Wyniki wyszukiwania - Biblioteka Nauki

1

WARSZAWSKIE ŚRODOWISKO HISTORYKÓW HISTORIOGRAFII ZE SZCZEGÓLNYM UWZGLĘDNIENIEM UCZONYCH ZWIĄZANYCH Z INSTYTUTEM HISTORII POLSKIEJ AKADEMII NAUK

100%

ROMEK Z.

|

2017

|

tom 2

|

nr 4

111-120

EN

Th e development of the history of historiography in Poland was inspired by Marceli Handelsman, a professor at the Warsaw University in 1915-1939. Aft er World War II, his students Marian Henryk Serejski and later Andrzej Feliks Grabski and Andrzej Wierzbicki - employees of the Institute of History of the Polish Academy of Sciences in Warsaw – developed research describing the impact of contemporary culture, current beliefs and political trends on historical research. Today, in the Warsaw group of historians, that research work is continued by Zbigniew Romek and Marcin Wolniewicz.

2

Partizánske hnutie v slovenskej historiografii v rokoch 1949 – 1963

100%

Valko R.

Acta historica Neosoliensia Vedecký časopis pre historické vedy

|

2014

|

tom 17

|

nr 1-2

310-328

EN

Partisan movement in Slovak historiography in 1949 – 1963 is represented by works and collections of the 50´s and the beginning of the 60´s. Numerous works and collections by various authors are characterized by deformed explanation of the Partisan movement and its glorification. The dominant is its uncritical praising as the main armed forces of the revolt and SNP. Given problem was misused for political goals and it reflected interest and ideology of political party. The Communist Party defines itself as the most important political revolt power. This period was typical for deformations and falsifying of history. Commencing marxistic historical science that adopted attituted of politicians towards the problem had the main word. That is the reason why they could not be in contrast with political line. At the same time, it was the period of political persecutions and processes that also concerned many partisans and partisan commander.

3

HISTORIA HISTORIOGRAFII JAKO DZIEJE MYŚLENIA HISTORYCZNEGO

100%

Wrzosek W.

|

2017

|

tom 1

|

nr 3

151-157

EN

From time to time we ask ourselves about the status of our discipline. Th e answers to the questions regarding the methodology of history, the epistemology of history, the theory of history depend on the theoretical presuppositions of the researcher. Th e expectation that there is a single paradigm of research in the history of historiography requires the recognition and consent that there is one single mode of refl ecting on history. In this article, I argue that the history of historiography can be understood as history of historical thinking in all its contexts.

4

HISTORIA HISTORIOGRAFII: KSIĄŻKA TELEFONICZNA, CZY FRAGMENT SOCJOLOGII WIEDZY?

100%

Kula M.

|

2017

|

tom 1

|

nr 3

39-51

EN

In this article the author argues for the rapprochement between the methods and questions of the history of historiography and the questionnaire of the sociology of knowledge. The sociological perspective can inspire both the research on the communities of professional historians and the functioning of the historiographical knowledge in social and political structures. The author analyzes diff erent dimensions of the political functions of historiography and emphasizes the diff erence between the utilitarian and scientific aspects of historical knowledge.

5

HISTORIA HISTORIOGRAFII A CELE I WARTOŚCI TOWARZYSZĄCE STUDIOWANIU HISTORII

100%

Werner W.

|

2017

|

tom 1

|

nr 3

183-199

EN

The article discusses the issue of teaching the history of historiography in the context of the values and goals that students of history declare as important to them. Based on the survey, it can be stated that for the students of history at AMU two important values are prevalent: intellectual development and work for the benefi t of society (understood as the commemoration of things worth remembering). It is also important for them to acquire skills useful in future work. “The history of historiography” as an academic subject may enable the realization of these values and goals. A lecturer in the history of historiography can show students the relationship of historical knowledge to social problems. She/he can also introduce modern methods of data analysis to present the problem of reception of historiography in the modern world.

