Polska Zjednoczona Partia Robotnicza w Katowicach wobec Kościoła katolickiego w latach 1970-1980

Głównym celem niniejszej rozprawy jest ukazanie stosunku PZPR w Katowicach wobec Kościoła katolickiego w latach 1970-1980, a więc w okresie rządów w PRL Edwarda Gierka. Podjęta zostanie próba udzielenia odpowiedzi na pytanie, jak w tym okresie katowickie władze partyjne realizowały tę zmierzającą w ostateczności do likwidacji Kościoła i jego wpływu na społeczeństwo politykę oraz jak chciały usunąć wszystkie poglądy idealistyczne z życia Polaków. Ramy chronologiczne pracy z jednej strony wyznacza rok 1970, a ściślej grudzień 1970 roku, czyli miesiąc przesilenia politycznego oraz zauważalnych wówczas zmian polityki wyznaniowej państwa. Cezurą końcową jest rok 1980 - czas sierpniowego przełomu politycznego w PRL. Obszarem objętym badaniami jest województwo katowickie. Uwaga została skupiona na władzach PZPR w Katowicach, które w latach 1970-1980 odgrywały niezwykle ważną rolę polityczną na arenie ogólnopolskiej. Przyczyn takiej sytuacji było kilka. Po pierwsze, I sekretarzem KW PZPR w Katowicach do grudnia 1970 roku był Edward Gierek, który następnie został I sekretarzem KC PZPR w Warszawie. Po drugie, region śląski był niezwykle ważny dla Polski ze względów gospodarczych. Z tego też względu władzom politycznym zależało na unikaniu niepokojów społecznych. Po trzecie, w województwie katowickim Kościół katolicki miał tradycyjnie silną pozycję wśród miejscowego społeczeństwa. Obserwacja ścierania się interesów władzy partyjno-państwowej i Kościoła katolickiego właśnie na tym obszarze może zatem przynieść sporo interesujących spostrzeżeń. Rozważania prowadzone są na tle szerszych stosunków państwo - Kościół. Relacje te można przedstawić na podstawie elementów składowych, czyli konfliktów na tle budownictwa sakralnego, nauczania religii w szkole, urządzania pielgrzymek, wzajemnych kontaktów pracowników kurii i biskupów z władzami politycznymi. Ważny aspekt stanowi stosunek Kościoła do tak ważnych wydarzeń politycznych, jak sytuacja w grudniu 1970 roku, strajki w roku 1976 i początki opozycji w PRL, po wydarzenia lata 1980 roku. Kolejnym elementem służącym realizacji głównego celu pracy jest przedstawienie zmian we wzajemnych relacjach, kształtowanych pod wpływem zachodzących wydarzeń. Podjęto też próbę wykazania, że sama partia nie była monolitem. Przedstawiane są tu zatem związki osób należących do PZPR z Kościołem katolickim. Oprócz tych stosunków formalnych ukazane są wpływy wyboru Karola Wojtyły na papieża w dniu 16 października 1978 roku oraz zmiany, jakie wywołała ta decyzja w zakresie wzajemnych stosunków państwo - Kościół. Uwagę skoncentrowano na mechanizmach, jakimi posługiwała się partia w stosunkach z Kościołem. Ważnym celem pracy jest także ukazanie działań władz zmierzających do laicyzacji, prób zmiany mentalności oraz przebudowy rzeczywistości społecznej. Przedstawiony został stosunek do tych działań społeczeństwa, ale przede wszystkim działania Kościoła katolickiego zmierzającego do zminimalizowania posunięć laicyzacyjnych. Zasygnalizowano również problem stosunku władz wobec mniejszości niemieckiej, działań ekumenicznych biskupa Herberta Bednorza oraz prób wykorzystywania innych kościołów i związków wyznaniowych przez władze partyjne przeciwko Kościołowi katolickiemu. Szczegółowe naświetlenie tej ostatniej kwestii wymaga dalszych badań. Tematyka pracy obejmuje teren województwa katowickiego w latach 1970- 1980. Uwzględniono reformę administracyjną z roku 1975, która zmieniła kształt tego obszaru. W jej wyniku poza przekształconym województwem katowickim znalazły się tereny nowo powstałych województw: częstochowskiego (w jego skład weszły powiaty byłego województwa katowickiego: miejski Częstochowa, kłobucki, częstochowski, lubliniecki, myszkowski i część zawierciańskiego) oraz bielskiego (w jego skład weszły powiaty byłego województwa katowickiego: miejski Bielsko-Biała, miejski Cieszyn, a także większa część cieszyńskiego i bielskiego). Temat pracy obejmuje okres urzędowania Zdzisława Grudnia jako I sekretarza KW PZPR w Katowicach. W tym czasie funkcję Przewodniczącego Prezydium Wojewódzkiej Rady Narodowej (komunistycznej namiastki regionalnej samorządowości) w Katowicach sprawował, do 1973 roku, Jerzy Ziętek. Dnia 12 grudnia 1973 roku objął stanowisko wojewody śląskiego, które piastował do 10 czerwca 1975 roku. Następnie funkcję tę sprawował, do 14 czerwca 1978 roku, Stanisław Kiermaszek26, po którym objął ją Zdzisław Legomski, odwołany 23 grudnia 1980 roku. Jeśli zaś chodzi o jednostki administracji kościelnej wchodzące w skład województwa katowickiego, to praca dotyczy całej diecezji katowickiej, większej część diecezji częstochowskiej oraz niewielkich fragmentów archidiecezji krakowskiej, diecezji kieleckiej i Administracji Apostolskiej Śląska Opolskiego. Ta ostatnia struktura, po podpisaniu w grudniu 1970 roku polsko-niemieckiego układu o normalizacji wzajemnych stosunków (stwierdzającego, że linia Odry - Nysy Łużyckiej jest zachodnią granicą Polski), decyzją Watykanu z 1972 roku stała się diecezją opolską. Ważne znaczenie dla opracowania niniejszego tematu miała analiza postawy biskupa Herberta Bednorza w diecezji katowickiej. Mniej ważną postacią w polityce PZPR w Katowicach był biskup częstochowski Stefan Bareła. Po wprowadzeniu reformy administracyjnej w 1975 roku, kiedy w ramach województwa katowickiego pozostała niewielka, południowa część diecezji częstochowskiej (dekanaty: będziński, zawierciański, dąbrowski, sosnowiecki), wzajemne kontakty uległy dalszemu ograniczeniu. W pracy badawczej zostały wykorzystane w oparciu o analizę dostępnych źródeł metody: indukcyjna, dedukcyjna oraz porównawcza

