Additional recruitment to the Doctoral School of Languages and Literatures   beyond the limit of places

Project description:  

“Did the Jesuits lose Poland?” This project is set out to illuminate an under-explored facet of Polish historiography spanning the dynamic long nineteenth century. Its focus converges on the intriguing theme of anti-Jesuitism, a sentiment comparable to the prejudice and hostility harbored against phenomena like witchcraft, the Templars, Freemasonry, and the Jews. Based on our preliminary research, it appears that this widespread sentiment has subtly permeated the works of many Polish distinguished authors of that period, invoking critical examination of the role the Jesuits played in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth until the Society of Jesus’s suppression in 1773—a critical period aligning with the partitions (rozbiory) that culminated in Poland’s loss of independence. Joachim Lelewel (1786–1861), the esteemed Polish Romantic political historian, stands as a paramount figure in the embodiment of this discernible anti-Jesuit sentiment. His exceptional scholarly works remain as testaments to his insightful critique and profound understanding of the complexities of society. These pioneering works, tinged with a distinct anti-Jesuit sentiment, do not simply reflect a personal bias. Instead, they serve as a courageous beacon, illuminating the multifaceted dialogues and debates that characterized the era. Indeed, Lelewel’s intellectually robust yet nuanced perspective has gifted the scholarly world with an invaluable lens to comprehend and assess this sentiment. His contributions serve as a wellspring of knowledge, influencing generations of historians, scholars, and intellectuals who strive to understand the Romantic period's complex social, political, and religious dynamics. As such, Lelewel’s influence remains undeniably resonant and vital to our comprehension of historical sentiment, genuinely embodying the anti-Jesuit sentiment within his works, making him not only an essential subject of study but also a crucial key to unlocking the nuances of historical discourse. His works delve into Poland’s history, including Obraz dziejów Polski (A picture of Poland’s history; Poznań, 1828), Dzieje Polski potocznym sposobem opowiedziane (The history of Poland told simply; Poznań, 1829), and especially Historyczna paralela Hiszpanii z Polską w wieku XVI, XVII, XVIII (Historical parallelism between Spain and Poland in the centuries 16th, 17th, 18th; Warsaw, 1831), published in the context of the fall of the Polish uprising in November 1830/31 against the Russian occupation. Lelewel’s perspective resonates in his work and with his followers (the Lelewel School), Jędrzej Moraczewski (1802–55) and Henryk Schmitt (1817–83). They embarked on a deep exploration, centering their intellectual curiosity around the pivotal causes leading to the collapse of Poland–Lithuania. Within his work, Dzieje Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej (The history of the Polish Republic; Poznań, 1855), Moraczewski underscores the consequential yet lamentable role the Jesuits played in Poland’s history. In his Jezuici w Polsce: Rys historyczny (The Jesuits in Poland: a historical sketch; Paris, 1861), he declared that the main reason for Poland’s fall was indeed the Jesuits because of their disregard for Polish national interests and their alliance with the pope, who was seen as a foreign power. Schmitt, in the same vain, asserts in his Dzieje narodu polskiego od najdawniejszych do najnowszych czasów (The history of the Polish nation from the oldest times to the present; Lwów, 1863) the detrimental influence of the Jesuits, alleging their foreign allegiances undermined Poland’s power and marked the onset of the Commonwealth’s downfall. This scholarly pursuit did not exist, however, in isolation. Instead, it harked back to the dynamic intellectual discourse ignited in the late 18th century. A notable figure from this era, Enlightenment writer Hugo Kołłątaj (1750–1812), initiated this discourse by posing an incisive question: “Did the Jesuits lose Poland?” Julian Ursyn Niemcewicz (1758–1841) echoed him by stating in his memoir Pamiętniki czasów moich (published posthumously in 1848) that the Jesuits “lost our Poland by the lack of enlightenment.” The Romantic writers weaved anti-Jesuitim into their literary works. Józef Ignacy Kraszewski’s (1812–87) did it in historical novels, including Ostatni rok panowania Zygmunta III (The last year of Sigismund III’s reign; Vilnius, 1834) and Majster Bartłomiej, czyli piekarz i jego rodzina (Master Bartholomew, that is, the baker and his family; Vilnius, 1837). In them, the Jesuits are portrayed as kuglarze, or (Machiavellian) jugglers, determined to persecute all kinds of “heretics” through the cruel methods that characterized the Spanish Inquisition. In tandem with Kraszewski, Zygmunt Krasiński (1812–59) reflected in his 1836 letter to his father, Wincenty (1782–1858), who was a former marshal of the Polish parliament, on the Jesuits’ destructive impact on the history of the Polish nation, which was allegedly “taken over [opanować] by the Jesuits.” Finally, in his 1846 letter to Stanisław Małachowski, Krasiński claims that “Jesuitism,” demagogues, and Russian despotism (demagogi, mongolizm i jezuity) were equally responsible for the fall of the Commonwealth. His anti-Jesuit bias can also be tracked in the correspondence of his wife, Elżbieta (Eliza) z Branickich Krasińska (1820–76). In an 1848 letter to her cousin Aleksandra Potocka, she accused the Jesuits of conspiring against the life of Pope Pius IX (r.1846–78). A somewhat more ambivalent assessment of the Jesuits is discernable in the major Polish Romantic poet Adam Mickiewicz (1798–1855), who dedicated to them some space in his Parisian Slavic literature lectures in the early 1840s at the Collège de France, where he was close to two prominent French anti-Jesuit writers, Jules Michelet (1798–1875) and Edgar Quinet (1803–75). This layered criticism against the “School of Naruszewicz,” a historical trend tied to Enlightenment Jesuit historian Adam Stanisław Naruszewicz (1733–96), the author of the Historyja narodu polskiego (The history of the Polish nation; Warsaw, 1780–86, 1824), remains central to comprehending the perspectives emerging from the Lelewel School. The project seeks to achieve more  than merely juxtaposing and comparing the views of Lelewel, his followers, and Naruszewicz. It aims to unveil if Lelewel’s perception of the Jesuits might have shaped his critique of the Naruszewicz School. The investigation goes beyond divergent viewpoints on national history writing methodologies and political systems. Instead, it sheds light on the complex dynamics between these intellectual schools. Such a novel and nuanced approach will significantly enrich our understanding of the historiographical debate over the fall of Poland–Lithuania, revealing the complex character of Romantic anti-Jesuitism. Our study will not limit itself to the local Polish context. Still, it will consider these interactions within the broader European sphere (Lelewel and others emigrated to Western Europe, where anti-Jesuitim had a long tradition) by integrating the Polish discourse into a broader historiographical landscape. This way, we can unlock a more profound, multifaceted understanding of the complex dynamics that contributed to this critical period in Polish history.  

