In this paper, I aim to examine the significance and position of Francysk Skaryna within the historical narratives of three EU countries, namely Lithuania, the Czech Republic, and Poland, and attempt to compare this with the place Skaryna occupies in the narrative of contemporary Belarus. These three countries were not chosen at random. They are the EU countries  most actively engaged with the topic, and their cultures are those to which Skaryna has a direct connection. While the name of Skaryna resonates to some extent in Italy, Latvia, Germany, as well as France, it is specifically in Lithuania, the Czech Republic, and Poland that academic research dedicated to him exists, and where views on his role in history have been, in one way or another, formulated. Furthermore, I will outline potential goals for Skaryna studies at this stage, the realization of which would help promote the interests of Belarusian humanities within the European Union.

A historiographical note, some aspects of Skaryna’s role for Lithuania, the Czech Republic and Belarus were examined in the catalogue of the Lithuanian exhibition dedicated to the 500th anniversary of the beginning of Skaryna’s publishing activity.[2]

Czechia

Czech scholarship was, in fact, the first in human history to turn its attention to Skaryna. Since the time of Josef Dobrovský, local Slavists and historians have studied him with constant interest. Nevertheless, after more than 200 years of research, Skaryna remains merely a brief episode in Czech history. No monographs covering the phenomenon of Skaryna have ever been published in the Czech Republic.

In their concern for their cultural heritage, Belarusians attempted to bring Skaryna back into the Czech consciousness during the 1990s. As a result of these efforts, a monument to Skaryna was unveiled in Prague, and a commemorative plaque was placed on the National Library of the Czech Republic. More recently, in 2023, through the efforts and funding of the Lithuanian Embassy, a memorial marker was installed at the site of Skaryna’s printing house.

At the same time, the Czech public at large remains largely unaware of who Francysk Skaryna is. He is not included in the Czech national pantheon; consequently, he is known only to those deeply immersed in the context of Czech history. It is worth noting that Skaryna does appear in the pages of the most comprehensive historical study of Czech history, ‘The Grand History of the Lands of the Bohemian Crown’.[3] The author of the volume dedicated to the 16th century writes that Skaryna’s Bible printing project was a failure. Such narratives may stem from limited engagement with more recent scholarship and differing readings of historical evidence. However, one cannot overlook the contributions of Czech bibliology. For instance, Petr Voit played a significant role in identifying the masters who created the illustrations (engravings) for Skaryna’s editions.[4] At the same time, studying Skaryna may be significant for Czechs. A thorough analysis of the Skaryna phenomenon reveals the international significance of Prague at the end of the Jagiellonian era.

Poland

Even though since Poland was historically linked to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Skaryna is not included in the general narrative and history of the country. Three modern-day Polish cities are connected to Skaryna: Kraków (where he studied), Poznań (where he was imprisoned for debt), and Wrocław (where he spent time interacting with local intellectuals and publishers).

However, interest in Skaryna in Poland is confined almost exclusively to Orthodox circles. Research published in recent years concerning Skaryna in Poland has been authored by Professor Aleksander Naumow.[5] This lack of broader interest is explained by the fact that Skaryna played no significant role in Polish culture. Nevertheless, a commemorative plaque dedicated to Skaryna has been installed at Jagiellonian University in Kraków.

In Poland, there was a tradition of studying Skaryna’s legacy and several of his publications are kept here. For Poles, Skaryna can and should be interesting as a European phenomenon. It is precisely by explaining and proving his role in the development of European printing that this name can be returned  to the Polish historical narrative.

Lithuania

Skaryna holds the most significant place in historical narratives within the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.  Now he is part of the national pantheon in Lithuania. Although Martynas Mažvydas’s Catechism is traditionally considered the first Lithuanian book, Skaryna’s publications are recognized as the first paleotypes of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Consequently, Lithuania regularly organizes academic conferences and maintains an active interest in Skaryna’s legacy. There is interest in Skaryna in Lithuania, and a number of researchers are devoting their work to the broad spectrum of Skaryna’s legacy.

