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

Results found: 5

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
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Nadawca i odbiorca w Dzienniku wyprawy Stefana Batorego pod Psków Jana Piotrowskiego

100%
Ślęczka T.
Filologia Polska. Roczniki Naukowe Uniwersytetu Zielonogórskiego
|
2018
|
vol. 4
23-37
EN
The work is dedicated to the traces of the author’s presence and the image of the recipient in Jan Piotrowski’s Journal of Stefan Batory’s campaign against Pskov. The author, a canon of Gniezno and the royal secretary, prepared, on behalf of the royal marshal, Andrzej Opaliński, reports on the progress of the expedition and at regular intervals he sent them to his principal, informing him of the progress of the struggle with the Muscovites. Piotrowski hides behind his relations and there is little to say about him on the base of what he wrote. He is a keen observer who collects information skilfully but rarely allows himself for private and personal remarks. The image of the recipient is revealed only indirectly, through what the author chooses and sends to the addressee. Andrzej Opaliński is a demanding master but he can be content with what his agent collects in Batory’s camp. He is interested not only in matters directly connected with the war, but also in the actions of the most important persons in the Republic of Poland (eg. Chancellor Jan Zamojski).
PL
Praca poświęcona jest śladom obecności autora i wizerunkowi odbiorcy w Dzienniku wyprawy Stefana Batorego pod Psków Jana Piotrowskiego. Autor, kanonik gnieźnieński i sekretarz królewski, sporządzał na zlecenie marszałka wielkiego koronnego, Andrzeja Opalińskiego, sprawozdania z postępów wyprawy i w regularnych odstępach czasu wysyłał swemu mocodawcy, informując go o postępach walk z Moskalami. Piotrowski kryje się za swoją relacją i niewiele można o nim powiedzieć na podstawie tego, co napisał. Jest bystrym obserwatorem, umiejętnie zbiera informacje, jednak rzadko pozwala sobie na prywatne i osobiste uwagi. Wizerunek odbiorcy ujawnia się wyłącznie pośrednio, poprzez to, co autor wybiera i mu przesyła. Andrzej Opaliński jest panem wymagającym, jednak potrafi zadowolić się tym, co jego agent zbiera w obozie Batorego. Interesują go nie tylko sprawy bezpośrednio związane z wojną, ale i postępowanie najważniejszych w Rzeczypospolitej osób (np. kanclerza Jana Zamojskiego).
2

Diariusz i listy. Kilka uwag o charakterze pism Kazimierza Sarneckiego

100%
Ślęczka T.
Prace Literackie
|
2018
|
vol. 58
227-238
XX
The subject of the article is the issue of genre classification of the writings of Kazimierz Sarnecki, who was a permanent agent of the Deputy Chancellor of Lithuania Karol Stanisław Radziwiłł, at the court of Jan Sobieski III. Sarnecki’s main task was to obtain information about what was happening around the monarch — above all his state of health and all the other matters, even of the lowest importance. Incarrying out his assigned tasks, Sarnecki kept a diary which, at intervals of about a week, he sent to his principal along with a separate letter. In it, he reported on his own activities, answered questions, and supplemented information that he did not record in the diary. They were two separate texts written independently but he sent them in one package. He used two different names to describe them (diary and letter). Researchers of old Polish literature, however, were looking for a term that would allow Sarnecki’s entire preserved output to be given one name. Two such suggestions were made. The first of these comes from Janusz Woliński, the publisher of Sarnecki’s work, who called it a memoir. This is not a correct term because the work does not meet any of the elements of the memoir definition (Sarnecki does not focus the narrative on himself, his storytelling of the events is subordinate to a consistent pattern, there is also no time distance to the described matters). The author of the second is Alojzy Sajkowski. He created the term “epistolographic relation” because in the diary he saw an element subordinate to the letter accounts; he also noticed the similarity between the writings of Sarnecki and Jan Piotrowski, who kept a diary during the siege of Pskov (1581–1582) and from time to time rephrased subsequent parts, giving them a form of a letter which he then sent to his patron, Andrzej Opaliński. This term is not correct enough either. Sarnecki was not creating one work which combined elements of a diary and a letter but two separate works — a diary and a letter. Similarities with Piotrowski’s diary only go so far — Sarnecki did not rephrase anything, but sent “raw” material, and did not include the diary into the letter. That is why it is a better solution to use the names introduced by the author himself, because in this way we define the nature of his writing output most accurately.
3

