Wspomnienia bp. Adama Stanisława Krasińskiego: między rękopisem a publikacją

Bishop of Vilnius Diocese Adam Stanisław Krasiński (1810–1891) left a deep imprint not only as an active hierarch of the Roman Catholic Church, but also as an energetic participant of 19th c. cultural life, a man of letters. Not complying with the instruction of Governor General Michael Murav’ev to issue a circular condemning the 1863 uprising, Krasiński in the early summer of 1863 was exiled to Vyatka (now Kirov). Released from exile in 1883, without the right to return to his diocese, Krasiński settled in Krakow.The period of the life of the bishop in Krakow from a creative point of view was very productive. From his youth interested in literature, having also been a man of letters, the preparer of a dictionary of Polish synonyms, Krasiński while living in Krakow began to write memoirs. For the first time the Memoirs [Wspomnienia] of the Bishop of Vilnius written in his native Polish were published in 1900 in the newspaper „Czas”, and in the same year 1900 (or in early 1901) the „Czas” publishing house issued them as a book with a press run of 150 copies. In the Memoirs there are interesting details from the history of the Piarist order, about the situation of the Roman Catholic Church in the lands of the former Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth that after its collapse fell to the Russian Empire, and the literary and intellectual realities of life in Vilnius. The twenty years of exile are described very succinctly and the life in Krakow after returning from exile is not even mentioned at all.The paper reconstructs the path of the Vilnius Bishop’s memoirs from manuscript to printing at the beginning of the 20th c. While uncovering the circumstances of the writing and publishing of the Memoirs, it was determined that in the collections of the National Museum in Krakow since 1917 is stored not the manuscript of Krasiński ‘s memoirs, but its editorial version with fragments of the autograph. It is assumed that the original memoirs have not survived. Stanisław Estreicher (1869–1939), then a professor at the Jagiellonian University in Krakow and a contributor to the newspaper „Czas”, edited the manuscript. It is clear that part of Krasiński’s Memoirs were among the manuscripts transferred from the Polish Museum in Rapperswil to the National Library in Warsaw in 1927. The annotation of the former Krasiński manuscript in Rapperswil lets one declare that among them was the part of the bishop’s memoirs about his years spent in exile. The preparer of the Krasiński Memoirs for publication in 1900 Stanisław Estreicher did not know anything about the Krasiński ‘s memoirs manuscript in Rapperswil. When and how the Krasiński manuscripts arrived in the Rapperswil museum is unclear. The manuscript of Krasiński’s memoirs handed over to Warsaw in the 1920s ended up in the collections of the National Library destroyed during the war. There are no data that would suggest that the latter manuscript (or its copy) could be found in the future. The genesis of the memoirs of Vilnius Bishop Krasiński, the history of the manuscript’s preservation and its preparation for publication hide more than one riddle.Biskup diecezji wileńskiej Adam Stanisław Krasiński (1810–1891) dał się poznać nie tylko jako aktywny hierarcha Kościoła katolickiego, ale też jako zaangażowany uczestnik ówczesnego życia kulturalnego i literackiego. Za niedostosowanie się do instrukcji generalnego gubernatora Michaiła Murawjowa nakazującej wydanie okólnika potępiającego powstanie styczniowe Krasiński na początku lata 1863 roku został zesłany do Wiatki (obecnie Kirow). Zwolniony z wygnania został w 1883 roku, ale bez prawa powrotu do swojej diecezji, dlatego osiadł w Krakowie.Krakowski okres życia biskupa z twórczego punktu widzenia było bardzo aktywny. Od młodości interesując się literaturą, przygotował słownik synonimów polskich. W Krakowie zaczął również pisać wspomnienia. Po raz pierwszy pamiętniki biskupa wileńskiego – Wspomnienia – napisane w ojczystym języku polskim ukazały się w 1900 roku w krakowskiej gazecie „Czas”. W tym samym roku 1900 (lub też na początku 1901), wydawnictwo „Czas” opublikowało je jako książkę w nakładzie 150 egzemplarzy. We wspomnieniach są bardzo ciekawe szczegóły z historii zakonu pijarów, o położeniu Kościoła katolickiego na ziemiach dawnej Rzeczypospolitej Obojga Narodów, które zostały zagarnięte przez imperium rosyjskie. Znajdujemy tam także wiadomości o literackich i intelektualnych realiach życia w Wilnie. Dwadzieścia lat wygnania opisał bardzo zwięźle, a życia w Krakowie po powrocie z wygnania nie wspomniał w ogóle.Artykuł pragnie zrekonstruować drogę Wspomnień biskupa wileńskiego od rękopisu do druku na początku wieku XX. Podczas odkrywania okoliczności tworzenia i publikowania Wspomnień ustalono, że w zbiorach Muzeum Narodowego w Krakowie od 1917 roku znajduje się nie rękopis Wspomnień Krasińskiego, lecz wersja redakcyjna złożona z fragmentów autografu. Należy przyjąć, że oryginalne Wspomnienia nie zachowały się. Stanisław Estreicher (1869–1939), profesor na Uniwersytecie Jagiellońskim w Krakowie i współpracownik dziennika „Czas”, zredagował rękopis. Niewątpliwe jest, że część pamiętników Krasińskiego była wśród rękopisów przewiezionych w 1927 roku z Muzeum Polskiego w Rapperswilu do Biblioteki Narodowej w Warszawie. Adnotacja dawnego rękopisu Krasińskich w Rapperswilu pozwala stwierdzić, że jeden z nich był częścią wspomnień biskupa o jego latach spędzonych na wygnaniu. Przygotowujący Wspomnienia Krasińskiego do publikacji w 1900 roku Stanisław Estreicher nic o rękopisie Krasińskiego w Rapperswilu nie wiedział. Kiedy i jak rękopis Krasińskiego dostał się do muzeum w Rapperswilu nie jest oczywiste. Rękopis Wspomnień Krasińskiego został przekazany do Warszawy w 1927 roku do zbiorów Biblioteki Narodowej, gdzie zniszczony został w czasie Powstania Warszawskiego. Nie ma danych, które wskazywałyby, że w przyszłości można by było ów ostatni rękopis (lub jego kopię) gdzieś odnaleźć. Geneza Wspomnień biskupa wileńskiego Adama Stanisława Krasińskiego, historia konserwacji rękopisu oraz jego przygotowania do publikacji kryją więcej niż jedną tylko zagadkę

