Prince Emeryk — a patron of virginity and one of important saints in the Arpad dynasty, was cherished not only in the territory of the Duchy of Hungary in the Middle Ages. Nowadays it is difficult to say something certain about the origins of his cult in Poland, nevertheless, it should be noticed that the participants of Bolesław Krzywousty’s pilgrimage to the graveyard of St. Stephen in Bialogród could have heard of him a lot. A bit later, as can be assumed, it was prince’s Żywot or Kronika węgiersko‑polska including a lot about him that constituted an extremely valuable source of information for the Polish clergy. The tangible evidence of the cult of St. Emeryk comes from the 1380s. At that time cardinal Demetrius gave indulgence privileges to several altars and two chapels of the St. Mary’s Church in Cracow, the Augustian monastery in Cracow‑Kazimierz and a chapel of St. Mary in the Tarnów castle. The were to be binding on prince’s day and during the octave. The evidence confirming the existence of the name of Arpadowicz in Poland which is well‑known nowadays, comes from the end of this century. The indulgence document from 1445 for one of the altars of St. Mary’s Church in Tarnów includes the day of St. Emeryk. Święty Krzyż, the person of the prince is associated with, thanks to the legend connected with the place, received an altar dedicated to his name. And, here, the monastery received indulgence to be binding on his day too. The popularity of the legend from the Świętokrzyskie region did not translate into a great development of the cult of its hero. He was not meant to play an important role in the Middle-Aged Poland. His reception, however, constituted one of the elements, though certainly a little one, of broad Polish‑Hungarian connections. Emeryk himself joined the Polish pantheon of saints for good.

The beginnings of the monastery in Ławryszew are connected with the name of prince Wojsiełk, Mendog’ son, who was to be baptized in the Orthodox church, make a pilgrimage to the Holy Mountain of Athos and when returning in 1262 or 1263, was to found a monastery of the Holy Mother of God. The tradition combining the foundation of the monastery inŁawryszew with the name of prince Wojsiełk can be tightly related to the topos of a ruler‑monk in the Byzantine and South‑Slaviccultures. All Russian notes of Wojsiełk underline the fact that the prince resigned from a secular life in favour of a monastic one. However, after 1263, Wojsiełk reappeared on the political stage of the Great Lithuanian Duchy, which was connected with his father’s death, him being Mendog, the great prince, in the autumn of 1263. Rich materials concerning the past of the monastery in Ławryszew come from foundation notes from the 15th and 16th centuries, included in the evangelical book belonging to the monastery. Ewangeliarz ławryszewski is a unique monument written on a greaseproof paper, and a type of the so-called full aprakos. Rich iconographic material, on the other hand, points to its creation in the first half of the 14th century. The monastery in Ławryszew played a great culture‑creating role in the territory of the Great Lithuanian Duchy in the history of the Orthodox monasticism. As early as in the 15th century, it possessed large lands which provided it with stable income and maintenance. The period of the magnificence of the monastery lasted from the 16th century to the agreement in Brześć in 1596.

This study attempts to reproduce the real portrait of Prince Leo Danylovych, who was depicted in the first part of the Galicia‑Volyn’ Chronicle as faithful comrade of his father, brave warrior and skilful commander, but in the second part of the Chronicle his image received negative traits of “dishonest prince”. Historians only fragmentarily studied Leo’s image and never managed to resolve this contradiction. The author of the article involves some other sources, primarily Latin, previously unnoficed by scholars and on the basis of this new data evaluates episodes from the life of Prince Leo, especially his role in complicated relations between Hungarian, Bohemian and German kings, Polish princes and rulers of the Golden Horde, which led him to participate in the War of The Austrian Succession, the battle of Dürnkrut and the War of The Polish Succession. The relations between Romanoviches, death of Lithuanian duke Vaišvilkas and the territorial expansion are described in a new way. The book also deals with domestic policy of Lev Danylovych and situation within the Kingdom of Rus’ in the second half of 13th century.

