Zapraszamy do zapoznania się ze spisem treści i abstraktami artykułów z zeszytu 3 z 2017 roku



JAKUB ROGULSKI – Nowożytny ród szlachecki jako „wspólnota pamięci”. Przypadek książąt Sanguszków (XV–XVIII w.)

PIOTR KULIGOWSKI – Polityczny wymiar koncepcji wojny ludowej Henryka Kamieńskiego w kontekście debat połowy lat czterdziestych XIX w.

JOACHIM VON PUTTKAMER – Zawiedzione nadzieje. Prawnokarny rozrachunek z dyktaturą komunistyczną w Polsce (do 2016 r.)


MAGDALENA LUTO, SZYMON TITKOW – Ślub Ferdynanda II Habsburga i Marii Anny Wittelsbach w świetle relacji Jana Firleja z 1600 r.

PIOTR J. WRÓBEL – Rozwiązanie KPP oczyma Stanisława Radkiewicza


JERZY KOCHANOWSKI – Niedopracowany rynek pracy. Kilka spostrzeżeń po lekturze książki Elżbiety Słabińskiej, Rynek pracy w latach 1918–1939 na przykładzie województwa kieleckiego

PIOTR HUMMEL – Jak wydawać historyczne plany?  Refleksje na marginesie książki Ryszarda Żelichowskiego i Pawła E. Weszpińskiego, Plan niwelacyjny miasta Warszawy. Zdjęcie pod kierunkiem Głównego Inżyniera W.H. Lindleya


Ancient Sex. New Essays, Ruby Blondell, Kirk Ormand (Rafał Matuszewski)

Amanda B. Moniz, From Empire to Humanity: American Revolution and the Origins of Humanitarianism (Adrian Wesołowski)

Vytautas Volungevičius, Pilies šešėlyje. Teritorija, visuomenė ir valdžia Lietuvos Didžiojoje Kunigaikštystėje (Kamil Frejlich)

William B. McAllister, Joshua Botts, Peter Cozzens, Aaron W. Marrs, Toward “Thorough, Accurate, and Reliable”: A History of the Foreign Relations of the United States Series (Piotr Długołęcki)

Wiktor Marzec, Rebelia i reakcja. Rewolucja 1905 roku i plebejskie doświadczenie polityczne, Kraków–Łódź 2016 (Marcin Jarząbek)



The modern noble family as a “community of memory”. The case of the princely House of Sanguszko (15th–18th centuries)

The article is an analysis of the collective memory of the princely House of Sanguszko between the 15th and 18th centuries. Its aim is to establish the memories shaping this community and bringing it together. The sources on which the article is based comprise mementos of the family’s material and spiritual culture (documents, coats of arms, seals, titles, residences, necropolises, portraits, sermons, chronicles etc.) treated as permanently objectivised carries of family memory (cultural memory). The analysis demonstrates that the House of Sanguszko emerged at the turn of the 16th century and its self-identification was based on an awareness of shared descent from Prince Sanguszko. In the 16th century the House of Sanguszko, divided into three branches (separate families), became integrated around three obligatory memories (figures of memory). First – of Prince Sanguszko, who as the basic element binding the community was commemorated primarily through the patronymic “Sanguszkowicz”. Second – of the lineage encompassing “Dukes of Lithuania”, that is Grand Dukes Algirdas and Gediminas, who as the basic source of prestige and authority (relatives of the Jagiellonians) were recalled primarily through the use of the Pogoń coat of arms. Third – of eminent representatives of the family (especially Hetman Roman Sanguszko) the memory of whom as role models was cultivated in family necropolises. Although the House of Sanguszko was a well-consolidated community, the turn of the 17th century was marked by a crisis of identity caused by Prince Sanguszko sinking into oblivion and the need to emphasise the stature of the family vis-à-vis the social and political transformations following the Union of Lublin. In order to reintegrate the House of Sanguszko, its members introduced the surname “Sanguszko” and carried out a reconstruction of their foundation memory, introducing the figure of a new, worthy progenitor: Algirdas (temporarily) and Liubartas. The memory of descent from the latter was secured by the Sanguszkos on such durable and effective carriers that this vision of the beginnings of the family survived until the 19th century.



The political dimension of Henryk Kamieński’s concept of a people’s war in the context of the debates of the mid-1840s

The aim of the article is to analyse the political dimension of Henryk Kamieński’s concept of a people’s war in the context of the debates of the mid-1840s. The crux of the debates lay in reflections on creating a mass insurgent army. The very concept of a mass army emerged already in the 18th century and was subsequently developed during the November Uprising and in discussions among representatives of the Great Emigration. The main uprising theorists in the democratic camp in the 1840s were Karol Stolzman and Ludwik Mierosławski. The former formulated a vision of guerrilla warfare, without, however, embarking on any broader political reflection. Mierosławski, on the other hand, believed that the best solution in Poland would be to have the uprising based on “democratic absolutism”, i.e. dictatorial, one-man power of the most talented strategist. Kamieński brought a number of new arguments to the discussion. He pointed out that in the political sphere the objective of a “people’s war” was primarily to stimulate a real democratisation tendency that was to be manifested in actions of various individuals and groups within local councils or clubs. He also assumed that an insurgent army should be deeply democratised; e.g. according to his idea soldiers were to have the right to elect their commanders. In addition, Kamieński argued that the success of an uprising was determined by its preparatory stage and after its outbreak émigré circles should join the independence movement without any leadership aspirations. The concepts of a “people’s war” provoked an extensive polemic from Mierosławski and in the end were not supported by the Polish Democratic Society. It seems, however, that the political content of a “people’s war”, consisting in a vision of multi-level empowerment of individuals, institutions and social groups, is an important complement of the philosophy of creation formulated by Kamieński.



Expectations and Disappointments: Early Attempts to Bring Communist Crimes to Court in Poland

In the summer of 1989, expectations ran high in Poland that crimes that had been committed or covered up by the communist regime would be investigated and that the perpetrators and their superiors would be put on trial. The democratic opposition addressed the issue in the Sejm immediately following the June 1989 elections – even before the Mazowiecki government was formed. This resulted in the formation of the Rokita commission. However, judicial and procedural complexities thwarted much of the effort, and commitment to the rule of law was strong. Under these conditions, the political right promoted the notion that something was fishy, and Jan Rokita was their first victim. Referring to the image of a “thick line” they blamed prime minister Mazowiecki for the delay. This was a backward projection, and a powerful tool to sharpen the emerging political polarization which haunts Polish politics and society to the present day.