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

Refine search results

Journals help
Years help
Authors help

Results found: 37

first rewind previous Page / 2 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  Jan III Sobieski
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 2 next fast forward last
1
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Sejm z 22 grudnia 1693 roku

100%
PL
The question of further financing the war or of making peace with the sultan prompted the king to call a parliament session in late 1693 in Warsaw. During the presession campaign the court managed to gain the support of many regional parliaments of the Crown (sejmiki koronne). However, in Lithuania the majority of the sessions of regional parliaments were conducted under the influence of the opposition directed by the representatives of the Sapieha family. Moreover, in the Grand Duchy a conflict broke out between Kazimierz Sapieha, the Wilno voivode and the great Lithuanian hetman, and the supporter of the court - Konstanty Brzostowski, a Wilno bishop. Because the vast majority of the Lithuanians supported Sapieha, whom the bishop intended to bring to trial before the parliamentary court, this situation spelt trouble for the future parliament. The latter’s inauguration was supposed to take place on 22 December but the king, who was staying in Żółkiew, fell seriously ill. Following the advice of a number of senators who were present at the court, he decided to issue a universal proclamation on the strength of which the parliament session would be postponed without the necessity of calling further sessions of regional parliaments. The universal proclamation was supposed to be issued on the first day of the session by primate Michał Radziejowski. The latter, however, angered by the king, failed to reach Warsaw under the pretext of an illness. The remaining senators made a declaration about the universal proclamation before the legates who were assembled in a church but the members of the parliament from Lithuania disallowed the delivery of the proclamation. They also prevented the inauguration of the session in the parliamentary room. The Lithuanians drew up a universal proclamation and an instruction during a separate session and chose the legates who were supposed to go to the sick king. They were obligated to protest against negotiations about the separatist peace and to side with hetman Sapieha in the latter’s contention with bishop Brzostowski. In early January many legates and senators were still present in Warsaw, hoping that the parliamentary session would start after all. The negotiations associated with this issue with the leader of the Lithuanian opposition, Benedykt Sapieha, a Lithuanian undertreasurer, were conducted by Stanisław Szczuka, who was the king’s trusted man. However, the expedition of the legates and the steadfast attitude of Benedykt Sapieha meant that the parliamentary session could not be saved. Although the king received the legates with utmost reserve, the Lithuanians did not hesitate to send further legates to him, this time from among the ones who participated in the February 1694 sessions of regional Candlemas parliaments. After the session of the parliament, the relational regional parliaments were not called. Instead, the king decided to notify the citizens of the Republic about the events in Warsaw by means of special universal proclamations issued to all districts. The parliamentary session of 22 December1693 became the symbol of the internal decay of the country and of the decline of the ruler whose health continued to deteriorate.
EN
This article contains an abbreviated biography of John III Sobieski (1629-1674), Lord Standard-Bearer of the Crown, Grand Marshal of the Crown, Field Hetman and Grand Crown Hetman, King of Poland. The author first presents the period during which Sobieski gathered military education that he could later use as a commander in the battlefield. He presents Sobieski in the context of the times in which he lived to show the military skills of an extraordinary Polish commander and a connoisseur of the Old Polish military art. The author devotes much space to the use the highly maneuverable cavalry by Sobieski who used it to disintegrate the backups of the opposing army or to severe the lines of communication. The author also notes Sobieski’s communication skills when talking to the nobility at that time, which helped reduce the costs of conducting the war. By contrast, the author shows the defeats of Sobieski and their impact on the society’s attitude towards the leader. The author provides an overview of Sobieski’s achievements and defeats based on the individual campaigns and battles in which he fought. He also analyzes the changes that took place in the structure of the Crown’s army in Sobieski’s times, including the hussars, harquebusiers, light cavalry, and foreign infantry regiments. The article is a summary of the opinions of the Polish historiographers on Sobieski’s achievements who basically agree that Sobieski went into history as a brilliant commander, the one who defeated the Turks at the battle of Chocim and at the Battle of Vienna, as well as the man who helped to revive the Old Polish war art in the 17th century.
