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

Results found: 9

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  interregnum
help Sort By:

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

„Acta interregnorum” — rękopiśmienne zbiory materiałów dokumentujących dzieje bezkrólewi w Rzeczypospolitej szlacheckiej w XVII i XVIII wieku

100%
Matwijów M.
Roczniki Biblioteczne
|
2016
|
vol. 60
187-207
EN
The most important types of handwritten books in Poland in the 17th–18th centuries were collections of public life materials documenting important political events. Such events in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth included interregna, lasting from the death of a king to the election of his successor and marked by great intensification of political life. The collections documenting interregna, usually entitled Acta interregnorum, contained both official and private documents, including correspondence of state dignitaries, political writings, resolutions of senate councils, regional assemblies and the parliament as well as parliamentary diaries. Such collections were compiled for the interregna of 1632, 1696–1697 and 1733, with the collection for the 1632 interregnum appearing in two different editions. With the exception of the 1632 interregnum documents,edited by Jakub Sobieski, they appeared in versions differing in terms of the selection and arrangement of their contents, but the differences between the collections were not substantial and did not change the fundamental concepts of such works. The author has identified a total of 45 copies of interregnum files, with the most substantial being the files for the 1733 interregnum and the civil war of 1734–1736 which ensued as a result of the interregnum. The Acta interregnorum were disseminated through copying of the various compilations; they were also commissioned, that it compiled in an organised manner. Unfortunately, with the exception of the collection edited by Jakub Sobieski, we do not know their authors, but the most important role was probably played here by officials associated with the Primates of Poland — Archbishops of Gniezno, who, acting as “interreges”, were in charge of the state’s policy during the interregna.
2

Gospodarcze interregnum w obliczu światowych przemian gospodarczych XXI wieku

88%
Maryniak S.
Studenckie Prace Prawnicze, Administratywistyczne i Ekonomiczne
|
2013
|
vol. 13
23 - 35
EN
According to Adam Smith’s teaching, the economic development is credited to the entrepreneurs. The source of a nation’s wealth is the right allocation of resources. This allocation can be made mainly by an entrepreneur who by aiming for meeting his or her own needs indirectly influences the development of the whole society. However, societies start to shift from their countries. The opponents of capitalism attack mainly the rapacity of entrepreneurs, and incompetence of the authorities. When referring to the best thriving economies of the last several years, their economic slowdown is emphasised. Even the strongest economies of the European Union do not cope with the return to the path of sustainable growth, and the United States struggles with the largest deficit for years and increasing unemployment. The economic development of several Asian countries can be considered as unusual. The People’s Republic of China has been the leader of this group for many years. What is distressing, though, is the fact that despite being the leading world economy and contributing considerably to the world’s economic growth, China poses a threat in the social sphere. The Chinese expansion in Africa contributes considerably to the devastation of local natural environment. In addition, the population problems of capitalist economies are not without importance. Most of the European nations are dying nations. Muslim nations are a serious threat for them. The changing model of the family negatively influences functioning of liberal societies, which indirectly contributes to the state of their economies. Indisputably, liberal values and capitalism represented by the European Union or the United States start to have a menacing opponent. Asian countries, and China especially, prove that an economic success is also possible with much less of a social base, and restriction of democracy. The world is still divided into two polar models of economic systems — on the one side represented by communist China and on the other by the liberal United States. Currently, we have no truck with interregnum in the area of world economy but with two kings.
3

The issue regarding “the reform of the union” of Lublin in Lithuanian policy in the period of three interregna following the death of king Sigismund Augustus (1572–1588)

88%
Kempa T.
Zapiski Historyczne
|
2014
|
vol. 79
|
issue 4
53-88
PL
The Union of Lublin signed in 1569 between Poland and Lithuania created a kind of federation of two states ruled by one monarch elected by the szlachta from both states; moreover, both states had a common parliament and ran a common foreign and defence policy. The magnates, who played the key role in Lithuanian politics, unlike the Lithuanian szlachta – were not fully satisfied with the resolutions of the union of Lublin. Earlier they wanted to establish a less strict relationship with Poland, maintaining separate parliamentary systems. Nevertheless, King Sigismund Augustus’s support for the idea of a closer union, which was forced by the Poles, determined the shape of the new union. Additionally, in 1569 the Grand Duchy of Lithuania lost vast areas including the Kievan land, Volhynia, Bratslav land and Podlachia, which constituted over a third of the whole territory of the state. Lithuanian dignitaries found it extremely humiliating, for it was the king who fulfilled the demands of the Poles and incorporated the areas into Poland despite Lithuanian protests. After the death of Sigismund Augustus during the subsequent interregna (1572–1573, 1575–1576, 1586–1587) the leading Lithuanian magnates, particularly Mikołaj Radziwiłł ‘Rudy’ [‘the Red’] , Mikołaj Krzysztof Radziwiłł ‘Sierotka’ [‘the Orphan’] and Jan Chodkiewicz planned to regain the territories. They referred to the plan as the “reform of the union”. However, it turned out that they could not carry out the project without the support of the magnates and szlachta from the incorporated lands. The term the “reform of the union” also meant other changes that would secure the Grand Duchy of Lithuania a more equal position in the union with Poland. Few Lithuanian demands were fulfilled by the Polish party and the subsequent monarchs. Nevertheless, the confirmation of the new codification of Lithuanian law (III Statute) by King Sigismund III in 1588, which consolidated and, in some points, even extended the Lithuanian autonomy, was a momentous event for the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.
4
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Związek kryzysu państwa Osmanów w okresie interregnum (1403-1413) z wasalnymi państwami ościennymi. Kierunek rumelijski

65%
Hauziński J.
Balcanica Posnaniensia Acta et studia
|
2014
|
vol. 21
13-24
EN
After the defeat of Bayezid in the battle of Ankara (28 July 1402) the Ottoman state passed through a period of political instability combined with dynastic war and and ethnic strife, and it remained divided until 1413. This period is known as the Interregnum (Fetret Dewri), during which four sons of Bayezid stoked claim to leadership over the Ottomans, while the Christian states tried to take the maximum advantage from the division of the Ottomans by supporting one prince against the others. At this time a strong European crusade might have pushed the Ottomans out of Europe or at least of Balkan countries, but the weakness and division of the south of the Danube and diversion to other matters to the north left an opportunity for the Ottomans to restore what had been crushed without significant loss.
5
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Primate Jan Wężyk in the Role of Interrex and Senator of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the Period of Interregnum Following the Death of Sigismund III Vasa in 1632

51%
Kaczorowski W.
Kościół i Prawo
|
2021
|
vol. 10 (23)
|
issue 1
175-193
EN
It was customary in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth that the current Primate and – at the same time – Archbishop of Gniezno in one person – accepted the function of interrex after the death of the incumbent monarch and was responsible for taking over the duties of representing the state outside as well as preparing election of the new king. To make it happen he convened local assemblies and the so-called Convocation Seym. At last, it was also the interrex’s duty to finally announce the selection of the elect and duly execute the enthronement procedure. Following the death of King Sigismund III Vasa in 1632, the function of interrex during the interregnum fell to Primate Jan Wężyk (1575-1638). It must be stated that he was extremely successful at carrying out the duties, and the offices that he held won him a well-deserved place among the personages who influenced the shape of the Commonwealth and the Church in the history of Poland. Apart from that, during Jan Wężyk’s holding of the dignity of the Primate, the case of compositio inter status was partially solved. For several decades, the problem had been weighing heavily on the relations between the nobility and the clergy. Primate Jan Wężyk was also a patron of culture and art.
PL
Prymas Jan Wężyk w roli interreksa oraz senatora Rzeczypospolitej w okresie bezkrólewia po śmierci Zygmunta III Wazy w 1632 roku W Rzeczypospolitej Obojga Narodów prymas, a zarazem arcybiskup gnieźnieński po śmierci monarchy przejmował obowiązki w zakresie reprezentowania państwa na zewnątrz, przygotowywał wybór nowego króla i w tym celu zwoływał sejmiki orz sejm konwokacyjny. Prymas wreszcie ogłaszał wybór elekta, czyli dokonywał nominacji. Po śmierci Zygmunta III Wazy w 1632 r. funkcję interreksa w okresie bezkrólewia pełnił prymas Jan Wężyk (1575-1638). Z funkcji tej wywiązał się znakomicie. Sprawowane prze niego urzędy postawiły go w rzędzie osób, które wpływały na kształt Rzeczypospolitej i Kościoła. Za prymasostwa Jana Wężyka częściowo rozwiązano sprawę compositio inter status, od kilkudziesięciu lat ciążącą na stosunkach szlachty z duchowieństwem. Prymas Jan Wężyk był również mecenasem kultury i sztuki.
6
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Szlachta województwa lubelskiego w schyłkowym okresie wojny o tron polski w latach 1735–1736

