8

Political and Social Literature during the Four-Year Diet

Anna Grześkowiak-Krwawicz

Political literature played a distinctive role in the political life of the Polish Republlc throughout itt entire exissencc. It accompanied all the most important events such as wars,confederations and elections. In journals and pamphlet currest evems were commented upon, the goals and actions of friendly political groups were promoted, while those of political adversaries were attacked. Apart from these, but much more rarely, larger treatises would appear, which commented on the poltttcal system as such, its advantages, or, especially in the second half of the eighteenth century, its flaws and the necessity to correct them.

Political literature not only permanently msecred itself into Polish political practice but it also arose from it. With obligatory unanimity in the Diet and in dietinps, all decisions were the result of compromise, often achieved after laborious and stormy negotiations among the interested parties. tn such a situation, the art of convincingly representing a position was important and necessary. Therefore, elocution was regarded as one of the main skills to be mastered by the citizens of the Republic. Persuasion of fellow cttizecs was conducted not only in oral debate but also in print. Freedom of expression in Poland was conducive to this. The nobility regarded freedom of expression as one of the pillars of Polish liberty. tn practice, there were no forbidden topics whose mention could have mvired repression. This prtnctplp applied not only to the spoken but also to the printed word in the eighteenth century, in particularly to the second half; as late as the 1760s and even during the early years of Stanisław August’s reign, a large part of the polemics on current political matters were conducted with the help of handwritten works circulated hand to hand and diligently copied into nobles’ annals and diaries.¹ Foremost among the printed works which appeared at that time were political treatises on general topics. With a growing interest in the printed word and an expanding number of publishers, authors began to appreciate the possibilities of extending their circle of readers through print. As a result, during the Four-Year Diet most of the political literature and all the more ambitious propaganda treatises appeared in print. To be sure, so-called “written gazettes” continued to circulate in the country providing information and rumors about the most interesting events. In addition, the sharpest political lampoons aimed at specific individuals and short satirical verses also circulated in manuscript form, but, in comparison to printed works, their importance was rather insignificant.² Poland was free from censorship and complete freedom of the printed word reigned. Debates on political topics could be published with complete liberty as attested to by the pronouncement of authors of widely differing viewpoints ranging from the ultraconservative defenders of the old system who suggested in no uncertain terms that Stanisław August was aiming at despotism to those fewer in number, but no less fervent, advocates of strengthened royal powers. As stated by Bogusfaw Leśnodorski, in Europe only England and Holland equaled the liberty of discussion and intellectual freedom which existed in Poland.³

In such a favorable environment and amidst a political enlivening that was intense even for Poland, the political literature of the Four-Year Diet represented to a .great degree the crowning of a long tradition. Its role in those years is best described by Roman Pilat, the researcher who was the first to deal with this phenomenon, when he writes that: “it created almost a second diet alongside the real one.”⁴

This assessment applies not only to the importance of the publicistic discussion but also to the background of its participants. Just as the Diet was noble, it can be said, allowing for some simplification, that political literature was created by the nobility for the nobility.⁵ This was completely natural in Polish circumstances since it was the nobility that held power in the state and felt responsible for its politics. Other estates, and actually one can only speak here of the townspeople, were only seeking political (and also civil) rights and hence were less interested in the process of national politics, which they did not influence. Moreover, even writers of bourgeois extraction, the most famous of whom was Staszic, realized that their audience consisted primarily of nobles, and this left a mark on the way they presented their arguments. Writers from the middle and lower nobility predominated. All were educated and at times their education had been quite complete. Some of them were still the typical “dietine (and diet) political writers” who practiced their printed polemics on the margins of their political activities in the Diet, the dietines, the tribunals, or in the quiet of country life. Increasingly, however, there appeared those authors who mixed their writing with other forms of public activity, especially priests, educators in the schools of the Commission for National Education, newspaper publishers and the still rare authors who made a living from their writing. The educated often knew Europe and western political theory quite well. Regardless of their education and their positions, however, they remained first and foremost exponents of noble views, and it was to the nobility that they addressed their writings.

The boundaries of the literature of the Four-Year Diet or of political literature in general are difficult to draw. During this period even basic administrative publications, such as the Diet Marshal’s announcements informing those at home of the proceedings of the Diet, were of a political nature. They attempted to convince the nobles of the correctness of decisions taken by the deputies rather than to simply present basic facts. Even the laws themselves were not free of publicistic elements. Foremost among these was the most famous, the Constitution of 3 May, which in its provisions contained not only concrete systemic solutions but also explanations for the need to apply them and even general considerations concerning the social role of the different social classes and the origin of sovereignty in the state.⁶ Since not even the Government Statute, as the Constitution of 3 May was called, was devoid of publicistic elements, it is not surprising that practically all forms of literature took on political overtones. Not only political writings but also drama and poetry dealt with the most important problems connected with reform of the Republic. Political concepts were popularized from the stage,⁷ and poetry described current events and their protagonists and provided commentaries on parliamentary debates. One extensive political treatise even presented its reform program in rather decent verse.⁸ The expression of political views was not even avoided in scholarly works or textbooks (especially on law and history) and hence in works which would appear by their very nature to be neutral and objective.

A full study of such a varied and immense body of literature is not possible here and discussion is limited to political writing in its most typical form, the principal goal of which was to present the reader with a system of views and to convince him of its value. Even with such a narrowing of focus the volume of material is impressive. Without a more thorough bibliographical investigation an estimate of the number of works in this category is difficult, but it is clear that it reaches into the thousands. The flood of printed material was so great that it attracted the attention of contemporaries, one of whom jibed that all the expended quills could provide a mattress for exhausted authors.⁹ The variety was no less great.

This material included both the carefully published treatise with wider political ambitions and the one page leaflet, often simply a scrap of printed paper. Often authors used the latter form to publish parliamentary speeches. As mentioned, speech making in the Diet and dietines had a long tradition in Poland and once the importance of the printed word was appreciated it became yet another characteristic form of political expression in Polish political life. The leaflets also represented the most current commentaries on questions discussed by the Diet since they were published almost simultaneously with the parliamentary debates or even earlier when the author had the foresight to send it to the printers. The publication of whole collections of speeches-this time at the publisher’s expense-attest to the wide interest in these writings. The largest series was printed in Wilno between 1788 and 1790 and consisted of twelve volumes.¹⁰

The most typical form of political literature fitting into the above-mentioned limits were rather short pamphlets, usually several pages to several dozen pages in length but seldom more than a hundred. Such works assumed various forms, such as a letter written by a citizen in the provinces to a deputy in Warsaw or a letter from a deputy to a friend in the countryside. Sometimes letters were addressed to famous political figures, the best example of which are the Listy Anonima (Anonymous letters) to Marshal Małachowski by Kołłątaj. They could also be the fictitious correspondence between a father and his deputy son or a discussion of the most fundamental problems of the Republic by two individuals living in the distant provinces. Even those in the world beyond were interested in the Polish government as can be seen from Dwóch nieboszczyków... (Two dead men...)¹¹ and several other works representing dialogues by the deceased. Apart from these fictional dialogues, letters or even wills, there began to appear works which directly addressed the reader from Warsaw or from the provincial outskirts; and these formed the majority. Glosy (Speeches), Uwagi (Considerations), and Mysli (Thoughts), as they were eagerly entided, were most often printed in Warsaw but also appeared in Wilno, Cracow and other towns scattered throughout the country.

