The critique of Dzieje narodu litewskiego (The History of the Lithuanian Nation 1–9, Vilnius, 1835–1841, [DNL]) had always made Teodor vel Teodor Mateusz Narbutt (vel Ostyk-Narbutt, 1784–1864) argue that he was not a layman nor a wilful forger. His own approach to defending himself against the attack was unique: he prepared a second edition of DNL and the so-called New Mythology – Mytologija Litewska ze sczegółami do wiary, obyczajów i oświaty przedchrześciańskiej Narodu litewskiego odnoszącemi się (Lithuanian Mythology with Details about the Belief, Customs, and pre-Christianity Education of the Lithuanian Enlightenment, 1848), intended to publish the collection of sources of Lithuanian history kept at his manor in Szawry (Lith. Šiauriai; Grodno Governorate, as of 1843 Vilnius Governorate, Lida Region), and finally, as proof of his honest work, pieced together his scientific correspondence – the letters from scholars, old collectors, and other citizens that cared for Lithuania’s past. Today, this collection that Narbutt made himself – Korrespondencya Uczona (Scientific Correspondence [KU]) is kept at the Manuscript Department of the Wroblewski Library of the Lithuanian Academy of Science (LMAVB: f. 18 [Manuscript collection B4 ], b. 185/2–185/16, 25r–791v). Narbutt’s peculiar method of defence bore an ad te ipsum character; however yet, due to historic circumstances (the sequestration of the Szawry manor, the seizure of the library and its transfer to the public library of Vilnius), originally designed as a tool of self-reflection, the collection became accessible to the public. And researchers dug into letters addressed to Narbutt with much gusto indeed. Nonetheless, the real attention grabbers were the celebrity names in this collection. Hence, just like the printed work of this historian, his handwritten legacy (in this case, correspondence), too, would often merit a fragmented read, which was largely due to its tremendous volume. For instance, DNL has 5,220 pages, KU 766 archival pages – a total of 1,532 pages recto and verso. In other words, letters to Narbutt were never approached in corpore, as an intentionally built collection with an incredibly bright idea and purpose. The idea that the appearance of this epistolary compendium had been inspired by autograph-hunting, a hot trend at the time, should be disregarded straight away, because not every one of Narbutt’s correspondents was a celebrity. With a few exceptions, their overarching trait was intellectual work and love of Lithuanian antiques. The goal of the article was to approach the collection of letters to Narbutt as a whole, as a means of self-reflection a unique weapon of defence. Narbutt’s epistolary collection had never been dissected from any of these angles. The research has showed that today, KU consists of 386 letters. It is correspondence in Polish, German, Russian, and French (in the order of appearance) written in 1808–1858 (4 letters are not dated). Of the authors of the letters, 68 are men, 3 are women. The social picture of KU is very colourful: from gymnasium students to civil governors, from clergy to members of governorate statistical committees. Still, most of Narbutt’s correspondents were historians, archivists, and litterateurs. Some of the authors were litterateurs just as they were landlords; historians, as they were government officials; clergymen, as they were collectors. This motley crew had one thing in common: they all had read DNL. Cataclysmic political developments have prevented us from having KU in its final form. Not all the letters Narbutt himself had included in his collection have survived to this day. However, regardless of how incomplete KU today is, it features the names of nearly every scholar of Lithuania’s history or lover of Lithuanian antiques of the period nonetheless. The underlying theme of KU is Lithuania’s history, search for and dissemination of historic sources. The letters wax lyrical about DNL, while criticism is very subdued, if any. The collection reveals Narbutt as a prominent authority figure, a person that had rocked both the scientific world of the history of Lithuania and the public in general. KU had a high psychological value for Narbutt as well. DNL’s critique in the press was a source of daily stress, and the letters from Narbutt’s correspondents pointed to quite the opposite – approval of his research and DNL’s dissemination amidst the society. That was probably the reason why Narbutt fostered this collection so much. His ongoing concern was evident in his handmade folders for the letters, and even more so in his own notes. The books in his library were the only other thing that he would approach in a similar manner. 20th century historians have come to consider KU as a weighty piece of evidence of Narbutt as an honest researcher. However, what matters so much more is not the case of the so-called case of historic (non-)falsification, but the perception of KU as a whole. Most of the letters were written after the closure of the Imperial University of Vilnius. There was no official Vilnius school of history any more, but the historic thought had survived. It would present itself through search for and dissemination of sources of Lithuanian history, through historic tracts and reviews (anonymous as often as not). It would become evident on yet another level: in letters, hence private media that served as a forum for curious scientific seminars and epistolary dialogue on the subject of the history of Lithuania. It was through no accident that, instead of opting for just Correspondence, Narbutt titled his collection Scientific Correspondence. It stands to represent Szawry in its own peculiar way as well. The provincial manor became an intellectual centre – something that would have been impossible but for DNL, with all the mistakes that were (not) made in the tract. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]