In the Sieradz Province, the House of Gąsk was concentrated in several areas: in the vicinity of Błaszki (Wójcice), Gruszczyce (Równa), Sędziejowice (Lichawa, Kamostek, Sycanów), Marzenin (Pruszków, Dobra, Wola Rososza), and Drużbin (Rzechta). The Wodzieradzki family had a small estate including the villages of Wodzierady and areas in Dziechtarzew, Chorzeszów and Dobruchów. The centre of the estate was Wodzierady, in which Krzesław probably built a fortress [fortalicium]. Six generations of Wodzieradzki resided there in the years 1398–1559. The figure of Krzesław stands out most in the family history. He took part in the battle with the Teutonic Knights at Chojnice (1454), and towards the end of his life became kasztelan Konarski (senator) of Sieradz (1491–1497).
{"title":"Wodzieradzcy herbu Gąska z Sieradzkiego","authors":"Alicja Szymczakowa","doi":"10.26881/sds.2022.25.14","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.26881/sds.2022.25.14","url":null,"abstract":"In the Sieradz Province, the House of Gąsk was concentrated in several areas: in the vicinity of Błaszki (Wójcice), Gruszczyce (Równa), Sędziejowice (Lichawa, Kamostek, Sycanów), Marzenin (Pruszków, Dobra, Wola Rososza), and Drużbin (Rzechta). The Wodzieradzki family had a small estate including the villages of Wodzierady and areas in Dziechtarzew, Chorzeszów and Dobruchów. The centre of the estate was Wodzierady, in which Krzesław probably built a fortress [fortalicium]. Six generations of Wodzieradzki resided there in the years 1398–1559. The figure of Krzesław stands out most in the family history. He took part in the battle with the Teutonic Knights at Chojnice (1454), and towards the end of his life became kasztelan Konarski (senator) of Sieradz (1491–1497).","PeriodicalId":120293,"journal":{"name":"Studia z Dziejów Średniowiecza","volume":"35 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124413739","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The article examines attempts to date the list of Central Polish officials (the Sieradz, Łęczyca, Dobrzyń, and Kujawy areas), given on fol. 211v–212 of the Crown Register (Metryka Koronna – MK) 14 kept in the Central Archives of Historical Records in Warsaw. Sobiesław Szybkowski dated the Kuyawa lists roughly to the years 1480–1484, and the Dobrzyń lists to 1485, with corrections made in them in the years 1491–1494. Janusz Bieniak, on the other hand, dated the original level of the Sieradz, Łęczyca, Dobrzyń and Kujawy lists to the spring or early summer of 1484, earlier additions to the Dobrzyń lists to the years 1485–1489, and later amendments to all lists to the period after 1491. A closer analysis of the external features of the original lists of officials from the areas of Sieradz, Łęczyca, Dobrzyńska, and Kujawy from fol. 2011v–212 MK 14, suggests somewhat different possibilities than before regarding the approximate dating of this important source. It seems that seven hands contributed to its final shape. The first level of the text came from hand no. 1, who planned the list concerning the areas of Sieradz, Łęczyca, Brzeg voivodship (fol. 211v MK 14), and Inowrocław voivodship (beginning of fol. 212 MK 14). It was probably written at the end of 1482 or at the beginning of 1483 (by late spring). The first additions to this list were made by hand no. 2, who also started the Dobrzyń list in free space at the bottom of the first column at fol. 211v. This probably happened in 1485. The next hands, nos 3–7, supplemented and modified the Central Poland lists up to the last years of the reign of Kazimierz Jagiellończyk. Interventions (in the form of deletions) took place during the reign of Jan Olbracht. The annex to the article is a full critical edition of the list of officials of Central Poland from Crown Register (Metryka Koronna) 14.