Dėl 1863 m. sukilėlių palaidojimų Gedimino kalne : tarp istorinio fakto ir literatūrinės fikcijos

Reikšminiai žodžiai: Sukilimas, 1863-1864 (Lenkijos ir Lietuvos sukilimas; Sausio sukilimas; January Uprising); Atminimas; Dalyviai; Gedimino kalnas; Paieškos; Paminklai; Sukilimas; Sukilimas, 1863-1864 (Lenkijos ir Lietuvos sukilimas; Sausio sukilimas; January Uprising); Sukilimas, 1863-1864 (Lenkijos ir Lietuvos sukilimas; Sausio sukilimas; January Uprising); Vilnius; 1863; Burial sites of Uprising's commanders; Memory; Monuments; Uprising; Vilniu

Dėl 1832 m. katalikų katekizmo apie pagarbą carui lenkų kalba autorystės ir jo vertėjo į lietuvių kalbą

The article concerns the Catholic Catechism on Respect to the Tsar, which was printed in Vilnius in 1832. This publication was a result of the politic program of the Russian Empire authorities concerning Catholic Church in the territory which after the last partition (1795) on the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was annexed to Russia. The original of this Catechism was in Polish, later it was translated into Lithuanian, German, French and Armenian. The article discusses the problem of preparing this publication in Polish and its translation into Lithuanian. Its copies were printed by Diocesan Printing House. A lot of researchers are of the opinion that bishop Andrius Benediktas Klongevičius was the author of this Catechism and its translator into Lithuanian. There is a great propability that Mykolas Bobrovskis and Jonas Skydelis are the authors of this Catechism. Klongevičius only coordinated the process of the preparation of this Catechism as the head of the Vilnius Diocese. The new information from archive sources allows to make the conclusion that the Catechism was translated into Lithuanian not in Vilnius, but in Žemaitija. Most propably the bishop of the Žemaitija Diocese Juozapas Arnulfas Giedraitis translated it himself. An edition of two hundred thousand copies in Lithuanian was distributed not only in the Žemaitija but also in the Vilnius Diocese. The Catechism in Lithuanian was printed only in 1832, while there were five editions in Polish (in 1832, 1840, 1844, 1853 and 1859). The fact of reprinting shows that the loyality to the Tsar in the Žemaitija Diocese was less than in Vilnius