The main aim of this article is an attempt to answer the question on the date of birth of Bolko II, a prince from Świdnica, called Small, in the historiography. In so doing, it was necessary to agree on the date of his parents’ marriage, namely Bernard and Kunegunda Łokietek, which, in the light of the sources, is dated by the author of the text around 1310. Next, the author proves that the Silesian princes obtained legal age at the age of 14 at the turn of the 13th and 14th centuries. Bearing in mind the very issues, the author thoroughly analysed all Bolko’s documents deriving from the first year of his ruling (1326). On the basis of the diplomas, he questioned an opinion on only a partial majority of the prince in 1326 and claimed that his ruling in the duchy must have begun in May 1326. Hence, knowing the date of Bernard’s marriage, and time of gaining legal age in Silesia at this time (it being 14), the author concludes that the most probable date of birth of Bolko II, the Small, is 1312.

The very text is an attempt to reconstruct a biography of Henryk (Heinko, Hynek) from Głubczyce, a townsman who was one of the most trusted advisors in the Opawa Duchy and, next, in the Racibórz Duchy, during the reign of Mikołaj Przemyślid II. The person of Henryk from Głubczyce is extremely valuable in order to learn the processes of shaping the prince’s surrounding of the first Przemyślid dynasty, especially at the court of Mikołaj II. The first years of his ruling are characterised by the lack of an educated political surrounding, while the prince himself used to spend most of his time with Jan Luxembourg, accompanying him in his political and military trips. Later on, however, the prince started devoting more time to domestic affairs of the duchy, and, then, the representatives of local gentry and bourgeoisie started to appear around him as his witnesses. Among those witnessing the documents were most often knight Henryk Hoberk and his namesake, a townsman from Głubczyce. After the Opawa and Racibórz Duchy had been joined together, the latter was definitely in the first place, being the only townsman to be found first in testation. His special role can be proved by the fact that the prince called him consiliari. The very text, apart from presenting the person of Henryk and heritage he left, a lot of attention has been paid to a description of goods and private foundations he possessed. The emphasis was also put on relationships with Franciszek from Prague, a protonotary, and Jan from Głubczyce who might have been Henryk’s protégé or relative.

The Middle‑aged sources prove the presence of the English knights in Prussia who were guests of the Order of the Teutonic Knights and as crusaders took part in campaigns against Lithuanians. Wigand of Marburg, a chronicler, mentions by name only one of such guests, that is, Thomas de Offart. In the literature the very knight is commonly identified with Thomas Ufford, Robert’s son, the first earl of Suffolk and lord Ufford. Here, however, Thomas is called an earl by Wigand. This is a mistake as the title of a count/earl belonged only to Robert and his son William. What is most intriguing, however, is Thomas’s age seen by Wigand in Prussia in 1331. The key‑role here is played by the wedding date of Robert and Margaret of de Norwich. The very couple, according to all sources available, got married in 1324 or, more generally, in the 1320s. In this situation, Thomas certainly could not reach the legal age in 1331. What proves it is a note in Chronica minor Sancti Benedicti de Hulmo where the Thomas’s birthday was given, namely the day of Mary Magdalene in 1332. However, there exist speculations according to which this Thomas, although was not Robert Ufford’s son, could be his younger brother. Basing on the sources and research by W. Betham and R.E.Ch. Waters, Thomas’s birthday, earl Robert’s brother, can be dated between 1300 and 1306. That is why Thomas, when being in Prussia, could be 26. Mistaking earl’s brother for his son called the same could be connected with a big popularity ascribed to the names of both Robert and Thomas in the family of Uffords. Earl Robert’s father was also Robert, but only lord Ufford, not an earl. Both had a son and a brother called Thomas. The very mistake was probably already made in the Middle Age or later when Konrad Gesselen translated the chronicle asked to do so by Jan Długosz.

The author describes numismatic studies on the activity of Vladislaus II of Opole in Halicz Russia in detail. O the basis of the sources, she made an attempt to define the nature of his ruling in this area. She put forward a hypothesis that despite ruling in Halicz Russia on behalf of Louis I of Hungary and, subsequently, queen Mary, he made himself an independent king. Without a doubt, it was thanks to titles, a majestic seal he used to use, as well as the edition of coins struck under his seal. The author showed that latest research done by Ukrainian and Polish numismatics, although they did not agree as to the opinion they held, proves that it is possible to distinguish a few types of silver grosz and copper denar when the duke of Opole ruled in Russia.