{"title":"O wykazach urzędników sieradzkich, łęczyckich, kujawskich i dobrzyńskich w Metryce Koronnej, ks. 14 i ich datacji raz jeszcze","authors":"Sobiesław Szybkowski","doi":"10.26881/sds.2022.25.17","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.26881/sds.2022.25.17","url":null,"abstract":"The article examines attempts to date the list of Central Polish officials (the Sieradz, Łęczyca, Dobrzyń, and Kujawy areas), given on fol. 211v–212 of the Crown Register (Metryka Koronna – MK) 14 kept in the Central Archives of Historical Records in Warsaw. Sobiesław Szybkowski dated the Kuyawa lists roughly to the years 1480–1484, and the Dobrzyń lists to 1485, with corrections made in them in the years 1491–1494. Janusz Bieniak, on the other hand, dated the original level of the Sieradz, Łęczyca, Dobrzyń and Kujawy lists to the spring or early summer of 1484, earlier additions to the Dobrzyń lists to the years 1485–1489, and later amendments to all lists to the period after 1491. A closer analysis of the external features of the original lists of officials from the areas of Sieradz, Łęczyca, Dobrzyńska, and Kujawy from fol. 2011v–212 MK 14, suggests somewhat different possibilities than before regarding the approximate dating of this important source. It seems that seven hands contributed to its final shape. The first level of the text came from hand no. 1, who planned the list concerning the areas of Sieradz, Łęczyca, Brzeg voivodship (fol. 211v MK 14), and Inowrocław voivodship (beginning of fol. 212 MK 14). It was probably written at the end of 1482 or at the beginning of 1483 (by late spring). The first additions to this list were made by hand no. 2, who also started the Dobrzyń list in free space at the bottom of the first column at fol. 211v. This probably happened in 1485. The next hands, nos 3–7, supplemented and modified the Central Poland lists up to the last years of the reign of Kazimierz Jagiellończyk. Interventions (in the form of deletions) took place during the reign of Jan Olbracht. The annex to the article is a full critical edition of the list of officials of Central Poland from Crown Register (Metryka Koronna) 14.","PeriodicalId":120293,"journal":{"name":"Studia z Dziejów Średniowiecza","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130693105","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The author analyzes the sources and accounts of historiography relating to the two‑track actions of Queen Jadwiga Andegaweńska that aimed to open a faculty of theology in Kraków and to reactivate the college founded by Casimir the Great and, at the same time, to found a College for Lithuanians in Prague at the local university. An analysis of the circumstances attendant on the establishment of the Prague foundation in cooperation with the Czech King Vaclav IV suggests that this decision, although noble, was damaging for the idea of a renewal of the university in Kraków. However, Jadwiga’s abandonment of further financing of the Lithuanian College and then the Queen’s death contributed to the implementation of the idea by King Władysław Jagiełło in 1400. The Queen Jadwiga College in Prague was not, however, in practice, in accordance with her intentions, designated for Lithuanians but mainly served Czechs; nonetheless, from Długosz’s time to today, the myth is current of its supposedly considerable influence on the education and Christianization of the inhabitants of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.
{"title":"Praga czy Kraków? Rozterki Jadwigi Andegaweńskiej związane z kształceniem litewskich teologów","authors":"Tomasz Graff","doi":"10.26881/sds.2022.25.05","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.26881/sds.2022.25.05","url":null,"abstract":"The author analyzes the sources and accounts of historiography relating to the two‑track actions of Queen Jadwiga Andegaweńska that aimed to open a faculty of theology in Kraków and to reactivate the college founded by Casimir the Great and, at the same time, to found a College for Lithuanians in Prague at the local university. An analysis of the circumstances attendant on the establishment of the Prague foundation in cooperation with the Czech King Vaclav IV suggests that this decision, although noble, was damaging for the idea of a renewal of the university in Kraków. However, Jadwiga’s abandonment of further financing of the Lithuanian College and then the Queen’s death contributed to the implementation of the idea by King Władysław Jagiełło in 1400. The Queen Jadwiga College in Prague was not, however, in practice, in accordance with her intentions, designated for Lithuanians but mainly served Czechs; nonetheless, from Długosz’s time to today, the myth is current of its supposedly considerable influence on the education and Christianization of the inhabitants of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.","PeriodicalId":120293,"journal":{"name":"Studia z Dziejów Średniowiecza","volume":"76 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131185956","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