51%
Lisek A.
Wieki Stare i Nowe
|
2022
|
vol. 17
|
issue 22
1-22
EN
As a result of the military failures of Dzikowianie and the growing economic crisis of 1735 caused by the destruction and numerous war contributions, the nobility of the Lublin Voivodeship, who had so far supported Stanisław Leszczyński, gradually began to move to the Sas side. In January 1735, some of the nobility of Lublin officially recognized August III as their king. Despite the success of pre-parliamentary sejmiks, including the Lublin ones, in 1735, the king did not reconcile with the opposition. The pacification Sejm of 1735 was broken. In fact, the country was to be fully pacified only in 1736 due to the second pacification parliament. However, deputies from the lubelskie voivodeship were not present at this Sejm, as the pre-parliamentary sejmik of Lublin was broken during the election of the marshal.
PL
W wyniku niepowodzeń militarnych konfederatów dzikowskich i narastającego w roku 1735 kryzysu gospodarczego spowodowanego zniszczeniami i licznymi kontrybucjami wojennymi szlachta województwa lubelskiego, wspierająca dotąd Stanisława Leszczyńskiego, stopniowo zaczęła przechodzić do obozu saskiego. W styczniu 1735 roku część szlachty lubelskiej oficjalnie uznała Augusta III za króla. Mimo że odbyły się sejmiki przedsejmowe, w tym lubelski w 1735 roku, nie doszło do pojednania króla z opozycją. Sejm pacyfikacyjny w 1735 roku został zerwany. Do pełnej pacyfikacji kraju miało dojść dopiero w 1736 roku za sprawą drugiego sejmu pacyfikacyjnego. Zabrakło na nim jednak posłów z województwa lubelskiego, gdyż sejmik przedsejmowy lubelski został zerwany podczas wyboru marszałka.
7
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Kilka uwag o postawie stronników Stanisława Leszczyńskiego w województwie lubelskim na sejmach i sejmikach okresu bezkrólewia i wojny o tron polski 1733-1734

51%
Lisek A.
Wieki Stare i Nowe
|
2021
|
vol. 16
|
issue 21
106-123
EN
During the interregnum period during the sessions of the Lublin Sejm, both the pre-convocation and relational ones, the Lublin nobility, including this voivodship’s officials, firmly supported the candidacy of Stanisław Leszczyński. This was also reflected in the election sejm, where a total of 395 deputies voted for him. After the entry of Russian and Saxony troops into the Republic, the Lublin nobility relatively quickly, because on December 18, 1733, established in his defense a “particular” confederation. Felicjan Gałęzowski, a Lublin sub-judge, was elected as its marshal. The Lublin nobility also took part in the general Dzikowska confederation, established on 5 November 1734, setting out a military unit of a total of 280 horses.
PL
W artykule przedstawiono aktywność na sejmach i sejmikach szlachty województwa lubelskiego opowiadającej się po stronie Stanisława Leszczyńskiego. Badany okres obejmuje czas przedostatniego bezkrólewia oraz wojny o tron polski. Przeanalizowano proces zawiązania się w województwie lubelskim partykularnej konfederacji w obronie króla Stanisława Leszczyńskiego w grudniu 1733 roku oraz udział przedstawicieli szlachty lubelskiej w zjeździe dzikowskim.
8
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Wykorzystanie i kontrola wojska jako przedmiot gry politycznej i obrad sejmu konwokacyjnego w dobie bezkrólewia 1764 roku

