[Edward] needs love, and no one in the world besides you is as devoted to him as I am.
From Athanasiusâ letter to Konstancja RaczyÅska dated 25 September 1843
âµ
1 No One Else
It was an age of brothers. In the early nineteenth century, more than any other time, prominent siblings played a major role in shaping the cultural face of the cities and countries of Europe. These included eminent scholars and philosophers like Wilhelm and Alexander von Humboldt, Friedrich and August Wilhelm Schlegel, and Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm; and artists and patrons of the arts such as Sulpiz and Melchior Boisserée, Franz and Johannes Riepenhausen, Rudolf and Wilhelm Schadow. Many additional examples could be cited.1 This phenomenon reflected the development during this period of a new model of brotherhood based on a notion of mutual support that went far beyond mere nepotism and which was expressed through deep understanding, mutual inspiration, and creative competition. This new model grew out of a fundamental redefinition of the individualâs place in society at the turn of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. This resulted from both a progressive loss of faith in what had previously defined identity, above all religion and the absolute state, and from the influence of new intellectual currents, with Kantâs subjective philosophy at the forefront.2 âThe new ideal was not an integrated man who defined himself through his belonging to a community, but a rational, thinking man, oriented towards his own individual interests â homo economicus.â3 The price that had to be paid for this ideal â as well as for inner freedom as understood by Kant, which required the suppression of an individualâs desires and drives in the name of rationality, self-discipline, and self-control, in the name of âmanâs emergence from his self-incurred immaturityâ4 â was a sense of a loss of clear reference points and a shattering into pieces of the individual. The response to these changes included, among other things, the idealization of the closest family, which in the world where rationality guided public and professional affairs would become a safe haven for the expression of emotions and feelings and for close relations of a sentimental nature: âa warm interior as against a cool exterior.â5 This led to an appreciation of family ties both between parents and children and between siblings and to a general appreciation of childhood and youth. The romanticism that was born at that time consequently reflected this process. Childhood, youth, and finally brotherhood (whether real or âidealâ based on friendship) became its favourite themes. A new model of fraternity would become both a social reality and a literary and cultural ideal. Its importance and universality were also evidenced by the extraordinary popularity of various associations, sometimes referred to as fraternities (Bruderschaften), which, especially in German-speaking areas, were a very important element of social life.6 One such association, an artistic cooperative called the Brotherhood of St. Luke, will be discussed more closely later.7 Such a model of brotherhood soon found its visual expression in a specific iconographic form.8 Edward and Athanasius RaczyÅski embodied this model. The most striking visual representation of this fact is the monumental RaczyÅski Family Portrait painted by Carl Adolph Henning in 1839 (Fig. 9).9
Carl Adolph Henning, RaczyÅski Family Portrait, 1839
RaczyÅski Foundation at the National Museum in PoznaÅ, inv. no. MNP FR 635
The brothers are depicted in the foreground, on the left side of the painting. Edward is sitting in a chair, with Athanasius standing behind him. The arrangement of the figures and Athanasiusâ right hand, resting on the backrest of the armchair, compositionally and symbolically integrate and close off the pair, conferring an air of fellowship and inseparability. The two RaczyÅskis are facing models of statues of the first Polish rulers, Mieszko and BolesÅaw, which are standing on a pile of books of Edwardâs authorship placed on a table covered with a rich fabric with an oriental pattern. The brothersâ sons, Roger and Karol, who are standing in the background and also looking towards the sculptures, are also participants in this scene. The location of the scene is Athanasiusâ gallery in Berlin, and the background for the characters is Wilhelm Kaulbachâs monumental painting The Battle of the Huns. The brothers and their works are depicted, but there is no distinction made between Edward and Athanasiusâ spheres of creativity. In fact, the image suggests the personalities and achievements of the brothers are complementary and collective. The pair of sculptures the characters are contemplating, though commissioned by Edward, were, in fact, a joint project. This also applies to other achievements depicted in the picture: the sculptures of Mieszko and BolesÅaw, symbolically representing the burial chapel of the first Piasts in the Cathedral in PoznaÅ; Edwardâs publications; Athanasiusâ gallery â all of these were created on the initiative of one of the brothers, but, as we will see, involved cooperation between them both.
The fairly widespread opinion based on nineteenth-century diary entries, that relations between the brothers had cooled after Athanasius left for Berlin and that their paths had diverged, had no basis in fact.10 At no time does the correspondence between Edward and Athanasius cease or lose its intensity or warmth. None of Athanasiusâ other relationships â not with his wife, his children, or any of his friends â can be compared to the bond he shared with his brother. âWho in the world could replace either of us at the side of the other?â Athanasius asked in a letter to his brother in early 1816.11 They both knew perfectly well: no one else.
2 Mirror
The RaczyÅski brothersâ close relationship is easily explained in the light of the findings of modern psychology. Stephen P. Bank and Michael D. Kahn have identified in their research several key factors fostering close ties between siblings. âSibling bonds will become intense and exert a formative influence upon personality when, as children or adolescents, the siblings have had plentiful access and contact and have been deprived of reliable parental care. In this situation, siblings will use one another as major influences, or touchstones, in a search for personal identity. When other relationships â with parents, children, or spouses â are emotionally fulfilling, the sibling bond will be weaker and less important. Thus, when other relationships cannot be relied upon, intense sibling relationships are activated. The results of this intensification can be helpful or harmful, depending upon the circumstances of each family, the personalities of the children, and the actions and attitudes of parents.â12 The slight age difference between Edward and Athanasius â just over two years â and their family situation led the siblingsâ relationship to become one of, using the terminology of Bank and Kahn, âvery high access.â They also spent the first twenty years of their lives together; Athanasiusâ writings in his diary, when relating to memories of their childhood and early youth, include repeated use of the phrase: âmon frère et moi, nous â¦â After the death of their mother in 1790, both boys were sent to Chobienice to live on the estate of their paternal grandmother, Wirydianna née BniÅska. The boys returned to Rogalin in 1797 to live with their father and be educated under his supervision (Fig. 10). After his death in 1804, they studied together in Frankfurt (Oder), and a year later began studying under private tutors in Berlin. It was there in 1806 that their paths finally diverged: Edward returned to Rogalin to manage the family estate, while Athanasius went on to study and embark on a political career in Dresden. The boys grew up without a mother, whose place in their lives was taken to some extent by their aunt Estera. Their relationship with their father was, as previously mentioned, chilly and oppressive. Both in Chobienice and even more so in Rogalin, they relied mainly on each other for company. Philip RaczyÅski led a solitary life, with family and friends rarely visiting his palace â and thus, although it was a fully staffed house, it did not offer the boys many opportunities for contact with their peers. Under such circumstances, it is understandable that they exerted a strong influence on one another and remained a point of reference for each other in their search for identity. The close-knit relationship the brothers built proved a helpful and constructive one.
