Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 4

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1

Funkcja historii w zakonie dominikańskim oraz czynniki kształtujące pamięć historyczną dominikanina w średniowieczu

100%
Zonenberg S.
Sensus Historiae. Studia interdyscyplinarne
|
2012
|
issue 4(9)
119-142
EN
The point of the Dominicans, creating a historiographic work, was not only to establish facts from the past but also to combine the historical and the didactic elements, with the latter playing the decisive role. It was connected with sermons preached by the Dominicans, written with the use of history handbooks, among others. General chapters encouraged to independent writer’s work, which was highly valued at the order. Most frequently, the Dominicans created monumental chronicles of the world, but also the gesta of secular and ecclesiastical rulers, chronicles of cities and states. Besides providing materials for sermons, their task was also to search for and to disseminate the truth, since only in the truth one could recognize God’s intentions, which was so important for everyone at that time. At the Dominicans, chronology was a fragment of the history of the world and the history of salvation. Thus in historiography, they didn’t see the part artes (in the medieval theory of literature, historiography was subordinated to rhetoric and grammar) but the provider of true and adequate information for the writing of sermons, which were to lead towards the Creator (thus the Dominican turn to the past had a pragmatic foundation). It is obvious that making use of different type historical works during preparation of sermons had a significant influence on the shape of individual historical memory of the Dominican (the monastic rule and general chapters did not interfere in the selection of reading of this type, leaving a free choice). It’s also worth considering whether other factors occurred in the Dominican order besides this factor, which had an influence on the shape of the Dominican’s historical memory (group and individual memory). In our opinion, there were several factors. Noteworthy are the official biographies of St Dominic and other works depicting the history of the order’s founder, which were eagerly read, and some of them were required reading (individual) for the Dominicans and novices. Other works were—at least in Western Europe—Legenda aurea by Jacobus de Voragine and Bonum universale de apibus by Thomas de Cantimpré. During meals (recitatio ad mensam) the monastic rule, numerous lives of the saints, as well as works on the congregation’s history the order had in a great number used to be read. The obligatory curriculum of the studies adopted by the general chapter was steeped in historical content. The foundation of the Dominican studies—to which all brethren-priests were pledged throughout their life—was the Bible, being in principle ”the great historical epic” of the Israelites. At provincial schools of theology and general studies, one of the main books for required reading was Historia scholastica by Petrus Comestor, which is a synthesis of Biblical history from the creation of the world to the Ascension. Different types of encyclopaedic works were also eagerly used, e.g. works containing the whole historical knowledge of the Middle Ages, for example Speculum historiale by Vincent of Beauvais. When listing the factors shaping the memory one cannot omit the memorias, i.e. collective or individual prayers of monks said for salvation of the dead (and living) fellow monks and benefactors (memoria mortuorum et benefactorum). These people were remembered, writing them down in special books. In the Dominican order, prayers of this type were an important part of liturgy, which is proved by a separate chapter of their constitution entitled De anniversariis devoted to these matters. Prayers for the dead during liturgy did not exclude individual memories, which soon brought to the establishment of special church services for specific dead persons (missae pro defunctis). This type services were exceptionally popular in the Middle Ages amidst the Dominicans. Since the church’s high altar was considered to be devoted to matters concerning the entire commune, church services for the dead were celebrated by side altars. Due to the fact that in the early Middle Ages these side altars were consecrated and as a rule had a martyr as their patron saint, with the passage of time memorias were merged with the worship of these saints. This led to the formation of a strong community with the saints (communio sanctorum), and the vita of a worshipped canonized martyr—living in the specific past—aroused the monks’ curiosity, who wanted to acquaint themselves with their and the believers’ patron saint and advocate. In our opinion, all the above-named factors had an influence on the shape of the monks’ historical memory. Due to the services accepted by their community, one can call the Dominican brethren-priests carriers of special memory, in which—besides the Bible—memoria mortuorum connected with communio sanctorum played—as it seems—the most important role.
2

Jezioro Rządzkie pod Grudziądzem czy bagno pod Chełmnem miejscem klęski wojsk krzyżackich w 1243 roku?

