Żywot świętej Paraskewy-Petki Tyrnowskiej w Damaskinie Berlińskim. Aspekt genealogiczny i tematyczny

The subject of interest in the article is the eighteenth-century New Bulgarian version of the Hagiography of Saint Paraskeva-Petka of Tarnovo by the Bulgarian Patriarch Euthymius (14th century), included in the poorly researched „Berlin Damaskin” currently stored in the Jagiellonian Library in Krakow (the so-called Berlin Collection) under the reference number Berol. Ms. Slav. fol. 36; cards 180–187v. The analysis concerns the genological and thematic aspect of the manuscript in the context of the ‘damaskin’ literature (Bulg. дамаскини) of the 16th–18th centuries. The main attention is focused on the content of the text, rhetorical-stylistic transformation (reduction, lowering of style) of the original and its new components. The most interesting element of the structure are the textological additions related to the journey of Paraskeva’s relics from Bulgaria through Serbia to Greece and Moldova, which make it possible to include the Krakow variant of the Petka Life in the Moldovan hagiographic redaction.Przedmiotem zainteresowania w artykule jest XVIII-wieczna nowobułgarska wersja żywota świętej Paraskiewy-Petki Tyrnowskiej autorstwa bułgarskiego patriarchy Eutymiusza (XIV w.), zamieszczona w słabo zbadanym damaskinie berlińskim przechowywanym obecnie w Bibliotece Jagiellońskiej w Krakowie (tzw. kolekcja berlińska) pod sygnaturą Berol. Ms. Slav. Fol. 36; karty 180–187r. Analiza dotyczy aspektu genologicznego i tematycznego utworu w kontekście twórczości damaskinarskiej wieków XVI – XVIII. Główna uwaga skupia się na zawartości tekstu, transformacji retoryczno-stylistycznej (redukcja, obniżenie stylu) oryginału i nowych komponentach. Za najciekawszy element struktury uznano dodatki tekstologiczne związane z wędrówką relikwii Paraskiewy z Bułgarii przez Serbię do Grecji i Mołdawii, które pozwalają zaliczyć krakowski wariant żywota do mołdawskiej redakcji hagiograficznej

Rebellion on Hvar island (1510–1514). People’s revolt or Venetian manipulation?

In the extensive work of the Dubrovnik-born Benedictine Lodovico Tuberon de Crieva, „Commentaria de temporibus suis” describing the events in the Mediterranean in the years 1490–1522, there is a small passage about the events on the island of Hvar (ital. Lesina). The island was then, together with most of the Dalmatian coast, under the rule of the Venetian Republic. On Hvar in 1510, a popular uprising against the local nobles broke out, which lasted with varying intensity until 1514. The Venetian authorities then sent considerable armed forces, which, after defeating the rebels at sea and on land, suppressed the rebellion. It is surprising, however, that Tuberon suggests in the above-mentioned passage that the outbreak of the revolt could have been provoked by the Venetians themselves, who feared the nobility allegedly favoring the King of Hungary. He also mentions the leading role of a clergyman who was supposed to encourage the plebs to act and initiate a revolt. Taking the mentioned text of Tuberon as a starting point, the author analyzes the political and social situation on the island of Hvar as well as the background and course of the events in the years 1510–1514. The author's goal is to establish what the grounds for Tuberon's presumptions were and to what extent they are true.In the extensive work of the Dubrovnik-born Benedictine Lodovico Tuberon de Crieva, „Commentaria de temporibus suis” describing the events in the Mediterranean in the years 1490–1522, there is a small passage about the events on the island of Hvar (ital. Lesina). The island was then, together with most of the Dalmatian coast, under the rule of the Venetian Republic. On Hvar in 1510, a popular uprising against the local nobles broke out, which lasted with varying intensity until 1514. The Venetian authorities then sent considerable armed forces, which, after defeating the rebels at sea and on land, suppressed the rebellion. It is surprising, however, that Tuberon suggests in the above-mentioned passage that the outbreak of the revolt could have been provoked by the Venetians themselves, who feared the nobility allegedly favoring the King of Hungary. He also mentions the leading role of a clergyman who was supposed to encourage the plebs to act and initiate a revolt. Taking the mentioned text of Tuberon as a starting point, the author analyzes the political and social situation on the island of Hvar as well as the background and course of the events in the years 1510–1514. The author's goal is to establish what the grounds for Tuberon's presumptions were and to what extent they are true