Features of the development of the structure of the Capitula of Vilnius diocese’s Catedral in the 19th century

The capitula of Vilnius cathedral retained the structure legitimized in the period of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the settled numbers as well as proportions (6 prelates and 12 canons) of real members of the cathedral’s capitula until the beginning of the 1840s. On the initiative of the imperial government (a decree of 25 December 1841) after the partitions of the Republic of Both Nations at the end of the 18th century in the territories falling to the Russian Empire, the rule of former Catholic dioceses was radically reorganized: all land holdings of bishops, capitulas of cathedrals, priest seminaries and monasteries were secularized. It was decided to pay the clergy a salary of determined size from the state treasury. In 1842, the structure and organization of cathedrals’ capitulas were made the same on an imperial scale. For all capitulas of former Catholic diocesan cathedrals a staff of 9 members was foreseen for cathedral’s capitula. No attention was paid either to the number of the faithful or the size of the diocese. The capitula of Vilnius diocese’s cathedral was decreased at the expense of its real member canons – out of former 12 staff canons only 3 were retained. The number (6) of prelatures of the capitula of Vilnius diocese cathedral, legitimized in the period of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, remained unchanged. After introducing the positions and salaries of the members of cathedral’s capitula, paid from the imperial treasury, the system of material maintenance of the clergy of diocesan cathedrals’ capitulas, that functioned in the period of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, was abolished. The clergy was equated with civilian officials of the empire. The financial dependence of the members of cathedral’s capitula was one of the means to draw the cathedral’s capitula into the empire’s civilian administration system.The rights of Catholic Church’s hierarchs to shape the corporation of the clergy of cathedrals’ capitulas on the imperial scale were limited even before the reforms carried out in the 1840s. The right of Vilnius bishop to appoint members of the cathedral’s capitula was diminished already in 1803 when the emperor confirmed the status of Vilnius Imperial University. The right to 4 canons of the capitula of Vilnius cathedral was bestowed to the university. After the decision of 1817, the right of nomination of the clergy to places of diocese cathedrals’ prelates and canons on the scale of the empire was reserved for the highest authorities - the Emperor would confirm the candidacy of the members of cathedral’s capitula. In the years of the 1863 revolt, in the capitula of Vilnius diocese’s cathedral such an order became a precondition for the officials of the empire’s local government (Governor General M. Murav’ev) to include into the corporation of capitula’s members the clergy who were loyal to the empire and use them for manipulation. The transfer to the Emperor of the rights for nominating the members of cathedral’s capitula, just as the reform of the structure and financing of the system carried out in the 1840s, granted the imperial government the possibility in the second half of the 19th century to make use of the capitula of Vilnius cathedral for the implementation of anti-Catholic policies

Szkoły średnie w 1803 roku na obszarach Wileńskiego Okręgu Szkolnego zlecone do inspekcji Franciszkowi Ksaweremu Michałowi Bohuszowi (1746–1820)

Aim: The aim of the article is to reconstruct the image of secondary education in the area of the Vilnius School District in 1803 designated for inspection by Franciszek Ksawery Michal Bohusz as the general visitor. Methods: The author relies on archival sources and takes account of the literature on the subject to date. She uses the traditional historical and statistical method. Results: The author analyzes the situation of secondary education in three Gubernias – that of Grodno, Minsk and Vilnius – out of eight ones belonging to the Vilnius School District in 1803. Primarly, she uses the report on the general visitation written by Bohusz for the Imperial University of Vilnius. During his visit in 1803, Bohusz visited 31 out of 33 secondary schools functioning in the Grodno, Minsk and Vilnius Gubernias. The researcher drew up a list of schools and systematized the statistical data in a table taking the number of classes and the number of students and teachers into consideration. Conclusions: The analysis of education in the area of the three Gubernias (Grodno, Minsk, Vilnius) in 1803, the territory of the Vilnius School District, confirms the thesis about persistence of the tradition of the National Education Commission – the thesis already present in the historiography. Despite several years of break and fundamental changes in the administration, the network of secondary schools subordinate to Vilnius University in the period of Commission of National Education was not destroyed. In 1803, at the time of their incorporation in the educational system of the Russian Empire, there were 33 secondary schools in the Grodno, Minsk and Vilnius Gubernias. Their structure, however, was varied, and this lack of uniformity is reflected, among others, in the number of classes. Schools with four classes dominated there. Most of them were in the Minsk Gubernia, where, after Commission of National Education ceased its activity, the authority over the schools was transferred to the Chamber of Social Welfare. The density of the secondary school network was not the same either, and the largest number was found in the Vilnius Gubernia. Her study of the information provided by Bohusz as the general visitor and of other sources from the era allowed the author of the article to conclude that the statistical data used in the literature on the subject (concerning both the number of students and teachers in individual secondary schools) are far from credible, and to a much greater extent than previously thought

