Informacja

Drogi użytkowniku, aplikacja do prawidłowego działania wymaga obsługi JavaScript. Proszę włącz obsługę JavaScript w Twojej przeglądarce.

English (EN)·Polski (PL)·Yкраїнський (UK)
Przejdź do strony domowej biblioteki Centralna Biblioteka Wojskowa Link otwiera się w nowym oknie Logo biblioteki Prolib Integro - strona głównaCentralna Biblioteka Wojskowa

Wyszukujesz frazę "Bralewski, Sławomir." wg kryterium: Autor

  Lista filtrów
Wyrównaj
    Wyświetlanie 1-4 z 4
    Tytuł:
    The Pious Life of Empress Helena, Constantine the Great’s Mother, in the Light of Socrates of Constantinople and Sozomen
    Autorzy:
    Bralewski, Sławomir
    Powiązania:
    https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/682409.pdf
    Data publikacji:
    2017
    Wydawca:
    Uniwersytet Łódzki. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego
    Tematy:
    Helena
    Constantine the Great
    Socrates
    Sozomen
    Holy Cross
    Opis:
    In his Ecclesiastical history, Socrates depicts Helena as a pious, strong and independent woman, the mother of the emperor, realizing her own ideas and acting as a tool in the hands of God – the ultimate inspiration of her actions. The emperor, her son, only supported her in her undertakings. According to Socrates, Helena travelled to Jerusalem to answer God’s call; there, she organized the search for the Sepulchre and the Holy Cross and found them. She was supported by Macarius, the bishop of Jerusalem, who, after God’s intervention, distinguished the True Cross from the crosses of the two villains. The empress divided the relics and sent some of them to her son to Constantinople; moreover, in the Holy Land, she built three basilicas connected with the life of Christ. Finally, Socrates mentions her piety and discusses the place of her burial. Conversely, in Sozomen’s account of the recovery of Christ’s Sepulchre and the relics, the main role is played by emperor Constantine, who wished to repay God for his blessings; he ordered the search and the construction of the basilica on Mount Golgotha. His mother only supported him in his plans, led by her devoutness, to which Sozomen pays more attention than his predecessor – he emphasizes Helena’s sensitivity to human poverty and suffering. The emperor was also involved in her generous deeds and gave her access to the imperial treasury. Thus, as indicated by Sozomen, Helena’s piety brought prosperity both to her family and to the whole Roman Empire.
    Źródło:
    Studia Ceranea; 2017, 7; 27-39
    2084-140X
    2449-8378
    Pojawia się w:
    Studia Ceranea
    Dostawca treści:
    Biblioteka Nauki
    Artykuł
    Tytuł:
    The Catalogue of Virtues in the "Ecclesiastical History" of Sozomen of Bethelia
    Katalog cnót w "Historii kościelnej" Sozomena z Bethelii
    Autorzy:
    Bralewski, Sławomir
    Powiązania:
    https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/2158120.pdf
    Data publikacji:
    2022-12-15
    Wydawca:
    Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II
    Tematy:
    Sozomen
    Historia kościelna
    cnoty kardynalne
    Ecclesiastical History
    cardinal virtues
    Opis:
    On the one hand, in his Ecclesiastical History, Sozomen presented the qualities of the ruler he held in high esteem – Theodosius II; on the other, he listed characteristics of the ascetics he admired, the new sages, living – in his view – according to the principles of the best philosophy. Interestingly, in this presentation, he applied an almost identical set of virtues that he attributed to both rulers and monks. In both cases he equated piety with wisdom and made them the most important, leading virtues. They were the ones that conditioned the subsequent qualities. Thus, in Sozomen’s account, one can trace the theory of the unity of virtues characteristic of Socrates of Athens. It claimed that one cannot possess a particle of virtue without possessing the whole, nor can one possess one specific virtue without possessing all of them. It seems that the order of virtues used by Sozomen in the catalogue of virtues ascribed to Theodosius II is not accidental, and reflects their hierarchy: εὐσέβεια-σοφία φιλανθρωπία, ἀνδρεία, σωφροσύνη, δικαιοσύνη, φιλοτιμία, and μεγαλοψυχία. This hierarchy stems from the Christian values adopted by Sozomen.
    W swojej Historii kościelnej Sozomen przedstawił przymioty, z jednej strony władcy, którego obdarzał wielką estymą, a więc Teodozjusza II, a z drugiej podziwianych przez siebie ascetów, nowych mędrców, żyjących w jego przekonaniu według zasad najlepszej filozofii. Interesujące, że użył do tego niemal identyczny zestaw cnót, który przypisywał i władcy i mnichom. W obydwu przypadkach pobożność utożsamiał z mądrością i czynił z nich najważniejsze, wiodące cnoty. To one warunkowały kolejne przymioty. Można zatem w przekazie Sozomena doszukiwać się teorii jedności cnót charakterystycznej już dla Sokratesa z Aten, wedle którego nie można posiadać cząstki jakiejś cnoty, nie posiadając jej całości, ani posiadać jednej konkretnej cnoty, nie posiadając wszystkich. Wydaje się, że zastosowana przez Sozomena kolejność cnót w katalogu zalet przypisanych Teodozjuszowi II nie jest przypadkowa, a oddaje ich hierarchię: εὐσέβεια-σοφία φιλανθρωπία, ἀνδρεία, σωφροσύνη, δικαιοσύνη, φιλοτιμία, μεγαλοψυχία. Hierarchia ta wynika z chrześcijańskich wartości przyjętych przez Sozomena
    Źródło:
    Vox Patrum; 2022, 84; 31-50
    0860-9411
    2719-3586
    Pojawia się w:
    Vox Patrum
    Dostawca treści:
    Biblioteka Nauki
    Artykuł
    Tytuł:
    Bałkany w ujęciu historiografii kościelnej V wieku związanej ze środowiskiem konstantynopolitańskim
    Balkans in the light of Constantinopolitan ecclesiastical historiography (fifth century)
    Autorzy:
    Bralewski, Sławomir
