Strona tytułowa i spis treści

Religion played a very important role in the public life of ancient Rome. One of the most peculiar rites which combined a religious aspect with the policy of the Roman state were the supplicationes. They were organised mostly for three reasons: a) to propitiate the gods and to avert their anger, whose results included military failures, epidemics, the action of the elements (this function was also performed by prodigia); b) for precatory reasons; c) in order to render thanks, for example after the achievement of a military victory or after important political events. The supplicationes were public in nature; they consisted of prayers to the gods combined with a procession, making an offering and religious feasts. These rites attracted many Romans, and frequently invoked strong emotional reactions in them. In the period of the decline of the Roman Republic the most important supplicationes, as far as the duration (number of days) and their nature was concerned, were the ones decreed by the senate in order to celebrate Caesar’s victories. Supplicationes were decreed in 57, 55 and 52 BC in honour of Caesar and to celebrate his military achievements. A peculiar feature of the rites organised in 55 BC was their prolongation to last 20 days. The supplicationes which were decreed during the civil war were even longer: after the battle of Thapsus (40 days) and after the battle of Munda (50 days). The supplicationes which were decreed on 1 September 44 BC were extraordinary in nature, for they were organised not for the sake of the gods but for the sake of Caesar. We may surmise from the fragments of Cicero’s first philippic that these were rites in which prayers were directed not to gods but directly to Caesar. This meant that the senate recognised his divinity since it consented to prayers and rituals being directed to him without an intermediary party.

Frederick William, Elector of Brandenburg, took advantage of the political crises in Poland to bargain his way to various kinds of profit. In 1648 he received for himself and his successors an exemption from the personal paying of tribute from the Prussian fief. Whereas in 1668 he took advantage of the chaos associated with the abdication of Jan Kazimierz to seize in a military manner the Drahim starosty, which since the Deluge was under dispute between Brandenburg -Prussian and the Polish Crown. When he gained independence in the Prussian Duchy in 1657 he also engaged himself in the political struggle associated with the appointment to the Polish throne. The Hohenzollern did not desire to see on the Polish throne neither a French prince nor a Habsburg protégé. His dream appointee was a weak ruler would have to constantly take into account the will and the demands of the Brandenburg electors. It was for these reasons that he supported the candidacy of Philip William, the Neuburg prince, during the interregnum of 1668/1669. After King Michał Korybut Wiśniowiecki’s death in 1673 the goals of the Brandenburg diplomacy reached a new level. For the two Morsztynowie — the great crown undertreasurer Jan Andrzej and the Lithuanian underequery Szczęsny — put forward a plan of appointing the eldest son of the Brandenburg elector, Karl Emil, to the Polish throne. He gained the support of the powerful senators, including the hierarchs of the Catholic Church — the crown deputy chancellor of the treasury, the bishop of Chełm, Andrzej Olszowski, and the bishop of Cracow, Andrzej Trzebicki. The perspective of the advancement of the house of Hohenzollern was so attractive that Frederick William was prompt to cede various lands and to grant to the Polish Republic considerable military support against Turkey. He gave up his dream of the royal crown being granted to his son only when the Polish party made his appointment dependent on the Hohenzollern’s acceptance of Catholicism. In this situation Frederick William decided on 20 March 1674 to support the candidacy of the Neuburg prince, John William. On the basis of a treaty contracted on 1 May 1674 he was supposed to receive from the Neuburg prince, after his possible ascension to the Polish throne, an extension of the succession in the Duchy of Prussia to include the side branch of the Hohenzollern family and the assurance of the rights and liberties for Evangelicals in Poland. The favourable turn of the election for Brandendburg -Prussia was to be conditioned by the intensifying rivalry of the leaders of the French and Austrian factions. However, the cunningly conducted diplomatic game of the electoral legate, Johann von Hoverbeck, was futile. The emperor’s ambassador manifested a complete lack of judgment and he did not support a compromise Neuburg candidacy by supporting Charles of Lorraine until the very end. Jan Sobieski’s election victory, the leader of the French faction, frustrated elector Frederick William’s plans; the latter emerged from the interregnum without gaining any profit. 

In the first years of August III reign at the royal -electoral court a practice of celebrating not only the anniversaries of the ascension to the throne but also the birthdays and the name days of the king and the members of his family was formalised. Moreover, a public character was conferred to these celebrations. This served to create an appropriate image of the monarch among his subjects and as far as this aspect is concerned, the Wettins did not differ from other European rulers. The peculiar situation which arose in the Republic during August III’s reign consisted in the popularisation of the practice of celebrating the anniversaries of the election, coronation, birthday and name day of the king in such a way that they began to be celebrated as almost state ceremonies. The organisation of the festivities which were associated with these anniversaries ceased to be initiated exclusively by the royal court but they began to be organised also by ministers, senators and the people who managed the work of the judicial institutions whose officials convened every few months. Moreover, the custom of celebrating the name days and the birthdays in a sumptuous and even public manner became popular at the courts of magnates, whose rhythm of life began to be regulated also by celebrations of this sort. Therefore it is hardly surprising that also during Stanisław August’s reign the anniversaries of the coronation, birthday or name day celebrations continued to maintain the status of almost state festivities, celebrated not only in Warsaw but also in all the major state cities and the places were military units were garrisoned. The celebrations of the name day of the monarch assumed special significance because they fell on the day of the commemoration of St. Stanislaus, the patron of the Polish people as well as on the day of the Medal of St. Stanislaus which was established on 7 May 1765. The obligatory elements of the celebrations included votive masses, sumptuous dinners or suppers, bell ringing, volleys performed by means of cannons and other types of weapons, illuminations of the cities and fireworks.

