The author begins his discussion of the problems associated with Marcus Antonius’s exercise of the office of a tribune of the plebs in 49 BC by indicating the peculiar features of his tribunate. For it turned out that Antonius had to hold his plebeian office in a time when the Roman Republic saw events which would determine its future fate. Antonius actively participated in these events and played a decisive role in them due to his political associations. The consequence of his engagement was a delay of many months in his activity associated with this tenure and active participation in the civil war. Antonius resumed his duties as the tribune of the plebs as late as at the end of his term i.e. shortly before 9 December, 49.

Then the author describes the problems associated with Antonius’s appointment to the college of tribunes of the plebs for the year 49, especially the support that was expressed to him at that time by C. Scribonius Curio, a former‑year tribune of the plebs who was his friend, and by a protector and at the same time the principal of both men — C. Iulius Caesar. Due to this fact a great deal of attention was devoted to the analysis of source information associated with these issues, especially the ones contained in the Eighth Book of the Bellum Gallicum by Aulus Hirtius.

The author begins his discussion of the activities initiated by Antonius after he assumed the office on 10 December, 50 by presenting his expression of support for the defence of Caesar and the activities directed against Pompeius that were realised until the end of this month. Then the author concentrates
his attention on the presentation of the most important and best known manoeuvres of Antonius that he realised in the senate forum during 1—7 January, 49, during the sessions devoted to Pompeius’s conflict with Caesar. The author devoted due attention to the events that happened in the senate room on the first and last day of the sessions. The activity of Antonius away from Rome during the Italic campaign was mentioned only briefly as it is not directly associated with the problem stated in the title of the article. The author’s considerations are concluded by a discussion of Antonius’s resumption of the duty of a tribune of the plebs in the final period of his tenure and an evaluation of his tribunate.

A persistent pursuit of the Brandendburg policy toward Moscow during the Second Northern War was to maintain peaceful relations — for the sake of the security of Ducal Prussia located near the theatre of war. This ambition was supposed to be also served by Peter Hoffmann’s legation to the commander of the Moscow army in Livonia, Afanasy Lavrentievich Ordin‑Nashchokin, in January 1660. An additional task of the legate was to receive a promise of protection of the private estates of the governor of Ducal Prussia, Bogusław Radziwiłł, located in the theatre of war of the imperial armies. Hoffmann fulfilled his task, and Radziwiłł, in order to maintain peaceful relations with Moscow, committed himself to stop the divisions of colonel Georg von Schönaich which supported him in his fight against the Swedes, from engagement in the Lithuanian‑Moscovian conflict.

The question of further financing the war or of making peace with the sultan prompted the king to call a parliament session in late 1693 in Warsaw. During the presession campaign the court managed to gain the support of many regional parliaments of the Crown (sejmiki koronne). However, in Lithuania the majority of the sessions of regional parliaments were conducted under the influence of the opposition directed by the representatives of the Sapieha family. Moreover, in the Grand Duchy a conflict broke out between Kazimierz Sapieha, the Wilno voivode and the great Lithuanian hetman, and the supporter of the court — Konstanty Brzostowski, a Wilno bishop. Because the vast majority of the Lithuanians supported Sapieha, whom the bishop intended to bring to trial before the parliamentary court, this situation spelt trouble for the future parliament. The latter’s inauguration was supposed to take place on 22 December but the king, who was staying in Żółkiew, fell seriously ill. Following the advice of a number of senators who were present at the court, he decided to issue a universal proclamation on the strength of which the parliament session would be postponed without the necessity of calling further sessions of regional parliaments. The universal proclamation was supposed to be issued on the first day of the session by primate Michał Radziejowski. The latter, however, angered by the king, failed to reach Warsaw under the pretext of an illness. The remaining senators made a declaration about the universal proclamation before the legates who were assembled in a church but the members of the parliament from Lithuania disallowed the delivery of the proclamation. They also prevented the inauguration of the session in the parliamentary room. The Lithuanians drew up a universal proclamation and an instruction during a separate session and chose the legates who were supposed to go to the sick king. They were obligated to protest against negotiations about the separatist peace and to side with hetman Sapieha in the latter’s contention with bishop Brzostowski. In early January many legates and senators were still present in Warsaw, hoping that the parliamentary session would start after all. The negotiations associated with this issue with the leader of the Lithuanian opposition, Benedykt Sapieha, a Lithuanian undertreasurer, were conducted by Stanisław Szczuka, who was the king’s trusted man. However, the expedition of the legates and the steadfast attitude of Benedykt Sapieha meant that the parliamentary session could not be saved. Although the king received the legates with utmost reserve, the Lithuanians did not hesitate to send further legates to him, this time from among the ones who participated in the February 1694 sessions of regional Candlemas parliaments. After the session of the parliament, the relational regional parliaments were not called. Instead, the king decided to notify the citizens of the Republic about the events in Warsaw by means of special universal proclamations issued to all districts. The parliamentary session of 22 December
1693 became the symbol of the internal decay of the country and of the decline of the ruler whose health continued to deteriorate.