Jan GÅadysz, Portrait of Athanasius and Edward RaczyÅski as Children, 1797
RaczyÅski Foundation at the National Museum in PoznaÅ, inv. no. MNP FR 611
This does not mean, however, that their relationship was always exemplary. Both men adhered strictly to their principles and were often overbearing, which stifled their ability to build relationships with others. Their own friendship was also (unavoidably, so it would seem) thorny. âI have never confessed the feelings I have for my brother,â Athanasius wrote in his diary in January 1810, shortly before his twenty-second birthday, a time when he was tormented by various passions, âbut they are so difficult to define. I often love him to the point of worship, but I also often feel completely indifferent toward him.â13 Both RaczyÅski brothers fully realized that the complexity of their relationship was one of its essential features. However, this never raised any doubts as to its intensity or its extreme importance to them both.
The brothers shared certain fundamental beliefs, which provided a broad ideological framework for their thoughts and actions.14 Unconditional fidelity to royal authority, general disapproval of any attempt at radical political change, faith in the legitimacy of the traditional social order, a readiness to participate in public life, and concern for the prestige of their family name were all characteristics common to both brothers. Moreover, they both had a wide range of interests, powerful ambitions, and a strong sense of individualism and ancestral pride, and both shared a determination to achieve their intended goals. Yet, in many respects, they differed significantly from one another. They had different temperaments, different ambitions, and different ideas about their obligations to their family and their nation. These differences in character were reflected in their lifestyles. Family tradition, influenced by Athanasiusâ writings, generally portrayed Edward as a man who lived very modestly, almost ascetically, limiting his personal needs to what was necessary, sleeping on a sackcloth mattress, and wearing an old, worn-out coat.15 Athanasius, on the other hand, had a tendency â to which he openly admitted â toward sybaritic behaviour and a taste for elegant interiors and decorative furnishings. He was a lover and connoisseur of fine cuisine (as well as a good cook; he particularly relished Polish cuisine, especially noodles and dumplings, and schooled his chefs in the proper preparation of these dishes), wore elegant and at times eccentric clothing, and surrounded himself with beautiful objects.
Athanasius held Edward in high esteem and admired his character and mental prowess. In recollections in his diary of their shared education, he depicts his brother as being more capable and more conscientious than himself. In correspondence from the 1840s, he called Edward a âsageâ and a âphilosopher.â Of course, there is also a note of sympathetic irony in his use of these terms, but it seems clear that he had some sort of inferiority complex in relation to his older brother.
Edwardâs seniority was of no little importance in this respect. Alfred Adler, a student and proponent of Sigmund Freud â who expanded the Viennese analystâs concepts of personality development and child socialization, which focused on the childâs relationship with its parents â was the first leading psychologist to draw attention to the vital role played by relationships between siblings. He strongly emphasized the importance of seniority and identified a childâs birth order as a key determining factor in the process of its socialization.16 The position of the eldest child, especially in the case of a son, was, according to Adler, of particular significance. In the earliest period of its life, as an only child, the eldest child receives all the parentsâ attention. When that child is later âdethronedâ following the birth of a sibling and loses its privileged status as an only child, it often retains â and fights to maintain â the privileges associated with this status.17 As previously mentioned, Edward continually received greater affection from his father than Athanasius; he was always considered more able, more obedient, and a better child in general. However, being a first child involves not only privileges but also burdens. The firstborn must bear the weight of the trust and high expectations placed in it by its guardians. It must assume the responsibilities of inheriting not only the family property or title but also of upholding its traditions and spiritual legacy. The firstborn child is therefore expected to adopt a conservative posture. Seen from a historical perspective, the primacy of the eldest child was additionally manifested in political and economic privileges, such as the inheritance by the first-born male of paternal position and property (primogeniture). Although most of these privileges were gradually abolished in the nineteenth century, the concept of the privileged position of the eldest son remained in force. It must have been important for the RaczyÅski brothers, too. Both were convinced that an essential condition for the advancement of civilisation was a political and social order grounded in a set of inalienable and transcendently legitimized principles upon which family life should also be organised. Athanasiusâ image of the family as a strictly regulated and strongly hierarchical structure is expressed in a letter he wrote to his daughter in 1836 in response to her plans to enter into what he considered an inappropriate marriage: âChange your mind, there is still time, marry wisely, and think of your husband as your master, as a friend heaven has given you and whose authority over his wife according to the laws of God and man replaces that of the parents.â18 RaczyÅski defined his relationship with his children in similar terms. The French word âmaîtreâ originally used in the quoted correspondence means âmasterâ or âteacher,â but also âsuperiorâ or âruler.â In RaczyÅskiâs opinion, the family was a place for exercising rightful authority âbestowed by God,â based on relations of dependence: of children on their parents, of a wife on her husband, and, to some extent at least, of a younger brother on his older brother.