EN
The article presents the mechanism of electing deputies to the Crown Tribunal from the Mazovia Province in 1688. Moreover, it attests to its connections to the local political power groups which were created by both supporters and opponents of the court of John III Sobieski. The paper also serves as a contribution to further research into local political power groups during the reign of Sobieski, especially in the Mazovia region.
PL
Artykuł przedstawia mechanizm wyboru deputatów z województwa mazowieckiego do Trybunału Koronnego w 1688 r. i dowodzi jego powiązań z lokalnymi układami politycznymi, stworzonymi przez zwolenników oraz przeciwników dworu Jana III Sobieskiego. Artykuł pełni rolę przyczynku do dalszych badań nad lokalnymi układami politycznymi w czasach Sobieskiego, zwłaszcza na Mazowszu.
EN
A very interesting report about the election of the Polish king John Sobieski in 1674 is kept in The Polish Library in Paris. Its author was François de Callières (1645–1717), a French nobleman from Normandy. Son of James de Callières, soldier and writer, like his father was connected with the aristocratic families lords of Matignon and princes de Longueville. In 1674 he visited Poland for the second time. When defeated in election in 1669, the old court-party, with Primate Mikołaj Prażmowskim and Marshal and Grand Crown Hetman Jan Sobieski at the head, searched for a suitable candidate to replace Michał Kontrybut on the Polish throne, they made a proposal to Charles, comte de Saint-Paul, duc de Longueville. De Callières as an envoy of the prince appeared in Warsaw in winter 1669/1670, and stayed there for several months. Results of this visit were: friendship with Crown Treasurer, Jan Andrzej Morsztyn, good knowledge of Polish realities and probably basic ability in Polish language. For this reason, when Prince Charles Emmanuel II of Piedmont looked for a suitable envoy, who could describe the Poles candidacy of his cousin, Louis of Thomas, duke of Carignan, Count de Soissons for the Polish king, the choice fell on Mr. de Callières. Relation on the election of 1674 by François de Callières is unusual. The author does not confine himself to presenting the events. Almost half the text deals with the performance "of the Polish Kingdom". It is a short treatise; the author describes a political and social system of Poland in the late 17th century. De Callières shows a surprisingly high level of knowledge of the Polish Crown and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, doubtless due to conversations with Morsztyn, but also by his own sense of observation. Promoted by François candidacy of Count de Soissons had no chance to be chosen, though de Callières skillfully depicted count as an alternative to competing factions: French and Austrian. For de Callières it was the beginning of diplomatic career, crowned with the signing (on behalf of the France) the peace treaty of Ryswick with the League of Augsburg (1697) and publication of a book dedicated to the art of negotiations which is still famous among historians of diplomacy. It appeared in Poland under the title "The art of diplomacy" in 1929.
PL
A long interregnum period following the death of Jan III Sobieski  contributed to the development of political writings. Letters, which were written then, reflected the moods of the Polish gentry and testified to the character of the epoch. To a degree, they also madę an impact on the outcome of the struggle for the Polish throne.The most serious candidates to succeed to the throne were Prince Jakub  Sobieski, son of the deceased ruler, and Francis Louis de Bourbon, nephew of Great Conde, Prince Conti, who was supported by the French diplomatic circles. The Polish nobility held the strong opinion that one of those  pretenders would take the highest position in the country. Conseąuently, the two were in the midst of a fierce political struggle.His supporters presented Jakub as a son of a powerful monarch and a warranty of good relationships with Poland’s neighbours. They emphasised the fact that it had always been kings’ sons who were the successors to the Polish throne until that time. The opponents accused the candidate of striving to obtain foreign military help and of a too strong attachmentto Austria. Prince Conti, as viewed by the supporters of France was an exquisite commander, who was in possession of great wealth and who was excellently prepared to be a ruler. Many sources, however, ąuestioned both his ruling talent and his fmancial promise. Some doubt was also expressed that the Republic of Poland would get involved in a conflict with the neighbouring states after his election on the instigation of Versailles.The “pen struggle” about the two pretenders tumed out to be rather destructive. It exposed their merits and faults and their satirical image. The Saxon elector, Frederick August I Wettin, who unexpectedly put forward his own candidature in 1697 managed to avoid the commotion. He was almost completely unknown by the Polish nobles, which paradoxically tumed out to his advantage. Before the political stmggle reached him, thanks to his determination, military power, and support of the Republic’s neighbours he succeeded to the throne and strengthened his mle soon afterwards.