Biskup Józef Gawlina jako opiekun Polaków na emigracji

In this monograph the author aims to depict the role of bishop Józef Gawlina as a spiritual leader of Polish emigrants after the Second World War. Bishop Gawlina, who came from the diocese of Katowice, was a pre-war Field Bishop of the Polish Army. He accompanied Polish soldiers outside Poland during the Second World War. After 1945, he remained abroad and when living in Rome he coordinated the life of Polish Catholics, who for different reasons lived outside of their home country. The Pope Pius XII nominated him Protector of Polish Emigrants, a role he served for fifteen years (from 1949 to 1964). Relying on publicly available sources as well as on information which has not yet been widely known, found in Polish and foreign archives, the author explains and specifies the scope of the Church jurisdiction of this hierarch in the consecutive years of his service, and presents his contribution to the pastoral work with emigrants, highlighting that he formed its specific character. Bishop Gawlina’s major achievement was that he developed the structures of pastoral care for Polish emigrants after World War II. Therefore, a big part of the monograph is dedicated to this aspect of his ministry: establishing centres of the Polish Catholic Mission, appointing their rectors and coordinating their work. Setting the time frame presented in the thesis was dictated by the papal decisions and Church decrees, which several times extended and specified the scope of bishop Gawlina’s mission. In this thesis, the author aims to present, as fully as possible, the activity of bishop Gawlina in the field of pastoral care for Poles living abroad. A serious challenge was to document the consecutive stages of the extension of his jurisdiction, which originally covered only Polish soldiers on the territory of Poland and during the peak period it concerned Poles living in many countries on different continents. This was the situation when bishop Gawlina was appointed an ordinary of the Polish Catholics who were leaving Russia. Later, he was appointed an ordinary of Poles in Germany and Austria. The situation changed a bit after 1949, when he became the protector of emigration. For the sake of accuracy, it is worth mentioning that in this capacity he did not have the jurisdiction the ordinaries had. Nevertheless, Gawlina felt his responsibility for the whole clergy and all lay Catholics who maintained their Polish identity while living abroad. He fulfilled these duties with deep commitment until the very last moment of his life. The author refers to bishop Gawlina as “the protector of Poles living abroad”, claiming that it is the most suitable title to describe the mission entrusted to him. The Latin word protector is translated as “a person who shelters, a defender, a carer”. This term was used in the decree assigning responsibility for Polish emigration to Gawlina. The author used analytic-synthetic method in his research. The thesis is divided into five chapters according to the problems. The source documents were found in several archival institutions in Poland and abroad, which were connected with bishop Gawlina’s ministry. Among references, it is especially worth to mention Diaries, which bishop Gawlina wrote during almost the entire time of his ministry. The author found valuable materials in the Archives of the Central Emigration Pastoral Centre in Rome, the Pontifical Institute of Ecclesiastical Studies in Rome, Archives of the Polish Catholic Mission in England and Wales, the Polish Institute and Sikorski Museum in London, Archives of the Archdiocese of Katowice, Archives of the Archdiocese of Warsaw, Archives of the Institute of National Remembrance in Warsaw, and Archives of the Polish Catholic Mission in France. Supplement of the thesis confirms great commitment of bishop Gawlina and it includes tables with the list of visited countries, the list of the Polish Catholic Missions and their rectors, the lists of hierarchs whom bishop Gawlina met during his ministry and the list of his published addresses. The monograph includes also several dozen reference documents from various archives showing the ministry of the bishop of Polish emigrants. The thesis is the first attempt to present comprehensively the role of archbishop Józef Gawlina in organizing the structures of the pastoral care for Poles living abroad and forming the model of pastoral work of the Polish clergy among emigrants after the Second World War