Hierarchs of Vilnius diocese in 1863 : the circular letter condemning the uprising

Vilniaus vyskupijos Romos katalikų konsistorijos parengtas ir 1863 m. rugsėjo 17 d. išleistas sukilimą smerkiantis aplinkraštis mokslininkams yra žinomas. Sukilimo istoriografija ir amžininkų tekstai rodo, kad Vilniaus hierarchų prorusišką laikyseną liudijantis aplinkraštis nėra vienintelis tokio pobūdžio dokumentas. Istoriografijoje vyrauja nuomonė, kad būtent Muravjovas inspiravo prorusiškų dvasininkijos aplinkraščių parengimą. Šioje publikacijoje siekiama rekonstruoti sukilimą smerkiančio Vilniaus vyskupijos hierarchų aplinkraščio parengimo mechanizmą, atskleisti rengimo procesą, nustatant jo iniciatorius ir vykdytojus. Katalikų hierarchų sukilimą smerkiančius laiškus ar aplinkraščius tikslinga vertinti kaip Rusijos imperijos pasaulietinės valdžios vykdytos politikos katalikų Bažnyčios atžvilgiu apraišką. Tai buvo vienas iš mėginimų panaudoti katalikų Bažnyčią kaip imperinės politikos įnagį. Kita vertus, tokiais laiškais siekta pakirsti katalikų Bažnyčios autoritetą to meto visuomenėje. Atlikta analizė atskleidžia, kad Muravjovo planuose išleidžiant sukilimą smerkiantį laišką prioritetas buvo skirtas Vilniaus vyskupijos hierarchams. Tai, kad vyskupas Valančius išleido sukilimą smerkiantį ganytojišką laišką pirmasis, lėmė Muravjovo reikalavimo prorusišką kreipimąsi į savo ganomuosius išleisti neskubėjusio vyskupo Krasinskio laikysena. Sukilimą smerkiančio aplinkraščio atsiradimo istorija akivaizdžiai rodo, kokia gili buvo pasaulietinės valdžios intervencija į Bažnyčios gyvenimą.A circular note condemning the rebellion, prepared by the consistory of Roman Catholics of Vilnius bishopric and published on 17 September 1863 is known to scientists. The historiography of the rebellion and texts of contemporaries reveal that the circular note proving a pro-Russian attitude of Vilnius hierarchs is not the only document of this nature. An opinion dominant in historiography is that Muravjov was the one who inspired the preparation of pro-Russian circular notes of the clergy. An aim of the publication is to make a reconstruction of the rebellion which condemned the circular note's preparation mechanism of the hierarchs of Vilnius bishopric and to reveal the preparation process by indicating its initiators and executors. It is advisable to assess the letters and circular notes of Catholic hierarchs condemning the rebellion as an expression of the secular government of the Russian Empire imposed to the Catholic Church. That was one more intention to use the Catholic Church as a tool of the imperial policy. On the other hand, an aim of such letters was to appoint an authority of the Catholic Church in the society. An analysis reveals that in Muravjov's plan, a priority was given to the hierarchs of Vilnius bishopric when publishing the letter condemning the rebellion. The fact that bishop Valančius was the first who published a pastoral letter condemning the rebellion was conditioned by an attitude of bishop Krasinski who took his time to publish a pro-Russian Muravjov's appeal to the pasturable. The history of appearance of the circular note condemning the rebellion proves that the intervention of the secular government to the Church life was very deep