Edward was undoubtedly an authority for Athanasius, though by no means an unquestionable one. In some letters, Athanasius speaks frankly of his subordination to his brother, though always with a certain degree of characteristic distance and irony, which only enriches and confirms his message. Thus, for example, in a letter from Copenhagen dated 15 August 1830: âevery time our surname is mentioned it is to speak of you with praise and respect. But, when it comes to me, it is only as your brother. This is good for the family, good for our children, and the best thing in the world for me.â19
Indeed, Edward sometimes assumed the mentoring role of the older brother, giving Athanasius advice or instruction. Athanasius listened to it and sometimes heeded it, but other times rebelled, resolutely defending his independence. âNeither of us is more stupid or worse than the other. In many cases, you can see things better than I can. In others, I have the advantage over you. Just between us, seeing things correctly is truly a matter of chance, just like making the correct choice in oneâs actions,â wrote Athanasius in a late letter to Edward, defending his autonomy in actions.20
At the same time, there were moments when, in addition to admiration for Edward, Athanasius entertained negative feelings towards his brother and made very critical judgments about him as shown in the following diary entries: âMy brother often speaks and acts correctly, but he thinks too much about how it will benefit him. He appears to lack tact, but this only serves to hide his true intentions. I havenât felt close to him for some time. Thatâs because I regard him as someone lacking independence, submissive, and ingratiating â but despite all his peevishness he has a perfect heart;â21 âEdward is completely lacking in sensitivity. He has no sense of either good or bad. Heâll never put general principles into practice. At every occasion, he yields to outside influences and examples or relies on his own imagination, which always leads him astray.â22
In March 1815, Athanasius composed an insightful literary portrait of his brother for his own use.23 This is worth citing for at least two reasons. Firstly, because it shows how Athanasiusâ admiration for and criticism of Edward converge or rather collide, and how his brotherâs personality and conduct gave rise to various, often contradictory feelings. Secondly, because these characteristics make us aware of the diligence, engagement, curiosity, and regard with which the younger RaczyÅski viewed his brother and how he tried to get to know him and understand him. Athanasiusâ portrait of his brother reads as follows:
He loves virtue. When he convinces himself or when someone convinces him that something is right, that something should be done, he will do it. He desires to be virtuous, and above all, desires to appear virtuous, but he rarely has a sense of what is right, and in his actions is guided by other peopleâs opinions. He doesnât always have sincere intentions. He eagerly attributes his actions to noble motives, when in reality, they are nothing more than the result of his fantasies or love of himself. He also likes to attribute the sacrifice of one individual to many people simultaneously. He is full of crazy ideas, some of which are good and to which he admits, while others are bad, and these he keeps to himself because he believes that he should have them but shouldnât talk about them. To the first group belongs his inviolable discretion towards women (which I will talk about). Others can only be guessed at, but I think he would not dare to deny such an example: You can afford to do something bad when you are convinced that no harm will come to anyone (this is for others), and when you are sure that it wonât be revealed (this is for yourself). He loves all those whom he is obligated to love and is dedicated to them. I believe that he has an outstanding mind, which one would not suspect. He has, above all, a brilliance of mind, though he has no comprehension of this fact. He has a lively imagination and a good memory, which gives him certain ease in understanding anything that does not require any special diligence, of which he is incapable. Nobody has ever been able to teach him algebra. Heâs got strange ideas. When you think youâve begun to understand him, he somehow loses you again. He tends to exaggerate because he lacks empathy. He imagines he is free from self-love and believes this with such force that it has become a conviction. But I donât know many people who have more of it than he does. His heart craves tenderness. He is very easy to excite, has a lot of energy, and persists with one perception or another.24
This analysis was composed at a difficult time for the young Athanasius during his return journey from Warsaw, where he was to enter into an unwanted and ultimately unrealized marriage, to Paris, where his greatest and most difficult love, Fanny de Vaubois, awaited him. The text was written in a state of emotional excitement, and while it maintains the appearance of cool analysis, it reveals traces of his mental state. However, these circumstances only make his description more credible. Under the pressure of these complicated circumstances, RaczyÅski once again attempts to define himself, his attitude towards life, and his place in the world. His characterisation of Edward is preceded by a merciless, very gloomy self-analysis. Thus, on almost adjacent pages in his diary, Athanasius compares himself with Edward. His brother, the person closest to him, was simply bound to serve as his point of reference. Through Edward, Athanasius looks at himself as if in a mirror, treating him, using the language of psychology, as if he were a âsignificant other,â a means of comparison that helped him define his own personality.
3 Herr Bruder, Write to Me
Aside from Athanasiusâ diary, the most important testimony to the profound bond he shared with Edward available to the biographer is the correspondence between the brothers. Incomplete but very extensive, it comprises several thousand letters written from 1806 to 1845.25 In the letters, Edward and Athanasius present various faces, depending on their age and circumstances. They are direct and vulgar when as young men they report their erotic adventures; they are cordially ironic when they comment on each otherâs achievements and failures; they are meticulous and precise when they write on business matters; they are caring and ready to help when they think the other needs advice or support; they are determined and sharp when it comes to defending their rights. All this convinces us of the strong trust the brothers had in one another and of the intimate nature of their relationship. The language of the letters itself testifies to this. Not that he was particularly sensitive â there are relatively few passages written in such a tone, except for letters written near the end of Edwardâs life. The brothers communicated using a specific code they developed early on and, while modifying it over the years, they continued to use it to the end of their lives. In order to arrive at a basic understanding of it, let us look at how the brothers addressed one another. They most often, of course, used the customary âmy dear Edward,â âdear Athanasius,â âdear friend,â âmy dear friend,â âmy dear,â and âmy dear brother.â But Edward also jokingly addressed Athanasius as âFish,â âLittle fishy,â and âCanary.â They did not spare each other friendly chidings and often made allusions to experiences they had either shared or which were only known to the two of them. Here is an excerpt from a letter Athanasius sent from DÄbica on 16 April 1822:
You want me to write a treatise on your virtues and perfection, I will do so in three words. You are godless, a braggart and an ingrate. Godless because youâve been a scoundrel all your life, and youâve not married. A braggart because you boast that only you can attend to my interests properly. I have never seen you fall at my feet for the favours I do you. Despite your faults and shortcomings, I assure you of my good graces. And I donât doubt that the Enthusiasm and Happiness you will feel from such a gracious declaration will motivate you to get into a carriage, the kind on which you sprained your hand, because this kind is faster, and come as soon as possible to DÄbica.26
The same humorous tone that characterises the passage quoted above resonates in many of Athanasiusâ letters, including the late ones written shortly before Edwardâs tragic death when the correspondents were fully mature. âI kiss your feet if theyâre clean, and if theyâre not â Iâm limiting myself to a hug.â This is how he ends a letter to his brother written in Lisbon in late 1843.27 Edward also liked to engage in playful humour. In a letter from the summer of 1842, he wrote to his brother: âI received your letter in which you report to me on the effects that ravioli have had on you. I regret that I had to erase a good part of this letter in order to show it to my wife, who greatly enjoys your letters. Please write in such a way that they can be shown to her verbatim.â28
This correspondence shows the very close relationship that existed between the brothers, but also the differences mentioned above in their personalities and temperaments. These differences reveal themselves both in the content and form of the letters, as well as in their visual appearance: the very look of them, even before one reads them, reveals two very different characters. Edwardâs letters are written in a careless, impatient, even violent hand as if written in a hurry. In many cases, they consist of very short or even elliptical sentences â fragmentary, repetitive, nervous. Some letters give the impression of expressing thoughts written down âoff the cuff,â which have not been subjected to the organising powers of composition and form.29 The visual look of the letters is in line with their content. Big, clumsy letters, reduced to their rudimentary forms, flow into one another, with the endings of words becoming a restless, almost abstract pattern. Edward was prone to such awkward handwriting from his early youth, but as the years passed, it worsened due to the hand injury to which Athanasius alluded in one of the letters quoted above. Letters written by him during his mature years border on illegibility and often become completely illegible.