    Powiązania:
    https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/612145.pdf
    Data publikacji:
    2016
    Wydawca:
    Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II
    Tematy:
    Bałkany
    historiografia kościelna
    Sozomen
    Filostorgiusz
    Balkans
    Ecclesiastical Historiography
    Philostorgius
    Opis:
    In the accounts of Socrates of Constantinople, Hermias Sozomenus and Philostorgius, i.e. those ecclesiastical historians who represented the Constantinopolitan point of view in church history, the region of the Balkans was neither administratively nor culturally or religiously uniform. Contents of their works suggest, however, that the area was very important strategically, which was indirectly stressed in Sozomenus’ and Phlilostorgius’ accounts of the conflicts between Constantine and Licinius, and then directly referred to when the three historians wrote on the invasion of the Goths and Maximus’ usurpation. All the three sources also imply that the Balkan peninsula became a shelter not only for refugees from the outside of the empire but also a safe haven for political fugitives from the Roman territories, as for instance is the case of Valentinian II and his entourage. It is also clearly visible that the region was treated by the historians as the hinterland of Constantinople, i.e. the second capital of the Roman Empire, founded by order of Constantine. Security of the capital was largely dependent on the stability of the Roman rule in the Balkans and the maintenance of peace in the area. The advent of the Huns, who pushed other barbarians to cross the Danube river, destabilized the region. The destabilization occurred even despite efforts of christianizing the inflowing tribes, which was an element of the strategy of the Romans targeted at subjecting the barbarian peoples to the empire both politically as well as religiously. Socrates’, Sozomenus’ and Philostorgius’ accounts also show that the Balkans became a border zone of the empire (divided into its western and eastern parts) and a melting pot of various religious influences, which is exemplified by the regional history of Arianism. It is also undeniable that not only Socrates of Constantinople and Hermias Sozomenus but also Phlostorgius devoted to the Balkans more attention than Eusebius of Caesarea did. The fact can be explained on he basis of their geographical proximity to the region, which naturally drew the interest of the former, Constantinopole-based three. Last but not least, Sozomenus displayed in his narrative a better geographical competence as for the region than Socrates and therefore he tried to emend the account of his predecessor.
    Źródło:
    Vox Patrum; 2016, 66; 277-299
    0860-9411
    2719-3586
    Pojawia się w:
    Vox Patrum
    Dostawca treści:
    Biblioteka Nauki
    Artykuł
    Tytuł:
    Zagłada filozofów helleńskich w imperium romanum – obraz mędrców w relacji Sokratesa z Konstantynopola i Hermiasza Sozomena
    Extermination of Hellenistic philosophers in the Roman Empire – the image of the thinkers in the ecclesiastical histories of Socrates and Sozomen
    Autorzy:
    Bralewski, Sławomir
    Powiązania:
    https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/612151.pdf
    Data publikacji:
    2012
    Wydawca:
    Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II
    Tematy:
    Sokrates
    Hermiasz Sozomen
    filozofowie hellenistyczni
    Socrates
    Sozomen
    Hellenistic philosophers
    Opis:
    Socrates of Constantinople, the author of the Ecclesiastical History, distinguishes between two types of philosophy: one practised by the use of words and the second reflected in deeds. The reason why the latter was considered by Socrates to be the true philosophy was the fact that it was the way to find God. That, at the same time, was the most important exercise for philosophers. According to historians even an ordinary uneducated man, could also practise philosophy. However, Socrates believed that having Hellenic education with philosophical studies, was extremely useful for stopping the paganism, in particular. What is more, it enabled speech enhancement and development of the ability to think logically. He pointed out that a lot of sages were near the discovery of God. But he was aware of the existence of false philosophers with the emperor Julian the Apostate, who, unlike true philosophers, was still subject to the passions. By impersonating of the true philosophers they were cheaters and easily changed their views, in addition professed pagan cults. Sozomen also distinguished two types of philosophy: the Hellenic philosophy and the philosophy of church. Unlike Socrates, Sozomen did not attribute any value to the classical philosophy. He did not divide the philosophers into true and false. It seems that the work of Sozomen contains a crucial message. As the period of pagans quickly passed so did their wisdom and those who loved them. Thus, information about the extermination of Hellenistic philosophers was included in his Ecclesiastical History. They were replaced with Christian philosophers gathered in the monastic movement developing vigorously.
    Źródło:
    Vox Patrum; 2012, 57; 59-76
    0860-9411
    2719-3586
    Pojawia się w:
    Vox Patrum
    Dostawca treści:
    Biblioteka Nauki
    Artykuł
      Wyświetlanie 1-4 z 4

      Ta witryna wykorzystuje pliki cookies do przechowywania informacji na Twoim komputerze. Pliki cookies stosujemy w celu świadczenia usług na najwyższym poziomie, w tym w sposób dostosowany do indywidualnych potrzeb. Korzystanie z witryny bez zmiany ustawień dotyczących cookies oznacza, że będą one zamieszczane w Twoim komputerze. W każdym momencie możesz dokonać zmiany ustawień dotyczących cookies