The Middle Ages are not usually considered an era when the law was friendly to laborers. Numerous regulations in medieval England were very unfriendly to them. However, religious laws—that is, canon law—did act to protect laborers when it came to working on holy days. Examining cases in the ecclesiastical courts, this article traces discussions concerning who was to blame, from theory into practice, when masters compelled their subordinates to work on holy days. Differing ideas on how to assign blame were ultimately reflected in the ecclesiastical courts. Some courts prosecuted only masters, while others prosecuted both masters and subordinates.

In a discussion of Parfit's Drops of Water case, Zach Barnett has recently proposed a novel argument against “No Small Improvement”; that is, the claim that a single drop of water cannot affect the magnitude of a thirsty person's suffering. We first show that Barnett's argument can be significantly strengthened, and also that the fundamental idea behind it yields a straightforward argument for the transitivity of equal suffering (a much stronger and more important conclusion than Barnett's). We then suggest that defenders of No Small Improvement could reject a Pareto principle that is presupposed in Barnett's argument and our developments of it. However, this does not save No Small Improvement, since there is a convincing argument against this claim that does not presuppose the Pareto principle.

In the early 1990s, reunified Germany faced surging numbers of asylum seekers and a wave of far-right violence against foreigners. In letters that German citizens wrote to President Richard von Weizsäcker, it is clear that some Germans feared that the arrival of large numbers of non-Germans would bring about the collapse of the state or the destruction of the German people. This article engages with the history of fear in postwar Germany by examining Germans’ post-reunification fears of migration and foreigners. I argue, first, that a biological understanding of race was still surprisingly widespread as late as the early 1990s. Second, I call for a substantially more nuanced understanding of German reunification, one that emphasizes uncertainty and the terrifying openness of the future. Finally, I highlight the intersection of race thinking and memory by showing that racial fears were frequently shaped by memories of Germany's dark past.

Cardinal Mindszenty was head of the Catholic Church of Hungary between 1945 and 1974, but had been imprisoned between 1949 and 1956 and hiding in the US embassy in Budapest from 1956 to 1971. In 1971, Mindszenty left the country and settled in Vienna after long negotiations between the Vatican and the Hungarian communist government. When he visited the Hungarian diaspora and non-Hungarian followers in the West between 1972 and his death in 1975, controversies about communism, Catholicism, and Western society and social change in general erupted. This article analyzes these controversies and the different groups that supported the cardinal and their understanding of anticommunism in the context of a changing West German society and against the background of changes within the Catholic world after Vatican II. The ideas about communism Mindszenty and his right-wing supporters formulated were outdated in the 1970s but had a long afterlife.