Józef Ignacy Kraszewski and the nineteenth century. Studies

The present book is part of the planned two-volume publication, which is the outcome of the scholarly project commemorating the bicentennial of Józef Ignacy Kraszewski’s birthday. Kraszewski (1812–1887), who wrote two hundred and fortytwo novels and whose collected oeuvre comprises about six hundred volumes, is one of the most prolific writers ever. In Poland he is considered the founder of the modern novel, all possible types of which he practised (the novel of manners, the historical novel, the Künstlerroman etc.). The commemorative international conference „Józef Ignacy Kraszewski (1812–1887): the Writer, the Thinker, the Authority,” 14-16 November 2012, organized by the Research Unit in Interdisciplinary and Comparative Studies „East-West” (later renamed into the Research Unit in Philological Studies „East-West”), took place in three different venues: the Branicki Palace in Białystok (the first day), the National Museum in Warsaw (the second day), and the Kraszewski Museum in Romanów (the third day). The conference sessions were the central event of the Year of J. I. Kraszewski declared by the Polish Parliament in 2012. Among the coorganizers there were: the National Centre of Culture in Warsaw, the Institute of Literary Studies at the Polish Academy of Sciences, the Jan Długosz Academy in Częstochowa, Książnica Podlaska Library in Białystok, and the Adam Mickiewicz Literary Society in Warsaw. The Faculty of Philology at the University of Białystok was the conference main organizer. The conference committee included: Professor Jarosław Ławski (the Research Unit in Philological Studies „East-West”); Professor Agnieszka Czajkowska (the Jan Długosz Academy in Częstochowa); Paweł Kuciński, PhD, (the Stefan Wyszyński University in Warsaw); and Professor Grażyna Borkowska (the Adam Mickiewicz Literary Society in Warsaw). The honorary conference committee was headed by Professor Józef Bachórz (the University of Gdańsk). Among the conference participants there were scholars from Poland, Lithuania, Ukraine, Belarus, Switzerland, Italy, Austria and Bulgaria. About one hundred and ten papers were delivered during three days of the conference – most of them are published in the present volume and the planned one. Volume I brings an outline of the scholarly project, the President of Poland’ letter to the conference participants, and the research papers divided into five thematic sections. Chapter I (The Writer’s Preoccupations with Modernity) shows Kraszewski as a nineteenth-century classic, a national authority in the problems of the nineteenth century, who does his best to locate himself within the constellation of other established writers at the time. The authors of the papers emphasize the rapid development of studies on Kraszewski’s oeuvre at the turn of the twentieth century (J. Bachórz) and his doubtful status in the nineteenth century (B. Mazan, T. Budrewicz). The absence of Kraszewski’s texts on reading lists in Polish schools is remarked and analysed twice (M. Lul, M. Białobrzeska). The remaining articles consider the writer’s attitude to literary tradition (A. Ziołowicz) and to manifestations of modernity (W. Tomasik, M. Litwinowicz-Droździel). Chapter II (East-European Personality) collects ten articles dedicated to Kraszewski’s preoccupation with the nations and cultures of Central and Eastern Europe: Ukraine (R. Radyszewski), Lithuania and Latvia (I. Szulska, T. Budrewicz), Germany (G. Ritz), Kashubian’s culture (D. Kalinowski) and Masurians of East Prussia (Z. Chojnowski). In addition, the authors present various misreadings of Kraszewski’s books in Bulgaria (M. Grigorowa), Kraszewski’s interest in Italian culture (Andrea de Carlo analyses a translation of Dante’s Divine Comedy) and the issues connected with Polish-Ukrainian borderlands in his „folk novels” (A. Woldan). Chapter II (The Borderline between Form and Beauty) focuses on the problems of form, aesthetics and genealogy of Kraszewski’s works. The authors of the papers analyse types of the novels’ titles (M. Skucha), the writer’s interest in diaries (J. Sztachelska), the role of the critic of female literature (M. Berkan-Jabłońska), irony in Kraszewski’s novellas (E. Owczarz), his „epic incipits” (J. Paszek), his epistolography (M. Obrusznik-Partyka), the writer’s attitude to the „nineteenth century” as a descriptive category (J. Lyszczyna) and his poetry that is permeated by the despair over the transience of things (P. Wojciechowski). Chapter IV (A Slavic Kraszewski) reveals a new path in contemporary research into Kraszewski’s oeuvre: his preoccupation with Slavic myths, Slavic symbolism, Slavic past and presence. The authors of this part of the volume discuss Kraszewski’s studies on Slavic cosmological myths (Z. Kaźmierczyk), ancient Slavic beliefs (T. Linkner) and Slavic representations of the past (M. Ruszczyńska), literary transformations of the Ludgard legend (M. Gołuński), intertextuality of the novel Masław (T. Sienkiewicz), the writer’s interest in Belarus (M. Chmialnicki) and his interest in the lives of Ukrainian peasants (M. Bracka). Chapter V (Existence, Custom, Otherness) demonstrates Kraszewski’s interest in modern phenomena, which can be considered in terms of contemporary anthropology (M. Piotrowska) or through the category of ‘otherness’ (W. Szturc, J. Cyganik). The authors analyse alchemic motifs in Kraszewski’s novels (M. Szargot), his representation of women form the times of early Christianity (A. Wietecha), the phenomenon of existential trauma in The Diaries of a Stranger and Kraszewski’s and Wacław Gąsiorowski’s attitudes to nihilism (A. Janiszewski). Volume I of the collected articles shows a change in the perception of Kraszewski at the beginning of the twenty-first century. Kraszewski has been moving from the status of a national writer-authority to the status of an elite writer, frequently analysed by literary critics, sociologists and historians. Kraszewski wrote on the problems of almost every European nation and on small regions such as Silesia, East Prussia and Kashubia. Therefore it is no wonder that he has become an ‘attractive’ object of study for scholars from Eastern Europe, researchers in regionalisms and post-colonial studies. In the past he was considered a writer for ‘common folk’ – these days he is being discovered as an ironist and intellectual who was fully aware of his craftsmanship, and who coped with main issues of the nineteenth-century history and existence (see his emotional entries in the diary Sleepless Nights). Although rarely published, his works are available as audiobooks. Both volumes have been edited by Professor Jarosław Ławski (the Research Unit in Philological Studies „East-West”); Krzysztof Czajkowski, PhD, (the Faculty of Philology and History at the Jan Długosz Academy in Częstochowa); Anna Janicka, PhD, (the Research Unit in Polish Nineteenth-Century Literature at the University of Białystok); and Paweł Kuciński, PhD, (the Stefan Wyszyński University in Warsaw). The publication has been supported by Książnica Podlaska Library headed by Jan Leończuk. The second volume of conference proceedings will be published as Józef Ignacy Kraszewski and Modernity. Studies (Białystok 2014–2015).Książka sfinansowana ze środków Książnicy Podlaskiej im. Ł. Górnickiego oraz Wydziału Filologicznego Uniwersytetu w BiałymstokuKRZYSZTOF CZAJKOWSKI, dr, były konsul RP w Irkucku, pracownik Zakładu Literatury Antycznej i Staropolskiej na Wydziale Filologiczno-Historycznym Akademii im. Jana Długosza w Częstochowie. Stały współpracownik Ministerstwa Kultury i Dziedzictwa Narodowego RP. Zainteresowania badawcze: literatura polska oświecenia i romantyzmu, literatura współczesna i sztuka interpretacji (Zbigniew Herbert, pogranicza polsko-żydowskie w twórczości Aleksandra Wata, Umberto Eco, literatura jako kerygmat). Redaktor książek: (wraz z E. A. Dobryniną) Podróż po Syberii Wschodniej Leopolda Niemirowskiego: rysunki, akwarele, litografie (Irkuck 2010) oraz Rysunki. Józef Ignacy Kraszewski (Warszawa 2012). Przygotowuje książkę na temat tradycji sentymentalizmu w literaturze romantycznej.ANNA JANICKA, dr, adiunkt w Zakładzie Literatury Pozytywizmu i Młodej Polski w Instytucie Filologii Polskiej Uniwersytetu w Białymstoku. Zainteresowania badawcze: literatura polska II połowy XIX wieku, twórczość Gabrieli Zapolskiej. Autorka m. in. studiów: Figury tożsamości. O języku bohaterek w prozie Gabrieli Zapolskiej (1998); „... Z punktu widzenia Małgosi”. Faust i kobiety (2001), a także Krasiński postyczniowy. Przypadek młodych pozytywistów (2011). Współredaktorka tomu: Pogranicza, cezury, zmierzchy Czesława Miłosza (Białystok 2012). Ostatnio zredagowała i opracowała również książkę Marka Szladowskiego zatytułowaną (Bez)senna egzystencja. Starość Józefa Ignacego Kraszewskiego (Białystok 2012). Przygotowała książkę o twórczości autorki Żabusi: Sprawa Zapolskiej. Skandale i polemiki (Białystok 2013). Odznaczona medalem Komisji Edukacji Narodowej.PAWEŁ KUCIŃSKI, dr, adiunkt w Katedrze Kultury XX wieku Wydziału Nauk Humanistycznych UKSW w Warszawie. Bada zagadnienia komunikacji w przestrzeni publicznej, zagadnienia obcości/inności/płynności jako „modele współczesnej kultury”. Współorganizator Międzynarodowej Konferencji Jubileuszowej „Józef Ignacy Kraszewski 1812–2012. Pisarz – Myśliciel– Autorytet” (Warszawa – Białystok – Romanów 2012).JAROSŁAW ŁAWSKI, prof. zw. dr hab., kierownik Katedry Badań Filologicznych „Wschód – Zachód” na Wydziale Filologicznym Uniwersytetu w Białymstoku. Zainteresowania badawcze: faustyzm i bizantynizm w literaturze Romantyzmu, Młoda Polska oraz Czesław Miłosz. Redaktor naczelny Naukowych Serii Wydawniczych „Czarny Romantyzm”, „Przełomy/Pogranicza” oraz „Colloquia Orientalia Bialostocensia”. Autor wielu książek, w tym: Wyobraźnia lucyferyczna. Szkice o poemacie Tadeusza Micińskiego „Niedokonany. Kuszenie Chrystusa Pana na pustyni” (Białystok 1995) oraz Mickiewicz – Mit – Historia. Studia (Białystok 2010). Ostatnio wydał: Miłosz: „Kroniki” istnienia. Sylwy interpretacyjne (Białystok 2014).KRZYSZTOF CZAJKOWSKI - Akademia im. Jana Długosza w CzęstochowieANNA JANICKA - Uniwersytet w BiałymstokuPAWEŁ KUCIŃSKI - Uniwersytet Kardynała Stefana Wyszyńskiego w WarszawieJAROSŁAW ŁAWSKI - Uniwersytet w Białymstok