Athanasiusâ correspondence is much more elaborate. His sentences are longer and more complex. In his letters, more attention is paid to the compositional structure, rhetorical effect, witty jokes, and, to put it in one word, style. The writing is also clearer, regular, small, and quite legible, though without any attempt to make it decorative.
If we read the entries in Athanasiusâ diary alongside his correspondence, we get a fuller picture of their fraternal relationship. In his diary, the younger brother gives voice to feelings that are only rarely expressed outright in his letters: his empathetic concern for Edwardâs health and his pride in his actions and convictions (as well as a certain sense of animosity or resentment, as mentioned above). âI couldnât help myself. I felt myself turning red as if on fire. Then tears began to flow from my eyes,â Athanasius wrote on 28 December 1810 about his reaction to the news that Edward would never regain full use of the hand he had sprained while travelling in Scandinavia. âMy heart and my love derive satisfaction from the fact that I can call him my brother,â he wrote in 1822 in response to positive comments on Edwardâs newly published book on his journey to Turkey.30 A rush of particularly intense, fraternal feelings was brought about by Edwardâs death by suicide in 1845.
In 1817 Athanasius, a hypochondriac by nature, was awaiting his own death (his fears soon proved to be baseless; he was suffering not from incurable heart disease â though he was convinced of this, despite having been told otherwise by doctors â but from a gastric disorder). He thus wrote a farewell letter in which he bequeathed to Edward, and not to his newlywed wife or to the son, who was to be born soon, his most important possessions, those that had a particular symbolic meaning: âmy stallion, my mount [â¦] and all of my paintingsâ as well as â out of hysterical fear of being buried alive while in a coma â his own physical body. Several times Athanasius asks his wife:
Convince Edward that I should not be buried, but that I should be treated as if I had fallen into deep lethargy. I explained everything to Edward most precisely, and he promised me most solemnly to take care of it. I hope he wonât refuse to grant the last request of the brother he so loves and by whom he was always loved. [â¦] Edward is skilful enough to know how to deceive priests and the police, who will both try to prevent him from doing so. There are thousands of ways to hide the truth about me from them.31
Thus, as evidence of his great trust, Athanasius bequeaths to his brother his mortal remains. In his will, Edward also bequeathed his most precious possessions to Athanasius.
Edwardâs extensive will, drawn up three days before his death, contains only one paragraph devoted to his brother. Not much. But it has a special status in the document. Aside from a reproachful passage about his fellow citizens having spurned him, it is the only section of the text strongly marked by emotion. The rest was written in a calm, objective, almost cool tone. Moreover, it is the only passage that goes beyond Edwardâs material legacy, speaking about his spiritual one as well. At stake here is the memory of the deceased:
In addition, I bequeath to my brother a rifle and a pair of pistols in my armoury, once owned by MichaÅ RaczyÅski, of blessed memory, which he should find and take. My memories of my brother in my final moments are bitter ones. He loved me constantly and actively, but I hurt him, though unintentionally, unwillingly, and with despair in my heart. I was under the sway of vicious tendencies, or rather of wantonness, but how reprehensible this is at my age and in my relations with my Brother, my beloved Brother! Let him forgive me, and let him not call me Raca. Let him remember that Raca would do more harm to him who is innocent than to me who is guilty.32
A key word for interpreting this text is âRaca.â Edward uses it to refer to the Sermon on the Mount in the version given in the Gospel of Matthew. In the New International Bible, the corresponding passage reads as follows:
You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, âYou shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.â But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, âRaca,â is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, âYou fool!â will be in danger of the fire of hell.
Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to them; then come and offer your gift.
Mt, 5, 21â24
The Aramaic word âracaâ here refers to a man who is worthless, one worthy of contempt. This biblical passage is recalled by Edward as a means of evoking very strong, forceful language to ask his brother for forgiveness and reconciliation. It allowed him to avoid doing so directly by using a code, one whose meaning he was convinced would be understood by Athanasius. He may have been relying here less on Athanasiusâ theological erudition â though he was a practicing Catholic with interest in religious matters â than on experiences or conversations they had shared and situations in which the derisive biblical âracaâ was used either seriously or jokingly. However, it is not possible for us today to determine his intentions with any certainty. Besides, something else was more important to Edward: in his will, he called on Athanasius to cultivate an untarnished memory of him, a memory free of blemishes, free from disgrace.