Kazimierz Sarnecki o wojnie. Relacje magnackiego rezydenta z lat 1691–1696

100%
Ślęczka T.
Oblicza Komunikacji
|
2015
|
vol. 8
93-109
EN
Supporting materials on Polish history for graduates have been examined from the statistic side. Counting was not the individual parts of speech, but the word-forming bases of autosemantic words. In the material studied, relatively high frequency of concepts connected with the phenomenon of war was observed. Common concepts are war, fighting, army. On the other hand, related to the notion of war, rare words form long lists in the layer of hapax legomena. It allows to interpret some historical narrations intended for high school students as focused on the phenomenon of war. Kazimierz Sarnecki, the courtier of the Lithuanian magnate, Karol Stanisław Radziwiłł, prepared for his master written reports from the court of Jan III Sobieski, at which he stayed between 1691 and 1696, with a few interruptions. They consist of a systematically kept diary and longer epistolary relations. Sarnecki writes in them about the matters that interested his patron (the king’s health, court life, government appointments, war affairs), he rarely mentions himself. The subject of my interest is the way in which Sarnecki recounts Sobieski’s Moldovan expedition of 1691 (in which he participated himself), the subsequent Polish-Tatar struggles in Podolia, battles on the other fronts of the Holy League, and the Nine Years’ War (these events he knows only vicariously). He describes the Moldovan expedition completely. Just as authors of the official war diaries, he lists the stages of the march, the grouping of troops, in the reports of battles you can see the professionalism. He informs very vaguely about the killed, accentuates only losses, incurred by the forces from the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. He emphasizes active participation of Lithuanian troops in the fighting. He does not hide the difficulties with supplies, although he does not shift the blame on Sobieski. He will also repeat — as other authors of the war memories did — a rumour about a miraculous event during the campaign. He limits relations about nature to its impact on warfare; similarly he looks at the buildings he passes through the prism of their military utility. War reports from later times (1692–1696) are different. The civil matters dominate, while the battles with the Tatars or battles in Western Europe Sarnecki mentions irregularly and perfunctorily
4
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

„Niezadowoleni są, ale nie uciekać było spod Pskowa, a dotrwać do końca!” Jan Piotrowski o Litwinach

100%
Ślęczka T.
Tematy i Konteksty
|
2019
|
vol. 14
|
issue 9
202-219
EN
The paper deals with the manner in which the Pole Jan Piotrowski, the author of the diary of Stefan Batory’s expedition to Pskov (1581-1582), depicted the Lithuanians participating in it. He rarely referred to stereotypical ideas about them, rather than this he described the reality that he observed and did not skew it towards the established beliefs.Although he valued his countrymen more, he could show courage and bravery of the Lithuanian soldiers, especially praising the raid of Krzysztof Radziwiłł’s troop. Somewhat more often, however, he reprimanded the Lithuanians: underestimated their number and combat quality, accused them of withdrawing too quickly from Pskov, emphasized their susceptibility to rumours. Among the citizens of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, he most disliked  Chancellor Eustachy Wołłowicz, who hindered Piotrowski from fulfilling his mission and often refused access to the documents he possessed.The image we receive is inhomogeneous. It combines  bright and dark sides of fellow Lithuanian citizens, which makes it seem very credible.
5

Kozacy w oczach polskich pamiętnikarzy-żołnierzy z początku XIX wieku

100%
Ślęczka T.
Prace Literackie
|
2011
|
vol. 51
25-39
EN
The article focuses on the perception of the Cossacks serving in the Russian army during Napoleonic wars by those Poles who decided to fight on the side of the “god of war.” The image that emerges from their memoirs is generally free from old sentiments and resentments from the times of the first Commonwealth. The Cossacks are portrayed as brave and tenacious opponents striking unspeakable terror into the French and their German allies, opponents that are nevertheless prone to plunder and various acts of violence; very rarely, however, are they perceived as former fellow citizens. Usually, the Cossacks from the Don River region are correctly distinguished from those from former Zaporizhian Sich.
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.