Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T19:13:53.149Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Recasting Utopia: Montesquieu, Rousseau and the Polish constitution of 3 May 1791*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

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

Abstract

Between the sixteenth and eighteengh centuries, the nobility of the Polish–Lithuanian commonwealth had developed an ideology of extreme individualism and libertarianism, within a correspondingly weak and decentralized state structure. The first partition of 1772 starkly revealed the weaknesses of the Polish polity, but any hopes of major political overhaul were frustrated by the dead hand of Russian ambassadorial policing. The war of 1787–92 with Turkey proved a temporary distraction for Russia, which the Polish parliament of 1788–92 showed itself only partly capable of exploiting. Factional conflicts and a wary conservatism hampered reforms: the ideas of Montesquieu and Rousseau, which closely complemented so many aspects of traditional Polish noble ideology, seemed to offer the most acceptable way forward, culminating in the constitution of 3 May 1791, a compromise between enlightened idealism and political pragmatism.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 37 , Issue 1 , March 1994 , pp. 65 - 87
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

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.)

Footnotes

*

This paper developed out of originally read to the 41st conference of the International Commission for the History of Representative and Praliamentary Institutions in Warsaw on 10 Sept.1991. I should like to express my appreciation of the discussions at the European History (1500–1800) Seminar of London University, to the Modern European History Seminar of Cambridge University and to the University of Birmingham's Modern History Seminar, which have all contributed to this version. I am particularly grateful for their comments to Professor D. E. D. Beales and to Professor Q. R. D. Skinner.

References

1 The preamble to the constitution makes this its principal point.

2 Kalinka, W., Sejm Czteroletni, 3 vols. (Kraków, 1895–1896Google Scholar; 1st edn Lwow, 1881; Warsaw, 1991, 2 vols.); Smolenski, W., Ostatni rok sejmu wielkiego (Kraków, 1897).Google Scholar

3 Lésnodorski, B., Dzieło sejmu czteroletniego 1788–1792 (Wroclaw, 1951).Google Scholar

4 E. Rostworowski, ‘Marzenie dobrego obywatela, czyli królewski projekt Konstytucji’, idem, Legendy i fakty XVIIIw. (Warsaw, 1963), pp. 265–464Google Scholar; Zienkowska, K., Sławetni i Urodzeni: ruch polityczny mieszczánstwa w dobie sejmu czteroletniego (Warsaw, 1976).Google Scholar

5 Some of the most recent work is referred to in the notes below. A brave attempt to publish key source materials relating to the Four Years Sejm stalled, the editors overwhelmed by the magnitude of the task: Materiały do dziejów sejmu czteroletniego, ed. Woliński, J., Michalski, J. and Rostworowski, E. (6 vols., Wrocław, 1955–69)Google Scholar. There is no modern edition of the record of debates. The promise of a prosopographical analysis has yet to be realized. See Kowecki, J., ‘Poslowie debiutanci na sejmie czteroletnim’, in Wiek XVIII: Polska i świat, ed. Zahorski, A. (Warsaw, 1974), pp. 195–210Google Scholar. For an accessible account in English of the sejm see Lukowski, J. T., Liberty's folly: the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the eighteenth century (London, 1991), esp. pp. 239–56.Google Scholar

6 The standard work on Montesquieu in Poland remains Smolénski, W., Monteskjusz w Polsce (Warsaw, 1927)Google Scholar. See also his Przewrót umysłowy w Polsce wieku XVIII (Krakow, 1891)Google Scholar. The most searching treatment of Rousseau's influence, Michalski, J., Rousseau i sarmacki republikanizm (Warsaw, 1977)Google Scholar deals with an earlier period. Jobert's, A. attempt in his useful, if ultimately disappointing, Magnats polonais et physiocrates français (1767–1774) (Dijon, 1941)Google Scholar to portray the 3 May constitution as a physiocratic document (p. 13) is unconvincing, undoubtedly strong as physiocratic ideas were among Polish reformers in social, economic and educational fields. For more accessible treatments of the influence of the Enlightenment in Poland see Lésnodorski, B., ‘La pensée politique de Rousseau en Pologne’, Annales Historiques de la Révolution Française, XXXIV (1964), 497–514Google Scholar; Rzadkowska, E. and Przybylska, E. (eds.), Voltaire et Rousseau en France et en Pologne (Warsaw, 1982)Google Scholar; Lukowski, , Liberty's folly, pp. 180–5, 218–38.Google Scholar

7 Wroughton to the earl of Sandwich, 5 Oct., 17 Dec. 1763. London, Public Record Office, State Papers 88/97, fos. 293, 353.