The Church of Saint Mary performed a function of the parish church in Cracow as early as in 1224. The town location on the basis of the Magdeburg law was conducted in 1257 in such a way to situate the St. Mary’s Church in the corner of the market square, by means of which its place was exposed. It became the main church of the bourgeois district. The parish of the St. Mary’s Church included most of the locative town area. Probably, as early as at the beginning of the 14th century, the chapel was known for being carefully taken care of by the town council in Cracow. Formally, the patronage law belonged to the bishop in Cracow, but, virtually, it was the town council that made decisions when it comes to issues connected with building and equipping the Gothic church. Special church carers (vitricus) started their activity on behalf of it as early as in the first half of the 14th century. The new church building, began at the end of the 13th century and continued (with important architecture changes) throughout the 14th century was financed by the town council and the bourgeoisie from Cracow. The biggest contribution is ascribed to Mikołaj Wierzynek, called the Older, who founded a chancel being an exposed zone for town councilors from Cracow. The St. Mary’s Church became the most outstanding church in Cracow, efficiently competing with both the cathedral, and churches in Kazimierz nearby founded by king Kazimierz Wielki due to its rich architecture programme. The St. Mary’s Church became the manifestation of the role of the town council in Cracow and the bourgeoisie. As early as in the 14th century, particular bourgois families funded altars and chapels (e.g. the Wierzynek, Krancz, Salomon, Welker and Trutil families), as well as the objects of the liturgical equipment. The dedications of these altars reflect a very rich religious programme. Inside the church there were the God’s grave yard and organs. Probably in the first half of the 14th century the brotherhood of St. Mary was founded, covering the bourgeoisie from Cracow. It possessed its own chapel and confessor. Besides, the St. Mary’s Church included a chapel where the last spiritual services were given to those sentenced to death.

The literature of the subject has treated Franciszek Oczko as the key figure for understanding the history of the Polish province of the Dominicans at the end of the 14th century. He was seen as among others a monastic organiser of Studium Generale and an initiator of moving the capital of the province to Cracow. Today we know that a series of services was ascribed to Franciszek unfairly, and his biography, reconstructed by Paweł Kielar, does not compare with the sources in many respects. The same sources, however, allow for speaking of the aspects of Oczko’s activity that has been underestimated in the historiography so far. The most important of them was undoubtedly his probable engagement in the introduction of the observant reform initiated by Rajmund from Kapua into the Polish province. The author of the text reanalyses the sources that can be related to Franciszek Oczko, and concludes that he was sent to studies to Cambridge in 1378, and received a degree of the master of saint theology at the Prussian University not earlier than in 1393, and, as an assistant curate of Rajmund from Kapua at least from 1393, he was engaged in a conflict initiated by Piotr Wasserabe, and after finishing the argument around Wasserabe was in charge of the Polish province, that Wasserabe’s withdrawal, which Franciszek Oczko impacted on, finished the period of dominance Wrocław had in the Polish province. She also thinks that Franciszek might have belonged to the first propagators of the idea of the observant reform in the Polish Provence. Even though Franciszek worked on its introduction, he needed half a century to start influencing Polish Dominicans for good.

In the research to date touching upon the relations of Krakow with the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, owing to the number of the preserved source material, the role the revived University of Krakow undertook in shaping the elite of the Lithuanian Church was strongly emphasised. Nevertheless, it need not escape our attention that the relations of mediaeval Krakow with the Grand Duchy of Lithuania were not restricted solely to the issues concerning the presence of the Lithuanians in the University. Although the preserved outside‑university sources are wholly insufficient, a few intriguing issues, referring to the activity of the town council of Krakow at the turn of the 14th and 15th centuries, as well as the domestic history of the Grand Duchy in that crucial period may be indicated on their basis. In the article herein all the known sources from the Krakow’s municipal archives regarding the Grand Duchy of Lithuania were compiled and commented on. It enabled to supplement the current state of knowledge on the history of Polish and Lithuanian state in the years of Jagiello and Vitoldus reign.

This article is dedicated to the investigation of armed raids and invasions among nobility of Sanok area in 15th century. Thsese armed attacks were typical occurrence in the nobility’s life of the time. The reasons for raids of nobility were hidden deeply in their minds as well in their laws and social environment of Mediaeval Poland. Also despite the fact that the nobility become stronger and stronger, the positions of royal authority weakened in that time. Sometimes the armed raids occurred during quarrels for the inheritance, the line between noble estates or even when it was about the honor of noble. The reason could also be a desire to enrich themselves by robbery. In this article on the example of Sanok land are investigated tactical peculiarities of how armed raids were carried out, the quantity and social classes of participants.