Powstanie Abbasydów i jego następstwa w ujęciu Teofanesa Wyznawcy. Część II

In the first part of my article, I described how Theophanes the Confessor refused to legitimize the Abbasids, recognizing the legitimacy of Umayyad rule (according to the chronicler, the Umayyad power came directly from the Prophet Muhammad, which is obviously not entirely true). The chronograph emphasized that the Abbasids used the lower classes to seize power, which allowed them to lead to a state of anarchy. At the same time, he noticed how bad a ruler Marwan the Second was. From this difficult situation, as can be understood, there was no good way out, because both sides of the dispute were tainted with sins that led to injustice or unrighteousness. This was confirmed by supernatural phenomena mentioned by historian in the context of the change of power in the Muslim state. In the second part of my paper, I described how Theophanes tried to suggest that the Abbasid rule had led to religious and class divisions in the country. As a chronicler described the manifestations of anarchy that led to the persecution of Christians in Muslim countries. According to my interpretation, the description of the civil war in the caliphate after the death of Harun ar-Rashid in the work of Theophanes the Confessor is almost a harbinger of the end of the Muslim empire.W pierwszej części mojego artykułu opisałem, jak Teofanes Wyznawca właściwie odmówił prawa do legitymizacji dynastii abbasydzkiej, uznając prawowierność rządów Umajjadów (według kronikarza władza tych ostatnich pochodziła bezpośrednio od Proroka Muhammada, co oczywiście nie jest do końca prawdą). Chronograf podkreślał, że Abbasydzi wykorzystywali niższe warstwy społeczne do przejęcia władzy, co doprowadziło do stanu anarchii. Jednocześnie zauważył, jak złym władcą był Marwan II. Jak można zrozumieć, z tej trudnej sytuacji nie było dobrego wyjścia, ponieważ obie strony sporu zostały obciążone grzechami prowadzącymi do niesprawiedliwości i nieprawowierności. Potwierdzały to niejako zjawiska nadprzyrodzone, o których historyk wspomniał w kontekście zmiany władzy w państwie muzułmańskim. W drugiej części mojego artykułu opisałem, jak Teofanes próbował zasugerować, że rządy Abbasydów doprowadziły do podziałów religijnych i klasowych. Wspomniałem jak kronikarz opisywał przejawy anarchii, która doprowadziła m.in. do prześladowań chrześcijan. Według mojej interpretacji, opis wojny domowej w kalifacie po śmierci Haruna ar-Raszida jest niemal zwiastunem końca imperium muzułmańskiego

Ottoman supremacy and the political independence of the Balkan and Central European states

The article deals with the nature of the political relationship between the Ottoman Empire and the Balkan states. The various forms of dependency led to varied limitations on the functioning of these states, especially in the field of their international politics. The Ottoman Empire's relations with weaker, allied, vassal and subordinate states were shaped by the following factors: the historical period, the political and legal nature of the mutual relations, religion, the current political and military situation. On the basis of analysis of the sources and scientific literature, it has been shown that the Ottoman Empire was unable to prevent more or less official policy by its subordinate centres, as long as they had any state structures (even if they were only of a self-governing nature). In the 14th century, most of the Balkan states found themselves as allies and tributaries of the Ottoman Empire. The alliance with the Ottomans did not limit political relations with countries uncommitted against the Ottomans. In the 15th century there was a process of more and more clearly political subordination of the Balkan states which added two important elements to earlier financial and military obligations - investment and obedience. In the 16th century, it was extremely important to surrender to the King of Hungary John Zápolya under the authority of Sultan Suleiman. It also resulted in the Ottoman Empire taking over direct political control of the Romanian principalities: Wallachia and Moldavia. The Sultan was not able to fully control them, they often carried out independent political activities, connected with the Poland-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Holy Empire, and Transylvania. In the 18th century the process of building the Balkan nation states launched, albeit very slowly. In the 19th century, any independence, even very limited, was conducive to the rapid formation of their own independent statehood.The article deals with the nature of the political relationship between the Ottoman Empire and the Balkan states. The various forms of dependency led to varied limitations on the functioning of these states, especially in the field of their international politics. The Ottoman Empire's relations with weaker, allied, vassal and subordinate states were shaped by the following factors: the historical period, the political and legal nature of the mutual relations, religion, the current political and military situation. On the basis of analysis of the sources and scientific literature, it has been shown that the Ottoman Empire was unable to prevent more or less official policy by its subordinate centres, as long as they had any state structures (even if they were only of a self-governing nature). In the 14th century, most of the Balkan states found themselves as allies and tributaries of the Ottoman Empire. The alliance with the Ottomans did not limit political relations with countries uncommitted against the Ottomans. In the 15th century there was a process of more and more clearly political subordination of the Balkan states which added two important elements to earlier financial and military obligations - investment and obedience. In the 16th century, it was extremely important to surrender to the King of Hungary John Zápolya under the authority of Sultan Suleiman. It also resulted in the Ottoman Empire taking over direct political control of the Romanian principalities: Wallachia and Moldavia. The Sultan was not able to fully control them, they often carried out independent political activities, connected with the Poland-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Holy Empire, and Transylvania. In the 18th century the process of building the Balkan nation states launched, albeit very slowly. In the 19th century, any independence, even very limited, was conducive to the rapid formation of their own independent statehood