8 Considérations sur la grandeur des Romains et les causes de leur décadence, p. 116; De I'esprit des lois (hereafter Lois), book XI, ch. VI, p. 404; both in Montesquieu, , Oeuvres complètes, II, ed. Caillois, R. (Paris, 1951) (all references to this edition).Google Scholar

9 Stanisław, Konarski, O skutecznym rad sposobie (‘On the means to successful counsels’) (4 vols., Warsaw, 1760–1763), I, 50–1, 162Google Scholar; II, 90–2, 96–9. For the approximation of the Polish commonwealth to heaven see Tazbir, J., Wiek XVII. Rzeczpospolita a świat (Wrocław, 1971), pp. 109–23.Google Scholar

10 For an accessible English summary of the extensive Polish literature on the ‘Sarmatian’ origin myth and its cultural repercussions see Cynarski, S., ‘The shape of Sarmatian ideology’, Acta Poloniae Historica, XIX (1968), 5–17.Google Scholar

11 The text of both statutes is to be found in Volumina Legum (hereafter VL), IX (St Petersburg, 1889), 215–19Google Scholar (Statute on Towns) and 220–6 (Statute of Government). All references to the two statutes will be to specific articles. All references to supplementary and other legislation will be to the appropriate page in VL. For an English translation see the Annual Register for 1791, pp. 177–86 (Statute of Government) and 196–200 (Statute on Towns).

12 Fabre, J., Stanislas-Auguste Poniatowski et l'Europe des Lumières (Paris, 1952), pp. 199–204, 256Google Scholar; Rostworowski, , ‘Marzenie’, pp. 368–9.Google Scholar

13 Literature barska, 2nd edn, ed. Maciejewski, J. (Wrocław, 1976), e.g. pp. 15–16, 91–2Google Scholar; Wolska, B., Poezja polityczna czasoów pierwszego rozbioru i sejmu delegacyjnego 1772–1775 (Wrocław, 1982), pp. 49–52, 64–8, 83–6, 93, 97, 113–15, 121, 236–7, 266–7Google Scholar; Grześkowiak-Krwawicz, A., ‘Polska myśl polityczna lat 1772–1792 o systemie wladzy monarchii absolutystycznej’, Kwartalnik Historyczny, LXXXXIV, 3 (1988), 55–6Google Scholar. For the roots of such attitudes see Backvis, C., ‘Les thèmes majeurs de la pensée politique polonaise au XVIe siàcle’, Annuaire de l'Institut de Philologie et d'Histoire Orientates et Slaves, XIV (1954–7), 307–55Google Scholar; Frost, R., ‘“Liberty without licence?” The failure of Polish democratic thought in the seventeenth century’, in Biskupski, M. B. and Pula, J. S. (eds.), Polish democratic thought from the Renaissance to the great emigration ([Boulder, Colo.] 1990), PP. 29–54.Google Scholar

14 O skutecznym rad sposobie, III, 253–78, IV, 36–60, 239–45; Konopczyński, W., Polscy pisarze polityczni XVIII wieku (Warsaw, 1966), p. 182Google Scholar; Michalski, J., ‘Stanisław Konarski wobec sarmatyzmu i problem europeizacji Polski’, Polska w świecie, ed. Dowiat, J. (Warsaw, 1972), pp. 277–84.Google Scholar

15 Konopczyński, , Pisarze polityczni, p. 200Google Scholar. For a sustained conservative riposte to the Monitor of 1765 see Czacki's, Felix ‘List[y] z okoliczności Monitorów od przyiaciela do Przyiaciela pisan[e]’, Biblioteka Czartoryskich (hereafter, B. Cz.), Kraków, MS 1195, pp. 5–138Google Scholar. Published selections from the Monitor in ‘Monitor’ 1765–1785: wybór, ed. Aleksandrowska, E. (Wrocław, 1976).Google Scholar

16 ‘Pologne’, Encyclopédie ou Dictionnaire raisonné des arts, et des métiers… (Paris, 1751–1765), XII, 925–34Google Scholar. Jaucourt's main source was Coyer's, Abbé Histoire de Jean Sobieski (3 vols., Varsovie, 1761)Google Scholar, the republicanism of which was such as to arouse Louis XV's personal interest in its suppression in France, not least because the author was a protégé of Poland's ex-king, now duke of Lorraine and Louis XV's father-in-law, Stanisłw Leszczyński. See J. Fabre, ‘Stanislas Leszczyński et l'idée républicaine en France au XVIIIe siècle’, idem, Lumières et romantisme. Énergie et nostalgie. De Rousseau à Mickiewicz (Paris, 1980 edn), pp. 189–207.

