Our systems are now restored following recent technical disruption, and we’re working hard to catch up on publishing. We apologise for the inconvenience caused. Find out more: https://www.cambridge.org/universitypress/about-us/news-and-blogs/cambridge-university-press-publishing-update-following-technical-disruption
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 March 2011
The years 1764-8 form a rare unity in Polish history, distinguished by an unprecedented attempt at constitutional and economic reform on a scale not to be repeated for another two decades. The fragile nature of the reforms which accompanied the election, in September 1764, of King Stanislaw August Poniatowski (1764-95) was revealed as early as autumn 1766, when internal opponents, supported by Russia and, to a lesser degree, Prussia, imposed the first serious checks on the reformers and then proceeded to try to secure their total defeat. The tensions between reformers and conservatives, compounded by large-scale Russian military and diplomatic intervention, were to plunge Poland into ungovernability and civil war by March 1768 and to drag it inexorably towards the First Partition.
The research for most of this article was made possible by a grant from the British Academy, whose kind generosity I wish to acknowledge. My thanks are also due to Dr R. N. Swanson, of Birmingham University, for his comments and advice.
1 There are two modern accounts of the political and constitutional issues of the years between 1764 and 1768 in Poland. Hoensch, J. K., Sozialverfassung und politische Reform: Polen im vorrevolutionären Zeitalter, Cologne 1973, 286–307Google Scholar. Lukowski, G. [J.] T., The Szlachta and the Confederacy of Radom, 1764-1767/68: a study of the Polish nobility {Antemurale xxi), Rome 1977Google Scholar, passim. The standard Polish account, much in need of revision but valuable for the extensive extracts from primary sources, remains Kraushar, A., Ksiaze Repnin i Polska, 2 vols, Krakow 1898Google Scholar.
2 For a general account of Clement xm's pontificate, see Pastor, L. von, The History of the Popes, London 1950, xxxvi-xxxvii, esp. xxxvi. at 205–35 for an outline of relations with Poland.Google Scholar On the relationship between Clement and Torrigiani, see. Baum, W., ‘Luigi Maria Torrigiani (1697-1777) Kardinalssekretär Papst Klemens’ XIII’, Zeilschrift für kalholische Theologie xciv (1972), 46–78Google Scholar . The strains on the papacy in Italy caused by external events are amply brought out by Venturi, F., Seltecento riformatore, Turin 1976, ii.Google Scholar passim. See also idem. ‘Church and reform in Enlightenment Italy: the sixties of the eighteenth century’, Journal of Modem History xlviii (1976), 215–32Google Scholar.
3 For a recent account of the onslaught on the Jesuits, see Chadwick, O., The Popes and European Revolution, Oxford 1981, 345–85Google Scholar . The refusal of the papacy to agree to compromises that might have saved the Jesuits in France is examined by Egret, J., ‘Le procés des Jésuites devant les parlements de France’, Revue Historique cciv (1950), 1–27Google Scholar.
4 Loret, M., Zycie polskie w Rzymie w XVIII wieku, Rome [1930], 45, 89-90.Google Scholar On the szlachta's anticlericalism, see Smoleríski, W., Praeunót umyslowy w Polsce wieku XVIII, Warsaw 1949, 206–40.Google Scholar For a contemporary view, see the report of the nuncio, A. E. Visconti to Torrigiani, 24 Sept. 1766, in Theiner, A. (ed.), Vetera monumenta Poloniae el Lithuaniae: gentiumque finitimarum historiam illustrantia, Rome 1864, iv. 95Google Scholar.
5 For the secure situation of the Jesuits in Poland, see A. M. Durini to Torrigiani, 2 Sept. 1767, Archivio Segreto Vaticano, MS Polonia (hereinafter cited as ASV Pol.) 280, fos 184-7.
6 Torrigiani to Durini, 2 Jan. 1768, Ibid. 238, fo. 186. On the affair of Parma and the Parma Moratorium see , Pastor, History of the Popes, xxxvii. 264–307Google Scholar ; , Baum, ‘Torrigiani’, 71–4Google Scholar ; , Venturi, Settecento, ii. 214–35Google Scholar ; , Chadwick, The Popes, 364–8Google Scholar.
