The emancipation of the Polish peasantry 9780226435268, 9780226435244

Citation preview

[he Emancipation of the Polish Peasantry

BLANK PAGE

The Emancipation of the Polish Peasantry

Stefan Kieniewicz

CY The University of Chicago Press Chicago and London

Standard Book Number: 226-43524-5 Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 79- 92684 THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS, Curcaco 60637

THE UNIVERSITY oF Cuicaco Press, Ltp., LONDON © 1969 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. Published 1969 Printed in the United States of America

Foreword 1X Preface XVIl Introduction 3 The Rent Reforms 7 The Peasants’ Rights to the Soul 15

1. THE ENLIGHTENMENT PERIOD 7

The Political Programs 18

Changes in Russta 32 The Prussian System 34

2. THE FIRST YEARS OF FOREIGN RULE 30

The Josephinist Reforms 35

Gorzkowski and KoSciuszko 40 Vv

CONTENTS

3. THe DucHy oF WARSAW 44

The December Decree 45

The Agrarian Structure in 1810 49 4. THe PRUSSIAN EMANCIPATION 58

The Regulation Reform 59 Consequences of the Reform 67

5. THE Concress Kincpom, 1815-1830 72 6. THe NOVEMBER INSURRECTION 82

7. PROGRESS OF AGRICULTURE IN THE First HALF OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY 87

Wool and Alcohol 90 The Three-Field System 92

Private Regulations and Evictions 96 8. THE DEMOCRATIC PROPAGANDA 101

Programs in Emigration 101 Conspiracy tn the Couniryside 109

9. THE PEASANT RISING oF 1846 IN GatictaA 113 | 10. 1848 127

Insurrection in Pognania | 127

Awakening in Upper Silesia 131

Emancipation in Galicia 133 11. Tae Crisis oF THE FEUDAL SYSTEM IN CONGRESS

PoLanp 140 vl

CONTENTS

12. THe INSURRECTION OF 1863 154

13. THE RUSSIAN REFORM IN CONGRESS POLAND 170

14. THE CONGRESS POLAND PEASANTRY AFTER EMANCIPA-

TION 180

15. PRUSSIAN POLAND BEFORE WORLD WAR I 190

The Progress of Farming 190

The Struggle for Land with Germanism 195 16. GALICIA BEFORE WORLD WAR I 203

Paupertzation of the Couniryside 203

Emigration and Parceling 210 The Populist Movement 214

17. CONGRESS POLAND BEFORE WORLD WAR I 221

Economic Progress and Parceling 221

The Revolution of 1905-1907 226

18. WorLD WAR I AND THE PROBLEM OF POLAND’S INDEPENDENCE 236

APPENDIX: LEGISLATIVE DOCUMENTS 247

A. Conshiution of 3 May 1791, Article 4 247 B. Decree of Frederick Augustus, King of Saxony,

Duke of Warsaw, 21 December 1807 248

C. Edict of Frederick William III, King of Prussia,

14 September 1811 249 D. Enactment of Viceroy Joseph Zajaczek, 30 May 1818 252 E. Manzfesto of the National Government of the Republic

of Poland, Krakow, 22 February 1846 293 vil

CONTENTS

F. Imperial Patent of Ferdinand I, 17 April 1848 254

G. Ukase of Emperor Nicolaus I, 7 June 1846 256

H. Decrees of 22 January 1863 258 I. Ukase of Emperor Alexander IT, 2 March 1864 259:

Primary Sources 263 Secondary Sources 266

BIBLIOGRAPHY 263

INDEX 273

vill

FOREWORD

The history of the Polish peasantry during the past one and a half centuries has been an unceasing climb along a tortuous road leading from serfdom to citizenship and from compulsory labor on

manorial estates to ownership of land. To recreate the story of this weary passage of eight generations of millions of toilers of the Polish soil requires nothing less than a writer of epics. Happi-

ly, the task has fallen to the extraordinary talent of one of the great modern Polish historians, Professor Stefan Kieniewicz.