PL
Autor artykułu opisał trzynaście przykładów dzieł sztuki (malarstwa, grafiki, rzeźby, medalierstwa, numizmatyki, kartografii) mających związek z medalem i żetonem gloryfikującym postać małżonki Jana III Sobieskiego. Jak przekonuje autor większość wyobrażeń artystycznych, które zostały przez medaliera włączone do kompozycji artystycznej w mniejszym lub większym stopniu nawiązuje do wcześniejszych wzorów graficznych i medalierskich. W przypadku rewersu żetonu Marii Kazimiery można mówić o inspiracjach zarówno przedstawieniami na monetach antycznych (denar z ok. 71 r. p.n.e.) i późniejszych numizmatach (medal z 1670 roku) jak i rycinami publikowanymi w zbiorze Jacoba Typotiusa (emblemat Rudolfa II Habsburga) i kompozycjami wykonanymi w technice fresku (podobizna Diany na rydwanie z wnętrza klasztoru katolickiego św. Pawła w Parmie). Pierwsza strona kolejnego medalu królewskiej małżonki powstała natomiast w oparciu o wcześniejszą rycinę portretową Marii Kazimiery, wykonaną w XVII wieku w warsztacie Francesca Leone. Natomiast rewers zawierający wyobrażenie Junony prze-mieszczającej się na rydwanie w kierunku słońca oraz podobiznę Gdańska i jego najbliż-szych okolic nawiązuje do współczesnych przedstawień kartograficznych, w oparciu o które Jan Höhn (Hoehn) st. zaprojektował w 1654 roku medal będący jak się wydaje podstawą dla późniejszej pracy jego syna, Jana Höhna (Hoehna).
EN
The author of the article described thirteen examples of the works of art (of painting, graphics, sculpture, metallic art, numismatics, cartography) correlating with the medal and the token extolling the figure of the wife of Jan III Sobieski. The author shows how the majority of artistic ideas that were used by the medalist in the artistic composition to a smaller or larger degree refer to an earlier graphic and medallic formulae. Regarding the reverse side of the Marie Casimire coin one could speak to the inspiration of antique money (denar from cir. 71 BCE) and later numismats (medals from 1670) and prints published in a collection Jacobus Typotius (emblem of Rudolph II of Habsburg) and composition made in the fresco technique (Diana's image on the chariot from the inside of the Catholic monastery St. Paul in Parma). The front side of the medal of the kings wife was based on earlier sketches of Marie Casimire created in the workshop of Francesca Leone. The revers side however contains an image of Juno moving on a chariot towards the sun and the image of Gdańsk, this is supported by contemporary cartographic surroundings closest to him, shown on the medal which John Höhn (Hoehn) the elder designed in 1654. It seems this was the basis for the later work of his son, John Höhna (Hoehna).
PL
Pomnik Jana III Sobieskiego, chronologicznie drugi po kolumnie Zygmunta warszawski monument o tematyce niereligijnej, wstawiony został przez Stanisława Augusta Poniatowskiego z okazji 105. rocznicy wiktorii wiedeńskiej. Wyobraża on króla w stroju rzymskiego imperatora, na wspiętym koniu, tratującym dwie leżące postaci. Konne tratowanie wroga to ustalona formuła ikonograficzna sięgająca grecko-rzymskiego antyku, funkcjonująca jako symbol militarnego zwycięstwa nad wrogiem-barbarzyńcą. W Renesansie formuła ta zaczęła być kojarzona ze zwycięstwem odniesionym nad wrogiem religijnym, dzięki „nadprzyrodzonej interwencji Boga”. Wzniesiony u progu rozbiorów konny pomnik króla Jana III Sobieskiego stawiał przed oczy publiczności mobilizujący symbol triumfu oręża Rzeczpospolitej nad jej wrogami.