7 There is no full or satisfactory treatment of Vatican policy towards Poland in these years. Aspects of the unfolding religious crisis inside Poland are covered by Rudnicki, K., Biskup Kajetan Soltyk 1715-1788, Krakow 1906, 51–186Google Scholar ; and Lubieriska, M. C., Sprawa dysydencka 1764-1766, Krakow 1911, passim.Google Scholar. Loret, M., ‘Rzym a Polska w poczatku panowania Stanislawa Augusta’, Przeglad Wspdlczesny, nos lxvii-lxviii (1927), 214–35, 501-17Google Scholar , is essentially an investigation of the formal diplomatic relationship between Poland and the Holy See. Caccamo, A., ‘Il nunzio A. M. Durini (1767-1772) e la prima spartizione della Polonia’, in Branca, V. (ed.), Italia, Venezia e Polonia tra illuminismo e romanticismo, Florence 1973, 37–68Google Scholar , deals with a later period. S. Graciotti, ‘II nunzio Durini e la Polonia letteraria nel tempo di Stanislao Augusto’, Ibid. 69-105, and Marchesi, G. B., ‘Un mecenate del settecento (il cardinale Angelo Maria Durini)’, Archivio Storico Lombardo, 4th ser. ii (1904), 51–142Google Scholar , are essays in cultural history, although Marchesi prints some valuable private correspondence of Durini in an appendix, Ibid. 108-42.
8 Venturi, Settecento, ii. passim.
9 Since 1717, the Polish-Lithuanian army had been restricted to an almost token force, on paper, of 24,000 men. Its real strength, in 1764, was closer to 12,000. Wimmer, J., ’Wojskowość polska w latach 1700-1764’, in Zaiys dziejów wojskowośći polskiej do roku 1864, Warsaw 1966, ii. 143–72Google Scholar . By contrast, the Russian army numbered approximately 350,000 men, the Prussian almost 200,000.
10 The political and diplomatic background of the interregnum of October 1763-September 1764 is explored in Askenazy, S., Die letzte polnische Königswahl, Göttingen 1894.Google Scholar. Kisielewski, W., Reforma Ksiazat Czartoryskich na sejmie konwokacyjnym roku 1764, Sambor 1880Google Scholar , remains the only complete account of the Convocation Sejm, but requires extensive revision. An outline account of the Convocation reforms, with particular stress on the general duty, which was abolished at the insistence of Frederick the Great in 1766, is furnished by J. Hoensch, K., ‘Der Streit urn den polnischen Generalzoll 1764-1766’, Jahrbücher fur Geschichte Osteuropas, NS xviii (1970), 356–88Google Scholar . There are still no separate studies of the Election and Coronation Sejmy of 27 Aug.-8 Sept. and 3-20 Dec. 1764, without which a balanced assessment of the 1764 reforms remains sadly incomplete. The reformist intentions of the king and the Czartoryskis are examined by Nieć, J., ‘Stanislawa A. Poniatowskiego plan reformy Rzeczypospolitej’, Historia iii (1933), 11–18Google Scholar ; and Michalski, J., ‘Plan Czartoryskich naprawy Rzeczypospolitej’, Kwartalnik Historyczny lxiii (1956), 29–43Google Scholar.
11 Poland actually had two grand chancellors, the nearest equivalents to a prime minister, one for Poland proper, the other for the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. It was only in Poland proper that every alternate grand chancellor had to be a bishop. The rule was rigorously observed. Góralski, Z., Urzedy i godnos'ci w dawnej Polsce, Warsaw 1983, 81–2Google Scholar.
12 There is an accessible summary of the situation of the Church in eighteenth-century Kloczowski, Poland in J., ‘The Polish Church’, in Callahan, W. J. and Higgs, D. (eds), Church and Society in Catholic Europe of the Eighteenth Century, Cambridge 1979, 122–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar . The major Polish works covering the topic are Kloczowski, J. (ed.), Kościót w Polsce, Krakow 1969, iiGoogle Scholar ; and Kurnor, B. and Obertyński, Z. (eds), Historia Kościola w Polsce, Poznan 1974-1979, i pt. 2, ii pt. 1.Google Scholar For ecclesiastical usurpation of royal demesne lands, see Stańczak, E., Kamera saska za czasów Augusta III, Warsaw 1973, 79–80Google Scholar.