17 Branicki's ‘Réflexions patriotiques sur l'état présent de la République…’, Paris, Archive du Ministère des Affaires Étrangères, Pologne 289, fos. 400–2. Cf. Rousseau's, Du Contract Social, ‘Les meilleurs rois veulent pouvoir être médians…’ in Oeuvres completes, III, edited by Gagnebin, B. and Raymond, M. (Paris, 1964), p. 409Google Scholar or his Économic politique, ibid. p. 253 (all references to this edition); Montesquieu, Lois, book XI, ch. iv, p. 395.

18 Konopczyński, Pisarze polityczni, p. III. Leśnodorski, B. cites the case of an unnamed envoy to the Four Years Sejm who supposedly confessed to discovering what the ‘executive’ was only after the reading of the 3 May constitution (Dzieło, p. 381).Google Scholar

19 Even Montesquieu's warnings were given out of practical considerations, not because he felt such direct rule to be wrong in itself. Lois, book XI, ch. vi, pp. 399–400. See also ibid, book IX, ch. i, pp. 369–70, and cf. Rousseau's Considérations sur le gouvernement de Pologne, pp. 960–1, 970–1, 975, 979.

20 VL II, 150–3.

21 VL v, II.

22 Czacki, F., ‘List XXII na karty Monitora XLXXX y XLXXXIV’, B. Cz. 1195, pp. 85–6Google Scholar; Bishop Kajetan Sołtyk to Jerzy Mniszech, 8 January 1765, ibid. 3860, fos. 1–2. Cf. Zielińska, Z., Republikanizm spod znaku buławy. Publicystyka Seweryna Rzewuskiego z lat 1788–1790 (Warsaw, 1988), pp. 41, 73, 85, 90–2, 95, 113–114, 120–1, 136–7, 171, 175, 185–6, 257–8.Google Scholar

23 O przywróceniu dawnego rządu według pierwiastkowych Rzeczypospolitej ustaw ([Amsterdam], 1775), pp. v–viii, esp. p. viGoogle Scholar. The same point was elaborated at greater length in 1788 by Kołłątaj, Hugo, in his Listy Anonima i Prawo Polityczne Narodu Polskiego, 2 vols., ed. Lesnodorski, B. and Wereszycka, H. (Kraków, 1954), II, 17–20 (all references to Kollataj's works are to this edition, unless stated otherwise).Google Scholar

24 Michalski, , Rousseau, pp. 3–8.Google Scholar

25 Considérations, pp. 980, 984. Rousseau wrote his work in 1770–1, though it was not published until 1782. A Polish translation, by Franciszek Karp, one of the radical envoys to the Four Years Sejm, appeared in 1789. Lésnodorski, ‘La pensée politique de Rousseau…’, pp. 503–4.

26 Wielhorski actually speaks of the ‘will of the palatinate’, wola województwa, i.e. of the basic political constituency of the szlachta nation, meeting at the local sejmik, in order to transmit the will of the electorate to the sejm. O przywŕoceniu, pp. 84, 97, 116, 169, 199, 202, 260, 308. For the mechanisms whereby this was to be done, ibid. pp. 30, 38, 53–4, 59, 68, 159, 194, 222–3.

27 Michalski, , Rousseau, p. 48Google Scholar. For Wielhorski's defence of his law restoring the fully fledged veto in 1766 after the restrictions imposed on it in 1764, see O przywróceniu, pp. 80–1.

