Lietuvos istorijos institutas

The events of 1863–1864 were a turning point in the intellectual life of Vilnius (Rus. Vil’na) and of all Lithuanian and Belarussian gubernias of the then Russian Empire, which were already commonly known as the North-Western krai, i.e. province. The consequences of the defeated uprising – the reorganisation of the Vilnius Museum of Antiquities, the closure of the Vilnius Temporary Archaeological Commission, and the establishment of the Vilnius Public Library – became a recognised fact. Vilnius Central Archives, founded in 1852 and significantly enriched by the archives of the estates confiscated after the uprising and of the closed Catholic monasteries, also played a significant role in the imperial policy, as did the archive of the books of the early acts of the gubernias of Vilnius, Kaunas (Rus. Kovno), Gardinas (Rus. Grodno) and Minsk, and the Vilnius Commission for the studies and publication of the books of the early acts. Since all these institutions operated in the premises of the closed Vilnius University, nowadays their history is justifiably or maybe unjustifiably (as the content of this article would suggest) treated as an integral part of the history of the alma mater. The aim of the newly created Russian centre of science and culture was to annihilate the historical memory of the ‘Polish’ intellectual life that had once been bustling within these walls. All four institutions – or rather all three, since after the reorganisation of the Vilnius Museum of Antiquities it became a division of the Vilnius Public Library – attracted scholars’ attention. Key personalities who used to work in these institutions were also mentioned and sometimes introduced in greater detail.

The critique of Dzieje narodu litewskiego (The History of the Lithuanian Nation 1–9, Vilnius, 1835–1841, [DNL]) had always made Teodor vel Teodor Mateusz Narbutt (vel O styk-Narbutt, 1784–1864) argue that he was not a layman nor a wilful forger. His own approach to defending himself against the attack was unique: he prepared a second edition of DNL and the so-called New Mythology – Mytologija Litewska ze sczegółami do wiary, obyczajów i oświaty przedchrześciańskiej Narodu litewskiego odnoszącemi się (Lithuanian Mythology with Details about the Belief, Customs, and pre-Christianity Education of the Lithuanian Enlightenment, 1848), intended to publish the collection of sources of Lithuanian history kept at his manor in Szawry (Lith. Šiauriai; Grodno Governorate, as of 1843 Vilnius Governorate, Lida Region), and finally, as proof of his honest work, pieced together his scientific correspondence – the letters from scholars, old collectors, and other citizens that cared for Lithuania’s past. Today, this collection that Narbutt made himself – Korrespondencya Uczona (Scientific Correspondence [KU]) is kept at the Manuscript Department of the Wroblewski Library of the Lithuanian Academy of Science (LMAVB : f. 18 [Manuscript collection B4], b. 185/2–185/16, 25r–791v). Narbutt’s peculiar method of defence bore an ad te ipsum character; however yet, due to historic circumstances (the sequestration of the Szawry manor, the seizure of the library and its transfer to the public library of Vilnius), originally designed as a tool of self-reflection, the collection became accessible to the public. And researchers dug into letters addressed to Narbutt with much gusto indeed. Nonetheless, the real attention grabbers were the celebrity names in this collection. Hence, just like the printed work of this historian, his handwritten legacy (in this case, correspondence), too, would often merit a fragmented read, which was largely due to its tremendous volume. For instance, DNL has 5,220 pages, KU 766 archival pages – a total of 1,532 pages recto and verso. In other words, letters to Narbutt were never approached in corpore, as an intentionally built collection with an incredibly bright idea and purpose. The idea that the appearance of this epistolary compendium had been inspired by autograph-hunting, a hot trend at the time, should be disregarded straight away, because not every one of Narbutt’s correspondents was a celebrity. With a few exceptions, their overarching trait was intellectual work and love of Lithuanian antiques. The goal of the article was to approach the collection of letters to Narbutt as a whole, as a means of self-reflection a unique weapon of defence. Narbutt’s epistolary collection had never been dissected from any of these angles. The research has showed that today, KU consists of 386 letters. It is correspondence in Polish, German, Russian, and French (in the order of appearance) written in 1808–1858 (4 letters are not dated). Of the authors of the letters, 68 are men, 3 are women. The social picture of KU is very colourful: from gymnasium students to civil governors, from clergy to members of governorate statistical committees. Still, most of Narbutt’s correspondents were historians, archivists, and litterateurs. Some of the authors were litterateurs just as they were landlords; historians, as they were government officials; clergymen, as they were collectors. This motley crew had one thing in common: they all had read DNL. Cataclysmic political developments have prevented us from having KU in its final form. Not all the letters Narbutt himself had included in his collection have survived to this day. However, regardless of how incomplete KU today is, it features the names of nearly every scholar of Lithuania’s history or lover of Lithuanian antiques of the period nonetheless. The underlying theme of KU is Lithuania’s history, search for and dissemination of historic sources.