Rosja w polityce zagranicznej Polski w latach 1992-2015

Poland towards Russia between 1992 and 2015 and outline their specifics. The author attempted at a synthesis of major manifestations of Polish-Russian cooperation and most sticking points in the intergovernmental (international) relations during that period. An important objective was to show the sources and examples of a divergence of interests, and point to the goals, which were based on these premises, established by the foreign policy-makers in Poland and Russia and pursued in mutual relations and international affairs. Between 1992 and 2015, in Poland’s foreign policy towards the East and national security policy, the relations with Russia and the Ukraine were of utmost importance. On the economic level, considering the volume of mutual trade turnover, Poland’s main partner in the East was the Russian Federation, whereas on the political level, the Ukraine was seen as a strategic partner. Along with the Ukraine, Russia played a key role in Poland’s security policy in the discussed period. It should be emphasized that Polish-Russian and Polish-Ukrainian relations were very closely linked, and so was Poland’s policy towards Russia and the Ukraine. In Poland’s foreign policy towards Russia, or in broader terms, in Polish-Russian relations between 1992 and 2015, seven stages can be distinguished; each having their own characteristic. Despite some new specifics in each particular stage, they all shared an element of continuity. The constant theme was a great divergence of interests between Poland and Russia, particularly with regard to the European security system, and the role of NATO in shaping this security, as well as further stages of the alliance’s enlargement, especially by countries of the post-Soviet area; energy security and Poland’s strive for diversification of fuels supplies faced with Russia’s actions aimed at the diversification of routes of sending its gas and crude oil to Western Europe bypassing the Ukraine and Poland; a historic dispute, in which a thorough, satisfying for the Poles, explanation of the Katyn Forest massacre was particularly high on the agenda among other issues; opposing visions of building an order in Eastern Europe, and first and foremost, in the Ukraine. With the passing of time, especially after Poland’s NATO and the EU accession, the future of Eastern European countries, particularly the Ukraine and Belarus, has become a fundamental issue in Polish-Russian relations. Both Russia and Poland treated Eastern European countries as a sort of a safety buffer. However, the two countries had entirely different visions of how this buffer ought to be shaped. The political leadership in Poland saw the strenghtening of national security in the strenghtening of the Ukrainian buffer through the Ukraine’s membership in NATO and the EU, whereas for the political leadership in Russia, the strenghtening of national security through Ukrainian buffer meant preserving its outside NATO status, or incorporating it in the the security system built under the aegis of Russia on the area of CIS. A characteristic of the Polish-Russian relations in that period was a great imbalance to Poland’s disadvantage, resulting from the differences in broadly understood physical potential of the two countries and, consequently, their international roles (Poland being a medium-size country situated in Central Europe and Russia being a superpower in Central Eurasia). The capacities of Poland to shape the situation in Eastern Europe on its own were incomparably lower than Russia’s. Therefore, Poland was trying to make use of European and Euro-Atlantic multirateral structures, mainly through the Eastern Dimension realized by the EU and NATO, to have as much influence as possible, on the desired developments in Eastern Europe. The eastern policy under successive RP governments was characterized by their overrating, frequently, of their own capacities, lack of objectivity in assessment of the situation across our eastern border, and application of double standards, particularly in the policy towards Russia. Polish-Russian political relations throughout the post-Cold War period were critical, and improvements were relatively short-lasting. Not only Russia, but also Poland is to blame for such a state of events. The Polish side, due to historical reasons and imbalance of potential, expected Russia to take more initiative in coming to an agreement with Poland. However, it has to be admitted that in many activities undertaken by Poland with regard to European security, in particular Eastern European subregion, the interests of Russia were completly disregarded, although they did not have to be accepted fully. An example of this was Polish diplomacy in the second half of 2013 intended not to allow Russia to be included in the negotiations on the EU association agreement with the Ukraine about issues that had economic implications for Russia’s interests. In their policy towards Russia, foreign policy-makers in Poland, forgot, all too often, or, were unwilling to remember, about the principle that in order to meet the security needs of one’s own country, one should also consider the security needs of other countries, the neighbouring ones in the first place. Analyzing the policies under succesive III RP governments on European security and relations with the post-Soviet countries, it is hard to share the view prevailing in our country that Poland did its best to develop partnership and good neighbourly relations with Russia. Among politicians, publicists and the Polish society, there was a large group of people who took a stance, though it was not always formally articulated, that Poland has a right, or even a duty to remain hostile towards Russia. On the other hand, Russia should not act unfavourably towards Poland, regardless of Poland’s anti-Russian policy, although, obviously, it was declared otherwise. One of the few stages showing a distinct improvement in Poland’s policy towards Russia and a mutual willingness to normalize our political relations, was the one between 2008 and 2010, when an unsuccesful attempt was made at pragmatizing foreign policy towards Russia. Since the end of 2007, this new foreign policy, gradually encompassing other areas, led to a greater or lesser modification of the policy to date towards Russia, the Ukraine, Belarus and Georgia by basing it on the so-called positive realism. These new trends increased cooperation between Poland and Russia and, eventually, a considerable progress was achieved in normalizing our relations. Between 2008 and 2010, Polish policy towards the East not only changed in practice, it was also a conceptual change. The crash of the presidential plane at Smoleńsk (April 10th, 2010), in which 96 peple were killed, including President of RP Lech Kaczyński and His Spouse, was a major, if not primary reason why the normalization process (2008–2010) was seriously hampered to the point of a standstill between 2011 and 2013. The Smoleńsk air disaster, and conflicting stands over its causes in particular, exacerbated divisions in the Polish society and strenghtened reluctance, if not hostility, towards Russia. A large part of the Polish political class and society did not accept a version of an inadvertent air disaster (plane crash), whose causes, like not following correct procedures, lay on both Poles and Russians. The surveys conducted during the years following the Smoleńsk air disaster showed that over 30% of the Polish society were convinced that it had been an attempt on the life of the Polish delegation en route to a commemoration of the 70th anniversary of the Katyn Forrest massacre, and that the Russian government and secret services had been involved. After the Smoleńsk air disaster, foreign policy towards Russia and Polish-Russian relations became a ground for political struggle in our country. For many politicians and conservatist right-wing journalists, a demonstrated degree of anti-Russian sentiment became the main criterion of patriotism. In a large part of the Polish society, a belief was strenghtened that actions should be taken to weaken and isolate Russia, and to minimize, rather than increase cooperation between the two countries. This meant that internal conditions within our country, which could possibly motivate the foreign policy-makers to stop viewing Russia as the main threat and encourage a breakthrough in thinking about that issue, deteriorated markedly. Consequently, Polish-Russian relations between 2011 and 2013 remained in a state of deadlock. In the foreign policy of Poland between 1992 and 2015, Russia played the leading role. This, however, stemmed from Russia being perceived by the policy-makers as the main threat to our national security, not a recognized partner in pursuing this security. Throughout that period, in all successive stages of Polish security policy, Russia was regarded as the main threat. Each political leadership in Poland, especially since the mid 1990s, treated Russia in this way, and these were not merely anti-Russian declarations, but a guiding principle of the foreign policy. Behind it, was a conviction that Russian imperialism