28 Considérations, pp. 979–80. Cf. Contract Social, p. 371. See also Wielhorski, , O przywréceniu, p. 98.Google Scholar

29 The king lost the right to dispose freely of most of the so-called ‘crown lands’ (królewszczyzny), covering some fifteen per cent of the Commonwealth's area; as their current holders died off, they were to be let on long-term leases to the highest bidder. Historia państwa i prawa Polski, II, ed. Bardach, J. (Warsaw, 1971 edn), 509Google Scholar. The Permanent Council put forward three candidates, of whom the king would appoint one, to each ministerial and senatorial vacancy. Otherwise, the king had to abide by the majority-vote decisions of the 36-member Council. Czaja, A., Między tronem, bulawg a dworem petersburskim: z dziejów Rady Nieustającej 1786–1789 (Warsaw, 1988), pp. 48–76. Czaja draws attention to the influence of Montesquieu's ideas on the creation of the Council, p. 68.Google Scholar

30 Ibid. pp. 107–11, 269. Leśnodorski, , Dzieło, p. 323n.Google Scholar

31 Listy Anonima i Prawo Polityczne Narodu Polskiego, 1, 273, 332–3; II, 16, 30, 51–2, 109–13; 220–1, 236–8Google Scholar. Leśnodorski stresses the influence of Rousseau's Économie politique, written for the Encyclopédic, on Kołłątaj. Leśnodorski, , ‘La pensée politique de Rousseau’, p. 502.Google Scholar

32 Fabre, , Stanislas-Auguste Poniatowski, esp. pp. 435é8Google Scholar; Rostworowski, E., Sprawa aukcji wojska na tle sytuacji politycznej przed sejmem czteroletnim (Warsaw, 1957), esp. pp. 203–21, 226–8.Google Scholar

33 Ibid. pp. 228–32: idem, ‘Marzenie’, pp. 342–54.

34 On 7 September 1789 the sejm had set up a ‘Deputacja do Formy Rządu’ – a ‘Deputation for the Form of Government’ to draft a new constitution. In practice, the Deputation entrusted most of the work to Ignacy Potocki: the Deputation's ‘Project for the Form of Government’ (Proiekt do Formy Rządu [Warsaw, 1790]Google Scholar) was submitted to the sejm on 2 August 1790. Its section on the sejmiki formed the basis of the law of 24 March 1791; otherwise, the Proiekt found little favour with the sejm and was never passed. VL IX, 107–8; Leśnodorski, , Dzieło, pp. 145–61, 241Google Scholar; Rostworowski, , ‘Marzenie’, pp. 290–2, 306–10, 318–24, 328–32, 425–6.Google Scholar

35 Fabre, , Stanislas-Auguste Poniatowski, p. 344Google Scholar; Zienkowska, Sławetni i Urodzeni, pp. 109–12, 123, 147.

36 Kołłątaj, , Listy Anonima, 1, 261–4, II, 67–74Google Scholar; Kuźnica kołłątajowska: wybór źródeł, ed. Leśnodorski, B. (Wrocław, 1949), pp. 61–3, 122–5Google Scholar; Staszic, S., Przestrogi dla Polski (‘Warnings to Poland’), ed. Czarnowski, S. (Kraków, 1926), p. 16 (first publ. Warsaw, 1790)Google Scholar; Zienkowska, , Sławetni i urodzeni, p. 96.Google Scholar

37 VL IX, 157–9.

38 This very charge was levelled against the Four Years Sejm. Zielińska, , Republikanizm, pp. 121, 141, 173–4, 180, 260–1, 280, 350–1.Google Scholar

39 Under the supplementary legislation of 28 May 1791, future sejmy would continue to be called once every two years. They were to sit for seventy full business days, with scope for an extension of fifteen further business days. In case of necessity, the sejm could be called back at four weeks' notice as a ‘reconvened’ sejm, but all of its decisions would be subject to confirmation by the next ‘ordinary’ sejm. VL IX, 250–1.

