Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-m9pkr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T23:36:44.206Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Towards Partition: Polish Magnates and Russian Intervention in Poland During the Early Reign of Stanisław August Poniatowski*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Jerzy T. Lukowski
Jerzy T. Lukowski
Affiliation:
University of Birmingham
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In a report on the state of Poland in 1766 the papal nuncio, A. E. Visconti, observed that the new king, Stanisław August Poniatowski, possessed ‘a burning desire to reform the whole country in one day – if only he could – and the entire nation, in order to bring it up to the level of other, more advanced nations’. The interregnum after the death of Augustus III in October 1763 and Poniatowski's election in September 1764 had inaugurated the most determined campaign for reform within the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth since the Union of Lublin of 1569. By 1763–4 there was little that did not need to be reformed. The accumulation of privilege by the szlachta, the nobility, had attained such dimensions that both the monarchy and the Sejm, the parliament, were almost powerless to govern. The most obvious expression of the impotence of the state and of the refusal of the nobility to submit to the discipline of any centralized authority was, of course, the liberum veto, the use of which, real or threatened, had consigned the majority of the Sejmy of Augustus II (1697–1733) and of Augustus III (1733–63) to nullity. Yet the veto's successful, widespread application was only possible because of a rough equilibrium of political strength between Poland's various magnate factions.After Augustus Ill's death, Russian military backing enabled the so-called ‘Family’, the party led by Michael Czartoryski (1696–1775) and his brother, August (1697–1782), to break through the stalemate. At the Convocation Sejm of 7 May to 23 June 1764, the Czartoryskis pushed through a series of unprecedented reforms aimed at conferring on the monarchy and the Sejm a degree of real authority over the country at large.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 28 , Issue 3 , September 1985 , pp. 557 - 574
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Visconti to the Vatican's secretary of state, Cardinal L. M. Torrigiani, 24 September 1766. Vetera monumenta Poloniae et Lithuaniae gentiumque finitimarum historiam illustrantia, ed. Theiner, A. (Rome, 1864), IV pt. 2, p. 96Google Scholar.

2 Between the Coronation Sejm (1697) of Augustus II and the last Sejm of Augustus III (1762), thirty-seven Sejmy met. Only twelve enacted any legislation (under Augustus III, only the Pacification Sejm of 1736 did so). In sixteen Sejmy, the liberum veto was formally applied. The remaining nine passed no legislation, as a result of filibustering or of procedural difficulties. Konopczyński, W., Chronologia sejmów polskich 1493–1793 (Kraków, 1948), pp. 159–66Google Scholar.

3 Kisielewski, W., Reforma książąt Czartoryskich na sejmie konwokacyjnym roku 1764 (Sambor, 1880), pp. 219–302Google Scholar; Askenazy, S., Die letzte polnische Königswahl (Göttingen, 1894)Google Scholar; Michalski, J., ‘Plan Czartoryskich naprawy Rzeczypospolitej’, Kwartalnik Historyczny, LXIII, 4–5 (1956), 29–43Google Scholar. For more general accounts of the reign of Poniatowski and his reforms see Gieysztor, A. [and others], A History of Poland (Warsaw, 1979 edn), pp. 267–334Google Scholar and Hoensch, J. K., Sozialverfassung und politische Reform: Polen im vorrevolutionären Zeitelter (Cologne, 1973), pp. 286–451Google Scholar.

4 There is hardly room in this article to discuss the exact criteria of magnate status. The names that recur will be readily familiar to anyone with a knowledge of Polish history. For recent discussion on the subject see Zielińska, T., Magnateria polska epoki saskiej (Wrocław, 1977)Google Scholar; Dygdała, J., ‘Uwagi o magnaterii Prus Królewskich w XVIII stuleciu’, Zapiski Historyczne, XLIV (1979), esp. pp. 431–3, 462Google Scholar. See also Hoensch, , Sozialverfassung, pp. 98–103Google Scholar.

5 Pośpiech, A. and Tygielski, W., ‘The social role of magnates' courts in Poland from the end of the 16th up to the 18th century’, Acta Poloniae Historica, XLIII (1981), 75–100Google Scholar. The ‘mercantilism’ of magnate latifundia is one of the major themes of Kula's, W. monumental Szkice o manufakturach w Polsce XVIII wieku (2 vols. Warsaw, 1956)Google Scholar. See especially remarks in 1, 60–1, 11, 755. See also Kula's, An economic theory of the feudal system (London, 1976), pp. 140–4Google Scholar.

6 Gierowski, J. and Leszczyński, J., ‘Dyplomacja polska w dobie unii personalnej polsko-saskiej’, Polska stużba dyplomatyczna XVI–XVIII wieku, ed. Wójcik, Z. (Warsaw, 1956), pp. 394–9Google Scholar; Zarzycki, W., Dyplomacja hetmanów w dawnej Polsce (Warsaw, 1976), pp. 42–3, 53–7Google Scholar.

