Abstract
In the course of the 1840’s Cieszkowski decided to return to his native land and enter political life. His repatriation was neither easy nor lightly undertaken. Soon after having returned to Warsaw’s literary circles in 1840–1841, Cieszkowski found himself compelled by various pressures to resume his itinerant way of life. In 1842–1843 he bought land in West Prussia and the Grand Duchy of Posen, both of mixed Polish-German population and under German rule. Not until 1845, however, did he accept a very minor political function in Posen. In 1848 it was the force of circumstances as much as conscious choice which propelled him to the centre of the political stage. Nevertheless, once the whirlwind of revolution had subsided, he remained at his post determined to probe the limits of peaceful reform. In this way, Cieszkowski’s political engagement is the logical consequence both of his philosophy of the deed, proclaimed as early as the Prolegomena zur Historiosophie, and of his insistence on peaceful alternatives to émigré and Messianic solutions of Poland’s woes.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
B. Baczko, ‘Lewica i Prawica heglowska w Polsce’, op. cit., p. 113, citing I. Kraszewski.
See again, Isaiah Berlin, ‘A marvellous decade’, op. cit., passim.
It is indicative of the prevailing situation that Krasiński would have felt obliged to burn part II of Gott und Palingenesie, a work of no obvious political or other significance, in fear of a police raid in Warsaw. See above, chapter III.
See Baczko, ‘Lewica i Prawica…’, op. cit., and Kroński, ‘Reakcja mesjanistyczna…’, op. cit.; apparently, Ziemiecka, whose journal was the Pielgrzym, was less obscurantistically hostile to Hegel than Rzewuski in Tygodnik Peterburski. The former admitted at least to having been impressed by Hegel in her youth. For a view which minimizes the opposition between Hegelians and anti-Hegelians even more explicitly than does Kroński,
see Anna Sladkowska, ‘Stosunek polskiej filozofii polowy XIX-go wieku do klasycznej filozofii niemieckiej’, Myśl Filozoficzna, 1954, IV, pp. 105–121.
This point is well brought out particularly in the case of Rzewuski in J. Łytkowski’s Józef de Maistre a Henryk Rzewuski, Cracow, 1925.
Hegel, Philosophy of Mind, paragraph 549, p. 279. Cieszkowski was well aware of this passage since the paragraph is the inspiration of this article on the modern novel already referred to.
Baczko, op. cit., p. 212, cites Mickiewicz: “teachings of Voltaire and Hegel are like poison” (apparently from Ksiegi Narodu…).
When Cieszkowski returned to Poland a certain Antoni Czajkowski, for example, reproached him for writing in German and French. These were perhaps the further phases of the old debate on the problem “Is our language philosophical?” Concerning Czajkowski see Chmielowski, ‘August Cieszkowski’ in Ateneum, II, 1894, p. 135. On the other hand, A. Kurc greeted Cieszkowski enthusiastically and prophesized a brilliant future for him. Ibid.
A contemporary observer assigns a key role to Cieszkowski in the most glorious period of the Biblioteka Warszawska. H. Lewestam, Obraz najnowszego ruchu literackiego w Polsce, Warsaw, 1859. On the other hand, a more recent study maintains that Cieszkowski did not really take a great part in the Biblioteka, at least in the sense that he did not contribute any important articles. Antonina Kloskowska ‘Socjologiczne i filozoficzne koncepcje Biblioteki Warszawskiej w pierwszym dziesiecioleciu pisma 1841–1850’, Przeglad Nauk Historycznych i Społecznych, VII, 1956, pp. 160–174.
See Kloskowska, op. cit.
Ibid., p. 167.
Kloskowska acknowledges that the Biblioteka Warszawska was an influence in pre-positivism but denies it any real influence because of its religiosity and timidity. This seems to me to be a rather abrupt and unfair judgement.
See Bohdan Zakrzewski, Tygodnik Literacki 1838–1845, p. 77, Warsaw, 1964,
as well as Maria Straszewska, Czasopisma literackie w Królestwie Polskim w latach 1832–1848, Wrocław, 1959, p. 191.
Apparently, even in the “philosophical” 1840’s Cieszkowski had difficulties in publishing such purely philosophical works as his Ionian Philosophy in the pages of the Biblioteka Warszawska. This example was brought up by Dembowski to illustrate his general complaint about the “unphilosophical nature of the Polish reading public”. Pisma, vol. I, p. 295. It is confirmed by the fact that Cieszkowski’s treatise on Ionian philosophy was not continued after two installments.
Zółtowski, in Sto lat myśli polskiej: wiek XIX, explains that Cieszkowski Jr. was unwilling to assume responsibility for so large an estate, probably because of his frequent absences. Zółtowski incorrectly indicates the date of purchase as 1842. The Posen archives, Cieszkowski file, document nr 13, contain a deed which refers to a “Speziai Concession für den Grafen August von Cieszkowski aus Stawiska bei Warschau zum Besitze der im flatonischen Kreise Reg. Be. (Regierungsbezirk?) Marienwerder belegenen freien Allodial Rittergutter, Dobrin u Kappe”, dated 5 May 1841.
