Nation and History: Polish Historians from the Enlightenment to the Second World War 9781442627222

Citation preview

N AT I O N A N D H I S TO RY: P O L I S H H I S TO R I A N S F R O M T H E E N L I G H T E N M E N T TO T H E S E C O N D W O R L D WA R

This page intentionally left blank

EDITED BY PETER BROCK, JOHN D. STANLEY, AND PIOTR J. WRÓBEL

Nation and History Polish Historians from the Enlightenment to the Second World War

U N I V E R S I T Y O F TO R O N TO P R E S S Toronto Buffalo London

© University of Toronto Press Incorporated 2006 Toronto Buffalo London Printed in Canada ISBN 0-8020-9036-2

Printed on acid-free paper

Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication Nation and history : Polish historians from the Enlightenment to the Second World War / edited by Peter Brock, John D. Stanley and Piotr J. Wróbel. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-8020-9036-2 1. Historians – Poland – Biography. 2. Historiography – Poland. 3. Poland – Intellectual life. I. Brock, Peter, 1920– II. Stanley, John, 1949– III. Wróbel, Piotr DK4139.2.N38 2006

9079.29022438

C2005-904226-5

University of Toronto Press acknowledges the financial assistance to its publishing program of the Canada Council for the Arts and the Ontario Arts Council. University of Toronto Press acknowledges the financial support for its publishing activities of the Government of Canada through the Book Publishing Industry Development Program (BPIDP).

Contents

Preface

vii

Introduction 3 john d. stanley 1 Adam Naruszewicz (1733–1796) 18 john d. stanley 2 Joachim Lelewel (1786–1861) 52 john d. stanley 3 Józef Szujski (1835–1882) 85 andrzej wierzbicki 4 Boles¬aw Limanowski (1835–1935) 101 kazimiera j. cottam 5 Tadeusz Wojciechowski (1838–1919) 113 iwona bator 6 Tadeusz Korzon (1839–1918) 123 daniel stone 7 Micha¬ BobrzyÛski (1849–1935) 141 philip pajakowski 8 W¬adys¬aw SmoleÛski (1851–1926) 165 andrzej wierzbicki 9 Stanis¬aw Smolka (1854–1924) 180 piotr górecki 10 Aleksander Brückner (1856–1939) 197 wiktor weintraub 11 Oswald Balzer (1858–1933) 213 wacSaw uruszczak

vi

Contents

12 Szymon Askenazy (1865–1935) 221 piotr j. wróbel 13 Wac¬aw Sobieski (1872–1935) 246 zdzisSaw pietrzyk 14 Wac¬aw Tokarz (1873–1937) 260 andrzej nieuwa˘ny 15 Franciszek Bujak (1875–1953) 280 anita shelton 16 Stanis¬aw Kutrzeba (1876–1946) 297 wacSaw uruszczak 17 Adam Ska¬kowski (1877–1951) 307 andrzej nieuwa˘ny 18 W¬adys¬aw KonopczyÛski (1880–1952) 320 wojciech tygielski 19 Natalia Gåsiorowska-Grabowska (1881–1964) tadeusz paweS rutkowski 20 Marceli Handelsman (1882–1945) 352 m.b. biskupski 21 Marian Kukiel (1885–1973) 386 piotr j. wróbel 22 Stanis¬aw Kot (1885–1975) 407 peter brock and zdzisSaw pietrzyk 23 Oskar Halecki (1891–1973) 429 jerzy kSoczowski 24 Adam Próchnik (1892–1942) 443 krzysztof dunin-w)sowicz Chronology of Polish History Contributors Index

459

457

451

336

Preface

The important achievements of Polish historians remain unknown to most scholars outside Poland, let alone the intelligent lay reader, despite the pioneering work of figures such as Joachim Lelewel, Tadeusz Wojciechowski, and Franciszek Bujak. Discussion of historiography in the English-speaking countries has naturally focused on those figures who write in languages most accessible to English-speaking scholars. One might therefore reasonably infer that developments in European historiography have been dominated by scholars in Germany, France, Italy, and Great Britain. While no student of historiography would deny the importance of certain countries at certain times, this acknowledgment does not preclude exploration into the achievements of historians working in languages little known among Englishspeaking scholars. This volume attempts to bring one important historical tradition out of the shadows, inviting additional exploration.1 It also provides a partial picture of Polish intellectual life and its significant accomplishments during the turbulent period covered by this volume, making such information available to non-Polish-speaking readers. We have selected our pioneer modern historians from the mainstream of Polish historiography in the period from the Polish Enlightenment to the beginning of the Second World War. All the historians discussed in this volume were born before 1900. During the decades covered by this treatment, there were numerous, significant historians to whom we were not able to dedicate a specific essay. Limitations of space have necessitated difficult decisions. Sometimes a scholar willing to take on an assignment could simply not be found or else a scholar failed to produce the assignment. Unfortunately, only in a very

viii Preface

limited number of instances was a previously published essay available on a missing historian that could be adapted for publication. As a result of such limitations, there are important Polish historians not found in this volume. Moreover, during this period Poland also produced outstanding figures in disciplines related to history: prehistory, historical ethnology, history of philosophy, literary history, art history, as well as the history of science and technology. Discussion of their work is not found here. Nor do we touch upon the historians whose work focused on Poland’s religious and national minorities. Inevitably, readers will recognize that our collection represents ‘a kind of mountain journey along the ridges, attempting to get across from one high peak to the next, in the course of which it will also be possible to get glimpses of mountains and valleys that cannot actually be visited.’2 The editors of this book have given most attention to historians writing in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. However, it was, of course, impossible to ignore the significance of earlier decades. Adam Naruszewicz and Joachim Lelewel, diametrically opposed in their historical approach, represent the two pillars upon which we base our treatment of modern Polish historiography. Naruszewicz, the foremost historian of Poland’s Enlightenment, focused on the development of the state and political life. He stands as an effective start to this collection since the Enlightenment represents the beginning of the modern, secular era. In contrast, Lelewel was a Romantic, a republican, and a nationalist. His historical approach emphasizing the importance of the ‘nation’ dominated most of the nineteenth century and extended deep into the twentieth. He is – in our view, rightly – considered to be Poland’s most influential historian. While the collection has a heavy emphasis on positivists (Szujski, BobrzyÛski), it is balanced with a selection of modernist historians in the twentieth century (Askenazy, Handelsman) and Marxists (Gåsiorowska, Próchnik). We recognize that the list of historians we have selected is far from exhaustive. We hope, however, that this collection will encourage additional publication aimed at non-Polish readers, not only on the historians included in this volume but also on those not to be found here. Over the 150 years covered by this volume, boundaries, and the place names they encompassed, changed many times. In order to ensure toponymic consistency, we have decided usually to employ only the Polish name of the region or city. After all, we are dealing with Poles and their history. However, where cities have Anglicized names of long tradition, such as Cracow or Warsaw, we have used this accepted form. Other

Preface ix

scholars working in Ukrainian or Belarusan historiography, for example, would undoubtedly make a different choice in the naming of regions and cities. The editors are grateful to those scholars who contributed to this collection. We would specifically like to thank Professor Maria Ewelina Weintraub for permission to reprint from contributions made by her husband, the late Wiktor Weintraub, to the Slavonic and East European Review (London). We are also grateful to the Polish Academy of Letters (Polska Akademia Umiej´tno◊ci), Cracow, for permission to reprint in translation passages from the addresses given by Professor Wac¬aw Uruszczak at the Academy’s special session in 1996 commemorating the fiftieth anniversary of the death of Stanis¬aw Kutrzeba. In addition, we would like to thank the staff at the Inter-library Loan office and the Petro Jacyk Centre at the University of Toronto’s Robarts Library; they have been extremely helpful in facilitating our requests for materials not available in Canada’s largest Polish-language collection. At the University of Toronto Press, Len Husband, Humanities Editor, and Frances Mundy, Managing Editorial Department, have been very supportive of our project, while Wayne Herrington has proved an extremely careful copy-editor. We also thank Gillian Watts for preparing the index. And last, but by no means least, we are grateful to the Konstanty Reynert Chair of Polish History for a generous grant in aid of publication. Peter Brock John D. Stanley Piotr J. Wróbel Toronto, 30 April 2005 NOTES 1 Our volume joins previous treatments of Polish historians published abroad. Our predecessors in this endeavour have included the German Heinrich Nitschmann, in his Geschichte der polnischen Litteratur (Leipzig, 1889), and the Englishman W.R. Morfill, in his survey Poland [The Story of the Nations, 33] (London, 1893), pp. 316–23. While there is inevitably overlap between the choices made by such predecessors and our own specific selection, there are also many differences in treatment. A useful survey of Polish historiography may be found in Bernard Ziffer, Poland. History and Historians: Three Biblio-

x Preface graphical Essays (New York, 1952). Ziffer was trained by the great historian Oswald Balzer. Readers may also refer to a cursory treatment, ‘Great Historians. Polish,’ in Lucian Boia, ed., Great Historians of the Modern Age: An International Dictionary (Westport, CT, 1991), pp. 475–98, and the more expansive essay by Piotr S. Wandycz, ‘Historiography of the Countries of Eastern Europe: Poland,’ American Historical Review 97 (1992), pp. 1011–25. 2 Friedrich Meinecke, Historicism (London, 1972), p. lviii.

N AT I O N A N D H I S TO RY

This page intentionally left blank

Introduction john d. stanley

History as a field and profession has played an extraordinarily powerful role in Poland’s political and cultural development: it has even been considered the ‘mainstay of national existence.’ 1 Historians such as Naruszewicz and Lelewel often took on the role of prophet, calling on the nation to reform itself, while also serving as ideologues introducing new ideas into intellectual life. As a result, few peoples are so conscious of their past as the Poles: the nation’s history has for centuries been used to understand the present. Not surprisingly, historians in Poland have therefore assumed an important role, not only as curators of the past but also as its interpreters, explaining the significance of past events for present – and future – generations.2 As elsewhere, historians in Poland have been caught up in a continuous cycle of criticism and revision of previous work while making new factual discoveries, positing new hypotheses, and developing new interpretations of the national past. Their cycle of achievements demonstrates that history is more a journey than an ending: its approach is as important as its result. Polish historians working between the Enlightenment and the Second World War witnessed unparalleled changes in their country. After the extraordinary political, cultural, and intellectual ferment of the Polish Enlightenment, Poland was erased from the map of Europe and divided among Austria, Prussia, and Russia in 1795 only to be revived in truncated form by Napoleon’s Duchy of Warsaw (1807–13) and then Alexander I’s Kingdom of Poland (1815–31). After the failure of the Insurrection of 1830–1, Poland once again disappeared from view, although Polish cultural and intellectual life was kept alive by the work of the Great Emigration of Poles living abroad. After another armed

4 John D. Stanley

attempt at winning their freedom in the Insurrection of 1863–4, the Poles turned to ‘organic work’ to improve their economic and cultural life. After 1869, they even gained self-rule in Galicia, within the Habsburg Empire. The 1905 Revolution throughout the Russian Empire gave Poles political and cultural rights again, although within the German Empire they battled with an increasingly nationalistic society and government. After 1918, Poland regained its independence only to be plunged into war again in September 1939. While the historians at work during these tumultuous times wrote within different frameworks, they established a vibrant historiographical tradition in the face of extraordinary odds.3 Historiography in Poland has undergone development similar to that elsewhere in Europe. While history was tied to theology in the Middle Ages, to literature in the Renaissance, to philosophy in the eighteenth century, to narrative art in the Romantic era of the early nineteenth century, and to science with its emphasis on laws in the late nineteenth century, only in the twentieth century was history generally viewed as standing alone, a distinct discipline with its own rules and culture. Throughout the period covered in this volume, the search for the reasons of the Commonwealth’s decline and fall was the focus of Polish historiography. For Polish historians, ‘decline and fall’ was no mere trope; it shaped their vision of Poland’s past, inevitably eliciting moral judgments.4 For Naruszewicz, Poland’s decline compelled him to use his work as a tool in the reform of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. After 1795 and the disappearance of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the goal of historians became the revival of the Polish nation, opening a new era in Polish historiography. The difficult situation gave history a new significance, but it also created a new burden for Polish historians. Not only did the historians have to discuss the state, but they inevitably raised the issue of the ‘nation’ – its essence, its shape, its future. Although most Poles believed that the destruction of the state signified the nation’s end, the work of reconstruction soon began, at home and abroad. In trying to make sense of these tragic events and seek Poland’s resurrection, the historians discussed in this volume reveal their presuppositions, concerns, and hopes. Naturally, Polish historians differed in their discussion of events as well as in their implications and interpretation. The biographies contained in this volume reveal, in Mazzini’s words, ‘the interaction between the fixed elements in history – the critical, systematic methods and the sources – and the time-bound elements embodied in the historian.’ In addition, Mazzini claimed that he could ‘declare the personal feelings of any historian, after reading

Introduction 5

twenty pages of his history.’5 Polish historians, however, attempted to express not only their personal feelings but also their views on national life. Given the importance of Polish historians’ work throughout this period, history was at the centre of Polish intellectual life. All thinking Poles looked to History for answers to their fate. This development was in keeping with the role of history elsewhere in Europe.6 From the beginning of modern Polish historiography, an institutional framework for historical studies was a challenge for historians. While Stanis¬aw August, Poland’s last king, had provided a study and staff for Naruszewicz, Enlightenment historians had just begun to build an institutional framework for their historical work when the country’s final partition led to the seizure of the Za¬uski Library (counting 300,000 volumes and 11,000 manuscripts) and its removal to St Petersburg. Private initiative addressed part of the need: Izabela Czartoryska (1746– 1835) in Pu¬awy and Józef Maksymilian OssoliÛski (1748–1826) in Lwów formed new collections to aid historical studies. Elsewhere in Europe, the nineteenth century saw historical life take on an organized form: documentary series, such as the Monumenta Germaniae Historica, were published and archives were opened to historians, inspired by Leopold von Ranke (1795–1886). ‘In the nineteenth century no serious spirit dared to affirm any longer that it was possible to compose history without accurate, scrupulous, meticulous study of the documents upon which it is founded.’7 It seemed as if Polish historians would inevitably fall behind their colleagues in other lands. Aware of such developments and convinced of the importance of history as a discipline, the first scholarly academy, the Society of Friends of the Sciences (Towarzystwo Przyjació¬ Nauk), was founded as early as 1800 in Prussian-occupied Warsaw; for most of its existence it was headed by a historian. The Society kept alive the spirit of the Enlightenment, seeking to complete Naruszewicz’s large-scale national history.8 Under the leadership of historians such as Jan Albertrandi (1731–1808) and Julian Ursyn Niemcewicz (1758–1841), the Society played a large role in promoting historical work in the Duchy of Warsaw and the Congress Kingdom. However, in the aftermath of the Insurrection of 1830–1, it was abolished by the Russians in 1832 and its library taken to St Petersburg. To encourage scholarly work, the Poles of the Great Emigration established the Société historique et littéraire, with its own library, in Paris in 1838.9 Without an independent state and with occupying powers hostile to the cultivation and study of national life, Polish history lacked a stable

6 John D. Stanley

institutional base. Universities on Polish soil existed either for short periods, such as the University of Warsaw, or were deprived of a national context, as in the case of Cracow’s Jagiellonian University from 1846 to 1871. Consequently, Polish history was slow to enter the academic curriculum. Indeed, this lack of a secure institutional basis gave an even more urgent need for history to reach beyond the academe. As a result, Polish history naturally assumed a didactic function throughout the decades. Nevertheless, despite this lack of a stable academic framework, Polish historians kept up with the latest historiographical techniques and interpretations, and even anticipated them.10 The infrastructure for Polish history was built only in the late nineteenth century, in Galicia. Historical work was initially carried out under the auspices of scholarly societies such as the Scientific Society (Towarzystwo Naukowe) established in Cracow in 1816 and the National OssoliÛski Foundation (Zak¬ad Narodowy im. OssoliÛskich) founded in 1817 in Lwów. However, after 1869, when the Polish aristocracy gained political control of Galicia, Polish became the language of instruction in this part of the Habsburg Empire, and the high schools (gymnasia) as well as the universities in Cracow and Lwów could take up research on and teaching of Polish history. The establishment of the Academy of Letters (Akademia Umiej´tno◊ci) in Cracow in 1873 provided a focus for historical work; its first secretary was the noted historian Józef Szujski, who founded the Historical Commission within the Academy.11 There was no distinction made among members based on passport.12 As a result, from its beginnings, the Academy served as a magnet for Polish scholars, regardless of the sector in which they lived.13 While Galicia provided the possibility for the professionalization of history, the Cracow school of historians saw itself as ‘volunteer firemen’ intent on suppressing the fires of conspiracy and rebellion. Their conservatism lent a pessimistic hue to their interpretation. Although the founder of the school is generally regarded as Walerian Kalinka, its most prominent figures were Józef Szujski, Micha¬ BobrzyÛski, and Stanis¬aw Smolka, who revolted against the Romantic tradition of Lelewel and sought to work within the Habsburg Empire in order to secure Polish interests. In Eastern Galicia, the Ossolineum provided a basis for historical studies in the early nineteenth century. In addition, another Polish aristocrat, Count Aleksander Stadnicki, supported research and publications on local history. After Polish replaced German as the language of instruction at Lwów’s university in 1869, Polish history had an institutional setting in Galicia’s provincial capital. That history assumed a

Introduction 7

professional life in Lwów, however, was due to Ksawery Liske, who created the Historical Society (Towarzystwo Historyczne) in Lwów in 1886, while Oswald Balzer strengthened the possibilities for historical research by founding the Scientific Society of Lwów in 1901. The Lwów school of historians became known for its critical analysis and erudition. The first professional journal in Polish devoted exclusively to history was the Historical Quarterly (Kwartalnik Historyczny) founded by Liske in 1887 as the Historical Society’s organ.14 Although published in the Austrian sector, it consistently published the works of historians from German and Russian Poland as well. This burst of Polish historical work attracted attention abroad: foreign historical journals offered outlines of Polish historiography.15 The confluence of political power and scholarly work in Galicia made this Habsburg province the most important site for the development of Polish historical studies. By the end of the nineteenth century, it was clear that the Poles were publishing source documents at the same professional level as the best in Europe and that Polish history had a strong infrastructure supporting it, even without an independent state. As Prussian rule grew briefly more lenient, PoznaÛ saw the establishment of its own Society of Friends of the Sciences (Towarzystwo Przyjació¬ Nauk) in 1857. The Scientific Society in ToruÛ (Towarzystwo Naukowe w Toruniu), established in 1875, encouraged the study of Pomeranian history. In addition, individual Polish aristocrats in the Prussian partition, such as Edward RaczyÛski (1786–1845) and Tytus Dzia¬yÛski (1796–1861), also sponsored historical work and established libraries and archives. However, there were no Polish universities in the region, and it was consequently in this sector that the historical Romanticism promoted by Lelewel lasted longest. For example, his disciple Wac¬aw Maciejowski (1793–1883) wrote the first monograph on the history of Poland’s peasants.16 In the Russian sector, after the crushing of the November uprising in 1831, there was no institutional infrastructure available for historical studies. However, history continued to be written as historians in Warsaw often held administrative or teaching positions and wrote to supplement their salary. The opening of the Main School (Szko¬a G¬ówna) in 1862 seemed to offer a foundation for history in Russian Poland, but it was closed in the aftermath of the January uprising, in 1869.17 Polish historical work was thus deprived of a home after the transformation of the post-secondary Main School into the Imperial University of Warsaw, where Russian was the language of instruction and Polish history

8 John D. Stanley

had no place.18 Given the impossibility of establishing a scholarly academy in Russian-occupied Poland, the Caisse Mianowski (Kasa im. Mianowskiego) was established in 1880 by former professors and students from the banned Main School in order to support Polish research. The KrasiÛski Library served as a scholarly centre, and once again aristocrats, such as Alfred Józef Potocki (1817–89) and Edward KrasiÛski (1870–1940), supported scholarship.19 Despite the lack of a Polish historical institution or a Polish university, the Warsaw school of historians countered the influence of the more numerous Cracow school. Historians such as Tadeusz Korzon, W¬adys¬aw SmoleÛski, and Wac¬aw Sobieski focused on modern history, taking a more optimistic view of Poland’s past than those in the numerically stronger Cracow school. Under the influence of Comte, Spencer, and particularly Buckle, these historians became known for their liberalism, defending the value of the Romantic tradition, as well as for their use of statistics. However, in the absence of academic opportunities, they had to find employment in related fields.20 Only after the 1905 Revolution could an infrastructure for Polish historical studies be established in Warsaw. Already in 1907, the Scientific Society in Warsaw (Towarzystwo Naukowe w Warszawie) was established, and it survived until 1939.21 After the 1905 Revolution, Tadeusz Korzon and Aleksander Jab¬onowski (1829–1913) established the Warsaw Society of Lovers of History (Towarzystwo Warszawskie Mi¬o◊ników Historii), the first Polish organization devoted solely to the promotion of history as a field.22 Its organ was Historical Review (Przeglåd Historyczny), which provided another outlet for the publication of historians’ work. The need to unify the work in Polish history across the partitions was promoted through historical conferences, which could take place legally only in Galicia. The first conference of Polish historians was held in 1880 in Cracow, on the four-hundredth anniversary of the death of Jan D¬ugosz, the pre-eminent historian of medieval Poland. The follow-up conference in 1890 in Lwów saw Korzon launch an attack on the Cracow school while championing Lelewel. At the 1900 conference in Cracow, the first attempt was made to draw up a balance sheet of achievements and gaps by the community of Polish historians. For example, it was clear that much had been achieved in medieval history, but more attention needed to be paid to economic and cultural history. Paralleling these attempts to ignore state boundaries for historical work, new divisions appeared. By the end of the nineteenth century, as elsewhere in Europe, history as a field had subdivided into

Introduction 9

new economic, social, legal, cultural, and intellectual sub-disciplines, although political and diplomatic narratives continued to dominate the field. History was also now established as a professional field, and it was thoroughly dominated by academics, some trained abroad, such as Stanis¬aw Smolka at Göttingen, Julian Marchlewski (1866–1925) at Zurich, Wac¬aw Sobieski at Leipzig, as well as Ignacy Baranowski (1879–1917) and Tadeusz Korzon in Moscow. In such universities, Polish historians studied under many of the grand masters of nineteenth-century history.23 Furthermore, non-Polish historians began to make serious contributions to Polish history.24 Poland’s independence dramatically changed the environment in which Polish historians worked. As early as December 1918, Polish historians provided materials to support the Polish case at Versailles.25 Following independence, there were five state universities (Cracow, Lwów, Warsaw, Wilno, PoznaÛ) as well as two private universities (Lublin, Warsaw). Libraries, archives, and museum collections looted in the nineteenth century were returned. By the Treaty of Riga (1921), the Soviet Union agreed to return to Poland the book collections and archives taken in the previous century. Poland’s own state archives were established in 1918; during the inter-war period there were four central archives in Warsaw.26 The state archives had their own journal, Archeion. These national archives were supplemented by a network of thirteen provincial archives. Moreover, the archives of other nations were now open to Polish historians. New opportunities for presenting historical work appeared, though some of these new outlets published mainly ‘micro-history,’ small studies focusing on facts or events of minor importance.27 However, inter-war Poland was a relatively poor state. The Historical Commission of the Polish Academy of Letters saw its budget shrink as a percentage of the Academy’s total expenditures on humanities from 50 per cent in 1877 to 6 per cent in 1937!28 While Polish universities all had history departments, there was a lack of funding for large-scale publication projects: the publication of scholarly syntheses and the editing of sources suffered. After independence, a new, nationwide body, the Polish Historical Society (Polskie Towarzystwo Historyczne), was organized in 1925 by Stanis¬aw Zakrzewski (1873–1936) encompassing all historians – professional and amateur – working on Polish soil. While its main seat was in Lwów, where its organ Kwartalnik Historyczny was published, the Society had fourteen affiliates throughout Poland and counted 1,329 mem-