7 Zajączkowski, A., Główne eletmenty kultury szlacheckiej w Polsce (Wroclaw, 1961), pp. 59–82Google Scholar; idem, ‘En Pologne, 2: cadres structurels de la noblesse’, Annales ESC, XVIII (1963), 93–102.

8 Until 1765 Poland relied on the medieval practice of sporadic, ad hoc embassies, answerable to the Sejm. Zarzycki, W., Służba zagraniczna okresu stanislawowskiego (Poznań, 1971), pp. 27, 112Google Scholar.

9 Konopczyński, W., Dzieje Polski nowożytnej (London, 1959), II, 31–2Google Scholar.

10 Hatton, R. M., Charles XII of Sweden (London, 1968), p. 104Google Scholar; Feldman, J., Polska w dobie wielkiej wojny północnej (Kraków, 1925), pp. 13–14Google Scholar; idem, ‘Geneza konfedcracji tarnogrodzkiej’, Kwartalnik Historyczny, XLII (1928), 515.

11 Konopczyński, W., Polska a Szwecja, 1660–1795 (Warsaw, 1924), p. 69Google Scholar.

12 Szczygielski, W., Konfederacja barska w Wielkopolsce, 1768–1770 (Warsaw, 1970), pp. 69–70Google Scholar.

13 Zahorski, A., Centralne instytucje policyjne w Polsce w dobie rozbiorów (Warsaw, 1959), p. 227Google Scholar.

14 Feldman, , ‘Geneza’, 510–15, 523–4Google Scholar.

15 Gierowski, J., ‘Wokół mediacji w traktacie warszawskim 1716 roku’, Zeszyty naukowe Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, CCVI: Prace Historyczne, XXVI (1969), 58Google Scholar.

16 Konopczyński, , Dzieje Polski nowożytnej, II, 173Google Scholar.

17 Gierowski, J., Traktat przyjaźni Polski z Francją w 171 4r. (Warsaw, 1963), p. 28Google Scholar; Kamiński, A., Konfederacja sandomierska wobec Rosji w okresie poaltransztadzkim (Wrocław, 1969), pp. 111–13Google Scholar.

18 Text of the treaty of Warsaw, with Dolgoruki's, signature, in Volumina Legum (7 vols. St Petersburg, 1859–1860), VI, 113–37Google Scholar. For a discussion of the Russian role in 1716–17 see Gierowski, , ‘Wokół mediacji’, pp. 57–68Google Scholar.

19 Rudnicki, K., Biskup Kajetan Sołtyk, 1715–1788 (Kraków, 1906), p. 114Google Scholar; Konopczyński, , Polska a Szwecja, p. 119Google Scholar; idem, Polscy pisarze polityczni (Warsaw, 1966), p. 260.

20 Perdenia, J., Stanowisko Rzeczypospolitej szlacheckiej wobec sprawy Ukrainy na przelomie XVII–XVIIIw. (Wroclaw, 1963), pp. 176–8Google Scholar.

21 Serczyk, W. A., Koliszczyzna (Kraków, 1968), pp. 47, 109–10, 120–8Google Scholar.

22 Konopczyński, , Dzieje Polski nowożytnej, II, 31–2Google Scholar.

23 Koroluk, W. D., Polska i Rosja a wojna północna (Warsaw, 1954), p. 20Google Scholar.

24 Gierowski, , Traktat przyjaźni, p. 105Google Scholar.

25 Rostworowski, E., 0 polską koronę: polityka Francji w latach 1725–1733 (Wroclaw, 1958), p. 27Google Scholar.

26 Michalski, J., Schyłek konfederacji barskiej (Wrocław, 1970), pp. 9–10, 13, 45Google Scholar.

27 Łojek, J., Przed konstytucją Trzeciego Maja (Warsaw, 1977), pp. 29–32, 40–2, 49–56Google Scholar.

28 Consolidated Treaty Series, ed. Parry, C. (hereafter Parry) (New York, 1969), X, 181–5Google Scholar.

29 Treaty of Berlin, 1686, between Sweden and Brandenburg, ibid. XVII, 469; treaties between Russia and Prussia: treaties of St Petersburg, 1720, ibid. XXXI, 158–9, of 1726, ibid. XXXII, 327–8, treaty of Moscow, 1729, ibid. XXXIII, 251–2, treaty of Berlin, 1730, ibid. XXXIII, 286, treaties of St Petersburg, 1743, ibid. XXXVII, 99–101, of 1764, ibid. XLIII, 14, of 1769, ibid. XLIV, 349–50; between Sweden and Russia, treaty of Stockholm, 1724, ibid. XXXI, 477; between Turkey and Russia, treaty of Constantinople, 1720, ibid. XXXI, 275.