The article discusses the functioning of the self‑government of nobles in the Kiev Voivodeship in the years 1783—1785. The problem was presented against the background of the political situation which arose as a result of the entry in 1783 of the Russian army to the Polish areas of Ukraine. This was associated with Petersburg’s activities whose purpose was to annex Crimea. The article also discusses the influence of the changes in the organisation of the royalist supporters in the years 1783—1784 in the south‑western areas of the Polish Republic, which were supposed to be directed by Marshal Michał Mniszech, the Ruthenian voivode Stanisław Szczęsny Potocki and the Kievian castellan Józef Stempkowski (who went on to become a voivode himself). The article concerns the course of the regional sessions of assemblies (sejmiki) and their bills in Żytomierz — the electoral assembly in July 1783, the parliamentary assembly in August 1784, and especially the economic assembly in July 1785. The laudum of the Kiev voivodeship of 16 July 1785 is notable due to the rich amount of problems associated with self‑government which are contained in it. In this area it was a second current of regional assembly life, manifesting itself apart from political and personal rivalry which was a marked feature of the parliamentary, deputational and electoral regional assemblies. The nobility that participated
in the sessions in Żytomierz was superior in its activity to the Mazovian voivodeship, not to mention the remaining voivodeships of the Wielkopolska province, where sometimes the economic assemblies were not held at all.

Father Józef Nierostek descended from the Polish worker family from Zaolzie. Since 1926 until the outbreak of World War II he worked as a priest in the Evangelical Augsburg parish in Cieszyn, first by perfoming the function of a curate and then of an auxiliary parish priest. He performed his activities among the Evangelical young people and among the scouts. He took part in charitable activities. 

In the 1930s he was the editor of the periodicals “Głos Młodzieży Ewangelickiej” [“The Voice of the Evangelical Youth”] (Wisła—Cieszyn) and “Poseł Ewangelicki” [“The Evangelical Legate”] (Cieszyn). He wrote anti‑Hitler articles in these periodicals. In 1937 he published a school textbook devoted to the history of the Church which he wrote. Pastor Nierostek died in 1943 as a prisoner of the Majdanek concentration camp in Majdanek.

Artykuł recenzyjny monografii autorstwa Roberta Turcana pt. L’archéologie dans l’antiquité: tourisme, lucre et découvertes, wydanej w Paryżu w 2014 roku.

Artykuł recenzyjny monografii autorstwa Adama Liska pt. "Obóz stanisławowski w województwie ruskim w okresie bezkrólewia i wojny o tron polski w latach 1733—1736", wydanej w Krakowie w 2014 roku. 

Artykuł recenzyjny monografii upamiętniającej 70. rocznicę wydarzeń nazywanych rzezią wołyńską, w których wyniku z rąk nacjonalistów ukraińskich zginęło prawdopodobnie ponad 100 tysięcy Polaków i obywateli polskich innych narodowości, wydanej pod redakcją E. Żurawskiej i J. Sperki w Katowicahch w 2015 roku. 

Artykuł recenzyjny monografii autorstwa Danuty Kisielewicz pt. "Niewola w cieniu Alp. Oflag VII A Murnau4", wydanej w 2015 roku nakładem Centralnego Muzeum Jeńców Wojennych w Łambinowicach‑Opolu oraz Stowarzyszenia Przyjaciół tegoż Muzeum.

Metryczka wydawnicza numeru.