13 Nycz, M., Geneva reform skarbowych sejmu niemego, Poznan 1938, 43–7, 213Google Scholar ; , Kloczowski, op. cit. ii. 131Google Scholar ; , Kumor and , Obertyński, op. cit. i pt. 2. 430, 432.Google Scholar The total assets of the Jesuit college in the small town of Kalisz were valued at 762,568 zloties in 1774. Rusiński, W. (ed.), Dzieje Kalisza, Poznan 1977, 231Google Scholar.
14 Venturi, F., Settecento riformatore, i, Turin 1982 edn, 25-7, 135–60Google Scholar et passim. On Muratori's influence in central Europe, see Winter, E., Der Josefinismus und seine Geschichte, Briinn 1943, 21–2, 37Google Scholar.
15 Visconti's notes on Stanislaw Poniatowski senior, written in May 1767, ASV Pol. Additamenta 12. Bieniarzówna, J., ‘Projekty reform magnackich w polowie XVIII wieku’, Przeglad Historyczny xlii (1951), 316Google Scholar ; Konopczyński, W., Polscy pisarze polityczni XVIII wieku, Warsaw 1966, 135–8Google Scholar ; Müller, M. G., Polen zwischtn Preussen und Russland: Souveränitätskrise und Reformpolitik 1736-1752, Berlin 1983, 236–41Google Scholar.
16 Visconti to Torrigiani, 19 Sept. 1764, ASV Pol. 277, fos 379-81. , Kisielewski, Reforma, 268–9, 297Google Scholar ; , Smoleński, Przewrót umyslowy, 214–16Google Scholar ; , Kumor and , Obertyński, Historia Kos'cioia, ii pt. 1. 89, 105-6Google Scholar.
17 The Rota was particularly important both as a court of first instance and of final appeal for all ecclesiastical hearings. It may be that the reformers wanted their own representative attached to it in view of the frequent clashes over jurisdiction in Poland between the nuncios and the bishops. , Kloczowski, Kościót, ii. 615–16, 619, 870-71Google Scholar ; , Kumor and , Obertyński, op. cit. i pt. 2. 447Google Scholar.
18 Visconti to Torrigiani, 21 Nov. 1764, ASV Pol. 277, fos 439-40; Visconti to Torrigiani, 19 Mar. 1766, Ibid. 278, fos 175-6.
20 Visconti to Torrigiani, 21, 28 May 1766, ASV Pol. 278, fos 206-7, 209-10.
21 , Visconti to , Torrigiani, 11 04 1764Google Scholar , Ibid. 277, fos 257-8; Visconti to Torrigiani, 17 Sept. 1766, Ibid. 278, fo. 234. Michalski, J., ‘Sprawa dysydencka a zagadnienie gospodarcze w opinii publicznej w pierwszych latach panowania Stanislawa Augusta’, Przeglad Historyczny xl (1950), 156–63Google Scholar.
22 This point is made especially strongly by the reformers’ press-organ, the Monitor xiii (1766), 11 February.Google Scholar See ‘Monitor’ 1765-1785, ed. Aleksandrowska, E., Wroclaw 1976, 78–83Google Scholar.
23 Lukowski, J. T., ‘Towards Partition: Polish magnates and Russian intervention in Poland during the early reign of Stanislaw August Poniatowski’, Historical Journal xxviii (1985) 563–4.Google Scholar
24 Rahbek-Schmidt, K., ‘Wie ist Panins Plan zu einem Nordischen System entstanden?’, Zeitschnft fiir Slawistik ii (1957), 406–22.Google Scholar Poland's strategic importance to Russia is clearly elucidated in Müller, M. G., ‘Russland und der SiebenjShrige Krieg: Beitrag zu einer Kontroverse’, Jahrbücher fur Geschichte Osteuropas, NS xxviii (1980), 198–219Google Scholar.
25 Catherine 11 to Frederick n, St Petersburg, 6 Oct. [Old Style]/17 Oct. [New Style] 1763, Sbornik Imperatorskogo Russkogo Istoricheskogo Obshcheslva (hereinafter cited as SIRIO), 142 vols, St Petersburg 1867-1913, xx, no. 18.
