about the politics of post-revolutionary social relations, and the politics of international trade. Sismondi’s critique of Say has often been described as a reaction to the slump in manufacturing that struck Europe in the years after 1815. The spectre of mass immiseration this produced, it has been suggested, prompted him to demand a greater role for government in the economy. However, a broader critical study of Say and Sismondi’s works, including unpublished manuscript sources, reveals that the roots of their disagreement can be traced rather further back to the differing perspectives on republican government that the French Say and the Genevan Sismondi adopted in the wake of the Revolution and the advent of Napoleon.

The aim of this thesis is to examine the varied portrayals of Norman ethnicity in the major narrative texts produced in two areas controlled by those of Norman origin or descent: the duchy of Normandy itself, and that part of southern Italy which became the Kingdom of Sicily in 1130. Its central argument is that Norman identity was constantly being recreated by writers, a process driven partly by the political and societal circumstances in which they found themselves, and partly by the different literary and personal preferences that they brought to historical writing. The thesis is divided into five parts. The first, the introduction, examines previous writing on Norman ethnicity in the light of a broader historical understanding of ethnicity, arguing that it is important to understand not just the values or physical distinctions that can be associated with Normanness, but the implicit categories (birth, behaviour, clothing) which are used to define what it is to be a Norman at any given point. The second part, Chapter One, considers the settlement period in Normandy and the use made of the Scandinavian past by Dudo of St Quentin and William of Jumièges. It also attempts to judge how that Scandinavian past was understood by those Normans who travelled to Italy in the eleventh century. Chapter Two examines the process of Norman settlement in southern Italy, arguing that the variety of Norman experience made the creation of a single Norman identity there extremely problematic. It then examines two Norman identities that emerged, the assimilatory model offered in the works William of Apulia, and the more aggressive model expressed in those of Geoffrey Malaterra. The fourth part looks at the very end of this process of settlement in Italy, using the text of the author now known as Hugo Falcandus to examine the role of played by ethnicity in the intrigues surrounding the courts of William I and William II of Sicily. The fifth, and longest part, looks at historical writings in Normandy after the English conquest. It starts with an examination of the Norman triumphalism evident in the flurry of works which briefly followed that conquest, showing that writings produced in this period demonstrate a much greater concern with lingusitic and physical markers of Normanness than had been the case in earlier works. It concludes with an examination of the later twelfth-century, as writers struggled to find ways of describing Norman identity in a polity now no longer ruled by direct male descendents of the first Norman dukes. Three linked strands of wirting are examined: the nostalgic glory of the <i>Draco normannicus, </i>the pragmatic, broader view of the works of Robert of Torigni, and finally the failed attempt made by Wace to create a Norman history which shifted the focus away form the dukes and onto the Norman nobility itself.

Documentary evidence released from former communist archives, as well as published personal accounts have shed much light on the 1956 Hungarian uprising and the period surrounding it. This thesis draws on such sources to study the period between Stalin's death in 1953 and the execution of Imre Nagy in 1958. A picture emerges of a Soviet bloc beset by internal instability and tensions. One of the key reasons behind the troubles was the ongoing power struggle in the Soviet leadership which culminated in June 1957. Stalin's death created a vacuum of power in Moscow which was filled by a group of rivals and opponents. The rise and fall of individual leaders and of alliances within the Politburo in turn determined the fate of individual leaders, such as Imre Nagy, and of reform initiatives in the satellites. New evidence has also shed light on decision-making during the Hungarian crisis itself and helped to explain the apparent contradictions in the behaviour of the Soviet leadership. Several factors, such as the Suez intervention, the fear of spill-over into other satellites, and the polish crisis played into their calculations. In addition, the study looks at the effect of the uprising on the Hungarian party and economy and its impact on relations between the USSR and the satellites. Intertwined with events throughout the period were relations between Moscow and Belgrade. Despite the reconciliation in 1955, the uprising brought to the surface unresolved differences and exposed a persistent fear of Tito's 'national communism'. Yet, at the same time, it revealed a mutual desire to preserve the achievements accomplished since the Belgrade Declaration. Finally, reference is made to the legacy of 1956 in the Soviet bloc and, in particular, its influence on subsequent crises in Czechoslovakia in 1968 and Poland 1980-1.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.