10 John D. Stanley

bers. Under the Society’s auspices, Marceli Handelsman organized the Conference of Historians of Eastern Europe in 1929. It was also under the Society’s aegis that a series of national conferences devoted to Polish history were held during the inter-war period. This professional infrastructure – organizations, journals, and conferences – provided the framework for the growth of history as a field and a profession. Women such as Zofia Kirkor-Kiedroniowa (1872–1952), Natalia Gåsiorowska (1881–1964), Zofia DaszyÛska-GoliÛska (1866– 1924), Wanda MoszczeÛska (1896–1974), and Helena Wi´ckowska (1897–1984) also were granted a role in this academic profession; women had been conspicuously absent before 1918. As Polish society modernized, Jews such as Szymon Askenazy and Marceli Handelsman made outstanding contributions to Polish historiography. Also of importance for inter-war historians was the history of Poland’s large minorities. Icchak (Ignacy) Schipper (1884–1943) and Majer Ba¬aban (1877–1943) wrote on the Jews, Józef Go¬åbek (1889–1940) on the Czechs and Slovaks, and Stanis¬aw Dziadulewicz (1872–1943) on the Tatars. The Ukrainian minority had its own research institute, as did the Jewish community. Certain fields developed readily during the inter-war period: military, economic, constitutional, and cultural history. Military historians, for example, built on the work of Korzon and Konstanty Górski (1826– 98) to establish the institutional framework for their work. In 1918, a historical journal devoted to military history, Bellona, was established.29 Constitutional history also developed during the inter-war period. Although it had a sound grounding in the work of nineteenthcentury historians, BobrzyÛski, Oswald Balzer (1885–1947), Boles¬aw Ulanowski (1860–1919), and the great Stanis¬aw Kutrzeba (1876–1946) advanced this field to the forefront of historical studies in Poland. Economic history blossomed in the 1920s and 1930s. While the first centre of economic history was founded at the Jagiellonian University in Cracow in 1905–6, it was only during the inter-war period that the field was recognized as a university discipline.30 Cultural history also came into its own in the works of Jan Pta◊nik (1876–1930), Jan Stanis¬aw BystroÛ (1892–1964), and Stanis¬aw Kot (1885–1975). Also unique to the inter-war period was the emphasis on regional history, particularly the past of Pomerania and Silesia, territories that were once again Polish after centuries of foreign rule. This work inevitably took on a political task of demonstrating Poland’s claims to these territories. Much attention was also paid to local history.31 Wilno, GdaÛsk, Cracow, Lwów, ToruÛ, PoznaÛ, and SódÚ were among the cit-

Introduction 11

ies that had historical societies producing periodicals and supporting monograph series devoted to their histories. Despite the growth of specialized fields, no grand synthesis of Polish history appeared in the inter-war period. However, the first volume of the Polish Biographical Dictionary (Polski S¬ownik Biograficzny) was published in 1935. Four more volumes were issued before the Second World War.32 After the Pi¬sudski coup d’état in 1926, contemporary history unfortunately became the tool of political rivalries. For example, the Research Institute for Modern History (Instytut Badania Najnowszej Historii Polski) was founded in 1923, but in 1926 it was renamed the Pi¬sudski Institute, devoted to glorifying inter-war Poland’s dictator. Although the Institute’s publication Independence (Niepodleg¬o◊ñ) remained scholarly and kept its standards high, an opposing socialist periodical, Chronicle of the Revolutionary Movement (Kronika Ruchu Rewolucyjnego), began publication after 1935. Given their role in national life, historians in Poland during the partitions and the inter-war period focused almost solely on their own nation’s history.33 As a result, interest in the history of other nations was at the margins of Polish historiography. For example, the first chair in ancient history was established at Cracow only in 1908. Individual historians did explore the history of the world beyond Poland.34 In the inter-war period, Tadeusz Korzon and Wincenty Zakrzewski (1844– 1918) attempted syntheses of world history.35 A collaborative, multi-volume synthesis, Grand Universal History (Wielka Historia Powszechna), remained unfinished at the outbreak of the Second World War. However, given the imperative of national resistance and resurrection, this marginalization of non-Polish history has changed only since the Second World War. The work of Polish historians began to attract attention abroad, first in historiographical surveys and only later in individual studies and book reviews.36 With the translations of works by Korzon, Askenazy, Handelsman, and Halecki, Polish historiography became known to a readership outside Poland. Polish historians were also active on the international scene. Their participation was most noticeable in the series of International Congresses of Historical Sciences. In 1933, Warsaw was selected as the site for that year’s congress, a selection regarded as an estimate of the esteem in which Polish historians were now held.37 However, this conference also demonstrated that German-Polish relations were difficult even in the scholarly sphere.38 Already the clash with Germany was on the horizon.

12 John D. Stanley

Over the decades, the centre for Polish historical studies has shifted with the vagaries of a turbulent national life. During the period covered in this volume, Warsaw, Wilno, Cracow, and Lwów at various times took primacy in historical studies. Each centre imparted a different emphasis to the field of history: Warsaw for its association with the Enlightenment, Wilno with Romanticism, Cracow with positivism, while Lwów focused on methodology and in fin de siècle Warsaw a modernist school developed. Regardless of where their work was written, however, Polish historians have played a central role in national life. From the eighteenth century onward, their position in the national culture expanded as the prominence of history itself grew. The study of Polish history became not only a priority for the generations witnessing Poland’s decline and fall but also a tool for understanding past errors and a method for avoiding similar mistakes in the future. From the Enlightenment through to Marxism, Polish historians and their work not only influenced but in many ways shaped Polish intellectual life. Naruszewicz was not only Poland’s foremost historian of the eighteenth century; his work was an important tool in advancing the Enlightenment project in Poland. Lelewel gave an intellectual underpinning to Polish Romanticism and the insurrectionary tradition, just as the Cracow school’s important historians – Kalinka, Szujski, BobrzyÛski – did so much to denigrate that tradition while justifying positivism and organic work to support national development without independence. The Warsaw school of historians – Korzon, SmoleÛski, and Askenazy – showed pride in Poland’s historical accomplishments – modern as well as medieval – and gave succour to the revival of the independence movement. In the inter-war period, historians gave intellectual credibility to the Socialist as well as National Democratic programs, and the Pi¬sudski regime supported historical work that favoured its policies. All of these schools consciously aimed at raising respect for Poland and its past abroad: Naruszewicz combated German chroniclers’ negative views of Poland just as avidly as the interwar historians challenged Nazi propaganda. In the nearly two hundred years covered by the contributors to this volume, history as a field changed intellectual directions many times: it never lost its power to influence national events. By September 1939, Polish historical work was the equal of that carried on in any European society. This notable achievement – accomplished in the face of political occupation, cultural oppression, and inconsistent economic development – assured the field’s continuation as well as the nation’s intellectual survival.

Introduction 13 NOTES 1 W¬adys¬aw KonopczyÛski, ‘Dzieje nauki historycznej w Polsce,’ Przeglåd Powszechny, R. 66, t. 228 (July–December 1949), p. 31. 2 Historians have even been referred to as ‘a separate caste.’ Micha¬ BobrzyÛski, ‘Kilka s¬ów o najnowszym ruchu na polu naszego dziejopisarstwa,’ Niwa 12 (1877), p. 497. 3 Among the most important treatments of Polish historiography are Kazimierz Tymeniecki, Zarys dziejów historiografii polskiej (Cracow, 1948); KonopczyÛski, pp. 27–45, 145–60; Marian Henryk Serejski, Historycy o historii, vol. 1: Od Adama Naruszewicz do Stanis¬awa K´trzyÛskiego 1775–1918 (Warsaw, 1963); and Andrzej F. Grabski, Zarys historii historiografii polskiej (PoznaÛ, 2000). The entire issue of Kwartalnik Historyczny 51 (1937) is devoted to Polish historiography from 1886 to 1936. Among more focused treatments are Aleksander Kraushar, Rozwój dziejopisarstwa nowoczesnego polskiego (Warsaw, 1928); Andrzej Wierzbicki, Historiografia polska doby Romantyzmu (Wroc¬aw, 1999); and Jerzy Maternicki, Historiografia polska XX wieku, pt. 1: lata 1900–1918 (Wroc¬aw, 1982). See also Marian Henryk Serejski, Zarys historii historiografii polskiej, pt. 1: (od po¬owy XVIII w. do roku ok. 1860) (SódÚ, 1954), and his Zarys historii historiografii polskiej, pt. 2: (1860– 1900) (SódÚ, 1956); Józef Dutkiewicz and Krystyna jreniowska, Zarys historii historiografii polskiej, pt. 3: (1900–1939) (SódÚ, 1959); Bernard Ziffer, Poland. History and Historians: Three Bibliographical Essays (New York, 1952); and Piotr S. Wandycz, ‘Historiography of the Countries of Eastern Europe: Poland,’ American Historical Review 97 (1992), pp. 1011–25. For biographies of Polish historians, see Marceli Handelsman, Historycy: Portrety i profile (Warsaw, 1937), and Maria ProsiÛska-Jackl, ed., S¬ownik historyków polskich (Warsaw, 1994). 4 BobrzyÛski referred to Poland’s decline and fall as ‘the most vital problem of our history ...’ BobrzyÛski, ‘Kilka s¬ów,’ p. 496. 5 Fritz Stern, The Varieties of History: From Voltaire to the Present (New York, 1956), pp. 24–5. 6 Polish historians themselves were conscious of their importance. The first attempt at a survey of Polish historical thought was made by Sukasz Go¬´biowski in his work O dziejopisach polskich, ich duchu, zaletach i wadach (Warsaw, 1826). This first attempt began a long tradition of prominent historians reflecting on Polish historiography. See Andrzej Feliks Grabski, ‘Reorientacje historigrafii polskiej a refleksja historiograficzna,’ in his Orientacje Polskiej My◊li Historycznej (Warsaw, 1972), pp. 9–53. Julian Bartoszewicz’s series of articles registered the advance of Polish historiography and

14 John D. Stanley

7 8 9 10 11

12 13

regarded its fruits as the products of their own time. Julian Bartoszewicz, ‘Nowa epoka literatury historycznej polskiej,’ Biblioteka Warszawska (1850), t. 2, pp. 55–79, 528–56; t. 3, pp. 95–123; t. 4, pp. 430–73; 1851, t. 1, pp. 48–69; t. 2, pp. 259–84, 428–51; t. 4, s. 271–98; 1852, t. 1, pp. 243–91; t. 3, s. 267–91; t. 4, pp. 69–98; t. 5, pp. 288–318. A qualitative leap was made by Henryk Schmitt’s series of articles under the title of ‘Poglåd na rozwój, ducha i kierunek dziejopisarstwa polskiego w wieku XIX,’ published in the Lwów daily newspaper Dziennik Literacki in 1859, nos. 44–56 and 58–66. The Romantic Schmitt was the first to organize Polish historiography into schools, regarding Lelewel as the ‘spirit of the modern historical school in Poland’ (Dziennik Literacki, no. 56 (1859), p. 672). The positivist Micha¬ BobrzyÛski built on this concept of schools in his survey of Polish historiography in the introductory chapter of his influential Dzieje Polski w zarysie, published in 1877. (There have been numerous subsequent editions.) The focus on historical schools, linking historians to specific political and social movements, was furthered by W¬adys¬aw SmoleÛski in his Szko¬y historyczne w Polsce. G¬ówne kierunki poglådów na przesz¬o◊ñ (Warsaw, 1886). Also see Stanis¬aw jreniowski, ‘O szko¬ach historycznych w Polsce,’ Kwartalnik Historyczny 57 (1949), pp. 43–72. Benedetto Croce, Theory and History of Historiography (London, 1921), p. 279. See Stanis¬aw Potocki, ‘Prospekt historii narodu polskiego,’ Pami´tnik Warszawski (1809). Also available in Serejski, Historycy o historii, vol. 1, pp. 68–71. See Danuta Rederowa, Polski emigracyjny o◊rodek naukowy we Francji w latach 1831–1872 (Wroc¬aw, 1972). For example, Lelewel was a pioneer in the use of textual criticism and was the first historian to engage in comparative history. In Cracow, a new foundation for historical study became possible with the establishment of documentary series, such as the Monumenta medii aevi res gestas Poloniae illustrantia, 19 vols. (1874–1927), Scriptores Rerum Polonicarum, 22 vols. (1872–1917), and the Monumenta Poloniae Historica (1864–93), which was clearly modelled on the German publication Monumenta Germaniae Historica (begun in 1826). Bibliographical works such as Karol Estreicher’s Bibliografia polska, 33 vols. (1870–1939) and Ludwik Finkel’s Bibliografia historii polskiej, 3 vols. (Cracow, 1891–1914) provided essential tools for historical work, as did the publication of catalogues and inventories of important archives and libraries, such as those of the Jagiellonian University’s own library (Cracow, 1877–81). KonopczyÛski, p. 42. See Jan Hulewicz, ed., Polska Akademia Umiej´tno◊ci 1871–1952. Nauki humanistyczne i spo¬eczne (Wroc¬aw, 1974).

Introduction 15 14 By comparison, Historische Zeitschrift was established in 1858, Revue historique in 1876, The English Historical Review in 1885, the ˜esky ôasopis historycky as well as the American Historical Review in 1895, and the Canadian Historical Review in 1920. 15 The first example of such treatment that I have found is the anonymous ‘Uebersicht der polnischen geschichtlichen Literatur der letzten Jahre,’ Historische Zeitschrift, Bd. 18 (1867), pp. 359–410. 16 Wac¬aw Maciejowski, Historya w¬o◊cian i stosunków ich politycznych, spo¬ecznych i ekonomicznych, które istnia¬y w Polsce od czasów najdawniejszych aÒ do drugiej po¬owy XIX wieku (PoznaÛ, 1874). 17 See Jerzy Maternicki, Warszawskie ◊rodowisko historyczne 1832–1869 (Warsaw, 1970). 18 However, the university provided a haven for a few Polish scholars such as Adolf PawiÛski, who became a professor in 1875, and W¬adys¬aw SmoleÛski, who studied law there. 19 See Krystyna jreniowska, ‘M¬odzi historycy w walce z krakowskå szko¬å historycznå w r. 1896,’ Uniwersytet Sódzki. Zeszyty Naukowe, Seria 1, z. 4 (1956), pp. 161–78. 20 For example, Korzon was the director of the Zamoyski Library in Warsaw and SmoleÛski was a history teacher in assorted private schools for girls in Warsaw until he finally became director of the KrasiÛski Library in 1897. 21 See Marceli Handelsman, Société des Sciences et des Lettres de Varsovie 1907– 1932 (Warsaw, 1933). 22 See Marian Marek Drozdowski and Hanna Szwankowska, eds., Warszawskie ◊rodowisko historyczne w XX wieku. Dziewi´ñdziesi´ciolecie Towarzystwa Mi¬o◊ników Historii (Warsaw, 1997). 23 For example, Aleksander Maciejowski studied under Savigny and Eichhorn, Stanis¬aw Zakrzewski under Droysen and Oncken, PlebaÛski and PawiÛski under Ranke, Smolka under Waitz, Aleksander Rembowski under Bluntschli, Wojciechowski under Giesebrecht, KrzyÒanowski under Sickel, Askenazy under Lehman, Sobieski under Lamprecht. 24 Among the earliest examples of non-Polish scholars publishing in the field are Richard Roepell (1808–93), Geschichte Polens, 5 vols. [Geschichte der europäischen Staaten] (Hamburg, 1840–88); Jakob Caro (1836–1904), Das Interregnum Polens im Jahre 1587 und die Parteikämpfe der Häuser Zborowski und Zamojski (Gotha, 1861); Heinrich, Ritter von Zeissberg (1839–99), Die polnische Geschichtsschreibung des Mittelalters; gekrönte Preisschrift [Preisschriften gekrönt und hrsg. von der Fürstlich Jablonowski’schen Gesellschaft zu Leipzig, 17] (Leipzig, 1873); and Ezechiel Zivier (1868–1925), Neuere Geschichte Polens [Geschichte der europäischen Staaten, 39] (Gotha, 1915).

16 John D. Stanley 25 W¬adys¬aw Korcz, ‘Ziemia lubuska w historiografii,’ Rocznik Lubuski 13 (1983), pp. 25–6. 26 Archiwum Akt Dawnych, Archiwum G¬ówne, Archiwum O◊wiecenia, Archiwum Skarbowe, Archiwum Wojskowe, and the Wydzia¬ archiwów’s own storehouse. 27 As Ziffer notes, ‘micrography’ was a feature of the inter-war period in Europe and the United States as well. Ziffer, p. 32. 28 KonopczyÛski, p. 148. 29 The Military Historical Bureau (Wojskowe Biuro Historyczne), established in 1924, produced its own scholarly periodical, Przeglåd Wojskowy, later Przeglåd Historyczno-wojskowy. In 1927, a Commission for Military History (Komisja dla Historii Wojskowo◊ci) was established with its own publication series. Historians such as Marian Kukiel, Wac¬aw Tokarz, W¬adys¬aw Sikorski (1881–1943), and Tadeusz Kutrzeba (1885–1947) gave a solid grounding to a field that could only have developed in an independent Poland. For further information, see Benon Mi◊kiewicz, Polska historiografia wojskowa. Próba analizy i syntezy (PoznaÛ, 1996). 30 Economic history was championed by scholars such as Franciszek Bujak (1875–1953), Jan Rutkowski (1886–1949), and Roman Rybarski (1887–1942). In addition to authoring numerous studies, Bujak and Rutkowski edited the important Roczniki Dziejów Spo¬ecznych i Gospodarczych, founded in 1931. For further information, see Jerzy Topolski, ‘Badania historyczno-gospodarcze w Polsce,’ Roczniki Dziejów Spo¬ecznych i Gospodarczych 25 (1963), pp. 9–45, and Helena Madurowicz-UrbaÛska, ‘Histoire économique en Pologne en tant que discipline universitaire,’ Studia Historiae Oeconomicae 9 (1974), pp. 3–20. 31 See Andrzej St´pnik, Historia regionalna i lokalna w Polsce 1918–1939. Badania i popularyzacja (Warsaw, 1970). 32 Despite the Marxist approach to history that dominated the post-war era, the fascicles of the dictionary have continued to appear. However, it is not yet complete. 33 Tadeusz Korzon, ‘Historyografia,’ Pisma Tadeusz Korzona, vol. 2 (Warsaw, 1916), pp. 115–16. 34 Micha¬ BobrzyÛski publicized this gap between Polish and world history as early as 1877. See BobrzyÛski, ‘Kilka s¬ów,’ p. 498. Among Polish historians working in non-Polish history, it is worth noting Henryk Paszkiewicz (1897–1979), Kazimierz Waliszewski (1849–1935), and Jan Kucharzewski (1876–1952) in Russian history; Kazimierz Ch¬´dowski (1843–1920) on the culture of Italy and France; and Adam Szelågowski (1872–1961), who wrote a history of the United States, Stany Zjednoczone Pó¬nocnej Ameryki. USA. Tworzenie paÛstwa i konstytucji (Warsaw, 1929).

Introduction 17 35 Tadeusz Korzon wrote a world history composed of Historia staroÒytna (Warsaw, 1911), Historia wieków ◊rednich (Warsaw, 1893), Historia nowoÒytna, 2 vols. (Warsaw, 1901–3), and Historia nowoczesna (Warsaw, 1906); Wincenty Zakrzewski penned Historia powszechna, 3 vols. (Cracow, 1920–3). The latter were published posthumously. However, these syntheses were written as textbooks. 36 Examples of such surveys include Józef Feldman, ‘Historical Studies in Poland: A Bibliographical Survey,’ Slavonic Review 2 (1924), pp. 660–6, and William J. Rose, ‘Polish Historical Writing,’ Journal of Modern History 2 (1930), pp. 569–85. 37 For example, issue no. 10 for 1933 of #@D$a 8:aFF@i, the pre-eminent Soviet historical periodical, was devoted to the congress. 38 Nationalistic German scholars produced a collection: Albert Brackmann, ed., Deutschland und Polen; Beiträge zu ihren geschichtlichen Beziehungen (Munich, 1933). It was also made available in English as Germany and Poland in Their Historical Relations (Munich, 1934). It became a source of great controversy for the assertion that Poland owed its achievements to the Germans! The Poles responded with a series of publications, Polska a jej såsiedzi, of which four volumes appeared before the German invasion in September 1939. The Polish historical tradition was also attacked by the Soviets. See Czes¬aw JasiÛski, ‘A@:\F8"b 4FH@D4@(D"L4b MyM 4 MM FH@:,H46 & @F&,V,>44 B@:\F84N $JD0J"2>4N 4FH@D48@&,’ #@D$a 8:aFF@i, no. 10 (1933), pp. 27–32.

