XVIII amžiaus studijos / The Eighteenth Century Studies

Antoine-Charles du Houx, Baron de Vioménil (1728–1792) was sent by the French Government after Colonel Charles-François Dumouriez (1729–1823) to provide guidance to the leaders of the Bar Confederacy during the years 1771–1772. However, if Colonel Dumouriez is famous because of his activities during the French Revolution, namely for the determinant role he played at the Valmy battle (1792), it is different when it comes to the Baron. Except for some articles in the 19th century biographical encyclopedias and a short biography centered on the role he played during the American Revolutionary war published in 1935, there is no study on him. In spite of this, Baron de Vioménil’s career is a matter of interest, for he participated in the major conflicts the French army took part during the reign of the kings Louis XV and Louis XVI. The baron’s archives, which include abundant correspondence related to his campaigns, are preserved today in the Académie François Bourdon, le Creusot, Burgundy. Being inaccessible for a long time they have not been thoroughly

Leonas Kazimieras Šemeta (Leon Kazimierz Szemet, Szemiott, Szemioth) buvo Valkavisko paviete įsitvirtinusios Šemetų giminės šakos atstovas. Jaunystėje persikėlė gyventi į Oršos pavietą, kuriame padarė sėkmingą karjerą. L. K. Šemetos karjerą lėmė du veiksniai: įtakingų giminaičių iš Šemetų giminės Oršos šakos parama ir įsitraukimas į vadinamųjų respublikonų judėjimą XVIII a. pradžioje. Šios priežastys sudarė galimybes Leonui Kazimierui tapti savu tarp Oršos pavieto elito narių. 1712 m. ir 1735 m. L. K. Šemeta buvo išrinktas pasiuntiniu į Seimą, tačiau žinomas to meto bajoriškoje visuomenėje tapo ne dėl dalyvavimo Abiejų Tautų Respublikos seimuose, o dėl aktyvios veiklos Oršos pavieto seimeliuose. Turėdamas pavieto bajorijos paramą jis buvo renkamas ne tik pasiuntiniu į Seimą, bet ir pavieto rotmistru, fiskalinių (iždo) ir kaptūrinių teismų maršalu, seimelių direktoriumi ir netgi kandidatu užimti Oršos žemės teismo raštininko pareigas. Būdamas tikras dėl Oršos pavieto bajorijos paramos, paskutiniaisiais savo gyvenimo metais L. K. Šemeta siekė būti išrinktas kandidatu į Oršos pakamario postą. 1715–1717 m. L. K. Šemetą matome tarp Oršos pavieto bajorijos lyderių, kovojančių prieš Abiejų Tautų Respublikos valdovą ir Saksonijos kariuomenę. Kaip dauguma to meto bajorijos, L. K. Šemeta taip pat buvo priklausomas nuo Lietuvos Didžiojoje Kunigaikštystėje dominuojančių didikų grupuočių. Išsiskirsčius vadinamajam respublikonų judėjimui, Leonas Kazimieras tapo Sapiegų grupuotės šalininku. 1731–1732 m. jis talkino Sapiegoms jų kovoje su Radvilomis dėl Noiburgo valdų Oršos paviete. Tačiau 1733–1735 m. tarpuvaldžiu palaikė Augustą III ir tapo Radvilų šalininku. Gyvenimo saulėlydyje dėjo visas pastangas, kad savo sūnui Jonui užtikrintų politines pozicijas tarp Oršos pavieto bajorijos bei materialųjį pamatą tolesnei veiklai. Pastangos davė rezultatų – Jonas Šemeta gavo Oršos pilininko pareigybę. L. K. Šemeta yra XVIII a. pirmojo trečdalio bajoro, aktyviai dalyvavusio Oršos seimelių veikloje ir turėjusio reikšmingos įtakos šių seimelių priimamiems sprendimams, pavyzdys. Tačiau pats asmeniškai L. K. Šemeta labai retai atstovavo pavieto interesams aukščiausiu valstybiniu lygmeniu. Jį tenkino veikimas lokalinėje erdvėje ir galimybės daryti įtaką Oršos seimelio rezultatams.

Straipsnyje aptariama, koks buvo jėzuitų požiūris į Sapiegų giminės hegemoniją Lietuvos Didžiojoje Kunigaikštystėje, kokia buvo ir kaip kito jėzuitų nuostata bei veiksmų taktika XVII a. paskutiniame dešimtmetyje – XVIII a. pirmajame dešimtmetyje, kai Lietuvą sukrėtė vidaus konfliktai, amžių sandūroje peraugę į vidaus karą. Remdamasis jėzuitiškais archyvais, autorius analizuoja: 1) Vilniaus vyskupo Konstantino Kazimiero Bžostovskio ir Vilniaus akademijos ginčą 1691–1693 m., kurio šerdis buvo nesutarimai dėl vyskupo, kaip Akademijos kanclerio, prerogatyvų ir jo valdžios studentams; 2) sunkią vienuolių padėtį ginčijantis Vilniaus vyskupui ir Lietuvos didžiajam etmonui bei Vilniaus vaivadai Kazimierui Jonui Sapiegai; 3) jėzuitų požiūrį į antisapieginę opoziciją bei jėzuitų veiksmus, kai grupuočių konfliktas Lietuvoje peraugo į vidaus karą, netrukus susiliejusį su Didžiuoju Šiaurės karu. Autorius pabrėžia jėzuitų priklausomybę nuo Sapiegų, kurie ne tik finansiškai rėmė ordino institucijas, bet ir turėjo galingą spaudimo įrankį – galimybę manipuliuoti skirstant kariuomenei pastovius ir žiemojimo vietas dvaruose bei renkant hibernos mokestį. Straipsnyje pastebima, kad jėzuitai prisidėjo prie Lietuvos didžiojo etmono ir jo giminės prestižo ir šlovės kūrimo, todėl Sapiegoms nepalanki bajorija įtarinėjo jėzuitus simpatizavimu Sapiegoms. Tai lėmė blogus jėzuitų santykius su antisapiegine opozicija, vadinamaisiais respublikonais. Tik tada, kai 1700 m. lapkričio 18 d. Sapiegų pajėgos buvo sumuštos Valkininkų mūšyje, jėzuitai buvo priversti ieškoti naujų globėjų, stengėsi užmegzti ryšius su pagrindiniais respublikonų vadais.