2) Project’s Significance 

The essence of this project is encapsulated in its unprecedented exploration of the critical influence of anti-Jesuitism on the works of Joachim Lelewel, a distinguished political historian during the Polish Romanticism era. This era, marked by the transitional period in Polish history between the partitions (1772–95) and World War One (1914–18), was dominated by intellectual introspection caused by the loss of Poland’s independence. Polish intellectuals were deeply immersed in deciphering the causes behind the downfall of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth while simultaneously shaping their national, religious, social, and political identities in their quest for independence. Despite the importance of the subject matter, there is an existing historiographical lacuna, as the themes central to this project have yet to be rigorously and systematically examined. The project promises to break new ground by reading the reciprocal relationship between Lelewel’s anti-Jesuitism and the evolution of conspiracy theories in Europe. Specifically, it will explore how Lelewel’s anti-Jesuit sentiments shaped the conspiracy narratives beyond Poland and, reciprocally, how European conspiracy theories influenced the emergence of the Jesuit myth or “black legend,” a term coined by British historian Peter Burke, in European literature. The project’s findings will significantly enhance scholarly understanding of the field internationally and resonate with contemporary public interests. Given the sustained popularity of conspiracy theories, this project provides an opportunity to decode the process of myth and conspiracy theory creation, informed by historical instances of anti-Jesuitism. The project is designed as a prism to uncover innovative perspectives to comprehend our modern society better. It asserts the continued relevance of humanities as a vital tool in this exploration, demonstrating the pertinence of this study and preempting potential criticism about its applicability in today’s context. 