Cieszkowski appears to have moved to the property several years before buying it for already in 1842 correspondence is addressed Wierzenica, while the deed for the purchase of Wierzenica as well as several other properties (Kobylnica, Pawłowek, Zabikowo) is dated 1847. It is probable that legal restrictions prevented Cieszkowski from buying land while he was a foreigner.
Cieszkowski’s father seems to have accurately foreseen the course of developments in Russian Poland. In 1854, all landed property owners who were also Prussian subjects were given three months to naturalize themselves Russian or sell their property. It is not clear whether Cieszkowski managed to circumvent this regulation; if so, he lost whatever property remained under Russian jurisdiction, in the insurrection of 1863. According to Krasiński, it was Cieszkowski’s properties outside Posen which assured his income. See his letters to Cieszkowski of 5 July 1854 and 11 May 1851 in Listy, vol. II, pp. 349 and 252. According to a letter also from Krasiński to Gaszyński, dated 9 July 1846, Listy do Gaszyńskiego,…, nr. 148, Cieszkowski’s purchase of Champètrier was also a sort of insurance and exit visa: “August is buying some property in the Basses Alpes… don’t tell anybody about this purchase… Perhaps I too shall choose this road to reach the Rhine”.
It is difficult to find accurate information on this incident. Several biographical sketches speak of it (e.g., Zółtowski, Philosophie der Tat, p. 4), but all seem to rely on Krasiński’s oblique references to the event in his correspondence with Cieszkowski and Potocka, Listy do Augusta Cieszkowskiego, vol. II, letter of 9 May 1851, p. 262.
Tytus Działyński cited in Witold Jakóbczyk, ed., Wybitni Wielkopolanie XIX wieku, Posen, 1959, in article on Działyński by S. Bodniak, p. 100.
Barbara Skarga, ‘Praca organiczna…, op. cit., p. 175. This is by far the best theoretical treatment of the problem of organicism as an ideology.
Marcel Handelsman, Les idées françaises,…, p. 139, writes: “the religiosity of Posen even had something very realistic and, even though it supplied the foundation for all philosophic and political conceptions; it was mixed with very practical elements”.
N. Zmichowska, Listy, vol. I, Wrocław, 1957, pp. 163–164
cited in Bogdan Zakrzewski, Listy, vol. I, Wrocław, 1957, p. 13.
See Kiniewicz, The Emancipation of the Polish Peasantry, for agrarian reform in Prussian Poland, pp. 58–72. The Lassbauern are defined as peasants with a “weak right to the soil”, ibid., pp. 60–62.
Apparently, the Prussian government hoped to use the rich peasants as a bulwark against the Polish landlords. Hence, the constant emphasis that emancipation came from the king while the continued woes of the peasantry were due to the landlords. See Kiniewicz, ibid.; also Jakóbczyk, Wybitni Wielkopolanie,…, introduction,
as well as Peter Brock, ‘Socialism and Nationalism in Poland, 1840–1846’, Canadian Slavonic Papers IV, 1959, pp. 121–125.
For Russian Poland see, for instance, R. F. Leslie, Reform and Insurrection in Russian Poland, London, 1963, esp. chap. II.
See W. Jakóbczyk, Studia nad dziejami Wielkopolski w XIX wjeku: Dzieje Pracy organicznej, I, 1815–1850, Posen 1951.
Szmańda, Polska myśl polityczna w zaborze pruskim (n.p., n.d.), p. 55. The controversy over mixed marriages in Posen is very similar to the Frankfurt controversy which attracted so much attention from the Hegelians.
Jakóbczyk, ed., Wybitni Wielkopolanie,…, pp. 8–9.
Szmańda, op. cit., p. 90.
Ibid., p. 92; also Jakóbczyk, ed., Wybitni Wielkopolanie,…, passim; for censorship especially, see M. Laubert, ‘Presse und Zensur in neupressicher Zeit 1815–1847’, Studien zur Geschichte der Provinz Posen, Posen, 1908, pp. 200ff.
Laubert, op. cit., p. 261, dates the abolition of the Kartellkonvention from 1843; Jakóbczyk speaks of 1842, op. cit., p. 162.
Laubert, op. cit., p. 208.
Handelsman, op. cit., p. 172.
Szmańda, op. cit., p. 60, speaks of the Towarzystwo Kredytowe Ziemskie in very Krasiński, it was Cieszkowski’s properties outside Posen which assured his income. See favourable terms as an institution preventing German encroachment on Polish lands; Jakóbczyk, Wybitni Wielkopolanie,…, p. 9, dismisses it as an instrument, along with titles and decorations, used to win over the Polish nobility.
