This volume tells the story of a large area of East Central Europe that until 1772 had been a single although a multinational and a heterogeneous state. Partitioned between Russia, Austria, and Prussia, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (Res Publica) retained some common identity throughout a good part of the nineteenth century and appeared as a reality to Poles and non-Poles alike. This common identity began to wane gradually not only as a result of the threefold division, but also because of the rise of modern nationalism of the Poles, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, and Belorussians who had composed the old commonwealth.
As conceived this book is both more and less than a history of the Polish nation in the nineteenth century. Its emphasis on the state territory of the commonwealth explains why such predominantly ethnic Polish lands as parts of Teschen (Cieszyn, Tesin), East Prussia, or Upper Silesia are only barely touched upon. At the same time predominantly Lithuanian, Ukrainian, and Belorussian areas are included, although the histories of these nations could not be treated here in a comprehensive fashion. Lithuanian, Ukrainian, and Belorussian developments are mainly discussed from the point of view of their interaction with Polish trends, as well as in terms of the gradual departures of these nations from the common historic tradition of the commonwealth. While the Germans and the Jews, who constituted sizable groups in the historic Res Publica, are discussed, the stress once more is on their relations with the Poles. Given the crucial importance of Polish culture as a link between the partitioned lands, short chapters have been added which survey cultural developments. The relatively cursory treatment of the Polish question in its international setting in no way implies that the author underestimates the great importance of international factors for Polish struggles for independence and for Poland’s eventual rebirth in 1918.
Meant to serve as a bridge between the volume that deals with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the one concerned with interwar East Central Europe, this study attempts to explore the nineteenth-century processes and to indicate how they affected the Polish lands. Their heritage for the reborn Poland was in many instances crucial.
Although this is mainly a chronological survey and a reference work for students of East Central Europe, it does raise, or at least implies, certain basic questions that the reader ought to keep in mind while using it. The history of this region is obviously part of a broader European history, and the nineteenth century was an age of rapid change connected, to put it in the simplest terms, with the effects of the French and Industrial Revolutions. The great currents going from west to east moved in the direction of parliamentary democracy and economic and social modernization. How did they affect the people of the area under discussion? How did the Poles and the other nations of the old commonwealth react to these challenges?
In the field of politics one must look not only at the impact of the partitioning powers, but also at the local institutions and at the growth of modern nationalism. It is evident that autocratic Russia, the centralized and bureaucratic Prussia, and the traditionally conservative Austria resisted changes coming from the more advanced West. Their political structures imposed severe limitations on the evolution of the Polish lands in the direction of parliamentarism and liberalism. At the same time the Poles were not completely deprived of possibilities to engage in politics or denied a parliamentary experience. They were in charge of the political machinery of the Duchy of Warsaw (1807-13) and to a large extent of that of the Congress Kingdom (1815-31). The Republic of Cracow (1815-46) was virtually self-governing, and Galicia was autonomous after the 1860s. The existence of native sejms (diets) of the duchy and of the kingdom, Polish participadon in the Galician diet, the Viennese Reichsrat, the Poznanian diet, the Prussian Landtag, the German Reichstag, and finally even the Russian Duma must not be ignored. Nor should one forget completely some participation of Ukrainian deputies in the parliamentary bodies of the Habsburg monarchy or a more token Lithuanian, Belorussian, and Ukrainian representation in the Russian Dumas.
The existing conditions of a partitioned country shaped and distorted the character of local political trends and parties. Some of them could only operate in the underground, others acquired specific forms and characteristics. To give but one example, the virtual absence of a conservative party from Polish politics after 1918 was largely due to nineteenth-century Triple Loyalism and the emergence of modern nationalism. Polish nationalism in its liberal form had long identified with progressive trends coming from the West: the Enlightenment, the French Revolution, liberalism, radicalism, and, finally, socialism. Toward the end of the nineteenth century, however, a different type of nationalism emerged; based on ethnic masses rather than on the historic “noble nation,” it defied the past and the heterogeneous tradition of the commonwealth. Polish integral nationalism necessarily collided with the intense nationalism of the Lithuanians and Ukrainians. This was a development not unique at the time, but what made it particularly acute was the ethnically mixed area in which it operated, the intensity of the struggle waged by the underdog, and the peculiar socioeconomic evolution of this region.
The old commonwealth possessed a unique social group, the numerous and ethnically heterogeneous szlachta. The partitions destroyed its raison d’etre, but in turn they accelerated the emergence of another peculiar elite, the intelligentsia. In the case of the Poles, the latter carried over some of the szlachta tradition; in that of the Ukrainians and Lithuanians, the intelligentsia rose from the bottom ranks of their societies. The liquidation of serfdom in large part ended the “two nations” phenomenon and gave rise to an integrated modern class society; but since social consciousness could not be divorced from national consciousness, the “new” Polish nation found itself in direct confrontation with the similarly evolving Lithuanians and Ukrainians.
The modern society that developed in Polish lands took largely the form of a conglomerate of gentry, peasants, and plebeians, in contrast to the West where the chief components were the middle class and the proletariat. This too had been largely an effect of the partitions. In economic terms, Poland as a unit “missed” the nineteenth century. A native middle class came into existence late, slowly, and on a small scale. The pauperization of Galicia, the transformation of Congress Poland—the only region that really went through an industrial revolution—all stemmed from the threefold divisions and the policies pursued by the partitioning powers. With this integration of Polish lands into three different economic structures, the very question of economic viability of the future reborn Poland occasioned bitter debates and dissensions. They were not the only disputes, for in the course of the nineteenth century virtually every generation of Poles which sought national independence was confronted with vital and agonizing questions. Would violent resistance or slow socioeconomic and cultural improvement better advance the national cause? Insurrection versus “organic work,” “realism” versus “idealism,” native efforts versus outside support—these were the big issues which divided contemporaries and which subsequent historiography has often appraised in an emotionally or ideologically involved manner.
Overawed by the magnitude of the task of sketching a broad yet reasonably full picture, confronted with a vast body of historical literature, and attempting a difficult approach that is neither a history of the nation nor of the state, the author has sought advice, information, and criticism from colleagues and friends. He wishes to thank here Dr. Adam Ciofkosz of London, Professors Witold Jakobczyk and Lech Trzeciakowski of the Poznan University, Professor Wacfaw Jfdrzejewicz of the Pifsudski Institute of America, and Dr. Wojciech Wasiutyhski of New York.
The author owes a special debt of gratitude to two scholars: Professors Henryk Wereszycki of the Jagiellonian University of Cracow and Wiktor Weintraub of Harvard University. The former read with unwavering patience and understanding the entire manuscript and offered most valuable and constructive criticism. The latter read the four cultural chapters, pointed out the shortcomings, and gave counsel and encouragement. The volume is dedicated to my sister Anna Maria Mars, who received a Ph. D. in art history at the Jagiellonian University and whose interest in my work has been a great stimulus over many years.
P. S.W.
New Haven
World History