From the start of his reign, Władysław Jagiełło he strove to normalize relations with the Silesian dukes, vassals of the Czech Crown, and neighbors of the Kingdom of Poland. These plans were initially disrupted by the war with Władysław Opolczyk and his nephews (1391–1396), but after it ended, relations were correct for the next two decades. Jagiełło’s wise policy towards the Silesian dukes also included his matrimonial policy, arranging marriages with representatives of the Giedyminowicz family. In the mid‑1420s, all the bordering Upper Silesian principalities were ruled by relatives of the Polish king. Despite this, the dukes of Upper Silesia remained faithful to their Czech rulers. When the Hussite Revolution broke out in Bohemia in 1419, the Silesian dukes supported Sigismund of Luxemburg, the successor of Wenceslas IV. At the same time, however, they tried to maintain proper relations with the Polish King Władysław Jagiełło, permitting – like the princes of Racibórz, Cieszyn, and Oświęcim – the Hussite legations to pass through their territories on the way to Poland and Lithuania with the offer of the crown of St. Wenceslas. The situation changed when, in September 1421 in Racibórz, Jan II Żelazny (who was married to Jagiełło’s niece Helena) imprisoned the Hussite legation sent by the Czech parliament. Despite pleas and threats from the Polish and Lithuanian sides demanding their release, the Duke of Racibórz, under great pressure, handed over the envoys to King Zygmunt. Consequently, the Silesian dukes, fearing for their principalities (at the hands of the Hussites and Poland), became closely associated with Sigismund of Luxemburg and became his allies in the conflict with Jagiełło and Witold. The culmination of these activities was that the Silesian dukes, at the beginning of 1423, joined a pact against Poland, the aim of which was its partition. However, when Sigismund of Luxemburg abruptly changed his policy and, in March 1423 in Kieżmark, concluded a treaty of friendship with King Jagiełło, the Silesian dukes realized that they had made a mistake by trusting their ruler excessively and adopting anti‑Polish rhetoric. So they took rapid steps to restore the former correct relations, apologizing to King Jagiełło and the Kingdom of Poland for their actions, a move that proved successful.
{"title":"Książęta śląscy w relacjach Polski z Czechami w początkowym okresie rewolucji husyckiej","authors":"Jerzy Sperka","doi":"10.26881/sds.2022.25.12","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.26881/sds.2022.25.12","url":null,"abstract":"From the start of his reign, Władysław Jagiełło he strove to normalize relations with the Silesian dukes, vassals of the Czech Crown, and neighbors of the Kingdom of Poland. These plans were initially disrupted by the war with Władysław Opolczyk and his nephews (1391–1396), but after it ended, relations were correct for the next two decades. Jagiełło’s wise policy towards the Silesian dukes also included his matrimonial policy, arranging marriages with representatives of the Giedyminowicz family. In the mid‑1420s, all the bordering Upper Silesian principalities were ruled by relatives of the Polish king. Despite this, the dukes of Upper Silesia remained faithful to their Czech rulers. When the Hussite Revolution broke out in Bohemia in 1419, the Silesian dukes supported Sigismund of Luxemburg, the successor of Wenceslas IV. At the same time, however, they tried to maintain proper relations with the Polish King Władysław Jagiełło, permitting – like the princes of Racibórz, Cieszyn, and Oświęcim – the Hussite legations to pass through their territories on the way to Poland and Lithuania with the offer of the crown of St. Wenceslas. The situation changed when, in September 1421 in Racibórz, Jan II Żelazny (who was married to Jagiełło’s niece Helena) imprisoned the Hussite legation sent by the Czech parliament. Despite pleas and threats from the Polish and Lithuanian sides demanding their release, the Duke of Racibórz, under great pressure, handed over the envoys to King Zygmunt. Consequently, the Silesian dukes, fearing for their principalities (at the hands of the Hussites and Poland), became closely associated with Sigismund of Luxemburg and became his allies in the conflict with Jagiełło and Witold. The culmination of these activities was that the Silesian dukes, at the beginning of 1423, joined a pact against Poland, the aim of which was its partition. However, when Sigismund of Luxemburg abruptly changed his policy and, in March 1423 in Kieżmark, concluded a treaty of friendship with King Jagiełło, the Silesian dukes realized that they had made a mistake by trusting their ruler excessively and adopting anti‑Polish rhetoric. So they took rapid steps to restore the former correct relations, apologizing to King Jagiełło and the Kingdom of Poland for their actions, a move that proved successful.","PeriodicalId":120293,"journal":{"name":"Studia z Dziejów Średniowiecza","volume":"127 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122621656","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article contains an analysis of the codicological context and circumstances surrounding the writing of the oldest city record of Chojnice. This volume is the most important source of information about the town’s medieval history. It is in the State Archive in Bydgoszcz in the section devoted to Documents of Chojnice under signature no. 33. The date of its writing has provoked controversy among scholars, as the date of 1436 was often misread as 1466. The author discusses and analyzes the structure of the volume, the phases of its production, and dates the paper on the basis of an analysis of the dating ofthe water marks. These water marks confirm that volume began to be kept in the 1430s and subsequent pages were sown in as the pages of the manuscript were filled up. It is a typical record of entries kept simultaneously by the council and the town court; it was kept through to the 1640s. The introductory section of the volume is unique. There the councilors present in minute detail the motives behind starting it. They call it a book of memory, one that aims to preserve a memory of official matters, court cases, and transactions entered into. The author also considers the circumstances that could have influenced the late establishment of the record – only in 1436 – and points out the self‑awareness of the members of the town council as guardians of the memory of the town’s history.
