It has been generally accepted that the disastrous consequences of the January Rising of 1861 were the main factor in shaping the historical thought of Józef Szujski (1835-1883), the leading light of Stańczycy, a group of conservative Cracow intellectuals, and the first Professor of Polish History at the Jagellonian University. Critics point out the pivotal role of the analysis of the internal causes of the partitions in his overall conception of Poland’s history and the remorseless with which he castigates Polish national vices (especially a leaning towards anarchy) and their stubborn persistence. It is argued further that his sober, critical appraisals stand in marked contrast to his earlier beliefs. In his youth he allegedly favoured an apologetic (romantic) view of Polish history and was not averse to democracy. In fact, Szujski did not wait for the fall of the January Rising of 1861 to make a break with the prevailing idolatry of the Poland’s past. In his drama Samuel Zborowski, published in 1857, he attacked the pastoral view of Polish history and questioned its very foundation, the belief that historical events constitute a continuous and uninterrupted unfolding of a primeval national principle. By stressing the role of external intervening factors, Szujski paved the way for a dialectical vision of Polish history, bom out of struggles between tradition and change, indigenous values and cultural imports. He saw the history of Poland as a conflict between a social order based on spontaneous manifestations of the public will which suffers no restraint from the letter of the law (because the manifest will of the people is treated as a revelation of the tutelary national spirit) and a society subject to a system of laws executed by a strong sovereign authority. His own preferences were absolutely clear: he came down firmly on the side of the ’foreign’ idea of the Rechtsstaat. There can be no doubt that Szujski’s radically antiromantic stance opened a new phase in the debates about Poland’s past. Szujski called for a sober, rational reassessment of the actions of the Poles in the past and a critical examination of the national heritage. Only good traditions should be singled out for cultivation. He was opposed both to the sacralisation of tradition by the epigones of romanticism and to their escapist treatment of history. Szujski’s articles written in the early 1860s contain in mice the main programmatic points of the Stańczycy. He condemned the Poles’ fondness for factionalism and intrigues, a feature he traced back to the anarchic democracy of the nobles, and their cavalier spirit, always ready for a fray, but impatient lo take stock of the consequences of a rash undertaking. Poland needed evolutionary change, systematic grassrool work, and social solidarity. He agreed that the country’s future lay with the people, but opposed the idea of a radical transition to democracy. The advancement of the lower classes should take place within the traditional paternalistic structures, he insisted. Like many of his contemporaries, Szujski gave in to the tide of romantic enthusiasm which preceded the insurrection of 1861. As he grew confident of its success, the lesson of prudence were thrown to the winds. He put aside a great many articles of his critical creed and let the old romantic apologetic dominate the first two volumes of his History of Poland. However, it was not long before events brought him back on course.