1 Adam Naruszewicz (1733–1796) john d. stanley

Adam Naruszewicz is the first modern Polish historian.1 In the words of his great successor Joachim Lelewel, Naruszewicz ‘opened the first secure access to the nation’s history.’2 His historical work was carried out within the context of the Enlightenment: its philosophical principles, its approach to history, and its implementation in Poland.3 Naruszewicz demonstrated his ties to Enlightenment principles through his emphasis on didacticism, empiricism, humanitarianism, love of order, and secularism, along with his belief in Reason as well as Progress, and the related doctrine of the unchanging and universal character of human nature. Like the philosophes, he embraced Natural Law and Pure Reason: ‘the battle between heaven and hell was replaced by the battle between reason and unreason.’4 Moral law remained the same at all times and among all peoples: truths were as valid in London as in Leszno.5 History was to provide examples to support the philosophes’ beliefs but also to serve as a model to teach lessons from the past. In style, neoclassical clarity was contrasted to baroque ornamentation. Moreover, through Naruszewicz’s pragmatism, utilitarianism, scepticism about tradition, questioning of sources but reliance on chronology, and insistence on the use of the vernacular in all of his historical writing, he also reveals the influence of Enlightenment historiography.6 Through his pride in national accomplishments and his emphasis on domestic politics and a strong monarchy, Naruszewicz signalled his allegiance to implementing the Enlightenment project in Poland. He clearly aligned himself with those activists who saw the need for a complete break with Poland’s more recent past (Sarmatianism and baroque culture). Their goal was to bind Poland once again to the broad stream of European culture through the ideals and practices of the Enlightenment.7

Adam Naruszewicz (1733–1796) 19

Born on 20 October 1733, Naruszewicz was christened Adam Tadeusz in Sahiszyn (in today’s Belarus).8 He was born into a gentry family with a small estate in Polesie, an eastern region of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and was educated at the Jesuit school in nearby Pinsk. Although his father, Jerzy Naruszewicz (1703–52), likely sent him there to gain the skills necessary to qualify for a minor provincial post, Naruszewicz instead entered the Jesuit order on 14 August 1748 and began to study at the Wilno Academy.9 The Jesuits provided not only essential skills but also opportunities: after five years of study at the academy, he received a master’s degree (olim artium liberalium et philosophiae magister) in 1753 and became an instructor, teaching grammar.10 While Naruszewicz’s interest in the classics and the Polish language was stimulated by his education, his first experience in original research occurred while searching the order’s archives in order to publish the small tome Poemata ex vetustis manuscriptis et variis codicillis in unum collecta (Wilno, 1757), which he followed up with Reverendi Patris Mathiae Casimiri Sarbiewski. Societate Jesu Poemata ... (Wilno, 1769), both works devoted to Kazimierz Sarbiewski (1595–1640), a Jesuit poet whom Naruszewicz admired. In 1757, Naruszewicz took up teaching duties in Warsaw at the prestigious Collegium Nobilium Societatis Jesu, where he lectured in poetics. The college was the original Polish centre for the dispersal of Enlightenment thought, and its curriculum was founded on the philosophia recentiorum.11 The young man first came into contact there with Enlightenment ideas. On the recommendation of the Jesuit order and with financial support provided by the magnate Prince Micha¬ Czartoryski (1696–1775), the young man was among those Polish Jesuits sent to France for further study. He studied theology in Lyon at the Jesuits’ Collège de la Trinité for four years, only becoming a priest on 17 January 1762.12 Lyon was the second largest city in France but its most important commercial centre. It attracted merchants from throughout Europe who brought with them intellectual currents as well as new products.13 Unlike Paris, the city’s cultural life was dominated by a bourgeoisie who saw in the Enlightenment’s rationalism a useful intellectual framework to buttress its social position. Freemasonry flourished. 14 However, these merchant families favoured the practical, the scientific over the philosophical or artistic. Although Lyon had no university, it did have two Jesuit colleges, and the Jesuits maintained the most important educational institutions in Europe. As a result, the Jesuits in Lyon attracted the sons of the wealthiest merchants and even some aristocrats to their

20 John D. Stanley

ranks.15 Naruszewicz’s Enlightenment ideas would have been reinforced in France, for Lyon’s clergy were noted for their intellectual pursuits: ‘La théologie et la métaphysique paraissent absentes de leurs spéculations qui demeurerent déterminées par les courants de pensée du siècle.’16 As a result of contacts with Poles like Naruszewicz, the Enlightenment concepts were transmitted straight from France to Poland.17 However, due to the religious order’s influence on its reception, the Enlightenment in Poland seldom assumed an anticlerical guise but rather resulted in a ‘discrete secularization of the clergy,’ which continued its influential educational and cultural role.18 In addition to study, Naruszewicz used his time in western Europe to travel, going as far afield as Spain and Italy.19 Although he left his homeland knowing only Latin and Polish, he returned with a solid knowledge of French and Italian as well as an acquaintance with German and ancient Greek. Naruszewicz resumed teaching in 1762 at the Collegium Nobilium, where he was responsible for poetics and rhetoric as well as geography and history.20 He later became lecturer in French and, from 1765, the head of the school library. In the 1766–7 academic year, he was invited to teach history at the secular Knights’ School, established by the king in order to provide modern leaders for Poland. Such teaching positions put him in touch with members of Poland’s elite, such as Prince Adam Kazimierz Czartoryski (1734–1823). It was through Czartoryski, the commander of the Knights’ School, that Naruszewicz first met Stanis¬aw August (1732–98) in 1764, the very year in which this ally of the Czartoryski family and former paramour of Catherine II of Russia became the Commonwealth’s king.21 The meeting was important for Naruszewicz, who was seeking a patron, while the king was looking for loyal servants.22 By 1771, they were meeting regularly, with Naruszewicz frequently attending the king’s famous Thursday dinners (obiady), at Sazienki Palace, where Poland’s pre-eminent poets, artists, and statesmen discussed the events of the day.23 The king saw Naruszewicz as one of his most dedicated and hard-working supporters – whether as a poet, journalist, or, eventually, editor for the new royalist literary periodical, Pleasant and Useful Pastimes (Zabawy przyjemne i poÒyteczne).24 Stanis¬aw August took to calling him ‘my beloved Naruch’ (mój Naruchu Kochany).25 For his part, Naruszewicz told the king he was ‘one of the world’s nicest fellows.’26 Naruszewicz was already an established poet27 when his interest in the Latin classics led him to Tacitus, ancient Rome’s greatest historian. The leaders of the Polish Enlightenment believed that translation itself

Adam Naruszewicz (1733–1796) 21

was important, not only to make essential works available to a wider circle but also to demonstrate – and strengthen – the vitality of the Polish language. Naruszewicz undertook to translate the complete works of Tacitus into Polish for the first time.28 In the first volume’s dedication to the king, the translator underlined the importance of history.29 He also defended the use of Polish.30 Finally, he linked events in ancient Rome to those of contemporary Poland. Already Naruszewicz had identified those aspects of history that he regarded as fundamental: its utility for contemporaries, its accessibility, and its importance as a distinct field of knowledge. As a result of this interest in and knowledge of the ancient world, Naruszewicz was among those Thursday dinner members appointed by the king, the Society of Several Friends (Towarzystwo Przyjació¬ Kilku), to gather examples of strong, effective government from the ancient world. Written under the influence of Montesquieu, The Political History of Ancient States (Historia polityczna paÛstw staroÒytnych od pewnego towarzystwa napisane) appeared in 1772. Naruszewicz contributed the chapter on Thebes, thereby entering the field of political history. He soon became the king’s adviser on historical matters.31 For example, he began work on a biography of Jan Karol Chodkiewicz, a project whose origins are again found in the Thursday dinners.32 The biography was to be part of a series to be modelled on Plutarch’s Lives, creating indigenous models of civic virtue. This work is important in Naruszewicz’s development as a historian: for the first time he based his historical work on archival materials.33 In biography, a new genre for Naruszewicz, the author was again using historical incident to illuminate contemporary politics. For example, he explored political matters during the reign of Sigismund III Vasa, defending the royal prerogatives but also denouncing the war with Muscovy.34 The First Partition of Poland, in 1772, shocked Naruszewicz, as it did most Poles, and imparted a new urgency to the reform project. In his words, the king’s mission was now to ‘resuscitate, revive, and to set on its feet this lifeless fatherland’35 Stanis¬aw August had no army sufficient to fight the partitioning powers of Austria, Prussia, and Russia, so he sought other means. Naruszewicz’s familiarity with historical sources, Polish and non-Polish, led the king to employ him as one of a group gathering documents to prove Poland’s case against its voracious neighbours. Published as individual pamphlets to increase readership, the essays eventually appeared in a single volume.36 Once again, Naruszewicz was putting history to the service of king and country.37

22 John D. Stanley

As Poland endured the First Partition, Naruszewicz himself suffered an additional blow in November 1773 when the Jesuit order was disbanded; Jesuits were freed from monastic vows and their educational institutions closed.38 While the loss of his place in the order may have given him greater liberty, Naruszewicz had more immediate concerns: without a teaching position at the Collegium Nobilium, he had no livelihood.39 The king demonstrated his ties to Naruszewicz by securing a suitable position for him: on 28 May 1774, Naruszewicz was consecrated Bishop-Coadjutor of Smolensk.40 In May 1775, he was also appointed Bishop of Emaus in partibus infidelium. (Both positions were honorary since neither cities were in Roman Catholic, let alone Polish, hands.)41 Since there was no salary attached to these positions but only prestige, the king intervened once more, giving Naruszewicz two parishes in Lithuania – NiemenczyÛ (near Wilno) and Onikszty (near PoniewieÒ) – to provide an independent income.42 His new positions were owed entirely to his friendship with the king, and this pattern of work and reward underpinned their close relationship.43 With the First Partition behind him, the king looked for the tools to strengthen Poland on all fronts – political, economic, social, and cultural – as well as to combat the traditional szlachta views. Such a broad campaign was seen as necessary to save Poland from further disintegration. While Naruszewicz was involved in many aspects of this program, the unique role assigned to him by the king was to write a new synthesis of Polish history.44 Stanis¬aw August’s use of history as a tool for reform was common in the eighteenth century. ‘No study is so useful to mankind as History, where, as in a glass, men may see the virtues and vices of great persons in former ages, and be taught to pursue the one, and avoid the other.’45 Voltaire and Montesquieu in France, Hume and Gibbon in England, as well as Tatishchev in Russia had all put history at the service of Enlightenment ideals on behalf of their countries.46 The philosophes had a keen interest in history, for they believed that it provided them with concrete evidence of Pure Reason regardless of time or place.47 History gave them the arguments that allowed them to move beyond abstraction to concrete direction for change.48 Nevertheless, scepticism marked their investigations, requiring firm proof for differentiating the genuine from the fraudulent. It was Voltaire who was most influential, for he aggressively propagated a radical interpretation of universal history to support his view on the Enlightenment’s ideals. Enlightenment historiography opposed the medieval approach, linked to theology and the mere transcription

Adam Naruszewicz (1733–1796) 23

of interesting facts. Although insisting on establishing facts, Voltaire ridiculed mere compilations while seeking the natural processes that resulted in a specific event. This philosophe broadened the purview of history, expanding its focus beyond royal courts and military camps to trace the growth of national life.49 The link between philosopher and historian became explicit during the Enlightenment. Moreover, the new historiographical tradition also broadened the notion of history – in subject, space, and time – while giving precedence to the political. However, history became primarily a didactic tool, providing useful examples to demonstrate philosophical precepts as well as the proper political direction. The Polish king had a particular need to promote a new interpretation of Polish history, given Sarmatian traditions, but he was also faced with the appropriation of Enlightenment thought to bolster the aristocrats’ defence of their power.50 In 1775, Micha¬ Wielhorski had published the treatise On returning the former government according to the original Republican laws (O przywróceniu dawnego rzådu wed¬ug pierwiastkowych Rzeczypospolitej ustaw), which used historical evidence to undermine the king’s policies. A retort would be necessary, and Naruszewicz was assigned this formidable task. The king’s friend had only a single Polish predecessor upon whom to draw: Jan D¬ugosz, the fifteenth-century historian who wrote the first general history of Poland. No writer had attempted a complete history of Poland based on original sources since D¬ugosz.51 The emphasis of Renaissance historians, such as Callimachus or Marcin Kromer, had been to employ the principles of rhetoric to perfect style and form, relying on facts already known: history had become simply another form of literature.52 The early Enlightenment in Poland saw the publication of numerous collections of original sources and the production of historical work. The Frenchman César Pyrrhys de Varille (1707–1800), who spent time in Warsaw during the 1760s, wrote Polish history with a monarchical bent, in opposition to the traditional Sarmatian views.53 Among Poles, Franciszek Bohomolec, Feliks Sojek, and Teodor Waga had produced some work in a secular vein.54 In addition, the interest in history was evidenced by the appearance of historical novels by Ignacy Krasicki, Micha¬ Dymitr Krajewski, and Franciszek Salezy Jezierski. Nonetheless, Naruszewicz’s immediate Polish predecessors offered little help in developing the new synthesis.55 Although he used the work of the Hungarian historian György Pray (1723–1801), the Czechs Gelasius Dobner (1719–90) and František Martin Pelcl (1734–1801), as well as

24 John D. Stanley

the Russian Mikhail Lomonosov (1711–65), none of these historians could serve as a model. Consequently, Naruszewicz looked to Voltaire’s approach in writing his history.56 The historical project proposed by the king differed from all previous Polish historical works, for it had to meet the current needs of Poland and the new Enlightenment standards. The king had clear reasons for choosing Naruszewicz as author: his political views, his familiarity with history as a field, his experience in collecting and working with primary sources, his elegant style as well as a strong work ethic. Naruszewicz, as ever, accepted this new task: ‘I am ready to serve him to whom I owe everything.‘57 His work was to underline the important role that history played in the Polish Enlightenment. In response to the king’s request, Naruszewicz penned in 1775 a ‘Memorial regarding the writing of a national history,’ unveiling an ambitious plan for what was to become The History of the Polish Nation from the Beginning of Christianity (Historia narodu polskiego od poczåtku chrze◊cijaÛstwa).58 His work plan consisted of four stages: gathering source material; selection and classification; critical analysis (krytyka mådra); and writing.59 He emphasized the importance of basing the new work on archival materials – public and private – and on organizing them into a whole. However, he did not see the historian as a slave to his materials; rather, he regarded as essential the questioning of sources, comparing them to other works.60 The evidence for this great history would be drawn from all sources of knowledge: geography, heraldry, biography, church history, natural history, municipal and provincial history, education, science, commerce, industry. From the beginning, Naruszewicz recognized that the Commonwealth’s territory was diverse so that the new synthesis would need to show how the country had accumulated this territory.61 Most important, Naruszewicz saw his work as didactic. By relating the nation’s past, its errors and successes, and by analysing causes and results, the work would present readers with solutions to current problems. Given the didactic nature of the work, it was therefore important to publish it in the vernacular and with a clear style. The history could thus speak to the nation about the nation.62 Although he understood the importance of framing Poland’s history within its European context, Naruszewicz emphasized domestic affairs and, given the key role of politics for Poland’s Enlightenment project, privileged the political. From the beginning, Naruszewicz’s authorial point of view was focused on a strong monarchy – in his phrase, ‘the king with the nation, the nation with the king.’63

Adam Naruszewicz (1733–1796) 25

Like all Enlightenment historians, Naruszewicz divided history into secular periods: the Piasts (to the marriage of Jadwiga and W¬adys¬aw Jagie¬¬o, 1386); the Jagiellonians (to the death of Sigismund II August in 1572); from Henri of Valois (Henryk Walezy) to the Vasas; and finally from the abdication of Jan II Kazimierz, 1668, to the present. Although he stated in the Memorya¬ that ‘there is nothing new under the sun,’64 indicating his belief in the historical cycles of Thucydides, he later revealed a belief in the Enlightenment’s notion of progress, writing the king that the Polish nation had advanced in the course of its history. The king agreed with the direction contained in the memorial, and Naruszewicz gave up all unrelated work.65 He abandoned Warsaw, spending most of the year at Powieñ, a village in his native Polesie. However, it seems clear that far from Warsaw and its manuscript collections, Naruszewicz must have depended almost exclusively on printed materials for his History.66 Although he relied on assistants for fact checking, Naruszewicz did all the writing, aiming for five-hundred words daily and achieving this goal by sitting down at his desk at 8:30 a.m. (immediately after celebrating mass) and not rising until the traditional Polish dinner at 3:00 p.m. For his loyalty and hard work, the king awarded him the Order of St Stanis¬aw in 1776, and in order to encourage him to spend more time in Warsaw (where he would be more accessible for other royal requirements), the king assigned him an apartment in the Warsaw palace ‘Pod Blachå.’67 The king took an active interest in the History, informing Naruszewicz that he wanted ‘a good, honest, wise history.’68 To ensure this goal, the king himself served as a first-level editor of the drafts, and he looked forward to reading sections of the work as they were sent to him.69 Encouraging Naruszewicz with his praise, the king also provided specific advice.70 Naruszewicz started his research on the prehistoric origins of the Commonwealth’s territory, but at the king’s insistence he soon turned to the period of the Piast dynasty, early medieval Poland.71 Naruszewicz found the work onerous and reminded the king that ‘only my fervent attachment to Your Majesty urged me on to complete’ these volumes.72 After two and a half years of preparation and an equal period spent writing, by April 1779 Naruszewicz had finished his first draft of the History in seven volumes. Naruszewicz divided his work in books and chapters, using Tacitus as his model.73 These first volumes took his readers only up to 1386; the work never went beyond this date. The work was not published as a set but rather by individual volume. This time lag permitted additional changes to the draft. By the end of 1779, Naruszewicz was proofing the galleys of volume II, which

26 John D. Stanley

dealt with Poland under the early Piast kings (966–1080). Finally, in 1780, volume II appeared as the first to be published in the set. The volumes then appeared annually.74 Stanis¬aw August received with rapture the first volume published, deeming it a ‘valuable gift’ (szacowny dar).75 The work appeared in an edition of 1,500 copies.76 In Naruszewicz’s mind, the history of the Commonwealth’s territory began in prehistoric times. This period was important to him, as noted in letters to the king.77 In this first volume (written last and published only in 1824), all of his Enlightenment beliefs came through clearly. 78 However, in contrast to Rousseau, he regarded the prehistoric period as a period of barbarism. In describing these prehistoric peoples, he used sources such as toponymy and classical authors but also took into account earlier Polish histories, such as that of Kromer. Since the classical historians made no mention of the Slavs, Naruszewicz sought out Arab sources.79 He frankly acknowledged that the Slavs were not the first inhabitants of what was to become Poland, basing his conclusion on Herodotus and Ptolemy.80 He also rejected the legend of Lech as the founder of the Polish people or the tale of Krak as the founder of Cracow, treating both as fairy tales (bajka).81 This first volume demonstrates that Naruszewicz saw prehistory as a subject of scholarship, not legend. In the other volumes, Naruszewicz maintained the simple chronological approach of the medieval chroniclers, but chronology served merely as the scaffold of his narrative. From 962 on, every year was discussed in chronological order, giving shape to this long narrative. However, in order to deal with subjects that did not fit into this arrangement, he resorted to enormous footnotes, used to discuss such broad topics as the Polish monetary system,82 the Jewish presence in Poland,83 the evolution of Poland’s political system,84 or even steam baths.85 Although the memorial had spread its net broadly, the published History narrowed its primary focus to domestic politics. While Naruszewicz referred to the ‘nation’ (naród) in his title, this term clearly signified ‘state,’ for his history of Poland is a history of the Polish state – its kings, foreign affairs, wars, and treaties.86 Even its organization betrayed this construct: most chapters were based on reigns, signalling the importance of the king’s role in shaping the nation’s fate. The author’s belief in a strong monarchy as key to effective government and state power permeates Naruszewicz’s long narrative. He boldly stated his view that only a strong monarchy could establish order and national unity and consistently argued that the nation always benefited from a strong monarch, using history in the fight for reform and revival. However, his views on the nature of monarchy changed in the

Adam Naruszewicz (1733–1796) 27

long course of writing the History. The volumes written earlier and devoted to the Piast kings presented a limited monarchy acting – with the sole exception of Boles¬aw Chrobry – in unison with the nation. As political ferment bubbled, however, Naruszewicz changed his views on the history of Poland’s monarchs: the works written after 1779 – volume 1, the footnotes to volume 6, and all of volume 7 – describe an absolute monarchy as the norm during the entire Piast period. He saw the privileges granted to the szlachta by King Louis in 1374 as a catastrophe. In Naruszewicz’s view, these concessions to the nobility were the first of many that increasingly strengthened the nobility to the detriment of the monarchy and the nation.87 In his earlier biography of Chodkiewicz, Naruszewicz had regarded Poland’s internal political crisis as beginning with the election of kings. By the time he came to write volume 7 of his History, he traced the beginnings of political disruption much further back, to 1374.88 It seems clear that Naruszewicz was influenced by contemporary politics in his views on the Polish monarchy.89 While Naruszewicz necessarily devoted much space to the szlachta, he was extremely critical of the Polish nobility. Although he accepted the myth that they were descendants of the ancient Sarmatians, he condemned the nobility for placing itself apart from the nation. Moreover, he rejected the notion that the nation was comprised solely of the nobility or that Poland and its culture were superior to other countries. He regarded the ‘golden democracy,’ which granted so many political rights to the nobility, as feudal anarchy.90 The treatment of the peasantry in the History reflects the views of the king.91 Naruszewicz did not hesitate to criticize serfdom, and he clearly included the peasantry (lud) as part of the nation. However, he never considered the transformation of the social order.92 He believed that serfdom had arisen by right of conquest; he was not opposed to it in principle.93 In his mind, mistreatment of the peasantry was the result of noble excess and royal weakness. The improvement of the peasant’s situation therefore depended on a strong monarchy. While his focus on discovering the causes for Poland’s decline privileged domestic over foreign affairs, he did not ignore the impact of war and diplomacy on the Commonwealth’s long history. Such information justified the state’s territorial boundaries and reminded readers of Poland’s claims to Galicia (Halicz) and Pomerania, lost in the First Partition. Moreover, he made clear comparisons between historical circumstance and contemporary events, recalling the seizure of Silesia by the Czechs or the annexations of Polish territory by Brandenburg. Although he freely used German sources such as Thietmar’s chroni-

28 John D. Stanley

cle,94 he did not hesitate to accuse them of bias, and he was extremely critical of the German interventions and incursions, particularly those of the Teutonic Knights (KrzyÒacy). In a letter to the king, Naruszewicz noted that as a historian he had the duty to defend ‘the honour of our Slavic fathers and of the Poles before Germanic slanders.’95 His clerical status did not prevent him from criticizing ‘corrupt Rome’ and papal interference in Polish affairs, in his opinion motivated primarily by financial, not religious, reasons.96 Whenever he related clashes between the Crown and clerical authority, Naruszewicz invariably sided with the monarch, who stood above all classes and served the interests of the nation as a whole.97 Even when the interests of the monarchy clashed with those of the papacy, Naruszewicz remained loyal to this vision.98 Regardless of his clerical status, he refused to impute divine intervention. Where D¬ugosz saw the early death of Mieszko as punishment for the sins of Boles¬aw the Bold, Naruszewicz saw the death as part of the machinations of rivals to weaken the king.99 Or again, the 1350 invasion by the Lithuanians was portrayed by D¬ugosz as God’s vengeance for a priest’s murder, but Naruszewicz simply saw it as a Lithuanian attempt to reverse previous losses.100 His secular approach inevitably led him to avoid hagiographical accounts. For example, D¬ugosz devoted many pages to the life of St Adalbert (Wojciech), whereas Naruszewicz reduced the life of one of Poland’s patron saints to a single paragraph. He tended to distance himself from accounts of miracles by merely noting, ‘it is said.’101 However, Naruszewicz condemned all new beliefs or sects since they served to disturb the unity of the state.102 He was critical of Protestants and Orthodox, seeing them as politically disruptive. Naruszewicz had an enormous respect for the truth, as indicated by the mass of accumulated details and often minute factual analysis. Although he respected the work of previous historians of Poland, he did not simply incorporate their work but treated it critically.103 Consequently, he undertook the arduous labour of fact checking and questioning of sources. He even pointed out the mistakes of D¬ugosz, upon whose work he relied so heavily.104 When Naruszewicz found contradictory evidence, he would often report it, letting the reader decide. In other cases, he would simply report the source, leaving it to the reader to judge the accuracy of an account. When he used a document for the first time, he often included its entire text in a footnote. This approach inevitably inflated the text, but his extensive citations did not signal an inability to summarize or meld evidence into a narrative. Rather, this approach resulted from his irritation with, for example, collections of