30 Secret article three of the treaty of St Petersburg between Saxony and Russia, 6 July 1733, ibid. XXXIV, 59; likewise, article two of the treaty of St Petersburg, 4 February 1744, ibid. XXXVII, 245. Augustus III made a similar commitment to Austria, article six of the treaty of Vienna, 16 July 1733, ibid. XXXIV, 79.

31 Article six of the treaty of Versailles, 18 September 1735, between France and Polish supporters of Stanisław Leszczyński, ibid. p. 281.

32 Quoted in Rostworowski, O polską koronę, p. 271Google Scholar.

33 Catherine, II to Frederick, II, StPetersburg, , 6/17 10 October 1763, Sbornik Imperatorskogo Russkogo Istoritheskogo Obshchestva (142 vols. St Petersburg, 1867–1913), XX, no. 18Google Scholar.

34 Solms, (Prussian ambassador in St Petersburg) to Frederick, II, 9 Nov. 1764, Politische Correspondenz Friedrichs des Grossen (46 vols. Berlin 1879–1939), XXIV, no. 15329Google Scholar.

35 Zarzycki, , Slużba zagraniczna, pp. 11–12, 27–9Google Scholar.

36 Radziwiłł, to d'Aloy, Jean, Dresden, , 4 March 1767, Radziwiłł, K. S., Korespondencja 1762–1730, ed. Waliszewski, K. (Kraków, 1888), no. 49Google Scholar; Radziwiłł to Repnin Dresden, 25 April 1767, ibid., no. 52.

37 Entry for 4/15 September 1767 in zhurnal general-maiora i kavalera Petra Nikiticha Krechetnikova, ed. Bodyansky, O. M. (Moscow, 1863), p. 52Google Scholar. See also Lukowski, G. [J.] T., The szlachta and the confederacy of Radom, 1764–1767/68: a study of the Polish nobility (Rome, 1977), pp. 190, 201Google Scholar.

38 Wroughton, to the earl of Sandwich, Warsaw, 5 Oct. 1763, Public Record Office, London, State Papers 88/87, fo. 293Google Scholar.

39 Master copy of the declaration officially instituting the local confederacies and the accompanying proclamation, Biblioteka Czartoryskich (hereafter B. Cz.), Kraków, IV 834, pp. 67–8, 69–70.

40 Act of Confederacy of Radom, in the protocol of the Confederacy, Archiwum Główne Akt Dawnych (hereafter AGAD), Warsaw, Metryka Litewska IX–38, pp. 1–14. There is a translation of the whole in Lukowski, , The szlachta, pp. 257–61Google Scholar.

41 From ‘Finances’, part of a series of projects presented to the Russian court on behalf of the Confederacy of Radom in September 1767, AGAD/Zbiór Anny Branickiej, 3/9, vol. I.

42 Mowa Imci Pana Pocieia…posla od skonfederowanej Rzeczypospolitej do Najyaśniejszej Imperatorowej Jej Mci Calej Rossyi /Warsaw, 1767/Google Scholar.

43 ‘Uniwersał J.O. Xcia marszałka…na sejmiki przedsejmowe…Datum w Radomiu roku 1767 miesiąca lipca 24 dnia’, AGAD/Metryka Litewska IX–36, fos. 44–5.

44 ‘Kopia listu J.W.J.Mć. Pana Jerzego Mniszcha…do województw wielkopolskich na sejmiki przedsejmowe pod konfederacją r. 1767’, AGAD/Archiwum Branickich z Suchej (hereafter Sucha), 19/28.

45 ‘List J.O. Imci Pana Branickiego…na sejmiki przedsejmowe, pisany diebus August 1767 mo anno’, ibid.

46 ‘List J.W. Podczaszego Kor. do J.O. Xcia Imci Radziwilta ze 23 tio Augusti 1767’, ibid. Czacki repeated these sentiments in his second letter, ‘List drugi tegoz J.W. Czackiego…do J.O. Xięcia Imci. Radziwiłła…die 26ta Augusti 1767 mo. Ao. z Porycka’, ibid.

47 ‘Manifest J.O. Xcia biskupa krakowskiego’, ibid. Rudnicki, Soltyk, pp. 183–4 on the registration of the manifest makes no mention of its content as regards Catherine.

48 Manifest J.W.J.P. Karola Litawora Chreptowicza…na Sejm Extraordynaryjny warszawski r. 1767, dn. 5 Oct. (Grodno, 1767). Also circulating as a manuscript, AGAD/Sucha 19/28.

49 Franciszek Rostworowski [?] to Mniszech, 11 June 1767, Biblioteka Polskiej Akadcmii Nauk w Krakowie (hereafter BPAN), 1144, fo. 43.