Although the social status of authors can easily be determined, the identification of specific surnames presents great difficulties since one intentional characteristic of these publicist works was their anonymity. Most titles of this kind were published without the author’s name and often without the place of publication or the date. This applies not only to brief leaflets on current events which as a rule appeared without a name (parliamentary speeches being the exception), but also to serious treatises by authors such as Staszic and Kołłątaj. Such a state of affairs was not limited to Poland, but its causes were not always the same as in absolute monarchies. Seldom in Poland was fear of reprisal for overly bold pronouncements the motivating factor for anonymity since no one was threatened by such consequences. Authors who hid their identities were guided by other considerations. Sometimes an author with a known name did not want to influence the assessment of his work by virtue of his fame. One of the anonymous authors in the years preceding the Four-Year Diet stated that his work “was sent without my name, with no other intention than that, freed from prejudice, your mind would consider the work itself and not its author.”¹² Often the concealment of a name had another purpose. Given the distrust of the capital, those who usually wrote in Warsaw presented themselves as a “citizen of the province” or a “nobleman from the land.” False places of publication sometimes were used to confirm this fiction, suggesting that the work was printed in some distant place in the provinces. Magnates also masked as petty nobles amidst the surge of anti-magnate sentiment. In one of his works, Seweryn Rzewuski presented himself as a citizen of the Podlasie voivodeship.¹³ Anonymity could also have another purpose: an author would issue several or maybe even dozens of works under various names to create the impression that his position was supported by many different individuals. Most typical of this kind of political writing is again Seweryn Rzewuski, who issued over twenty works attacking the concept of a hereditary monarchy, though he signed only six of them.¹⁴ Others did the same but on a smaller scale. Ignacy Potocki, one of the joint authors of the Constitution of 3 May, published several brochures defending the new law.

Begun by contemporaries, attempts to identify authors have only been partially successful. Generally the authors of longer works are known, though some are still disputed. The best example of this is the nearly century-old discussion over the authorship of MyŚli poliryczne (Political thoughts), a treatise of undoubted quality published in 1789 and one of the few advocating a monarchist program.¹⁵ Unidentified remain many authors who produced brief brochures, grasping the pen to add their voices to debates on a matter dear to them, and never to be heard of again.

These political works were actually the only commentaries produced on current events. In comparison to the veritable flood of these publications, discussions about political matters in the regular press was paltry. During the years 1788-1792 there was only one Polish language periodical on political matters: Pamiętnik Historyczno-Polityczny, edited from 1782 by Piotr äwitkowski. It was joined after the convening of the Diet by Journal Hebdomadaire de la Diète, published in French by Jan Potocki. Both contained lengthy political analyses and commentaries that were omitted by the press. This situation changed in 1791 with the appearance of the newspaper Gazeta Narodowa i Obca, edited by parliamentary activists (I. Potocki, J.U. Niemcewicz and J. Mostowski), which clearly held the political line of the founders and defenders of the Constitution of 3 May.

Journalistic style, its language and manner of presenting a variety of topics, was on a rather high level. As a rule longer works were better since they were usually written by persons who could present their views in a calm and measured manner, often in refined language. This was the specific goal of Kołłątaj, whose works were characterized by clarity of argument and language. This was also true for the books published by the principal opponent of reform and defender of “golden freedom,” Hetman Seweryn Rzewuski. There were, it is true, exceptions. The treatises by Leonard Olizar, a provincial politician who opposed all reforms, were so muddled and thick that the reader probably had to put more effort into reading them than the author did writing them.¹⁶ But such works were already an anachronism in which probably only a few were interested. Shorter works were more varied than were longer treatises. Among them were very weak, obscure and stylistically inferior works as well as truly excellent pieces from the literary point of view. In the first group one can point to the inconsistent and unclear writings full of exaggerated republican phraseology by the young defender of royal elections and republican freedom, Wojciech Turski,¹⁷ or those of a leading opponent of the Constitution of 3 May, Jan Suchorzewski.¹⁸ In the other category were Rozwazania o wolnośći (Reflections on freedom) by Jan Potocki,¹⁹ the future author of the most famous Polish novel of the period, Rękopis znaleziony w Saragossie (Manuscript found at Saragossa), and the venomously ironic and irrefutably logical writings of Franciszek Salezy Jezierski.²⁰ The majority of authors usually presented their positions fairly clearly but there are lacunae in their arguments or a complete lack of a substantive argument as when, in the heat of the discussion, the writer concentrated on criticizing his opponents. Much space was devoted to this kind of criticism since the writings that appeared during the Four-Year Diet were usually polemical in nature. This was a period of intensified political conflict over governmental models for the state. This fact accounts for the vehemence of public debates which, it should be added, reflected the tone of statements made in the Diet. Criticism of an opponent’s position always accompanied the presentation of the writer’s own point of view, and this applied even to fundamentally programmatic works such as those by Staszic and Kołłątaj, to name only the most prominent. Greater distance or objectivity can be detected in the more subdued considerations of political and systemic problems in the years leading up to the Four-Year Diet. But no matter how much the author may have been politically involved, and sometimes this partisanship was intense, the works from 1788-92 as a rule aimed at a broader analysis of the Polish system and at prescribing a formula for its correction. This characteristic distinguished it from earlier literature. At moments of intense political struggle, political literature was dominated by works referring to current events and persons, and often exhibited qualities of a lampoon. If mention was made of legal systemic matters, it was in a most general manner, using universally known slogans. Such were the writings of the Bar Confederation in the not too distant past (1768-1772). In less than twenty years political writing not only joined the batde over the shape of the Republic, but it occupied a prominent place. Sometimes the level of political culture of the authors was surprisingly high, as when they freely moved through intricate systemic problems or, when writing about specific matters, they were able to connect them to the overall situation in Poland, or they delved into theoretical considerations. They readily backed their arguments by using examples from Polish history as well as those from foreign countries. Moreover, as Władysław Konopczyński observed, this was a literature so colorful that it is difficult to compare it with anything else in Europe.²¹ But the difference was not limited to its colorfulness. Though the main topic of interest was, as in the West, the state, this subject was treated in a completely different manner. In Western Europe, especially France, political literature had a theoretical quality, operating on the level of abstract models, and generalizations had only distant objectives. Polish authors, on the contrary, thought in more practical terms about their state. Considerations of ideal systems and broad theories of state were rare in Polish political writings. Two factors are crucial here. The first is the circumstances in which Poland found itself. The dramatic events of the early 1770s, the governmental crisis caused by the partition, and a heightened sense of danger were not conducive to abstract theory. As participants in the debate about saving the Republic, writers on the period of the Four-Year Diet had as their goal specific, and not theoretical, considerations. In Western Europe, political literature was produced by people who did not have direct influence upon the government—the exception being England²² --and hence they had no reason to expect that their work would have an effect on the system except, perhaps, in the distant future. Their main goal was to show society that other, better systems were possible. In Poland, the nobility, which produced most of the writers, felt a sense of responsibility for the state, though at times this took the rather odd form of defending the “golden freedom” in its most anarchistic aspect. They had a deep conviction that both the form of government and politics in Poland depended on their will.²³ Publicists wrote with a clear awareness of their political role and an expectation that their writings would have an effect on the government. It was their conscious civic duty to be involved. At the same time the absence of forbidden topics obviated any need for allegory or camouflage. Consequendy there are few descriptions of imaginary systems or governments so removed that they could easily be molded at will by the author. Concrete problems in the Polish government which demanded immediate solutions were discussed, not issues in the distant future. This applied not only to leaflets but also to serious treatises containing full reform programs; alongside theoretical considerations there were always particular solutions which their authors thought could be implemented without delay. This sense of responsibility for the state also caused some authors to develop, along with very specific matters, comprehensive visions of what they deemed to be necessary changes in the Polish government.