{"title":"Buch des Gedächtniβ – najstarsza księga miasta Chojnic (1436–1544). Okoliczności powstania i komentarz kodykologiczny","authors":"Julia Możdżeń","doi":"10.26881/sds.2022.25.09","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.26881/sds.2022.25.09","url":null,"abstract":"This article contains an analysis of the codicological context and circumstances surrounding the writing of the oldest city record of Chojnice. This volume is the most important source of information about the town’s medieval history. It is in the State Archive in Bydgoszcz in the section devoted to Documents of Chojnice under signature no. 33. The date of its writing has provoked controversy among scholars, as the date of 1436 was often misread as 1466. The author discusses and analyzes the structure of the volume, the phases of its production, and dates the paper on the basis of an analysis of the dating ofthe water marks. These water marks confirm that volume began to be kept in the 1430s and subsequent pages were sown in as the pages of the manuscript were filled up. It is a typical record of entries kept simultaneously by the council and the town court; it was kept through to the 1640s. The introductory section of the volume is unique. There the councilors present in minute detail the motives behind starting it. They call it a book of memory, one that aims to preserve a memory of official matters, court cases, and transactions entered into. The author also considers the circumstances that could have influenced the late establishment of the record – only in 1436 – and points out the self‑awareness of the members of the town council as guardians of the memory of the town’s history.","PeriodicalId":120293,"journal":{"name":"Studia z Dziejów Średniowiecza","volume":"29 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115128937","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The author of the commentary does not engage in a polemic with Krzysztof Kwiatkowski’s article “Niewola księcia pomorsko‑szczecińskiego Kazimierza [V] po bitwie grunwaldzkiej (1410/1411) – obserwacje historycznokulturalne” (Studia z Dziejów Średniowiecza 2017, vol. 21, pp. 111–126). However, he draws attention to Kwiatkowski’s erroneous interpretations, in which, without offering any new arguments, he asserts “facts” that do not emerge from the cited sources. The author suggests that we are dealing here with historical fantasy that has no place in serious history. Kwiatkowski also commits errors in citing sources and does not take account of the most important study of pilgrimages to the Holy Land. Summing up, the author of the commentary claims that the subject of Prince Świętobor I’s pilgrimage demands historical knowledge of material predating Kwiatkowski’s article.
