THE END OF THE RUSSIAN PROTECTORATE 397'protection', there was no shortage of citizens who made their careers by work-
ing in the Sejm, in the dietines, or in the Confederations on behalf of foreign pay-
masters. Indeed, many were sufficiently confused by the corruption and
double-talk of the time to have sincerely accepted the Russians as the genuine
protectors of traditional Polish values. In the period of the Partitions, these 'col-
laborators' were drawn from the highest circles of the land. One of the most
scandalous, the dissolute priest Gabriel Podoski (d. 1793), was raised by
Catherine to the rank of Archbishop and Primate. Two others, Jozef
Kossakowski (1738-94) and Ignacy Massalski (1729-94), were Roman Catholic
bishops. The former, like Poninski, lived from a hefty Russian pension; the lat-
ter was dismissed from the National Education Commission for embezzlement.
Many, like Seweryn Rzewuski (1743—1811), Franciszek-Ksavery Branicki
(1730-1819), Stanislaw-Szczesny Potocki (1751-1805), Piotr Ozarowski
(1741-94), or Bishop Kossakowski's brother, Szymon Kossakowski (1741-94),
monopolized the leading military commands in the Republic, and belonged to
the most wealthy magnatial families. During the revolutionary years, many
were destined to meet with retribution. Yet such as these were legion. Men who
dared to risk their lives and careers by protesting against the prevailing violence
were few and far between. In the Sejm of 1773, at the First Partition, only two
honest men could be found. Senator Soltyk resigned his office. 'I would rather
sit in a dungeon and cut off my hand than sign the sentence passed on my father-
land;' he wrote to Staeckelberg, 'a Pole who permits the partition of his country
would be sinning against God. And we senators... would become perjurers.'
Tadeusz Rejtan (1746—80), envoy of Nowogrodek, went further. Having begged
the members in vain to reject the Partition, he rent his clothes and threw himself
on to the floor of the chamber: 'On the blood of Christ, I adjure you, do not play
the part of Judas; kill me, stamp on me, but do not kill the Fatherland.' Seven
years later, driven to distraction, he committed suicide.
The eventual consequence of the First Partition was, of course, the Second
Partition; and of the Second, the Third. Violence bred violence. The tensions
provoked on the first occasion were not resolved, and were ready to break sur-
face again as soon as Russian vigilance wavered. Their reappearance would pro-
vide the justification for yet another intervention. Between 1773 and 1793 and
again in 1794-5,the entire scenario was re-enacted with only minor variations.
On each occasion, a pattern was clearly observable. The Polish reformers,
obstructed in their plans to remedy their country's ills by legal means, turned to
an illegal adventure which had to be forcibly suppressed by Russian arms. On
each occasion, in order to avoid the risk of a wider conflagration, and prior to
her punishment of the rebellious Poles, the Empress of Russia was obliged to
seek the consent and the assistance of her Prussian or Austrian rivals. On each
occasion, as the price of their consent and assistance, Berlin or Vienna
demanded a slice of Polish territory. In this way, each Partition was the logical
consequence of an attempt to launch a programme of reform. Once this mech-
anism is understood, it is clear that the Partitions were not merely unfortunate