Bartosz Awianowicz
1997–2002: I studied Classical Philology at the Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń and Universität zu Köln (Erasmus student exchange programme in the academic year 2000/2001)
26 June 2002: M.A. in Classical Philology awarded based on the M.A. dissertation From Aphthonius’ progymnasmatical theory. (Dissertation supervisor: Prof. W. Appel)
20 March 2007: Ph.D. degree awarded based on the thesis Progymnasmata in the Theory and Practice of the Humanistic School from the Late 15th to the Mid-18th Century (Thesis supervisor: Prof. dr hab. A. Borowski, Jagiellonian University; reviewers: Prof. dr hab. Helena Cichocka, University of Warsaw, and Prof. dr hab. M. Szamrach, NCU). The thesis was awarded and sent for publication at the decision of the Commission of Literature Theory of the Faculty of Languages, NCU.
15 January 2013: Habilitation in the field of humanities (literary studies) based on the corpus of texts about ancient rhetoric theory and its reception in the Early Modern period (16th-17th century).
Since 2018, I have been working as a professor at the Department of Classics, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Toruń, Poland.
Since September 2024, I have been the head (director) of the Institute of Literary Studies at the NCU.
26 June 2002: M.A. in Classical Philology awarded based on the M.A. dissertation From Aphthonius’ progymnasmatical theory. (Dissertation supervisor: Prof. W. Appel)
20 March 2007: Ph.D. degree awarded based on the thesis Progymnasmata in the Theory and Practice of the Humanistic School from the Late 15th to the Mid-18th Century (Thesis supervisor: Prof. dr hab. A. Borowski, Jagiellonian University; reviewers: Prof. dr hab. Helena Cichocka, University of Warsaw, and Prof. dr hab. M. Szamrach, NCU). The thesis was awarded and sent for publication at the decision of the Commission of Literature Theory of the Faculty of Languages, NCU.
15 January 2013: Habilitation in the field of humanities (literary studies) based on the corpus of texts about ancient rhetoric theory and its reception in the Early Modern period (16th-17th century).
Since 2018, I have been working as a professor at the Department of Classics, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Toruń, Poland.
Since September 2024, I have been the head (director) of the Institute of Literary Studies at the NCU.
less
InterestsView All (15)
Uploads
Books by Bartosz Awianowicz
The progymnasmatic texts of Renaissance, Baroque and early Age of the Enlightmentue significantly prove that amongst the ancient handbooks for preparatory exercises in rhetoric, Progymnasmata by Aphthonius were the most popular ones with three basic trends in their reception:
- “translatory” – developing mainly since the eighties of 15th century until the sixties of the following century, represented by multiple times reprinted translations by Rudolf Agricola, Joannes Maria Catanaeus, Francisco Scobarius and Joachim Camerarius, as well as numerous less popular translations from Antonio Bonfini to Johannes Schefferus;
- “commentary” – secondary to the “translatory” one, as referring usually to both the translation and already Latin terminology. It is represented mainly by the 16th century text of Alardus Aemstelredamus, Reinhard Lorich and Burchard Harbart, which adapted the Greek preliminary exercises to the needs of a Latin school by combining them with the Roman rhetoric theory and adding new translations;
- „compilatory” – represented in 15th century by the handbooks of Petrus Mosellanus, Antonius Lullus and Joachim Camerarius, that combined the definitions and divisions of Aphthonius directly with a theory of other ancient rhetoricians (mainly the author of Rhetorica ad Herennium, Cicero, Quintilian and Proscian), while in 17th century by the works of Johann Micraelius, Jacob Masen and François Pomey. They compiled the text of the rhetorician of Antiochia (in the contaminated translation of Agricola nand Cataneus) and Scholia by Lorich with the 16th century poetics and rhetorics by Melanchton, Scaliger, and particularly Soarez.
The review of the most important humanistic translations of Aphthonius Progymnasmata, the comments thereto and the handbooks referring to their preliminary exercises leads also to a conclusion that the most important role has been played by those which were distinguished by:
- relatively the largest simplicity and possibly the fullest latinisation of the Greek terminology, that is particularly evident in the earlier translations, including the most popular contamination of Agricola and Cataneus translations;
- the fusion of progymnasmatic theory with the Roman and humanistic rhetoric;
- prominent advantage of the ancient translations and (to a lesser degree) of the biblical topics over the contemporary (religious and political) ones.
These feature can be found most of all in the handbook developed by Lorich, and in the 17th century – in Candidatus rhethoricae by Pomey. So it is no wonder that these books have dominated the education of almost all Europe, and their popularity is testified by, among others, the total of over 300 editions. They have also influenced the Renaissance and Baroque literature to the degree not lesser than the treatises of Aristotle, Cicero, Quintilian and modern authors: Melanchthon, Soarez and others.
Z recenzji K. Balbuzy: "Dzięki zapoznaniu czytelnika z podstawami gramatyki łacińskiej oraz pomocnym wykazom rozwiązań skrótów językowych występujących na monetach czytelnik może zdobyć umiejętność nie tylko prawidłowego odczytania skrótów napisów na monetach, lecz również określenia datacji monet. (…) Trzeba podkreślić, że tego rodzaju opracowań brakuje nie tylko w literaturze zagranicznej, ale przede wszystkim na rynku polskim. Istniejące opracowania bądź to są już w pewnej mierze przestarzałe, bądź podejmują zagadnienie legend w zakresie wybiórczym. "
Papers by Bartosz Awianowicz
discussed as early as the 16th century. The first author to devote an entire chapter of his published 1555 work to this problem was Enea Vico (1523–1567). In the first half of the 17th century, Louis Savot (ca. 1579–1640) postulated the need to collect both ancient coins and their forgeries for comparative purposes. In the second half of the 17th century, two very popular textbooks on numismatics were published: Introduction à l’histoire, par la connoissance des médailles by Charles Patin (1633–1693) and La science des médailles by Louis Jobert (1637–1719).
The former distinguished three main types of forgeries, while the latter identified as many as nine types of forgeries and frauds related to ancient coins and medals.
The main purpose of this article is to identify specific coins that Jobert described as examples of the “seventh fraud”, which involves the alteration of the head and obverse legend of a more common coin (usually sestertius) into a rarer one.
coin with the Greek monogram of the name Castor on the reverse (gen. KAΣΤOPOΣ), typologically very close to the small bronzes (denomination C according to Hoover’s division) of King Deiotarus of Galatia HGC 7, 776 = SNG von Aulock 6101; SNG France 3, 2332. It seems more likely that the coin published here was struck for Castor, grandson of Deiotarus, who became king of Galatia (and Paphlagonia) after the death of his grandfather in 40 BC, than for Castor Tancondarius, tetrarch of Tectosages in 63/2–43 BC, son-in-law of Deiotarus and father of the younger Castor. This attribution also alters the dating of the type HGC 7, 776, which was probably struck between 44 and 40 BC.