Andrzej Wojtkowski, ‘Stulecie Poznańskiego Towarzystwa Przyjaciół Nauk’, Roczniki Historyczne, IX, 1957, pp. 310ff.
Chief among these is the Towarzystwo ku Wspieraniu Ubogich i Biednych w Poznaniu, organized by Marcinkowski in 1845 with the help of the city’s intelligentsia and bourgeoisie of all three nationalities (German, Jewish, Polish). In addition to arranging a rational distribution of alms it sought to study the causes of poverty. Jakóbczyk’s article, ‘Jan Karol Marcinkowski’ in his Wybitni Wielkopolanie,…, p. 123.
Towarzystwo Naukowej Pomocy dla Młodzieży Wielkiego Ksiestwa founded in 1841 and continuing in existence until 1939. See Jakóbczyk, ibid.
Ibid., p. 115.
Jakóbczyk, Studia nad Dziejami Wielkopolski.
Jakóbczyk, Wybitni Wielkopolanie, p. 10.
The survivor was Przeglad Poznański, a conservative journal of Catholic ultramon-tanist tendencies edited by individuals often close to Czartoryski personally, e.g., Jan Kozmiań and Cezary Plater. See Wojtkowski, ‘Stulecie…’, op. cit., p. 312. Even Jakóbczyk who is most critical of the ideologies and policies of the “coterie” which directed the Przeglad admits the high quality of this monthly journal which, significantly, only began publication in 1845, i.e., as the liberal phase was ending. Wybitni Wielkopolanie, p. 11.
Ibid. Also Laubert, op. cit., pp. 227 and 252, and Zakrzewski, op. cit., p. 32.
Zakrzewski, op. cit., passim.
In opposition to Zakrzewski, I would suggest that the evolution of the Tygodnik away from extreme revolutionary positions was implicit in its position from the very beginning. The journal was consistently anti-Mickiewicz during the Towiański years. See also Brock, op. cit., p. 138.
For biographical sketches of Marcinkowski and Libelt see the articles by Jakóbczyk and Maciejewski in Wybitni Wielkopolanie,…
Jakóbczyk, Ibid., p. 11 and Studia,…; Laubert, p. 260.
“O skojarzeniu dażen i prac umyslowych w W. Ksiestwie Poznańskim”, Rok, I, 1843, pp. 132–143; referred to henceforth in text as Rok Art.
Ibid., p. 142: “Doubtlessly, within the great family of civilized nations we are a young tribe; let us not be ashamed of our youth, for it is full of strength”.
See Zakrzewski, op. cit., pp. 43ff.
Ibid.; E. Dembowski was soon to break with the Tygodnik Literacki for the opposite reason.
Zakrzewski, op. cit., p. 47. The work in question was Engels’, Über die Lage der Arbeiter in England, which was extravagantly praised in Rok, III and IV, 1846.
This hypothesis should be taken as rather tentative. Undoubtedly, Cieszkowski’s interest in a scientific society as described in his article was also sincere. In fact, he was to realize this plan some fifteen years later. Moreover, Rok’s inclusion of Cieszkowski’s article may have been nothing but an example of its broadmindedness for Cieszkowski was not connected with the Democratic Society. For the Tygodnik LiterackVs critique of Rok’s notion of critique, see Zarkrzewski, op. cit., p. 175.
See Brock, op. cit., as well as his Polish Revolutionary Populism, Toronto, 1977.
See Kukiel, op. cit., chapter XVI, and Kiniewicz, Historia Pobki,…, chapter XII.
For Mickiewicz, see Sikora, op. cit., and Maria Janion, ‘Romantyczna Wizja Rewolucji’, in Problemy Polskiego Romantyzmu, Wroclaw, 1971. For Krasiński see Janion, op. cit., as well as Krasiński’s Lisry do Augusta Cieszkowskiego, vol. I, p. 180, letter of 17 March 1846. From a later letter, 15 May 1846, one would understand that Wierzenica itself witnessed a brief skirmish. See also the letters for September 1846.
Cieszkowski’s letter of convocation dated March 1845, addressed to him at Wierzenica and signed by Beurmann, the President of the Province, is preserved in the Posen archives, op. cit. The letter is in both German and Polish and indicates that Cieszkowski was to substitute for Tytus Działyński, a prominent senior member of the Posen aristocracy.
Cited by Kühne op. cit., p. 203, from one of Michelet’s talks at the Philosophische Gesellschaft, reprinted in Noacks Jahrbücher, and quoted earlier.
These were the burning issues raised in Michelet’s letters; see Kühne, op. cit. In fact, Michelet appears more excited than Cieszkowski at his former student’s new position and drowns him in advice and admonition.