评论的作者并没有与Krzysztof Kwiatkowski的文章“Niewola księcia pomorsko‑szczecińskiego Kazimierza [V] po bitwie grunwaldzkiej (1410/1411) - obserwacje historycznokulturalne”(Studia z Dziejów Średniowiecza 2017，第21卷，第111-126页)进行争论。然而，他提请注意Kwiatkowski的错误解释，在没有提供任何新的论据的情况下，他断言的“事实”并不是来自引用的来源。作者认为，我们在这里处理的是在严肃的历史中没有地位的历史幻想。Kwiatkowski在引用资料时也犯了错误，并且没有考虑到对圣地朝圣的最重要的研究。综上所述，评论的作者声称Świętobor一世王子朝圣的主题需要在Kwiatkowski的文章之前的历史知识。
{"title":"Jeszcze raz w sprawie pielgrzymki księcia szczecińskiego Świętobora I do Ziemi Świętej w 1411 r.","authors":"J. Zdrenka","doi":"10.26881/sds.2022.25.15","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.26881/sds.2022.25.15","url":null,"abstract":"The author of the commentary does not engage in a polemic with Krzysztof Kwiatkowski’s article “Niewola księcia pomorsko‑szczecińskiego Kazimierza [V] po bitwie grunwaldzkiej (1410/1411) – obserwacje historycznokulturalne” (Studia z Dziejów Średniowiecza 2017, vol. 21, pp. 111–126). However, he draws attention to Kwiatkowski’s erroneous interpretations, in which, without offering any new arguments, he asserts “facts” that do not emerge from the cited sources. The author suggests that we are dealing here with historical fantasy that has no place in serious history. Kwiatkowski also commits errors in citing sources and does not take account of the most important study of pilgrimages to the Holy Land. Summing up, the author of the commentary claims that the subject of Prince Świętobor I’s pilgrimage demands historical knowledge of material predating Kwiatkowski’s article.","PeriodicalId":120293,"journal":{"name":"Studia z Dziejów Średniowiecza","volume":"21 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123813742","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
W Europie XIII w. rozwój biskupstwa krakowskiego odbywał się zgodnie z ogólną tendencją do tworzenia autonomicznych obszarów immunitetowych z prerogatywami władztwa terytorialnego. Jednak po okresie dłuższej dynastycznej stabilizacji zakończonej wraz ze śmiercią Bolesława Wstydliwego w 1279 r. biskupi krakowscy musieli się wykazać różnorodnością taktyki w celu utrzymania, a nawet rozszerzenia immunitetów prawnych w posiadłościach ziemskich. W przeciwieństwie jednak do wielu biskupstw w sąsiedniej Rzeszy Niemieckiej lub Czechach, a nawet w samej Polsce, pomimo z pozoru korzystnych warunków wynikłych z osłabienia centralnej władzy świeckiej, prałaci krakowscy nie stworzyli suwerennej władzy książęcej. Piastowie i czescy Przemyślidzi wykazali znaczącą efektywność w zapobieganiu stratom terytorialnym na rzecz Kościoła. Artykuł ten omawia strategie biskupów w rozszerzaniu władzy kościelnej i w wykorzystaniu pojawiających się możliwości wzmacniania jej terytorialnej kontroli w okręgach diecezjalnych. Różnorodność wysiłków, między innymi dyplomatyczne zabiegi biskupów, wykorzystanie prawa patronatu i prawa kanonicznego, ekonomiczne przedsięwzięcia kolonizacyjne, a nawet militarna aktywność okazały się ostatecznie niewystarczające. Zarówno Paweł z Przemankowa w otwartym konflikcie z księciem Leszkiem Czarnym, biskup Prokop w początkowo poprawnych relacjach z Wacławem czeskim, jak i Jan Muskata z pewnym potencjałem wojskowym i w bliskiej współpracy z czeską monarchią, nie byli w stanie osiągnąć znaczącej dominacji terytorialnej. Biskupstwo krakowskie na przełomie XIII i XIV w. ilustruje fundamentalny wpływ lokalnych uwarunkowań politycznych, przypadków i indywidualnych decyzji na rozwój kościelnego władztwa terytorialnego, a którego ostateczny wynik nie mógł być przesądzony w Polsce przed odnowieniem monarchii w 1320 r.