26 There is still no adequate account of the role of the dissenters in eighteenth-century Poland. One authority points out that even their exact legal status remains unexplored. Salmonowicz, S., ‘O sytuacji prawnej protestantów w Polsce, XVI-XVIII w.’, Czasopismo Prawno-Historyczne xxvi (1974), 159–73.Google Scholar. Gastpary, W., Historia protestantyzmu w Polsce od polowy XVIIIw. do I wojny światowej, Warsaw 1977, 9–103Google Scholar provides an outline account, but the book suffers from lack of primary research. Topolski, J. (ed.), Dzieje Wielkopolski, Poznan 1969, i. 731–43, 862-3Google Scholar , and Dygdala, J., Polityka Torunia wobec wtadz Rzeczypospolitej w lalach 1764-1772, Warsaw 1972, 15–23Google Scholar furnish useful local studies. The English reader is reasonably well served in various aspects of the question. Lewitter, L. R., ‘Peter the Great and the Polish dissenters’, Slavonic and East European Review xxxiii (1954), 75–100Google Scholar ; idem, ‘Intolerance and foreign intervention in early eighteenth-century Poland-Lithuania’, Harvard Ukrainian Studies v (1981), 283-305. Hans, N., ‘The Polish Protestants and their connections in England and Holland in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries’, Slavonic and East European Review xxxvii (1958-1959), 196–220Google Scholar . For a broader survey, see Weintraub, W., ‘Tolerance and intolerance in Old Poland’, Canadian Slavonic Papers xiii (1971), 21–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
27 Armand de St Saphorin, Denmark's minister in Warsaw, to King Christian VII, 28 Nov. 1767, Rigsarchivet, Copenhagen, MS TKUA Polen A III 46.
28 See the extracts (undated) from Repnin's despatches quoted in Solov'ev, S. M., Istoriya Rossii s’ drevneyshich vremen, St Petersburg 1897, xxvii. 489–90Google Scholar.
29 Stanislaw August to Mme Geoffrin, 22 Dec. 1764, in Mouy, C. de (ed.), Correspondence inédite du roi Stanislas-Auguste Poniatowski et de Madame Geoffrin, 1764-1777, Paris 1875, no. viiiGoogle Scholar ; tubieriska, Sprawa dysydencka, 33-4, 61-4.
30 , Lukowski, The Szachta, 55, 106-13.Google Scholar On the problem of noble employment, see Rostworowski, E., Sprawa aukcji wojska na tie sytuacji politycznej przed sejmem czteroletnim, Warsaw 1957, 110–16Google Scholar.
31 On the baroque religiosity of Augustus m's court, see , Kumor and , Obertyński, Historia Kościola, i pt. 2. 429–30.Google Scholar The Vatican was concerned that it would be unable to work towards any alleviation of the fiercely anti-Catholic legislation on which the Lutheran estates of Saxony insisted, once it could no longer maintain a diplomatic presence at the electoral court after the failure of the Wettin candidature to the Polish throne, Torrigiani to Visconti, 3 July 1763, ASV Pol. 238, fos 29-42. The curia may even have entertained some lingering hopes of eventually securing the reconversion of Saxony to Catholicism, Visconti to Torrigiani, 22 Aug. 1763, Ibid. 277, fos 177-8.
32 Torrigiani to Visconti, 20 Dec. 1766, Ibid. 238, fos 101-2.
33 , Winter, Der Josefinismus, 80.Google Scholar
34 Visconti to Torrigiani, 18 Apr., 12 Sept. 1764, ASV Pol. 277, fos 263-4, 377; Torrigiani to Visconti, 5 Jan. 1765, Ibid. 238, fos 62-3.
35 In particular, Visconti to Torrigiani, 29 July 1767, Ibid. 280, fos 144-5. Durini specifically rejected the analysis made in this letter in his own despatch of 16 Sept. 1767, Ibid. fo. 205. For the influence of the opposition to Poniatowski on Durini, see , Graciotti, ‘Il nunzio Durini’, 82–3, 89-90Google Scholar.
38 Torrigiani to Visconti, 28 Jan., 15 Dec. 1764 and 22 Feb., 1 March, 19 July 1766, ASV Pol. 238, fos 49, 60 and 78, 79-81, 88-90. Ironically, Poniatowski himself insisted on the appointment of the hostile A. M. Durini as Visconti's successor, convinced that he would be equally sympathetic to him, Visconti to Torrigiani, 19 Mar., 30 July 1766, Ibid. 278, fos 175-6, 220; Torrigiani to Visconti, 22 Apr. 1766, Ibid. 238, fo. 84.
37 Maass, F., Der Josephinismus, Vienna 1951, i. 21–2.Google Scholar
38 ‘Promemoria’, ASV Pol. 238, fos 247-52.
39 Torrigiani to Visconti, 24 May 1766, ibid, fos 85-6.
40 Torrigiani to Visconti, 31 Jan. 1767, Ibid. 107.
41 , Venturi, Settecento, ii. 185–203Google Scholar ; , Maass, Der Josephinismus, i. 98–9Google Scholar.
42 Torrigiani to Visconti, 8 Dec. 1764, ASV Pol. 239, fos 89-91. On the desultory nature of the commission of enquiry's proceedings, see Visconti to Torrigiani, 9 Oct. 1765, Ibid. 278, fo. 115, and Torrigiani to Visconti, 30 Nov. 1765, 4 Jan. 1766, Ibid. 239, fos 163-5, 176–7. The proceedings of the commission petered out, without result, after 1765.
43 , Maass, op. cit. i. 5-6, 77.Google Scholar
44 Visconti to Torrigiani, 24 July 1765, ASV Pol. 278, fo. 94; and especially Visconti to Torrigiani, 24 Sept. 1766, in Theiner, Vetera monumenta, iv. 97. Th e original despatch, a detailed general description of the condition of Poland, is in ASV Pol. 278, fos 236 57.
45 See the statement by Cardinal Serbelloni, former nuncio to Poland, made to an extraordinary congregation on Polish affairs, 7 Apr. 1767, Ibid. 279, fo. 5. For recent analysis of the condition of the Uniate Church, consult , Kloczowski, Kościól w Polsce, ii. 860–1032Google Scholar , and , Kumor and , Obertyński, Historia Kosciola, i pt. 2. 468–78 and ii pt. 1. 109-17Google Scholar.
48 Ibid, ii pt. 1. III, 113-17.
47 Visconti to Torrigiani, 1 May 1765, ASV Pol. 278, fos 57-8.
48 Ibid. fo. 58. , Lubieríska, Sprawa dysydencka, 14–16, 73-80Google Scholar ; Serczyk, W., Koliszczyzna, Krakow 1968, 47–81Google Scholar.
49 Torrigiani to Visconti, 15 June, 3 Aug., 7 Sept. 1765, ASV Pol. 238, fos 67-8, 69, 72. There is a copy of Giedrojćs instruction, dated 7 Aug. 1765 and forwarded with Visconti's despatch of 25 Sept. 1765 in Ibid. 278, fo. 112. Although article five of the instruction insisted that the synod should draw up a reply to Orthodox complaints against the Uniates, articles two and three stressed that Giedrojc was not to intervene in any way in any business touching the internal government of the Uniate Church, provided the rights of the king and of the state were otherwise respected. Giedrojc was to append his signature to the synod's protocol.
50 Visconti to Torrigiani, 14 Aug. 1765, Ibid. fo. 97.
51 Torrigiani to Visconti, 12 Oct. 1765, Ibid. 238, fo. 73.
52 Torrigiani to Visconti, 17 Aug. 1765, Ibid. fo. 71.
54 Torrigiani to Visconti, 14 June 1766, Ibid. 238, fos 86-7.
55 Lubieńska, Sprawa dysydencka, 58-63, 68, 83. French text of the proposed treaty, dated 5 Sept. 1765, Ibid. 160-9.
56 , Lukowski, The Szlachta, 54.Google Scholar As much as 15 per cent of Poland's land may have been taken up by crown lands, krolewszczyzny, which the king was obliged by law to distribute among ‘deserving’ nobles. The bulk of these consisted of'elderships’, starostwa, among which the ninety-four grod starostwa were particularly well endowed and conferred important judicial and patronage powers on the holder. See the undated notes on starostwa and other offices in ASV Pol. 279, fo. 38. Zielińska, T., Magnateria polska epoki saskiej, Wroclaw 1977, 79–137Google Scholar is a recent study of the crown lands.