For Cieszkowski’s intercession, see Krasiński’s letter of 17 March 1846, op. cit. In another letter, 21 February 1847, p. 241, Krasiński indicates his disdain for the newly-introduced Vereinigter Landtag: “…he (i.e., the king) has given himself not a constitution but a revolution… 617 wounded, offended, enraged men in the constitutional system will be like adolescents in the age of first passion, ready to destroy the world to show that they are men”.
For the events of 1848 see L. Namier, Revolution of the Intellectuals, London, 1944.
Krasiński, Lisry, Revolution of the Intellectuals, London, vol. I, p. 270, dated 23 May 1847.
The authority on this event seems to be Marian Tyrowicz, Polski Kongres Polityczny we Wrocławiu 1848 r., Cracow; 1946.
The most cutting criticisms of this sort come from a part-time émigré, Bronisław Trentowski; he writes, for instance: “The Polish spirit has enough mature depth; abroad, however, it becomes stupid; in Paris, intolerably shallow; in Berlin, comically and strangely deep”. Lisry, Cracow 1937, nr 83, 1846.
It is the accommodating character of the Posen organicists and their basic indifference to the ideological distinctions of the emigration which seems to have bothered the emigres most. In one exasperated comment, the Poles of Posen were dismissed by an émigré as “a Polono-Germano-aristo-democratic land of lords, philosophers and priests”, Berwinski cited in Handelsman, op. cit., p. 140.
Namier, op. cit., p. 50.
Marx-Engels Werke, vol. V, p. 333 citing the Neue Rheinische Zeitung, nr 81, 20 August 1848.
Marx, too, linked the Polish problem closely with the question of Russian-German relations. Thus, in the passage quoted above he wrote: “As long as we help to oppress the Poles and as long as we bind a part of Poland to Germany, so long are we bound to Russia and Russian policy and unable to break fundamentally with patriarchal feudal absolutism at home”, Ibid.
Krasiński expressed his horror for both “a red republic” and “Moscow”, insisting that if these were the only choices he saw no value to life. Lisry do Augusta Cieszkowskiego, vol. II, p. 43, 30 July 1848.
See Namier, op. cit., pp. 29–31 and 59ff which is, in this respect, as in so many others, the most concise account of the situation. Also W. Bleck, ‘Die Posener Frage auf den Nationalversammlung im Jahr 1848 und 1849’, Zeitschrift der historischen Gesellschaft für die Provinz Posen, XXIX, 1914, pp. 1–82.
Namier, op. cit., p. 71. The provincial estates, an obvious anachronism, met for the last time on April 6th. The defeated German minority in Posen refused to abide by the decision of the majority and sought to send its own representatives to the all-German parliament, thus putting a definitive end to cooperation between the two Posen national groups.
See Wojtkowski’s article in Jakóbczyk, Wybitni Wielkopolanie,…, p. 175.
Tyrowicz, op. cit.
Ibid., pp. 66ff.
Wojtkowski, op. cit., in Jakóbczyk, Wybitni Wielkopolany.
Wladyslaw Wisłocki, Jerzy Lubomirski 1817–1872, Lwow, 1928, pp. 44–46.
The text of Cieszkowski’s appeal is reprinted in Wisłocki, op. cit. pp. 46–52.
Ibid., p. 46.
Ibid., p. 49.
Ibid.; Cieszkowski adds as a factor in international oppression “artificial endowment of rights” as well as “egoistic usurpation”.
Ibid., p. 51.
Ibid., p. 50; in a departure from the prevailing tone of the appeal Cieszkowski calls here upon the self-interest of nations.
The language is so untypical of Cieszkowski, the metaphors so hackneyed that one wonders whether the author was not simply trying to summarize the dominant ideas of his contemporaries rather than this own.
Słowa Wieszcze Polaka wyrzeczone roku MDCCCXLVI, Praga, 1848. The year 1846 suggests that this was the year when the particular part was written. It appears in the first volume of Ojcze Nasz published in February 1848. In the edition of 1922 the Słowa Wieszcze Polaska appears as pp. 142–170 of vol. I. I shall discuss this section with the rest of the Ojcze Nasz in the following chapter.
The moderate, even rationalist, quality of Cieszkowski’s slavophilia is evident from his earliest writings. His Diaries I, p. 9, for example, contain the following passages: Slavdom is the representative of the historical future in the Christian world — not the absolute element of the future world because this will be made up of the whole of humanity but its foreshadowing — so important a tribe has not yet had a history befitting its importance so it must have it in the future… Poland — corresponds to antiquity. The spirit of classicism — objectivity Czechs — corresponding to the Christ. World, dominated by Germanism, the element of Protestantism but unstifled. Subjectivity Russia — corresponds properly speaking to the future. Synthesis of the preceding moments. For this reason has so far been so unhistorical, and now rises so grandly.
For the Prague Congress, see B. Hepner, Bakounine et le panslavisme révolutionnaire, Paris, 1950, pp. 265ff.