The aim of this article is to discuss the Jašiūnai manor (Pol. Jaszuny; Russ. Яшуны; Vilniaus Governorate, Vilnius County), owned by the historian, journalist, poet, translator and collector Michał vel Michał Wincenty Feliks Baliński (1794–1864). The manor will be discussed not only as a cultural hub for intellectuals in a general sense, but also as a unique space for writing Lithuanian history. The term “space” is understood here in the broad sense, as of the manor—as well as in the more narrow sense, as of the library itself (the historian’s office). Especially important for this research was the latter concept of a “space within a space”, the “historian’s workshop”, and its epicenter—the archive (manuscript collection). The aim of the research was to reconstruct the story of the emergence and fate of this collection of documents including its contents, sources, and most importantly its thematic direction and distinctiveness. The research showed that the largest collection of historical documents once housed in the archive of the Jašiūnai manor library is now kept in the Jagiellonian Library (Krakow). This material remains important to the history of the city of Vilnius, Vilnius University, and Lithuania’s academic history. Supplementary elements include attention to the Radvila family, the period of Steponas Batoras’s rule, and the history of the Szubrawcy (rascals) Society. This last component can be considered as an integral part not only of the history of Vilnius city but also of its university. The dual nature of the Jašiūnai archive is not necessarily an asset. When the library and archive of Jan vel Jan Chrzciciel Władysław Sniadecki vel Śniadecki (1756–1830) was transferred to the manor, Baliński’s own collection, which initially focused on the history of

The aim of this paper is to take a look at Władysław Syrokomla (real name Ludwik Franciszek Władysław Kondratowicz, 1823–1862) as a historian, and at the same time to discuss yet another so-called Lithuanian manor-archive – Bareikiškės (Pol. Borejkowszczyzna; Rukainiai parish, Vilnius County, Vilnius Province). The estate has been mentioned as an important intellectual island of that time, but it has never been discussed specifically as a workshop of accumulation of antiquities of the history of Lithuania and of writing the history of Lithuania. The compound ‘Syrokomla-historian’ may appear quite bold at first sight, but in this case the word ‘historian’ is understood in the meaning it was used when Syrokomla was writing, that is, bearing in mind the peculiarities of the historiography of Lithuania of the first half of the nineteenth century, when the boundary between the scientific and the fictional was still very fragile, and the professionalization of history was very poor. Yet no matter how complex this context might be, an attempt is made to ‘separate’ Syrokomla-historian from Syrokomla-poet. According to scholars, Syrokomla wrote all of his highly acclaimed lyrical works during the period of Bareikiškės. However, in this paper the focus is laid on those other, ‘not so glorious’ works. The intent of these works is important, but even more important are the sources that were resorted to while writing them. In other words, the gaze is directed not only at Syrokomla’s text, but also at its footnotes– particularly at them. Here a significant role is played by Syrokomla’s library, his archive, the collection of antiquities, and even of paintings. Therefore the research is not limited to Bareikiškės alone: the sources of those collections were sought in Syrokomla’s first manor, Zalucha (Pol. Załucze; Bel. Залучча, Minsk County, Minsk Province). Syrokomla’s views on history and the writing of history, his theoretical and even methodological attitudes, or what was even then defined by the word historiology, are also of importance. In general, priority was given to primary sources: both to the historical material collected by Syrokomla and to the autographs of his works, because it is an important part of the former library (archive) of Zalucha and Bareikiškės. Although Syrokomla thought he simply had to be a poet and only a poet, and although he came to believe in this ‘lyrical’ mission of his, it was obvious that he constantly kept suppressing his passion for the so-called genuine history. Nesvizh (Pol. Nieśwież; Bel. Нясвiж; Slutsk County, Minsk Province) had a profound influence on the biography of Syrokomla-historian. There he had experienced the charm of old documents, and, in the broad sense, of archives. In the spring of 1843, the idea to write the history of the town of Nesvizh and its castle was born. It was in Nesvizh that Syrokomla received his first commission ‘in the field of history’: at Michał Baliński’s (1794–1864) request, in the spring of 1844, he prepared the work Notatka o Nieświeżu na żądanie Wo Balińskiego, which became like an introduction to or a presentation of Syrokomla-historian. The talent of a historian, respect to a primary historical source and to a historical detail, attention to the latest historiographical research, strict requirements to the historical commentary, and the desire to present a historical fact in a broad historical-problematic context manifest themselves in other works of the Zalucha period. He wrote Dzieje literatury w Polsce od pierwiastkowych, do naszych czasów (Vilnius, 1850), translated Jean-Joseph François Poujoulat’s (1808–1880) work Histoire de la Révolution Française into Polish (Vilnius, 1851), participated in the series of historical sources Dziejopisowie krajowi (Saint Petersburg, 1854– 1858) published by Bolesław Maurycy Wolff (1826–1883).

Straipsnyje analizuojama Adomo Honorijaus Kirkoro ir jo aplinkos politinė programa, aptariami svarbiausi jos dėmenys, autoritetai ir prioritetai. Aiškinamos kontroversiško lietuvių nacionalinio atgimimo veikėjų požiūrio į šią asmenybę ir jo kūrybą priežastys.