was timeless and Russia would never accept the sovereignty of Poland. It was an obvious reference to the classical Polish geopolitical thought about Russia posing main threats to our national security. During the crisis and conflict in eastern Ukraine, between 2014 and 2015, the foreign policymakers in Poland revived the stance of a military threat on the part of Russia. For the first time since the end of the Cold War, such loud voices were heard about a possible military attack on Poland. Unlike the earlier periods, when there was an informal presumption that Russia was a threat to the security of Poland, in 2014, for the first time, in III RP’s security policy, Russia was formally pointed to as a direct military threat. It was articulated in official state documents, including Strategia Bezpieczeństwa Narodowego Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej from November, 2014, and in addresses delivered by the Polish government officials (for instance in exposé of Foreign Minister R. Sikorski and his follower G. Schetyna). The crisis and conflict in south-eastern Ukraine did not substantially change Poland’s policy towards Russia. What did change between 2014 and 2015, however, was that much more emphasis than ever was placed on Russia being a threat to our national security, and there being a serious risk of a Russian direct invasion of Poland. During 2014 and 2015, the process of politicizing fear (policy of fear) of Russia was at its height. For Poland, a major outcome of the Ukrainian conflict and crisis was decreased national security and growing fears, among them the fear of Russian invasion, which does not mean that such a threat was real. During the years 2014 and 2015, Polish-Russian political relations at the highest level came almost to the point of being frozen. Important direct implications of the Ukrainian conflict for Poland’s security were, apart from a growing fear of Russia, increased desires towards strenghtening its own defense capability, strenghtening NATO cohesion, increased involvement of NATO in our sub-region’s security and closer bilateral Polish-American cooperation regarding military security. Resolving the conflict in eastern Ukraine as quickly as possible was in the interests of Poland. However, Polish diplomacy did not engage much in the conflict deescalation. They were very sceptical about the successive agreements aimed at ending the military operations negotiated within the frames of the so-called Normandy format (Mińsk I and Mińsk II). It seems that, considering the geopolitical situation in the Ukraine and divisions of the Ukrainian society, this country should remain a buffer state. Alternatively, coming out of this role should occur gradually, through a simultaneous Europeization of the Ukraine and Russia. Poland should not be interested in the „revolutionary” speeding up of the processes occuring in the Ukrainian society. Responsible politicians willing to serve the best interests of their nation should be aware of the limitations in pursuing even the most support worthy goals. The policy of every country, the foreign policy of Poland and the Ukraine included, should be founded on a realistic assessment of one’s own capabilities so that aspirations would not outgrow the real possibilities of their attainment. Poland, aspiring to the role of the EU main expert in Russian and the post-Soviet area affairs, through insisting in the EU on the earliest possible Ukraine association with the EU, contributed in a way to the situation when the Ukraine had to choose between the EU and Russia. Polish politicians did not anticpate the negative outcomes of such acceleration for the Ukraine itself (including the loss of Crimea and strong separatist tendencies in the East of the Ukraine), as well as for Russian- Ukrainian relations and the security of Poland. Therefore, the firm support and involvement of the Polish political class in the so-called democratic revolution in the Ukraine during 2013 and 2014, can hardly be regarded as a succcess. Polish policy towards the East ended in yet another failure, which was shown as confirmation when Poland was not included in the talks aimed at resolving the Ukrainian crisis, which were held by officials from the Ukraine, Russia, Germany and France since the middle of 2014. The Ukrainian crisis and conflict was a turning point in Polish security policy and Polish-Russian relations. The Polish government officially began to treat Russia as the largest threat to the national and international security. A considerable part of the political elites in Poland did not see the threat in excessive dependence of Polish economy on Russian energy resources or other economic threats, but in a direct military attack. Generally speaking, it is unknown to what extent the Ukrainian crisis and conflict will, in the long run, have an impact on changes in Polish policy towards the East, particularly towards Russia and the Ukraine. It exposed the ineffectiveness of our foreign policy to date towards the East. In this context, a question arises: What will be mid- and long-term implications of the Ukrainian conflict for the modification or a radical alteration to Polish foreign policy towards the East? Another fundamental question pertains to Polish-Russian relations: What policy should Poland pursue towards Russia now and in the future? Will the foreign policy and security policy be directed, like in 2014 and 2015, at instransigence and confrontation, or will the normalization tendency prevail as regards Russia, and will the relations with the Ukraine be redefined? However, at the end of 2015, nothing implied that the foreign and security policy-makers intended to transform in any way the policy towards Russia and the Ukraine to date. It does not mean that changes will not be implemented in the years to come. It will be closely connected with the impact of the Ukrainian conflict on the modification of the policy of Germany and the entire European Union as well as the policy of the United States on the post-Soviet area. The crisis and conflict in eastern Ukraine strenghtened the legitimacy of argumentation that the main player in the post-Soviet area is Russia. None of the serious problems in this area can be resolved without the participation of Russia, and all the more, against Russia, which obviously, does not mean that the proponents of this stance overrate the capabilities of Russia in terms of shaping the closer and farther international environment. On this account, Polish policy will be hardly effective if at least some of Russia’s interests in the post-Soviet area, especially in Eastern Europe, are taken into consideration, as was proven to date. Bearing in mind long-term consquences, the strategic conceptions of the Polish policy towards the East, should opt for the closest possible ties of Russia with political and economic structures of the EU and Euro-Atlantic structures (Europeization of Russia). This, in turn, should result in the evolution of the economic-political system of Russia into liberal democracy. The Ukrainian crisis and conflict classified the effectiveness of the Polish conception aimed at occidentalizing the Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova without simultaneously occidentalizing Russia. As was indicated by the proponents of this conception, its implementation assumed an inevitable cost such as a political conflict with Russia. The crisis and conflict in the Ukraine between 2014 and 2015 should be a good reason to change this stance. The biggest price for its implementation was paid by the Ukraininas themselves. Therefore, in the context of these experiences, Poland should suport not in opposition to Russia, but together with Russia, which does not imply that this process has to be fully synchronized. The direction of actions in this matter is of key importance. Despite the many contentious issues in Polish-Russian relations and different historical memory of Poles and Russians, in the long-term interests of Poland’s security, lies implementing a cooperative and integrating, not a confrontational conception. For the normalization of Polish-Russian relations, it is essential that the successive governemnets of Poland and Russia should have a political will to a less confrontational approach towards disputable issues and resolve emerging problems in a compromising way, which is one of the „scarcest commodities” in the Polish-Russian relations. A compromise should not be treated as a failure, as is often believed, also by the Poles. It also requires changes in mutual perception. A true normalization of mutual relations between Poland and Russia will not be possible if the majority of political elites, media and society in both countries will see the other not even as a difficult partner of rival, but an enemy. The divergence of interests does not have to lead to hostility. The governing groups in Poland and Russia face a challenge in improving Polish-Russian relations. They can either attempt to broaden the area of common interests or to highlight the discrepancies and divergence of interests, and thus strenghten social attitudes prone to either cooperation or confrontation