Adam Naruszewicz (1733–1796) 29

papal letters that cited only excerpts of documents, preventing the evidence from being seen in its entirety. By including a full document, Naruszewicz consciously wished to permit readers the opportunity to form their own judgments, thus drawing near to contemporary methods for teaching history. Like today’s postmodern critics, Naruszewicz was comfortable leaving a question open. While he dismissed what he called ‘fairy tales,’ he understood that sometimes legends might contain a distorted version of the truth and should not be simply ignored.105 Naruszewicz never finished the History, allegedly for lack of materials, as he indicated to Hugo Ko¬¬åtaj (1750–1812).106 However, it is more likely – as he indicated in a letter to the poet Stanis¬aw Trembecki (c. 1733–1812) – that heavy political involvement made it impossible to return to his historical writing.107 In this same letter, he tried to persuade Trembecki to write the volumes on the Jagiellonian period, beginning with the reign of Sigismund I. 108 Despite the lack of progress with the History, however, history penetrated his life, including his poetry.109 Nonetheless, as his health worsened and politics increasingly occupied him, he found it increasingly difficult to return to writing his large-scale work. Perhaps the most long-lasting achievement of this ambitious historical project was ironically a side effect: the systematic collection and ordering of a huge number of historical materials. Again, the impetus for this activity was given by Stanis¬aw August, who also provided the financial support for the work of locating, gathering, and copying the necessary materials. The workshop, outlined in the memorial but only established in 1781, assembled an impressive range of materials: original documents and excerpts copied from chronicles, memoirs, printed documents, and foreign publications. Even the copies now have value since they preserve a record when the original has been lost or destroyed in the tumult of Poland’s history. Once again, the process was meticulously organized: Naruszewicz himself certified that copies were true to the original. Jan Albertrandi was sent to Italy from 1781 to 1784 and to Sweden from 1789 to 1790 to search out and copy relevant documents.110 The king himself realized the political importance of the materials being collected and would ask Naruszewicz to answer specific questions or provide materials on a particular topic.111 The copying of documents continued until June 1792, after which the Second Partition made its continuation impossible.112 Just as the king’s needs propelled Naruszewicz into writing the History, so now did the king involve him in his political program. Although Naruszewicz was never one of the chief politicians of the

30 John D. Stanley

era, the king relied on his advice and used him in a variety of positions. In 1781, he became first Secretary General of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the following year Secretary of the Permanent Council (Rada Nieustajåca).113 He held the latter position until 1786, and this involvement in politics apparently made it impossible for Naruszewicz to return to writing history.114 However, when history could directly promote his monarch’s goals, Naruszewicz could be counted on. For example, when he was invited to accompany the king on his 1787 trip to Kaniów (Kaniv) on the Dniepr River in southern Ukraine to meet with Catherine II, the king requested that Naruszewicz write a historical description of the lands recently conquered by the empress’s armies in southern Ukraine.115 The resulting work, Tauryka, was not based on original scholarship but rather compiled from earlier classical works.116 This pièce d’occasion was published prior to the trip and presented to Catherine II in Kiev by the author himself.117 The Great Four-Year Diet (Sejm) opened in October 1788, and the king wished to involve Naruszewicz in the proceedings. When the Bishop of Smolensk died in November 1788, Naruszewicz succeeded him, assuming his seat in the Senate, where he became the king’s whip in the upper chamber.118 During this period, he was in touch with Hugo Ko¬¬åtaj and Franciszek Salezy Jezierski, the more radical members of the progressives. He also was heavily involved in trying to stir up support among the provincial gentry. Although he did not play a large role in the Sejm’s debates, he frequently used historical information to support the king’s arguments.119 The new position of bishop only whetted his desire for a more significant diocese.120 To satisfy these ambitions, the king nominated Naruszewicz as Bishop of Suck (in today’s Ukraine) in 1790.121 He soon left Warsaw and established his residence at Janów Podlaski, within the bishopric but much closer to Warsaw than Suck itself. While the king continued to use rewards as an incentive, Naruszewicz no longer responded so readily. Although he wrote to the king promising to finish the History, there is little evidence to indicate that he intended to keep this promise.122 Despite the king’s wishes, Naruszewicz seldom returned to Warsaw in the last years of his life, occupying himself with the daily affairs of his new post. Naruszewicz actively promoted the Constitution of the Third of May 1791, Europe’s first written constitution, and was a member of Poland’s first political party, the Friends of the Constitution of the Third of May (Zgromadzenie Przyjació¬ Ustawy Rzådowej 3 Maja). He even gave the sermon during the celebrations for the first anniversary

Adam Naruszewicz (1733–1796) 31

of the constitution.123 However, following the king, he joined the Targowica Confederacy opposing the constitution when it became clear that Russian armed support made the Confederacy’s victory inevitable. Pleading ill health, Naruszewicz avoided participating in the Diet held in Grodno, to confirm the Second Partition of Poland. Instead, he remained in his bishop’s residence in Janów, organizing the archives of the bishops of Suck, Naruszewicz’s last task connected to history.124 As Naruszewicz wrote the king, ‘silent Musae inter arma.’125 Naruszewicz saw his royal friend for the last time on 6 February 1795 in Grodno. Ilia Bezborodko, the Russian general who accompanied the king everywhere, witnessed the visit, reporting to Count Petr Aleksandrovich Rumiantsev-Zadunaiskii (1725–96), commander of the Russian armies in Lithuania, that the meeting began with both men crying bitterly.126 Suffering from heart disease since 1792 and increasingly weak, Naruszewicz passed away peacefully on the evening of 8 July 1796 in Janów Podlaski. He left no will and was buried in the cathedral church.127 His royal patron survived him by only two years, dying in St Petersburg in 1798. Naruszewicz died knowing that the country to which he had devoted his life had disappeared. The great Za¬uski Library was transported to St Petersburg. To his contemporaries, the Enlightenment project had been a failure. Indeed, today no one would go to Naruszewicz’s History to learn of Poland’s past, although the collected materials are still of use to researchers. Naruszewicz’s work undoubtedly has weaknesses. Although the History was accomplished by the standards of the day, it did not meet the author’s own standards, for Naruszewicz was unable to use the long list of sources he regarded as essential. (Indeed, the systematic collection of sources began only after his first draft was finished.) Hugo Ko¬¬åtaj, an associate in the king’s reform party, thought the task ‘impossible from its inception’ since the preparation of historical materials had only begun in Poland.128 As a result, Naruszewicz resorted to basing his work primarily on published sources. The organization of the work itself points to its predecessors – classical and Polish – not its successors, and Naruszewicz often resorted to compiling rather than analysing as he built his historical vision. He relied heavily on D¬ugosz, often using other materials only to check or complement this single source.129 Unfortunately, Naruszewicz often treated D¬ugosz as a primary source. Despite a clear authorial point of view and a clear focus on domestic politics, the treatment of virtually all other topics is scattered throughout the text in footnotes, a pointillist technique that fragments the narrative.130 The frequent dis-

32 John D. Stanley

proportion between text and notes has led to criticism that Naruszewicz failed to produce a true synthesis.131 Furthermore, his structure of chapters shaped around reigns led to the accusation that he wrote history as a tale of great men, almost exclusively kings.132 Finally, his inability to go beyond 1386 in the actual writing of the History limited its usefulness, as even the king believed, urging his friend to push on with the important work. However, neither his interest nor health held out long enough for Naruszewicz to meet the king’s request. Indeed, Stanis¬aw August’s interest lasted longer than that of Naruszewicz! Nonetheless, his History enjoyed an unrivalled prestige for decades: he clearly pointed the way to modern historiography. 133 The valid criticisms cannot erase Naruszewicz’s enormous accomplishment: his scrupulous use of sources, discovery of new evidence, refusal to accept legend, inclusive scope, clear conception of history, and his unwavering belief that history was to serve the nation all gave his work a power unknown since D¬ugosz. Naruszewicz had an amazing range, using nearly all the printed sources that were connected even partially with Poland, a stark contrast to contemporaries and predecessors.134 The History’s first reviewer, Krystian Bogumi¬ Steiner, called Naruszewicz ‘the nation’s first historian’ (der erste Geschichtsforscher der Nazion).135 Joachim Lelewel agreed with Steiner: ‘Naruszewicz is the first to appear in the Polish language as a historian.’136 Rather than merely compiling facts, Naruszewicz understood that he had to shape the narrative by selecting the most important evidence.137 Through his dedication, hard work, and diligence, he broke new ground, not only in establishing basic facts about the history of Poland but also in advancing new standards in Polish historiography.138 The king believed that such a history would validate Poland’s past and current role in European history. However, he also recognized the need for intellectual proof in advancing a strong, hereditary monarchy, which would lead an effective government and a powerful state that could stand up to the szlachta and foreign powers alike. Naruszewicz found the motor of Polish history in the state. His History was intended to awaken a consciousness of Poland’s glorious past, but he also wished readers to understand Poland’s long-standing problems, as he linked the Commonwealth’s decline to the dissipation of royal authority and faulted domestic factors rather than foreign powers.139 Just as the Polish Enlightenment had its own sources and influences quite separate from the mainstream coursing through France, so too did Naruszewicz avoid imitation while clearly writing under the influence

Adam Naruszewicz (1733–1796) 33

of Voltaire.140 Naruszewicz raised the bar for history in Poland to match the standards beyond its borders. In his methodology, broad scope, and attention to sources, he often followed others rather than making his own way. Perhaps he set himself an impossible set of tasks: gathering and collecting data, investigating special problems where no work had been previously done, and simultaneously establishing a unified narrative encompassing the first centuries of Poland’s history. He tackled his work with full knowledge of its significance, for both internal politics and foreign affairs. While neither the History of the Polish Nation nor the Constitution of the Third of May had the intended effect of saving the Commonwealth from ruin, Naruszewicz’s great work survived the king who inspired it and the state which was its focus. Although the Polish state disappeared in 1795, Naruszewicz’s vision of Poland’s history as the development of the Polish state continued to resonate in the works of immediate historian successors.141 The Warsaw Society of Friends of the Sciences, founded in 1803, advocated continuing the History, but only fragments of this project were published.142 Although some later historians often denigrated these attempts, others attempted to continue Naruszewicz’s work.143 By organizing his work around the state, Naruszewicz was establishing one of the foremost themes in Polish historiography. That later historians of the stature of Joachim Lelewel, W¬adys¬aw SmoleÛski, and Tadeusz Wojciechowski argued against accepting the centrality of the state in Polish history only underlines the importance of the theme itself. Naruszewicz’s vision of a revived Polish state infused Polish political and intellectual life for the next two centuries. Moreover, it was understood by all that if Poland were again to become independent, it would have to address the very issues identified in Naruszewicz’s work as the reasons for Poland’s decline: a weak central government, the supremacy of a single class, a lack of social peace and political order. In this sense, Naruszewicz and his Enlightenment compatriots set the agenda not only for Polish historiography but for the Polish nation itself.

NOTES 1 The sole monograph devoted to Naruszewicz as a historian is Neomisia Rutkowska, Bishop Adam Naruszewicz and His History of the Polish Nation: A Critical Study (Washington, DC, 1941). Also see Marian Henryk Serejski,

34 John D. Stanley

2

3 4 5

6

‘Adam Naruszewicz a O◊wiecenie w Polsce,’ in his Przesz¬o◊ñ a teraÚniejszo◊ñ. Studia i szkice historiograficzne (Wroc¬aw, 1965), and Julian Plan, ‘Adam Naruszewicz (1733–1796),’ in Teresa Kostkiewiczowa and Zdzis¬aw GoliÛski, eds., Pisarze polskiego O◊wiecenia, vol. 1 (Warsaw, 1992), pp. 309–30. The first biography of Naruszewicz (Julian Bartoszewicz, ‘Biskup Naruszewicz,’ Znakomici m´Òowie polscy w XVIII w.: Wizerunki historycznych osób skre◊lone, vol. 1 [St Petersburg, 1855], pp. 1–143) is out of date and unreliable. Also see Andrzej Feliks Grabski, ‘Adam Naruszewicz – dziejopis narodu i Króla Jegomo◊ci,’ in his Perspektywy przesz¬o◊ci: Studia i szkice historiograficzne (Lublin, 1983); his essay ‘Adam Naruszewicz (1733– 1796),’ in Aleksander Gieysztor et al., eds., Historycy warszawscy ostatnich dwóch stuleci (Warsaw, 1986); and his article ‘Adam Naruszewicz jako historyk,’ Wiek O◊wiecenia 13 (1998), pp. 11–56. For a recent but hagiographical treatment, see Wac¬aw Zarzycki, Biskup Adam Naruszewicz luminarz polskiego O◊wiecenia (Lublin, 1999). Finally, for a listing of his works, see Bibliografia literatury polskiej ‘Nowy Korbut’ 5 (1967), pp. 371–87. Joachim Lelewel, ‘Porównanie Karamzina z Naruszewiczem,’ in his Dzie¬a, vol. 2, pt. 2: Pisma metodologiczne (Warsaw, 1964), p. 607. The distinguished German scholar Heinrich Nitschmann shared this view: ‘Bis auf Naruszewicz besass die historische Litteratur der Polen kaum ein einziges Werk, welches mit genüger Sachkenntnis den Gegenstand möglichst erschöpfte und dabei einen parteilosen Standpunkt innehielt.’ Heinrich Nitschmann, Geschichte der Polnischen Litteratur [Series: Geschichte der Weltlitteratur in Einzeldarstellungen, 2] (Leipzig, 1889), p. 194. See Kazimierz Chodynicki, Poglådy na zadania historyi w epoce Stanis¬awa Augusta (Warsaw, 1915), pp. 35–6. Friedrich Meinecke, Historicism (London, 1972), p. 60. As Voltaire stated, ‘... que tout ce qui tient intimement à la nature humaine se resemble d’un bout de l’univers à l’autre ...’ Essai sur les moeurs et les esprit des nations ... (reprint, Paris, 1963), chapter 19: ‘Resumé de tout cette histoire ...,’ p. 810. The Polish periodical Monitor faithfully passed on to its readers the same concept. ‘Pasje w cz¬owieku så te same, co w machinie spr´Òyny, w ◊wiecie obrót, w porzådkach polityka; så poczåtkiem spraw ludzkich, jak ◊wiat¬o jutrzenki jest poczåtkiem dnia.’ Monitor, nr. 19 (1769), pp. 148–9, as cited in Marian Serejski, Zarys historii historiografii polskiej, pt. 1: (od po¬owy XVIII w. do roku ok. 1860) (SódÚ, 1954), p. 109. For an introduction to Enlightenment historiography, see Arthur O. Lovejoy, ‘Herder and the Enlightenment Philosophy of History,’ in his Essays in the History of Ideas (Baltimore, 1948); Roland N. Stromberg, ‘History in the Eighteenth Century,’ Journal of the History of Ideas 12 (1951), pp. 295–304;

Adam Naruszewicz (1733–1796) 35

7

8

9 10

11

12

Isaiah Berlin, ‘The Counter-Enlightenment,’ in Against the Current (London, 1979); and Furio Diaz, ‘Une ré-évaluation de l’histoire des Lumières,’ Storia della Storiografia, no. 10 (1986), pp. 91–106. For a short introduction in English to the Polish Enlightenment, see John Stanley, ‘Towards a New Nation: The Enlightenment and National Revival in Poland,’ Canadian Review of Studies in Nationalism 10, no. 1 (1983). For more extensive studies, see Bogus¬aw Le◊nodorski, ed., Polska w epoce O◊wiecenia (Warsaw, 1971), Celina BobiÛska, Szkice o ideologach polskiego O◊wiecenia (Wroc¬aw, 1952), and the classic study by W¬adys¬aw SmoleÛski, Przewrót umys¬owy w Polsce wieku XVIII. Studia historyczne (Warsaw, 1923). Of course, the Enlightenment had its enemies in Poland. For an example, see Karol Surowiecki, Góra radzåca. Bajka sprawdzona w osiemnastym wieku na schy¬ku onegoÒ wyja◊niona (1792), excerpted in Henryk Hinz and Adam Sikora, Polska My◊l Filozoficzna: O◊wiecenie. Romantyzm [Wybrane teksty z historii filozofii] (Warsaw, 1964), pp. 200–5. It is significant that Roman Catholic Church authorities forbade Surowiecki to preach sermons as a result of his opposition to Enlightenment thought, which the Polish hierarchy favoured. He took the name ‘Stanis¬aw’ later in life, perhaps as a sign of friendship with the king. Boles¬aw Kumor, ‘Nieznane przyczynki Úród¬owe do biografii biskupa Adama Naruszewicza,’ Pami´tnik Literacki 55 (1964), p. 461, and Julian Platt, ‘Naruszewicz, Adam Tadeusz Stanis¬aw h. Wadowicz,’ in Polski S¬ownik Biograficzny, vol. 20 (Wroc¬aw, 1977), p. 554. Additional biographical details are available in Halina Górska and Jerzy Jackl, ‘Adam Naruszwicz,’ in S¬ownik historyków polskich (Warsaw, 1994). For information on Naruszewicz’s immediate family and its genealogy, see Zarzycki, pp. 8–10. Catalogus personarum et officiorum provincie lugdunensis Societatis Jesu. Exeunte anno 1761 (Lyon, 1761), p. 58. The Jesuit order targeted szlachta youth in its recruitment. See Stanis¬aw Litak, ‘DuchowieÛstwo polskie w okresie O◊wiecenia,’ Wiek O◊wiecenia 5 (1988), pp. 101–2. For information on the Collegium Nobilium, see Kazimierz Puchowski, ‘Collegium Nobilium Societatis Jesu w Warszawie wobec “dobrze o◊wieconej Europy,”’ Wiek O◊wiecenia 17 (2001), pp. 129–57, and Ludwik Piechnik, ‘Jezuickie Collegium Nobilium w Warszawie,’ in Jerzy Paszenda, Z dziejów szkolnictwa jezuickiego w Polsce (Cracow, 1994). He was consecrated by the archbishop of Vienne, not far from Lyon. Kumor, ‘Nieznane przyczynki,’ p. 461. For information on Poland’s Roman Catholic Church during this period, see Boles¬aw Kumor and Zdzis¬aw ObertyÛski, eds., Historia Ko◊cio¬a w Polsce, vol. 2, pt. 1 (PoznaÛ, 1979); Jerzy

36 John D. Stanley K¬oczowski et al., Zarys dziejów Ko◊ció¬a katolickiego w Polsce (Cracow, 1986); and Stanis¬aw Litak, Od reformacji do O◊wiecenia. Ko◊ció¬ katolicki w Polsce nowoÒytnej (Lublin, 1994). For a discussion of the ‘Christian Enlightenment’ in Poland, see Jan Czerkawski, ‘Filozofia a O◊wiecenia chrze◊cijaÛskie w Polsce,’ Roczniki Filozoficzne (1979), z. 1, pp. 259–65. Naruszewicz’s religious beliefs were similar to Enlightened Roman Catholics in this period, bordering on Deism. He took little interest in the individual’s relationship to God, but rather saw God as Creator of the universe, its natural and social order. See Platt, ‘Adam Naruszewicz,’ pp. 317–10, and Barbara Wolska, ‘Bóg w poezji Adama Naruszewicza,’ in Teresa Kostkiewiczowa, ed., Motywy religijne w twórczo◊ci pisarzy polskiego o◊wiecenia [Religijne tradycje literatury polskiej, 6] (Lublin, 1995), pp. 93–116. While the article’s author does not regard Naruszewicz as a Deist, her evidence actually supports this contention. 13 The city had 200,000 inhabitants by 1750. Lyon’s commercial relations reached as far as Poland and Russia through the Leipzig and Frankfurt fairs. Moreover, one of Lyon’s most important intellectuals, Emmanuel Gilbert, became head of the Royal Medical School in Grodno and taught natural history at the academy in Wilno. See Louis Trénard, Lyon. De l’Encylopédie au Préromantisme, vol. 1 (Paris, 1958), pp. 4, 12, 63, 73, 86, 206–7. 14 Despite papal injunction, the clergy were also active in the city’s Masonic lodges. The Saint-Jean de Jérusalem lodge specifically recruited clerics! Ibid., pp. 77–9. 15 Ibid., pp. 89–90. ‘Adam Naruschevits’ is mentioned as a fourth-year theology student in the Catalogus personarum, p. 4. For information on the Jesuit college, see F. Rabanis, ‘Notice historique sur Le Collège de la Trinité,’ Archives historiques et statistiques du département du Rhône, vol. 7 (Lyon, 1827), pp. 127–40. For information on Lyon during this period, see Maurice Garden, Lyon et les lyonnais au XVIIIe siècle (Paris, 1970) [Bibliothèque de la Faculté des lettres de Lyon, 18]. For the education of Jesuits in France, see François de Dainville, L’Éducation des jesuites: XVIe–XVIIIe siècles (Paris, 1978). Referring to the Jesuit colleges, Dainville writes, ‘cette large diffusion des études historiques à travers l’Europe des Lumières allait favoriser doublement le développement de l’esprit nationale ...,’ p. 451. Ironically, he only mentions Naruszewicz in connection with the study of mathematics! (p. 329). For the Jesuits of Lyon, see Georges Guitton, Les Jésuites à Lyon sous Louis XIV et Louis XV (Lyon, 1953). For the relationship between the Jesuit order and the philosophes, see Catherine M. Northeast, The Parisian Jesuits and the Enlightenment 1700–1762 [Series: Studies on Voltaire and the Eighteenth Century, 288] (Oxford, 1991). Also see Bernard Plongéron, Théologie et politique au siècle des lumières (1770–1820) (Geneva, 1973).

