Volume 300, Issue 1

In spite of extensive, mainly rabbinic, sources, many aspects of Jewish history in the 150 years from the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus (70 C.E.) until the early third century remain controversial. The rabbinic movement is the only well documented form of Judaism in this period. But even in Palestine the rabbis were certainly only a small minority, not representative for the much diversified Judaism of its time. Before the early third century we have no clear evidence for the office of the patriarch as representative of the Jewish people, recognized by Rome. Thus, the patriarch and the rabbis could not decree the separation of Judaism and Christianity – this separation was rather a protracted and regionally diverse process. Rabbis slowly gained more influence in Palestine only since the third century. As to the diaspora, at the beginning we have literary sources mainly for Rome and Asia Minor, later on almost only inscriptions and remains of synagogues. The diaspora was fully outside the rabbinic world; journeys of early rabbis to Rome, as documented in rabbinic literature, had no impact. Only with the Christianization of Palestine since Constantine Jewish life in the country became more visible again, mainly through the many synagogues built in this period, stylistically very close to contemporaneous churches in the country and apparently in competition with the transformation of the visual landscape through churches. Rabbis clearly had no leading position in the synagogue. Only later, beginning with the fifth century, do we find signs that the diaspora slowly got closer to Palestine; inscriptions include Hebrew words and phrases and hints at elements of rabbinic religious ideals (mainly Torah study).

At all times societal development has been preconditioned by man’s protection from, and mastery or overcoming of natural hazards. Yet precaution and prevention are far more recent stances, both gaining importance at the turn of the nienteenth century. Similar to creating security, both of these concepts are variations of one and the same approach towards the future, which was now not merely accepted passively but rather to be actively shaped. Recent research views the history of prevention mainly as a history of individualization, in which the former welfare state gradually convinced its citizens to provide for themselves. When dealing with natural hazards, however, reverse processes are visible, namely forms of nationalization and professionalization. This essay will first conceptualize the value added from a perspective dealing with the history of prevention. Then the history of preventing natural hazards will be analyzed with sources from politics, culture, science and economy. Finally, this paper will reveal societal conflicts accompanying preventive future practices in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

This article examines the discourse of corruption during the nation-building process in Argentina and Uruguay between 1870 and 1890. It takes corruption to be a fundamental theme of political communication and connects the current debates in European historiography concerning corruption with examples of cases in Latin America, also taking into account the fact that there have hardly been any historical studies on the discourse of corruption in Latin America. The analysis shows that the justification for revolutions in Argentina focused in particular on electoral corruption, meaning that the president´s legitimate access to office was of great importance in the public opinion. In Uruguay, on the other hand, complaints about officials´ economic corruption dominated, so good administration was the greatest concern. From these results, which are embedded in the historical context, it is possible to draw conclusions regarding the understanding of corruption and the value systems in both countries, which contain new insights into the nation-building process. It is possible to ascertain different public tolerance thresholds for political corruption in office during the nation-building process in both countries, which must be taken into consideration when looking at current perceptions of corruption. The analysis also gives some indication of the elite´s different political understanding of values in the nation-building process. These results can also be considered for the history of European corruption.