57 , Lukowski, op. cit. 59–62.Google Scholar
58 Ibid. 64-106, 143-59.
59 The Czartoryskis employed the device of the confederacy to help secure their reforms in 1764.
60 For an outline account of the so-called ‘Delegation Sejm’, see , Lukowski, The Szlachta, 199–228Google Scholar ; , Kraushar, Ksiaze Repnin, ii. 22–311Google Scholar . Of the several manuscript copies of the minutes of the Delegation's proceedings, I have used the copy in the Czartoryski Library (Biblioteka Czartoryskich) (hereinafter cited as BCz), Kraków, MS 875, pp. 25-114 (‘Dyaryusz Kommisyi Traktatowey Petnomocney oddnia 4. Novembr. 1767 do dnia 26 Febr. 1768’). A French version of the treaty of 24 Feb. 1768 is in Parry, C. (ed.), Consolidated Treaty Series, New York 1969, xliv. 148–62Google Scholar , and the separate protocol (in Latin) specifiying the rights of the dissenters is in Ibid. 107-35.
61 Visconti to Torrigiani, 5 Dec. 1764, Theiner, Vetera monumenta, iv. 35; Visconti to Torrigiani, 11 Oct. 1766, enclosing a summary of a letter from Panin to Repnin, dated 18 Sept. (os) 1766, ASV Pol. 278, fos 267-8, 270; Torrigiani to Visconti, 1 Nov. 1766, Ibid. 238, fos 97-8.
63 Torrigiani to Visconti, 20 Dec. 1766, Ibid. fo. 102.
64 The full text of the articles appears under the forty-third session (29 Nov.) of the 1766 Sejm in Dyaiyusz Seymu Walnego Ordynaryinego odprawionego w Warszawie roku 1766, Warsaw [1766]Google Scholar , and may be summarised as follows: art. 1, dissenters were assured of security of worship in so far as existing legislation permitted; art. 2, the maintenance and repair, but not the extension, of legitimately held churches, was permissible on application to the local Catholic bishop; art. 3, dissenters could bury their dead, without pomp, in their own churchyards, on application to the local bishop; art. 4 residence for the pastor beside his church and where no church was available, the conduct of services at home was permissible, provided it was done discreedy and without attracting larger assemblies; between them, arts 5 and 6 reserved jurisdiction over dissenter clergy and over their ecclesiastical finances to the lay courts, in accordance with an existing statute dating from 1632; art. 7 specified the payment of all the usual state taxes by dissenter clergy; art. 8, siegneurs with the right of advowson to Orthodox churches were not to levy charges for presenting clergy to benefices, nor were they to dismiss them arbitrarily; art. 9, Orthodox clergy were to be allowed to christen, to conduct marriage and burial services, Protestant clergy to christen and conduct burial services (Protestants were normally expected to marry before Catholic clergy), provided that the fees that the Catholic clergy would normally charge for such services were paid to the local Catholic parish priest. Catholic clergy were not allowed to levy any other fees on dissenters, nor were they to charge higher fees than they charged their own Catholic parishioners. A Latin version of the articles is in ASV Pol. 278, fos 334-5. See also below, n. 106.
65 The minutes of the extraordinary congregation's meetings are in ASV Pol. 279, fos 3-7. 35-8. 44-7. 62-3, 86-7, 93-6.
67 Ibid. fo. 141.
68 Durini made this point in a letter to his uncle, the bishop of Pavia, 28 Dec. 1767, Marchesi, ‘Mecenate’, 134.
69 Sylva's memorandum, ASV Pol. 279, fos 21-34.
70 Extraordinary congregation on Polish affairs, 7 Apr. 20, 27 July, ibid, fos 5-6, 46, 87.
71 Torrigiani to Durini, 31 Oct. 1767, Ibid. 238, fos 177-8. Cf. Visconti to Torrigiani, 24 Sept. 1766, Theiner, Vetera monumenta, iv. 95-6.
72 Visconti to Torrigiani, 12 Nov. 1766, ASV Pol. 278, fos 286-8; Durini to Torrigiani, 7 Oct. 1767, Ibid. 280, fos 229-30.
73 Durini to the bishop of Pavia, 7 Oct. 1767, Marchesi, ‘Mecenate’, 127; Durini to Torrigiani, 27 Feb. 1768, ASV Pol. 281, fo. 24.