Adam Naruszewicz (1733–1796) 37 16 Trénard, pp. 67, 133. A Lyon lawyer remarked that ‘la catholicité est dégénérée en un déisme presque universel; la foi est éteinte.’ A priest, Prost de Royer, publicly wrote that religion should lead to eternal happiness, but also having assured happiness on this earth. Trénard, pp. 211–12. 17 Stanis¬aw Bednarski, Upadek i odrodzenie szkó¬ jezuickich w Polsce (Cracow, 1933), pp. 63–4. 18 Emanuel Rostworowski, ‘Probleme der Forschung zur Geschichte der Aufklärung in Polen,’ Zeitschrift für Slawistik 24 (1979), p. 783. 19 Platt, ‘Adam Naruszewicz,’ p. 310. 20 For information on the teaching of history in eighteenth-century Poland, see Tadeusz S¬owikowski, Poglådy na nauczanie historii w Polsce w wieku XVIII oraz dydaktyczna koncepcja Joachima Lelewela (Cracow, 1960). 21 For further information on Stanis¬aw August Poniatowski, see Jean Fabre, Stanislas Auguste Poniatowski et l’Europe des Lumieres (Paris, 1953); Emanuel Rostworowski, Ostatni król Rzeczypospolitej (Warsaw, 1966); Andrzej Zahorski, Spór o Stanis¬awa Augusta (Warsaw, 1988); and Richard Butterwick, Poland’s Last King and English Culture. Stanis¬aw August Poniatowski 1732–1798 (Oxford, 1998). 22 Naruszewicz recognized its importance, penning a commemorative verse: ‘Do Stanis¬awa Augusta Króla Polskiego W. Ksi´cia Litewskiego.’ It was the first in a long line of occasional verse in which Naruszewicz regularly compared the king to Maecenas, Lycurgis, Augustus Caesar, and even Jupiter! In 1772, a satire was distributed in Warsaw that claimed Naruszewicz had lost one of the medals he received from the king and was offering the finder a reward consisting of ‘130 odes, as many epigrams, 70 eclogues, 54 dithyrambs, and as many satires as desired.’ Roman Kaleta, ‘Miejsce i spo¬eczna funkcja literatów w okresie O◊wiecenia,’ in Zbigniew GoliÛski, ed., Problemy literatury polskiej okresu O◊wiecenia, vol. 1 (Wroc¬aw, 1973), pp. 23–4. 23 Naruszewicz participated in these weekly events until they ended in December 1782. See ‘Król i obiady czwartkowe,’ in Stanis¬aw Libera, ˘ycie literackie w Warszawie w czasach Stanis¬awa Augusta (Warsaw, 1971), and Roman Kaleta, ‘Obiady czwartkowe na dworze Stanis¬awa Augusta. (Próba monografii),’ in Warszawa XVIII w., no. 2 (Warsaw, 1973), pp. 9–115. Nitschmann regarded Naruszewicz as ‘the soul’ of these gatherings. Nitschmann, p. 105. 24 Naruszewicz was among the most important contributors. In 1770, he published twenty-three articles as well as providing translations from Horace and his own occasional verse. He became editor in 1771 when Jan Albertrandi left for Italy. As editor, Naruszewicz included translations of the

38 John D. Stanley

25 26 27

28

29 30 31

32

Enlightenment philosophes, such as Rousseau and Voltaire. See Julian Platt, ed., Zabawy Przyjemne i PoÒyteczne (1770–1777) (Wroc¬aw, 1968); ElÒbieta Aleksandrowska, Zabawy Przyjemne i PoÒyteczne (1770–1777) (Wroc¬aw, 1959), and her Zabawy Przyjemne i PoÒyteczne (1770–1777), Monografia bibliograficzne (Warsaw, 1999), for an index to the periodical. SA (Stanis¬aw August) to N (Naruszewicz), 28 November 1781, Korespondencja Adama Naruszewicz a 1762–1796 (Wroc¬aw, 1959), p. 210. N to SA, 11 January 1787, Korespondencja, p. 271. His complete poetry appeared in four volumes in 1778. There is no modern, critical edition of his complete poetry. For the most recently published selection, see Adam Naruszewicz, Poezje wybrane (Lublin, 2001). For an analysis of his writing, see Tomasz Chachulski, ed., Czytanie Naruszewicza. Interpretacje (Wroc¬aw, 2000). Naruszewicz’s writing is in the traditional Polish style, but his models were usually West European. Platt, ‘Adam Naruszewicz,’ pp. 309, 312. Kaia Korneliusza Tacytya Dzie¬a wszystkie przek¬adane Adama Stanis¬awa Naruszewicza S.J., 4 vols. (Warsaw, 1772–83) (cited as Tacitus below). Naruszewicz also translated the works of the Roman poet Horace (2 vols., 1773). Van der Meer states that ‘it was almost a “must” for those who wanted to have a successful career as a writer in this age to translate one or more of Horace’s work.’ In 1773, he also published his own translation of Anacreon of Teos, the ancient Greek homoerotic poet. (These translations were published in book form as Anakreon. Pie◊ni wybrane in 1774.) See Jan IJ. van der Meer, Literary Activities and Attitudes in the Stanislavian Age in Poland (1764–1795): A Social System? (Amsterdam, 2002), p. 239. ‘... iedna z naypotrzebnieyszych ne ◊wiecie umiei´tno◊ci jest znaiomo◊ñ historyi ...’ Tacitus, vol. 1, p. 1. Ibid., vol. 1, p. 3. Naruszewicz played the role of a historical resource to the king until the very end. In one of the last letters between the two men, the king pestered the bishop with questions such as, ‘When did government entirely break down and the nation weaken?’ or ‘When did Silesia and Pomerania become detached?’ SA to N, 31 May 1793, Andrzej F. Grabski, ‘Nieznane fragmenty korespondencji Adama Naruszewicza z królem Stanis¬awem Augustem z lat 1793–1794,’ Przeglåd Historyczny 51, no. 4 (1960), p. 702. The biography was finished in 1774 but only appeared in print in 1781. See Korespondencja, p. 8, n. 5. It is assumed that Naruszewicz himself held back publication in order to benefit from the research he would undertake on the Vasa period for his later Historia. See Rutkowska, p. 33. Besides Naruszewicz’s biography of Chodkiewicz, Franciszek Bohomolec wrote on Jan Tar-

Adam Naruszewicz (1733–1796) 39

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

nowski (1773), Jan Zamoyski (1775), and Jerzy OssoliÛski (1777); Micha¬ Wandalin Mniszech on Casimir the Great (1777); and Micha¬ Dymitr Krajewski on Stefan Czarniecki (1830). Naruszewicz was also to write a biography of Lew Sapieha, which he abandoned when he agreed to undertake the Historia. Grabski notes that ‘the monograph on Chodkiewicz was developed on a scientific level unknown to contemporary Polish historical writing.’ Grabski, ‘Adam Naruszewicz jako historyk,’ p. 53. There is also an unpublished collection of biographical sketches, ˘yciorysy Micha¬a Mniszka, Celestyna Czaplica, ks. Andrzeja GawroÛskiego, Krzysztofa Hilarego Szembeka, Nagurczewskiego, Andrzeja Mokronowskiego, ks. Stanis¬awa Poniatowskiego, Ignacy Potockiego, oraz genealogia CzetwertyÛskich, Zas¬awskiego, Sanguszków i Ostrogskich. Pisane przewaÒnie r´kå Naruszewicza, z przydatkami i poprawkami r´kå króla. According to Platt, this work was intended to fill a role similar to Plutach’s Lives. Platt, ‘Adam Naruszewicz,’ p. 321. The undated manuscript is in Cracow’s Biblioteka Czartoryskich, Manuscript 1748 IV. It is noted in the Inwentarz r´kopisów Biblioteki Czartoryskich, nr 1681–5999 (Cracow, 1930?). ‘... wskrzeszañ, oÒywiañ i na nogach postawiñ t´ martwå i juÒ w stoletnim prawie grobowcu ple◊niejåcå ojczyzn´.’ N to SA, Korespondencja, 7 May 1789, p. 332. Zbiór deklaracji, not i czynno◊ci g¬ó◊niejszych, które poprzedzi¬y i zasz¬y podczas sejmu pod w´z¬em konfederacji odprawujåcego si´ od dnia 18 wrze◊nia 1772 to 14 maja 1773 (Warsaw, 1773). He was rewarded with a doctorate in theology on 22 October 1773 from the Wilno Academy on the basis of his scholarly contribution to date rather than for a doctoral dissertation. Kumor, ‘Nieznane przyczynki,’ pp. 461–2. Although the papal bull decreeing dissolution was dated September 1773, it was released in Poland only in November 1773. Ibid., p. 470. For background on the order’s dissolution, see L.-J. Rogier, ‘La doctrine et la vie,’ in Siècles des Lumières, Revolutions, Restaurations [Series: Nouvelle histoire de l’Eglise, 4], pp. 107–19. The change transformed his lifestyle: ‘After the Jesuit order was disbanded ... his life ceased to be one worthy of a Christian pastor.’ Julian Ursyn Niemcewicz, ˘ywoty znacznych w XVIII wieku ludzi (Cracow, 1904), pp. 12–13. His name was associated with that of Magdalena z Eysymontów Jezierska, for whom it is alleged he wrote the erotic poem ‘Departure’ [Odjazd]. Platt, ‘Adam Naruszewicz,’ p. 322. For further details about Naruszewicz’s ‘libertinism,’ see Jerzy Snopek, Objawienie i O◊wiecenie: z dziejów libertynizmu w Polsce (Wroc¬aw, 1986), pp. 85–90.

40 John D. Stanley 40 Naruszewicz was nominated for the position on 9 September 1774, approved by Pope Pius VI on 14 March 1775. Micha¬ Poniatowski, Primate of Poland, Bishop of P¬ock, and brother to the king, presided over his consecration. The king also participated in the ceremony. Kumor, ‘Nieznane przyczynki,’ p. 463. 41 The Smolensk bishopric was founded in 1611 by Sigismund III, but the Commonwealth ceded Smolensk to Muscovy in 1667. For further information on the diocese, see Teofil D¬ugosz, Dzieje diecezji smoleÛskiej (Lwów, 1937). A coadjutor was normally a chief administrator on behalf of a bishop, but given that there was nothing to administer for a bishopric whose territories were outside the Commonwealth, Naruszewicz’s attention was focused almost exclusively on public affairs. 42 ’Zosta¬em panem od 116 ch¬opów z ¬aski króla ...’ N to Marcin Poczubut, 8 August 1774, in Edmund Rabowicz, ‘Inedita Adama Naruszewicza,’ Pami´tnik Literacki 49, no. 3/4 (1958), p. 206. 43 Zió¬ek notes that all Polish bishops required a sponsor in order to climb the clerical hierarchy. Ewa M. Zió¬ek, Biskupi senatorowie wobec reform Sejmu Czteroletniego (Lublin, 2002) [Towarzystwo naukowe Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego. Z*ród¬a i monografie, 225], p. 23. 44 Although the king’s specific request to his friend has not been preserved, there is ample evidence that it was the king who conceived of this new synthesis. Naruszewicz acknowledged the king’s role. ‘Zawo¬any od W.K.M. do pisania Historyi Narodowej,’ Adam Stanis¬aw Naruszewicz, Historia narodu polskiego, Jan Nep. Bobrowicza, ed. (Leipzig, 1836), vol. 1, p. xvii. The 1836 edition is used here in all citations for the History. Also see N to SA, 20 April 1777, Korespondencja, p. 74. 45 Philip Wharton, ‘The True Briton,’ 9 September 1723, cited in Stromberg, p. 302. 46 See Karen O’Brien, Narratives of Enlightenment: Cosmopolitan History from Voltaire to Gibbon (Cambridge, 1997). For developments in Russia, see Sergei L. Peshtich, CJFF8ab ucmopuospaLub XVIII i,8a, 3 vols. (Leningrad, 1961–1971) and A.V. Malinov, Ku:@F@Lub ucmopuu i C@ccuu XVIII i,8a (St Petersburg, 2003). A model may have been the grand synthesis of French history by l’abbé Paul François Velly, Histoire de France depuis l’établissement de la monarchie jusqu’au règne de Louis XIV, in 33 volumes, which went through three editions. (It was first published in Paris, 1765–85.) Voltaire thought highly of this work. (On the other hand, it has been noted ‘... il soit difficile d’imaginer un ouvrage d’où la vérité historique soit plus absent.’) Louis Halphen, L’histoire en France depuis cent ans (Paris, 1914), p. 7. Another example of an expansive national history written during this

Adam Naruszewicz (1733–1796) 41

47

48

49 50 51

52

53

54

period is Michael Ignaz Schmidt’s Geschichte der Deutschen, 22 vols. (Ulm, 1785–1808). Schmidt (1736–94) was the director of the archives in Vienna. ‘Diese neue, auf Erfahrung gegründete Auffassung vom Zusammenhang im Leben der Menschheit ermöglichte zum ersten Male eine wissenschaftliche Verbindung der Naturerkenntnis mit der Geschichte.’ Wilhelm Dilthey, ‘Das achtzehnte Jahrhundert und die geschichtliche Welt,’ in Wilhelm Diltheys Gesammelte Schriften, vol. 3: Studien zur Geschichte des deutschen Geistes (Leipzig, 1927), p. 209. Of this established framework Stromberg has noted that the Enlightenment historian’s ‘appeal to experience always masks a set of preconceptions: the dice are loaded.’ Stromberg, p. 300. For Voltaire’s influence in Poland, see Mieczys¬aw Smolarski, Studia nad Wolterem w Polsce (Lwów, 1918). For further information on this development, see Jerzy Michalski, Rousseau i sarmacki republikanizm (Warsaw, 1977). Józef Szujski regarded Naruszewicz as the sole successor of D¬ugosz. See Józef Szujski, ‘Stanowisko D¬ugosza w historiografii europejskiej,’ Dzie¬a, ser. 2, vol. 8 (Cracow, 1888), p. 166. For example, Kromer’s De Origine et Rebus Gestis Polonorum (1555) was praised for the ‘smooth flow of narrative, fine arrangement, and choice diction.’ Rutkowska, pp. 9–10. César Pyrrhys de Varille, Lettres historiques et politiques à Son Altesse le Prince Jean Sanguszko sur les interrègnes de Pologne depuis l’éstablissement des Pacta Conventa ou l’élection libre des Roys (Lubartów, 1764). For further information on Enlightenment historiography in Poland, see W¬adys¬aw SmoleÛski, Szko¬y historyczne w Polsce (Warsaw, 1898); Chodynicki; Stanis¬aw Ko◊cia¬kowski, Historiografia polska w dobie Naruszewicza i jego szko¬y (Wilno, 1937); Bogdan Suchodolski, Nauka polska w okresie O◊wiecenia (Warsaw, 1953); Helena Rzadkowska, ‘Rozwój my◊li historycznej w dobie O◊wiecenia,’ Studia i Materia¬y z dziejów nauki polskiej, vol. VI: Historia nauk spo¬ecznych, z. 2 (1958), pp. 3–44; Serejski, ‘Historia powszechna w O◊wieceniu polskim w XVIII w,’ in his Koncepcja historii powszechnej Joachima Lelewela (Warsaw, 1958); Grabski, My◊l historyczna polskiego O◊wiecenia (Warsaw, 1976); Kazimierz Bartkiewicz, Obraz dziejów ojczystych w ◊wiadomo◊ci historycznej w Polsce doby O◊wiecenia (Poznan, 1979); Andrzej F. Grabski, ‘Geschichtsdenken und sozial-politische Kontroversen in Polen in der Epoche der Aufklärung,’ Jahrbuch für Geschichte 19 (1979); and Jerzy Topolski, ‘Teoretyczne i metodologiczne idee historiografii O◊wiecenia,’ in Kazimierz Bartkiewicz, ed., Adam Naruszewicz i historiografia O◊wiecenia (Zielona Góra, 1998), pp. 13–25.

42 John D. Stanley 55 Not all historical work from this period was written in the Enlightenment spirit. For an example of a traditional, even xenophobic, approach glorifying the Polish past, see Szymon Majchrowicz, Trwa¬o◊ñ szcz´liwa królestw albo ich smutny upadek wolnym narodom przed oczy stawiona, 4 vols. (Lwów, 1764). It was reprinted in 1783. 56 ‘Historical truths must first be proved before they can be admitted.’ As cited in Stromberg, p. 297, Voltaire’s dictum transformed historical research. For a discussion of Voltaire’s view of history, see Paul Sakmann, ‘Die probleme der historischen Methodik und der Geschichtsphilosophie bei Voltaire,’ Historische Zeitschrift 97 (1906), pp. 327–79. Grabski disputes the direct influence of Voltaire on Naruszewicz. See Grabski, ‘Adam Naruszewicz jako historyk,’ p. 27. 57 Naruszewicz, ‘Memorya¬,’ Historya, vol. 1, pp. xix–xx. 58 The Memorya¬ was first published in 1824. Naruszewicz, ‘Memorya¬ wzgl´dem pisania historyi narodowej,’ in Historya, vol. 1, pp. xvii–xxxii. Based on internal evidence – ‘Przep´dzi¬em, Panie M¬o◊ciwy, lat wieku mego czterdie◊ci i dwa ...’ – it was written in 1775. ‘Memorya¬,’ p. xvii. It is also available in Serejski, ed., Historycy o historii, vol. 1: Od Adama Naruszewicza do Stanis¬awa K´trzyÛskiego 1775–1918 (Warsaw, 1963) pp. 27–40. 59 This division is similar to Voltaire’s methodology. See Sakmann. Unfortunately, as Serejski notes, ‘Memoria¬ zawiera¬ postulaty wykraczajåce poza moÒliwo◊ci chwili ...’ Serejski, Historycy o historii, vol. 1, p. 18. 60 N to Jan Albertrandi, 21 September 1782, Korespondencja, p. 219. 61 ‘Memorya¬,’ pp. xxii–xxiii. 62 Ibid., p. xxviii. 63 See Franciszek Bronowski, ‘Adam Naruszewicz a idea o◊wieceniowej monarchii,’ Uniwersytet Sódzki. Zeszyty naukowe. Seria 1: Nauki humanistycznospo¬eczne, z. 48 (1979), pp. 97–102. 64 Dedication to the king, Historia, vol. 5, p. vi. In contrast, see his letter to the king, 20 April 1777, Korespondencja, p. 74. 65 He regularly kept the king informed of his activities and progress on the Historia. From the preserved correspondence one can establish the regularity of these updates. See the letters from N to SA, 24 June 1776, Korespondencja, p. 55; 24 March 1777, p. 67; 12 April 1777, p. 72; 11 July 1777, p. 88; 14 December 1777, p. 90; 1 June 1778, p. 111; 8 August 1778, p. 117; 22 March 1779, p. 134; 19 April 1779, p. 143; 8 August 1779, p. 148; 29 September 1780, pp. 160–1; 5 November 1780, p. 166; 11 November 1782, p. 221; 5 July 1783, p. 230; and 29 January 1786, p. 254. In his letter to the king of 28 April 1777, Naruszewicz promised to send new material for the king’s review every month; p. 78. The king acknowledged receipt of drafts for the first two

Adam Naruszewicz (1733–1796) 43

66

67 68 69 70

71

72 73 74

75 76

77

books of volume 2 in his letter to Naruszewicz of 5 May 1777; p. 79. Naruszewicz sent additional books dealing with the Piasts to the king from Grodno on 21 June 1777; p. 81. Only beginning with volume 4 did Naruszewicz use archives and manuscripts. See Grabski, ‘Adam Naruszewicz jako historyk,’ p. 25. It was only after 1780 – when the first draft of the History had been completed – that the systematic collection of materials on Polish history was begun, probably as a result of Naruszewicz’s insistence that there were insufficient materials to continue writing the History. However, Naruszewicz only took up the king’s offer much later, moving to Warsaw on 28 November 1779 and remaining there until 1791. SA to N, 31 March 1777, Korespondencja, p. 69. SA to N, 27 October 1777, p. 96, and the king’s letter of 22 December 1777, ibid., p. 102. For examples of encouragement, see the king’s letters to Naruszewicz of 31 March 1777, ibid., p. 69, 31 March 1779, p. 139, or 26 April 1779, p. 147, in which he reminds his friend of his love and respect, as he did again in his letter of 28 November 1781, p. 210. For an example of advice (shortening the material), see SA to N, 30 June 1777, p. 85. The king was eager to see the entire work completed and warned Naruszewicz not to spend too much time on prehistory. SA to N, 6 July 1778, ibid., p. 114. Also see Rutkowska, p. 62. N to SA, 22 March 1779, Korespondencja, p. 134. N to SA, 12 April 1777, ibid., p. 72. Naruszewicz, Historia narodu polskiego od poczåtku chrze◊cijaÛstwa, vol. 1, 1824; vol. 2, 1780; vol. 3, 1781; vol. 4, 1783; vol. 5, 1784; vol. 6, 1785; vol. 7, 1786. The work was published in Warsaw, by Micha¬ Gröll, the publisher to the royal court. There were subsequent editions: Warsaw, 1803 (part of the Dzie¬a zupe¬ne in 15 volumes); Leipzig, 1836–7 (the version cited here); and Cracow, 1859–60 (without volume 1). Excerpts in French are available in Histoire générale de Pologne, d’apres les historiens polonais, 2 vols. (Paris, 1834). (This translation was published at Lelewel’s instigation.) It was also translated into Russian in 1835. SA to N, 3 (?) August 1779, Korespondencja, p. 149. In contrast, Nitschmann regards this volume as the weakest in the set. Nitschmann, p. 197. Van der Meer, p. 159. The figure is based on the bills submitted to the king for payment. For example, a bill for 1,500 copies is reprinted in Rabowicz, p. 218. N to SA, 12 April 1777, Korespondencja, p. 72; N to SA, 1 June 1778, ibid., p. 111.

