The Partitions of Poland 1772, 1793, 1795 by Jerzy s> Lukowski (review)

REVIEWS 159 for translation,they should place this on a prioritylist. The book has been a long time coming, but the wait has been worth it. And lastbut not least, many congratulationsto the Britishpublishersfor bringing out a paperbackversion at an affordable,almostbargainprice. Not only witcheswillbe pleased. Schoolof SlavonicandEast EuropeanStudies FAITH WIGZELL UniversityCollegeLondon Lukowski,Jerzy. ThePartitions ofPolandI772, I793, I795. Longman, London and New York, 1999. xvi + 232 pp. Notes. Tables. Maps. Bibliography. Index. [42.00; [13.99. CONSIDERING their importance for modern European history, the useful literatureon the partitionsof Poland-Lithuania is surprisinglysparse:even in Polish Robert Lord's classic accounts of the Second and Third Partitions, published as long ago as 1915 and translated in 1973, remains the most satisfyingtreatment of the topic. The reasons for this state of affairsare not hard to discover. The Partitionshave, unsurprisingly,long been an uncongenial topic for many Polish historians; the political circumstances of the Polishlands since 1795 have ensuredthat forlong periods it has been difficult for Poles to publish on the subjectwithout tiptoeing carefullyround German and Russian sensibilities;finally, the Russian archives essential for any comprehensivehistoryof the topic have only recentlybecome accessibleto Polish scholars.Non-Poles, on the other hand, have often concentrated most of their efforts on the diplomatic manoeuvering of the partitioning powers, without giving sufficientspace to the dynamicsof Polishpolitics. Most Polishwritingson the Partitionshavebroadlyfollowedthe nineteenthcentury debate between a pessimistic 'Cracow' school of historians and a more optimistic liberal-patriotic 'Warsaw' school. The former blamed the demise of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth largely on its own faults, above all the failure of the szlachtato develop an effective system of government-- an analysiswhich effectivelymirroredthejustificationsoffered by the partitioningpowers while the lattertook a more favourableview of thedevelopmentofeighteenth-centuryPolishpolitics,stressingtheimportance of the FourYear Sejm (I788-92) and the Constitution of 3 May 179I as the means ofregeneratingthe Commonwealth, andblamingtheevilmachinations of Austria, Prussia and Russia for cutting short the period of reform which would have restoredit to itsposition within the Europeanstatessystem. MIuchwork since the nineteenth century has refined these rather crude positions, but it will be some time before scholarsare in a position to provide a fully satisfactoryreevaluation of the Partitions.Jerzy Lukowskihas written what he rightly warns can only be an incomplete survey of the subject; nevertheless, despite the unsatisfactorynature of the historiography,it is a clear, sensible and helpful account, which succinctly narrates the complex history of the' three Partitions and casts a sharp and sceptical eye over contemporary and subsequent versions of the story. For all his modest disclaimers,Lukowskihas read widely in the printedprimarysource material and has trawledPolish archivesto good effect:futurescholarswill thankhim i6o SEER, 79, I, 2001 for his usefulappendix of manuscriptsourcesfor the instructionsof the sejmiki between I773 and 1788. There is little doubt, however, that Lukowskisits squarelyin the pessimist camp. He is particularly good at exposing the enlightened cant of the partitionersfor the specious humbug it undoubtedlywas, yet the eye he turns on Polish politics is at times a triflejaundiced. It is true that examples of political stupidityor treacherousdouble-dealingarenot hardto come by, and that many Polesproved naive in the extreme, especiallyin theirdealingswith that arch-cynic Frederick II. It is also important to avoid the misty-eyed nostalgia with which so many have viewed the Four Year Sejm and the Constitution of 3 May. Nevertheless, if Lukowski'sshrewd and hard-headed judgements on Polish politics in the late eighteenth century are often wellfounded , his view of the Commonwealth is relentlesslynegative. As a state it was farmore than a 'failedexperiment'(p. I89), and for much of its existence it was farfrom 'ungovernable'(p. 8). Lukowskitakesno account of historians such as Jacek Staszewski and J6zef Gierowski, who have done much to reinterpret the eighteenth century. Gierowski's recent survey, translatecl rather unevenly into English by Henry Leeming (T-hePolish-Lithuanian Commonwealth intheXVIIIthcentury. From anarchy towell-organised state,Rozprawy WydzialuHistoryczno-Filozoficznego,og6lnego zbiorutom 82, PolskaAkademia Umiej?tnogci, Krak6w, I996), while by no means uncritical,provides a much more positive and optimistic assessment.There is no doubt, however, that Lukowski's arguments are well-considered and well-supported, and teachers will welcome the fact that their students can now read such widely differinginterpretationsfrom two distinguishedscholars. Department ofHistory ROBERT I. FROST King'sCollege London Smith, Douglas...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.