Igno Onacevičiaus Lietuvos istorijos koncepcija

LTVilniaus universiteto lietuviams studentams daug įtakos turėjo Lietuvos praeitimi labai susižavėjęs ir jau mažiau kritiškumo parodęs Ignas Onacevičius. Jis nuo 1818 m. Vilniaus universitete dėstė istoriją, nuo 1821 m. - statistiką ir diplomatiką. Pagautas iš Vakarų ateinančios romantizmo bangos ir vis skatindamas meilę praeičiai, Onacevičius iki savo mirties 1845 m. Peterburge turėjo artimą kontaktą su savo dideliu gerbė ju Simanu Daukantu. Iš Karaliaučiaus ir kitų archyvų Onacevičius buvo prisirankiojęs daug šaltinių. Bet jo Lietuvos istorijos manuskriptas sulaukė Rotundo veikalo likimo, t. y. dingo, nors ir esąs buvęs testamentu užrašytas J.l. Kraševskiui, - rašė profesorius Zenonas Ivinskis savo "Lietuvos istorijos" įvade. Nors mums ir nežinomas I. Onacevičiaus "Lietuvos istorijos" rankraščio likimas, bet jo istorijos sampratą iš dalies galime suvokti iš laiškų Teodorui Narbutui. Šiuose laiškuose ne tik suformuluoti patarimai "Lietuvių tautos istorijos" autoriui, bet išryškėja ir paties I. Onacevičiaus Lietuvos istorijos koncepcija bei istorijos veikalo struktūros samprata. [...] [p. 103].

ENWe know nothing about the manuscript of "Lithuanian History" written by l. Onacevičius , but how he understood history can be understood from his letter to Teodoras Narbutas. In these letters was formed not only his advice to the author of "Lithuanian Nation History," but, as became clear to l. Onacevičius, Lithuanian historical conception as well. According to his opinion, there must be a separate volume for mythology. He was sorry, that there was no list of names nor places. He also articulated his opiniion about the rights of the Grand Dukes. According to l. Onacevičius' opinion, until the end of the 14th century Grand Dukes had absolute power, and only in the time Jogaila did the power of noblemen come into existance. l. Onacevičius explained that the nobilitys freedom existed in documents, but not in real life. In general, there was no big difference in Lithuania between estates, until the wedding of Jogaila with the Polish queen; this is when the union between Lithuania and Poland began. It seems that l. Onacevičius was also worried about cultural historical problems. He wrote, that in the beginning of Žygimantas Augustas' rule, Mykolas Lietuvis was the first to show the Lithuanian cultural condition. He was sorry, that it was impossible to find out any news about Mykolas Lietuvis and, because of this, could not say his real name. l. Onacevičius pointed out, that in the time of Žygimantas Augustas, a group of the Samogitians were pagans. In general, the conditions of life were poor, because Lithuanian nobles were against the enlargernent of science, trade, and handicraft. Onacevičius' point of view of history is very similar to that of Joachimas Lelevelis' historical understanding. It is possible to say that both historians of Vilnius estimated Lithuania's past very similarly.