Cover page and content

The author’s aim was to present two literary traditions which refer to the way in which the image of Gaius Octavius, who went on to become Emperor Augustus, which was created in order to legitimate his assumption of power, was presented. The first episode where these traditions are so distinctly perceptible is Gaius Julius Caesar’s second Hispanian campaign (46—45 BC). The representatives of the first tradition (Nicholas of Damascus, Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus) attempted to emphasise Octavius’s personal qualities which were supposed to make him a vigorous and resolute leader. This suggests that the sources of this tradition should be sought in the period of the civil wars when Octavius had to face above all the challenge presented by Mark Anthony in the context of propaganda. Whereas the representatives of the second tradition (Velleius Paterculus, Dio Cassius) no longer attempted to emphasise the purported achievements of Octavius and they concentrated instead on the question of legitimisation resulting from the appurtenance to Caesar’s family. This may indicate that the tradition emerged in the period when one was no longer obliged to be held accountable for the doubtful military achievements of the years 44—36 BC, and what results from the following: when one was no longer obliged to respond to political invectives hurled by his adversaries. In this approach instead of emphasising military accomplishments it was much more important to indicate the decision that was made by Caesar, and perhaps the vaticinal signs, for such a distinguished individual as the murdered dictator doubtlessly was, could not misjudge the talents of the successor whose greatness was even foretold by the gods themselves.

Heretofore little importance was attached to considerations connected with ancient historians presented in Historia Augusta, in the biographies bear the name of Flavius Vopiscus of Syracuse. However, these brief texts perhaps may enable us to understand the reason for which the author concealed his name by using six pseudonyms, and they account for the way in which he approached work with the sources. In the principal biographies of the Antonines and the Severi he drew from the imperial biographies by Marius Maximus whose work was positively evaluated in his considerations. The work contained information which was of paramount importance for the imperial biography such as the origin of the ruler or a description of his character. In the subsequent part of the Historia Augusta its creator used other sources which represented such literary genres as history and breviaria. We may infer from Scriptor’s methodological considerations that he held these literary genres in low estimation; he did not mention even one author of these sources. This supposedly influenced his polemical attitude to these source materials and the way in which he used them — he frequently interspersed their narrations with themes drawn from the works of other historians.

The text presents the scholarly and popular science output in the field of regional history produced by Łucja Charewiczowa, a female Lvovian historian of the inter -war period. There is a discussion of the most important works of the Researcher in this field, with special emphasis on their conceptualisation, construction, empirical approach and literary qualities. The outline also constitutes an attempt to present the peculiar nature of Charewiczowa’s writings in the context of the regional history works (the social, historical and economic orientation, a strongly marked presence of female figures, educational and patriotic aspects). Moreover, it also emphasises the research and narrative approaches of the Lvovian author which were ground -breaking in Poland.

The article is devoted to the stages of the construction of the Pałac Kultury i Nauki in Warsaw — from the proposal of the construction to the handing over of the building by the Soviet authorities to the Polish party. On the basis of research the author established that the deputy prime minister of the U.S.S.R., Vyacheslav Mikhaylovich Molotov, suggested the construction of the palace on 22 July 1951 instead of 3 July, according to some research works. Then the author describes the circumstances of the creation of the plans of the construction of the high -rise as well as the signing of agreements concerning the initiation of the endeavour to erect the PKiN which was a logistic challenge.

Owing to a search query in the archives the author attempted to present the realities of the collaboration between Polish and Soviet labourers which had little to do with the ones presented by the propaganda of that time. For example, on the basis of declassified documents the author managed to provide the number of Poles who lost their lives during the construction of the PKiN.

Review is devoted to the book of Tony Glas entitled Valerian Kaisertum und Reformansätze in der Krisenphase des Römischen Reiches, published in 2014 in Paderborn

The subject of review is a book of Zenonj Kałuża Lektury filozoficzne Wincentego Kadłubka. Zbiór studiów, published in Warszawa in 2014.

Review is devoted to the album Obrazy doktora Petera, edited by Karolina Grodziska, published in 2014 in Cracow.

Imprint