Tarp Senosios ir Naujosios Lietuvos : testamentinės Adomo Honorijaus Kirkoro ištarmės

LTStraipsnyje 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. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Adomas Kirkoras; Politinė programa; Valenrodiškumas; Teodoras Narbutas (Teodor Narbutt); Istorinė atmintis; Vytautas Didysis, 1350-1430 (Vytautas the Great); Vilnius; Aušrininkai.

ENThe idea to write this article was suggested by the intersection and obvious irrationality of two facts, namely an overly critical attitude of certain pioneers of Lithuanian nationalism that first and foremost flocked around the Auszra (later Aušra; 1883–1886) newspaper towards publisher, man of letters, and historian Adam Honory Kirkor (1818–1886) and more than enthusiastic support of the ideas advocated by the Auszra in A. H. Kirkor’s statements. The author of the article strives to search for the reasons behind the said contradiction and in a way rearrange the focus points in A. H. Kirkor’s biography and creative work which have been divided into two stages: “Narbutt” and “Vilnius”. The comparative aspect also plays an important role in the analysis, i.e. A. H. Kirkor’s attitude is first of all revealed against the background of the personality and ideas of Teodor Narbutt (1784–1864), the most prominent Lithuanian historian of the first half of the 19th century. The research revealed that it was T. Narbutt’s work Dzieje narodu litewskiego (Deeds of the Lithuanian Nation, vol. 1–9, Wilno, 1835–1841) where Kirkor and his environment found the basic ideological pillars. By virtue of T. Narbutt, Vytautas the Great related topics found their way to A. H. Kirkorʼs works. The component of Vilnius is also discussed through A. H. Kirkor and T. Narbutt’s relation with the city. T. Narbutt viewed Vilnius as a mere chronicle of the past, whereas A. H. Kirkor perceived the city as an open air museum evoking deep contemplations not only about the region’s past but also about its future. Eventually the concept of Vilnius in A. H. Kirkor’s mind would focus around the cathedral and its historical tombstones with the remains of Lithuania’s heroes resting thereunder.A. H. Kirkor teaches to read the symbolic meaning of the site, to see not only religious and historical but also political symbols, visit the sacred space and accumulate energy for the future. Hence, A. H. Kirkor’s references and emphases, prominence given to the role of Vilnius and particularly to the Cathedral – the most important guardian of historical memory – as well as the pantheon of historical figures significant to Lithuania, which hitherto had been traditionally attributed to Poland’s past, suggest of victory rather that defeat. These texts contained numerous references to the future. And these hints, no matter how controversially A. H. Kirkor was perceived, were heard by the followers of the Auszra movement. The ample translations of A. H. Kirkor’s works to Lithuanian corroborate the fact. From a more general perspective, A. H. Kirkor’s program of Lithuania and that of the followers of the Auszra movement were not so different after all – most disagreements were attributable to the so-called philological aspect. However, there were discussions regarding language related issues among the representatives of A. H. Kirkor’s generation as well. Thus, the Auszraʼs statements of the Lithuanian speaking Lithuania must have been familiar or at least recognizable to A. H. Kirkor. Therefore today we should speak about the contributions of the Vilnius Museum of Antiquities and Vilnius Temporary Archaeological Commission to the Auszra ideology; a particularly unique and particularly intellectual generation that worked for the sake of Lithuania when it seemed that there was nothing to work for, was active in the most difficult conditions, and underwent huge psychological traumas. In this context A. H. Kirkor – the hands and brain of that generation, a loyalist but at the same time also an idealist could not have disapproved of the project pursued by the Auszra followers. [From the publication]