The next Polish‑Lithuanian Union was established in 1413 in Horodło. One of its elements was the brotherhood of Polish and Lithuanian gentry, the result of which was giving the Catholic Lithuanian boyars the same rights ascribed to the Polish gentry, as well as the admission of 47 Lithuanian families into the Polish heraldry. At the beginning of the 1430s however there was a strong conflict between the Polish Crown and Grand Lithuanian Duchy. Initially, it was “a coronation storm”, and, then a war with a new grand duke Świdrygiełło. In consequence, Świdrygiełło was thrown out of the throne and replaced by Zygmunt Kiejstutowicz, and a new union, the so called Grodno union (1432, 1434) was signed on the strength of the Polish conditions. The Grand Duchy was divided into two parts, the one controlled by Świdrygiełło and the other under the ruling of Kiejstutowicz. Despite the conflict between them, both of them in line with their supporters were against the Polish coronation aspirations. It made some of the Lithuanian boyars lose Polish heraldry and return to former ones before 1413 as a sign of protest, and, at the same time, defense of Lithuanian identity and independence. The information on sending the Polish heraldry back by the Lithuanians is found in Kronika Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego i Żmudzkiego, including its version, namely Kronika Bychowca, which places the very event under 1453 and, combines it with a Polish‑Lithuanian convention in Parczew. The author of the article, basing on sfragistic studies, rejects this information, and relates the very protest to a difficult political situation between the Crown and Lithuania at the beginning of the 1430s mentioned before.

The belief that queen Zofia Holszańska had a separate party has been binding in the Polish historiography since Ewa Maleczyńska’s work Rola polityczna królowej Zofii Holszańskiej na tle walki stronnictwa w latach 1422—1434 was published in Lviv 1936. Those who were to belong to it were among others iuniores, while it was to be shaped as early as during Władysław Jagiełło’s life. However, when the pro‑royal party of Szafraniec already functioned at that time, any third fraction was useless. Besides, after king’s and younger Szafraniec brother’s death, as well as the appearance of iuniores on a political stage, the queen remained in opposition to their plans. Her cooperation with Zbigniew Oleśnicki, a bishop from Cracow, which was absolutely against young noblemen, resulted from her natural and understandable engagement in the coronation of the older son. However, after the coronation of Władysław, Zofia definitely withdrew from the political life, leaving for her royal demesnes. The documents issued by her between 1434 and 1438 included almost exclusively people from her court. Thus, nothing proves the existence of any party that could be treated as the queen’s party, also right after Jagiełło’s death. The first person far from the court surrounding to be present on Zofia’s document was as late as in 1446, that is at the time of her battle for declaring Kazimierz, a younger son the Polish king. However, the circle of people who centred around her then, cannot aspire to be called her party either. After coronation, they constituted the circle of king’s closest co‑workers. The assumptions concerning queen’s party should be treated with reserve, excluding at the same time the possibility of its existence during Władysław Jagiełło’s life. The attitude of the Polish lords to the queen changed as late as after Warneńczyk’s death. As a result of it, Oleśnicki’s antagonists started to gather around her. However, right after the coronation of Kazimierz, the very situation changed again, and the queen centred around her among others her own court.

The Archive of the Father Walenty Patykiewicz Archidiocese in Częstochowa stores the document of the Polish king Aleksander, issued on behalf of clothiers from Wieluń on 1st February 1502, confirming and transsumming Kazimierz Jagiellończyk’s diploma from 25 March 1450, resolving the argument in favour of consumers they had with the cloth cutters concerning the sale of the worse quality and cheaper cloth in the town than the one produced locally. The very document was found during maintenance works conducted recently in the archive. The parchment itself is important because of citing in extenso Kazimierz’s privilege, that has not been retained in its original version until recently, useful in studies on the history of guild and trade in Wieluń, but also the Polish royal office. It can also constitute an important reason for studies on the Polish numismatics of the Middle Ages. The source appendix involves the subject document, additionally comparing a transumpt of the privilege Kazimierz had and its contemporary record in the crown certificate.