The article is dedicated to discussion about the opportunities artists had in the eighteenth-century Grand Duchy of Lithuania, what factors were defining artist’s career and his valuation and how it changed along with social and cultural shifts in the country. Historical sources retain names of around 700 artists that worked in the eighteenth-century Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The artists belonged to a peculiar inter-estate stratum with significant differences in education, social and economic situation. Majority of artists lived and worked in towns, with smaller part working in the manors of noblemen under continuous service or temporary contracts, and also there was a small number of artist friars who did jobs in various convents of the country. Social and economic situation of artists in towns was similar to that of craftsmen, yet artists working in the manors of aristocrats usually had status of the middle-rank manor officials. Still, eighteenth-century artists were able to achieve higher levels of career than most of craftsmen because of the rank of their patrons. The work of artists was in demand mostly in higher levels of society and that determined better pay, sponsoring of studies and other kind of encouragement. Career opportunities for artists were usually defined by their reputation and education. The top level of the career was occupied by the status of royal court artist, which was a guarantee of high qualification. Noblemen of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Church hierarchy, when trying to realize important projects sought to engage the royal masters. Artists that studied abroad were also in demand. Noblemen of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, because of the deficit of good artists, tried to keep those artists that worked long-term in their manors. Career of a court artist guaranteed steady payment and legal protection, however artists not always desired long-term service because of the significant limitations on their life and work. Difficulties in searching for a decent master encouraged noblemen to keep artists in their manors while teaching arts to local kids. The need in arts for vocation or special gifts is demonstrated by the fact that only a small part of children selected by the noblemen were able to learn painting. Apart from the ties to influential customers, to the career of an artist were important links to requested architects, also familial links to the ruling elites of towns and important officials of the courts. In the second half of the eighteenth century, especially at the end of the century, attitude towards artistic occupation has incurred significant changes. Social status of famous artists, large compensations and ennoblement affected attitudes towards arts among both the society and the artists, and promoted its prestige. Rise of prestige of the profession was aided by the fact that society started appreciating more of the local artists (artists-fellow countrymen). They have begun to be mentioned in various contexts among the most deserving of the nation.

The article summarizes data on the training of painters and sculptors in the eighteenth-century workshops of the Radvilas’ artists. We seek to evaluate it in the context of the educational phenomena of early modern times. The analysis concerns organization of training, teaching practices, and their dissemination. In the eighteenth century, training of the subjects was carried out in the Radvilas’ residences of several generations. Some teachers were subjects of the dukes, some – arrivals working under contracts. The Radvilas continuously renewed the manor using qualified masters. Some of them were foreigners, experienced artists that mastered different art techniques. Training usually took place in the manor although there are known cases of sponsored trips of the artists to larger cities of the Commonwealth of Both Nations, where subjects improved their skills in the workshops of local artists. In the Radvilas’ residences practical training was dominant. Basics of drawing were studied first, pupils drew sculptural models, copied paintings from the collections of the aristocrats, assisted to masters in implementing orders from the dukes. Thus training in the Radvilas’ residences was performed using practices common in training artists of the early modern times. In the context of training of the Radvilas’ artists stands out the project by Jeronimas Florijonas Radvila to establish a drawing school, which had to be directed by a member of the Viennese academy of painting, sculpture and architecture, painter and drawer Lorenzo Titian de Vecceli. Perhaps in 1756, an eight- year contract was concluded according to which he was to teach young men the drawing of landscapes, figures and ornaments. In the contract this drawing school was called academy, probably after a fashion of the similar eighteenthcentury European, often small ones, schools, called academies. In Biala of Podlasie, Lorenzo Titian worked until the death of Florijonas Radvila in 1760. Although almost there is no data on activities of this artist in Biala, it is probable that the master was teaching to draw. Titian’s work for Radvila was brief and, possibly, did not have any significant influence on the education of the local artists. Despite this, Radvila’s idea and start of its implementation showed the need for higher level training of artists. Links of the Radvilas’ artists with professional and specialized educational institutions were rare. In the residences of the dukes, just like in the rest of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, dominated little formalized education of artists. Although it was not always effective, it has produced a number of masters that continued working for the Radvilas. Tutors were usually shared among family members, although there is data on the work of the artists of the dukes for the representatives of other families. Having in mind the scope and dissemination of the training of artists, residences of the Radvilas can be considered one of the important centres of art education in the eighteenth-century Grand Duchy of Lithuania.