75 Torrigiani to Visconti, 4 July 1767, Ibid. fo. 146.
76 Torrigiani to Durini, 14 Nov. 1767, Ibid. fo. 180.
77 Torrigiani to Durini, 2 Jan. 1768, ibid, fos 186-8.
78 Torrigiani to Durini, 6 Feb. 1768, Ibid. fo. 194.
79 ‘Manifest Imci Xa Nuncyusza Imieniem Stolicy Apostolskiey w Nuncyaturze 30 Jan. 1768…publikowany w Warszawie’, text in Latin, BCz 875, pp. 112—14.
80 Panin to Repnin, 29 Jan./9 Feb. 1768, SIRIO lxxxvii, no. 1630.
81 Durini to Torrigiani, 3, 10, 17 Feb. 1768, ASV Pol. 281, fos 19, 20, 21; Durini to the bishop of Pavia, 24 Feb. 1768, Marchesi, ‘Mecenate’, 139.
82 Torrigiani to Durini, 16 Jan. 1768, ASV Pol. 238, fos 191-2.
83 Visconti to Torrigiani, 23 May 1764, Ibid. 277, fo. 284; to Torrigiani, 24 Sept. 1766, Theiner, Vetera monumenta, iv. 95.
84 Ibid. 95-6.
85 Ibid. 95-7.
86 Durini to Torrigiani, 16 Sept. 1767, ASV Pol. 280, fo. 202.
87 , Rudnicki, Biskup Kajelan Soltyk, 35–7.Google Scholar
88 Visconti to Torrigiani, 17 Sept., 8 Oct. 1766, ASV Pol. 278, fos 234-5; Torrigiani to Visconti, 12 Oct., 1 Nov. 1766, Ibid. 238, fos 96, 98; Torrigiani to Durini, 4 Sept. 1767, Ibid. fo. 171. When it became clear that all else had failed, Torrigiani approved Soltyk's vocally defiant stance. Torrigiani to Durini, 10, 17 Oct. 1767, ibid, fos 175-6.
90 Torrigiani to Durini, 5 Dec. 1767, Ibid. Pol. 238, fos 182-3.
91 , Baum, ‘Luigi Maria Torrigiani’, 72–3.Google Scholar
92 ‘Istruzione p. Monsr. Angelo Maria Durini…’, June 1767, ASV Pol. 238, fos 131—2. For Frederick's awareness of the economic repercussions of a more tolerant Poland on his own territories, see his despatch to Gedeon Benoit, his resident in Warsaw, 28 May 1764. Politische Correspondent Friedrichs des Grossen, Berlin 1896, xxiii, no. 15099.Google Scholar Although Frederick was Catherine's ally, his main concern was to prevent political reform in Poland. He regarded the dissenters’ issue as primarily a Russian affair in which he was content to follow Catherine's lead and, if necessary, to try to act as a restraining influence to curtail any unwelcome diplomatic repercussions. See , Lukowski, The Szlachta, 41–3, 101-4Google Scholar.
93 Cf. a copy of the note from Repni n to the king's brother, Kazimierz Poniatowski, ASV Pol. 214, fo. 118; Visconti to Torrigiani, 24 June, 1 July 1767, ibid, fos 117-19, 123-5. For Podoski see Rostworowski, E., ‘Podoski, Gabriel Jan’, in Polski Slownik Biograficzny, Krakow 1983, xxvii. 149–61Google Scholar.
94 Podoski's role in helping to organise the Confederacy of Radom was known to the papacy, Visconti to Torrigiani, 17 June 1767, ASV Pol. 280, fo. 96.
95 Torrigiani to Visconti, 18 July 1767, Ibid. 238, fo. 148.
98 Podoski to Clement xm, 19 July 1767, Ibid. 238, fos 323-4.
100 Translation of a letter of reproach from Sofryk to Podoski, 5 Oct. 1767, Ibid. 280, fo. 247. , Kumor and , Obertyński, Historia Kościola, ii, pt. 1. 42.Google Scholar On ‘Febronius’ and his ideas, see , Chadwick, The Popes, 408–11Google Scholar.
101 For Podoski's proposals, see , Rostworowski, ‘Podoski, Gabriel Jan’, 155.Google Scholar Durini sent an account of the plan to Torrigiani on 12 Dec. 1767, ASV Pol. 280, fos 355-6.