In this situation, at the threshold of imagined or actual death, both RaczyÅskis did the same thing: they asked their brother to take care of what was most valuable to them in symbolic terms. This is a testimony to their deep mutual trust. In Edwardâs reminiscences in Historical Research, it is precisely this aspect of their relationship, apart from love, on which Athanasius will place the greatest emphasis: âWe loved each other the most and trusted each other the most.â33
In 1806, the brothersâ paths diverged. Edward returned to his home in Rogalin to manage the family estate, while Athanasius went on to study and pursue a political career in Dresden. From that point on, Edward would spend his time mainly in Wielkopolska, travelling often only to Berlin (although he took more spectacular trips, in particular, to Lapland and Turkey). Athanasius was characterised by greater mobility. He stayed in Warsaw, Dresden, Paris, London, Berlin, Copenhagen, Lisbon, and Madrid. Despite the distance, they kept in touch by letter and also looked for opportunities to meet: âDear Edward, if you also wanted to come and visit me, how grateful Iâd be to you.â (Athanasius in DÄbica, 11 April 1821); âYour coming to me, dear Edward, would make me happy a la lettre.â (Athanasius in DÄbica, 9 June 1822); âTry to come here to me as soon as you open the library â¦â (Athanasius from Berlin, 19 March 1829); âWe are very grateful to you for your visit to PoznaÅ. Iâll be coming to Berlin to say goodbye soon â¦â (Edward from Rogalin, 5 February 1842); âMy dear Edward, what a pity! If you had come by steamboat, which brought me your letter, it would not have taken more than three and a half days. Youâd spend ten days with me. This would not delay your return by more than eighteen days, and you would see a very interesting country and fill me with joy. Maybe next spring!â (Athanasius from Lisbon, 2 September 1842).
The last quote comes from a late letter written by Athanasius from Portugal. This is a time when the brothers corresponded very intensively with one another. Athanasius, in particular, wrote to Rogalin often, even several times a week. With a serious concern for his brotherâs health in the background, almost all his letters contain urgent requests for Edward to come to Lisbon for a few months. The stay away from Rogalin and PoznaÅ, far from the local affairs,34 was intended by Athanasius as a therapeutic remedy for Edwardâs disastrous state of mind and depression (which Athanasius sensed from his brotherâs letters and about which his sister-in-law informed him on an ongoing basis). In his letters from Lisbon, Athanasius provided his older brother with tempting images of Portugalâs warm sun and carefree atmosphere, as well as the local porridge Edward liked so much, and planned his stay in detail:
Itâs certain, dear Edward, that if you come here now, besides the pleasure of my company in a country where, in terms of politics, nothing will cause you worry, youâll enjoy a mild climate and great opera [â¦]. I have already given orders for a room to be prepared for you and one for Basil [Edwardâs manservant]. Your room will be a little higher up, but youâll have a beautiful view of the Tagus and lots of sunshine. If youâre not warm enough, weâll put in a stove. If you come here this autumn, youâll have here [the singer Giovanna] Rossi, your porridge, me, oranges, sunshine, and peace and quiet. On April 15 youâll go to Alcobaça, Bathalia, and Coimbra, and on your way back, youâll stay in Caldas for four weeks.35
Edwardâs plans to visit Lisbon never materialised, however. In fact, meetings between the brothers took place rather infrequently. Over the years, such reunions became harder and harder to arrange, leaving correspondence as their primary means of maintaining contact. When their correspondence ceased temporarily as a result of neglect on the part of one of the brothers, the other immediately demanded its resumption, as when Edward wrote half-jokingly, half-seriously in a letter dated 19 April 1812: âHerr Bruder, write to me.â
What does their correspondence contain, and what does it tell us? Firstly, it includes references to everyday events, meetings, business trips, etc., and is, therefore, a source of scattered but detailed biographical data. Secondly, significant space is dedicated to requests for small favours, advice, and information, showing us how the brothers helped one another and how they cooperated in both minor and serious matters. Their requests are quite varied. They ask for information about friends and acquaintances; for involvement and support in dealings with people better known to the other; for help in obtaining necessary documents; for assistance and mediation in business dealings; for books, maps, and engravings. They both value each otherâs abilities and offer advice on numerous issues. For example, Athanasius writes to Edward in the spring of 1822 concerning the management of his estate:
Iâm running to you for advice. Iâm in an awkward situation. I cannot guarantee that I will follow your advice but discussing the matter may help clarify my own views. As matters with me now stand, carrying on affairs as usual will suffice to ensure that the estate will continue to prosper and to ensure the security of our property â we will soon have a yearâs permanent income in reserve for an unforeseen event. This is the state of affairs if I consider DÄbica to be home â but not if I were to acquire Ludomy. I want to acquire Ludomy because it would simplify the management of my property, because I would like to see a larger entailed estate, because I would like, if it were possible, to obtain for this property the status of a principality or county â because I foresee the creation of a new peerage in Prussia and I wouldnât want this honour to pass our family by. (â¦) So, should I buy it or not?36
In subsequent letters on the subject of Ludomy, Athanasius not only relies on the opinion of his brother but even entrusts him with the running of the affairs, placing total confidence in him and giving him complete authority: âI would like to ask you, finally, to undertake this endeavour and that you use the legal services of no one but Gizicki (â¦). I repeat, however, that you are to use Gizicki only for strictly legal matters while I entrust to you alone matters of greater consideration.â37 On many occasions, both earlier and later, Edward managed his younger brotherâs property and administrative affairs.
Thirdly and finally, the letters contain frequent commentary on the various initiatives of the two brothers and show how much they supported each other. We owe to Zofia Ostrowska-KÄbÅowskaâs comprehensive study on the so-called Golden Chapel our knowledge of the vital role played in its construction inside the Poznan Cathedral by not only Edward, who for years was the spiritus movens of the project, but also by Athanasius.38 As an aficionado of art, well-connected in Berlinâs art circles, Athanasius was involved from the very outset in conceptual and organisational work on the chapel. He acted as an intermediary, for example, between Edward and the artists Karl Friedrich Schinkel, an architect, and Christian Daniel Rauch, a sculptor. Correspondence between the brothers confirms that this was the case with almost all the RaczyÅski brothersâ undertakings. Both were individualists who had difficulty â especially Edward â in subjecting themselves to the rigors of teamwork, and their work bears the unmistakable mark of their strong personalities. But their accomplishments would have been different, and some might not have come about at all, had it not been for the involvement of both the brothers. On Edwardâs side, there were many such initiatives, including the publication of his own and othersâ works, the building of a church-mausoleum and reconstruction of the palace in Rogalin, the founding of a palace-library in PoznaÅ, and oversight of work on the aforementioned chapel of the first Polish rulers in the cityâs cathedral. Athanasiusâ output was also significant. He built an impressive art collection, attempted to establish a public picture gallery in PoznaÅ, expanded and furnished the palace in Zawada, published works on German and Portuguese art, built a palace and gallery in Berlin, and wrote a history of his family. Endorsed and spurred on by one brother or the other, almost all of these undertakings were, to some extent, their joint achievement. In a nutshell, if we were to simplify the image a little, one could say that Athanasius provided advice and assistance to his brother, especially in the field of art. At the same time, Edward offered support mainly with administrative and property- related issues.