Krasiński observing the concurrent political activity and armed strife wrote to Cieszkowski: Listy,… vol. II, p. 31, 23 June 1848: “… all the chattering up to now, the demonstrations, the phrases, speeches, proclamations of the Chamber and Czech congresses, non-Czech or Slav or whatever you want to call them, are only an introduction, a spoken prologue before the curtain rises, before the drama begins — i.e., universal war — civil war and international war…”
Bleck, op. cit., pp. 37–43; the Vorparlament was dissolved on April 3rd; the Polendebatte at Frankfurt took place on 24th July.
Ruge, who writes of having travelled with Cieszkowski in 1848, has this to say of the Slavs in Briefwechsel und Tagebuchblätter, vol. II, Berlin, 1886, p. 50: “the problem of the emancipation of the Slavs is approximately the same as that of the emancipation of the Jews; in order to be emancipated they must rise to the spirit of the times and give up all particularism. For small and dispersed barbarous nations the maintenance of a particular nationality is only a misfortune or a plague”. In all fairness to Ruge, it should be pointed out that this passage dates from a later period and that he admits that “in 1848 one was not wrong in seeing in the agitation of the Slavs a symptom of their recovery”. Still, it is an open question whether Ruge’s assertion that the Slavs have no talent for freedom was antecedent to his experience of 1848.
Bleck, op. cit., p. 38.
Ibid., p. 54; the motion to defeat the Frankfurt resolution on the Polish question was passed by only one vote.
The electoral law of April 8th 1848 imposed a property qualification and a two-tiered system of election. The result favoured a strong bourgeois representation. Grot, ‘Koło Polskie w Berlinie w dobie wiosny ludów’, Przeglad Zachodni, VIII, nr 9, 1952, pp. 126–172.
Wojtkowski in Jakóbczyk, Wybitni Wielkopolanie,…, p. 263.
Ibid.; apparently when Cieszkowski rose to speak the parliamentary restaurant would lose a good part of its clientele. There is a poignant footnote to this part of Cieszkowski’s life in an article by Engels in the Neue Rheinische Zeitung, nr 39, 9 July 1848, Marx-Engels Werke, vol. V, p. 188. Engels reports a very poor speech by a hesitant and confused German deputy from Posen who was being heckled and interrupted, until Cieszkowski shouted “Don’t interrupt, let him end!”
Jakobczyk, Studia nad dziejami Wielkopolski, p. 105. It is probable that Cieszkowski and Bakunin knew each other previously. They both frequented the Herwegh house in Paris about 1840; see E. Krakowski, La société parisienne cosmopolite au XIX siècle et Cyprian Norwid, Paris, 1939.
Jakóbczyk, ‘Cieszkowski i Liga Polska’, Przeglad Historyczny, XXXVIII, 1948, p. 149, the speech was made on 28 October 1848.
Krasiński, Listy do Augusta Cieszkowskiego, vol. II, p. 42, dated 30 July 1848.
Krasiński, Listy do Augusta Cieszkowskiego, vol. II, p. 30, dated 30 May 1848.
Krasiński, Listy do Augusta Cieszkowskiego, vol. II, p. 25, dated 23 April 1848. Krasiński had written: “The kingdom of heaven may be reached either by sanctifying spirits longing for it or by first falling into hell and then getting out of there by the need felt of love”. Clearly, Krasiński preferred the first but, as he saw it, Cieszkowski had chosen the second.
Krasiński, Listy do Augusta Cieszkowskiego, vol. II, p. 34 dated 10 December 1848; later Krasiński wrote, p. 93, dated 10 December 1848: “You should know the people of today! know that they are corrupt to the very marrow; know that they have rotted by avarice of gold and corporeal well-being and atheism”… “you look upon people with the glasses of illusion”.
Ibid., vol. II, p. 34; later in an undated letter Krasiński implored: “O my August! I beseech you preserve yourself, save yourself for after the chaos, if you can, for all that you do now is nothing! Do you not know that the laws of the Revolution are always the same as those of illness?”
Ibid., vol. II, p. 67, dated 12 November 1848; after this outburst Krasiński was willing to recognize that Cieszkowski had qualified his abolition of nobility distinguishing between Polish and German nobles and maintaining high the banner of true nobility. See letter of 20 November, pp. 76–77.
Ibid., vol. II, p. 64, dated 7 December 1848; elsewhere, less rudely but more ambiguously, Krasiński compares Cieszkowski and his kind to Hamlet, Ibid., p. 70. His injunctions to leave the Left are repeated hysterically in almost every letter.
The National Assembly elected in April-May 1848 had been turbulent from the very beginning. It rejected the royal constitutional project, refused to assemble in Brandenburg according to the king’s request, denied taxes and issued protests. On December 1st the opposition left the chamber thus making a quorum impossible and on the 5th it was dissolved by the king.