His work is the epic neither of a single hero nor of a small elitist group, but of the most numerous social class, the majority

of the nation. The reader may well ask the simple, elementary question: to what extent is the history of the Polish peasantry the history of the Polish nation? The answer, which could be inferred from the following pages, is that the relation between the two 1s

not one of identity but of relative congruence. During most of the period under consideration Poland did not exist as an inde1X

FOREWORD

pendent state. The discontinuity of political independence, however, did not destroy the continuity of national existence, a fact

supported by cultural continuity as well as by the frequent attempts at political resurrection. Professor Kieniewicz traces, with

consummate skill, the changes in Polish society that gradually brought the Polish peasants into the mainstream of national life. The acquisition of national consciousness on the part of the Polish

peasantry went hand in hand with the solution of their fundamental social problems. In part this is the story of how they came

to think and act as Poles. It is no wonder, then, that the history of the Polish peasantry is treated by Professor Kieniewicz as distinct from the history of the nation, although most of the crucial issues of national history are reflected in the discussion, albeit primarily through the prism of attitudes of or toward the peasants. It is difficult to classify the history of the peasantry as presented by Professor Kieniewicz exclusively in terms of professional

historical classification. We are told by the author that it ought not to be categorized as a work of economic history, and in fact it is much broader in scope than an economic historian’s approach to the problem. It includes and combines in the best tradition of

historical research and narration elements of economic history, intellectual history, and description and analysis of political and social institutions. One might say that the work represents social history par excellence, assuming that there were a significant measure of agreement among historians as to the subject and methods in that still amorphous field. In the absence of agreed

criteria, it can only be suggested that many social historians might benefit greatly by following the example of Professor Kieniewicz and using his methods as a model for their work.

The reader might inquire with good reason why he ought to study the history of the Polish peasantry. Not every product of excellent scholarship can be read by the general public or studied even by the members of the profession. One would probably have to argue in favor of the Polish peasantry as a case study neither in terms of its uniqueness nor its typicality. The subject appeals to the general interest through a range of problems. In the period

of serfdom the Polish pattern was very similar to the pattern prevailing in central and eastern Europe, particularly east of the Elbe River, and as such is helpful for our general understanding of a relatively late variety of serfdom. In the modern period the x

FOREWORD

political awakening of the Polish peasantry and the growth of its educational, economic and organizational aspirations have a number of counterparts in eastern and southeastern Europe. Professor Kieniewicz begins his narrative with an analysis of serfdom in independent Poland of the second half of the eighteenth century. He views as the central feature of the institution of serfdom the monopoly of land ownership in the hands of the gentry with most other characteristics of the institution deriving from this major social fact. Some economic historians tend to agree with him; others would offer alternative explanations, emphasizing perhaps more strongly the personal dependence of the serf or his outright ownership by his lord. A proponent of the latter view would consider the serf himself a form of capital, a much more valuable resource than the land during this period, and could therefore explain the choices available to the serf owner

in terms of maximizing the returns from serf labor rather than from land use. But whatever may be the point of departure for the analysis of serfdom, Professor Kieniewicz has provided an extremely perceptive description and evaluation of the significance of the institution for the Polish peasantry. The author is also correct in pointing out that the various attempts of a voluntary or arbitrary nature to change some forms of the lord-peasant relationship during this period of enlightenment did not seriously undermine the institution of serfdom itself. Serfdom during this period was as compatible with money rent as with compulsory labor. The market was still too weak, new technology was lacking,

and the peasantry were too politically ineffective to challenge seriously or to destroy the institution of serfdom. The emancipation of the serfs—a late-eighteenth-century brainchild of the most

radical wing of the Polish patriots striving to save the political independence of the country—remained in the realm of ideas, ‘a heritage transmitted to the next generation,” to use Professor Kieniewicz’s apt phrase.