W zderzeniu z naturą - świętość Brata Alberta : naturalne uwarunkowania życia duchowego świętego Alberta Chmielowskiego

The work is a study of the role of natural factors (psychophysical and socio-cultural) that influenced the shape of the spiritual life of Saint. Albert Chmielowski (1845–1916). Although the first cause of his spiritual life was supernatural grace, natural factors also influenced to some extent the way it was manifested. In the analysis of psychophysical factors affecting the spiritual life of Brother Albert, in which psychological theoretical models have been used (RB Cattell’s sixteen-factor model, P. Costa and R. McCrae’s five-factor model, GW Allport’s criteria of personality maturity and the K. Dąbrowski’s theory of positive disintegration), showed their influence on some areas of Saint. Albert’s spiritual life. Similarly, socio-cultural factors (including the role of the family environment, participation in the armed struggle, artistic activity, and the impact of culture and society at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries in Poland and in the world) influenced in a bottom-up manner on creating Chmielowski’s spiritual profile. The richness of his nature (artistic talents, various experiences, and especially experienced suffering) bore fruit thanks to the cooperation with grace, deep spiritual life, which was a synthesis of active service with a contemplative life, the centre of which was Humble Christ (Ecce Homo). The thesis, referring to the theological axiom: “grace builds on nature and improves it”, shows the complex and broad influence of various natural dynamisms which God uses to develop human’s talents, bringing him to holiness. For the people interested in Saint Albert’s spirituality and Polish spirituality in the late 19th and early 20th centuries the publication can help to understand the process of developing the spiritual life against the background of an epoch. The study can also serve the congregations founded by Saint Albert for which a deepened study of their founder’s spiritual personality and its psychophysical and environmental conditions is always valid. The research on the determinants of the spiritual life can also be useful for monastic, seminary teachers or the leaders of religious groups showing that for spiritual formation it is crucial to take the human development into account (e.g. the knowledge of personality features and alumni’s typical conditions). The work can also be used by psychologists, psychotherapists and teachers that take into consideration the spirituality in developing some attitudes and working on the integral development of others. Both the historians and art historians making a research into Adam Chmielowski’s artistic biography can find some hints referring to the connections between the culture, art and the spiritual life

Polska prowincja paulinów od XVII wieku do 1864 roku : dzieje gospodarcze: klasztor na Jasnej Górze w Częstochowie