For a description of the history and especially the methods of Cobden’s Anti-Corn Law League see the classic work by A. Prentice, The Anti-Corn Law League, London, 1853, a more recent work, N. McCord, The Anti-Corn Law League, London, 1958, as well as C. R. Fay, The Corn Law and Social England, Cambridge, 1932, chap. VI, pp. 86–108.
McCord, op. cit., draws attention to the struggle between extremists and moderates within the League; nevertheless, it is still correct to speak of it as a unified and cohesive body.
Jakóbczyk, ‘Cieszkowski i Liga Polska’, op. cit., p. 152; this was paragraph 1 of the statutes of the League.
D. G. Barnes, A History of the English Corn Laws, New York, 1930, p. 259.
Jakóbczyk, Studia,…, p. 108; for Daniel O’Connell there does not seem to be any adequate monographic treatment but see D. R. Gwynn, Daniel O’Connell: the Irish Liberator, London, 1947.
Cieszkowski’s ‘Appeal to the representatives of free peoples’ in Wisłocki, op. cit., p. 52, says of Ireland: “Look… how the great English nation which has enjoyed the jewel of internal freedom for centuries and in the division of labour among humanity plays first fiddle in many respects, denies justice to this day to a fraternal people; this clear sighted nation is so blind in this case that not only does it tyrannize Ireland but through this weakens itself”.
“O skojarzeniu dażen i prac umysłowych”, op. cit., p. 135.
Wisłocki, op. cit., pp. 50–52. The Polish Central Committee does not seem to have had any sort of practical existence.
Jakóbczyk, ‘Cieszkowski i Liga Polska’, op. cit., p. 140.
Ibid., p. 146, citing the Gazeta Polska, nr 109, 2 August 1848. It is curious that this conservative newspaper should have used the term “national workshop” so evocative of the French revolutionary experiment of the same year (ateliers nationaux). The newspaper seems to have had in mind the idea that Posen would become a laboratory and production plant of both material and moral support to struggling Slav nations. The Cracow Czas, 3 November 1848, saw the advantage of the League as a means of combating the Germanization of commerce and industry by taking these activities out of the hands of the Jews and the Germans.
Ibid., p. 146, quoting Czas, nr 12, 1848.
The preamble provided for the possible inclusion of Poles in Austria as had originally been intended by Cieszkowski at Breslau but the League never developed beyond Posen. For text of the Statute see Jakóbczyk, ibid.
Ibid., p. 146. On 31 August 1848 two prominent Posen conservatives, Potworowski and Lipski, had visited the Prussian minister of the Interior not to obtain permission -which was not needed under the new regulations — but to offer assurances. This, perhaps more than anything else, emphasizes the contrast between the League and the prevalent conspiratorial and revolutionary Polish organizations.
Ibid., p. 142.
Ibid.; here, the statute mentions the Anti-Corn Law League specifically and formally adopts it as the model for the Polish League. The reference to the hope “that the road so little tried will prove to be the surest” is an open critique of revolutionism.
Ibid.; Krasiński who followed the events closely from abroad expressed his approval of Cieszkowski’s position even though he was skeptical of the idea of the League in general. See Listy do Augusta Cieszkowskiego, vol. II, p. 122, 22 January 1849.
Krasiński, Listy, vol. II, p. 135, 26 February 1849: “My dear August! I warn you that people are saying throughout the Duchy: ‘a certain faction, at the head of which is Libelt, wants to push you ahead and use your Lamartine-like popularity to destroy Potworowski, and once this has been achieved, destroy you and take over everything in the League’“. Krasiński was, of course, inordinately suspicious and detested Libelt thoroughly but his account does not seem exaggerated.
The notion of supra-partisanship advanced by Cieszkowski and supported by the right-wing had been contested by the Left; even though the latter were defeated they appear to have been right in claiming that a non-factional political organization with no party preferences was a contradiction in terms.
Jakóbczyk, ‘Cieszkowski i Liga Polska’, op. cit.
Ibid., passim; Jakóbczyk describes in detail the frustrations of directing so many local chapters each of which was calling for particular attention. Cieszkowski assumed the task of conciliating the parts with the whole even though, strictly speaking, this did not lie within his responsibilities. Krasiński, as always, was issuing warnings which turned out to be well-founded. In principle, he approved of the League, but he added: “… in the present circumstances there is nothing else. I repeat, however, beware the changing waves of the Demos. Today they applaud you and embrace you with tears in their eyes; tomorrow they will stamp their feet and whistle and seethe — and call you a traitor…” Listy, vol. II, p. 119, 22 January 1849. Already before the January assembly Krasiński had predicted that nothing would come of the League unless Cieszkowski took it firmly in hand for the Poles “were not as organized a nation as the English”, ibid., p. 96, 25 December 1848.
Apparently, Cieszkowski’s father was threatened in Russian Poland by his son’s activities. See Krasiński, ibid., who predicted that the Russians would send a mass of agents to infiltrate the League.