3) Risk Factor 

Though grounded in traditional research methods, our project acknowledges the potential impediments to accessing physical copies during library and archival research trips. These obstacles could arise due to unpredictable circumstances, such as the onset of another pandemic. However, we shall demonstrate resilience, adaptability, and a relentless commitment to delivering high-quality research in navigating these challenges. We are not simply bracing ourselves against potential complications; instead, we have proactively devised alternative strategies to safeguard the success of our project. While the accessibility of physical copies could be compromised, we take comfort in the digital age, where abundant resources are (or can be) readily accessible online. Our wealth of online resources reassures us that we can execute a comprehensive examination, ensuring the quality of the project’s outcomes remains uncompromised. In conclusion, we are not only aware of potential risks and challenges but are prepared and well-equipped to surmount them. Our project, ambitious as it may be, is feasible. 

4) Conceptual Framework and Four-Year Action Plan 

The project, aimed at developing a trailblazing dissertation, will be executed according to the subsequent four-year plan: 

Year 1: 

1. Kick-off with an exhaustive study of Adam Naruszewicz’s “Historyja narodu polskiego,” his other historical creations, and pertinent secondary literature, all contextualized within the realms of classical, Enlightenment, and Jesuit historiography, which usually are not combined all together. 

2. Engage in a thorough evaluation of Joachim Lelewel’s substantial works. 

3. Compile and characterize the Warsaw-based archival and library collections encapsulating Joachim Lelewel’s historical writings. 

Year 2: 

4. Catalog and detail Vilnius’s archival and library collections featuring Joachim Lelewel’s historical works. 

5. Assemble and describe the archival and library collections related to Joachim Lelewel’s exile works during the Université Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium fellowship.  

6. Initiate a bibliographical analysis of 19th-century anti-Jesuit literature in Poland and Western Europe. 

Year 3: 

7. Compile an exhaustive report on the entire bibliography relevant to the dissertation topic. 

8. Delve into the initial bio-bibliographical research on Lelewel and Naruszewicz, juxtaposing the distinctive historical periods they represent. 

9. Embark on an analytical comparison of the historiographical methodologies employed by Naruszewicz and Lelewel. 

Year 4: 

10. Assess Lelewel’s anti-Jesuitism within an expanded Polish and European framework. 

11. Unravel the correlation between Lelewel’s anti-Jesuitism and his critique of Naruszewicz. 

12. Document and publicize the final research findings through scholarly articles and national and international conference presentations. 

5) Applied Methodology 

We will adopt an expansive toolkit of research methodologies to fulfill our research objectives. Theproject’s initiation phase—chiefly centered around identifying, assembling, and cataloging published and unpublished works—will lean heavily on the philological method, particularly emphasizing textual criticism. In this regard, we will draw from the trailblazing works of 19th-century German classical philologists and esteemed Polish scholars who have published critical editions of texts from the 18th and 19th centuries. Further, in this context, leveraging theoretical expertise and insights from case studies in books’ print and provenance analysis will be indispensable. This approach will provide a critical understanding of the texts under examination within the broader backdrop of their resonance in Western Europe. To accomplish this, our primary tool will be the comparative method. As Edward Kasperski insightfully puts it, this method is a “cognitive grasp of domestic, foreign, and shared literary reality as a dynamic, internally diverse, and changeable ‘possible community,’ tied by numerous interrelations with other writing and cultural fields.” When interpreting our findings, the hermeneutic method will be our go-to, supplemented to some extent by the tools of the history of ideas. As outlined by Alina Nowicka-Jeżowa, hermeneutics strives for “the most comprehensive, complete, and in-depth identification of meaning […], unraveling it not only through positive cognitive effort but also by ‘exposing appearances,’ that is, deciphering cultural symbols, traditional depictions, conventionalized elements of discourse, stereotypes embedded in the text's outer layer, or rhetorical strategies craftily veiling the real intentions of the speech.” Regarding the history of ideas, our inspiration will stem from the influential works of Quentin Skinner and John G. A. Pocock. In this way, we are prepared to navigate the depth and complexity of our research topic, promising a thorough, rich, and insightful exploration. 

