Evasion as a Legal Tactic: The 1616 Amsterdam Regulations Concerning the Jews
Early modern rulers (or ruling bodies) who chose to readmit Jews in places where they had long been banned were faced with theological dilemmas and practical problems. Although it is true that the principle of freedom of conscience was gaining increasing acceptance, its adherents were rarely clear about whether it could be applied to non-Christians. And while the economic interests of rulers favored the settlement of Jews in their lands, the opposition of guilds and clergy could not be ignored. In these circumstances, a rather striking policy of evasion was adopted in France, in the Netherlands, and in England. The legal status of the Jews remained formally unclear, while in practice Jews were allowed to establish themselves with unprecedented rights. To illustrate this legal tactic, I will present the Amsterdam Regulations of 1616 concerning the Jews a rather meager document which constituted the legal basis for Jewish settlement in that city for nearly two centuries. This presentation is for the following text(s): The Regulations for the Jews of Amsterdam (1616)
Hebrews of the Portuguese Nation: Conversos and Community in Early Modern Amsterdam.
Acknowledgements Preface 1. Introduction 2. The Forging of a Community: Early Years in Amsterdam 3. The Dutch Context: Working Out a Modus Vivendi 4. Iberian Memory and Its Perpetuation 5. The Rejudaisation of the Nation 6. Maintaining "the Nation" in Exile Conclusion Personalia Abbreviations Notes Bibliography Index
PLEASURE, POWER, AND THE PURSUIT OF COMMUNISM: SOVIET YOUTH AND STATE-SPONSORED POPULAR CULTURE DURING THE EARLY COLD WAR, 1945-1968
art, with certain students accused of “showing political immaturity, failing to understand the Party’s positions on art.” This episode constituted part of a broader crackdown on abstract art by the Khrushchev administration from late 1962, precipitated the the Soviet leader’s derision of such art forms in December 1962 at the Manege exhibit. Such instances demonstrate the limitations of the top-level promotion of youth grassroots initiative, as the Khrushchev leadership reigned in youth autonomy when it threatened to go beyond the boundaries of the permissible. The dates cited above have particular resonance, since both 1957-58 and 1962-63 represent two periods when those at the top of the Party hierarchy moved away from pursuing a more pluralistic, tolerant policy course, due to anxiety inspired by both sharpening Cold War hostilities and domestic developments. In these periods, official rhetoric censured what it labeled as 639 TsAOPIM, f. 635, op. 13, d. 546, ll. 56-57. This is likely related to criticism of the Party associated with the fallout from the Secret Speech and the Hungary invasion. For more, see Polly Jones, “From the Secret Speech to the Burial of Stalin: Real and Ideal Responses to De-Stalinization,” in Jones ed., The Dilemmas, 41-63. 640 TsAOPIM, f. 6083, op. 1, d. 52, ll. 166-67. 641 Susan E. Reid, “In the Name of the People: The Manege Affair Revisited,” Kritika 6.4 (Fall 2005): 673716. 642 On these anxieties, see Dobson, Khrushchev’s Cold Summer, 156-88.