Wyniki wyszukiwania - Biblioteka Nauki

1

Ivan Ivanovich Lappo’s Views on the Circumstances of Establishing the Union of Lublin in the Context of Pre-Revolutionary Russian Historiography

100%

Ambroziak T.

|

EN

The aim of the article is to analyze the views of Ivan Ivanovich Lappo regarding the circumstances of the conclusion of the Union of Lublin. The opinions of this historian were presented in the context of the views of Russian pre-revolutionary historiography, especially of such authors as Nikolay Gerasimovich Ustryalov, Mikhail Osipovich Koyalovich, Nikolay Alexeyevich Maksimieyko, Matvey Kuzmich Lyubavskiy and Fedor Ivanovich Leontovich. The article belongs to the vast area of studies on the history of historiography, the undertaking of which allows the assessment of the current scholarly achievements and research methodology, and thus making new research postulates. It should be noted that, despite some evolution, the fundamental assessment of the Union of Lublin in Russian pre-revolutionary historiography remained negative. However, the circumstances and reasons for its conclusion were perceived differently. Although the description of the conclusion of the Union of Lublin was not the main research goal for I. Lappo, he carried out a fairly detailed reconstruction of the Sejm of Lublin and the circumstances of the conclusion of the Polish-Lithuanian union in 1569. It seems that the aim of such a procedure was not only to explain the attitude of Lithuanians towards Poles and the legal relationship between the Grand Duchy and the Crown, but first of all to support of the historian’s fundamental thesis that, as a result of the Union of Lublin, the Grand Duchy did not lose its independence and distinctiveness. This historian not only reported the course of the Sejm of Lublin and the decision of the Act of the Union of July 1, but also confronted the views of Poles and Lithuanians concerning the conditions of the Union and the way it was concluded. According to him, the historical reality and the political system of the Grand Duchy until 1569 corresponded to the project of a union presented by Lithuanians. In his opinion, the aim of Poles was not to bring about real unification based on the principles of equality and fraternity, but to force Lithuanians to enter into a union through the implementation of old rights and privileges. In some parts of his research, however, the scholar differentiated between the radical attitude of the Chamber of Deputies of the Crown and the more conciliatory position of the Senate. The description of King Sigismund Augustus’s activities presented by I. Lappo turned out to be quite paradoxical and partly incoherent. On the one hand, the historian claimed that the monarch was under the influence of Poles and betrayed the Grand Duchy. On the other hand, he quoted a number of cases in which the king’s attitude contradicted this general opinion. Lappo’s general attitude towards the Union of Lublin remained negative. The historian clearly sympathized with Lithuanians, seeing Poles as merely caring for their own interests to the detriment of the Grand Duchy. The analysis of Lappo’s views made in this article shows that there are elements in his concepts that testify to the connection with the traditional narrative of Russian historiography, as well as new and original ideas.

2

Ivan Ivanovich Lappo’s Views on the Circumstances of Establishing the Union of Lublin in the Context of Pre-Revolutionary Russian Historiography

100%

Ambroziak T.

|

nr 4

97-122

EN

The aim of the article is to analyze the views of Ivan Ivanovich Lappo regarding the circumstances of the conclusion of the Union of Lublin. The opinions of this historian were presented in the context of the views of Russian pre-revolutionary historiography, especially of such authors as Nikolay Gerasimovich Ustryalov, Mikhail Osipovich Koyalovich, Nikolay Alexeyevich Maksimieyko, Matvey Kuzmich Lyubavskiy and Fedor Ivanovich Leontovich. The article belongs to the vast area of studies on the history of historiography, the undertaking of which allows the assessment of the current scholarly achievements and research methodology, and thus making new research postulates. It should be noted that, despite some evolution, the fundamental assessment of the Union of Lublin in Russian pre-revolutionary historiography remained negative. However, the circumstances and reasons for its conclusion were perceived differently. Although the description of the conclusion of the Union of Lublin was not the main research goal for I. Lappo, he carried out a fairly detailed reconstruction of the Sejm of Lublin and the circumstances of the conclusion of the Polish-Lithuanian union in 1569. It seems that the aim of such a procedure was not only to explain the attitude of Lithuanians towards Poles and the legal relationship between the Grand Duchy and the Crown, but first of all to support of the historian’s fundamental thesis that, as a result of the Union of Lublin, the Grand Duchy did not lose its independence and distinctiveness. This historian not only reported the course of the Sejm of Lublin and the decision of the Act of the Union of July 1, but also confronted the views of Poles and Lithuanians concerning the conditions of the Union and the way it was concluded. According to him, the historical reality and the political system of the Grand Duchy until 1569 corresponded to the project of a union presented by Lithuanians. In his opinion, the aim of Poles was not to bring about real unification based on the principles of equality and fraternity, but to force Lithuanians to enter into a union through the implementation of old rights and privileges. In some parts of his research, however, the scholar differentiated between the radical attitude of the Chamber of Deputies of the Crown and the more conciliatory position of the Senate. The description of King Sigismund Augustus’s activities presented by I. Lappo turned out to be quite paradoxical and partly incoherent. On the one hand, the historian claimed that the monarch was under the influence of Poles and betrayed the Grand Duchy. On the other hand, he quoted a number of cases in which the king’s attitude contradicted this general opinion. Lappo’s general attitude towards the Union of Lublin remained negative. The historian clearly sympathized with Lithuanians, seeing Poles as merely caring for their own interests to the detriment of the Grand Duchy. The analysis of Lappo’s views made in this article shows that there are elements in his concepts that testify to the connection with the traditional narrative of Russian historiography, as well as new and original ideas.