{"title":"Diplomacy and Arms, Opportunities and Obstacles in Episcopal Territorial Control in the Duchy of Krakow, 1279–1320","authors":"S. Bartos","doi":"10.26881/sds.2022.25.01","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.26881/sds.2022.25.01","url":null,"abstract":"W Europie XIII w. rozwój biskupstwa krakowskiego odbywał się zgodnie z ogólną tendencją do tworzenia autonomicznych obszarów immunitetowych z prerogatywami władztwa terytorialnego. Jednak po okresie dłuższej dynastycznej stabilizacji zakończonej wraz ze śmiercią Bolesława Wstydliwego w 1279 r. biskupi krakowscy musieli się wykazać różnorodnością taktyki w celu utrzymania, a nawet rozszerzenia immunitetów prawnych w posiadłościach ziemskich. W przeciwieństwie jednak do wielu biskupstw w sąsiedniej Rzeszy Niemieckiej lub Czechach, a nawet w samej Polsce, pomimo z pozoru korzystnych warunków wynikłych z osłabienia centralnej władzy świeckiej, prałaci krakowscy nie stworzyli suwerennej władzy książęcej. Piastowie i czescy Przemyślidzi wykazali znaczącą efektywność w zapobieganiu stratom terytorialnym na rzecz Kościoła. Artykuł ten omawia strategie biskupów w rozszerzaniu władzy kościelnej i w wykorzystaniu pojawiających się możliwości wzmacniania jej terytorialnej kontroli w okręgach diecezjalnych. Różnorodność wysiłków, między innymi dyplomatyczne zabiegi biskupów, wykorzystanie prawa patronatu i prawa kanonicznego, ekonomiczne przedsięwzięcia kolonizacyjne, a nawet militarna aktywność okazały się ostatecznie niewystarczające. Zarówno Paweł z Przemankowa w otwartym konflikcie z księciem Leszkiem Czarnym, biskup Prokop w początkowo poprawnych relacjach z Wacławem czeskim, jak i Jan Muskata z pewnym potencjałem wojskowym i w bliskiej współpracy z czeską monarchią, nie byli w stanie osiągnąć znaczącej dominacji terytorialnej. Biskupstwo krakowskie na przełomie XIII i XIV w. ilustruje fundamentalny wpływ lokalnych uwarunkowań politycznych, przypadków i indywidualnych decyzji na rozwój kościelnego władztwa terytorialnego, a którego ostateczny wynik nie mógł być przesądzony w Polsce przed odnowieniem monarchii w 1320 r.","PeriodicalId":120293,"journal":{"name":"Studia z Dziejów Średniowiecza","volume":"75 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124251610","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Appearing in historical sources under two names, Audacja and Małgorzata, the wife of the Count of Schwerin Henryk I (died 1228) has long aroused the interest of historians. Researchers have investigated her Pomeranian origins. They have attempted to give the history of her family: husbands, sons, and several daughters. They have frequently discussed the matter of her rights to Sławno lands, which her daughter Ermengarde brought to her husband Świętopełk, Duke of Gdańsk. In the scholarly literature from the nineteenth century, there are reflections on the large role that the countess played in the history of Połabia at the end of the 1220s and the start of the 1230s, a history determined by Schwerin‑Danish relations. The very marriage of Audacja‑Małgorzata with Henryk is also a subject of interest here. Although the political circumstances of the countess’s marriage with Henryk I occasion doubts in the literature, there is no doubt her public actions were dominated by the conflict with Denmark. The Countess took an active part in this, not just as the wife of Henryk I, who was himself instrumental in shaking the position of Denmark in the area round the Baltic. Thanks to her, the peace treaties also discussed conditions for the return of territory (or payment of appropriate compensation) taken from her mother by Waldemar II. This point emerged during the discussions with the emissaries of the Empire with Count Henryk I and his allies concerning the liberation of Waldemar II and his son Waldemar III in 1223 and 1224. In the agreement between Denmark and Schwerin in 1225, the Countess, together with her husband and children, was mentioned as a party. She was also mentioned in the fief agreement concluded in 1227 between the Duke of Saxony Albrecht I and Count Henryk I. After 1228, Audacja‑Małgorzata played a special role on her husband’s death. Then the Countess had to conclude an agreement both with Denmark and the Duke of Brunswick, who was supporting her. Her position at that time is clearly reflected in a letter by Pope Gregory IX, calling on the Countess to free prisoners (the sons of Waldemar II and the Duke of Brunswick‑Lüneburg Otto the Child). Audacja‑Małgorzata’s guiding purpose was probably to make it possible for Gunzelin III, her still (in 1228) underage son, to take power in Schwerin. The basic aim of the conflict with Denmark was achieved, that is to remove Mikołaj, Waldemar II’s grandson, from the line of succession in Schwerin. By agreeing to end the conflict, the Schwerin side gave up the entirety of the ransom that Waldemar II was initially meant to pay and settled for half of it. The betrothal and subsequent marriage of Gunzelin III with Małgorzata of Mecklenburg can be seen as an attempt to build local alliances and as showing a willingness to live at peace with her neighbours. Thus, it appears that the Countess was reasonably successful in securing her son’s future and once he took power in guaranteeing him peace with all his
