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

Search:
in the keywords:  Piast Poland
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
EN
The reason for calling the synod in Borzykowa was the bull “Significavit nobis” issued in 1210 by Pope Innocent III, which renewed the principle of seniority. At the synod, the possibilities of counteracting the effects of this bull were discussed. The bishops were also to approve Leszek the White’s right to hold the Kraków throne. During the synod, prince Władysław Odonic granted the Cistercian order a land in the castellany of Przemyśl in order to establish a monastery. In turn, the knight Sławosz resumed granting Sławoszów to the monastery in Busko. According to historiography, the dukes issued a set of privileges, including a great privilege for the Church (privilegium fori, ius spolii). The Borzykowski privilege became the basis for the independence of the Church from the Piast monarchy in district Poland.
PL
Powodem zwołania synodu w Borzykowej była wydana w 1210 roku przez papieża Innocentego III bulla „Significavit nobis” wznawiająca zasadę senioratu. Na synodzie radzono nad możliwościami przeciwdziałania skutkom tej bulli. Biskupi mieli również zatwierdzić prawo Leszka Białego do utrzymania tronu krakowskiego. Podczas synodu książę Władysław Odonic nadał zakonowi cystersów ziemię w kasztelanii przemęckiej w celu założenia klasztoru. Z kolei rycerz Sławosz wznowił nadanie Sławoszowa klasztorowi w Busku. Według historiografii książęta wydali wówczas zbiór przywilejów, a wśród nich wielki przywilej dla Kościoła (privilegium fori, ius spolii). Przywilej borzykowski stał się podstawą niezależności Kościoła od monarchii piastowskiej w Polsce dzielnicowej.
EN
In March 1962, Paweł Jasienica, known chiefly for his books on the history of Poland, published an article entitled ‘Polska anarchia’ (‘Polish anarchy’). The article, which appeared in the weekly Przegląd Kulturalny, sparked off a heated debate on the sources of the anarchy into which the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth began to descend in the latter half of the seventeenth century. Among those who contributed to the debate were some of the leading historians of the day. Encouraged by the response to his article, Jasienica decided to expand it into a full-length book (completed in the spring of 1963). The author first presents the views expounded in the article from Przegląd Kulturalny, and then he reconstructs the debate and examines how Jasienica referred to it in his work on the anarchy. Since Jasienica’s account of the anarchy covers the period with which he was also concerned in Rzeczpospolita Obojga Narodów (published in English as The Commonwealth of Both Nations) – the third part of his series on the history of Poland for which he is most acclaimed – the author also attempts to compare the interpretations advanced in one work with those advanced in the other. As regards the anarchy, Jasienica traced its origin back to the reign of the last two kings of the Jagiellonian dynasty . In compliance with their commitment to securing the support of the great magnates on whom they chose to base their power, Sigismund I the Old (1467–1548) and Sigismund II Augustus (1520–1572) refused to endorse political arrangements advocated by the representatives of the Lower House of Parliament. The failure to reform the country along the lines suggested by the latter group led, in the long term, to political chaos. Unlike Jasienica, according to whom the Commonwealth degenerated into anarchy because of the errors committed almost exclusively by the rulers, the academic historians, whose views were inspired by Marxism, linked the state’s political impotence with the policy pursued by the whole nobility as a class. However, as the author shows, in Rzeczpospolita Obojga Narodów Jasienica radically changed his views. In his later work, all responsibility for the future anarchy was shifted onto Sigismund III Vasa (1566–1632) and his Catholic fanaticism. In revising his interpretation of what is known as the nobles’ anarchy, Jasienica drew, at least to some extent, on works by Jarema Maciszewski and Władysław Czapliński, historians who also represented the official historiography of the Polish People’s Republic.
EN
The obligation to serve a ruler directly at war existed also in Poland until the first part of 13th century, however, with the passage of time it underwent significant changes and became subject to constant negotiations, which was mostly influenced by current relations between local Church and secular power. The collapse of central power then, with simultaneous increase of papal influence in Poland, led to the emancipation of the Polish Church and it resulted, among others, in the lack of bishops’ participation in the military affairs of Piast princes. Although there were clear tendencies to change this attitude during the unification period, this did not result in the militarization of the episcopate in the likeness of neighboring countries. The bishops were re-included in the sphere of state activity, but neither the rulers, it seems, insisted on the personal military involvement of the hierarchs, nor did the latter voluntarily show any greater interest in warfare, which could have been a consequence of changing cultural norms and social expectations among the elites of the late medieval Kingdom of Poland.
PL
Obowiązek służenia władcy bezpośrednio na wojnie istniał także w Polsce średniowiecznej, ale w XIII i XIV w. podlegał znaczącym przemianom i był ciągle przedmiotem negocjacji, na które największy wpływ miały aktualne stosunki lokalnego Kościoła z władcą. Załamanie się władzy centralnej w pierwszych dziesięcioleciach XIII w., przy jednoczesnym wzroście wpływów papieskich doprowadziło do emancypacji kościoła w stosunku do władzy świeckiej, co zaowocowało także nieuczestniczeniem biskupów w wyprawach zbrojnych książąt. W okresie zjednoczeniowym pojawiły się co prawda wyraźne tendencje do zmiany tego nastawienia, ale nie zaowocowało to militaryzacją episkopatu na podobieństwo krajów sąsiednich. Biskupi zostali ponownie włączani w sferę działalności państwowej, ale ani władcy, jak się zdaje, nie nalegali na osobiste zaangażowanie zbrojne hierarchów, ani ci drudzy z własnej woli nie wykazywali większego zainteresowania rzemiosłem wojennym, co mogło być konsekwencją zmiany norm kulturowych i oczekiwań społecznych wśród elit późnośredniowiecznego Królestwa Polskiego.
EN
The article is devoted to the scientific inspiration of the concept of Piast Poland, formulated in the 1930s by Zygmunt Wojciechowski, a professor at Poznań University. According to the author, these can be seen mainly in the writings of Oskar Balzer and Władysław Semkowicz. The next part of the article presents the fundamental theses of Wojciechowski’s concept of Piast Poland.
PL
Przedmiotem artykułu są naukowe inspiracje koncepcji Polski piastowskiej, sformułowanej w latach 30. XX w. przez profesora Uniwersytetu Poznańskiego Zygmunta Wojciechowskiego. Zdaniem autorki można je dostrzec przede wszystkim w pisarstwie Oskara Balzera i Władysława Semkowicza. W dalszej części artykułu przedstawione zostaną zasadnicze tezy koncepcji Polski piastowskiej Wojciechowskiego.
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.