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:  historiografia PRL
help Sort By:

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

Karta z dziejów historiografii ruchu robotniczego: przypadek Jerzego Targalskiego (1929–1977)

100%
Siewierski T.
Kwartalnik Historii Nauki i Techniki
|
2022
|
issue 1
105–123
EN
The article is devoted to Jerzy Targalski (1929–1977), a historian of the workers’ movement and the beginnings of socialist organizations in Poland. Targalski’s intellectual biography draws attention to the previously neglected area of studies on the history of historical science, such as the party structures of science, namely the Institute for Education of Scientific Staff/ Institute of Social Sciences at the Central Committee of the Polish United Workers’ Party and the Department of Party History at the Central Committee of the Polish United Workers’ Party. What seems to be an important theme is the development of Targalski’s research interests and the evolution of his critical approach to both the historiography and the reality of the Polish People’s Republic.
2

Jak być (zostać) dobrym historykiem? Marcin Kula, Jerzy Jedlicki, historyk nietypowy, Stowarzyszenie Otwarta Rzeczpospolita, Wydawnictwo Nisza, Warszawa 2018, ss. 154.

100%
Schiller-Walicka J.
Kwartalnik Historii Nauki i Techniki
|
2019
|
vol. 64
|
issue 1
159–166
EN
Jerzy Jedlicki (1930–2018) should be regarded as one of the best and most interesting historians of the post-war generation. Not only can his oeuvre be defined by its wideranging scope (from economic and social history, including research on the 19th-century nobility and intelligentsia, to the history of ideas), but also by peculiar research methodology. By choosing letters Jedlicki wrote to Witold Kula, his mentor, between 1963 and 1974, and providing them with an original commentary, Marcin Kula strived to characterize the most important traits of this historical methodology. He called Jedlicki an ‘unusual historian’ which begs the question whether Jedlicki can really be referred to as such. According to the reviewer, the approach to historiography developed and practiced by Jedlicki should be treated as exemplary; some of its peculiarities stemmed mostly from his personality. As a deeply self-aware individual, by the way in which he chose his research interests, formulated and solved research problems, he was able to adjust them to his personality and transform weaknesses he found into strengths. He succeeded in combining the career as an historian with maintaining a keen interest in current affairs, which is reflected in his journalistic writings; also while examining the past, he always bore in mind its impact on the contemporary human condition. His historical works have served readers if not as a source of ready-made answers, then at least as creative reflection on the problems bothering modern man.
3
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Powojenna mediewistyka polska wobec dziedzictwa dziewiętnastowiecznej myśli historycznej

100%
Boroń P.
Średniowiecze Polskie i Powszechne
|
2020
|
vol. 12
227-244
EN
The article presents reflection on the presence of the nineteenth-century convictions and visions of the past in the Polish post-war medieval studies practiced on the historical ground. The nineteenth century was the time when modern critical historiography started to be created. For practical reasons the article discusses only the field of history, without referring to other fields that also practice medieval studies. The author emphasizes numerous historiographic references to the nineteenth-century paradigms of perceiving the past. One of them was the paradigm of describing the “national” past. What is also signaled in this study are rather archaic manners of describing the past in the post-war period and the utilitarian character of some historical studies.
DE
Der Artikel beschäftigt sich mit den in der polnischen Nachkriegsmediävistik (nach 1945) vorhandenen Ansichten und Vorstellungen über die Vergangenheit, die noch im neunzehnten Jahrhundert verankert waren, als sich die moderne, kritische Geschichtsschreibung erst zu entwickeln begann. Aus praktischen Gründen betrifft die Skizze nur die historische Mediävistik, ohne sich auf andere Wissenschaften vom Mittelalter zu beziehen. Der Autor macht auf zahlreiche historiographische Bezüge auf die aus dem neunzehnten Jahrhundert stammenden Paradigmen über die Wahrnehmung der Vergangenheit aufmerksam. Eines der Paradigmen war die Betrachtung der Vergangenheit von einem „nationalen“ Standpunkt aus. Darüber hinaus wurde auf die Anwendung von ziemlich archaischen Methoden der Vergangenheitsbeschreibung in der Nachkriegszeit sowie auf einen utilitären Charakter mancher historischen Arbeiten hingewiesen. 
PL
W artykule przedstawiono uwagi dotyczące obecności w polskiej mediewistyce historycznej czasów powojennych (po 1945 roku) przekonań i wizji przeszłości wypracowanych jeszcze w XIX stuleciu, czyli u progu tworzenia się nowoczesnej, krytycznej historiografii. Z praktycznych względów szkic dotyczy tylko mediewistyki historycznej, bez odwoływania się do innych nauk zajmujących się średniowieczem. Autor zwrócił uwagę na liczne odwołania historiografii do wypracowanych w XIX wieku paradygmatów postrzegania przeszłości. Jednym z nich był paradygmat opisywania przeszłości „narodowej”. Zasygnalizowano także zastosowanie dość archaicznych sposobów opisu przeszłości w okresie po II wojnie światowej oraz utylitarny charakter części prac historycznych. 
4

Między Polską Piastów i Polską Jagiellonów a Rzeczpospolitą Obojga Narodów. Refleksje „anarchologiczne” i ich miejsce w rozwoju myśli historycznej Pawła Jasienicy

80%
Mękarski A.
Kwartalnik Historii Nauki i Techniki
|
2022
|
issue 1
43–68
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.
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.