{"title":"Kilka uwag w sprawie roli politycznej hrabiny szweryńskiej Audacji‑Małogorzaty","authors":"Marek Smoliński","doi":"10.26881/sds.2022.25.11","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.26881/sds.2022.25.11","url":null,"abstract":"Appearing in historical sources under two names, Audacja and Małgorzata, the wife of the Count of Schwerin Henryk I (died 1228) has long aroused the interest of historians. Researchers have investigated her Pomeranian origins. They have attempted to give the history of her family: husbands, sons, and several daughters. They have frequently discussed the matter of her rights to Sławno lands, which her daughter Ermengarde brought to her husband Świętopełk, Duke of Gdańsk. In the scholarly literature from the nineteenth century, there are reflections on the large role that the countess played in the history of Połabia at the end of the 1220s and the start of the 1230s, a history determined by Schwerin‑Danish relations. The very marriage of Audacja‑Małgorzata with Henryk is also a subject of interest here. Although the political circumstances of the countess’s marriage with Henryk I occasion doubts in the literature, there is no doubt her public actions were dominated by the conflict with Denmark. The Countess took an active part in this, not just as the wife of Henryk I, who was himself instrumental in shaking the position of Denmark in the area round the Baltic. Thanks to her, the peace treaties also discussed conditions for the return of territory (or payment of appropriate compensation) taken from her mother by Waldemar II. This point emerged during the discussions with the emissaries of the Empire with Count Henryk I and his allies concerning the liberation of Waldemar II and his son Waldemar III in 1223 and 1224. In the agreement between Denmark and Schwerin in 1225, the Countess, together with her husband and children, was mentioned as a party. She was also mentioned in the fief agreement concluded in 1227 between the Duke of Saxony Albrecht I and Count Henryk I. \u0000After 1228, Audacja‑Małgorzata played a special role on her husband’s death. Then the Countess had to conclude an agreement both with Denmark and the Duke of Brunswick, who was supporting her. Her position at that time is clearly reflected in a letter by Pope Gregory IX, calling on the Countess to free prisoners (the sons of Waldemar II and the Duke of Brunswick‑Lüneburg Otto the Child). Audacja‑Małgorzata’s guiding purpose was probably to make it possible for Gunzelin III, her still (in 1228) underage son, to take power in Schwerin. The basic aim of the conflict with Denmark was achieved, that is to remove Mikołaj, Waldemar II’s grandson, from the line of succession in Schwerin. By agreeing to end the conflict, the Schwerin side gave up the entirety of the ransom that Waldemar II was initially meant to pay and settled for half of it. The betrothal and subsequent marriage of Gunzelin III with Małgorzata of Mecklenburg can be seen as an attempt to build local alliances and as showing a willingness to live at peace with her neighbours. \u0000Thus, it appears that the Countess was reasonably successful in securing her son’s future and once he took power in guaranteeing him peace with all his","PeriodicalId":120293,"journal":{"name":"Studia z Dziejów Średniowiecza","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133867736","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Wawrzyniec z Březové is distinguished among observers and chroniclers of Hussitism, and his chronicles are the best source of information relating to the first phase of the Hussite revolution. Wawrzyniec writes of the years 1414–1421, but his main focus is on the years 1419–1421. He starts with the inauguration of giving communion in two kinds, which was a result of the work of Jakoubek ze Stříbra in 1414. The world of this penetrating observer and thinking man is not black and white. The inevitable companion of revolution – fear – is clear in the pages of Wawrzyniec’s account. Indeed, it accompanies all the phases of these tempestuous events.
Wawrzyniec Březové在胡斯主义的观察家和编年史家中是杰出的，他的编年史是有关胡斯革命第一阶段的最佳信息来源。Wawrzyniec写的是1414-1421年，但他主要关注的是1419-1421年。他以两种形式的圣餐仪式开始，这是Jakoubek ze Stříbra在1414年的工作成果。这个敏锐的观察者和思想者的世界不是非黑即白的。革命不可避免的伴侣——恐惧——在瓦琴涅茨的叙述中清晰可见。事实上，它伴随着这些风暴事件的所有阶段。
{"title":"Rewolucja według Wawrzyńca z Březové","authors":"Wojciech Iwańczak","doi":"10.26881/sds.2022.25.06","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.26881/sds.2022.25.06","url":null,"abstract":"Wawrzyniec z Březové is distinguished among observers and chroniclers of Hussitism, and his chronicles are the best source of information relating to the first phase of the Hussite revolution. Wawrzyniec writes of the years 1414–1421, but his main focus is on the years 1419–1421. He starts with the inauguration of giving communion in two kinds, which was a result of the work of Jakoubek ze Stříbra in 1414. The world of this penetrating observer and thinking man is not black and white. The inevitable companion of revolution – fear – is clear in the pages of Wawrzyniec’s account. Indeed, it accompanies all the phases of these tempestuous events.","PeriodicalId":120293,"journal":{"name":"Studia z Dziejów Średniowiecza","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133454023","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In a manuscript from the end of the fifteenth century in the University of Wrocław Library, which derives from the Augustinian Monastery (canonici regulares) in Żagań (under the Provost in Zielona Góra), a collection of sermons has survived, a collection of homilies for the entire liturgical year, entitled Sermones varii de tempore et de sanctis, transcribed by Jan z Paczkowa Wettziger (died after 1497). Wettzinger, a canon regularis from Kłodzko (he later lived in Żagań, Wrocław, and Zielona Góra), was not, despite appearances, the author of the collection, but he edited it on the basis of a collection of sermons of the Bernardine Patrick during his stay in Zielona Góra. Between pages 49r and 50v of the manuscript, there is the second (in sequence) sermon Sermo II: Dominica V post Epiphaniam. It is devoted to the phenomenon of heresy, which the preacher compares allegorically to the biblical tares. Wettzinger concentrates, above all, on an anti‑Hussite polemic. He transforms a critical interpretation of heresy into a chronicle‑style piece, incorporating into the sermon a calendar of the history of Czech Hussitism in the form of a long chronicler’s note.
在Wrocław大学图书馆的一份15世纪末的手稿中，它来自Żagań(在Zielona教务长Góra下)的奥古斯丁修道院(canonici regulares)，一套讲道集被保存下来，整个礼仪年的讲道集，题为Sermones varii de tempore et de sanctis，由Jan z Paczkowa Wettziger(1497年后去世)转录。Wettzinger是一位来自Kłodzko(他后来住在Żagań， Wrocław和Zielona Góra)的普通教规，尽管表面上看，他并不是这本合集的作者，但他在Zielona逗留期间，根据贝尔纳丁·帕特里克的布道集编辑了这本合集Góra。在手稿的第49页和第50页之间，有第二次布道(按顺序)，布道二:主显节后的多米尼克五世。它致力于异端现象，传教士将其比喻为圣经中的稗子。最重要的是，韦青格专注于一场反胡斯派的论战。他将对异端的批判性解读转变为编年史式的作品，在布道中以编年史家的长注释的形式纳入了捷克胡斯派历史的日历。
{"title":"Husytyzm jako kąkol. Kalendarium husyckie w kazaniu Dominica V post Epiphaniam Jana z Paczkowa Wettzigera z końca XV w.","authors":"K. Bracha","doi":"10.26881/sds.2022.25.02","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.26881/sds.2022.25.02","url":null,"abstract":"In a manuscript from the end of the fifteenth century in the University of Wrocław Library, which derives from the Augustinian Monastery (canonici regulares) in Żagań (under the Provost in Zielona Góra), a collection of sermons has survived, a collection of homilies for the entire liturgical year, entitled Sermones varii de tempore et de sanctis, transcribed by Jan z Paczkowa Wettziger (died after 1497). Wettzinger, a canon regularis from Kłodzko (he later lived in Żagań, Wrocław, and Zielona Góra), was not, despite appearances, the author of the collection, but he edited it on the basis of a collection of sermons of the Bernardine Patrick during his stay in Zielona Góra. Between pages 49r and 50v of the manuscript, there is the second (in sequence) sermon Sermo II: Dominica V post Epiphaniam. It is devoted to the phenomenon of heresy, which the preacher compares allegorically to the biblical tares. Wettzinger concentrates, above all, on an anti‑Hussite polemic. He transforms a critical interpretation of heresy into a chronicle‑style piece, incorporating into the sermon a calendar of the history of Czech Hussitism in the form of a long chronicler’s note.","PeriodicalId":120293,"journal":{"name":"Studia z Dziejów Średniowiecza","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127808089","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：