Military cartography of Serbian lands during the last Austro-Turkish war (1788–1791)

The Austro-Turkish War of 1788–1791 has not yet been properly reflected in scientific literature despite the fact that in a certain way this last conflict between the Ottomans and the Holy Roman Empire „awakened the Balkans” and became a catalyst for the national liberation movement of the Serbs, which gained strength at the beginning of the 19th century. The territory of modern Serbia became a central theater of military actions in this difficult positional war, and those were the Serbs who ensured the success of many military operations of the Austrian troops. The war of 1788–1791 belonged to those conflicts, the history of which was written, so to speak, „in real time”, and this in many ways created certain stereotypes in the reproduction of the pattern of military actions. The one-sidedness and stereotyped nature of the narrative sources can be compensated by using large cartographic material – both published and stored in the archives of Austria, Hungary, Turkey, Ukraine, Russia, etc. Serbia as a theater of military actions is depicted on most of these maps and military topographical plans developed in the last quarter of the 18th century, but, with the exception of the Josephinian Land Survey, none of them have become the object of even cataloging and classification, not to mention its careful studying. Therefore, the00 proposed article is the first comprehensive attempt to summarize the information about cartographic sources regarding Serbian lands during the Austro-Turkish War of 1788–1791. As additional sources, to verify historical and geographical information, military topographical descriptions of Serbian lands compiled by the Austrian administration and periodicals of the war period were used.The Austro-Turkish War of 1788–1791 has not yet been properly reflected in scientific literature despite the fact that in a certain way this last conflict between the Ottomans and the Holy Roman Empire „awakened the Balkans” and became a catalyst for the national liberation movement of the Serbs, which gained strength at the beginning of the 19th century. The territory of modern Serbia became a central theater of military actions in this difficult positional war, and those were the Serbs who ensured the success of many military operations of the Austrian troops. The war of 1788–1791 belonged to those conflicts, the history of which was written, so to speak, „in real time”, and this in many ways created certain stereotypes in the reproduction of the pattern of military actions. The one-sidedness and stereotyped nature of the narrative sources can be compensated by using large cartographic material – both published and stored in the archives of Austria, Hungary, Turkey, Ukraine, Russia, etc. Serbia as a theater of military actions is depicted on most of these maps and military topographical plans developed in the last quarter of the 18th century, but, with the exception of the Josephinian Land Survey, none of them have become the object of even cataloging and classification, not to mention its careful studying. Therefore, the00 proposed article is the first comprehensive attempt to summarize the information about cartographic sources regarding Serbian lands during the Austro-Turkish War of 1788–1791. As additional sources, to verify historical and geographical information, military topographical descriptions of Serbian lands compiled by the Austrian administration and periodicals of the war period were used

Structure of the cavalry group of the Crown Standard-Bearer Mikołaj Hieronim Sieniawski, stationed in Moldavia after the battle of Khotyn (Chocim) in 1673

On 10 and 11 November 1673 Commonwealth’s armies crushed Ottoman forces at the battle of Khotyn. Victory open new theatre of the operations against High Porte: towards river Danube and on the Polish territories lost in 1672 (Podolia with Kamianets-Podilskyi and Right-bank Ukraine). Polish and Lithuanian troops were very weary after the campaign, what’s more death of King Michał Korybut Wiśniowiecki led to interregnum. Polish command decided to set up the system of border defence, to protect country until the election of new monarch, which should later lead to the new offensive. As such cavalry detachments were spread out in Podolia and Moldavia, while corps under command of Mikołaj Hieronim Sieniawski, Crown Standard-bearer was sent to occupy the latter country. Previous research mentioned that this group had between 6000 and 8000 soldiers. Thanks to document from National Library in Warsaw, we can now identify much more detailed organisation of Sieniawski’s force. He had 48 pancerni banners and two light horse banners, in total 5206 horses. Despite capturing Iași, capitol of Moldavia, Sieniawski’s troops were forced on 17 January 1674 to retreat to Poland, under pressure from the fresh Tatar attack. Despite of the withdrawal from Moldavia, border defence system was still functional and Commonwealth managed fairly quickly to elect new king.On 10 and 11 November 1673 Commonwealth’s armies crushed Ottoman forces at the battle of Khotyn. Victory open new theatre of the operations against High Porte: towards river Danube and on the Polish territories lost in 1672 (Podolia with Kamianets-Podilskyi and Right-bank Ukraine). Polish and Lithuanian troops were very weary after the campaign, what’s more death of King Michał Korybut Wiśniowiecki led to interregnum. Polish command decided to set up the system of border defence, to protect country until the election of new monarch, which should later lead to the new offensive. As such cavalry detachments were spread out in Podolia and Moldavia, while corps under command of Mikołaj Hieronim Sieniawski, Crown Standard-bearer was sent to occupy the latter country. Previous research mentioned that this group had between 6000 and 8000 soldiers. Thanks to document from National Library in Warsaw, we can now identify much more detailed organisation of Sieniawski’s force. He had 48 pancerni banners and two light horse banners, in total 5206 horses. Despite capturing Iași, capitol of Moldavia, Sieniawski’s troops were forced on 17 January 1674 to retreat to Poland, under pressure from the fresh Tatar attack. Despite of the withdrawal from Moldavia, border defence system was still functional and Commonwealth managed fairly quickly to elect new king