44 John D. Stanley 78 Although the first volume’s publication was announced by the Gazeta Warszawska on 20 October 1781, it was only published posthumously in 1824, thanks to the efforts of the Royal Warsaw Society of Friends of the Sciences (Warszawskie Królewskie Towarzystwo Przyjació¬ Nauk). The delay in the publication of the first volume was blamed on the Russian ambassador Stackelberg, who may have been offended by this volume’s treatment of lands already part of the Russian Empire at the time of composition. For a history of the manuscript and its publication, see Naruszewicz, Historia, vol. 1, pp. vi–xi. 79 Ibid., vol. 1, p. 156. 80 Ibid., vol. 3, p. 29. 81 Ibid., vol. 3, p. 37. 82 Ibid., vol. 8, pp. 85–94. 83 Ibid., vol. 9, pp. 9–11. Naruszewicz seems favourable to the Jews since he cites the privileges granted to them as a positive development for Poland. 84 Ibid, vol. 10, pp. 46–57. 85 Ibid, vol. 10, p. 214. 86 Naruszewicz’s work was the first after Andrzej Maksymilian Fredro’s Gesta populi Polonii sub Henrico Valesio (1652) to use the concept of nation in its title. However, Grabski insists that Naruszewicz did not equate the term ‘nation’ with that of ‘state,’ but rather with the concept of citizens of an idealized monarchy. Grabski, ‘Adam Naruszewicz jako historyk,’ p. 34. 87 ‘... the final ruin of absolute monarchy.’ Historia, vol. 6, p. 61. 88 Grabski, ‘Adama Naruszewicza dwie interpretacje dziejów Polski,’ in Bartkiewicz, p. 90. 89 Grabski posits that it was his work on the Permanent Council and, in particular, the failure of Andrzej Zamoyski’s law code that led Naruszewicz to harden his pro-monarchical views. Grabski, ‘Adam Naruszewicz jako historyk,’ p. 29. 90 In his poetic satire ‘Nobility’ (Szlachetno◊ñ), Naruszewicz noted ‘bo w Polszcze z¬ota wolno◊ñ pewnych regu¬ strzeÒe: ch¬opa na pal, panu nic, szlachcica na wieÒ´.’ Naruszewicz, Wiersze róÒne (Warsaw, 1805), p. 105. 91 See ElÒbieta Cesarz and Jerzy Maternicki, ‘Ch¬opi a sprawa ch¬opska w Adama Naruszewicza “Historia narodu polskiego,”’ in Bartkiewicz, pp. 93–104. 92 In a 1789 poem, ‘The Balloon (Balon),’ Naruszewicz called the public a ‘mob’; van der Meer, pp. 267–8. 93 For further information on the theory of conquest as the root of Poland’s social structure, see Marian Serejski, ‘Z zagadnieÛ genezy PaÛstwa Polskiego w historiografii (o tzw. teorii podboju),’ Kwartalnik Historyczny 60,

Adam Naruszewicz (1733–1796) 45

94

95 96

97

98 99 100 101

102 103

104 105

106

no. 3 (1953), pp. 147–63. The theory of conquest was used to support the feudal order elsewhere as well. For information on this discussion in France, see Mikhail A. Alpatov, A@:4H4R,F84, 4*,4 LD">PJ2F8@6 $JD0J"2>@6 4FH@D4@(D"L44 MyM &,8" (Moscow, 1949), pp. 29–53. Thietmar, Bishop of Merseburg, 975–1018. Chronicon, available in English as Ottonian Germany: The Chronicon of Thietmar of Merseburg, translated and annotated by David Warner [Manchester Medieval Sources Series] (Manchester, 2001). N to SA, 20 April 1777, Korespondencja, p. 74. Historia, vol. 1, 300. In light of the clear anti-papal views contained in the History, Naruszewicz’s views as expressed to Albertrandi seem like backtracking. ‘The Popes intervened as heads of the Church in the Poles’ spiritual affairs and, as their protectors, took part in secular matters, influencing the conclusion of treaties as well as alliances, military campaigns and other civil matters.’ N to Jan Albertrandi, 21 September 1782, Korespondencja, p. 218. See Kazimierz GawroÛski, ‘PaÛstwo i Ko◊ció¬ w “Historii Narodu Polskiego” Adama Naruszewicza,’ Przeglåd Humanistycny 27, no. 6 (1983), pp. 63–85. For example, Naruszewicz clearly condemned the treatment of Boles¬aw jmialy by Pope Gregory VII. Historia, vol. 5, pp. 82–3. Ibid., vol. 1, p. 47. Ibid., vol. 5, p. 890. For an example, see Naruszewicz’s treatment of St Jadwiga’s vision of the death of her son at the Battle of Legnica, ibid., vol. 4, p. 278. He also cast doubt on the legend of divine intervention that saved Wroc¬aw from the Mongols, ibid., vol. 7, p. 61. Ibid., vol. 8, pp. 147–8, 200–1. N to SA, 12 October 1777, Korespondencja, p. 94. Also see N to Jan Albertrandi, 21 September 1782, ibid., p. 219, where, based on papal sources, he noted gaps and even distortions in the work of some Polish chroniclers. Historia, vol. 4, p. 56; a similar rebuke to D¬ugosz may be read in ibid., vol. 9, p. 129. For example, Naruszewicz questions whether the legend of angels visiting Piast could not be a distortion of a real visit by SS Cyril and Methodius to Poland, ibid., vol. 1, p. 72. Platt, ‘Naruszewicz, Adam,’ p. 559; Despite the lack of progress, Naruszewicz was not above using the king’s desire to complete the Historia as leverage in achieving his own ambitions. In a letter to the king of 30 December 1780, he wrote that if he were not appointed Bishop of Suck, he

46 John D. Stanley would soon be changing his interests from history to agriculture! Korespondencja, p. 175. However, the king appears to have feared that a bishopric would distract Naruszewicz from his important work on the Historia: he did not gain the post until ten years later. 107 N to Stanis¬aw Trembecki, 5 March 1790, Korespondencja, p. 353. 108 Rutkowska, p. 46; Trembecki shared Naruszewicz’s interest in history, but he did not become involved in this project. After the establishment of the Duchy of Warsaw, thought was given to continuing the Historia. See Helena Winnicka, ’Project historii narodowej w pracach TWPN,’ Uniwersytet Sódzki, Zeszyty naukowe, Seria 1 (1956), z. 4, pp. 11–35, and Serejski, ‘Kontynuacja “historii narodowej” Adama Naruszewicza w Warszawskim Towarzystwie Przyjació¬ Nauk i poczåtki zwrotu,’ in his Naród a paÛstwo w polskiej my◊li historycznej (Warsaw, 1977), pp. 79–91. 109 For example, in his 1778 poem ‘Voice of the dying’ (G¬os umar¬ych), he emphasized that not foreign pressure but the abuse of their freedom by Poles themselves had led the nation into decline: CzegóÒ si´ b¬´dny uskarÒasz narodzie! Los twój zwalajåc na obce uciski? Szukaj nieszcz´◊cia w twej w¬asnej swobodzie I bolej na jej op¬akane zyski. ˘aden kraj cudzej pot´gi nie zwabi¬, Który sam siebie pierwej nie os¬abi¬. ... Grali◊cie smutnå scen´ na teatrze: Akt juÒ ostatni, nie masz si´ czym bawiñ Zginåñ nam trzeba albo si´ poprawiñ As Grabski has noted, these lines carried an optimistic spirit during this period of reforms, but their impact and meaning were transformed after 1795. Grabski, Zarys historii historiografii polskiej (PoznaÛ, 2000), p. 73. The lines are from Naruszewicz’s most important poem, ‘G¬os umar¬ych,’ Wybór poezyi, vol. 1 (Warsaw, 1882), pp. 410–11. (This volume, edited by Piotr Chmielowski, revived interest in Naruszewicz’s achievements as a poet.) For further information on historical elements in Naruszewicz’s poetry, see Barbara Wolska, ‘Wåtki historyczne w Poezji Adama Naruszewicza,’ Wiek O◊wiecenia 8 (1998), pp. 69–83. 110 See Henryk Damian Wojtyska, ‘Jana Chrzciciela Albertrandiego kwerendy we W¬oszech w latach 1777–1783,’ Archiwa, Biblioteki, Muzea Ko◊cielne 59 (1992), pp. 101–14. 111 N to SA, 26 May 1781, Korespondencja, pp. 189–90, where Naruszewicz

Adam Naruszewicz (1733–1796) 47

112

113

114

115

116

117

describes his work of gathering and analysing material related to the Polish-Austrian treaty of 1683 to a tight deadline: tomorrow morning! Or again in the king’s letter of 14 March 1785 about the Old Believers who fled to Poland from Russia, ibid., p. 245. Additional, similar requests are found in his letters to Naruszewicz of 27 May 1785, ibid., p. 247, and February 1788, ibid., p. 295. Naruszewicz kept his monarch informed of the document collection. See his letters to Stanis¬aw August of 15 November 1781, ibid., p. 207, and 25 November 1781, ibid., p. 209. The last known receipt for copying materials is from 1 June 1792, ibid., p. 556. The volumes – containing 38,270 documents – are now scattered among Poland’s great libraries. The largest group – 217 volumes – is found in the Czartoryski Library in Cracow. The total collection survived the Second World War apart from the loss of those volumes burned in the purposeful destruction by German troops of the Archiwum G¬ówny Akt Dawnych: four volumes from the archive’s original collection and eighteen returned to Poland under the Treaty of Riga, 1921. For additional information, see Stanis¬aw Grzybowski, Teki Naruszewicza. ‘Acta regum et populi Poloni’ [Monografie z Dziejów Nauki i Techniki, 13] (Wroc¬aw, 1960). Rutkowska, p. 44. For information on the Permanent Council, see the classic study by W¬adys¬aw KonopczyÛski, Geneza i ustanowienie Rady Nieustajåcej (Cracow, 1917), and the more recent work by Aleksander Czaja, Mi´dzy tronem, bu¬awå a dworem petersburskim. Z dziejów Rady Nieustajåcej 1786–1789 (Warsaw, 1988). Nontheless, Naruszewicz promised the king that he would not cease work on the Historia. N to SA, 25 December 1786, Korespondencja, p. 269. Naruszewicz’s tight focus on public affairs was common among Polish bishops. For example, it was noted that Adam KrasiÛski, Bishop of Kamieniec Podolski, spent more time renovating the fortress than the cathedral! Zió¬ek, p. 47. Naruszewicz also published a diary of the trip, published as Diariusz podróÒy Stanis¬awa Augusta króla polskiego na Ukrain´ aÒ do powrotu do Warszawy dnia 22 lipca roku 1787 (Warsaw, 1787). It was reissued the following year in a revised and completed form: Dziennik podróÒy króla Jegomo◊ci Stanis¬awa Augusta na Ukrain´ ... pt. 1: Wyjazd do Kaniowa; pt. 2: Bytno◊ñ w Kaniowie (Warsaw, 1788). Naruszewicz, Tauryka czyli wiadomo◊ci staroÒytne i póÚniejsze o stanie i mieszkaÛcach Krymu do naszych czasów (Warsaw, 1787). A Russian translation soon followed (Kiev, 1788). It was well received by the empress, who rewarded Naruszewicz with a

48 John D. Stanley

118

119

120

121

122

gold cross and jewelled ring as well as an annual stipend of 500 rubles. She was no doubt pleased by Naruszewicz’s praise of her accomplishments. See Tauryka (Warsaw, 1805), pp. 7–8, and Walerian Kalinka, Ostatnie lata panowania Stanis¬awa Augusta (Cracow, 1891), vol. 1, pp. 365–6. Many Polish political and religious figures received salaries from the Russian empress. When Naruszewicz became a senator, he renounced the salary in order to maintain his independence: by renouncing it, he was also making a clear political statement regarding those who continued to accept Russian money. The Prussian diplomat Ludwig Heinrich von Buchholtz noted that Naruszewicz was among those bishops who were members of the patriotic group. Henryk Kocój, Dyplomacja Prus, Austrii i Rosji wobec Konstytucji 3 Maja 17951 roku (Cracow, 1998), p. 161. For an example of this tactic, see Naruszewicz’s speech of 31 January 1791 in the Sejm where the bishop opposed the nobility’s powers; cited in Rutkowska, p. 50. Zió¬ek attributes his marginal role in the Sejm as the result of pessimism, derived from the trip to Kaniów. Zió¬ek, p. 45. Some of Naruszewicz’s speechs during the Sejm’s debates were published. See ‘G¬os Adama Naruszewicza, biskupa smoleÛskiego za duchowieÛstwem na sesji sejmowej roku 1789 dnia 16 marca,’ Zbiór mów i pism niektórych w czasie sejmu stanów skonfederowanych, vol. 7 (Wilno, 1789) pp. 258–302, and ‘G¬os Adama Naruszewicza, biskupa smoleÛskiego nominata ¬uckiego i brzeskiego na sesji sejmowej 20 lipca [1790] miany,’ ibid., vol. 12 (Wilno, 1790), pp. 188–92. Zió¬ek notes that Naruszewicz’s addresses were usually mini-lectures on Polish history! Zió¬ek, p. 99. Naruszewicz’s financial situation was known to be weak. In a speech to the Sejm, the Podolian delegate Kazimierz KrasiÛski noted that he knew of only a single poor bishop – Naruszewicz! KrasiÛski’s speech of 29 January 1789 is printed in Diariusz sejmu ordynaryjnego pod zwiåzkiem Konfederacji Generalnej Obojga Narodów w Warszawie rozpocz´tego roku PaÛskiego 1788, vol. 2, pt. 2 (Warsaw, 1790?), p. 357, as cited in Zió¬ek, p. 192. The king nominated Naruszewicz as Bishop of Suck on 3 June 1790, but the Holy See only confirmed his appointment on 29 November 1790. For the full process, see Kumor, ‘Nieznane przyczynki,’ p. 463. The delay probably resulted from the papacy’s distrust of his Enlightenment views. For a history of the diocese, see Feliks Sznarbachowski, Poczåtki i dzieje rzymsko-katolickiej diecezji ¬ucko-Òytomierskiej (Warsaw, 1926). N to SA, 28 October 1790, cited in Rutkowska, p. 69. This letter does not appear in the collected Korespondencja. Nitschmann supposes that Poland’s decline discouraged him from further work. Nitschmann, p. 197.

Adam Naruszewicz (1733–1796) 49 123 ‘G¬os Adama Naruszewicz, biskupa ¬uckiego i brzeskiego przy za¬oÒeniu pierwszego kamienia na Ko◊ció¬ Opatrzno◊ci Boskiej R. 1792 dnia 3 maja na placu Ujazdowskim miany,’ in Tauryka, pp. 525–40. Naruszewicz used this occasion as an opportunity to describe the benefits that would come to Poland as a result of the new constitution. For an analysis of this sermon, see Zió¬ek, pp. 73–4, and Platt, ‘Adam Naruszewicz,’ p. 336. 124 Przeglåd Katolicki, no. 5 (1898), pp. 67–9, as cited in Rutkowska, p. 53. However, Stanis¬aw August persisted: in the midst of Poland’s crisis, the king pointedly asked if Naruszewicz were continuing the Polish history. The king went further, asking him to defend the royal accomplishments. Although he agreed to the king’s request to write this work, he had neither the energy nor the desire either to embark upon a new book or to continue the Historia. 125 N to SA, 2 April 1795, Korespondencja, p. 475. Albertrandi and Niemcewicz wrote that Catherine II pressured Naruszewicz not to finish the Historia during their meeting in Ukraine. However, as Rutkowska notes, there is no written evidence for this opinion. Rutkowska, p. 69. 126 ‘obaj rzewnie p¬akali.’ Platt, ‘Naruszewicz, Adam,’ p. 560. 127 Further information about his death and estate are available in Platt, ‘Masa spadkowa po Adamie Naruszewiczu,’ Archiwum Literackie, vol. 13: Miscellanea z doby O◊wiecenia, vol. 3 (Wroc¬aw, 1969), pp. 323–71. 128 Hugo Ko¬¬åtaj to Jan Maj, 15 July 1802, in Ko¬¬åtaj. Korespondencja z Tadeusz Czackim, vol. 1 (Cracow, 1844), pp. 13–14. This letter is also available in Serejski, Historycy o historii, vol. 1, pp. 49–59. Naruszewicz’s disciple, Tadeusz Czacki, shared this view. See his ‘Wst´p do historii,’ in Aloyzy OsiÛski, O Òyciu, pismach Tadeusza Czackiego (Krzemieniec, 1816), pp. 383– 90, as cited in Serejski, p. 59. 129 Rutkowska compares the treatment by D¬ugosz and Naruszewicz of two distinct topics – the siege of Halicz and idolatry – by placing their narratives side by side, demonstrating that Naruszewicz often simply paraphrased the former. Rutkowska, pp. 89–90. 130 Lelewel points out this defect. See Lelewel, ‘Porównanie,’ p. 611. 131 Violetta Julkowska, ‘Naruszewiczowska koncepcja narracji historycznej, czyli o sztuce pisania historii,’ in Bartkiewicz, p. 135. 132 In fact, this approach may have been a defect intrinsic to the approach of Enlightenment historians. ‘They were forced back on simple political narrative because they utterly lacked instruments for writing what they said they wanted to write, the history of culture and mind.’ Stromberg, p. 303. 133 His great successor noted that Naruszewicz, ‘in composing his work, raised the level from that of a chronicler’s annals to history proper.’

50 John D. Stanley

134

135

136 137

138 139

140

Joachim Lelewel, ‘Rozbiór prac historycznych A. Naruszewicza i T Czackiego,’ Dzie¬a, vol. 2, pt. 2 (Warsaw, 1964), p. 671. When comparing the treatment of the reign of Casimir the Great, Rutkowska noted that Naruszewicz cited seventy-three documents for the first time – Czech and German sources, such as the autobiography of Charles IV – whereas Mniszech relied on only three collections of chronicles and documents. Rutkowska, p. 114. Steiner, ‘Rezensionen und Anzeiger,’ Polnische Bibliothek, H. 2. (1787–8), p. 62. Steiner reviewed the second volume of Naruszewicz’s Historia in this issue, pp. 61–77, and the third volume in H. 9, pp. 62–76. In general, however, Steiner was critical of Naruszewicz’s work. See Stanis¬aw Salmonowicz, ‘Krystian Bogumi¬ Steiner. Zapoznany Krytyk Naruszewicza,’ Kwartalnik Historyczny 67, no. 1 (1960), pp. 134–40. ‘Naruszewicz is the first to write as a historian in the Polish language.’ Lelewel, ‘Rozbiór,’ p. 669. In his letter to Stanis¬aw August of 11 July 1777, Naruszewicz used a peculiar metaphor: ‘I am like that greedy thief who needs everything he sees but on further reflexion starts to gather up only gold objects and jewellery.’ Korespondencja, p. 88. Lelewel compared him to an ant carrying a burden. Lelewel, ‘Rozbiór,’ p. 659. This insistance on one’s own responsibility for failure may be seen in other Enlightenment writers. For example, Constantin François Volney (1757– 1820) wrote, ‘The source of [man’s] calamities is not seated in the distant heavens ... it is not concealed in the latent bosom of the Divinity; it resides in man himself, he carried it with him in the inward recesses of his own heart.’ Volney, The Ruins, or Meditation on the revolutions of empires (New York, 1890), p. 23. ‘En comprenant ainsi les problèmes de l’heuristique, Naruszewicz n’est pas seulement un imitateur de Voltaire, mais avant tout un partisan du système des éminents érudits français contemporaines adonnés à la diplomatique.’ Marceli Handelsman, ‘La méthodologie de l’histoire dans la science polonaise,’ Revue de synthèse historique 34 (1922), p. 81. Voltaire was then the most popular French writer in Poland. In a survey into the number of works by French eighteenth-century authors held in the libraries of seventeen Polish towns, 1,195 works by Voltaire were found in French and 215 in Polish. The next most popular writer was Rousseau with 605 works in French and 127 in Polish. See Ewa Rzadkowska, Francuskie wzorce polskich O◊wieconych (Warsaw, 1989). In his memoirs, Niemcewicz states that during the 1770s whenever he visited Pani Kra-

Adam Naruszewicz (1733–1796) 51 kowska, ‘Voltaire’s Le siècle de Louis XIV was read during the evenings.’ Niemcewicz, Pami´tnik czasów moich, vol. 1 (Warsaw, 1957), p. 150. The memoir was written between 1823 and 1825. 141 Tadeusz Czacki and Julian Ursyn Niemcewicz but also, more distantly, Karol Sienkiewicz, Teodor Morawski, Micha¬ BobrzyÛski, and Olgierd Górka have been regarded as the heirs of Naruszewicz. See Ko◊cia¬kowski’s work as well as Maria Królikowska, Szko¬a naruszewiczowska i jej miejsce w historiografii polskiej XIX wieku (Warsaw, 1989), and Micha¬ Sokolnicki, ‘Polska my◊l historyczna od Naruszewicza do Lelewela,’ Biblioteka Warszawska 259 (1905), t. 3, pp. 213–31. Sienkiewicz used praise of Naruszewicz to criticize Lelewel. See Karol Sienkiewicz, ‘O Adamie Naruszewiczu,’ in his Pisma: Prace historyczne i polityczne (Paris, 1862), pp. 429–60. 142 See the Society’s call for the project, Stanis¬aw Staszic and Ludwik OsiÛski, ‘Odezwa Towarzystwa Królewskiego Przyjació¬ Nauk w sprawie prospektu historii narodu polskiego,’ originally published in Pami´tnik Warszawski 3, no. 9 (15 November 1809), pp. 251–65, as cited in Serejski, ed., Historycy o historii, vol. 1, pp. 60–7. The three completed elements of the Society’s project consisted of Niemcewicz on the reign of Sigismund III (Warsaw, 1819), Kajetan Kwiatkowski on W¬adys¬aw IV (Warsaw, 1823), and Micha¬ Dymitr Krajewski on Jan Kazimierz (Warsaw, 1846). 143 For example, Micha¬ BobrzyÛski noted harshly that Naruszewicz’s successors ‘were incapable of equalling, let alone surpassing his achievements.’ BobrzyÛski, ‘Kilka s¬ów o najnowszym ruchu na polu naszego dziejopisarstwa,’ Niwa 12 (1877), pp. 481–2.

2 Joachim Lelewel (1786–1861) john d. stanley

This morning I visited Lelewel. I wept at the sight of the venerable old man ... living today in the most abject poverty, in a tiny attic to which one gains access through a dirty tavern. I wept, seeing him [sitting there] in an overcoat he had patched himself. What indeed can be the fate of other exiles when a great man like Lelewel suffers today like that.

