The practice of divorce in classical Athens sheds light on relationships which are fundamental to our understanding of Athenian society: between husband and wife, between separate households, and between household and state. The power which informs these relationships, as illuminated by divorce, can be measured not only in juridical terms, but in social and economic terms as well. The main primary sources for the study of divorce in classical Athens are the forensic speeches of the Attic orators. These speeches show that whereas it was easy, legally, to obtain a divorce, it was often complicated in actual practice. Divorce, in fact, was often avoided—even when the state intervened to mandate the dissolution of a marriage—and I argue that the practice of divorce, as opposed to the laws governing it, reveals an unexpected balance of power between the constituents to an Athenian marriage.
 

The questioning of  “the English Reformation” as both a definable entity and a usable term by revisionist scholars, provides a timely platform from which to engage in a re-examination of one event which occurred during that period of profound religious change in sixteenth-century England. The 1549 rebellion in the south-west of England has been studied using “traditional” analytical categories of religion, politics, economics, and militarism. However, a new perspective on the rebellion is possible when the kinship ties of a group of leading gentry families in the south-west are examined. Although some historians have recognised the close relationships which existed within the group, the focus is on the men of the families as local government officials without placing them in the wider context of their families. A close examination of the connections between the Arundell, Edgecombe, and Grenville families reveals a confused genealogical picture; one that suggests, however, that close kinship ties may have played an important part in the participation or lack of involvement of the family members in the rebellion.
 

This paper analyzes the appointment of candidates made by the leader of the Liberal Party prior to the 1993 and 1997 federal elections. It argues that the appointments made by the leader were only in part a response to the expectations that political parties should become more descriptively representative of the Canadian population.  Further, the paper raises a number of concerns regarding the use of the leader’s appointment power in order to ensure a more descriptively representative party and legislature.  It is argued that while other potential reforms were ignored, a rather minimalist and centralizing strategy was utilized. Expectations regarding descriptive representation and conventions concerning candidate selection in Canadian political parties are briefly considered in order to place the 1993 and 1997 nominations in context.
 

The Progressive Conservative energy policy initiative of 1984-1985 represented a distinct change not only in how policy was formulated but also in the party’s vision of Canada. The Tories endeavoured to decentralize government, encourage cooperative federal-provincial relations, and develop an energy policy outside  the bureaucracy through consultation with the oil industry. Patricia Carney played a vital role first as opposition energy critic and then as minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. She emphasized consultation and cooperation with industry and the provinces and accepted most of their input uncritically. These developments are explored through an examination of the policy-making process developed by the Conservatives in opposition, and then put into practice after they took power in 1984.
 

The Indian armed forces “liberation” of the small Portuguese colony of Goa in 1961 put an end to a fruitless diplomatic contest between New Delhi and Lisbon. The arguments used by each government to defend its right to Goa provide an interesting case study of how history can be used in an attempt to define a “people.” Since few Goans were persuaded to make a stand on either side of this debate, this case indicates the limited power of nationalist rhetoric, and therefore the need for historians to look beyond such rhetoric to understand the formation of national identity.
 

On 14 April 1942 the Stoney Point Reserve was expropriated by the Department of National Defence and Indian Affairs. The land was required for an advanced military training camp to support the war effort. The Stoney Point families were quickly relocated to the neighbouring Kettle Point Reserve #44. The loss of the reserve was a traumatic experience for the small Stoney Point band and resulted in severe economic and social problems. Physical removal caused widespread poverty among the band due to inadequate compensation, separation from resources and work, and a reliance on welfare. Socially, the Stoney Pointers suffered from an identity crisis, feeling disjointed from their community and its roots.  This case study provides an examination of the effects of expropriation and relocation on Native communities.