Jakóbczyk, op. cit. The Polish Library in Paris has preserved a letter of Cieszkowski to an English sympathiser of the League, Lord Dudley Stuart, dated 6 May 1850, informing him of the dissolution of the League and thanking him for his cooperation. The new law on associations was passed just before the planned second general assembly of the League was to meet. From the beginning, functionaries had not been allowed to join the League thus hitting the rural intelligentsia, for the most part school teachers. At its height the League had 246 local chapters and 20,000–30,000 dues-paying members.
Compare with the activity and aims of the Anti-Corn Law League: ‘To overturn every monopoly with the power only of opinion, tracts, articles, lectures, local anti-Corn Law groups… economic missionaries”. Barnes, op. cit., p. 240.
After Cieszkowski’s third election to Berlin in the summer of 1849 Krasiński wrote him: “So you are a deputy once again… the Allgemeine now writes that you will outdo the Left in this right chamber…” Listy,…, vol. II, pp. 187, 194. In the same elections, Michelet had joined the Freisinnigen in refusing to participate. Cieszkowski wrote back to his friend: “Even if I were a German I would have, but as a Pole I had to. Would you have wanted us to leave the field open to Prussian bureaucrats and Hertzbrüder and Polenfresser of all sorts who would have had themselves elected all over by a few votes and would have arrogated to themselves the title of legitimate deputies of the Grand Duchy of Posen, and then would have disposed of our country as they wished?” Kühne, op. cit., p. 402, letter nr 23, dated 29 July 1849.
For the history of the Polish faction in Berlin see Z. Grot, ‘Koło polskie w Berlinie w dobie Wiosny Ludów’, op. cit. Above all, see the Protokoły Posiedzeń koła polskiego w Berlinie, vol. I, 1849–51, Poznan, 1956.
Grot, Protokoły, p. 17.
Kühne, ‘Neue Einblicke’, op. cit., p. 24, cites a letter from F. Lassalle asking Cieszkowski for the support of the Polish faction in a given matter and referring to the personal friendship and philosophical collegiality which linked him to Cieszkowski.
Grot, generally hostile to Cieszkowski whom he describes as “a theoretician of the landed class and defender of the Prussian road to capitalism” (sic), grudgingly recognizes Cieszkowski’s political adroitness; see Protokoły,…, pp. 16ff; for a more favourable opinion see Wojtkowski, op. cit., in Jakóbczyk, Wybitni Wielkopolanie.
Kühne, ‘Neue Einblicke’, op. cit., p. 24.
Zółtowski, in Polski Slownik Biograficzny, Vol. IV, “Cieszkowski rose to the head of the Polish faction; apparently he did not miss a single sitting and took part in several committees. He spoke in political, school, language, church, tax and finance matters…”
Krasiński, Listy, vol. II, p. 259, dated 1 April 1851.
Zółtowski Grot, op. cit., see also Jeneral Zamoyski, vol. VI, Posen, 1930, p. 243. In a letter of 30 November 1850 Cieszkowski explains that it is impossible to demand that Polish troops not be sent against their compatriots in the event of war: “… your idea may give us the opportunity for a parliamentary manifestation but it can have no practical consequences since the Chamber will not agree to it and even if it did (which is inconceivable) no commander could agree to having the allocation of his regiments controlled by the Chamber. The only way we could do this is through interpellation to the minister of war whether he does not consider it right and, so to speak, binding by virtue of the law of nations, to recommend to the attention of commanding officers the avoidance if possible of armies of one nation meeting”.
Zusammenstellung von Staats — und völkerrechtlichen Urkunden welche das Verhältnis des Grossherzogtums Posen zur preussischen Krone betreffen. This text was not available to me but it is discussed by Wojtkowski, in Jakóbczyk, Wybitni Wielkopolanie,… pp. 265–266.
Cieszkowski’s translation seems to me to be also questionable. The closest term would perhaps be “political autonomy”.
Zwei Anträge des Abgeordneten Grafen Aug. Cieszkowski die Posener Universitäts und Unterrichtsfrage betreffen. The second is dated 12 March 1853; both are extracts from the parliamentary debates.
Kühne, ‘Neue Einblicke’, op. cit., pp. 3–5, reproduces an interesting exchange of letters between L. V. Henning, a former philosophical colleague, and Cieszkowski. Henning asks for Cieszkowski’s help in having his son nominated to a post in Posen and Cieszkowski replies that he cannot in conscience recommend someone who does not know Polish. Grot, Rok 1863 w Zaborze Pruskim, Posen, 1963, p. 181, describes Cieszkowski’s efforts on behalf of Poles imprisoned for having assisted the insurrection in Russian Poland in 1863. In this book, incidentally, Grot is much more favourable to Cieszkowski than elsewhere, comparing him advantageously to Libelt; p. 60: “Cieszkowski enjoyed no less respect than Libelt… he stood above Libelt in temperament and political savoir-faire, including his knowledge of the political coulisses…”
Zółtowski, in Polski Słownik Biograficzny, and Sto Lat Myśli Polskiej.
