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

help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
EN
This article deals with Rozważania o wojnie domowej (Reflections on the Civil War), the last book by Paweł Jasienica, an essayist and acclaimed history writer known mainly for his books on the history of Poland. The article offers analysis of both the work and its reception. In executing the first task, the author focuses on extracting the critique of the communist ideology which Jasienica included, in some veiled way, in his account of the main topic to which his last book is devoted – the Vendée rebellion of 1793. In the article Jasienica is shown to have used his account of one of the episodes of the French revolution to criticise the PRL’s political system, arguing, one should add, in favour of replacing it with liberal democracy. Analysis also shows that the reception of Jasienica’s work was significantly mediated by the ideological preferences of its reviewers.
PL
Przedmiotem artykułu są Rozważania o wojnie domowej, ostatnia książka Pawła Jasienicy, eseisty i uznanego pisarza historycznego, znanego głównie z książek o historii Polski. Artykuł proponuje analizę książki i jej recepcji. Realizując pierwsze zadanie, autor skupia uwagę na krytyce ideologii komunistycznej, którą Jasienica w nieco zawoalowany sposób włączył do opisu głównego przedmiotu swej ostatniej książki – powstania w Wandei w 1793 r. W artykule wykazano, że Jasienica wykorzystał opis jednego z epizodów rewolucji francuskiej do krytyki systemu politycznego PRL, opowiadając się, należy dodać, za jego zastąpieniem przez demokrację liberalną. Analiza ukazuje także, że recepcja dzieła Jasienicy była w istotnym stopniu zapośredniczona przez preferencje ideologiczne recenzentów.
EN
This article presents Stanisław Zakrzewski’s views of the historical role of the Piast rulers, especially the first two Christian representatives of the dynasty – Mieszko the First (922–945–992) and Boleslaus the Brave (c. 967–1025). According to the author, Zakrzewski, as an adherent of the heroic conception of history, presented a thoroughly mythologised representation of the past. This is evidenced by the linking of the reigns of these two rulers with the Great Man Theory. Great men-creators, implementing the plans of Providence, undertook the mission of transforming the chaos reigning in Europe into a new and lasting order. The second part of the article deals with Zakrzewski’s theoretical assumptions. The author shows that Zakrzewski downplayed the historical significance of legal and constitutional arrangements by adopting a heroic conception of history. The historian’s support for Józef Piłsudski’s 1926 coup d’état can thus be seen as a telling illustration of his theoretical preferences.
PL
Tematem artykułu są poglądy Stanisława Zakrzewskiego, wybitnego badacza wczesnośredniowiecznej Polski, na temat historycznej roli Piastów, a przede wszystkim pierwszych dwóch chrześcijańskich przedstawicieli dynastii – Mieszka I (922–945–992) i Bolesława Chrobrego (ok. 967–1025). Autor twierdzi, że Zakrzewski jako wyznawca heroistycznej koncepcji dziejów przedstawił głęboko zmitologizowaną reprezentację przeszłości. Świadczy o tym powiązanie panowania wspomnianych wyżej władców z ideą wielkich ludzi-twórców, którzy realizując plany Opatrzności, podjęli się misji przekształcenia chaosu, który ogarnął Europę, w nowy, trwały porządek. Druga część artykułu dotyczy teoretycznych założeń Zakrzewskiego. Autor pokazuje, że przyjmując heroistyczną koncepcję dziejów, Zakrzewski bagatelizował historyczne znaczenie ustaleń prawno-konstytucyjnych. Poparcie historyka dla zamachu stanu dokonanego przez Józefa Piłsudskiego w 1926 r. można zatem uznać za wymowną ilustrację jego preferencji teoretycznych.
PL
Between Myth and Political Rationality. Paweł Jasienica’s Interpretation of Polish History and its Reception in the Era of the Polish People’s RepublicKnown for writing popular books on the history of Poland, Paweł Jasienica (1909–1970) established himself as one of the most distinguished, non-fiction authors of his era. Looked upon as an history writer who exercised his craft in defiance of the Marxist paradigm, he gained much popularity in the Polish People’s Republic, reaching bestseller status. It would probably be difficult to find a history-lover – at least during the Communist era – who never read one of his books. The paper presented here deals with Jasienica’s historical thought. It has been divided into two parts. The first one aims at offering some insight into key elements of his vision of Polish history, while the second one deals with the reception of his books in the period of the Polish People’s Republic. The author advances the thesis that the interpretation of Polish history put forward by Jasienica had the foundation myth at its core. It was already unknown predecessors of Mieszko the First whom Jasienica wanted to give credit for establishing a code of political action to be followed by future generations of the Polish people. Following the code was necessary to keep the country on the right track. It included abandonment of imperialistic tendencies in what – for want of a better word – can be referred to as foreign policy. Founding fathers of Poland were perspicacious enough to know that they should confine themselves to uniting the so-called “core” Polish lands. Not only were they prepared to drop any plans for territorial expansion but they also fostered the policy of religious toleration, which went hand in hand with their willingness to forge alliances with Pagan rulers whenever it was found necessary for the protection of the country.Jasienica was unstinting in his praise of almost all historical rulers of the Piast dynasty for their adherence to the code just mentioned. Their attitude allowed Poland to survive all historical storms. Unlike the Piast monarchs, however, those of the Jagiellonian dynasty failed – argued Jasienica in the first phase of his writing career – to rely for the conduct of their policy on the ancient principles, inculcating into the Polish politics standards and habits which compared highly unfavorably with those once established by legendary rulers of Poland. With the conclusion of the Polish-Lithuanian Union, the country embarked on a policy clearly out of tune with what Jasienica considered to have been the real Polish ways, veering sharply off its right European track.However, in his last books he changed his views to a surprising extent. The union which at first seemed to be a source of most problems Poland was supposed to struggle with for years to come, now, in the trilogy written in the second phase of his career and dealing with the history of Poland from 1572 to 1795 was glorified as a great historic achievement worth copying by other European nations. The most important conclusion arrived at in the second part of the paper is that critical remarks to be found in the reviews of his books tended to fracture the aforementioned mythical framework of Jasienica’s interpretation of Polish history.
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.