In Edward Dembowski’s letter to his wife on 17 December 1844, the young revolutionary leader not only recorded his impressions of his meeting with Lelewel, but he also touched on major themes of Lelewel’s life: exile, poverty, greatness.1 As a member of the Polish Romantic movement, Lelewel cemented the Romantic tradition at the centre of Poland’s political and cultural life. He placed history not only at the service of his nation but also at the centre of his own life. Moreover, since the Polish state – the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth – no longer existed, the Romantic concept of ‘nation’ provided a new framework within which Poland could be discussed. The ‘nation’ came to serve as the motor of Polish culture.2 Lelewel’s hard work and dedication produced an enormous collection of writings.3 The influence of his scholarship and the historical views he promoted attracted many other historians, creating a school that continued his approach for decades after his death. His interests indeed went beyond history to encompass cartography, geography, numismatics, genealogy, information science, heraldry, and palaeography, all of which he used to inform his historical work. 4 Through a lifetime of writing, he played an important role in forging modern Polish nationalism.5

Joachim Lelewel (1786–1861) 53

The Making of a Historian Joachim Józef Benedykt Lelewel was to become a leading proponent of Romanticism, but the Enlightenment still dominated the Warsaw in which he was born on 21 March 1786. The family name was originally Loelhoeffel de Löwensprung, but his father Polonized the surname in 1775 when he purchased an estate and formally became a member of the Polish gentry. His mother’s family was descended from Belarusan gentry. Lelewel himself jokingly noted that he did not possess ‘a drop of Polish blood.’6 The family estate was small, and he was educated at home by the local Piarists and his grandfather; thus his early years were spent in a gentry environment, whose culture Lelewel absorbed. The boy soon demonstrated a curiosity in everything, from stars to butterflies. History was not excluded: at the age of thirteen he mapped out the siege of Pskov by Stefan Batory, and at fifteen he began to write an outline of Polish history. However, his formal education began only in 1801 at the Piarist boarding school in Warsaw, where the adolescent Lelewel did not stand out from other students. From 1804 to 1808, he attended the University of Wilno. With its own university and publishing firms, Wilno dominated Polish intellectual and cultural life in the first decade of the nineteenth century.7 The philologist Gotfryd Ernest Groddeck (1762–1825), who had studied at Göttingen, then the foremost academic centre for the study of history, introduced Lelewel to the latest analytical tools, including the new technique of textual criticism.8 As a student, Lelewel’s real passion, however, was study itself: exploring public and private libraries, reading books and manuscripts, examining and sketching coins and maps. His first interest was in early medieval history, resulting in his first scholarly publication, Edda, which appeared anonymously in 1807.9 This short work was hardly original, but it touched on the origins of the Slavs and of Poland, a theme that remained important in Lelewel’s future work. The next year his second work appeared, carrying the bold subtitle ‘a treatise against Naruszewicz by the Mazur, J. Lelewel.’10 Jan jniadecki (1756–1830), one of Poland’s foremost scientists and the university rector, summoned the student and accused him of a ‘lack of modesty.’ Shortly thereafter, Lelewel left the university without taking a degree. However, the bold student had attracted the attention of Tadeusz Czacki (1765–1813), then Poland’s foremost historian, who suggested to jniadecki that he steer Lelewel to teach at the Krzemieniec Academy

54 John D. Stanley

where Czacki was rector. After a short period in Warsaw, Lelewel did move to Krzemieniec, where he spent two years teaching at the academy.11 Despite Czacki’s renown, he had little influence over Lelewel, who continued to use his historical work to denounce established scholars. Eventually, Lelewel left his position at Krzemieniec. In 1811, he took up a junior bureaucratic position in the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the new Duchy of Warsaw, a post he disliked intensely. This uncertain path taken by Lelewel was indeed typical of the Polish intelligentsia’s first generation. Although two of his brothers participated in the 1812 campaign in Russia, Lelewel did not share most Poles’ enthusiasm for Napoleon and, instead, continued to busy himself with scholarship. In 1811, he published a slim volume, Considerations on Mateusz Cholewa (Uwagi nad Mateuszem herbu Cholewa), which proved to be the first work to use historical criticism in Polish historiography.12 Although Lelewel’s specific conclusions have since proved false, the work demonstrated Lelewel’s erudition, critical thinking, research skills, and familiarity with the latest historical techniques.13 When Lelewel returned to Warsaw in 1811, he attended all the public sessions of the Society of Friends of the Sciences and became acquainted with some of its leading members. He actively participated in gatherings but without the privileges or responsibilities of full membership. When Lelewel’s name was put forward in the elections for membership in spring 1813, his candidacy was rejected. Among the reasons for Lelewel’s difficult passage to full membership in the prestigious Polish scholarly body would surely have been his criticism not only of the work of Naruszewicz but also of The Historical Songs (jpiewy historyczne), written by one of the Society’s most prominent members, Julian Ursyn Niemcewicz. Moreover, Lelewel still did not have a university degree. Obviously, influential Society members were hostile to the brilliant upstart.14 After this humiliation, Lelewel did not appear at Society functions, and he remained without the status of a full member. Despite these disappointments, however, Lelewel continued to write: in fact, his first popular work was also written in this period.15 Unfortunately, none of his work brought Lelewel either income or fame. For instance, his 1814 work entitled Minor Geographical-Historical Writings (Pisma pomniejsze geograficzno-historycznye) sold only eleven copies in the space of a year. Although the rector of Wilno University had been offended by Lelewel’s work on more than one occasion, he still thought of hiring him for the unfilled chair of history at the university. (The university had not

Joachim Lelewel (1786–1861) 55

had a professor of history for ten years.) The influential Prince Adam Jerzy Czartoryski (1770–1861) supported the rector’s aim. In February 1815, Lelewel received an unexpected letter, inviting him to take up the position as lecturer in universal history.16 Although Lelewel received an annual salary, it was not a permanent position. The offer to Lelewel allowed jniadecki to fill a gap in the curriculum while not committing himself to this bright but troublesome thirty-year-old. For three academic years (1815–18), he lectured four times a week, which, as most young academics will confirm, tore him away from scholarship. Lelewel himself was surprised at the enthusiastic response to his courses, but he was also gratified that he could use history to deepen Poles’ understanding of their country.17 Lelewel had begun his explorations in historiography as early as 1807.18 Over the following years, he continued this work and, in 1815, first published his views on history in The Theory of History: On the Easy and Useful Teaching of History (Historyka, tudzieÒ o ¬atwym i poÒytecznym nauczaniu historii).19 Based on deduction, the work was entirely original: Lelewel purposely looked at no foreign models in order to ensure independent creativity.20 Lelewel’s theory of history had three parts: Criticism (Krytyka), necessary to determine the truth of a fact; Aetiology (Etyologika), establishing the context of events; and historiography, the writing of history. While the great achievements of the German Romantic school of history were made between 1824 and 1828, Lelewel’s pioneering work occurred a decade earlier.21 Despite numerous publications, Lelewel never developed a grand synthesis of his beliefs, however. It is clear that, for him, the historian’s duty was to understand the spiritual life of the nation and explain its transformation from place to place and from time to time.22 Lelewel focused history on human events and on understanding human development; religion was to be studied against the background of social development. Like so many Romantics, he saw the goal of history in establishing the truth and reality of events. In order to establish the truth of a fact, Lelewel placed great emphasis on sources. Where he differed from the Enlightenment historians, however, was the sheer variety of sources that he explored in order to ferret out meaning in history – in linguistics, painting, palaeography, and archaeology. Lelewel’s historical principles and research practice led him to learn twelve languages well enough to use in his scholarship.23 The broader the source base, the more certain Lelewel could be of his factual foundations. At the same time, Lelewel was very much a

56 John D. Stanley

Romantic nationalist. As he wrote in 1818, a historian ‘must feel the dignity of his own religion and be filled with love of his fatherland and nationality so as to be empowered to value the feelings which we meet with most of all in history.’24 While acknowledging the importance of Voltaire in linking philosophy and history, he was critical of Enlightenment historians who did not have a firm methodology for their work but rather based their writing on bold hypotheses. Philosophy could not dominate history since history was based on discovery of facts and use of specific research, aiming at showing the reality of the past. The spirit (duch) of a particular era or nation is part of a still deeper, more comprehensive spirit coming to realization through history.25 In this aim, history had to be supported by all the other fields of knowledge, and here Lelewel used the metaphor of the tree.26 In elaborating his historiographical views, Lelewel developed a methodology as well, granting previously unknown or unrelated tools to the historian. For a young historian, working on his own, it was an astonishing achievement, and Lelewel is rightly regarded as the founder of Polish historiography. 27 During this period at the University of Wilno, Lelewel had complete freedom to shape his course, and he was able to take his students on excursions into numismatics, chronology, and diplomatics. (The professor was scarcely older than his students.) Although he stood apart from university politics, his popularity led to envy of the ‘intruder’ from Warsaw. At the end of three years, Lelewel still was not confirmed as a professor, and he started to search for a more stable position. Fortunately, the University of Warsaw was seeking a historian. Jan Wincenty Bandtkie (1783–1846), a Society of Friends of the Sciences member who was familiar with Lelewel’s work, invited Lelewel to apply for a chair in history.28 Although Lelewel was responsive to this invitation, in the end he was instead offered a position in librarianship, while serving simultaneously as assistant librarian. In 1818, he left Wilno and took up this position in the Warsaw Public Library, then associated with the new university, established in 1816.29 Although formally a subordinate, he was actually faced with the work of running the new library since the director was the distinguished but aged lexicographer Samuel Bogumi¬ Linde (1771–1847). In this difficult situation, Lelewel’s love of learning did not fail him. His new responsibilities and ongoing passion for books led him into a new field, bibliography. The foundations for this new discipline were just being laid in Europe, and Lelewel produced the first scholarly –

Joachim Lelewel (1786–1861) 57

and highly original – works in Polish on the subject.30 Nevertheless, history remained his real passion, and he sought out opportunities in this field. When the Jagiellonian University awarded him the PhD in 1821, Lelewel was permitted to lecture in Warsaw on sixteenth- and seventeenth-century history.31 However, it was clear he still did not fit into the institution: the faculty, for instance, did not invite Lelewel to their meetings, and he was not invited to evaluate academic work, which his position formally required. However, it was not only at the university that suspicions about his character had arisen. Indeed, Lelewel’s uncompromising nature often made relations with fellow scholars difficult. Despite his initial rejection by Warsaw’s intellectual elite, Lelewel continued to write.32 In 1818, he published a history of the ancient world (Dzieje staroÒytne), based on his Wilno lectures. Typically, it offended the local clergy.33 To this period also belongs his history of ancient India (Dzieje staroÒytne Indii), the first Polish work on the subcontinent. This fascination with the East was typical of the Romantics, who saw in Indian culture and religion a route to the wisdom of the East. The fact that his book was based entirely on secondary sources did not prevent Lelewel from reaching the then startling conclusion that ‘India is shown to be the centre from which a great part of the [world’s] moral and religious institutions have derived.’34 His next work brought him closer to home. The Parallels of Spain with Poland in the Sixteenth, Seventeenth, Eighteenth Centuries (Paralela Hiszpanii z Polskå w XVI, XVII, XVIII wieku ) represented a new type of history. Lelewel noted in the introduction that previously there had been parallel biographies, but that his work was the first comparative history.35 Based on Warsaw lectures, the book was inspired by the 1820 Cadiz uprising. Unfortunately, censorship forbade its publication.36 The comparison of the two states allowed Lelewel to specify the characteristics distinguishing Poland from Spain, and it was this work that led him for the first time to the notion of ‘communal democracy’ (gminow¬adztwo), which became a central feature of his later work.37 Despite his productivity, Lelewel knew that he was not accepted and made it known that he would like to leave Warsaw. Wilno University held a competition in 1821 for the chair in history: Lelewel entered, only two candidates applied, and Lelewel was the winner. His friends and supporters saw his appointment as a vindication, welcoming him back to Wilno. His inaugural lecture – on human development, from the beginnings of history to the French Revolution – was delivered on

58 John D. Stanley

9 January 1822 before an audience of more than a thousand listeners, who received its Romantic approach to history with great enthusiasm.38 Over the next two years, Lelewel offered courses on universal history and historical methodology.39 They were popular with students and even attracted public interest. In a small university, Lelewel was an important figure. As professor, Lelewel lectured six hours weekly, planning the lectures on a three-year cycle, encompassing the ancient world to modern times. However, in contrast to his academic colleagues, his lectures were based on original sources and derived from his knowledge of the latest research in a variety of languages, to which were added his own philosophical views of history. His erudition and dedication were acknowledged by the students, who viewed him not only as an intellectual but also as a moral authority. Lelewel’s approach to history was unique in the Polish intellectual world, and it would have been considered at the forefront of historical thought anywhere in Europe. Occupied with teaching at the university, surrounded by friends, devoting himself to scholarly work, uncovering new sources and facts, with intellectual and material independence: Lelewel regarded this period as the happiest in his life. History held a special place in the life of a nation without a state, and Lelewel’s fame spread. With the disappearance of the Polish state in 1795, Poland’s fate was uppermost in the minds of all Poles. Romantic philosophers such as Herder had focused on ‘nation’ and ‘nationality,’ concepts central to Polish intellectual life as a result of the recent past. Poles sought to explore and use these concepts as tools for understanding their country’s history, but also as tools for action in the present and future. While Enlightenment figures such as Stanis¬aw Staszic (1755–1826) and Hugo Ko¬¬åtaj had indeed employed the concept of ‘nation,’ it was Lelewel who made it central to Polish history. In Historyka, he noted that the main subject of history should be ‘social unions’ (zwiåzki spo¬eczne), and the most important of such bonds was the ‘nation.’ The nation should be seen as encompassing all human activities. While Ranke focused on princes rather than peoples, on specific actions rather than general conditions, Lelewel took the opposite tack.40 He coined the term ‘cultural history’ to describe this ideal of an integral social history.41 He concluded logically that the achievements of individuals were nothing to the sweep of society as a whole. While he did not ignore the political, it was always within the context of this broad framework of cultural history. In order to use this bold

Joachim Lelewel (1786–1861) 59

approach, the historian had to understand a nation’s past from its beginnings to the present and place it in the context of its neighbours. This approach contrasted with that used by contemporaries such as Augustin Thierry (1795–1856) or François Guizot (1787–1874), who dwelt exclusively on the political aspects of the past. Linking national history to world history became a key consideration for Lelewel. National developments did not simply mirror world events, but they were affected and influenced by them. National history could not be understood without comparison to other periods and other nations. This spacious vision Lelewel termed ‘comprehensive’ or ‘universal’ history (historia powszechna). Universal history was the story of humanity, tracing the changes and status of every period and discovering the characteristics of the entire species, not just a particular national variety. Everything is related, judged, and evaluated in relation to time, place, context, and environment. While this attempt to fuse all the scattered facts, methodologies, and sources into a distinct form of historical thinking did not originate with Lelewel,42 he did underline in his work that the fates of all peoples were tied together. This concept of universal history had no geographic limitation. It also ranged widely to encompass all aspects of humanity’s past, including economic, social, and cultural events. One must study the whole in order to perceive the connection between fact and meaning and thus demonstrate the essential unity of History. In addition, by establishing the historical nature of other peoples, the national spirit of the Poles would stand out clearly and be more easily understood.43 Given this historical approach, Lelewel had no sympathy for nationalists who tried to position one nation as superior to another. He was not afraid to fight for his ideas and boldly attacked his predecessors, such as Naruszewicz, as well as contemporaries, many of whom, as we have seen, regarded the young man as an upstart with no right to criticize his social and intellectual betters. In the beginning, his work met with a confused reaction and outright hostility. Although a young and brilliant lecturer with few scholarly credentials other than his own published works, Lelewel still carved out a career for himself. He was the typical Romantic hero, fitting into positions and organizations only with difficulty, an individual voice that had to express itself regardless of the consequences. He was confident enough of his own abilities to analyse and criticize the work of established historians, such as the Pole Naruszewicz or the German Schlözer, without even thinking of repercussions. He derived much satisfaction in disputing the views of

60 John D. Stanley

others or sarcastically pointing out their mistakes. He saw his role not so much as building on the work of predecessors – although he clearly did – but rather as striking out on his own path, providing a new vision, not just a new interpretation, of the Polish past and even of European history. With his nonconformist approach and his total lack of concern for the impact of his words or principles on those around him, he remains a prime example of the Romantics’ self-made man. Lelewel’s path from the cultural to the political was typical of the Romantic nationalist intelligentsia of the time. In addition to his scholarship, between 1815 and 1817 Lelewel was editor of the moderate periodical Wilno Weekly (Tygodnik WileÛski). His views on the peasantry, republicanism, and religious toleration inspired students, while his writing also influenced young revolutionaries who sought evidence for their views. However, there is no evidence that he co-operated with the various secret societies between 1817 and 1826. Nonetheless, his patriotic views and popularity among students clearly aroused the suspicion of the Russian authorities. Although they did not interfere with his courses, he was denied the position of dean. Finally, as a result of an investigation into student activities, Lelewel and two other professors were relieved of their responsibilities at the university by an ukaz of 14 (26) August 1824.44 Since Lelewel was originally from the Congress Kingdom, he was expelled to Warsaw, leaving Wilno for the third and final time on 17 October 1824. By January 1825, Lelewel was back in Warsaw and without any promise of employment. In this difficult period, he once again threw himself into scholarship. In the next five years, he published dozens of works. His greatest success came in 1829 with his History of Poland Written in a Colloquial Style (Dzieje Polski potocznym sposobem opowiedziane), which sold out its first edition in a matter of months. Intended primarily for young people, it also showed the author’s sympathy for republicanism; he was not interested in great men and kings. Lelewel also began to write on modern history. However, the book he had prepared on the reign of Stanis¬aw August was not published due to the censor’s fear of offending Nikolai Novosiltsev, the King-Emperor’s right-hand man in Warsaw. Once again Lelewel broke fresh ground, for this was the first work to draw upon his own memory and experiences: the historian himself became a source for history. By working in so many different fields, Lelewel not only became increasingly erudite but permitted different types of scholarship to influence one another. Indeed, Lelewel’s work in the auxiliary fields supporting history – geography, chronology,

Joachim Lelewel (1786–1861) 61

archaeology, linguistic criticism, numismatics – was as important as his work in re-shaping Polish historiography. For instance, his History of Geography and Discoveries (Historia geografii i odkryñ) (1814) was the first geographical treatise in the Polish language. The 1820s were incredibly productive for Lelewel: by 1830, he already had 150 publications to his credit, but most of his work was only published in 1831 when censorship briefly disappeared. Thus, Lelewel’s historical vision was already formed prior to the November uprising and his political engagement. While Lelewel was certainly a nationalist, he set his views of Poland within the context of Europe and the brotherhood of all peoples. For Lelewel, Europe went beyond the territory occupied by the Roman Empire or the Germanic tribes to incorporate the Balts and Slavs to the northeast of the continent.45 He acknowledged the division between East and West, but regarded it as the result of history. The West came under the influence of Rome, which had established despotism and slavery in Europe. In its wake followed feudalism and serfdom. In contrast, Eastern Europe was formed under freer social and political relations. He did not see the eastern half of the continent as in any way inferior to the western half. In Lelewel’s view, Poland was not on the periphery of a civilized Occident but rather a vital component of the continent, making its own distinct cultural and political contributions to European life. While his view of Europe was broader than that of many contemporaries, the focus of Lelewel’s history was on the nation, not the state. Although he despised the oligarchic magnates who had destroyed the Commonwealth, he believed the nation encompassed all classes beneath them: the petty gentry, urban dwellers, and peasants.46 He rhetorically asked, ‘What distinguishes the commons from the gentry? One fatherland, a common language, faith and tradition bring them together.’47 While Naruszewicz had sought to learn the cause of Poland’s ruin, Lelewel searched for the roots of its greatness. Given his republican beliefs (and social origins), it was natural that he saw the szlachta freedoms as a foundation for modern democracy. The power of the magnates had undermined these freedoms and hastened Poland’s fall. He associated monarchy with aristocracy, and he abhorred both. It was thanks to the gentry that the Polish nation had survived the destruction of its state.48 It was this indigenous republican tradition that was the basis for spreading freedom to all social classes. It was this faith in the future that allowed him to call the period following the last partition ‘Poland Reborn’ (Polska odradzajåca si´): the Commonwealth

62 John D. Stanley

had fallen not because of its republicanism but rather because of ‘corrupt practices’ (naduÒycia).49 In Lelewel’s view, Poland had been threatened externally by its three despotic neighbours and internally by the Jesuits. When combined with the egoism of the magnates, these factors led to Poland’s fall. The aristocrats governed the Commonwealth in their own interest, not that of the entire nation, and turned to the foreign powers in order to preserve their own privileges, betraying their country for personal and family interests. Poland’s decline was due to foreign influence internally and foreign aggression externally. The Commonwealth was not wiped out as a result of the Poles’ own action or inaction but as a result of external intervention. Despite the destruction of the Commonwealth, republican virtues ensured that the Polish nation had survived the destruction of the state. Lelewel believed that eventually these tragic developments would prove beneficial to Poland’s moral values and its political system. The Ko◊ciuszko Uprising of 1794 had demonstrated the continuing strength of the nation and invigorated Polish political tradition.50 Most of Lelewel’s writings were relatively short and addressed to a specific circumstance or to advance a specific programme. His mastery of detail not only underpinned but also guided his generalizations. Minute accuracy was a passion but not a goal in itself. He valued the evidence of eyewitnesses and original documents. Like Ranke, Lelewel wished to describe how things really were, but unlike Ranke, Lelewel sought to link the study of the past to the passions of the present. He used primary documents judiciously, but he lived in a period before state archives were open to researchers and before there were institutions and publication series to support historical scholarship. He collected materials on his own and sought out whatever private manuscript and book collections were of importance. In Warsaw, he became more politically involved than in Wilno. Pressured by his brothers, he joined the secret Patriotic Society in Warsaw. His popularity led him to win an 1828 by-election and become a deputy to the Sejm.51 Participating in the Sejm of 1830, he sat in the ranks of the opposition. His steady defence of the kingdom’s constitution and the nation’s rights led many to assume that he was a member of the revolutionary left. As a result, on the eve of the November uprising, three young conspirators met with Lelewel seeking his blessing and leadership.52 Unfortunately, Lelewel did not use his prestige either to encourage or discourage events. Although he voiced a general sympathy for the young conspirators’ aims, he offered little specific support.

Joachim Lelewel (1786–1861) 63

With Lelewel remaining irresolute, on 29 November 1830 the young officers attacked the Belvedere, the seat of the Russian viceroy. At that moment, Lelewel himself sat with his brothers at his father’s deathbed. Lelewel found himself in a difficult position during the November uprising.53 He was comfortable with no camp and found himself isolated as he followed his own conscience. Informed by his historical studies, he sought the restoration of the Commonwealth’s ‘golden freedom’ and local liberties, the restoration of the 1772 boundaries, and the full participation of all classes in Polish life. (While Lelewel, like most other Poles, was not fully aware of the distinctness of such peoples as the Ukrainians, Lithuanians, and Belarusans, they themselves were not fully conscious of their national distinctiveness.) He looked to the past for a moral sanction of current aims as well as his vision of Poland’s future. He rejected the Polish Enlightenment’s cosmopolitan nature and its achievements as foreign to Polish tradition. He had no sympathy for Poles’ fascination with Napoleon and called the Duchy of Warsaw a ‘clay hovel.’ While he mixed various concepts from different periods – the alleged class equality of Piast Poland, the gentry democracy of the Jagiellonians, the Commonwealth in its last decades of independence – his vision, when combined with national Romanticism, led to a radical analysis of contemporary events. For a time, Lelewel became a member of the Provisional government presided over by Prince Adam Czartoryski, but he soon discovered that his position was untenable, and he was eventually dropped from the government. Throughout the crisis, though, he continued to write, illuminating political discussions at home and propagating sympathy for Poland abroad.54 While Lelewel’s successes were few, his efforts were not entirely in vain. He used his position in the government to abolish censorship for scholarly works and remove the tax on Jews attending rabbinical schools. Ultimately, he became the revolution’s theorist and interpreter, roles that he never forsook.55 The Scholar in Exile As Russian troops closed in on Warsaw, Lelewel fled Poland’s capital on 8 September 1831, leaving behind not only his aged mother but his library and other collections.56 He was never to see his native city again. He arrived in Paris on 29 October 1831, fully intending to continue his political activism. Paris attracted the majority of Polish émigrés, drawn by the July monarchy’s liberalism. Lelewel’s exile was

64 John D. Stanley

shared with thousands of others, the elite of Polish intellectual and political life. Collectively known as the Great Emigration, these émigrés firmly believed that they would soon return to Poland, armed with the support of revolutionaries elsewhere in Europe.57 Given their sheer numbers, an infrastructure of intellectual societies, journals, and political parties soon arose, creating a Poland abroad, free to express itself. Although the government of Louis Philippe initially welcomed the émigrés, it soon became clear that many Poles supported the republican opposition. In addition, the presence of a large Polish community raised the suspicions of the Russian government, with whom France desired good relations. Although his political experience in Poland had been unsatisfactory, Lelewel plunged into the politics of the émigré movement, as an activist and ideologue.58 As a result, in July 1833, he was ordered to leave France. He walked most of the way to the Belgian border, wearing the worker’s long blue smock, which henceforward became his regular costume. Belgium had been an independent kingdom only since 1830, but it already had a reputation for offering asylum to political refugees from many lands, and its political and intellectual life was open to new ideas. Lelewel was to spend the next twenty-nine years in Brussels. He soon discovered a humble inn called the Estaminet de Varsovie, where he occupied two tiny rooms.59 Belgium had only a small Polish community, but Lelewel kept in touch with Polish émigré centres elsewhere as well as with events in Poland itself. From his shabby abode, Lelewel continued his active involvement in politics – seeking to unify the fragmented movement around a republican program while simultaneously seeking foreign radicals’ support and promoting the Polish cause. He forthrightly opposed the diplomatic approach of Czartoryski’s Hôtel Lambert: ‘The future fate of Poland lies not in diplomacy and the assistance of governments but in insurrection and the emancipation of the peoples.’60 The mistrust for the magnates that he displayed in his historical work was reflected in feelings of contempt for Prince Adam and the work of the Hôtel Lambert. As for himself, he refused all offers of financial support in Belgium, living exclusively from the tiny income generated by his writing. His poverty resulted from his adamant refusal of all steady employment. Lelewel gave many reasons for this refusal; observers added more. Lelewel clearly believed that foreign service was not appropriate for a Polish freedom fighter. Upon arriving in Belgium in 1833, he had