The process of emancipation of the serfs, which took place during the subsequent period, involved the solution of a number of issues. The main issues were the extent of the peasants’ claims

(or the strength of the peasants’ right in the traditional rather than legal sense) to the land they tilled, personal freedom, and compulsory labor on the estates. Since the solution of the above issues depended upon the government rather than upon private xl

FOREWORD

transactions and contracts between lords and peasants, much depended upon the policies pursued by the partitioning powers— Russia, Prussia, and Austria. Their attitudes in turn were shaped at least in part by the general policies that they followed in deal-

ing with their own peasantry and gentry. The development of the market and money economy had an additional impact upon the settlement of the issues. Factors such as these determined whether the granting of personal freedom to the Polish peasants was preceded by the disappearance of compulsory labor on the landowners’ estates, or was enacted simultaneously, or was followed with a substantial time lag by the disappearance of compulsory labor.

The Polish peasantry as well as peasants in other parts of the world soon discovered that personal freedom alone was not a sufficient guarantee that they would be able to take advantage of their new status, especially when the bulk of the land remained

in the hands of the landlords or when alternative opportunities to earn income were lacking. Personal freedom becomes meaningful only under conditions of free mobility and free competition— including competition for the services of the peasants. But in fact

most of the land was apportioned to the landlords, and the attitude of the gentry remained fixed, and so the conditions imposed upon the freed peasants did not differ much from the conditions prevailing under serfdom. Thus, almost invariably, the first phase of the Polish peasants’ emancipation can be viewed as a trade-off of the use of land re-

sources remaining largely with the landlords for the personal freedom granted legally to the peasantry. The differences in the conditions of emancipation that existed between the various regions of the former Polish state were primarily differences in degree and timing rather than differences in kind. The second phase, that of the peasants’ experience as legally free individuals, was marked by their efforts to secure ownership rights to the land or, in some cases, to regain the land they had

tilled prior to the emancipation, which they had given up and ceded to the landlords in exchange for (or payment of) their personal freedom. Viewed in general terms, it was a period when the market forces exerted an increasing influence upon the develop-

ment of the agricultural sector in general, including both the estates and the peasant economy. The market conditions forced Xll

FOREWORD

the estates to become more competitive and profit oriented, to revise their cost structure and production specialization in order to accept more fully the criteria of economic efficiency. The same market forces provided opportunities for the peasants to acquire additional land and, in part, to counteract the imbalance of plentiful labor resources and scarce land resources within the peasant economy. The process of acquisition of more land by the peasants was accompanied by an intensified economic stratification within

the peasantry. While some were able to prosper, many became impoverished. Nevertheless, domestic employment opportunities outside of agriculture and migration, both seasonal and permanent, provided some sort of safety valve for the distress of the Polish peasantry. So summary a view of a historical period sounds dry and bloodless indeed; it obviously hides most of the drama of changing so-

cial relations. It is much to the credit of Professor Kieniewicz that within his narrative the dramatic experience of the peasants’ struggle for land unfolds itself. It was a struggle waged in many forms, with various means, but with a single objective: land for the peasants. Whether these were pitchfork battles between the peasants and estate officials for the right to graze their flocks on the meadows, or skirmishes between peasants and soldiers summoned from the nearby garrison for the right to use the forests, or generation-long lawsuits of peasants against landowners for a miserable piece of land, or petitions reaching the capitals of the counties after unsuccessful attempts to redress the peasants’ grievances in local government offices, or violent strikes of agricultural workers for higher wages and against the use of the overseer’s stick or whip—they all provide the drama-filled background of the conflict between the peasant hut and the estate villa. Professor Kieniewicz brings both objectivity and compassion to the

telling of that tale. But while the story of a social class in its drive toward recognition by the society at large and integration with that society is a well-researched subject in historical literature, the Polish case has some special features. The complex, intertwining patterns of the

struggle for national independence and social emancipation, brought into focus by the Polish peasant problem, contain many suggestive analogies to problems in other parts of the world. The linkage of the issues of peasant emancipation and Polish political xill

FOREWORD

independence can be traced back to the radical, Jacobin type of tradition subscribed to by some few participants in the famous Kosciuszko insurrection (1794). But for a good part of the follow-

ing century, with rather minor exceptions, the cause of national independence was mainly the cause of the Polish gentry. Given the relative numerical strength of the Polish gentry, any realistic appraisal of the prospects of a fight for independent statehood had to include the gentry. Did the inclusion of the gentry, or the orientation on the gentry as the champion of national independence, exclude a consistent pro-emancipation attitude toward the peasants? At least until 1863 this was by and large the case. It means that for at least seventy years the class interests of the

gentry prevented the majority of the nation from integrating their social and national interests. That such a state of affairs did not escape the notice of foreign governments is also clear. Needless to say, it was in their interest to maintain the dichotomy.