 Principal investigator:   prof. Robert Maryks

Selection Committee    

prof. dr hab. Robert Maryks   – chairman

prof. dr hab. Krystyna Bartol

prof. dr hab. Katarzyna Meller

prof. UAM dr hab. Maciej Parkitny

prof. dr hab. Piotr Urbański

dr Sławomira Brud- secretary

Schedule of  the Doctoral  School enrolment procedure: 

Recruitment fee

The recruitment fee is 75 EUR.

Form of the selection procedure

One stage procedure.

Language of the selection procedure, including interviews:

Polish or English language. 

Required documents:

Candidates applying based on exceptional academic achievements must include a scan of the following:  

1) For first-cycle graduates: the diploma and supplement. 

2) For students completing the third year of a unified master’s programme: a certificate indicating their academic average from years 1 to 3, along with a transcript. 

Candidates educated outside Poland must additionally submit: 

1)    A scan of a document certifying education – a diploma with a diploma supplement for first- and second-cycle studies (Bachelor’s, MSc, or MA degrees) in the original language; if the document is not in English, a copy of the diploma in English or Polish, or a certified translation of the diploma into English or Polish, shall also be provided;

2)    A scan of a diploma or certificate confirming knowledge of a modern foreign language at a level of at least B2; 

3)    A scan of a passport, in the case of foreign nationals.

 Evaluation criteria

1)   The grade obtained in second-cycle studies or a uniform master’s degree programme (no more than 3 points); the candidate shall receive:

a)      3 points for a grade of at least very good or equivalent;

b)      2 points for a grade of good plus or equivalent;

c)       1 point for a grade of good or equivalent;

d)      3 points in the case of candidates applying for admission on the basis of the highest quality of scientific achievements (e.g. leadership of a project under the “Pearls of Science” programme).

In the absence of a diploma grade, the average grade from the course of studies shall be taken into account.

2)   Points for maximum three documented scientific achievements, in accordance with the detailed criteria for the candidate’s achievements, attached during electronic registration in the IRK system; no more than 22 points may be awarded.

3)   Points for other documented activities, based on a maximum of three achievements, in accordance with the detailed criteria for the candidate’s achievements in a given discipline; no more than 5 points may be awarded.

4)    Points for a research project prepared for the purposes of admission, and in the case of admission conducted in connection with the implementation of a research project – an original concept for the implementation of a grant project (no more than 20 points), with particular emphasis on:

a)     the ability to formulate the research objective and present the research problem;

b)     the originality of the research idea and the ability to select an appropriate method for solving the research problem;

c)      methodology appropriate to the chosen discipline;

d)     knowledge of existing research, supported by a basic bibliography;

e)     the significance of the project for the development of the chosen discipline;

f)       risk analysis of research tasks.

5)    The result of the interview, the scope of which shall include:

a)    knowledge and competences appropriate to the chosen discipline;

b)    elements of research methodology appropriate to the chosen discipline.

No more than 50 points may be awarded for the interview, and the maximum duration of the interview shall be 30 minutes.

Condition of admission to the Doctoral School 

Education Program

Education at the doctoral school lasts 8 semesters. Education at the Doctoral School  is offered on the basis of a framework curriculum and an individual research plan and ends with the submission of a doctoral dissertation.

The framework curriculum at the doctoral school includes a catalogue of modules of compulsory classes, elective compulsory classes and optional classes. It also:

1)    defines their schedule

2)    defines the way in which the classes are taught

3)    defines how learning outcomes are verified.

Education begins on 1st October, 2026.

Supervisors

A doctoral student works under the supervision of a supervisor or supervisors, or a supervisor and auxiliary supervisor, who will be appointed by the Deputy Rector at the request of a doctoral student (within 3 months of the start of his or her studies at the Doctoral School).

Scholarships

Doctoral student receives a scholarship in the amount of PLN 5000  gross gross  for the first two years of studies (before the mid-term evaluation) and PLN 6000 gross, gross  for one year following mid-term evaluation.

Rules of admission to doctoral schools of Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań in the academic year 2025/2026, Appendix to Resolution No. 46/2024/2025 of UAM Senate of 27 January, 2025.