Obraz działalności publicznej nielubianego bohatera. Uwagi w związku z pracą Arkadiusza Czwołka o Lwie Sapieże

Abstrakt

Image of the Public Activity of a Disliked Protagonist. Regarding Arkadiusz Czwołek’s Book on Lew Sapieha

Arkadiusz Czwołek published an extensive biography of Lew Sapieha (Piórem i buławą. Działalność polityczna Lwa Sapiehy, kanclerza litewskiego, wojewody wileńskiego, Toruń 2012), chancellorr, voivode of Wilno, grand hetman of Lithuania, and one of the most eminent Lithuanian politicians, while omitting his activity as an official, a patron of the arts, the head of a family, a leader of a faction and, in particular, his extremely important economic undertakings. Sapieha created a vast landed estate that became the foundation of the rank held by the magnate family of the Sapiehas and, subsequently, of their predominance in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The copious monograph is based on an imposing number of sources and pertinent literature, but in both cases incomplete. The traditional chronological configuration of the publication produced a number of repetitions, breaks in the narration, and, for all practical purposes, a presentation restricted to the political history of the state, etc. It would have been much more favourable to focus on several prominent questions and to discuss them in a problem-oriented order, with a mandatory backdrop demonstrating the creation of the landed estate by the titular protagonist. The author depicted in great detail Sapieha’s activity but at times did not reflect on its causes and the backstage aspects of his career. During his long life Sapieha played a significant role in almost all events transpiring in the Commonwealth under Sigismund III. He enjoyed a great number of successes, but also failed upon occasions, which the author described in great detail; nonetheless, the reader comes across certain inconsistencies and conclusions devoid of evidence. The most surprising is the fact that the A. Czwołek actually does not have high regard for his protagonist; consequently, he accentuated Sapieha’s negative traits and accused him of iniquities, the absence of military talents, excessive ambition, intrigues, and disloyalty towards Krzysztof Radziwiłł. If this dislike was the outcome exclusively of an objective assessment of the sources it could be regarded as a positive phenomenon; the author’s attitude, however, is not the reason for critical opinions. In my polemic I thus draw attention not merely to numerous albeit petty mistakes, but first and foremost to unfounded and unjust (lacking objectivity) conclusions and intentions attributed to Lew Sapieha. Both the author of the book and I agree that Sapieha was an outstanding politician. He should not, however, be judged without considering the conditions in which he acted, the norms and events of the period, human needs, faults and limitations, which, I claim, A. Czwołek did not fully take into account. Although I highly value the author’s factographic contribution, making it possible to cast more light on Lew Sapieha, I still have a great number of reservations against the discussed monograph.