XXII Balcanicum, Miejsca pamięci i polityka historyczna w Europie Południowo-Wschodniej Poznań, 20-21 X 2023 r.

The XXII Balcanicum conference was held on October 20-21, 2023, organized by the Commission on Balkan Studies, in cooperation with the Faculty of History of the Adam Mickiewicz University. The theme of this year's scientific session was formulated as follows: Memorial places and politics of memory in the South-East Europe. 33 presented papers reflected various aspects of the phenomenon of commemoration of characters, processes, historical events defining real and symbolic spaces in the South-East Europe, in the past and today. The participants presented various approaches on such issueas as the place and role of politics of memory in the functioning of societies, regional and local communities, families and individuals. Moreover, they discussed the use and perception of various instruments of the politics of memory (as for scientific research, institutional aspect, legislation, monumental or toponymic landscape, education, media e.t.c.) and their impact on public discources about the past.W dniach 20-21 października 2023 r. odbyła się konferencja XXII Balcanicum, zorganizowana przez Komisję Bałkanistyki, we współpracy z Wydziałem Historii UAM. Temat tegorocznej sesji naukowej był sformułowany następująco: Miejsca pamięci i polityka historyczna w Europie Południowo-Wschodniej. Celem konferencji była refleksja na temat rozmaitych aspektów upamiętniania postaci, procesów, wydarzeń historycznych w ogólnie rozumianej przestrzeni realnej i symbolicznej Europy Południowo-Wschodniej, w przeszłości oraz obecnie. Anonsując konferencję organizatorzy zachęcali do dyskusji o miejscu i roli polityki pamięci w życiu społeczeństw, wspólnot regionalnych i lokalnych, rodzin oraz jednostek, a także do wymiany poglądów na temat stosowania i odbioru poszczególnych narzędzi polityki historycznej (badania naukowe, prawodawstwo, instytucje wyspecjalizowane, topografia pamięci, edukacja, wychowanie, media itp.)

O cesarzowych Cesarstwa Łacińskiego (1204–1261) (4). Berengaria z Léonu

This article is the fourth part of the series „On the Empresses of the Latin Empire (1204–1261)”. Its aim is to present the biography of Berengaria of León (Berenguela in Castilian), the third wife of John of Briene, mainly on the basis of Castilian and Old French sources. Information about her is laconic and scattered through various sources. Berengaria was the daughter of King Alfonso IV of Leon and his second wife, Berengaria of Castile. Born in 1204, in 1224 she married the former king of Jerusalem, John of Brienne. She became the Latin empress in 1231. She had three sons, her daughter Mary, as the wife of Baldwin II, also became the Latin empress, Little is known about Berengaria's education and her language skills during the stay in Constantinople. She died there in April 1237, but was buried in Compostela. She was not politically active and did not play a significant role in the history of the the Latin Empire.Artykuł stanowi czwartą część cyklu „O cesarzowych Cesarstwa Łacińskiego (1204–1261)”. Jego celem jest przedstawienie postaci Berengarii z Leónu (po kastylijsku Berenguela), trzeciej żony Jana z Briene, przede wszystkim w oparciu o źródła kastylijskie i starofrancuskie. Wiadomości na jej temat są lakoniczne i rozproszone. Berengaria była córką króla Leonu Alfonsa IV i jego drugiej małżonki, Berengarii Kastylijskiej. Urodziła się w 1204 roku, w 1224 roku poślubiła ex-króla Jerozolimy Jana z Brienne. W 1231 roku została cesarzową łacińską. Miała trzech synów, a jej córka Maria, jako żona Baldwina II, także została cesarzową łacińską, Niewiele wiadomo o wykształcenia i umiejętnościach językowych Berengarii podczas jej pobytu w Konstantynopolu. Zmarła tam w kwietniu 1237 roku, ale została pochowana w Composteli. Nie była aktywna politycznie i nie odegrała poważnej roli w historii Cesarstwa Łacińskiego