Krasiński, Lisry do Gaszyńskiego, vol. I, p. 470, dated 19 April 1847, describes Cieszkowski’s strict exercises and concludes: “… (I remember) his body green from the cold; strong will is necessary for this and he has it, but for long and important matters; for every day, he lacks it. In addition add gentleness, goodness and an infinite elevation of feelings”.
‘August Cieszkowski i Akta Polskie w Wenecji’, Kronika Miasta Poznań, X, nr 4, 1932, pp. 389–401. These were published in 1890 as Fontes Rerum Polonicorum…
Zółtowski, in Sto Lat Myśli Polskiej, and see also Kühne, Graf August Cieszkowski, Michelet to Cieszkowski, letter nr 36, dated 14 December 1869, pp. 415–416: “… I am of the opinion that all good Catholics should wish that the Jesuits not succeed in persuading the pope to erect his notion of infallibility into a dogma nor the articles of the Syllabus. This would be breaking with modern civilization and I am afraid that half the Catholic world could not accept this rupture”.
Zółtowski op. cit.; Lowith’s comments on Rosenkrantz could perhaps be equally well applied to Cieszkowski: “… with indefatigable effort he preserved the readiness to accept all true scientific progress which he ascribed to Hegel’s mode of thought. Even technology and the first world exposition which Burckhardt found so appalling were included by Rosenkrantz in the progress of mankind — as he now translated spirit conscious of freedom. Far removed from pessimistic perspectives he saw in the universal spread of international commerce, the book trade and press the elevation of mankind to the level of universality… the levelling of all particularities”, op. cit., p. 58.
Zółtowski in Sto Lat,… pp. 421–437, passim.
The lower figure is cited in S. Wierzynski’s article in Biblioteki Wielkopolskie i Pomorskie, Szulc-Gorska, ed., Poznan, 1929; the higher figure as well as a fuller description of the library is contained in Kühne, ‘Das Bibliothek des Grafen August Cieszkowski’, op. cit.; Wierzyński also mentions Cieszkowski’s correspondence with Lamartine.
Kühne, ‘Neue Einblicke’, op. cit., as well as his Graf August Cieszkowski for biographical details on Brade and Lehmann as well as extracts from their letters.
Kühne, ‘Neue Einblicke’, op. cit., letter of 21 January 1866.
Wojtkowski, ‘Stulecie Poznańskiego Towarzystwa Przyjaciół Nauk’, op. cit., provides a summary of the Society’s activities through its history.
Wojtkowski in Wybitni Wielkopolanie, pp. 271–272.
F. Chłapowski, ‘O stosunku Augusta Cieszkowskiego do nauk przyrodniczych’, in Roczniki Poznańskiego Towarzystwa Przyjaciół Nauk, XXI, 1895, pp. 335–355.
F. Chłapowski, ‘O stosunku Augusta Cieszkowskiego do nauk przyrodniczych’, in Roczniki Poznańskiego Towarzystwa Przyjaciół Nauk, XXI, 1895, p. 348.
Jakóbczyk, ‘Cieszkowski i Liga Polska’, , in Roczniki Poznańskiego Towarzystwa Przyjaciół Nauk, XXI, 1895, p. 150.
H. Barycz, ‘Stosunki Augusta Cieszkowskiego z uniwersytetem Jagiellońskim’, Sprawozdania polskiej akademji umiejetności, XLIII, 1938, pp. 287–288.
Wojtkowski, ‘Stulecie’, Sprawozdania polskiej akademji umiejetności, XLIII, 1938, pp. 287–288.
N. Urbanowski, ‘Wspomnienie o wyźszej szkole rolniczej imienia Haliny w Zabikowie’, Roczniki Poznańskiego Towarzystwa Przyjaciół Nauk, XX, 1894, pp. 270ff.
Undated letter from V. Eulenberg to Cieszkowski, in Poznan archives, file nr 6380, part 8.
Zółtowski in Sto Lat Myśli Polskiej,…, p. 433, and Zaleski, op. cit., p. 365.
Published and commented in J. Znamirowska, ‘O nieznanych wierszach’, op. cit.
See the description in M. Walewska, Polacy w Paryżu, Florencji i Dreznie, Warsaw, 1930, p. 123.
Debicki, L., Portrety i Sylwetki z XIX-go wieku, series 2, vol. I, Cracow, 1906, p. 159.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1979 D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Liebich, A. (1979). Messianism Refused. In: Between Ideology and Utopia. Sovietica, vol 39. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-9383-9_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-9383-9_11
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-009-9385-3
Online ISBN: 978-94-009-9383-9
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive