Zalučės ir Bareikiškių šeimininko Vladislovo Sirokomlės istorikos

LTŠio straipsnio tikslas – pažvelgti į Vladislovą Sirokomlę (tikr. Liudvikas Kondratavičius; Ludwik Franciszek Władysław Kondratowicz vel Władysław Syrokomla, 1823–1862) kaip į istoriką, o kartu aptarti dar vieną vadinamąjį Lietuvos dvarą-archyvą – Bareikiškes (lenk. Borejkowszczyzna; Vilniaus gubernija, Vilniaus apskritis, Rukainių parapija). Apie šį dvarą (tiksliau – palivarką, kurį Sirokomlė „pakylėjo“ iki dvarelio lygio) buvo ne kartą rašyta kaip apie svarbią to meto intelektinę salą, tačiau jis niekada specialiai nebuvo aptartas kaip Lietuvos istorijos senienų kaupimo ir Lietuvos istorijos rašymo dirbtuvės. Samplaika Sirokomlė-istorikas iš pirmo žvilgsnio gali atrodyti drąsi – tikrai drąsesnė už derinį Kraševskis-istorikas. Tačiau šiuo atveju žodis „istorikas“ bus suprantamas tik ta prasme, kuria jis vartotas tada, kai Sirokomlė kūrė, t. y. turint galvoje XIX a. pirmosios pusės Lietuvos istoriografijos specifiką, kai riba tarp mokslinio ir grožinio teksto vis dar buvo trapi, o istorijos profesionalizacija – ypač menka. Tačiau kad ir koks sudėtingas būtų šis kontekstas, bus mėginama „atskirti“ Sirokomlę-istoriką nuo Sirokomlės-poeto. [...]. [Iš Įvado]

ENThe 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). In Zalucha, Syrokomla-historian finished his most significant work of that period – translation of Marcin Kromer’s (vel Martinus Cromerus, 1512–1589) book Polonia sive de situ, populis, moribus, magistratibus et Republica regni Polonici libri duo (Cologne, 1577) into Polish (Vilnius, 1853). In the introductory part of this book we see Syrokomla not only as a historian reflecting on the key principles of history writing – objectivity, understanding of the spirit of the epoch, and the principles of truth and honour, but also as a historian of historiography. Kromer’s book shows that Syrokomla was progressing towards the ‘serious’ history himself. [...]. [From the publication]