Search

Copyright of Z Badań nad Książką i Księgozbiorami Historycznymi is the property of University of Warsaw and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Res Historica is the property of Maria Curie-Sklodowska University in Lublin and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The establishment of the Department of the History of Science and Education at the Jagiellonian University in 1956 took 11 years of efforts and attempts by the university authorities and Krakow historians of culture, education and science to develop these directions of research at the oldest Polish research center. The pre-WW2 chair was vacant because Professor Stanisław Kot took the position of the ambassador in Rome and after the communists had gained full power in Poland, he could not return to the country. The chairs of Barycz and Hulewicz began operating in 1946, but in 1947 the communist authorities decided to eliminate them. The implementation of these decisions, however, was not carried out immediately as it was delayed in the case of Barycz's chair until 1949, and in the case of Hulewicz's until 1953. It was not until 1956 that the thaw allowed the authorities of the Jagiellonian University to restore the closed departments as a single one under the name of the Department of the History of Science and Education, consisting of two seminars. The author discusses the organizational structure, composition, research results, and teaching activities of the Department's employees. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Vergentis. Revista de Investigacion de la Catedra Internacional conjunta Inocencio III is the property of Vergentis. Revista de Investigacion de la Catedra Internacional conjunta Inocencio III and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The first part of the paper is to introduce the main motif of Bernardino Ochino's Trajedyja o Mszej (Tragedy on Mass) published in Polish translation in 1560. The work tells the story of a trial of the personified Mass indicted by figures that can be identified with the Reformation and the individuals engaged in it. The Author discusses the structure of this literary dialogue and describes briefly the characters involved in the plot with their polemical background (these include in particular personifications of the Mass, the Lord's Supper, and the Roman Church, as well as figures of the Pope, Satan, Holy Spirit, and a metonymic protagonist named the Lover of God's Glory). The second part presents the context of literary tradition, where Mass was personified for controversial purposes, mainly by authors connected with the Reformation. The motif of a personified Mass was probably introduced in Swiss pamphlets of the 1520s (Krankheit und Testament der Messe by Niklaus Manuel, Querela Missae by Johannes Atrocianus). The concept of accusing Mass of dishonesty and performing her trial was recognised as an innovation of English Protestant writings of the late 1540s (esp. William Punt's and William Turner's dialogues). The aforementioned texts are juxtaposed with Ochino's dialogue to show the probable origins of the concept used in his text, as well as to specify additional motifs combined by him (and consequently the Polish translator). The similarities between Ochino's work and the texts chosen, as well as Ochino's connections with the places of publication of these texts, allow us to see them as part of a small yet consistent subtype of Protestant polemical writings, which Ochino chose to use and modify for controversial purposes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The first scientific treatise on aurora borealis was published by Marcello Squarcialupi, an Italian medical doctor working in the court of the Hungarian Prince of Transylvania. His book, De coelo ardore, described the aurora of 10 September 1580 in great detail, providing exact data from his personal observations on the time, direction, shape, colour, and variability. He invoked a rational explanation, bringing up only natural causes, and confronted these with the ruling Aristotelian view. The original Latin text describing the aurora is provided, with an English translation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In summer 1586 the king Stefan Batory decided to summon the parliament for 2nd February 1587. In the parliamentary legation he scolded the nobles for not taking tax decisions at the previous parliament, but concentrated on foreign policy in reference to the summoned one. He warned of the Tartar, Turkish and Muscovite threats. It was the last, which he considered the gravest and asked the nobles to raise taxes for a war against the tsar. He also asked the dietines to give their representatives (deputies) a free hand in decisions. At the Great Poland dietine in Środa, a limited agreement was granted for a future war against Moscow. The elected deputies were mostly royalists and the king could count on their votes. Nevertheless the dietine in Środa produced a number of additional postulates to be discussed at the convention. These were of lesser importance, but could effectively prevent the house from discussing and passing royal military plans. Thus a question is born, whether the monarch could accumulate enough backing among deputies to pass his ideas at the February meeting. Unfortunately we are not able to answer this question, as the parliament never convened due to monarch's death on 12 December 1586. We have only limited information about nobles' stand from two dietines: from Środa and Liw. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]