The Pauline Monastery in Jasna Góra was founded by Prince Władysław Opolczyk in 1382. Within a short time, Jasna Góra became a popular place of pilgrimage for the faithful who came to worship the Blessed Mother depicted in the painting in the monastery chapel. Because of the development of the pilgrimage phenomenon, the sanctuary and the monastery quickly rose to fame, which brought about numerous religious and economic privileges. In order to undertake economic activity, the monastery and sanctuary had to have economic foundations. The most significant role in maintaining the institution was performed by the agricultural estates received by the Paulines from the founders and donors. However, the monks themselves also bought land estates or were involved in settlement activities. The agricultural estates owned by the Jasna Góra monastery were divided into formations called klucz. The Paulines of Jasna Góra were also engaged in farming activities in the estates that were in their possession temporarily — given to them as a pledge, i.e. guarantee of financial loans. The Paulines of Jasna Góra also received two items of klucz formations from the endowment by the Sejm of the Republic of Poland. These were the Kłobuck and Brzeźnica starostship (district of starostwo), which constituted the financial base for the maintaining of the Jasna Góra fortress. In total, the monks were in possession of 4 cities and 83 villages and other settlement units. It must be remembered, however, that not all the properties were owned by the Pauline monks at the same time. The largest amount of properties was under the ownership of the Paulines in the 18th century. As a result of the Second Partition of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the areas comprising the properties of the monastery became in the possession of Prussia. In 1796—1798, the Prussian administration took over all of the monastic properties. However, owing to the great importance of the sanctuary to the society, the Prussian king Frederick William III allowed the Paulines to hold some of the existing properties on a long-term lease. The confiscation carried out by the Prussians brought on a huge loss to the Jasna Góra monastery. The number of villages fell from 92 in 1796 to 7 after the confiscation. The monastery farming was held in a manor, that is, a farm maintained by the administration, serfs and wage hired workers. The monastery was run by the prior, who was in charge of dealing with any issues related to the economic activity of the monastery. However, the prior’s decisions were controlled by the provincial and religious authorities through systematic visits and reports during the electoral chapter. In economic matters, the prior was supported by the sub-prior and the sacristan. Due to the fact that the Jasna Góra monastery had numerous estates, many of them located far away from the monastery, after the year of 1643, the prior was also supported by the collaborators, such as a provisor, dispensator (prosecutor) and depositary. However, from 1683, all of the land estates were run by the general administrator of the properties, who was subject to the prior. This position was abolished quite quickly, however the position of general administrator of the Jasna Góra estates was reappointed again by the decision of the monastic chapter of 1719. The individual items of klucz formations were managed by officials usually appointed from among the monks, and only on two occasions they were run by lay persons. Such an organisation of the economic management of the monastery lasted until 1795. However, after the confiscation carried out by the Prussian authorities in the 1890s, the monastery properties remained under the direct administration of the prior, supported by the sub-prior, sacristan, prosecutor and depositary. Among the most outstanding priors in the 17th and 18th centuries were Tobiasz Czechowicz, Eusebius Najman, Konstanty Moszyński, Augustyn Kordecki, Aleksy Obrycki, Patrycjusz Mniński, Mateusz Łękawski, and in the 19th century — Aleksy Zięba and Mateusz Knefliński. In the 17th and 18th centuries, some of the estates of the Jasna Góra monastery were leased to lay people. The lease period ranged from 1 to 3 years. Sometimes the lease contracts with the same persons were renewed several times in a row. As a rule, the lease was hold on single villages or some of the klucz formations. Only on one occasion, in the years 1754—1757, the entire starostship of Brzeźnica was leased to Marianna and Józef Wiener. In the 19th century, the priors leased small allotments, e.g. gardens, to peasants. The organisation of work in the Jasna Góra estates did not diverge from the prevailing rules of the then Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The Paulines employed retainers and wage workers, and their number was depended on the demand for work in a given year. In the monastery’s estates, vicecapitaneuses (podstarościowie), economs, writers, dispensers (szafarze), stewards (włodarze), tallymen (karbowi), husbandmen (gospodarze), housekeepers (gospodynie), servants, cooks and other staff were taken on, while in the monastery and in the church, an organist, conductor and musicians were employed. Additional employees were employed in the printing house and pharmacy. The salary was paid in kind, i.e. corn, beer, booze, clothing, shoes and money. Gradually, in the 18th and 19th centuries, the importance of remuneration in money was increasing, and became dominant in the second half of the 19th century. Nevertheless, the most important role in the Jasna Góra properties was played by the forced labour of serfs, who were peasants living in the individual land estates. The serfdom appeared in the form of a yoke (sprzężaj), i.e. work carried out on foot with a team of oxen or horses, usually with a sickle, scythe or other field tools. The amount of the serf labour was dependent on the size of the allotment of the given peasant, but the peasants who owed the same chunk of area were not always obliged to the same yoke. It depended on the economic conditions in a given year and on the specific economic situation of a given farmer. In addition to the duties of serfdom, the subjects paid levy in poultry and performed various services and labor, among others transport services, szarawarki (12 days of labour concerning maintaining roads and dykes), shearing sheep, threshing grain, scything meadows, cleaning chimneys, feeding cattle and pigs, or keeping guard (watchman). The social structure of the subjects of the monastery was characteristic of the period of feudalism. The villages were inhabited by peasants (kmiecie), sub-peasants (półkmiecie), farmers (zagrodnicy), cottagers (chałupnicy), innkeepers, millers, village craftsmen, recruits (wybrańcy), forest service and ground rent farmers. In the years 1622—1798, the area of farms ranged between 70.66 and 1027.40 morgens (morga / jutrzyna), whereas the average chunk per 1 farm was 78.46 morgens, that is 2.62 chełmiński łan. It appears that the farm grounds belonging to the Jasna Góra monastery were relatively small. However, in the years 1798—1864, the only farm that remained in hand of the Jasna Góra convent comprised 1360.80 morgens, i.e. 5.36 of chełmiński łan, of cultivated area. Up to 1798, the total area of farms comprised about 6000 morgens, i.e. about 200 chełmiński łan. Larger estates belonged to Cistercian monasteries in Henryków, Trzebnica, and Krzeszów in Silesia. At the time when the Prussian state annexed the monastery property in 1798, the Paulines of Jasna Góra were in the possession of merely 1360.80 morgens, i.e. 5.36 of chełmiński łan. The numbers illustrate enormous material losses, which amounted to 3866.30 morgens. The crops grown in the Jasna Góra farms were rye, oats, buckwheat, barley, millet, potatoes, peas, flax, rape, hemp, clover, vetch and potatoes, whereas in the gardens they grow carrots, beetroots and other plants. The most of the produced yield was used for growing, consumption, ordynaria (renumeration for workers paid in kind), for alcohol production and fodder for farm animals. The economy of the Jasna Góra monastery was greatly influenced by political events, military activities and natural conditions. It went through periods of crisis in the years of 1655, 1659—1664, 1706, 1754, 1760, 1783, 1793, 1817, 1830—1831, 1848—1851, 1854—1856 and 1863—1864. They resulted from military actions taking place in the region, from the general crisis in European agriculture, repression by the annexationist governments, and the crop failure. However, the biggest crisis in the amount of produced yield can be observed in the years . The yield was very poor during the analysed period (17th century—1864). The agriculture economy in the Jasna Gora estates was conducted in accordance with the current customs and level of knowledge. At the same time, it should be emphasised that the economy was rather extensive, especially in the 18th century. It was not until the mid-19th century that the harbingers of modernity (melioration, modern agricultural machinery) appeared. Until 1798, animal husbandry was carried out in the same way as in other estates, i.e. in the period from spring to late autumn animals were driven to pastures, whereas in the winter period, the animals were fed with grain of inferior quality. Supplementally feeding with provender was intensified in the 19th century, but it was only in the years 1855—1864 that the way of farming was changed, when apart from feeding animals with hay and grazing on pastures, feeding them with grain was increasing in importance. In the Jasna Góra estates, horses, oxen, dairy cattle, sheep, goats, pigs and poultry were kept. The most important role on the farm was played by oxen, which served as tractive force, dairy cattle and sheep. In the 17th and the first half of the 18th century, livestock farming was carried out primarily to meet the own needs of the monastery. It was not until the second half of the 18th century that some number of the animals were sold on the market. The needs of the estates were fulfilled by the so-called manorial industry, i.e.: breweries, distilleries, malthouses, mills, brickyards and lime kiln works. In the period up to 1798, the largest number of these works operated in the starostships of the towns of Kołobuck (45) and Brzeźnica (41). In the years 1798—1864 the number of works decreased significantly, from 113 in 1796 to 6.5 in the following period. The Jasna Góra monastery earned income from many sources. These were: economic activity in land estates, financial bequests and donations, repayment of loans and bank interest, from the activity of the printing house and pharmacy, from the sale of devotional items and candles, from the believers’ offerings handed over to the sacristy, from the offerings put to the church offering- boxes, from the offerings from the vicars who wanted to express their gratitude towards the Pauline Fathers for their pastoral help, form religious brotherhoods, and form competentia for the confiscated land properties. On average, the annual revenues earned by the Jasna Góra monastery amounted to approx. złp (PLN) 172 699.10. However, the actual revenues were diverse. The highest ones were generated by Jasna Góra monastery in the years 1759—1762, i.e. złp 893 103.08, in 1765—1768 — złp 673 652.22, in 1750—1753 — złp 606 612.11, and in 1742—1745 — złp 558 629.22. The largest amounts were spent on the feudal economy (purchase of grain, livestock and agricultural tools). What was a heavy financial burden to the Jasna Góra monastery were taxes and other fees paid to the state. The highest taxes were collected during the Prussian rule in the years 1793—1807 (złp 7682) and during the Duchy of Warsaw (złp 3893.01). The taxes in the time of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (złp 1651) and the Kingdom of Poland (złp 1372) were relatively law. A significant amount of money from the Jasna Góra budget was spent on the maintenance of the fortress’s crew and repairs of the defence infrastructure. Another serious burden upon the monastic bank was the expenditure for the needs of the Polish army. A large part of the monastic budget was used for artistic, renovation and construction works in the Chapel of the Blessed Mother, the church, the monastery and in individual klucz formations. A considerable amount was also allocated for the purchase of the rights to estates, and for the purchase of land. Large sums were spent on the maintenance of the temple and monastery, that is, on the mass scholarships, the purchase of the mass wine, flour for communion wafers, candles to lamps, vestments, albs, belts to albs, etc. The largest amounts were spent in the years 1759—1762, i.e. złp 899 681, 1765—1768: złp 674 595.12, 1750—1753: złp 550 065.29, 1742—1745: złp 512 622.23, 1702—1705: złp 451 270.71. The Jasna Góra monastery was in a much better financial condition than the other monasteries of the Polish province of the Paulines and other religious congregations. The monastery obtained considerable financial resources that may be compared with the funds obtained by great magnate families. However, it should be remembered that the expenditures were also high. It was necessary to provide for the monks, staff and guests. In addition, it was necessary to take care of the monastery and church buildings as well as the defensive infrastructure, and provide for the crew of the fortress. The Jasna Góra Paulines maintained commercial contacts with other regions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and with Silesia. The transactions were conducted by buyers in such centres as: Wrocław, Racibórz, Opawa, Gliwice, Kraków, Janów, Żarki-Miasto or Pilica. Until 1655, i.e. the Deluge (Swedish invasion and occupation), in the Jasna Góra estates economic progress was observed, however the war damage brought on a subsequent period of regress. The following years (1661—1700) were a stage of economic development, which was hindered by another war, i.e. the Great Northern War. The following several decades in the economic history of the Jasna Góra monastery were a period of gradual restoration, which reached its peak of development in the years 1742—1768. The last years of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (1768—1795) were the period of growing economic problems of the monastery. They resulted partly from the unfavourable policy of the king towards the order, but first of all from the aftermath of the military operations during the Bar Confederation and the Partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The occupation of the areas where the monastery was located and of its estates resulted in a deep economic crisis that lasted until 1831. The situation improved only in the mid- 19th century, when modern methods in agricultural and livestock production were employed. The period of moderate economic progress lasted until 1864, when the Tsarist authorities introduced the so-called religious reform and confiscated all monastic properties in the Kingdom of Poland. The fate of the Jasna Góra monastery was inseparable from the history of the state and the Polish nation. What the religious order most suffered form were the Partitions and the policies of the Prussian and Russian states, whose attitude towards the Catholic Church were not positive. Both Prussian and Russian officials treated the religious communities as enemies and the refugium of Polishness, which was to be destroyed. This would have made it possible to terminate the historic Polish nation. Nevertheless, all these attempts did not succeed, because the Paulines of Jasna Góra made an effort to combine evangelical teaching with patriotic attitude. However, in order to conduct this activities, it was necessary to create and maintain the economic bases for them. And despite many problems and obstacles, the Paulines of Jasna Góra managed to continue doing so until 1864