100%
Zonenberg S.
Zapiski Historyczne
|
2011
|
vol. 76
|
issue 3
99-113
XX
The subject under discussion is the place where in 1243 or 1244 the Teutonic army was defeated – the basin called “Rensen”, “Rense”, or “Reußen”, “Reussenn”, “Reüßen”, “Reusen”. The names enumerated above come from the manuscripts of the chronicle of Peter from Dusburg – written in its major part before 1326, and continued until 1330. It is the oldest source which gives the name of the site of the battle and information about it. The form “Rensen”, appearing in literature, was identified with Rządz (Rządzkie Lake) near Grudziądz. Jarosław Wenta recognizing first the form “Rensen” and later also “Reusen” stated that the place must have been situated near Chełmno. As the chronicle of Peter from Dusburg failed to provide explicit identification, we employed historiographical monuments which used the manuscripts of the chronicle, as well as other sources giving the knowledge about the name we are interested in. The majority of the sources contain the name “Rensen” and names similar to it, which are identified with Rządzkie Lake. Moreover, the cartographic sources including Rządzkie Lake near Grudziądz did not recognize the basin “Reussen” near Chełmno. It is also known that the diphthong “eu” did not appear in the written German language in Prussia until the turn of the 14th and 15th centuries. Peter from Dusburg did not use the diphthong “eu” in German words denoting proper names. | us, it is very unlikely that he used the form “Reussen” or a form similar to it. The author further explains his opinion on the existence of such forms in the manuscripts. In Latin palaeography the lower-case letter “n” resembled “u”. The copyists, not knowing the geography of Prussia, must have made a palaeographic mistake changing “n” into “u”. To sum up, it is quite certain that the basin “Reussen” (“Reusen”) near Chełmno never existed, and the battle took place in Rządz near Grudziądz.
3

Prahistoria Prus w Preußische Chronik Szymona Grunaua

100%
Zonenberg S.
Sensus Historiae. Studia interdyscyplinarne
|
2010
|
issue 1
79-90
EN
Prussian prehistory presented in the Dominican Friar — Simon Grunau’s chronicle is a parable the subject of which is not the past but the present; it is the parable which is the allusion to the history of Prussia under the rule of Teutonic Knights. Presented in the text non-German ‘Ulmeghanaians’ are the Prussian autochthons, ‘Scandians’ are the German settlers, ‘Maso’ — Mazovians (Poles), whereas seizing power clergymen — Vaidilutes are the Order of Teutonic Knights. The main tendencies which Simon Grunau included in the chronicle are the following: according to him, the beginning of nation and at the same time its history was arranging the co-existence between two different nations which became one Prussian nation during the reigns of the authorities consisting in the secular and clerical elements; inhabitants of Prussia can communicate and they have been the sovereign people from the prehistoric times; the Order of Teutonic Knights assumed control because the local gentry were set at variance; inhabitants of Prussia if they had been earlier subject to somebody, these had been only Mazovians, that is the Polish. The concept of Prussian prehistory presented by Simon Grunau is — as one can say — more ‘pro-Polish’ than the one which was propagated in Polish chronicles, and demonstrating the Polish control over Prussia is one of the dominant tendencies in the work. Prussian prehistory by Simon Grunau was different than the earlier ones of pro-German (pro-Teutonic Order) character, which had been written basing on the ancient writers authorities. The Black Friar presented the works by the ancient traveller Diwoinis, the canon Jarosław from Płock and the Prussian bishop Chrystian which had not been known to anybody at the time as his sources to the readers. They were the unknown because — as he implied — they had been bricked in and recently found. In fact, these works were his imagination — the presented by him prehistory required the appropriate, reliable historical bases to fulfill the pinned by him hopes, as the earlier pro-German ones had been written basing on the ancient writers authorities.
4

Kto był autorem "Epitome gestorum Prussie"?

100%
Zonenberg S.
Zapiski Historyczne
|
2013
|
vol. 78
|
issue 4
85-102
EN
The subject of the dissertation is the question of who was the author of the work referred to as Epitome gestorum Prussie. To identify the author the entry under the year 1313 is used; it is written in the first person and gives information about receiving the position of a canon in Sambia, but it fails to provide the name or the ‘surname’. The question of the identification of the author gave rise to a debate. Max Perlbach suggests that the work could have been written by a dean Bertram, while Christian Krollmann maintains that it was a schoolman Konrad. Marzena Pollakówna did not support either of the sides, whilst Udo Arnold stated the dispute was hard to solve. Gerard Labuda put forward a completely new idea: having noticed a similarity between Epitome and the chronicle of Peter of Duisburg, he suggested that Peter of Duisburg might have been the author of the former book. At the same time he admitted that his supposition might turn out to be difficult to prove. Jarosław Wenta compared fragments of the chronicle of Peter of Duisburg and Epitome, which revealed that Peter knew Epitome. Next, he provided evidence proving that Peter was the author of the work under discussion. The evidence included: the existence of a canon named Peter the “Elder” in the Sambian chapter; Peter of Duisburg’s citations of Epitome; the fact that the canon Peter the “Elder” held the position of a judicial vicar and that the chronicle of Peter of Duisburg reveals that its author was conversant with the Sachsenspiegel [lit. „Mirror of the Saxons”]. Finally, the researcher stated that he had succeeded in proving that the author of Epitome, Peter the “Elder” and Peter of Duisburg were all the same person. Thanks to Radosław Biskup, we know that Peter the “Elder” was a Sambian canon is 1301, while linguistic research carried out by the author of this article reveals that spelling used in Epitome diff ers from the one employed in the chronicle of Peter of Duisburg. Thus, it is certain that Peter the “Elder” and Peter of Duisburg are not the same person; nor were they authors of Epitome. The author of the article points out other canons such as Jacob of Toruń/Bludau, Bertold, Alexander as possible authors of Epitome.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.