The form of government was the primary subject of political discussions. This included above all the question of governmental authority, its relationship to the nation, understood either as the nobility or, as was increasingly the case, all the citizens, and the organization of and relations between legislative and executive powers. However, all topics which either were raised in parliamentary debates or interested the wider public, were included in political discussions. Be it foreign policy or the alliance with Prussia, the organization of parliamentary courts, taxes or the prosecution of the traitor Poniński, the army, education, the role of the clergy, freedom of the press or paper money, there was always one author or more often several authors who had an opinion to voice. To create order in this apparent chaos, several great debates may be isolated from this flood of print. This is possible because even though public debate continued throughout the Four-Year Diet, its intensity and subject matter changed. The first great polemical battle began before the opening of the Diet and was continued during its first months. The work that began this discussion was undoubtedly Uwagi nad zyciem Jana Zamoyskiego (Remarks on the life of Jan Zamoyski) published by Staszic in March 1787.²⁴ This preparatory period lasted until the end of 1788. Titles of leaflets suggest the most important questions at that time: “What needs to be passed by this Diet?”²⁵ “What will happen to us?” “What should be our first concern?”²⁶ An awareness of the growing external danger and of the importance of decisions to be taken by the upcoming Diet as well as the conviction that change was necessary in the structure of government were all very strongly evident. Authors attempted to present comprehensive reform programs.²⁷ The two outstanding political treatises of the Four-Year Diet, and the most extensive, Staszic’s Uwagi and Kołłątaj’s Listy Anonima, arose from a concern for the continued existence of the Republic.²⁸ Both writers provided critical analyses of the existing situation and attempted to present the most comprehensive vision possible for political and social reforms. Their goals converged despite great differences of form and certain differences in their programs. They postulated the creation of an efficient governmental apparatus primarily through reform of the Diet and the local dietines: elimination of the liberum veto, extension of terms, a “standing Diet” or even a continuous Diet. In addition, they offered suggestions for the improvement of the executive branch which, still in the good Polish tradition, would remain answerable to the legislature, and they argued for the introduction of a hereditary monarchy, though Staszic did this contrary to his own convictions. These were clearly republican programs despite this last provision. According to both authors, even a hereditary monarch would be deprived of real power; at the most he would supervise the executive bodies (“oversee authority” according to Kołłątaj). A crucial point in both programs was the enfranchisement of townspeople and their admission to the Diet. In Staszic’s view they would join the nobility in the same chamber; for Kołłątaj, townspeople would form a separate chamber, “the Commons” following the English model. This would help to replace the nation of noblemen with a unitary “nation’ of property owners.” In time even peasants would be admitted, though initial discussion only discussed granting them personal freedom.

This, of course, is an oversimplification of the two programs, which covered the spheres of political, social and, to some extent, economic life in the Republic. The variety of issues treated in these works is shown by the number of polemics they evoked. This is particularly evident in the series of articles prompted by Staszic’s Uwagi. Apart from works discussing major questions, such as the form of the government, reform of the Diet or succession, they also agreed or disagreed with Staszic on matters such as education, the army, taxes, role of the clergy, etc. Directly or indirectly, this single book spawned over twenty substantive works or leaflets, which were sometimes issued in collected volumes by publishers.²⁹

Though quite lively, discussions prior to the convening of the Diet did not equal either in extent or ferocity the dogged publicistic battles during the Four-Year Diet concerning succession. This debate raged from the end of 1789 through 1790, though the topic remained current throughout the entire Diet. The choice between a hereditary and an elected monarchy became the subject of fierce political battles within and outside of the Diet.³⁰ The heated discussion in Warsaw enveloped the provincial nobility, which according to a decision taken by the Diet in early fall, 1790 was to be asked about their opinion on this matter. This did not occur, however. The local dietines in November only voiced their opinions on the issue of the candidacy of the Elector of Saxony for the Polish throne, but by this time the entire nobility was interested in the matter. The ferocity of the over one hundred published polemics, unusual even for those politicized times, is understandable since in essence this debate touched on matters fundamental to noble writers and their readers: Polish freedom. Defenders of the election regarded the selection of the king by the citizenry as one of the fundamental rights guaranteeing a free political system in the Republic, which they continued to identify with the nobility. Relinquishment of this right, in their opinion, would necessarily cause the Republic to be replaced by a monarchy, which they identified with despotism and bondage. Spokesmen favoring a hereditary monarchy understood freedom more as the right of the nation to choose its own direction, and in their opinion a hereditary throne accepted by the nation would not compromise this freedom, especially since the king would not have much power. Such a step might even help to safeguard freedom by avoiding stormy interregna, by providing for a continuity of government, and by improving Poland’s position in monarchical Europe. Works published at this time often supplemented a discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of both systems with a presentation of broader reform programs deemed necessary for the government. Once again the two greatest authors, Staszic and Kołłątaj, joined the debate.³¹ Adam Wawrzyniec Rzewuski backed the concept of republican reform together with the preservation of the practice of “free election.”³² The most radical republicans even proposed the abolition of the monarchy.³³ Almost every author who reached for a pen felt the need to comment on this issue. The loudest controversy, however, was caused by the demagogic, though expertly edited, work by Hetman Seweryn Rzewuski, O sukcesyi tronu w Polszcze rzecz krórka (A short essay on the succession to the throne in Poland).³⁴ Kołłątaj, Franciszek Salezy Jezierski, the old Bishop Adam Krasmski and many others issued replies. These were in turn challenged by adherents of Rzewuski and by Rzewuski himself, which evoked still new replies; in this way a whole series of polemics developed with escalating ferocity which finally led to personal attacks.³⁵