40 Considérations, p. 993. Cf. Wielhorski, , O przywróceniu, pp. 131, 319–20.Google Scholar

41 VL IX, 158.

42 VL IX, 61, 112; art. VII of the constitution; Leśnodorski, , Dzieło, pp. 309–10.Google Scholar

43 VL IX, 251. Leśnodorski, , Dzieło, pp. 25–56Google Scholar. I do not intend to imply that Potocki and Kołłątaj were specifically following Rousseau in leaving episcopal nominations in the hands of future kings. It was hardly a practical proposition to entrust the nomination of bishops to the sejmiki (as Rousseau himself pointed out), particularly under a constitution whose first article explicitly affirmed Roman Catholicism to be Poland's ruling faith. Rousseau would have left lay senatorial elections wholly at the disposal of the sejmiki or, for lesser-ranking senators, at the disposal of the sejm, with no role left for the king in their appointment (Considérations, pp. 989–91). It is worth noting that under the legislation of 1775 the king could only nominate to bishoprics from among three persons presented by the Permanent Council (Czaja, , Między tronem, p. 65)Google Scholar. In so far as the legislation on royal patronage of 1791 applied purely to Stanistaw August, it represented, strictly speaking, a confirmation of a law passed on 13 September 1790, which, following a rapprochement between the king and the sejm, restored in full his powers to appoint senators and ministers. Zienkowska, , Sławetni i Urodzeni, pp. 119–121; VL IX, 182.Google Scholar

44 Rostworowski, , ‘Marzenie’, pp. 462–3.Google Scholar

45 Montesquieu's view of England is directly juxtaposed with that of Poland. England's constitution aims at ‘la liberté politique’ whereas Poland's aims at ‘l'indépendance de chaque particulier…et ce qui en résulte, l'oppression de tous’. Lois, book XI, ch. v, p. 396.

46 Ibid, book II, ch. iv, p. 248. Sheila Mason has recently drawn attention to Montesquieu's complex views on England, ‘Montesquieu on English constitutionalism revisited’, Studies on Voltaire and the Eighteenth Century, CCLXXVIII (1990), 105–46.Google Scholar

47 Lois, book XI, ch. iv, p. 395. Cf. Rousseau, , Économie politique, pp. 245–7 and Contract Social, pp. 371–2.Google Scholar

48 The excellent translation in the Annual Register of 1791, pp. 177–86, renders straż praw as ‘council of inspection’, but this weakens the force of the term. Emanuel Rostworowski points out that in the penultimate draft of the constitution the king headed article VII ‘Król, czyli władza wykonawcza’, ‘The king, that is, the executive power’. Kołłątaj subsequently dropped the ‘czyli’, thus removing the direct equation of king and executive. Rostworowski, , ‘Marzenie’, pp. 431–2. Significantly, article VI of the constitution is headed ‘Sejm, czyli wladza prawodawcza’, ‘The sejm, that is, the legislative power’.Google Scholar

49 Lois, book v, ch. vii, p. 282; earlier, Montesquieu speaks of the need for ‘un dépôt des lois’, as well as intermediary bodies, in a monarchy. Ibid, book II, ch. v, p. 249.

50 P. 454.

51 Rousseau, , Considérations, pp. 1022–23, 1040Google Scholar; Wielhorski, , O przywróceniu, pp. 140–1.Google Scholar

52 Wielhorski uses the term struż (rather than straż) praw, but the meaning is very similar. Ibid, p. 133. Wielhorski's work is to some extent a tacit polemic against Stanisław Konarski, who, in the context of a debate on the extent of royal power, put forward the argument that kings ‘are the guardians (stróże) of laws and justice’. O skutecznym rod sposobie, III, 142.

53 Kądziela, Ł., ‘Spór szlachty kurlandzkiej z ks. Piotrem Bironem w okresie Sejmu Czteroletniego’, Społeczeństwo Polskie XVIII i XIX w., VIII (1987), 12–15.Google Scholar

54 Kądziela, Ł., Narodziny Konstytucji 3 Maja (Warsaw, 1991), pp. 52–3Google Scholar; Potocki's tract has recently been published in Kołłątaj i inni: z publicystyki doby sejmu czteroletniego, ed. Kądziela, Ł. (Warsaw, 1991), pp. 48–63Google Scholar. There is an earlier hint of a straż in Kołłątaj, , Listy Anonima, II, 29.Google Scholar

55 Czaja, , Między tronem, pp. 321–2, 340–9.Google Scholar

56 Leśnodorski, , Dzieło, pp. 145–50.Google Scholar

57 VL IX, 158.

58 Leśnodorski, , Dzieło, pp. 322–4.Google Scholar

59 The only substantial difference between the tribunat and the straż praw lay in Rousseau's opposition to the former's sitting in continuous session, which would lead to an excessive accumulation of power by the tribunat in its own right. This was indeed the burden of the charges made by the Polish opposition against the old permanent council. It is perhaps not too fanciful to see in the ample facilities which members of the straż and its subordinate commissions enjoyed for convoking the sejm a kind of (improved?) constitutional equivalent for Rousseau's recommendation that the tribunat should be subjected to statutory intervals ‘durant lesquels il resteroit supprimé’ (Contract Social, p. 455). Subject to this qualification, Rousseau's views are clearly echoed in Stanisław, Potocki's Myśli o ogólnej poprawie rządu krajowego in Kołłątaj i inni, pp. 51–3.Google Scholar

