Lietuvos istorijos metraštis

This article examines the alleged plan of Lithuanian Grand Hetman Ludwik Pociej (1664–1730) to remove the King of Poland and the Grand Duke of Lithuania Augustus II (1697–1733) from the throne and the appearance of the only evidence of this plan – instructions, stored in the Saxon State Archives. Until now historiographers believed that L. Pociej sent voivode of Trakai K. Ogiński to the Russian Tsar Peter I (1682–1725) with a proposal for dethronement, claiming that the King of Poland was secretly negotiating with anti-Russian forces and planning to carry out a coup of absolutism in the Republic. Peter I allegedly agreed to support the Lithuanian aspiration by promising 15 thousand Russian soldiers. However, the instruction is most likely a forgery. Such a conclusion can be drawn from the fact that the timing of the K. Ogiński's trip and the timing of the emergence of the instruction do not coincide. K. Ogiński was sent to St. Petersburg by L. Pociej, or travelled on his own initiative, in December of 1713, yet this alleged instruction the Saxon diplomats showed to the Russian diplomat only in the August of 1714, i.e. nine months later. Novoselsky, mentioned in this instruction, did not actually go to Russia with K. Ogiński, later solving some other problems, the purpose of his mission was actually to meet not with Peter I, but with Alexander Menshikov. Peter I could hardly satisfy the Lithuanian request for help because the dethronement of Augustus II in no way benefited him. A much more realistic scenario is that L. Pociej, through the mediation of K. Ogiński, appealed to the tsar to reserve the office of the Great Lithuanian Hetman for him and asked the tsar whether he supported the deployment of the Saxon army in the Republic. Perhaps a complaint could have been made that Augustus II was preparing for a coup of absolute monarchy. Who could have falsified this document? Most likely option is that the document could have been forged by L. Pociej's political opponents, of whom there were two at the time: Lithuanian Field Hetman, marshal of the Sandomierz Confederation Stanisław Denhoff and elder of Babruysk Jan Kazimierz Sapieha. It cannot be ruled out that the forgery may have been initiated by Augustus II himself.

Kad būtų vertinamas politinėje scenoje, didikas privalėjo turėti atitinkamą rezidenciją Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštystės sostinėje. Savininko poreikius ir ambicijas atliepiantys rūmai atliko ne tik reprezentacinį vaidmenį, bet ir buvo vieta, apie kurią telkėsi giminės bei didikų klientų gyvenimas. Be to, įsiliedami į gyvą miesto organizmą rūmai tapdavo jo tvaria puošmena, neretai demonstruodavo jų savininkų tikėjimą ir politinę poziciją. Šiame straipsnyje sintetiškai aptariama XVII a. Vilniaus rūmų architektūra tiek tipiškų, tiek miesto įvaizdį formavusių originalių sprendimų kontekste. Taip pat verta atkreipti dėmesį į Vilniaus topografiją – labiau ar mažiau prestižines vietas ir priemiesčius, ypač Antakalnį.

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.

Straipsnyje analizuojamas vieno žymiausių XVIII a. Lietuvos Didžiojoje Kunigaikštystėje gyvenusių ir Lietuvos vyriausioje mokykloje dėsčiusių mokslininko botaniko prancūzo Žano Emanuelio Žilibero gyvenimo epizodas – bandymas jį nunuodyti 1782 m. Remiantis teisminėmis bylomis ir profesoriaus bei jo žmonos asmenine korespondencija, atkuriamos pasikėsinimo detalės ir reakcija į šį įvykį.

Straipsnyje atskleidžiama Vilniaus jėzuitų ganytojiška veikla plačiame Katalikų Bažnyčios potridentinio atsinaujinimo kontekste. Autorius analizuoja įvairialypius vienuolių veiklos aspektus, tokius kaip pamokslininkystė, šventųjų ir Švenčiausiosios Mergelės Marijos kulto puoselėjimas, studentų kongregacijų bei suaugusiesiems skirtų brolijų veiklos skatinimas ir kita. Pažymima, kad, būdami ypač kompetentingi kalbų srityje, jėzuitai teikė dvasinę globą ne tik Vilniaus gyventojams lenkams, bet ir vokiečiams bei lietuviams. Jėzuitai taip pat atliko svarbų vaidmenį reformuojant kitas vienuolijas, o jų įtaka bazilijonų vienuolijos intelektualinei ir dvasinei raidai nekelia jokių abejonių. Šv. Ignaco Lojolos ordino vienuoliai aktyvia veikla ir aukomis prisidėjo tiek prie 1655–1660 m. Maskvos okupacijos padarytos žalos, tiek ir prie 1710 m. miestą nusiaubusios maro epidemijos padarinių likvidavimo. Šių kataklizmų metu jėzuitai vykdė nesančios diecezinės dvasininkijos funkcijas. Organizuodami ganytojišką veiklą, Vilniaus jėzuitai sulaukė ne tik bajorijos ir didikų palaikymo, bet ir pasiturinčių miestiečių paramos. Atsakydamas į išsikeltus tyrimo tikslus, straipsnio autorius pažymi, kad Vilniaus jėzuitų ganytojiška veikla atitiko bendrąsias potridentinės Katalikų Bažnyčios dievotumo tendencijas. Tačiau Vilniuje veikę Jėzaus draugijos nariai išliko atviri gilias šaknis įleidusioms vietos religingumo apraiškoms ir prisidėjo stiprindami lokalinį šv. Kazimiero kultą, to meto visuomenės akivaizdžiai tapatintą su Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštystės valstybingumu.