6

HISTORIA HISTORIOGRAFII. STUDIUM Z DZIEJÓW TOŻSAMOŚCI DYSCYPLINY NA PRZYKŁADZIE OŚRODKA ŁÓDZKIEGO

100%

Stobecki R.

|

2017

|

tom 1

|

nr 3

109-121

EN

In this article I argue that contemporary researchers in the Lodz historiographic center try to remain faithful to “the historiographic testament” of M. H. Serejski and his disciples. Th e texts of A. Brzezinska, J. Kolbuszewska, R. Stobiecki reveal the continuation of “classical” patt erns of historiographical research. Chronologically, they primarily concern the Polish historiography in the second half of the 19th and in the 20th century and the historiography in other countries – Russia and France – in the 20th century. In contrast to previously published works, our studies focus more oft en on the widely-understood contemporaneity. In particular we are researching women’s history (J. Kolbuszewska, R. Stobiecki), historical anthropology (A. Brzezińska), and the memory and politics of history (R. Stobiecki).

7

Porównanie Zygmunta III z Władysławem Jagiełłą

100%

Szpaczyński P.

In Gremium. Studia nad Historią, Kulturą i Polityką

|

2013

|

tom 7

79-97

EN

The comparison of Sigismund III to Władysław II Jagiełło, far too more reaching that this one which 150 years ago was superficially done by Antoni Morzycki and which barely signalised infair historian judgement, may definitely help to understand both policy and aspirations by the great monarch and help to denounce the suffering in historiography stereotypes and prejudices concerning his figure and his reign. In Poland both Sigismund III and Władysław II Jagiełło ruled almost half a century, in almost 200 years interval. The Polish-Swedish Union like the Polish-Lithuanian Union took place 2 centuries earlier opened new perspectives. Its main reasons, from the point of view of Sigismund were identical with Jagiełło's expectations. The first of these reason was to gain help to conquer Moscow. Sigismund III on ascending the Polish throne, as a Swedish monarch with the help and in accordance with his father’s – the King of Sweden John III expectations, meant to take power in Kremlin having carried out a partial partition of the Moscow’s state. Much the same Jagiełło ascending the throne of Poland meant to implement his father’s Olgierd plans to centralize under the power of the Grand Duke of Lithuania the whole of Rus area including Vladimir on the Klyazma River and Moscow itself. The second reason behind the creation of the Union with Poland was, for Sigismund just like for Jagiełło 2 centuries earlier, to gain additional power to overcome opposition in his hereditary state. Sigismund becoming the king of Poland did not diminish his power in Sweden, but alike 200 years earlier Jagiełło in Lithuania, he enlarged his reign with new territory. They both believed that they would gain armed forces and royal authority to restrain respectively Sigismund – uncle in Sweden and Jagiełło – his relatives in the area of Lithuania and Rus. The third reason was growing in power Prussia, which Sigismund III wanted to include to Poland, which corresponds to the planned at the times of Jagiełło Polish-Lithuanian treat with the Teutonic threat. In both cases expectations were faced with brutal reality. The Polish-Lithuanian Union alike the Polish-Swedish Union changed for a few centuries the fate of few Central-Eastern European nations. The chances, however, which were created by the Polish, the Lithuanian, the Swedish and the Finnish people respectively against Władysław II Jagiełło and the grandson of his grandson – Sigismund III were left not only unused but wasted. It is best proved by the partition of Polish-Lithuanian Republic that took place together with the end of ‘season’ of Swedish

8

Hlídka versus Český časopis historický (Spor o výklad církevních dějin v první polovině 20. století)

51%

Pánek J.

Český časopis historický (The Czech Historical Review)

|

2016

|

tom 114

|

nr 2

372-414

EN

This study discusses an ideological conflict between the central periodical for historical sciences (Český časopis historický – The Czech Historical Review, CCH) and a doctrinaire Roman Catholic periodical Hlídka. It ran its course from 1918 to 1940. Whereas the CCH (published in Prague) represented professional academic writing and expressed the views of the majority of important Czech historians, Hlídka (published in Brno) had its authorship base amongst Moravian Catholic theologians, ecclesiastical historians and the representatives of other humanities. In addition to articles, both journals published a wealth of reviews and reports on contemporary specialist literature, by which they attempted to influence the standard of historiography and impact upon the historical awareness of the public. However, they differed principally in their focus – the CCH set forth liberal to moderately nationalist views of history, whereas Hlídka was militant in its defence of the inviolability of the Church and a Catholic interpretation of the past. The prolonged series of polemics involved opposing views especially with regard to the Hussite Revolution, the Reformation, re-Catholicization and religious tolerance, yet also on the role of the Papacy and international relations in the past. The controversy did not result in closing the gap between the conflicting views, but, on the contrary, intensified the gulf between the liberal and clerical standpoints, up until 1940, when both periodicals were shut down during the German occupation of the Czech Lands.