Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Poland-Lithuania was a multiethnic, multilingual, and multi-confessional polity, comprising the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. While they maintained separate legal systems, treasuries, and armies, these two realms formed a union in 1385, primarily as a defensive and dynastic alliance against the Teutonic Knights, a leading power in the region at that time. The union faced various challenges but endured, and on 1 July 1569, the nobilities of both territorial states established the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth—a political confederation that lasted until 1795 when it was ultimately dissolved by neighboring powers. Located at the juncture of Central Europe, the lands of Eastern Orthodoxy, and the Ottoman world, Poland-Lithuania was a vast, culturally heterogeneous community of different peoples, traditions, and regional identities, roughly the size of today’s France and Germany combined. The visual and material cultures of this vast union thrived at the nexus of interregional links, connections, and cultural entanglements. Despite being one of the lesser-explored European cultural geographies in English-language scholarship, Poland-Lithuania boasted a rich and diverse artistic landscape. Given its position at the intersection of the Germanic, Slavic, western Mediterranean, and Ottoman worlds, it embraced Latin, Orthodox, Jewish, Islamic, and Armenian influences. The Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania were themselves ethnically, linguistically, and religiously polymorphous realms united through common political attitudes and participatory institutions rather than shared race, confession, or language. Poles, Ruthenians, Lithuanians, and Germans constituted the majority of enfranchised citizens in the shared body politic, but both territorial states had economically vital minorities of Jews, Armenians, and Tatars, as well as Scots, Italians, and Dutchmen, to mention only the most populous groups. While Roman Catholicism enjoyed privileges far greater than did other religions, Eastern Orthodoxy (since 1595 together with the Greek Catholic Church), various Protestant denominations of Christianity, Judaism, and even Islam could, too, claim adherents in these lands. Language was another marker of diversity: Polish, Ruthenian, and German were most commonly spoken, with Lithuanian, Yiddish, and Turkic languages also in use, though not among the nobles. The Polish nobility, or szlachta, wielded significant power within the Commonwealth, but they had to account for their counterparts in Lithuania, Prussia, and Rus’. Poland-Lithuania was one of the few early modern European polities to simultaneously be home to Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, and Armenian churches, Jewish synagogues, and Islamic mosques within its borders. This resulted in a rich diversity of art and culture, where Latin religious paintings coexisted with Orthodox icons, Jewish Torah arks, and Tatar muhiry, and where European-style artifacts intertwined with West Asian designs. English-language scholarship on the visual arts, material culture, and architecture of Poland-Lithuania is expanding, yet significant gaps remain for an international audience. This annotated bibliography aims to guide anglophone students and scholars seeking foundational knowledge of this frequently overlooked European artistic tradition. Though comprehensive research necessitates proficiency in several languages in which scholarship is produced (such as Polish, Lithuanian, Ukrainian, Belarusian, German), as well as languages of the source materials like Low German and Old Church Slavonic, there is a sufficient body of literature in English to acquaint English-speaking readers with Poland-Lithuania’s artistic cultures. Priority is given to books, encompassing scholarly monographs, edited collections, and exhibition catalogs, with articles and chapters highlighted where no English-language books are available.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».