EN
The Jan III Sobieski Monument, which is chronologically the second nonreligious monument in Warsaw (after Sigismund’s Column), was erected by Stanisław August Poniatowski on the 105th anniversary of the Victory of Vienna. It depicts the king dressed as a Roman emperor and mounted on a rearing horse which is trampling two prostrate figures. A horse trampling a fallen opponent is an established iconographic formula dating back to Graeco-Roman antiquity. It functioned as a symbol of military victory over a barbarian enemy. In the Renaissance, this formula came to be associated with victory over a religious enemy thanks to the “supernatural intervention of God”. Erected on the eve of the partitions, the equestrian statue of King Jan III Sobieski displayed to the public the powerful symbol of the triumph of the Polish army over its enemies.
8
70%
EN
After mourning ceremonies at the St. Anne’s Church in Wilanów, Wojciech Fijałkowski, PhD was laid to rest at the local cemetery on Monday, April 14, 2014. We lost a person who had dedicated his heart and professional life to Wilanów Palace and Warsaw for 60 years. W. Fijałkowski was born on July 4, 1927 in Żychlin. His professional life started at the National Museum in 1948. Delegated to Wilanów Palace by prof. Lorentz in April 1954, he was entrusted with the task of full restoration and opening of a museum. In the years 1955–1964 he was responsible for supervising the regeneration of the historic palace and garden. He retired in 1991. During his entire professional career Wojciech Fijałkowski was a devoted social activist. He participated in the activities of Social Fund for the Rebuilding of the Capital [Społeczny Fundusz Odbudowy Stolicy], Investment Commission of the Warsaw SFOS Committee [Komisja Inwestycyjna Komitetu Warszawskiego SFOS], Warsaw Society of Friends of Fine Arts, National Board of Museum Employees and Restorers of Monuments [Krajowa Komisja Pracowników Muzeów i Konserwacji Zabytków] by the Main Board of Trade Unions of Culture and Art Employees [Zarząd Główny Związku Zawodowego Pracowników Kultury i Sztuki], Society of Friends of Warsaw [Towarzystwo Przyjaciół Warszawy], Society for Heritage Protection [Komisja Ochrony Zabytków]. He was the Secretary of Culture Council by the President of the Republic of Poland and a member of the Council for Warsaw Development Program “Warsaw of the 21st Century”, President of the Main Board of the Society for the Preservation of Historical Monuments, Vice-President of the Social Committee for Erection of Józef Piłsudski Monument in Warsaw, Vice-President of the Social Committee for the Preservation of Old Powązki, President of the Committee for Erection of Juliusz Słowacki Monument in Warsaw. He was the expert of the Ministry of Culture in the field of regeneration of historical architectural ensembles, organizer of European Heritage Days in Warsaw, associate of the Natolin European Centre, member of the Association of Monument Conservators,honorary member of the Association France-Poland, and member of the Polish National Committees of ICOM and ICOMOS. For years he was the editor-in-chief of the journal „Ochrona Zabytków” [“Protection of Monuments”], member of the Editorial Board of „Studia Wilanowskie” [“Wilanów Studies”], „Spotkania z Zabytkami” [“Meetings with Monuments”], academic supervisor of the articles series „Biblioteka Towarzystwa Opieki nad Zabytkami” [“The Library of the Society for the Preservation of Historical Monuments”], author of texts in the magazine „Wierzyć życiem” [“Belive with life”].
PL
W poniedziałek 14 kwietnia 2014 r. w kościele św. Anny w Wilanowie odbyły się uroczystości żałobne, a na miejscowym cmentarzu pochowany został dr Wojciech Fijałkowski. Pożegnaliśmy człowieka, który przez 60 lat, jak nikt inny związany był sercem i pracą z pałacem w Wilanowie i Warszawą. W. Fijałkowski urodził się w 4 lipca 1927 r. w Żychlinie. Pracę zawodową rozpoczął w 1948 w strukturze Muzeum Narodowego. W kwietniu 1954 r. wydelegowany został przez prof. Lorentza do Pałacu w Wilanowie, w celu jego pełnej odbudowy i zorganizowania tam muzeum. W latach 1955–1964 powierzono mu nadzór nad rewaloryzacją zabytkowego espołu pałacowo-ogrodowego, w roku 1991 przeszedł na zasłużoną emeryturę. Przez cały okres działalności zawodowej Wojciech Fijałkowski był niestrudzonym działaczem społecznym. Brał udział w pracach Społecznego Funduszu Odbudowy Stolicy, Komisji Inwestycyjnej Komitetu Warszawskiego SFOS, Towarzystwa Przyjaciół Sztuk Pięknych w Warszawie, Krajowej Komisji Pracowników Muzeów i Konserwacji Zabytków przy Zarządzie Głównym Związku Zawodowego Pracowników Kultury i Sztuki, Towarzystwie Przyjaciół Warszawy, Komisji Ochrony Zabytków. Był sekretarzem Rady Kultury przy Prezydencie Rzeczypospolitej i członkiem Rady Programu Rozwoju Warszawy „Warszawa XXI wieku”. Piastował funkcję Prezesa Zarządu Głównego Towarzystwa Opieki nad Zabytkami, wiceprzewodniczącego Społecznego Komitetu Budowy Pomnika Marszałka Józefa Piłsudskiego w Warszawie, wiceprezesa Społecznego Komitetu Opieki nad Starymi Powązkami, przewodniczącego Komitetu Budowy Pomnika Juliusza Słowackiego w stolicy. Był rzeczoznawcą Ministerstwa Kultury w dziedzinie rewaloryzacji zabytkowych zespołów architektonicznych. Organizatorem warszawskich Dni Dziedzictwa Europejskiego. Współpracownikiem fundacji Centrum Europejskie Natolin, członkiem Stowarzyszenia Konserwatorów Zabytków, honorowym członkiem Stowarzyszenia Francja-Polska oraz członkiem polskich narodowych komitetów ICOM i ICOMOS. Przez wiele lat był redaktorem naczelnym czasopisma „Ochrona Zabytków”, członkiem rady redakcyjnej „Studiów Wilanowskich”, „Spotkań z Zabytkami”, opiekunem naukowym publikacji z serii „Biblioteka Towarzystwa Opieki nad Zabytkami”, autorem tekstów w periodyku „Wierzyć życiem”.
EN
The author of this article supplemented the biography of Andrzej Wincenty Ustrzycki. It was possible thanks to the research of Paweł Sczaniecki OSB. The article is also based on the author’s own research. It emphasizes Ustrzycki’s place in the literary culture of his day.
EN
In the article, the author describes in detail two selected pieces of art which bear considerable resemblance to the medal minted by Georg Hautsch. As the author observes, no representation in the entire painterly and graphic legacy of associated with Jan III Sobieski offers an direct prototype on which the medallist may have relied. It should therefore be suspected that the royal likeness on the obverse was based on several earlier representations in graphic arts or was an original project by Hautsch. Nonetheless, the features of the king were rendered in accordance with historical truth, as evidenced by anatomical details and salient features, such as Sobieski's moustache depicted in most of the realistic royal portraits. Therefore,  it would not be legitimate to claim that Sobieski was commemorated on the basis of a likeness of another European ruler.
PL
In the article, the author describes in detail two selected pieces of art which bear considerable resemblance to the medal minted by Georg Hautsch. As the author observes, no representation in the entire painterly and graphic legacy of associated with Jan III Sobieski offers a direct prototype on which the medallist may have relied. It should therefore be suspected that the royal likeness on the obverse was based on several earlier representations in graphic arts or constituted an original project by Hautsch.
EN
The article presents Polish texts related to the coronation of Jan III Sobieski. Wacław Potocki and Wespazjan Kochowski praised the king for submitting defense of the homeland over coronation ceremonies, organized two years after the election. In those ceremonies participated Jan Chryzostom Pasek, who noted that there were three successive kings in Cracow and that fact was associated with the tradition of the solemn burial of predecessors by the ascending monarch. Mikołaj Jemiołowski focused on the speech by the Bishop of Cracow Andrzej Trzebicki, whose speech he translated from Latin into Polish. The burial and the coronation were widely described by an anonymous author of “Connotatio Variarum Occurentiarum 1677” and Bogusław Kazimierz Maskiewicz. They both copied the Jan Andrzej Morsztyn’s epitaph from kings’ catafalque. The manuscript contained also an oration of Stanisław Herakliusz Lubomirski, speaking during the coronation proceedings in the Parliament to the new chancellor Jan Stanisław Wyżga. The article is based on unknown manuscript sources.
PL
W artykule przedstawiono polskie teksty odnoszące się do koronacji Jana III Sobieskiego. W. Potocki i W. Kochowski chwalili króla za przedkładanie obrony ojczyzny ponad uroczystości koronacyjne, zorganizowane dopiero 2 lata po elekcji. W ceremoniach tych brał udział J. Pasek, który odnotował, że w Krakowie znaleźli się trzej kolejno panujący królowie, co było związane z tradycją uroczystego pochówku poprzedników przez wstępującego na tron monarchę. M. Jemiołowski skupił się na wygłoszonej przez biskupa krakowskiego A. Trzebickiego mowie, którą przełożył z łaciny na język polski. Szerzej przebieg pogrzebu i koronacji przedstawili diaryści: anonimowy autor „Connotatio variarum occurentiarum 1677” oraz B.K. Maskiewicz, którzy m.in. skopiowali z katafalku królewskiego epitafium autorstwa J.A. Morsztyna. W rękopisie znalazła się także oracja S.H. Lubomirskiego przemawiającego podczas sejmu koronacyjnego przy oddawaniu pieczęci podkanclerzemu J.S. Wyżdze. W artykule wykorzystano nieznane dotychczas źródła rękopiśmienne.
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.
EN
Starting from the end of the 17 th century and almost throughout the whole 18 th century, wall tiles manufactured in the Netherlands were a popular element of the European interior décor. They came into fashion with the European aristocracy starting with the Trianon de Porcelaine of Louis XIV, this coinciding with the longstanding fascination with Oriental china and the interest in Chinoiserie. In the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth Dutch tiles were used the earliest in the residences of King John III Sobieski in Żółkiew, Jaworów, and Wilanów.
EN
Out of a total of 12 Sejms which assembled during the reign of Jan III Sobieski (1674–96), half passed constitutions (laws). At that time the legislative initiative belonged predominantly to the monarch and the nobility (via sejmiks instructions), although other persons could also present projects of constitutions in the form of supplications. The king’s programme proposed in pre-Sejm documents was rather sparse, with Jan III attempting to avoid controversial points, which he promoted unofficially through the intermediary of the sejmiks, at which his adherents guarded the interests of the royal court. The distinctive feature of parliamentary work carried out during this period was a transference of the burden of the debate on the creation of law to the time of the conclusions (debates held by joint estates), which instead of the statutory five days lasted for as much as over ten weeks or more. For this reason participants in the debate included also senators and the king. The characteristic aspect of the debates as such was their extremely low efficacy – the outcome of the fact that particular constitutions had to be accepted by all persons attending the Sejm sessions and the increasingly frequent blocking of debates by members of particular political camps since absolute unanimity also as regards procedural issues remained binding. In 1679 the opposition managed to introduce an obligatory oath to be sworn by the marshal of the Sejm (speaker of the house) and constitution legislators (who edited the final texts of constitutions) – this was to limit the king’s influence in the Chamber of Deputies. The new regulation, however, did not produce actual benefits, and the scale of deceptions committed in the course of post-Sejm sessions held by the constitution deputation was much larger than in previous years. The last years of the reign of Jan III brought a progressive obstruction of Sejm debates, and in the 1690s resulted in the paralysis of this institution.
PL
W artykule przedstawiono analizę litewskiej sceny politycznej w pierwszych latach panowania Jana III Sobieskiego, koncentrując się na omówieniu przebiegu kampanii sejmikowej przed sejmem warszawskim w 1677 r. Celem analizy jest odtworzenie układu sił i wpływów na scenie lokalnej, co ze względu na stan zachowania i rozproszenie materiału źródłowego nie było łatwym zadaniem badawczym. The article attempts to thoroughly analyse the Lithuanian political scene in the first years of the reign of King John III Sobieski, by focusing on the description of the course of the sejmik campaign before the Warsaw Sejm of 1677. The aim of the analysis was to reconstruct the system of power and influence on the local scene, which due to the state of preservation and dispersal of the source material, was not an easy research task.
PL
Emanuel de Jona (zwany też: dr Jonas, a po hebrajsku Symcha Menachem z Jony) był nadwornym lekarzem oraz osobistym medykiem króla Jana III Sobieskiego od 1671 roku aż do jego śmierci w 1696 roku. Musiał zmagać się z jego rozmaitymi dolegliwościami oraz chorobami, przede wszystkim z kiłą, która najprawdopodobniej była głównym medycznym problemem polskiego władcy. Po zgonie króla żydowski lekarz został oskarżony o wywołanie wczesnej śmierci monarchy przez otrucie go lekami rtęciowymi. W niniejszym artykule omawiamy medyczną historię króla Jana III oraz jego żony, znaną nam z różnorodnych, pierwotnych i wtórnych źródeł. Przedstawiona jest naturalna historia kiły we wczesnym okresie nowożytnym. Następnie próbujemy ustalić retrospektywną diagnozę głównych dolegliwości króla i sprawdzić rozmaite hipotezy dotyczące jego śmierci. Wnioskujemy, że król zaraził się kiłą od swojej żony, i że w późniejszych latach życia wykazywał symptomy trzeciego stadium kiły, głównie w układzie sercowo-naczyniowym. Przyczyną jego zgonu była najprawdopodobniej niewydolność serca będąca konsekwencją niedomykalności zastawki aortalnej. Omawiamy wnikliwie zjawisko autocenzury (wybielania historii), czyli jak współcześni historycy medycyny ignorowali świadomie bądź nieświadomie oczywiste prawdopodobieństwo, że król cierpiał i zmarł na kiłę; zjawisko wywołane bezkrytycznym podziwem polskiego monarchy.
EN
Emanuel de Jona (alias Dr. Jonas, and in Hebrew, Simcha Menachem Miyona) was a court physician and personal doctor to King Jan III Sobieski, from 1671 and until the king's death in 1696. He had to deal with a great variety of disorders and diseases that the King suffered from, and primarily with Syphilis, that was most probably the central medical problem of the Polish king. After the king's death the Jewish physician was accused of eliciting the monarch's early death by poisoning him with mercurial medication. In the present paper we discuss the medical histories of King Jan III and his wife, known to us from various primary and secondary sources. The natural history of Syphilis and the methods of its treatment during the Early Modern Period are depicted. Next, we attempt to establish a retrospective diagnosis of the king's principal ailment and examine the various hypotheses regarding the king's death. It is concluded that the king contracted syphilis from his wife, and that during his later years he presented symptoms of stage III Syphilis, predominantly cardiovascular. The cause of death was most probably congestive heart failure secondary to aortic regurgitation. We discuss at length the phenomenon of sanitization (self-censorship), i.e. how much modern researchers of the History of Medicine ignored subconsciously or intentionally the evident likelihood that the king suffered and died from Syphilis, a phenomenon triggered by a blind admiration of the Polish monarch.
EN
The author described four examples of works of art (medallions, graphics and paintings) related to the medal from 1683. The iconographic analysis of the title numismat in comparison with selected examples of works of art authorizes us to state that the imperial dispatcher immediately after September 12, 1683, in a similar manner, commemorated the war struggle at Vienna. Both on the reverse of the medal, by Wolrab of 1683 and on the copperplate drawn by an unknown from the second half of the seventeenth century and the painting Geffels painted after September 12, 1683, the same elements of the battle landscape as the Turkish tents and Vienna’s fortifications seen from a distance are an integral part. On the basis of the above analogies, however, it is impossible to determine which of the mentioned examples of works of art was created first and constituted an inspiration for the next ones. On the other hand, the form of glorification of the participating Christian rulers (with the exception of Leopold I Habsburg) in the war struggle near Vienna was later borrowed by Ermenegildo Hamerani. Undoubtedly, this proves that the Wolrab concept was very successful.
PL
Autor opisał cztery przykłady dzieł sztuki (medalierstwa, grafiki i malarstwa) mających związek z medalem pochodzącym z roku 1683. Analiza ikonograficzna tytułowego numizmatu w zestawieniu z wybranymi przykładami dzieł sztuki uprawnia do stwierdzenia, że dysponent cesarski bezpośrednio po 12 września 1683 r. w zbliżony do siebie sposób upamiętniał zmagania wojenne pod Wiedniem. Zarówno na rewersie medalu autorstwa Wolraba z 1683 r., jak i na miedziorycie sporządzonym przez nieznanego autora z drugiej połowy XVII w. oraz obrazie Geffelsa namalowanym po 12 września 1683 r. integralną część stanowią te same elementy krajobrazu bitewnego jak namioty tureckie i widziane z oddali fortyfikacje Wiednia. Na podstawie powyższych analogii nie sposób jednak rozstrzygnąć, które z wymienionych przykładów dzieł sztuki powstało jako pierwsze i stanowiło wzorzec dla kolejnych. Natomiast forma gloryfikacji władców chrześcijańskich uczestniczących (z wyjątkiem Leopolda I Habsburga) w zmaganiach wojennych pod Wiedniem została w późniejszym okresie zapożyczona przez Ermenegilda Hameraniego. Bez wątpienia świadczy to o tym, że koncepcja Wolraba cieszyła się sporym powodzeniem.
EN
Offices of Grand and Field Guardian (strażnik wielki and strażnik polny) existed in Polish army since 16th century. Since first half of the 17th century they also have their equivalent in Lithuanian army. One of the main role of such officers was to take care of security of the marching army. During Sobieski’s time (as hetman and then king) this office was held by very experienced and well respected officers, who at the same time were politically connected to Sobieski. Politics could also affect and limit the role, as it happened with Grand Crown Guardian Stefan Bidziński after 1683, when he was in open conflict with Grand Crown Hetman Stanisław Jan Jabłonowski.
PL
Urzędy strażnika wielkiego i wojskowego (polnego) w wojsku koronnym istniały od XVI w. Od pierwszej połowy XVII w. miały one także swoje odpowiedniki w armii Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego. Jednym z głównych zadań osób sprawujących te stanowiska było ubezpieczanie maszerujących armii. W czasach Sobieskiego urzędy strażników pełniły osoby o dużym doświadczeniu wojskowym i autorytecie w armii, ale także osoby zależne politycznie od osoby hetmana, a później króla Jana Sobieskiego. Od czynnika politycznego zależne było także ograniczenie prerogatyw strażnika wielkiego Stefana Bidzińskiego po 1683 r., albowiem znajdował się on w otwartym konflikcie z ówczesnym hetmanem wielkim koronnym Stanisławem Janem Jabłonowskim.
first rewind previous Page / 2 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.