Professor Kieniewicz dwells in great detail on the attempts of

the Polish patriots to involve the peasantry in the political struggle for statehood. The attempts went in two directions, one to convince the gentry that a fair solution of the agrarian problems was in the national interest and therefore ought to override

individual or group interests; the second, directed toward the peasants, promised them the support of any future Polish government in reaching a favorable solution of the agrarian problems. The history of most such attempts is one of futility, since an alliance of two classes opposing each other cannot be effected

unless either an outside force is equally threatening to both or their contradictions can be resolved beforehand. It was during the second half of the nineteenth century that the Polish peasantry gained allies among the members of the Polish intelligentsia. The populist movement in Poland was essentially a result of this alliance, with its emphasis on cooperation (consumer cooperatives included) and education of the younger

generation. The value placed on education could be explained both by the realization that education provides new opportunities for social and economic advancement and by the reaction to poli-

cies of forced assimilation imposed by some of the occupying powers. Populism in Poland remained by and large a conservative movement, characterized by limited practical goals which combined economic self-defense of peasant interests with in-

, X1V

FOREWORD

creased social self-awareness and national consciousness. These particular characteristics of the populist movement could be ex-

plained perhaps by the auxiliary rather than the primary role played by the participating members of the intelligentsia, the radical wing of which turned rather early toward a new alliance— with the urban working class.

The political weight and power of the Polish peasantry, although still stronger in its potential than in its reality, was grow-

ing in part as a result both of the relative economic and social decline of the gentry and of increasing political suffrage in various

countries. It was becoming clear that ultimate assertion would come from sheer numbers combined with self-awareness. Thus, to ignore the peasants in the national struggle became impossible, and various political groups within the ideological spectrum attempted to win the Polish peasants to their standards. The peas-

antry responded with qualified and circumspect support, never putting its actual weight behind one particular group. In spite of the fact that the Polish peasantry was economically differentiated, there is very little evidence, except perhaps for the revolutionary period of 1905-6, for claims that different groups within the peasantry allied themselves with opposing groups of other social classes. The Polish peasantry, during the period discussed by Professor Kieniewicz, never lost sight of its major social goal—

true emancipation with land—and only in the last part of the period did it begin to emerge as a political force potentially instru-

mental in the achievement of its own aims and also of the aims of the nation at large. Arcapius KAHAN

XV

BLANK PAGE

PREFACE

On taking up the subject of the Polish agrarian problem, I feel bound to explain that I do not consider myself a specialist in economic history. All my life I have been interested chiefly in the story of politics; I have made my profession the study of Polish national insurrections in the partition period. The study of economics came later, as a methodological necessity. Poland in the nineteenth century was an agrarian country. Poland’s struggle for independence was most closely connected with social problems; the nation’s fate depended on the attitude of the rural

masses, and this, in turn, depended on prevailing social conditions. In writing on the Polish insurrections of 1846, 1848, and 1863, I was eventually obliged to occupy myself with agrarian problems as well: the conditions of life of the Polish peasants, the

class struggle, and the agrarian programs of political parties. These topics obliged me, in turn, to occupy myself with still more basic problems: the social structure in the Polish countryXvi