Foreign models were also utilized in the heat of the debate. Most often these were used by proponents of a hereditary monarchy. The English system was particularly favored. It was at once the system best known by Polish authors and the one causing the greatest controversy. There was hardly a single publication that failed to mention the English system and there were some works which were devoted exclusively to England.³⁶ Both interest and debate were caused by the position that England was proof of the possibility of a hereditary monarchy in a free country. Opponents of a hereditary system questioned this freedom. Both sides showed a good, even detailed knowledge of the English government. Republicans used the United States to show that a large state could exist without a monarchy. Those in favor of succession countered by pointing to the extensive powers of the American president (greater than those of the Polish king), the different geographic position of the distant and newly born democracy, and sometimes to the different social base of its government.³⁷ The discussion about hereditary monarchy began to wane by the end of 1790, though several pieces on the topic appeared in early 1791. The end came with the Constitution of 3 May, which evoked a new wave of public debate. The new polemics differed from the previous ones above all by abandoning the realm of theory which was then to be put into practice. Programs were replaced by concrete practice which simultaneously bore the weight of the law. Perhaps this explains the absence of outstanding works such as those produced earlier by Staszic, Kołłątaj or Rzewuski. The goal of the public debate ceased to be the determination of the proper direction for repair of the Republic; it was replaced by a fierce discussion of whether or not what had been done actually was a solution. The problem of freedom returned, this time in the form of the question of whether the Constitution of 3 May destroyed freedom or safeguarded it. The majority of the pamphlets defended the Constitution, presenting the reader with its benefits. Partly this was the result of an organized propaganda effort by the framers of the Constitution, some of whom reached for the pen,³⁸ and partly this came from the personal conviction of individual authors. Though more difficult to verify, the same seems also to have been the case with the writings opposing the Constitution. Only a few pieces are known to have been inspired by future Targowicians. To these belong the most effective attack on the Constitution, Uwag (Observations) by Dyzma Borńcza Tomaszewski.³⁹

Worthy of notice in this discussion are the persuasive arguments comparing the Constitution to other similar acts. These were used by defenders of the Constitution, who proudly underlined the fact that the Polish Constitution was one of the three written constitutions, the second after the American. The unwritten English constitution was also included. These fundamental laws were presented by the Kalendarzyk polityczny na rok przesrępny 1792 (Little political calendar for the leap year 1792), beginning with the oldest constitution, the English (its non-legal status was not differentiated) and continuously with the American, the Polish and the French: “We compare our Government Statute with the constitutions of free nations. In this group there are four constitutions: the English, which served as a model for others; the American, which sprung from it; the Polish, which benefitted from both; and, finally, the French, which had all three as models.”⁴⁰ The supporters of the Constitution rather willingly pointed to the ties with the other three constitutions. They also invoked its framers, though more so those of the American Constitution than the French, which they regarded as the work not of individuals but of the National Assembly. Perhaps the most famous individuals in the political writings of the day were Franklin and Washington, whose names even appeared in the sermon by Father Michał Karpowicz at the dietine in Preny.⁴¹ The publishers of the Gazera Narodowa i Obca effectively took advantage of the warm feelings expressed for these two Founding Fathers by reprinting a letter from Benjamin Franklin to the Convention stating that despite many reservations he signed the Constitution in the interests of national unity.⁴² The defenders of the Constitution of 3 May used the same slogan.

In the end, public discussion on the Constitution died out when in February 1792 the dietines gave their support to the Constitution.⁴³ The debate over the Constitution was the last great public political struggle of the Four-Year Diet. There were, however, other important topics that were discussed throughout the entire Diet. The most important of them, those concerning the rights for townspeople and the peasant question, were already mentioned in discussion on Staszic and Kołłątaj. Social questions evoked less interest than problems dealing with the political system and neither equaled the intensity of those which touched on constitutional problems.

The issue of extending personal freedom to the peasants and, in general, their place in a state where nobles held a privileged position were presented with some hesitation. The published material dealing with this topic is notable not because of its volume or propagandistic value, but because of its intrinsic importance. As shown by Władysław Konopczyński, in most discussions on this topic “there was a large gap between accusations which were full of pathos and practical solutions for the future.”⁴⁴ Indeed, reform programs usually paled in comparison with the often dramatic descriptions of peasant poverty. Franciszek Salezy Jezierski offered the most explicit commentaries on the lot of the serfs but he did not offer any solutions since this was not the purpose of the Katechizm... (Catechism...).⁴⁵ Apart from parenthetical mention in discussions of other issues or in larger works - especially those of Staszic - a few dozen briefleaflets analyzed, from various perspectives, the question of personal freedom for the peasant, their relationship to the landowner and relevant laws and obligations.⁴⁶ Undoubtedly the best work on the topic was Józef Pawlikowski’s O poddanych polskich (Concerning Polish serfs), published anonymously.⁴⁷ It did not limit itself to a simple presentation of the peasant question but offered specific proposals: the conferment of personal freedom, the handing over to them of land either as leased or absolute property according to precise rental agreements with the landlord, and finally, abolition of manorial courts. Pawlikowski’s book provided some public discussion,⁴⁸ but this discussion stood on the fringes of the main currents of political debate.⁴⁹ Characteristically, Pawlikowski only minimally directed his proposals for peasant reform at the state. Pawlikowski, like other authors, did not so much call for decisions from a superior governmental body as he did for the nobles themselves to improve the situation of peasants on their estates. For some of the authors and the majority of their readers, peasant matters were the private concern of landowners, and any form of action from above would be considered interference and a violation of property rights. Arguments were tailored to this viewpoint. Thus, apart from general discussions of the natural right of the individual to self-determination, there appeared and even dominated more practical arguments about the cost of serfdom to the nobility and the profits for the individual landowner and the country as a whole that would accrue from emancipation and the conversion to lease holdings. Western economic theory, be it physiocratic or cameralist, was readily used to argue that development of agriculture, population, and national power would come with a solution of the peasant question. Opponents of change in the lord-peasant relationship sometimes wrote that peasants were unfit for the demands of freedom, but more often they simply stated that no one had the right to interfere with the private affairs of the nobility. The matter was so delicate that even those authors and politicians who recognized the necessity of social reform expressed themselves very carefully, not wishing to alienate the middle nobility, whose support was crucial for the more immediately important political reforms. Typical was Kołłątaj, who recognized the importance of the peasant question, but who postponed its resolution to the time when, following political reforms, Poland would be strong enough for unpopular social reforms.

The burgher question provoked greater interest and more heated debate. Not only did it concern the issue of conferring civil rights on townspeople - on this issue there was general, unqualified consensus - but it also concerned an extension to them of political rights, circumscribed though they might be. Such a step would break the noble monopoly on political power and hence the question, “Does perfecting our political system require the admittance of plebeians into the legislative process?”⁵⁰ evoked strong emotions. This was also the only public debate in which non-noble authors approached the nobility demanding their rights, sometimes quite sharply. Not only did famous thinkers demand acceptance of townspeople in the Diet in the name of modernity but so did the townspeople themselves. In part this action was organized; the municipal government of Warsaw already in 1789 financed the publication of works and brochures defending the bourgeois position.⁵¹ In arguing for access to offices and to military commissions, for personal inviolability and inclusion in lawmaking, townspeople referred back to their ancient rights which, owing to the powerful cult of the past, was a weighty argument for the nobility. The end of 1788 saw the preparation of Wiadomość o pierwiastkowej miast zasadzie w Polszcze (Remarks on the ancient principles for towns in Poland).⁵² The famous Memoriał (Memorandum) presented to the King and the Diet by the cities in late 1789 also used historical arguments.⁵³ Later the cities used the same arguments in a publication for the special Commission established by the Diet: Zbiór praw, dowodów i uwag z treści tychże wynikających dla objaśnienia zaszczrtówstanowi miejskiemu ex iuribus municipalibus służących (Collection of laws, proofs and observations serving to explain municipal privileges resulting ex iuribus municipalibus).⁵⁴

Apart from these semi-official works, there were more propagandistic ones. At the forefront of bourgeois authors was Jan Baudouin de Courtenay with his spirited and sometimes passionate small books. He used the most factual arguments in favor of civil and political rights for the townspeople. Not restricting himself to historical argumentation, de Courtenay referred to the more modern concepts of person and citizen for which the privileges of a single estate at the expense of others were a contradiction. The best proof of his talent at disputation was his reply to the aggressive and hostile speech by the castellan Jacek Jezierski which de Courtenay entided, Bezstronne zastanowienia się nad mową J. W. Jezierskiego kasztelana Jukowskiego mianą na sejmie dnia 15 grudnia 1789 przeciwko mieszczanom (Impartial reflections on the speech given in the Diet against townspeople by the castellan of Luków, His Honor Jezierski on December 15, 1789).⁵⁵ Others, not always bourgeois writers, demanded the right of townspeople to help determine their own fate and that of the country of which they were citizens. The nobility was also shown that republican systems of which they approved, such as Switzerland, Holland and the United States, admitted members of the lower classes into the government. The most dramatic appeal for bourgeois rights appeared in the letter-testament addressed to the Marshal of the Diet, Stanisław Małachowski, by the President of Warsaw, Jan Dekert, shortly before his death.⁵⁶ It threatened the Polish nobility with a fate similar to that of the French nobility should it ignore bourgeois demands.

The leading activists in the Diet joined bourgeois writers in the defense of the rights of this estate, pointing out not only the injustice of the present situation but also the benefits to the Republic from the development of cities.⁵⁷ The most active was Kołłątaj who cooperated with bourgeois activists and who was co-author of the Memorandum of the Cities. He took part both in political battles to pass reforms on the cities and in public debates on the same topic. In the latter, he was assisted by a group of authors, with Franciszek Salezy Jezierski at the fore, known as “Kołłątaj’s Forge.” In their writings, they argued in favor of a law for the full participation of the bourgeoisie in economics and public life and, to influence their noble readers, they wrote about the benefits that would accrue to the country and to the nobility itself.

Individuals who, like Jacek Jezierski, opposed extending rights to the townspeople demonstrated poorer writing skills and used weaker arguments. Their attack was primarily against the admittance of bourgeois representatives to the Parliament, a step that would infringe on the nobles’ sovereignty and, as they warned, could become a tool of royal despotism.

Discussion of the bourgeois question died out in April 1791 with the passage of the Law on Cities, which conferred on townspeople full civil but only very limited political rights.

Though the topics discussed above had the most interest to writers during the Four-Year Diet, it should be emphasized once again that such public debates constituted only a fragment of the great discussion over the shape of the Republic which began many years prior to the Four-Year Diet and which reached its peak at that time. It might be worthwhile to mention again the use of foreign models in the debate. Their use shows both a solid knowledge among Polish authors of other political systems and their skill in utilizing these examples in the propaganda battles. “Europe” was always present in the public debates of this time. Particularly well known at this time were systems of government and their specific organization in so-called free states where people took part in making laws, that is, in those countries with representative bodies. The governments of such countries like England, Holland, Switzerland, the United States and the Italian republics were regarded as, in some sense, similar to Poland’s and therefore available as models. Though the might of absolute monarchies was held in awe, there was no question of emulating them, since in those countries there was no freedom. As mentioned previously, the best known example of a free state was England. Though the others did not evoke the same emotion, two did exert a strong attraction--Switzerland and the United States. Foreign examples were used by everyone from the most outstanding authors to the most mediocre ones, and predominated in the latter since such citation tended to hide a lack of their own ideas concerning the Polish political system. Foreign examples offered weighty arguments, and the fierce debates about them attested to their importance.

Positions in the public debate in and outside of the Four-Year Diet, for all their variety and often contradictory nature, nonetheless had one common characteristic. They all believed in a republican system, whether they foresaw the preservation of the monarchy, or, more rarely, its abolition. They revealed most of all a deep and universal conviction that sovereignty resided in the people, the source of all authority. Consequently, the most prominent role was accorded to the elected legislative body to which executive authority was to be subordinated. Programs designed to strengthen the executive branch or even to hand it over to the king were the rare exception. It should be remembered that Polish publicists, regardless of how far their proposals departed from obligatory laws or practice, wished only to repair the existing governmental system of the Republic, not to destroy it. Perhaps this is why no foreign theory or political system was accepted totally. They borrowed, sometimes verbatim, what would fit into the Polish situation or into their own arguments, but “the main principles of the reformed system were drawn...from their own political traditions. ’’⁵⁸ Polish political writers believed that their writings would play an important role in the formation of public attitudes, that they would “teach the art of governing.” The fact that publicistic activity supplemented their political activism demonstrates how strongly they were convinced of the social power of this type of literature. Such was the case not only with Kołłątaj and Ignacy Potocki, but also with Seweryn Rzewuski and Szczęsny Potocki. Numerous reprints show that they were right in believing that this type of literature was read; the frequendy fierce polemics indicate that they aroused keen interest. It was precisely this public discussion which changed the understanding of the idea of a free republic. It prepared the nobility to accept the May revolution and the changes in the governmental system, including the introduction of a hereditary monarchy.

Notes

1. “Unofficial literature in manuscript form almost totally took the place of official publications through the entire reign of August II and, to a large extent, during that of August III,” in Juliusz Nowak-Dlużewski, “Staropolska literatura polityczna, jej charakter i postulaty wydawnicze” (Old Polish political literature, its character and publishing aims), Przegląd Humanistyczny 2 (1958): 42; Władysław Konopczyński, Polscy pisarze polityczni XVIII wieku (do Sejmu Czteroletniego) (Polish political writers of the 18th century up to the Four-Year Diet) (Warszawa: PWN, 1966), p 269.

2. See Bernard Krakówski, “Nad zagadkami Sejmu Czteroletniego” (Concerning puzzles of the Four-Year Diet), Zeszyty Naukowe Wydziahi Humanistycznego Uniwersytetu Gdanskiego. Prace historyczno-literackie 3 (1974).

3. Bogusław Leśnodorski, ed. Kudnica Kołłątajowska. Wybórdródel (Kołłątaj’s Forge: selected sources) (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1949), p. 73.

4. Roman Pilat, O literaturze politycznej Sejmu Czteroletniego (On the political literature of the Four-Year Diet) (Kraków, 1872),p. 5. To date this is the most extensive work on the subject since the second part of “Polscy pisarze polityczni XVIII wieku” (Polish political writers of the 18th century) by “Władysław Konopczyński which covers the writers of the Four-Year Diet and remains unpublished, Jagiellonian Library, BJ no. 52/61.

5. Based on an examination of all the Enlightenment writers born after 1730, barely 28% were townspeople. In respect to all political writers this percentage was much lower. See, Elzbieta Aleksandrowska, “Pisarze - generacje i rodowód spoleczny” (Writers: generations and social origins), in Słownik literatury polskiego Oswiecenia (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1991), p. 405; concerning the reading public see, among others, Zbigniew Goliński, “Publicystyka” (Political literature) in Słownik, p. 492.

6. See for example, article 5, “All power in civil society should derive from the will of the people,” or the opening of article 4, “The agricultural class of people, the most numerous in the nation, consequently forming the most considerable part of its force, from whose hands flows the source of our riches, we receive under the protection of national law and government.” Quoted from: New Constitution of the Government of Poland, established by the Revolution, the Third of May, (London, 1791).

7. The two most famous examples are works by Julian Ursyn Niemcewicz, Powrót posta (Return of the Deputy) (1790) publicizing the policies of the “Patriotic Party” and Kazimierz Wielki (Casimir the Great) (1792) written as part of the celebration of the first anniversary of the Constitution of 3 May.

8. Glos obywatela dobrze swej ojcżyfnie życzącego do Narodu Polskiego, z dobrem publicznym przeciwko prywatnemu i wszelkiej nieshisznosci dia krótszego w nim rzeczy zebranych wyrazu rymem ulozony (The voice of a citizen wishing his fatherland well to the Polish Nation, to the public good against private and all injustice [and] written in rhyme to more briefly express the subjects included) (Kalisz, 1788).

9. [Franciszek Salezy Jezierski], Ktoś piszący z Warszawy dnia 11 lutego 1790 r. (Someone writing from Warsaw on February 11, 1790), n.p. and n.d., pp. 17ff; see also, Listy do przyjaciela (Letters to a friend), n.p. (1789), pp. Iff and [Franciszek Jaxa Makulski], Czamarka i sarafan w czasie sejmu patriotycznego w Polskę wprowadzone (Old style Polish overcoat and sarafan introduced into Poland during the patriotic Diet) (Warszawa, 1791), p. 11.

10. Zbiór mów i pism niektórych w czasie sejmu stanów skonfederowanych (Collection of selected speeches and writings during the Diet of the confederated states), vols. 1-12 (Wilno, 1788-1790).

11. Dwóch nieboszczyków. Dekert z ministrem o miastach (Two dead men: Dekert with a minister about towns), n.p. [1791].

12. [Franciszek Bielmski], Sposób edukacji w XV listach opisany, które do Komisyi Edukacji Narodowej od bezimiennego autora przesiane (Educational method described in 15 letters and sent to the Commission for National Education by an anonymous author), n.p. (1775), p. 15.

13. Opolepszeniu sposobu elekcji królówpolskich. Mysli obywatela ... 1788 roku (On improving the method of electing Polish kings: Thoughts of a citizen ... [from] 1788), n.p., n.d.

14. Zofia Zielińska, Republikanizm spod znaku buiawy. Publicystyka Seweryna Rzewuskiego z lat 1788-1790 (Republicanism from under the banner of the hetman’s mace: The polemical literature of Seweryn Rzewuski from 1788-1790) (Warszawa: University of Warsaw, 1988).

15. Emanuel Rostworowski, “Mysli polityczne Józefa Pawlikowskiego” (The political thoughts of Józef Pawlikowski), in Legendy i fakty XVIII w. (Warszawa: PWN, 1963), pp. 198ff.

16. The baroque title of the largest of Olizar’s works indicates their style: Co uwazac ma Rzeczpospolita Polska w prawodawsrwie, tak przed dopuszczeniem jako i po dopuszczeniu sldadu rządu angielskiego, stanu politycznego róznice i podobienstwa międzysobą tych dwóch wolnych państw stosując.... (What the Polish Republic should be attentive to in legislation both before the inauguration and after the acceptance of the English form of government, comparing the differences and similarities in the type of the political state of these two free states) [Studenica, 1791].

17. Wojciech Turski, Mysli o królach, o sukcesyi, o przeszłym i przyszłym rządzie (Thoughts concerning kings, succession, past and present governments) (Warszawa, 1790); and Odpowiedz na dzieio Ks. Hugona Kołłątaja referendarza W. Ks. Litewskiego. Uwaginadpismem etc. (Reply to the work by Hugo Kołłątaj referendary of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Observations on the work, etc.) (Warszawa, 1790).