During stays in Berlin, Paris, and Rome, Athanasius worked on drawings for books Edward intended to publish on his journey to Turkey and the history and monuments of Wielkopolska. In Paris, he tried to find a model for Edwardâs library and advised him on how it should be organised (âI have thought long and hard about your library. This is the result of my thinking â¦â39). In Berlin, he acted as an intermediary between his brother and the architect Karl Friedrich Schinkel when Edward and Konstancja drew up plans for introducing structural changes to the Rogalin palace (âI gave your drawings to Schinkel and told him everything your wife and you told me. We shared the following observations â¦â40). He also directed his brother to people who could be helpful in his historical research and editorial work. Edward, in turn, apart from his repeated assistance in matters relating to the family estate, helped Athanasius obtain books in such fields as art and genealogy.41 He invested a great deal of energy in obtaining permission to have a monument to Bishop Ignacy RaczyÅski, funded by Athanasius, to be placed in PoznaÅ Cathedral.42 Finally, Edward actively supported Athanasiusâ passion as a collector of art. On 13 August 1080, he wrote:
How glad I am that you are looking forward to enjoying the painting I bought for you. Write to me as soon as you receive it. In my opinion, the view of the sea is splendid, though the architecture is a bit lavish. [â¦] If you find you like my taste, and I believe my taste in seascapes is quite good, I will deeply regret that I did not buy a seascape for you in London, somewhere around two feet long, depicting a fisherman and the characteristic English sun, which even in good weather, looks as if itâs being viewed through a mist. The painting was as faithful and beautiful as Schummannâs works of this type and was available for the ridiculous sum of three and a half guineas. But I was already out of money, and Iâm not such an expert as to buy something on your account.43
Although it was never completed, the picture gallery in PoznaÅ was to have been a joint project of the two brothers in the full sense of the word.
4 My Poor, Poor Brother!
Edwardâs death by suicide in January 1845 was a milestone event in Athanasiusâ life. His first recorded reaction to the tragic news was anger. His behaviour was understandable as anger is an inseparable part of mourning and a valid response to loss: Edward took his own life under very strong public pressure from people hostile to him. Athanasius aimed to free Edward, initially for his own purposes, from charges that he was mentally incompetent and to point out who was truly responsible for his death. In a âdocumentary-styleâ but emotional narrative, he describes his brotherâs involvement in building a monument to the first Polish rulers in the Golden Chapel of PoznaÅ Cathedral. He emphases the opposition Edward faced, particularly the accusations levelled against him by the parliamentary deputy Pantaleon Schuman in connection with the inscription placed by Edward on the pedestal of the statues of Mieszko and BolesÅaw. In Athanasiusâ description, Schuman is portrayed as the embodiment of all evil. He is described as âa repulsive individual who (probably in 1806 and 1807) became known for his hatred of Poles, a great liar, a Jacobin to the bone;â fifteen years later in Historical Research Athanasiusâ called Edwardâs accusers â including in addition to Schuman, another parliamentary deputy Andrzej Niegolewski â outright murderers. Athanasiusâ anger soon widened to include the person closest to Edward, especially in the last years of his life â his wife.
After his brotherâs death, Konstancja became in Athanasiusâ eyes a dangerous trouble-maker âwith a diabolical instinct,â ominously linked to ill fortune (her first husband, traveller and writer Jan Potocki, also committed suicide). Although relations between the two had improved by the late 1840s, they soon became very tense again. This time it was due to the idea of legitimising a child born out of wedlock to Edwardâs son Roger and Princess Zeneida Lubomirska by marrying Roger to a seriously ill woman near to death.44 The person behind this project was said to be Konstancja, who Athanasius wrote at the time was âwithout principles, without religion, without morality.â The extensive portrait of his sister-in-law he then recorded in his diary is outright merciless. It contains allegations of her hatred of the RaczyÅski family, of being disingenuous in her relations with her husband, of an âinfernal instinctâ for destruction, and an unrestrained tendency toward evil.45 In late 1850 RaczyÅski broke off all contact with his sister-in-law. His response to the news of Konstancjaâs death two years later on 25 December 1852, and her request in her last will to be buried at the side of her husband in ZaniemyÅl was brief: âShe wanted to continue the comedy even after her death.â46 His resentment towards Konstancja never cooled. In 1860 he wrote in Historical Research:
I pressed him [Edward] to leave PoznaÅ and seek some peace and quiet with me in Lisbon. I am convinced that only distancing himself from PoznaÅ and Rogalin could calm his nerves and restore his health. If his wife had not thwarted this plan, then â I am sure â Edward would have carried it out because he loved me warmly and believed in my love for him.47
Athanasiusâ interpretation of the circumstances of his brotherâs death is very one-sided. Edwardâs biographers point to the complicated and varied motives for his decision to commit suicide. The conflict surrounding the Golden Chapel was a crucial factor in his decision, but certainly not the only reason for it. Serious health problems, recurring depressive moods, and a deepening sense of social alienation also had a major impact.48 In studies devoted to Edward, the role that Konstancja played at Edwardâs side is recognised as having been a positive one. According to his biographers, she was a caring, understanding, and supportive spouse.49 Similarly, Pantaleon Schuman, despite his supposedly ânotoriousâ speech against RaczyÅski, enjoyed wide recognition and great trust from his fellow citizens due to his courageous and consistent patriotic and social actions, and even contemporary historical research generally views him in a favourable light or at least reveals various nuances of his personality and activity.50