PREFACE

side and the development of agriculture as compared with analogous phenomena in neighboring countries. The study of these questions was favored by the general interest in economic problems prevalent in socialist countries. If I have contributed slightly to a deeper understanding of some of these subjects, I remain, nonetheless, a dilettante in economics; that is, I am interested, above all, in their political aspects. Why should Polish agrarian problems be of interest to Ameri-

can students? These are problems which do not have their counterpart in American history, although a relationship does exist, inasmuch as poor rural conditions in central and eastern Europe forced millions of peasants to cross the ocean to become citizens of the United States. The emancipation of the Polish peasant is indeed a closed chapter of history. But this closed chapter has had its consequences, which are felt to this day. In

addition, agrarian problems similar to those of nineteenthcentury Poland are still topical in many regions of Asia and Latin

America, influencing world politics of today. Learning a little about the mechanics of agrarian problems in Europe in the past century may be of some use not only from the point of view of comparative history but also as a step toward the understanding of some problems of the present.

This book concerns territories that belonged to the Polish state or were inhabited by Polish peasants. They embrace almost

all of the basins of four eastern European rivers: the Oder, the Vistula, the Niemen, and the Dnieper. The period studied leads from the feudal epoch to the emancipation of the peasants and its first consequences—that is, from the end of the eighteenth century to the early part of the twentieth century. The closing date, 1918—the date of the rebirth of an independent Poland— also marks a turning point in the economic and political conditions of the country. In a synthesis covering 150 years of history, it seemed superfluous and impractical to present all the sources upon which particular statements have been based. Instead, a selection of the most important primary and secondary sources has been included at the end of the book, preceded by a brief discussion of bibliographical material and historiography. An appendix has also been added, containing the texts of the most important legislation concerning the peasant emancipation, xvill

PREFACE

from 1791 to 1864. The Prussian, Austrian, and Russian emancipation acts were much too lengthy to be entirely reproduced, and so only their vital passages have been included. Polish and other European measures, weights, and money have

been converted to American units, although some allusions to Polish morgi and wf6ki remain here and there, for the sake of local color. A number of Polish terms have been retained, together with English translations or definitions. Some of these terms have no exact English counterparts, and literal translation would lead to misunderstanding. This chiefly concerns three terms: folwark (“big farm forming a part of a landlord’s estate’’); panszczyzna (“compulsory labor’); and uwfaszczenie (‘the granting

to the peasants of title to their holdings’”’). I hope it will not be impossible to gain acceptance for these three terms in English texts, at least among specialists in economic history. The present volume is a slightly rearranged version of a course of lectures delivered in 1968 at the University of Chicago. I wish to express my indebtedness to my American hosts, my colleagues

in the Department of History, who did so much to make my contacts with the New World easier, and to the students, who seemed to take interest in these lectures and with whom I found it a pleasure to associate. I also wish to acknowledge with particular gratitude the judicious and perceptive remarks made on my manuscript by Professors William McNeill and Arcadius Kahan, who helped make my script more understandable for American readers.

XIX

BLANK PAGE

The Emancipation of the Polish Peasantry

= | ay wy. | PL = ‘ a ? = Sa \ ——— . ¢ p 238, \. c < ° - 3 bn nueme ¢4oe Lwey 4pis rn > > 4 == == . & Wiino pg Sy ie =as : | ->_ = == ( = AA : rt ce \ a \ ® \,

= 0 ) : eNotec M2t iCin m ® — \ C —————=_—__=_==_—- ——— —- . Oe, K own f

—— —— Gdafisk ; 4

SS ae Ia 3 . A \ @ Suwatki Pp Merecz Z = oN S Ms @ Olsztyn ‘\ ® ~~ , ~

[rw .

& 1B) we Torah Sa o phar @ 2, ‘ z @ ° Bydgoszcz a Ce Ne CONGR ES Svy

; ? v9 &/% Biatowieza® “0

Q Poznan JSiedice , ae@ ..-Byeloruss;, Q\_ Warta arsaw Po2\nania Li Cu, Ptock °

P O A NNOD m S Radom@ & ee, c>Wroctaw : Lublin ® heim e 4o+|. “2 wy / Holy Cross Mts, : \.AD‘we, . @ Kielce 7) a Ne, ae On’ Opole \ Loe @Zamose \ °e OY: Ss } / Ss %