51%
Szymborski G.
Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Historica
|
2017
|
issue 98
55-69
EN
This article presents issues connected with military safety of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and condition of state army during interregnum of 1764 and its political consequences leading to short-lived civil war. Author tries to state most important aspects of use of State army and private militia against Russian soldiers. Moreover, author presents military issue from the parliamentarian point of view and includes legal arguments and discussion concerning activity of Grand Hetman of the Crown Jan Klemens Branicki.
PL
Artykuł ma na celu wskazanie zagadnień związanych z obronnością i stanem wojska w okresie bezkrólewia 1764 r. oraz jego politycznymi następstwami prowadzącymi do krótkotrwałej wojny domowej. Autor stara się przedstawić najważniejsze kwestie związane z wykorzystaniem wojska państwowego oraz milicji magnackich, które stoczyły walki z oddziałami rosyjskimi. Jednocześnie prezentuje sejmowy punkt widzenia sytuacji oraz omawia ówczesne wątpliwości prawne co do wykorzystania wojska przez hetmana wielkiego koronnego.
9
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Pobyt Maksymiliana Habsburga na zamku w Krzepicach przed bitwą pod Byczyną (1587/1588)

51%
Kobus A.
Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Historica
|
2021
|
issue 109
51-71
EN
This article is devoted to Maximilian Habsburg’s stay in Krzepice castle in 1587/1588. It discusses the number of forces with which the king-elect arrived in Krzepice and the conditions he found there. It shows foreign contacts which Maximilian Habsburg established from Krzepice. It also highlights the issue of the king-elect’s envoys and guests arriving in Krzepice from December 1587 to January 1588. The article ends with a description of Maximilian Habsburg’s march from Krzepice to Wieluń on January 1588. In addition to diplomatic and military matters, the article discusses the support in the Republic of Poland for Maximilian Habsburg’s candidacy for the Polish throne in 1587. It notes the sympathy towards the Habsburg in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and in Greater Poland in the Crown. It also raises the issue of the support Maximilian expected from nearby Silesia, and to what extent his expectations were fulfilled. In particular, an important role was played by Wrocław, the most significant of the Silesian cities, from which an important trade route led to Krzepice, connecting that city with Kraków, the capital of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.
PL
Artykuł poświęcony jest pobytowi Maksymiliana Habsburga na zamku w Krzepicach na przełomie lat 1587/1588. Omawia liczebność sił, z którymi król elekt przybył do Krzepic, oraz warunki, jakie tutaj zastał. Ukazuje kontakty zagraniczne, nawiązywane z Krzepic przez Maksymiliana Habsburga. Opracowanie naświetla także zagadnienia związane z obecnością poselstw i gości, przybywających do króla elekta do Krzepic od grudnia 1587 do stycznia 1588 r. Zakończenie artykułu stanowi opis wymarszu Maksymiliana Habsburga z Krzepic do Wielunia w połowie stycznia 1588 r. Poza sprawami dyplomatycznymi i wojskowymi artykuł porusza też kwestię poparcia, jakim w Rzeczypospolitej cieszyła się kandydatura Maksymiliana Habsburga na tron polski w 1587 r. Zwraca uwagę na sympatię względem Habsburga na terenie Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego i w Wielkopolsce. Porusza też zagadnienie wsparcia, jakiego Maksymilian spodziewał się z pobliskiego Śląska, oraz kwestię, na ile jego oczekiwania zostały spełnione. Istotną rolę odgrywał tutaj Wrocław, najważniejsze spośród miast śląskich, z którego do Krzepic wiódł znany szlak handlowy, łączący to miasto z Krakowem jako stolicą Rzeczypospolitej Obojga Narodów.
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.