After his death, Edward almost disappears from his younger brotherâs diary â except for repeated charges levelled against his wife Konstancja. He is otherwise very rarely called to mind in Athanasiusâ diaries. The memory of Edward plays no part in Athanasiusâ current concerns. Athanasius apparently was unable to find words to express the loss he had suffered. The one exception was a complaint he expressed in the aforementioned letter to Konstancja: âMy poor, poor brother! How unhappy were the last years of his life! And yet his greatest happiness was being able to do good and being useful to others!â It was not until many years later in his book Historical Research that Athanasius finally penned an âofficialâ literary memoir of his deceased brother. In it, he repeated the accusations made earlier in his diary against envious fellow countrymen and softened his charges against Konstancja. He outlined the characteristics of Edwardâs personality and activity and briefly mentioned his close relationship with him. In its composition and poetics, this characterisation is very similar to the portrait of Prince Józef Poniatowski he had recorded in his diary almost half a century earlier. It is a composed and objective conventional panegyric. As in many other moments of strong emotional excitement in his life, Athanasius escapes to the safe embrace of form. Did Edward disappear from Athanasiusâ life during the last decades of his life? Of course not. He carried on a quiet, hidden existence in his memory but always remained very important to him. He even came to him â in a dream. âTwo dead persons appeared to me in a dream: my brother and Cadé [a close yet mysterious friend of RaczyÅskiâs in the later part of his life]. They were the only ones to whom my soul was so closely bound â¦â51
For more on this issue, see an inspiring article by Stefan Trinks, âDioskuren einer kunstvillen Wissenschaft. Die Gebrüder RaczyÅski und Humboldt im strukturellen Vergleich,â in Adam S. Labuda, MichaÅ Mencfel, Wojciech Suchocki, eds., Edward i Atanazy RaczyÅscy, 51â87.
Reiner Zuch, âNischen, Dyaden und das Geheimnis der Zwillinge. Künstlergeschwister seit Romantik und Aufklärung,â in León Krempel, ed., Künstlerbrüder von den Dürers zu den Duchamps, exh. cat. (Petersberg: Imhof, 2005), 51â95.
Reiner Zuch, âNischen, Dyaden und das Geheimnis der Zwillinge,â 52.
Immanuel Kant, Political Writings, edited by Hans Reiss, transl. by H.B. Nisbet (Cambridge: University Press, 2003), 54.
Reiner Zuch, âNischen, Dyaden und das Geheimnis der Zwillinge,â 53.
For Poles as well, both in Poland and in exile, especially after 1831, âfraternitiesâ constituted an important element of social life; see Janina Kamionka-Straszakowa, Nasz naród jak lawa. Studia z literatury i obyczaju doby romantyzmu (Warszawa: PaÅstwowy Instytut Wydawniczy, 1974), 143â148.
On the subject of nineteenth-century artistic fraternities see: Laura Morowitz, William Vaughan, eds., Artistic brotherhoods in the nineteenth century (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2000).
See Lutz Driever, âBruderbildnis und Doppelporträt. Johann Heinrich Wilhelm Tischbein: Einer den andern gemalt;â in Arnd Friedrich, Fritz Heinrich and Christine Holm, eds., Johann Heinrich Wilhelm Tischbein (1751â1829). Das Werk des Goethe-Malers zwischen Kunst, Wissenschaft und Alltagskultur (Petersberg: Imhof, 2001), 103â117, esp. 113â116; Mitchell Benjamin Frank, German Romantic Painting Redefined. Nazarene tradition and the narratives of Romanticism (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2001): 15â17.
For more on the painting see: Anna Dobrzycka, âPoznaÅscy Medyceusze;â Ewa LeszczyÅska, âDlaczego âpoznaÅscy Medyceuszeâ zatrzymali siÄ w drodze?,â in Adam S. Labuda, MichaÅ Mencfel, Wojciech Suchocki, eds., Edward i Atanazy RaczyÅscy, 89â101.
See Marceli Motty, Przechadzki po mieÅcie, vol. 1, 138â139.
From Athanasiusâ letter to Edward RaczyÅski dated 11 February 1816, reprinted in his DIARY.
Stephen P. Bank, Michael D. Kahn, The Sibling Bond (New York: Basic Books, 1997), 19. The term âaccessâ is used here. One of the key terms in Bank and Kahnâs analysis, it refers to the set of factors conducive to building emotional bonds between siblings, such as a small age difference, being of the same gender, sharing a room or even a bed, shared toys and clothes, a shared group of friends, etc.
âEven though they may share a room, friends, and adventures throughout childhood, high-access, close-in-age siblings are often at a loss to understand the ambivalent and contradictory feelings they have toward one another;â Stephen P. Bank, Michael D. Kahn, The Sibling Bond, 49.
See: MichaÅ Mencfel, âEdward i Atanazy RaczyÅscy,â in MaÅgorzata Omilanowska, ed., Obok. Polska-Niemcy, 1000 lat historii w sztuce, exh. cat. (Köln: Du Mont, 2011), 450â455.
Athanasius RaczyÅski, Geschichtliche Forschungen, 461; Edward RaczyÅski, Rogalin i jego mieszkaÅcy, 105. See also: Andrzej Wojtkowski, Edward RaczyÅski i jego dzieÅo, 56â57.
Alfred Adler, Menschenkenntnis (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1966), 138â145 (first edition 1927). Although later research considerably complicated the picture painted by Adler, pointing to several other factors affecting the formation of relations between siblings, the essential themes of his work nevertheless still seem to be valid. A very critical analysis of the state of research on the theory of consequences of birth was carried out by Cécil Ernst and Jules Angst, Birth Order: Its Influence on Personality (Berlin-New York: Springer 1983). The credibility of this theory is recognised, among others, by Frank J. Sulloway, Der Rebell in der Familie. Geschwisterrivalität, kreatives Denken und Geschichte, aus dem Amerikanischen von Klaus Binder und Bernard Leinweber (Berlin: Siedler, 1997), 73â98.
