De Leidse hoogleraar theoretische fysica Paul Ehrenfest (1880-1933) was goed bevriend met Niels Bohr en Albert Einstein. In tegenstelling tot zijn beroemde tijdgenoten lag zijn kracht niet bij het... Show moreDe Leidse hoogleraar theoretische fysica Paul Ehrenfest (1880-1933) was goed bevriend met Niels Bohr en Albert Einstein. In tegenstelling tot zijn beroemde tijdgenoten lag zijn kracht niet bij het doen van grote ontdekkingen. Wel had hij een uitzonderlijk talent voor het verhelderen van complexe vraagstukken in de fysica. Het leven en werk van Ehrenfest biedt een intrigerend perspectief op de manier waarop wetenschappers uit dat tijdsgewricht hun weg probeerden te vinden in een periode van roerige wetenschappelijke, maatschappelijke en politieke ontwikkelingen. Behalve dat Ehrenfest een bloeiende onderzoeksschool opbouwde droeg hij ook bij aan de ontwikkeling en internationalisering van de Nederlandse natuurkunde, het universitaire onderwijs, en het ontstaan van een nieuw vakgebied __ de econometrie. Hij stimuleerde de ontwikkeling van de Russische en Amerikaanse theoretische fysica en versterkte de band tussen universiteit en industrie. Zijn tijdgenoten kenden Ehrenfest als een invloedrijk persoon die veel had bereikt. Tragisch is dat iedereen, behalve hij zelf, dat zag. Show less
To speak of an 'early modern' world raises three awkward problems: the problem of early modernity, the problem of comparison and the problem of globalisation. In what follows, a discussion of these... Show moreTo speak of an 'early modern' world raises three awkward problems: the problem of early modernity, the problem of comparison and the problem of globalisation. In what follows, a discussion of these problems will be combined with a case study of the rise of humanism. Show less
In Sanskrit discourse, discussions about property and ownership traditionally belonged to two disciplines: hermeneutics (mimamsa) and moral-legal science (dharma-sastra). Scholars of hermeneutics... Show moreIn Sanskrit discourse, discussions about property and ownership traditionally belonged to two disciplines: hermeneutics (mimamsa) and moral-legal science (dharma-sastra). Scholars of hermeneutics tended to ponder the question of what motivated people to acquire and alienate property, and scholars of moral-legal science contemplated exactly how people did acquire, use and alienate property. Beginning in the 16th century, however, a remarkable disciplinary shift occurred. Show less
Most historians treat late imperial China, 1400-1900, as a time of fading and decay. Indeed, viewed backwards from the Opium War (1839-1842) and Taiping Rebellion (1850-1864), events before 1800... Show moreMost historians treat late imperial China, 1400-1900, as a time of fading and decay. Indeed, viewed backwards from the Opium War (1839-1842) and Taiping Rebellion (1850-1864), events before 1800 appear to have left China unprepared for modernity. But the 17th and 18th centuries can be considered not only as a 'late imperial' prelude to the end of traditional China, but as an 'early modern' harbinger of things to come. Show less
Anyone who aims to discuss the Sanskrit intellectual tradition of the early modern period is required to preface his exposition with two remarks. The first is the typical caution offered by those... Show moreAnyone who aims to discuss the Sanskrit intellectual tradition of the early modern period is required to preface his exposition with two remarks. The first is the typical caution offered by those in a new field of research, though in this case the caution truly has bite. Sanskrit science and scholarship from the 16th through the 18th centuries has only just begun to attract the attention of scholars. In addition, the vast majority of texts have never been published, and some of these are housed in libraries and archives where access is either difficult or impossible. The second remark concerns a rather atypical language restriction on our problematic. In striking contrast to China or the Middle East, while somewhat comparable to Western Europe, India in the early modern period shows a multiplicity of written languages for the cultivation of science and scholarship. But two of these, Sanskrit and Persian, monopolised the field, and did so in ways that were both parallel and nonintersecting. Each constituted the principal language of science for its associated social-religious sphere, while very few scholars were proficient in both (at least aside from mathematicians and astronomers, and even these were very much in the minority). Sanskrit continued its pervasive, age-old dominance in the Hindu scholarly community, and merits consideration as a completely self-contained intellectual formation. With those two clarifications in mind we can proceed to ask what actually occurred in the world of Sanskrit knowledge during the early modern period, and how a comparative analysis may illuminate the general problem of modernity. Show less