Heliodor Święcicki (1854–1923)

Książka poświęcona życiu i działalności Heliodora Święcickiego (1854–1923) inauguruje serię biografii rektorów Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu. Publikacja oparta na szerokiej bazie archiwalnej oraz prasowej ukazuje z jednej strony dokonania naukowe i organizacyjne tego wybitnego Wielkopolanina, z drugiej – motywy działalności pierwszego Rektora Uniwersytetu Poznańskiego. Przedstawia też system wartości Święcickiego, który tak w życiu prywatnym, jak i publicznym pozostał wierny ukształtowanym w wieku młodzieńczym ideałom: pracy na rzecz ojczyzny, wierności Bogu, wspieraniu ludzi biednych i pokrzywdzonych, pogłębianiu profesji medycznej oraz rozwijaniu nauki polskiej. Autor próbuje odpowiedzieć na kilka kluczowych pytań związanych z powstaniem Uniwersytetu Poznańskiego: jaką wizję uczelni miał Święcicki i w jaki sposób wcielał ją w życie, jak zdołał skupić wokół siebie nie tylko grono entuzjastycznie nastawionych do tej koncepcji uczonych, ale także przekonał do tego projektu środowisko wielkopolskich polityków, którzy mimo trwających walk powstańczych gremialnie poparli powołanie do życia uczelni w Poznaniu, jak wreszcie – wbrew gigantycznym przeszkodom organizacyjnym i materialnym – zdołał Święcicki zbudować w latach 1918–1923 nowoczesny, wielowydziałowy Uniwersytet

National Armed Forces in fight for establishing National Polish State

Wydział HistorycznyPrzedstawiona praca doktorska jest próbą syntetycznego zestawienia walki Narodowych Sił Zbrojnych z planami i koncepcjami polityczno-wojskowymi ich kierownictwa politycznego. Zawiera opis dziejów obozu narodowego od jego powstania aż do jego dezintegracji i umocnienia się władzy ludowej w powojennej Polsce.Presented doctoral work is a trial of a synthetic description of fight of National Armed Forces in comparison with its political management. It consist of description of history of political group since its establishment until its disintegration during strengthening of communism in postwar Poland