Since 2020, Lithuania has become the center of Skaryna studies, hosting international conferences and allocating state funds for the publication of scholarly literature on Skaryna.[6]

While Skaryna is largely absent from the national pantheons of both the Czech Republic and Poland, the nature of this exclusion differs. In Poland, his role remains peripheral and does not form a part of the overarching historical narrative. Conversely, in Lithuania, Skaryna occupies a place of distinction and is formally integrated into the national pantheon, albeit with certain historiographical reservations regarding his role within the broader context of the Lithuanian state’s development.

Belarus

Now it is necessary to analyze the perception of Skaryna in the historical literature of Belarus itself, his homeland. Francysk Skaryna undoubtedly holds the top position on the Belarusian cultural map. Starting from the early Soviet period, a cult of Skaryna was cultivated, which resulted in a vast number of toponyms being associated with his name; it seems that only cities have not been named after the first publisher.

Despite this profound popularity among the public, it must be noted that Skaryna remains an understudied figure. This is due to the prevailing opinion that Skaryna is, on the contrary, an exhausted topic and that nothing fundamentally new can be found. It is regrettable to state that this current state of affairs contributes to the stagnation of Belarusian Skaryna studies.

The last comprehensive monograph on Skaryna was published in 1993.[7] Since then, views on Skaryna in Belarusian society have been primarily shaped by two authors: Heorhi Halenchanka and Yevgeny Nemirovsky. No attempt to re-evaluate Skaryna’s position or his legacy has ever been undertaken, and Skaryna studies as a discipline lives from one anniversary to the next (one might recall the large-scale 2017 jubilee).

Conclusion

In summary, the comparative analysis of Francysk Skaryna’s position within the historical narratives of Poland, Lithuania, and the Czech Republic, when contrasted with the Belarusian perspective, reveals a complex spectrum of mnemonic practices and historiographical integration. At one pole of this spectrum stands Belarus, where Skaryna occupies the status of a foundational national hero. While this has ensured his cultural ubiquity, the pervasive “cult of Skaryna” has, paradoxically, rendered the subject static, often hindering critical re-evaluations and trapping the historical narrative within a rigid, celebratory framework that complicates a more nuanced, empirical assessment of his life and work. At the other pole lies Poland, where Skaryna remains largely peripheral, absent from the broader national historical consciousness and relegated to the niche field of specialized Orthodox historiography.

The positions of Lithuania and the Czech Republic occupy the median ground. In Lithuania, Skaryna is integrated into the national pantheon, though his presence is occasionally mediated by the complexities of Baltic historiography and the prioritization of domestic precursors, such as Martynas Mažvydas. In the Czech Republic, Skaryna is recognized as an historical agent, yet he remains confined to the margins of Bohemian national history—often treated as a minor historical curiosity rather than a figure deserving of a prominent place on the intellectual pedestal of the Renaissance.

The implications of this analysis for contemporary Belarusian historiography are significant. There is a palpable interest in Skaryna’s legacy across Europe. However, Belarusian scholarship currently lacks a comprehensive, modern, and synthesized narrative that could be effectively communicated to the international academic community. The absence of such a high-quality “flagship” publication has allowed outdated historiographical misconceptions to persist. It is embodied in continuous inaccuracies in foreign scholarship.

Ultimately, the current relocation of the Belarusian academic community creates new opportunities for revisiting Skaryna’s image and legacy. Greater distance from state-sanctioned interpretations opens space for critical and interdisciplinary approaches that have received less attention within Belarusian scholarship. For scholars in exile, this reassessment is not only a historiographical task but also an opportunity to integrate Belarusian humanities more closely into broader European scholarly discussions. In this sense, Skaryna studies may become one of the areas through which Belarusian scholarship strengthens its international visibility and academic cooperation.

About this publication

This analytical paper was prepared within the project Belarusian Historical Scholarship in Exile: Current State and Challenges, implemented with the financial support of the EU4Belarus: Support to Advanced Learning and Training (SALT II) programme, funded by the European Union.

The paper forms part of a series of analytical publications examining the current state, key challenges and future perspectives of Belarusian historical scholarship in exile. While informed by discussions held during a closed expert seminar, it reflects the analysis and conclusions of the author(s).

The views and opinions expressed in this publication are solely those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the European Union, the EU4Belarus: Support to Advanced Learning and Training (SALT II) programme, the International Centre for Ethnic and Linguistic Diversity Studies (ICELDS), or the Belarusian Institute in Prague.