50 A copy of the original, master instruction issued by Repnin is in B. Cz. 841.

51 ‘Instrukcja’ enclosed with a letter from an unknown correspondent to Aleksander Sapieha, field-hetman of Lithuania, 10 August 1767, Biblioteka Narodowa, Warsaw, 3287/IV. See also the instruction from the palatinate of Mińsk to its envoys, 24 Aug. 1767, AGAD/Sucha 233/281, pp. 533–41

52 ‘List Mazura Prawdeckiego [in some versions, Prawdorzeckiego]’, AGAD/Sucha 19/28, ibid. 88/109. On this letter's popularity see Maciejewski, J., ‘Literatura barska (1767–1772)’, Przmiany tradycji barskiej (Kraków, 1972), p. 69Google Scholar.

53 Copy of the manifest of Franciszek Machczyński, registered at Lipno, 26 Sept. 1767, BPAN 953, fo. 1663.

54 Maciejewski, J., ‘Geneza i charakter ideologii Republikantów, 1767–1775’, Archiwum Historii Filozofii i Myśli Spolecznej, XVII (1971), 58–62Google Scholar.

55 See Poniatowski's speech delivered to the Convocation Sejm on 14 May 1764, quoted in Kisielewski, , Reforma, p. 243Google Scholar. Formal appreciation of Catherine's services even found its way into the Sejm's statutes, ibid. p. 284.

56 Kaplan, H., The First Partition of Poland (New York, 1962), esp. pp. 174–81Google Scholar. The formal guarantees were contained in the three separate treaties of Warsaw that Poland concluded with Austria, Russia and Prussia respectively on 18 Sept. 1773. Parry, XLV, 235–41, 245–52, 255–65.

57 Rychlikowa, I., Klucz wielkoporębski Wodzickich w drugiej polowit XVIII wieku (Wroclaw, 1960), pp. 175, 181–203Google Scholar; Glassl, H., Das österreichische Einrichtungswerk in Galizien (Wiesbaden, 1975), pp. 60, 66, 96–7, 110–11, 173–83Google Scholar.

58 For the constitutional position of Polish subjects affected by the Partitions see Grodziski, S., Obywatelstwo w szlacheckiej Rzeczypospolitej (Kraków, 1963), pp. 188–96Google Scholar. For a survey of economic relations between Poland and the three powers, see Drozdowski, M., ‘Traktaty handlowe po pierwszym rozbiorze a problem jedności gospodarczej ziem polskich’, Roczniki historyczne, XXXVII (1970), 85–110Google Scholar.

59 Rostworowski, E., Ostatni król Rzeczypospolitej (Warsaw, 1966), pp. 85–6Google Scholar.

60 Quoted in Rostworowski, , O polską koronę, p. 300Google Scholar.

61 J. Kl. Branicki to the French ambassador, the marquis de Paulmy, 26 Jan. 1762, quoted in Kisielewski, , Reforma, p. 147Google Scholar. See also Wroughton, to Sandwich, Warsaw, 14 July, 22 09 1764, Public Record Office, London, State Papers 88/88Google Scholar.

62 The phrase comes from Konarski, S.'s O skutecznym rad sposobie Bk. 1 (first published Warsaw, 1761)Google Scholar. See Konarski, S., Wybór pism politycznych, ed. Konopczyński, W. (Kraków, n.d.), p. 51Google Scholar. Konarski used the slogan as a reproach to his readers.

63 On Wessel's plan see Hoensch, J. K., ‘Znaczenie stronnictw politycznych dla reformy Rzeczypospolitej szlacheckiej przed pierwszym rozbiorem Polski’, Studia Historica Slavo-Germanica, X (1981), 44Google Scholar. For Soltyk's, see ‘Kopia listu Xcia J.M.Ci. Biskupa Krakowskiego na sejmik poselski do województwa krakowskiego z Bodzęcina 18 Aug. 1766’, BPAN, 314, fos. 41–2. Also Rudnicki, , Soltyk, p. 117Google Scholar.

64 Czacki to the wife of the starosta of Stężyca (copy), 7 April 1767, B. Cz. 3862, no. 63.

65 ‘Minuta Gravaminów projective ulozonych, w miesiącu Februar. roku 1767, kilka miesiącami przed zaczęciem Konfederacji’, BPAN, 313, fo. 3.

66 Konopczyński, W., ‘Zdziejów naszej partyjności’, Mroki Świt: studyahistoryczne (Warsaw, 1911), pp. 11–15Google Scholar.

67 Dygdala, J., Polityka Torunia wobec wladz Rzeczypospolitej w latach 1764–1772 (Warsaw, 1977), p. 196Google Scholar; Zielińska, Z., Walka ‘Familii’ 0 reformę Rzeczypospolitej, 1743–1753 (Warsaw, 1983), p. 19Google Scholar.

68 Quoted in Davies, N., God's playground: a history of Poland (Oxford, 1981), II, 30Google Scholar.