60 Leśnodorski, , Dzieło, pp. 322, 329Google Scholar; VL IX, 251, 264–5, 266–70. Stanislaw Potocki originally advised against the appointment by the king of ministers in the straz to its subordinate commissions (Potocki, , Myśli…, pp. 53–4)Google Scholar; Stanisław August unsuccessfully opposed this restriction. (Rostworowski, , ‘Marzenie’, pp. 446–7)Google Scholar. Rousseau stressed that his tribunat should be ‘une magistrature particulière qui ne fait point corps avec les autres’, Contract Social, pp. 453–4.

61 Considérations, pp. 991–2.

62 VL IX, 255.

63 Smoleński, W., Ostatni Rok Sejmu Wielkiego (Krakow, 1897), pp. 241–9.Google Scholar

64 Czacki, , ‘List XVIII na Monitora karty XXXV y XXXVI’, B. Cz. 1195, p. 57Google Scholar. Kołłątaj, , Listy Anonima, I, 277–8.Google Scholar

65 Czacki, ibid. pp. 53–7; Zielińska, , Republikanizm, p. 93.Google Scholar

66 Considérations, pp. 974, 1026–8; Michalski, , Rousseau, pp. 23–4, 40–1Google Scholar; idem, ‘Stanisław August obserwatorem rewolucji francuskiej’, Kwartalnik Historyczny, LXXXXVII, nos. 1–2 (1990), 52–3, 56.Google Scholar

67 O pryiwróceniu, pp. 305–7.

68 VL VIII, 113.

69 VL VIII, 401, 405.

70 Zienkowska, , Sławetni i urodzeni, esp. pp. 130–8 for some astonishing instances.Google Scholar

71 Ibid. pp. 19–21, 24–8 and passim; Maliszewski, K., Jan Kazimierz Rubinkowski: szlachcic, mieszczanin toruński, erudyta barokowy (Warsaw, 1982)Google Scholar; Zieliriska, T., Szlacheccy właściciele nieruchomości w miastach XVIIIw. (Warsaw, 1987).Google Scholar

72 Considérations, pp. 211, 279–80.

73 The term ‘townsmen’ (in preference to ‘bourgeoisie’ or even ‘burghers’, which may imply a degree of social sophistication not shared by the great majority of Poland's town inhabitants) is used throughout this article to denote the non-Jewish inhabitants of the Polish royal towns; the Jews, though a significant percentage of the inhabitants of many Polish towns, in some even a majority, formed to all intents and purposes a separate legal estate which had no direct involvement in the agitation for municipal reform. See Lukowski, , Liberty's folly, pp. 77–82Google Scholar; Zienkowska, K., ‘“The Jews have killed a tailor.” The socio-political background of a riot in Warsaw in 1790’, Polin, III (1988), 78–101.Google Scholar

74 VL IX, 35.

75 Zienkowska, , Sławetni i urodzeni, pp. 12–13, 16, 22, 43–4, 62–6, 99–107, 111–12.Google Scholar

76 Rostworowski, , ‘Marzenie’, pp. 292–9Google Scholar; Zienkowska, , Sławetni i Urodzeni, pp. 107–12.Google Scholar

77 Ibid. pp. 117–18; VL IX, 204.

78 Ibid, passim, but esp. pp. 43–4, 52–66, 69, 73, 102–17. Kołłątaj's own views on the constitutional role of townsmen can be seen most clearly in his Prawo Polityczne, II, 219–20, 273–85.

