Results found: 2

Search results

Search:
in the keywords: Kazimierz Sarnecki

Sort By:

Limit search:

Diariusz i listy. Kilka uwag o charakterze pism Kazimierza Sarneckiego

100%

Ślęczka T.

Prace Literackie

2018

vol. 58

227-238

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.

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

71%

Ślęczka T.

Oblicza Komunikacji

2015

vol. 8

93-109

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

Refine search results

1 Oblicza Komunikacji

1 Prace Literackie

2 Ślęczka T.

1 2018

1 2015

Search results

Diariusz i listy. Kilka uwag o charakterze pism Kazimierza Sarneckiego

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