18. Jan Suchorzewski, Odezwa do narodu wraz z protestacją dla sladu gwattu i przemocy, do której w cafym prawie sejmie zblizano, a w dniu trzecim maja 1791 dokonano (Appeal to the nation accompanied by a protest against the signs of coercion and violence towards which almost the entire Diet tended and which were accomplished on May 3, 1791), n.p. [1791].

19. [Jan Potocki], Essay d’aphorismes sur la liberté [Warszawa, 1791]; Emanuel Rostworowski, “Dwa pisma polityczne Jana Potockiego” (Two political treatises by Jan Potocki) in Wiek XVIII. Polska is’wiat (Warszawa: PIW, 1974), pp. 85ff.

20. [F.S. Jezierski], Obezkrólewiach w Polszcceio wybieraniukrólów... (Concerning interregna in Poland and the election of kings...) (Warszawa, 1790); and Katechizm o tajemnicach rządu polskiego... (A catechism of the secrets of the Polish government...) [Warszawa, 1790] and others.

21. Konopczyrński, “Polscy pisarze polityczni XVIII wieku,” MS. Jagiellonian Library, BJ, no. 52/61 p. 444.

22. Paul Hazard, European Thought in the Eighteenth Century from Montesquieu to Lessing (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1954), pp. 156, 173.

23. Typical was the wording used by one of the deputies to the 1784 Diet: “...magistratury [urzędy] nam się sprawują, my samemu Bogu” (State offices are beholden to us, we are beholden only to God) in a speech by Szymon Zabiełło, October 27,1784, in Zbiórmów wczasie sejmu 6 niedzielnego roku 1784 mianych w Grodnie (Collected speeches from the six week Diet in Grodno in 1784) (Wilno [1785]), p. 432.

24. Stanisław Staszic, Uwagi nad Zyciem Jana Zamoyskiego kanclerza i hetmana wielkiego do dzisiejszego stanu Rzeczypospolitej polskiej przystosowane (Remarks on the life of Jan Zamoyski, Chancellor and Great Hetman, applied to the current state of the Polish Commonwealth) (n.p. 1787), reprinted by Stefan Czarnowski (Kraków, 1926).

25. Co na tym sejmie koniecznie ustanowić potrzeba, n.p. n.d.

26. Full title: Do sejmu. Co się z nami stanie? Co nam we wszystkich dzialaniach na pierwszej uwadze miec nalezy, n.p. n.d.

27. The more interesting works which appeared at this time were Stanisław Potocki, Mysli o ogólnejpoprawie rządu krajowego (Thoughts on a general improvement of the country’s government), n.p. (1788), French edition (1789), reprinted by Łukasz Kądziela in Kołłątaj i inni. Z publicystyki doby Sejmu Czteroletniego (Kołłątaj and others: From the political literature of the time of the Four-Year Diet) (Warszawa: Wyd. Szkolne i Pedagogiczne, 1991); anonymous, Glos obywatela dobrze swej ojczyżnie życzącego... (A voice of a citizen wishing his fatherland well) (Kalisz, 1788); Mysli patriotyczno-polityczne do stanów Rzeczpospolitej Polskiej na sejm 1788 roku zgromadzonych, przez obywatela o wolnośći samowiadztwo Rzeczpospolitej swojej gorliwego (Patriotic political thoughts to the states of the Polish Commonwealth gathered in the 1788 Diet from a citizen concerned about freedom and the independence of his Commonwealth), n.p. n.d.

28. The full title of the first part, which appeared prior to the opening of the Diet, was Do Stanisława Małachowskiego referendarza koronnego o przysziym sejmie Anonima listów kilka (Several letters by an anonymous author to Stanisław Małachowski, crown referendary, about the upcoming Diet); the next was entitled, Do...marszalka sejmowego i konfederacji generalnej Anonima listów kilka (To ... the Marshal of the Diet and the general confederation, several letters from an anonymous author), n.p. (1788), reprinted by Bogusław Leśnodorski and Helena Wereszycka in Listy Anonima i Prawopolityczne narodu polskiego (Warszawa: PWN, 1954).

29. Michał Gröll did this by publishing eight short works under the common title, Zbiór pism do których byfy powodem Uwagi nad zyciem Jana Zamoyskiego (A collection of works which were prompted by the Remarks on the Life of Jan Zamoyski) (Warszawa, 1788); a list of these works is provided in Wilhelm Hahn, Stanisław Staszic, zycie i dzielo (Stanisław Staszic: life and work) (Lublin, 1926), pp. 36ff.

30. Zofia Zielińska, “O sukcesyi tronu w Polszcze” 1787-1790 (On the succession to the throne in Poland 1787-1790) (Warszawa: PWN, 1991).

31. Stanisław Staszic, Przestrogi dla Polski z teraźniejszych politycznych Europy związków i z praw natury wypadające, przez pisarza Uwag nad zyciem Jana Zamoyskiego (Warnings for Poland emerging from the current European political alliances and from natural law, by the author of Remarks on the life of Jan Zamoyski), n.p. (1790), reprinted by Stefan Czarnowski (Kraków, 1926); Hugo Kołłątaj, Prawo polityczne narodu polskiego (Political law of the Polish nation) (Warszawa, 1790), reprinted by Bogusław Leśnodorski and Helena Wereszycka (Warszawa: PWN, 1954) and Ostatnia przestroga dla Polski (Last warning for Poland) (Warszawa, 1790), reprinted by Kądziela in Kołłątaj i inni.

32. Adam Wawrzyniec Rzewuski, O formie rządu republikanskiego myśli (Thoughts about the form of a republican government) (Warszawa, 1790).

33. [Gabriel Taszycki], Projekt bezkrólewia wiecznego (Project for a permanent interregnum), n.p. (1790).

34. This was published in January 1790 in Dresden with Amsterdam incorrectly given as the place of publication; several printings followed.

35. For a full discussion of these polemics see Zielińska, Repubhkanizm spodznaku bulawy, see also Zielińska, “Publicystyka pro- i antysukcesyjna w początkach Sejmu Czteroletniego” (Pro- and anti-succession literature at the beginning of the Four-Year Diet) in Sejm Czteroletni i jego tradycje, ed. Jerzy Kowecki (Warszawa: PWN, 1991).

36. [Ignacy Łobarzewski], Zaszczyt wolnośći polskiej angielskiej wyrównywający.... (The distinction of Polish freedom equaling that of the English) Warszawa, 1789; Leonard Wolczkiewicz Olizar, Uwagi nad rządem angielskim i inne dla wolnego narodu uzyteczne (Observations on the English government and other matters useful to a free nation) n.p. (1791).