79 Zienkowska, , Sławetni i Urodzeni, esp. pp. 160–78.Google Scholar

80 Article II (Statute on Towns). These voting rights were restricted to commercial and municipal matters.

81 The ramifications are discussed at length in Zienkowska, , Sławetni i Urodzeni, esp. pp. 179–290.Google Scholar

82 Ibid. p. 175.

83 Jan Dekert to Stanisław Małachowski, 3 Oct. 1790, quoted ibid. p. 119.

84 Smoleński, W., Mieszczaństwo warszawskie w końcu wieku XVIII (Warsaw, 1976 edn), pp. 167–9.Google Scholar

85 Zienkowska, , Sławetni i Urodzeni, pp. 249–50.Google Scholar

86 Ibid. p. 122; Rostworowski, , ‘Marzenie’, p. 294.Google Scholar

87 Rostworowski, E., ‘Ilu bylo w Rzeczypospolitej obywateli szlachty’, Kwartalnik Historyczny, XCIV (1988), 37–8.Google Scholar

88 E.g. Lois, book XI, ch. iii, p. 395: ‘La liberté est le droit de faire tout ce que les lois permettent.’

89 De Madariaga, I., ‘Catherine and the Philosophes’, in Cross, A. G. (ed.), Russia and the West in the eighteenth century (Newtonville, Mass., 1983), pp. 37–8Google Scholar. Cf. Rousseau, , Considérations, p. 974.Google Scholar

90 Leśnodorski, , Dzieło, p. 448Google Scholar; Rostworowski, E., ‘Republikanizm polski i anglosaski w XVIII wieku’, Miesięcznik Literacki, VIII (1976), 94.Google Scholar

91 Schulz, F., ‘Prodróże Inflantczyka z Rygi do Warszawy’, Polska stanisławowska w oczach cudzoziemców, ed. Zawadzki, W., II (Warsaw, 1963), 655Google Scholar; Vahle, H., ‘Die polnische Verfassung vom 3. Mai 1791 im zeitgenossischen deutschen Urteil’, Jahrbücher fur Geschichte Osteuropas, N.F. XIX (1971). 357–60.Google Scholar

92 Leśnodorski, B., ‘“La Pacifica Rivoluzione” en Italieet ses reflets en Pologne au XVIIIe s.’, Italia, Venezia e Polonia tra illuminismo e romanticismo, ed. Branca, V. (Florence, 1973), pp. 195–213Google Scholar; Maestro, M., ‘Gaetano Filangieri and his Science of Legislation’, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, n.s. LXVI, no. 6 (1976), 7–71.Google Scholar

93 Rostworowski, , ‘Marzenie’, p. 380.Google Scholar

94 Économie politique, p. 250; Contract Social, pp. 384–6; Considérations, pp. 1036–7; Lois, esp. book 1, ch. iii, pp. 237–8.

95 Ibid, book V, ch. X, pp. 289–90.

96 Smoleński, , Ostatni Rok, pp. 65–71, 93–5, 110–11, 133–4.Google Scholar

97 VL IX, 259. Cf. Lois, book XIII, ch. XII, p. 319; Économie politique, pp. 264–78; Contract Social, p. 429; Considérations, pp. 1003–12.

98 Zahorski, A., Centralne instytucje policyjne w Polsce w dobie rozbiorw (Warsaw, 1959), pp. 146–55.Google Scholar

99 Zienkowska, , Sławetni i Urodzeni, pp. 219–21, 229–31.Google Scholar

100 VL IX, 428–30.

101 ‘Mowa na Sejmie dnia 28 czerwca 1791r.’, Kuźnica Kołłątajowska: wybór źródel, ed. Leśnodorski, B. (Wrocław, 1949), pp. 160–73.Google Scholar

102 Lois, book II, ch. II, p. 240; Considérations, p. 983.

103 VL IX, 241.

104 Rostworowski, , ‘Marzenie’, pp. 322–3Google Scholar; Kołłątaj, , esp. Prawo Polityczne, II, 197–337.Google Scholar

105 Lois, book XIX, ch. xvii, 567; Considérations, pp. 966–70. Cf. Économic politique, pp. 260–2.

106 Konarski, , O skutecznym rad sposobie, esp. I, 50–3, IV, 135–6Google Scholar; Jean Fabre notes Kołłątaj's embarrassing lack of acknowledgement of Konarski, , Stanislas-Auguste et l'Europe des Lumières, p. 119.Google Scholar

107 The strength of Polish republican utopianism was not, of course, a unique phenomenon in the eighteenth century. See Venturi, F., Utopia and reform in the Enlightenment (Cambridge, 1971).CrossRefGoogle Scholar