102 Ibid. fo. 356.
105 Caccamo, ‘II nunzio A. M. Durini’, 41.
106 Armand de St Saphorin, who had made representations in favour of the dissenters on behalf of the Danish court, commented on the bishops’ code of practice: ‘II parait bien detailld et leur [dissenters] accorde une entiere tolerance et les soustrait aux irregularités’, St Saphorin to Count Bernstorff, 10 Dec. 1766, Rigsarchivet, Copenhagen, MS TKUA Polen A III 45. Even Frederick II, who rarely missed an opportunity, public or private, to besmirch the Poles, pointed out to the Russians that no one was actually disturbing the dissenters in the exercise of their religion, while their continued exclusion from public office was ‘une vraie bagatelle quine rherite jamais d'en faire de si grands remuements’, Frederick 11 to his ambassador in St Petersburg, count von Solms, 28 Dec. 1766. Politische Correspondenz Friedrichs des Grossen, Berlin 1899, xxv, no. 16 418Google Scholar.
107 Armand de St Saphorin to King Christian VII of Denmark, 28 Nov. 1767, Rigsarchivet, Copenhagen, MS TKUA Polen, A III 46.
108 Panin to Repnin, 30 Jan./11 Feb. 1766, SIRIO lxvii, no. 1496.
109 Panin admitted as much in his despatch to Repnín of 29 N0V./9 Dec. 1767, ibid, no. 1597.
110 , Lukowski, The Szlachla, 253–4.Google Scholar
111 Panin to Repnin, 23 Dec. 1767/3 Jan. 1768, SIRIO lxvii, no. 1621.
112 Panin to Repnin, 29 Jan./g Feb. 1768, ibid, lxxxvii, no. 1630.
113 Kaplan, H., The First Partition of Poland, New York 1962, 104–7.Google Scholar
114 Caccamo, ‘Il nunzio A. M. Durini’, 45-7. See also Torrigiani to Durini, 26 Mar., 16 Apr. 1768, ASV Pol. 238, fos 199-201.
116 For events leading up to the Partition, see , Kaplan, op. cit. 91–189Google Scholar . For the French text of the 1775 treaty, including the new religious settlement, see , Parry, Consolidated Treaty Series, xlvi. 3–7Google Scholar.
116 Torrigiani to Visconti, 12 Oct. 1766, ASV Pol. 238, fos 94-5.
117 Visconti to Torrigiani, 29 Feb., 28 Mar. 1764, Theiner, Vetera monumenta, iv. 26, 27; ‘Istruzione p. Monsr. Angelo Maria Durini’, June 1767, ASV Pol. 238, fo. 126.
118 Torrigiani to Visconti, 18 July 1764, Ibid. fo. 56.
119 Torrigiani to Visconti, 25 Feb., 22 May 1764, ibid, fos 49, 50.
120 Visconti to Torrigiani, 4 Dec. 1765, Ibid. 278, fos 143-5.
121 Torrigiani to Visconti, 20 Dec. 1766, Ibid. 238, fo. 103.
122 , Venturi, Setlecento, i. 109-12, 120–60.Google Scholar
123 Venturi, F., ‘1764-1767: Roma negli anni della fame’, Rivista Storica Italiana lxxxv (1973). 514–43.Google Scholar
124 Ibid. 514, 531, 535. Torrigiani to Durini, 5, 26 Dec. 1767, ASV Pol. 238, fos 182-3, 184-5.
125 5 Dec. 1767, Ibid. fo. 183.
126 , Baum, ‘Luigi Maria Torrigiani’, 73.Google Scholar The congregation was due to meet on 3 Feb.
127 Loret, M., ‘Watykan a Polska w dobie rozbiorów, 1772–1795’, Przegl&d Wspótczesny cxlvi (1934), 337–60.Google Scholar It is to be regretted that Loret never wrote his planned history of Poland and the Vatican 1772-95, for which the foregoing was a pilot article. Outline accounts of later relations between Poland and the papacy are to be found in Beiersdorf, O. (ed.), Papiestwo wobec sprawy polskiej w latach 1772-1864, Wroclaw 1960, introduction, pp. xiv–xxivGoogle Scholar; , Kumor and , Obertyński, Historia Kos'ciola, ii pt. 1. 51–7Google Scholar.