See Heinz L. Ansbacher, ed., Alfred Adlers Individualpsychologie. Eine systematische Darstellung seiner Lehre in Auszügen aus seinen Schriften (München-Basel: Reinhardt, 1995), 304â305.
Athanasiusâ letter to his daughter Wanda dated 3 March 1836; reprinted in his DIARY.
Letter from Athanasius to Edward RaczyÅski dated 15 August 1830; APP, MajÄ tek Rogalin, 78, pp. 105â108.
Letter from Athanasius to Edward RaczyÅski dated 7 February 1844; APP, MajÄ tek Rogalin, 79, pp. 419â422.
DIARY, 4 June 1811.
DIARY, 18 June 1816.
This portrait was more interesting and multidimensional than two descriptions of Edward written by Athanasius at a later date. One dated 8 June 1823 is a more extensive portrait than that recorded in his diary but is devoted mainly to his brotherâs initiatives and âeccentricities.â A second, âofficialâ memorial biography, written after his brotherâs death was published in Geschichtliche Forschungen.
DIARY, 7 March 1815.
APP, MajÄ tek Rogalin, 74â79; MNP, MNPA-1414-48; BR, PoznaÅ, ms 4223.
Letter from Athanasius to Edward RaczyÅski dated 16 April 1622; APP, MajÄ tek Rogalin, 75, pp. 94â95.
Letter from Athanasius to Edward RaczyÅski dated 3 November 1843; APP, MajÄ tek Rogalin, 79, pp. 382â385.
Letter from Edward RaczyÅski to Athanasius dated 27 July 1842; APP, MajÄ tek Rogalin, 79, p. 39.
Excitability and impatience were characteristic among Edwardâs many behaviors. He was remembered as such by Leon Dembowski: âOf average height, he had something wild in his eyes, his speech was sharp and his words pronounced rapidly [â¦] He always seemed to be short of time, fidgety, always yearning for change, he could never stay in one place, when he attended social events, he would only stay for an hour and then disappear;â PamiÄtniki Leona Dembowskiego, vol. III, BCz, Kraków, ms 3809b IV, pp. 236â237.
DIARY, 16 February 1822.
Letter from Athanasius to his wife Anna RadziwiÅÅ dated 12 June 1817; reprinted in his DIARY.
Reprint of Edward RaczyÅskiâs will in: APP, MajÄ tek Rogalin, 79, pp. 620â627.
Athanasius RaczyÅski, Geschichtliche Forschungen, 462.
The last years of Edward RaczyÅskiâs life were marked by a painful struggle to defend his reputation following public attacks by individuals in Wielkopolska, who accused him of vanity and self-interest in connection with work supporting the construction of a burial chapel dedicated to the first Piast rulers, the so-called Golden Chapel, in the PoznaÅ Cathedral. In 1833, Edward became the de facto chairman of the committee responsible for the construction of the chapel, conceived of as a national votive offering. When the amount raised from public contributions proved insufficient to complete the work, RaczyÅski used his own funds to finance it. He paid for a statue of Mieszko I and BolesÅaw Chrobry, designed by the Berlin sculptor Christian Daniel Rauch. He had an inscription etched on the statue pedestal: âEdward NaÅÄcz RaczyÅski made a donation for this chapel.â This became the subject of fierce controversy and the source for ruthless attacks against the sponsor; it was ultimately removed at his request. The bitterness of the dispute over the chapel and the unfortunate inscription was probably one of the main reasons why Edward decided to commit suicide in early 1845. The issue is discussed in detail by Zofia Ostrowska-KÄbÅowska, Dzieje Kaplicy Królów Polskich czyli ZÅotej w katedrze poznaÅskiej (PoznaÅ: Wydawnicwo PTPN, 1997), 171â188.
Letter to Edward RaczyÅski dated 20 October 1843; APP, MajÄ tek Rogalin, 79, pp. 379â381.
Letter from Athanasius to Edward RaczyÅski dated 10 April 1822; APP, MajÄ tek Rogalin, 75, pp. 88â90.
From Letter from Athanasius to Edward RaczyÅski dated 30 April 1822; APP, MajÄ tek Rogalin, 75, pp. 105â106.
Zofia Ostrowska-KÄbÅowska, Dzieje Kaplicy Królów Polskich, 58â67, 84â94.
Letter from Athanasius to Edward RaczyÅski dated 8 March 1824; APP, MajÄ tek Rogalin, 76, pp. 38â40.
Letter from Athanasius to Edward RaczyÅski dated 8 March 1830; APP, MajÄ tek Rogalin, 78, pp. 89â91.
Letter from Athanasius to Edward RaczyÅski dated 22 October(?) 1822; APP, MajÄ tek Rogalin, 75, pp. 206â211.
Letter from Edward RaczyÅski to Athanasius dated November/December 1842; APP, MajÄ tek Rogalin, 79, pp. 128â129. The monument was ultimately erected in the church in Obrzycko. RaczyÅski also donated a painting of the Last Supper by the Baroque painter Eugenio Caxés, purchased in Spain, to the church in Obrzycko.
From a letter from Edward RaczyÅski to Athanasius dated 13 August 1830; APP, MajÄ tek Rogalin, 78, pp. 109â112.
For more information on this subject, see pp. 138â139 in the present book.
DIARY, 8 June 1850.
DIARY, 7 January 1853.
Athanasius RaczyÅski, Geschichtliche Forschungen, 468â469.
Witold Molik, Edward RaczyÅski, 1786â1845 (PoznaÅ: Wojewódzka Biblioteka Publiczna, 1999), 229â238.
Andrzej Wojtkowski, Edward RaczyÅski i jego dzieÅo, 57â60; BogumiÅa Kosmanowa, Edward RaczyÅski. CzÅowiek i dzieÅo (Bydgoszcz: Wyższa SzkoÅa Pedagogiczna, 1997), 104; Witold Molik, Edward RaczyÅski, 84â85.
Andrzej Kwilecki, ZiemiaÅstwo wielkopolskie. MiÄdzy wsiÄ a miastem (PoznaÅ: Wydawnictwo PoznaÅskie, 2001), 248â254.
DIARY, 21 January 1861.