37. Anna Grześkowiak-Krwawicz, “Obce wzory ustrojowe w dyskusjach publicystycznych Sejmu Czteroletniego” (Foreign systemic models in the public debates during the Four-Year Diet) in Sejm Czteroletni i jego tradycje, p. 86.

38. Such was the case with Ignacy Potocki, who anonymously published three works: Na usprawiedliwienie się Jasnie Wielmoznego Imcipana Dhiskiego podkomorzego i posla województwa lubelskiego z manifestu przeciwko Ustawie 3 Maja roku 1791... odpowiedz (For the justification of His Honorable Sir Dłuski chamberlain and deputy from Lublin, in (his) protest against the 3 May 1791 Statute ... a reply), n.p. [1791]; Na pismo, któremu napis “O Konstytucji 3 Maja 1791 “... odpowiedz (A reply to a piece entitled, “About the Constitution of 3 May 1791,” n.p. [1791]; Do obywatelów po odbytych sejmikach (To the citizenry after the completed dietines), n.p. [1792], Reprinted by Anna Grześkowiak-Krwawicz in Za i przeciw Ustawie Rządowej. Antologia. (For or against the Government Statute. An anthology). (Warszawa: IBL, 1992).

39. Dyzma Bończa Tomaszewski, Nad Kinstytucją i rewilucją dnia 3 Maja uwagi (Observations on the Constitution and the Revolution of May 3rd), n.p. [1791]; Antoni Trębicki disputed this in, Odpiwiedd autiriwi prawdziwemu “Uwag”... (Reply to the true author of “Observations”), n.p. [1792], Reprinted by Grześkowiak-Krwawicz in Za ipnteciw.

40. Kalendarzyk polityczny... (The little political calendar) (Warszawa [1791]).

41. Michał Karpowicz, Kazanie napierwszym zafundowaniu powiatu prenskiego... 14 lutego 1792 roku (A sermon on the occasion of the founding of the first dietine in the Prenski districc... February 14, 1792) (Warszawa, 1792).

42. Gazeta Naridiwa i Obca, 46, June 8, 1791.

43. See Grześkowiak-Krwawicz, “Walka publicystyczna o Konstytucję 3 Maja” (The publicistic battle over the Constitution of 3 May) in Sejm Czteriletni ijegi tradycje.

44. Konopczyński, “Polscy pisarze.....” MS. Jagiellonian Library, BJ., no. 52/61, p. 291.

45. “Question: Is the peasant-farmer in Poland not a person? Answer: Definitely he is not. Question: How can this be if he has a soul and a body and by nature is an individual like a nobleman? Answer: The peasant in Poland has only the attributes of a soul and a body, but his personage is not a person but rather the property of the nobleman who being the sole lord over the peasant, can sell, buy or use him for his own profit, just as cattle is sold with estates and inventories.” Franciszek Salezy Jezierski, Katechizm i tajemnicach rządu pilskiegi....

46. See Janusz Woliński, Jerzy Michalski, Emanuel Rostworowski, eds., Materialy di dziejów Sejmu Czteriletniegi (hereafter MDSC) (Sources related to the history of the Four-Year Diet) (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1959) vol 1.

47. [Józef Pawlikowski], Opiddanych pilskich (On Polish serfs) (Kraków, 1788) reprinted in MDSC, vol. 1.

48. It consisted of three brief pieces: [Dawid Pilchowski], Odpiwiedź na pytanie izaliż nieczułiść w dawnych wiekach... czyli didatek do książki o piddanych polskich (Reply to the question (was there) an absence of sensitivity in ages past ... or an addendum to the book on Polish serfs), n.p. (1789). This work disputes some of Pawlikowski’s opinions but agrees with the book’s main arguments; Ignacy Grabowski, Dipytanie się u przidków czutisci ku piddanym (An inquiry concerning our ancestors’ sensitivity towards serfs) n.p. [1789]. This work opposed rights for peasants; and, anonymous, Uwagipraktyczne i piddanych pilskich, względem ich wilnisci i niewili (Practical observations about Polish serfs. concerning their freedom and bondage) (Warsaw, 1790). All three are reprinted in MDSC, vol. 1.

49. Konopczyński, “Polscy pisarze...” (MS. Jagiellonian Library, BJ. 52/61, p. 311.

50. Maurycy Franciszek Karp, Pytanie i odpowiedź... czy do doskonabości konstytucji politycznej panstwa naszego koniecznie potrzeba, aby gmin mial ucząstek w prawodawstwie... n.p., n.d. reprinted in MDSC, vol. 1.

51. Władysław Smoleński, Mieszczanstwo warszawskie w koińcu wieku XVIII (Warsaw townspeople at the end of the 18th century), 2nd ed. (Warszawa: PIW, 1976), pp. 144ff.

52. Michał Świniarski, WiądomoŚć o pierwdasdowej miast zasadzie w Polszcze, ich szczególnych przywilejach i wolnośćiach oraz o przyczynach upadku tychze miast (Remarks on the ancient principles for towns in Poland, their specific privileges and freedoms, as well as the causes of their decline), Warszawa: (1789) reprinted in MDSC. vol. 2.

53. Krystyna Zienkowska, Shwetni i urodzeni. Ruch polityczny mieszczanstwa w dobie Sejmu Czteroletniego (City dwellers and the well born: the political movement of the townspeople in the age of the Four-Year Diet) (Warszawa: PWN, 1976), pp. 66ff and passim.

54. The publication appeared from January to April 1790, in 7 issues, reprinted in MDSC, vol. 3; see Krystyna Zienkowska, Slawetni...pp. 75ff.

55. N.p., n.d., reprinted in MDSC. vol. 2; compare Konopczyński, “Polscy pisarze....,” MS. Jagiellonian Library, BJ, no. 52/61, p. 264 and Zienkowska, Slawetni...p. 81.

56. List ... prezydenta miasta Warszawy do J. W. Maiachowskiego marszalka sejmowego i konfederacji koronnej, die 3 octobris 1790 w wilię smierci tegoz Dekerta pisany (Letter ... from the president of Warsaw to His Honor Małachowski, Marshal of the Diet and the Crown Confederation, written on October 3, 1790, the eve of the said Dekert’s death), n.p., n.d., reprinted in MDSC, vol. 3.

57. Zienkowska, Slawetni.., passim.

58. Edward Giergielewicz, Atmosfera ideologiczna Sejmu Czteroletniego (The ideological atmosphere of the Four-Year Diet) (Warszawa, 1939).

Translated by Janusz Duzinkiewicz