The article is devoted to the relationship of Hieronim Florian Radziwiłł and his second wife, Magdalena z Czapskich. The marriage which was contracted in 1745 lasted for only a few years after which the duchess shared the fate of the magnate’s first wife and in 1750 she fled her husband. On the basis of the extant correspondence the complex relations of the married couple were presented, beginning from the secret wedding that was planned, in a time when Radziwiłł was in the state of separation from his first wife, until the letters which bear the post -1750 date, when the requests of the great lady to her husband that he sent her her things were left unanswered. In the article special emphasis is placed on Radziwiłłowa’s letters which are full of complaints and regret, sent to her husband during his absence from home when the magnate left Biała to engage in business or entertain- ment

The division of the sejmik of Podolia in 1786 went beyond the context of a mere struggle for the seats in the assembly. The local activists of the court party decided to divide the sejmik thanks to the appropriate support of the nobility and thanks to the fact that they started its session in a church which did not feature a tradition of holding sessions of an assembly. Despite this violation of the law their sejmik was recognised by the majority in the assembly during the expulsions from the assembly, which was a result of the overwhelming superiority of the supporters of the court. Another result of this violation of the law and customs was such antagonisation of those who participated in sessions that debate could not be brought under control and the session adjourned with the rejection of the bills of the reform of military regulations. Such a result of the division of the Podolia sejm was foreseeable. In this situation a question was made about the aims of the court which must have been significant enough that it was worthwhile to run the risk of the failure of the attempts at a military reform for the sake of the realisation of these aims. An intention to demonstrate before Petersburg the inability to
bring the sejm under control in the context of the emergence of a strong opposition could have been an undercurrent of this intention. However, a more likely reason for this was the intention to discredit Prince Adam Czartoryski, whose ideological and cultural activities in Puławy began to endanger the king’s monopoly for propagating the ideas of the Enlightenment in the country. Whereas a permanent result of the division of the session in Kamieniec Podolski, which was unexpected by the court, was the elaboration of the bill of the reform of the regional assemblies by the Potocki family, which was realised until the sessions of the Four‑Year Sejm.

The article contains an epigraphical analysis of five epitaphs from the Church of the Nativity of Our Lady in Mysłowice: the epitaph of Katarzyna Salomonowa, of Father Michał Gosławski, of Father Jerzy Antoni Mieroszewski, of the married couple Felicjan and Helena z Łętowskich Mieroszewscy, of Kunegunda ze Zborowskich Mieroszewska and the one dedicated to the memory of Krzysztof Mieroszewski. The earliest epitaphs date back to the years 1742—1744, whereas the most recent ones date back to ca. 1880. All of the epitaphs, regardless of the date they were created, were made of black marble, the so‑called Cracow marble. The inscriptions on the epitaphs feature lettering which belongs to the groups of scripts formed on the basis of humanist scripts. A majuscule script is visible in the epigraphs of Katarzyna Salomonowa, Father Michał Gosławski, Krzysztof Mieroszewski and Father Jerzy Antoni Mieroszewski. Whereas the epigraph of Felicjan and Helena z Łętowskich features a minuscule and majuscule script. As far as the three oldest inscriptions i.e. the one of Katarzyna Salomonowa, Priest Michał Gosławski and Priest Jerzy Antoni Mieroszewski, are concerned, they were written in Latin, whereas the two remaining inscriptions were written in Polish. The text features a correct transcription of the inscriptions and a list of abbreviations. The author also presented an interpretation of the extra‑inscriptional elements of the epitaphs such as: coats of arms and heraldic elements, portraits of the deceased and ornamental motifs. There is also a presentation of the profiles of the people to which the epitaphs that were analysed were devoted.

Przedmiotem artykułu recenzyjnego jest książka Łukasza Schreibera Sulla 138—78 p.n.e., Zabrze—Tarnowskie Góry 2013.

Przedmiotem artykułu recenzyjnego są wspomnienia Mirona Dolota Zabić głodem. Sowieckie ludobójstwo na Ukrainie. Tłum. B. Gutowska‑Nowak. Kraków 2014, ss. 256.

Artykuł recenzyjny dotyczy książki Mariusza Bechty Pogrom czy odwet? Akcja zbrojna Zrzeszenia „Wolność i Niezawisłość” w Parczewie 5 lutego 1946 r., Poznań 2014, ss. 512.

Stopka redakcyjna