Joachim Lelewel (1786–1861) 65

been offered a teaching position in Liège. In October 1834, he was offered an appointment as professor at the new Université Libre de Bruxelles. He explained to the university’s president that according to the 1815 constitution of the Kingdom of Poland anyone entering into foreign service would lose his citizenship.61 This principled position meant that he lived in poverty, but it also granted him political and intellectual independence. Although some exiles turned to physical labour, Lelewel looked to writing for his living. Despite the difficult work conditions, the foreign environment, the difficulties with printers and publishers, and the necessity of working in a foreign language, he managed to keep to his principles and survive as a writer. However much of a nonconformist he may have been, he shared such bourgeois virtues as a strong work ethic, meeting his financial commitments, and valuing a hard-earned salary or fee. Perhaps the only concrete benefit from Lelewel’s principled position was that it necessitated a return to scholarship. However, he could not immediately return to Polish history since his books were still in Warsaw, there was no Polish library in Brussels, and there was only a small market for books written in Polish. In his search for income, Lelewel first turned to numismatics, then to geography, and finally to contemporary analyses and popular syntheses of Polish history. In 1835, he published the two-volume Numismatique du Moyen-Âge, followed in 1841 by Études numismatiques et archéologiques devoted to Celtic coinage. He also took on the task of cataloguing Brussels’ municipal collection of coins, for which task he charged only one franc a day. His pioneering work on the classification of coins provided the framework for modern numismatics. Equally ground-breaking was his work in geography: his scholarly work on medieval Arab geography and the history of cartography gave a firm footing to another discipline.62 This research led to his classical work, Géographie du Moyen Âge (Brussels, 1850–2).63 His quest for accuracy was such that he trusted no one but himself to engrave the fifty plates! Such work allowed him to continue engaging in erudite analysis, his original passion. Despite this research and the difficulties involved in his position as an exile, he did not neglect Polish history. Far from original sources and without his own collections, he turned from original analytical work to synthesis and contemporary analysis: the historian became publicist. Lelewel was well suited to take on the difficult task of forging a synthesis of Poland’s complex history. His mastery of detail led him to a

66 John D. Stanley

broader view of events and permitted him to outline the generalities that could explain the broader course of change: his writing was informed by his understanding of the whole course of Polish history. Lelewel’s syntheses drew upon, but also focused, his previous scholarship. Once again, Lelewel was breaking new ground. Only larger narratives, often in several volumes, seemed to provide the breadth necessary to incorporate new findings; Lelewel had to be content with a more concise treatment. In 1836, encouraged by a Polish émigré publisher, he produced a sketch entitled Considerations on the History of Poland and Its People (Uwagi nad dziejami Polski i ludu jej). After numerous delays, it appeared first in French in 1844 as Histoire de Pologne, in German in 1847 as Geschichte Polens, and finally in Polish in 1855.64 For decades it remained the standard work on Polish history for readers in the West, although it was criticized by Lelewel’s Polish conservative opponents as the product of ‘an out-and-out revolutionary, republican doctrine’ because of its emphasis on Lelewel’s concept of communal democracy (gminow¬adztwa).65 Indeed, it was communal democracy that formed the core of Lelewel’s interpretation of Poland’s history.66 On the basis of this concept allegedly derived from Slavdom’s prehistory, Lelewel emphasized the differences between the Slavic and Germanic traditions of freedom. The Poles’ precursors, the ancient Slavs, were active, open, humanitarian, sacrificing, freedom-loving, brotherly, and patriotic. These virtues outweighed the weakness of their political organization and signified that Poles were at least the equal of other peoples. Lelewel clearly felt that the Slavs’ freedom-loving tradition was more peaceful and tolerant than Teutonic tradition, giving the Slavs priority in introducing liberty to European culture. In Lelewel’s view, the Poles were the heirs of this ancient Slavic tradition, and therefore this specifically Slavic variety of democracy was the source of the Poles’ greatness. It aroused political dynamism and attracted other peoples to Polish culture. Furthermore, Lelewel believed that as a result of this particular political tradition entrenched in Polish history and culture, only republicanism could satisfy Polish needs. Lelewel distinguished Polish republicanism from Western democracy: in Lelewel’s view, Polish republicanism was based on social values and activities rather than on political organization. It was not the state that gave impetus to this movement but rather civic spirit. As long as this republican tradition remained vital, the Commonwealth was secure. Although only a privileged caste (uprzywilejowana kasta) had been able to benefit from this situation, the tradition itself had

Joachim Lelewel (1786–1861) 67

assured good fortune and greatness for centuries. Where others saw anarchy, Lelewel saw a lively political environment, and he condemned attempts to alter it. He viewed any plans to strengthen the Crown as foreign to the tradition of native republicanism. The dire state of the Polish peasantry he blamed on the rise of the aristocracy, which thought only of family interests to the detriment of the common good.67 Despite acknowledged limitations, Lelewel regarded Poland as having possessed the most democratic system in Europe.68 It was thanks to the strength of this democratic core at the heart of Polish culture that Poland had survived its partition. Lelewel’s concept of the Polish nation went beyond the limits of a particular ethnicity.69 For example, in an 1844 manifesto, he proclaimed: ‘The people of Old Poland, our beloved fatherland, are extremely varied. Lithuanian, Cracovian, Ruthenian, Mazur, Samogitian, Ukrainian, Great Polander – all are Poles.’70 As a result, Polish nationalists could rely neither on language nor on religion, for the Commonwealth’s territory encompassed many languages and faiths: ‘The schismatic and the heretic, the Catholics, the Moslem and the Jew are all Poles.’71 Instead, Lelewel based the nation on a shared history founded in a common political tradition of democracy, republicanism, tolerance, and brotherhood. His historical studies had demonstrated to his satisfaction that whenever Poland’s elite moved from this important foundation, the nation suffered. At the same time, Lelewel’s concept of Poland was not exclusive. However much Lelewel might trumpet Poland’s glories, they were always set within the context of European civilization. Above all, Lelewel believed in the brotherhood of peoples. ‘All nations,’ he wrote, ‘form part of one indivisible family, and in that family, there are no foreigners for all are brethren.’72 While in Lelewel’s mind Poland played an important part in this brotherhood of peoples, he was suspicious of the messianism implicit in Mickiewicz’s slogan that Poland was the ‘Christ among nations.’ Periodization was another historical element where Lelewel innovated. Dividing time into periods is a necessary organizing framework for any synthesis. Lelewel’s periodization revealed his belief that the reigns of monarchs were not suitable for structuring the narrative of a nation’s history. His periodization of Poland’s history, therefore, was not based on reigns but rather on the development of communal democracy in Poland, by which he meant the growth of freedom in civil society.73 Lelewel’s first attempt at synthesis, in 1813 (see above), had already revealed this new approach to periodization. Although he

68 John D. Stanley

slightly altered the specific dates from this first attempt, his approach to periodization remained remarkably consistent over almost five decades. His periodization gave equal weight to social developments and to political events. Dates thus became more than convenient markers in a narrative. Rather, they demonstrated that Lelewel’s true subject was the development of Polish society.74 Lelewel’s attempts at synthesizing Polish history aroused much controversy, not so much for their historical content but for their interpretation, which critics regarded as biased by Lelewel’s politics. These works of synthesis were indeed permeated with Lelewel’s belief in the nation and the people as well as in democracy and republicanism. For a people without a state, for exiles living with few hopes, this vision aroused hope and pride while motivating action. Moreover, Lelewel’s views on Polish history also had an enormous influence on non-Poles, particularly those on the European Left. Mazzini, Bakunin, Herzen, Marx, and Engels relied on Lelewel’s work for their knowledge of Poland.75 In addition, Lelewel regained an audience in Poland when he revised his popular history and published it in Wroc¬aw in 1843 as History of Poland Told by an Uncle to His Nephews (Dzieje Polski, które stryj synowcom swoim opowiedzia¬) to take advantage of the lighter censorship in Prussia. This edition made its way into Russian-occupied Poland, where it figured ‘in every illegal library.’76 Throughout his exile, Lelewel devoted much attention to political action, and his scholarship was constantly informed by events. He had welcomed the Cracow Uprising of 1846, and around that time he wrote The Lost Citizenship of the Peasant Estate in Poland (Stracone obywatelstwo stanu kmiecego w Polsce), which detailed the battles between gentry and peasantry, demonstrating the primordial rights of the latter. The work contained the bold message that it was necessary to restore these rights.77 Lelewel was consequently accused of ‘opening the doors to communism’ and held morally responsible for the bloody peasant attacks on landlords that took place in Galicia in 1846.78 It is true that, in a letter, Lelewel described the peasant uprising as the first social revolution, noting that ‘henceforward no uprising in Poland can take place without the participation of the people.’79 For Lelewel, the essential question was to ask of the peasantry: ‘once you were free, why are you unfree today?’80 However, he did not advocate armed revolt since he saw the minor gentry and the peasantry as members of the same community, united by ties of brotherhood. Rather, the peasant’s liberation was to take place as a result of ‘the good will’ of the gentry.81 In

Joachim Lelewel (1786–1861) 69

Lelewel’s view, peasant reform was the key to the revival of Poland and would result in the re-establishment of a Polish national state. As his last great contribution to Polish history, Lelewel turned once more to medieval history. Medieval Poland (Polska wieków ◊rednich) was published in four volumes by Jan Konstanty ˘upaÛski’s publishing firm in PoznaÛ. Lelewel’s association with this publisher eventually led to the possibility of gathering and reprinting his writings, composed at various times and under differing circumstances. They were published as Poland, Its History and Affairs (Polska, dzieje i rzeczy jej).82 The collection offered Lelewel the possibility of revising and broadening essays written decades earlier but now contained in a grand Romantic literary structure of diverse subjects and genres, unified by a common theme. The set’s exclusive focus on Poland framed the whole set, while the inclusion of various genres dealing with differing topics, each with their own distinct conclusions, ultimately reflected the fragmentation of Lelewel’s life. In these volumes, Lelewel’s emphasis was on the common people: their battle for a better life, their contribution to the nation and its culture. Despite the enormous productivity that this collection evidenced, Lelewel nonetheless felt dissatisfied: he never produced a scholarly history of Poland on the same scale as his contemporaries in France or Germany did for their countries. Nor did he ever write a world history.83 While he grew further apart from the émigrés centred in Paris, he remained a figure of respect and curiosity for Poles, whether abroad or in Poland. His self-imposed poverty and his unwillingness to compromise his principles made him a legend. Although he was not active politically during the 1850s, he remained in regular contact with Polish events. His Brussels home became a stopping point for Polish travellers who were eager to talk to him. No longer a dangerous radical, he was treated as a respected elder with immense moral authority; he never married.84 Whatever his foibles, it was recognized that they were combined with intelligence, integrity, generosity, dedication, and hard work. These characteristics were at first employed in educating himself, but in exile he had put all his talents at the service of his nation. Lelewel was always torn between withdrawal and involvement. His intense interests and the need for time to read and write pulled him away from the pressing needs of the present. However, his insistence that the present was revealed by the past and his need to communicate its lessons led him eventually to a public life and into politics. His genius and his rebellious nature reinforced this emotional tug of war:

70 John D. Stanley

without going into the public arena as a speaker and writer, he could express neither his intelligence nor his rebellion. In 1857, despite the effects of an increasingly serious bladder disease, he composed his scholarly reminiscences, Adventures in Searching and Researching Polish National Affairs (Przygody w poszukiwaniach i badaniu rzeczy narodowych polskich). In 1861, when news reached Brussels of the demonstrations in Warsaw, a crowd of thirty thousand, led by Brussels’ young people, headed for Lelewel’s dwelling where they addressed him as Poland’s finest son and sang the Polish anthem. He had never lost faith in a reborn Poland, and in his last public announcement he affirmed: ‘Poland will arise, Poland will be reborn.’85 Friends moved Lelewel from Brussels to Paris, where he died on 29 May 1861 and was buried in Montmartre cemetery. The response to the historian’s death in Warsaw, which was on the eve of a new national uprising against the Russians, was the more surprising since Lelewel had been cut off from his homeland for over thirty years and consequently had had no direct contact with the post-November generation. His writings were forbidden and his name erased from the register of permitted authors. However, the public searched out these forbidden fruits, not only for their scholarship but to become familiar with the work of a martyr for the Polish cause, someone who had clearly sacrificed everything for the good of his country. Commemorative services were held not only in various Roman Catholic and Protestant churches but also in three synagogues. 86 The workers at the Evans factory in Warsaw paid for a mass on their own. This demonstration of the unity of class and faith would undoubtedly have pleased Lelewel. Lelewel’s Legacy For Poland, Joachim Lelewel represented a new type of historian. His range was broader than any predecessor, and his scholarship was respected far beyond the field of history. A typical figure of Romanticism, he defiantly went his own way, regardless of the personal cost or the confusion caused among followers and collaborators. His insistence on personal independence made him the first Polish historian to make a living solely from writing. His historical scholarship set a new standard for evidence and expertise. He always grounded his work on a mastery of fact and detail, yet his approach always went far beyond mere erudition to reach conclusions that had implications for society as a whole. The leader of the conservative Cracow school of historians,

Joachim Lelewel (1786–1861) 71

Micha¬ BobrzyÛski, who usually disagreed with Lelewel’s views, regarded him nevertheless as the titan of Polish historiography.87 Mickiewicz insisted that ‘everyone knows that Joachim alone is a historian in the full meaning of that word.’88 As a result of his original approach, industry, and principles, Lelewel had an enormous impact on Polish historiography. His writing was so influential that all Polish historians reacted to it, either as a foundation for their own work or in revolt from it. Although he never wrote a comprehensive, scholarly history of Poland nor trained a future generation of Polish historians, he nevertheless shaped the development of history in Poland. Even before he died, his importance to the field was recognized.89 Lelewel’s historical heirs were many. Just as his vision was broad, so his heirs have varied, for there were many strands in Lelewel’s abundant writings from which to choose and develop on their own.90 Although Lelewel could not formally train students after 1824, the power of his ideas and the admiration for his work was such that a ‘Lelewel school’ of historians developed. Perhaps the most consistent representative of Lelewel’s view of history was Henryk Schmitt (1817– 83), a Lwów historian, who borrowed most of his conceptual framework from Lelewel. Schmitt focused on the nation whose virtues and glories had attracted other nationalities to join Poland freely. Schmitt used his moralistic interpretation of Poland’s history to oppose the Darwinism that had begun to influence the social sciences.91 After Lelewel’s death and the failure of the Insurrection of 1863–4, the Cracow school found Lelewel to be a ready target. Allied with the most conservative political tendencies, such historians accused Lelewel of dreams of national independence and social revolution, which had led the Poles into a dead end.92 Micha¬ BobrzyÛski was Lelewel’s most powerful critic among the Cracow historians. Although he recognized Lelewel’s erudition, careful use of sources, and emphasis on fact, he still considered Lelewel’s interpretation to be politically motivated and ridiculed the notion of communal democracy as ‘erroneous.’93 In BobrzyÛski’s view, the whole Romantic tradition was ‘a deception’ and a real danger under existing political conditions. Recognizing Lelewel’s important role in shaping the nation’s view of itself, BobrzyÛski insisted that what Poland needed was ‘true history and not a doctrinaire fiction and poetic myth,’ which harmed the nation by spreading Romantic delusions.94 This new orthodoxy concerning Lelewel’s sins, however, was eventually challenged by a younger generation of historians, who undertook

72 John D. Stanley

his rehabilitation in earnest. Historians of the stature of Wac¬aw Sobieski, Tadeusz Korzon, and Marceli Handelsman were involved in this task, and soon this appreciative response was victorious: the essential optimism of Lelewel’s work permeated the writings of the inter-war historians.95 During the Second World War, Lelewel’s battle cry, ‘For your freedom and ours,’ once again served the Polish cause. After 1945, analyses of Lelewel’s achievements resulted in controversial discussions about the role of history.96 Although Romantic nationalism was suspect in People’s Poland, Marxists felt comfortable championing Lelewel as a social revolutionary. Poland’s finest historiographer, Marian Serejski, devoted much attention to Lelewel’s life and achievements. The greatest post–Second World War historian of modern Poland, Stefan Kieniewicz, wrote a popular biography and penned the article on Lelewel for the Polish Biographical Dictionary.97 Lelewel’s work gave a foundation for historians during this difficult period. Conclusion Lelewel’s influence went far beyond the field of history: not only did he teach Poles to see their nation in a new light, but his work transformed Poland’s political and social life. Like his counterparts elsewhere in Europe, he mapped out a tradition for his nation to follow.98 After Lelewel, monarchy was hardly an option in Polish politics, and after the First World War the disappearance of class distinctions became the aim of all major political movements. Nonetheless, Lelewel is practically unknown outside of Poland. While many of his historical works were translated and published during his lifetime, they were not reprinted after his death. Yet Lelewel’s presence in Polish historiography bears comparison to that of contemporary Romantic historians such as Leopold von Ranke and Jules Michelet (1798–1874). Unlike Ranke, however, Lelewel had no academic position or state support for his scholarship. While Ranke had archives opened for him, archives were closed to Lelewel. He had no assistants or secretaries to help him in his work. Occasionally friends or admirers were able to arrange for copies of a map or the purchase of an essential book. Despite such limitations, his vision of history was as expansive as that of Michelet and as devoted to ideals of freedom and brotherhood and the centrality of the nation. He broadened Poles’ historical horizons, giving them not only a European but also a universal context, placing his imprint on every period of Polish history and even its prehistory, and revealing

Joachim Lelewel (1786–1861) 73

new types of evidence. In 1857, nearing the end of his life, Lelewel wrote: For fifty or sixty years I have been scribbling – and growling as I wrote – occupied with such subjects as chronology, genealogy, geography, politics, law, administration, with general history as well as with the history of the individual nations of Lithuania and Ruthenia, with the history of culture and literature, of libraries and printing, with historiography as well as the history of geography, with idols and monuments, coins and tombs, with architecture, heraldry, seals, diplomatics, calligraphy, costume and customs as well as the relics of antiquity. Of that which came out in print irregularly, few became acquainted, few knew about it. I conducted myself commonly, unenticingly, and was not widely read.99

Despite such pessimism expressed late in life, at a time when successive generations of Poles had to fight for their nation’s continued existence, Lelewel’s message proved powerful. Lelewel wrote modestly of himself: ‘Scholarship has occupied me throughout my whole life. It is for me, as it were, a second fatherland. If I have ever been of service to my country, it has only been in my capacity as a scholar.’100 Lelewel, however, was wrong: he served his nation not so much through his scholarship but rather through his inspiration and vision. It was a Romantic vision where the state was simply a tool for the realization of the nation, which was guided by moral ideals. Through its unity, continuity, and individuality, the nation would ensure Poland’s future just as it had moulded its past; the moral values that differentiated Poland from its neighbours gave that past a universal significance. As a result of such powerful ideals, Lelewel’s contribution to Polish history, indeed his vision of Poland, remains vital and relevant for every generation of Poles.

NOTES 1 Stefan Kieniewicz, Joachim Lelewel (Warsaw, 1990) p. 185. Lelewel wrote an autobiography, ‘Przygody w poszukiwaniach i badaniu rzeczy narodowych polskich,’ first published in Polska, jej dziejów i rzeczy jej, vol. 1 (PoznaÛ, 1858), and also included in Joachim Lelewel, Dzie¬a, vol. 1 (Warsaw, 1957). The best scholarly biography is still Artur jliwiÛski, Joachim Lelewel: Zarys biograficzny lata 1786–1831 (Warsaw, 1918), revised in 1932. As

74 John D. Stanley the title indicates, the work does not go beyond the Insurrection of 1830–1. Encompassing the entire life are two short, popular biographies: in addition to Kieniewicz’s biography cited above, see Marian Henryk Serejski, Joachim Lelewel, 1786-1861; sa vie et son oeuvre (Warsaw, 1961). Helena Wi´ckowska, Joachim Lelewel: Uczony – polityk – cz¬owiek (Warsaw, 1980) comprises a series of scholarly but sympathetic essays. In English, there is Joan S. Skurnowicz, Romantic Nationalism and Liberalism: Joachim Lelewel and the Polish National Idea (Boulder, CO, 1981) [East European Monographs, 83]. In Russian, see A.M. Basevich, 3@axu< 9,:,i,:\ – n@:\F8u‚ D,i@:_ Âu@>,D ð,Z‚ (1786–1861) (Moscow, 1961), and Boris S Popkov, A@:\F8u‚ JR,>Z‚ u D,i@:_ Âu@>,D 3@axu< 9,:,i,:\ (Moscow, 1974). 2 Before the Romantics, ‘nation’ had originally referred to those who were entitled to participate in politics, the gentry. Franciszek Pep¬owski, S¬ownictwo i frazeologia polskiej publicystyki okresu O◊wiecenia i Romantyzmu [Historia i teoria literatury. Studia. Teoria literatury, 21] (Warsaw, 1961), p. 106. However, even during the Enlightenment the modern concept of a nation was present. For Franciszek Salezy Jezierski, a nation was a ‘zgromadzenie ludzi majåcych jeden j´zyk, zwyczaje i obyczaje zawarte jednym i ogólnym prawodawstwem dla wszystkich obywatelów.’; see his Niektóre wyrazy porzådkiem abecad¬a zebrane i stosownymi do rzeczy uwagami obja◊nione (Warsaw, 1791), republished in Franciszek Salezy Jezierski, Wybór pism (Warsaw, 1952). It was the Polish Jacobins who first used the term to encompass all social classes. See Bogus¬aw Le◊nodorski, Polscy jakobini: Karta z dziejów insurekcji 1794 roku. (Studia i materia¬y z dziejów Polski w okresie O◊wiecenia, 3) (Warsaw, 1960), p. 217. 3 There are two major published collections of Lelewel’s work, neither complete. Lelewel prepared the first volumes of Polska, jej dziejów i rzeczy jej (PoznaÛ, 1853–64). Projected to reach twenty volumes, volumes 14 and 15 were never published. More recently, the Polish Academy of Sciences attempted a scholarly, complete edition. Although this edition, Dzie¬a (Warsaw, 1957–73), was to reach thirty volumes, only volumes 1–8 and 10 were ever published. See Janina Hoskins, Joachim Lelewel. Scholar, 1786–1861 (Washington, DC, 1986), p. 3. Selections from Lelewel’s work may be found in Russian, 32$Da>>ZN npou2i,ð,>u‚ nospeccui>ZN n@:\F8uN Z‚ apNui, no. 4 (1822), no. 8 (1823), and no. 9 (1824), as ‘C"FF4, 3FH@D44 (@FJ*"DFH" C@FF44F8"(@ 7"D"