3

Občianska vojna na Urale a československé vojsko v Rusku – nové ruské pohľady a hodnotenia

84%

Vrábel F.

Moderní dějiny: sborník k dějinám 19. a 20. století (Modern History: Studies into 19th and 20th century history)

|

2014

|

tom 22

|

nr 1

107-123

EN

In 1917–1922 the Russians and their neighbors experienced a very painful period of their history – the Civil War. This conflict in Russia had also some impact on the Czechoslovak Army Corps that got trapped in that country in the years 1917– 1920 when the Bolsheviks had signed a peace treaty with the Central Powers. Previous historiography of the Soviet era in Russia and that of the socialist era in Czechoslovakia considered those events from the class- and party-based point of view, and Czechoslovak historians, under the pressure of Communist ideology and censorship reproduced the views of Bolshevist leaders, namely V. I. Lenin. Since 1990 new approaches to this period of Russian and our history have appeared. Confidential materials stored in archives as well as prohibited literature and journals have become available to the public and their study provides a better balanced view of the Civil War in Russia. A great contribution to both Czech and Slovak historiography is the large work done by Russian scientists who study the relevant archival materials and present the results of their work at conferences devoted to the First World War and/or the Civil War in Russia. Owing to several scientific institutions in the Perm Region a number of scientific conferences and exhibitions devoted to the Civil War in the Urals have been organized and the very first Civil War Museum has been opened in the village of Kyn containing an exhibition dedicated to the Czechoslovak legions.

4

Rosyjscy historycy o początkach II wojny światowej – przypadek Aleksandra Diukowa

84%

Gajos B.

|

tom 50

|

nr 1

EN

This article examines the work of contemporary Russian historian Alexander Dyukov, The Molotov‑Ribbentrop Pact in Questions and Answers, published in 2009. The assertions made in this publication are presented in a wider context, in comparison to the brochure Falsifiers of History, which determined the Soviet historiography regarding the origins of World War II and the works of Russian historians conceived after 1991. As a result, certain continuity could be traced between the interpretations constituting the official canon throughout the existence of the USSR, and those found in The Molotov‑Ribbentrop Pact (…).This article also presents Dyukov’s efforts towards the popularisation of history, associated mainly with his role as director of the “Historical Memory” Foundation. These activities confer an extra‑scientific context to the work of the Russian historian.Finally, this article addresses the main assertions made in Dyukov’s publication, and points out the manipulations and concealments made by the author.

PL

W artykule została przeanalizowana książka współczesnego rosyjskiego historyka Aleksandra Diukowa Pakt Mołotowa‑Ribbentropa w pytaniach i odpowiedziach wydana w 2009 roku. Tezy zawarte w tej publikacji przedstawiono na szerszym tle, porównując je z broszurą O fałszerzach historii, która zdeterminowała sowiecką historiografię dotyczącą początków II wojny światowej, oraz dziełami rosyjskich historyków powstałymi po 1991 roku. Dzięki temu udało się wskazać ciągłości pomiędzy niektórymi interpretacjami, które stanowiły kanon przez cały okres istnienia ZSRS oraz tymi zawartymi w książce Pakt Mołotowa‑Ribbentropa.Ponadto przedstawiona została działalność Diukowa na płaszczyźnie popularyzacji historii, co wiąże się z kierowaną przez niego fundacją „Pamięć Historyczna”. Owe działania nadają pozanaukowy kontekst publikacji rosyjskiego historyka.Na koniec odniesiono się do najważniejszych tez zawartych w analizowanej książce i wskazano na zastosowane przez autora manipulacje oraz przemilczenia.