THE END OF THE RUSSIAN PROTECTORATE 401economic, and political evils of his day. Julian Ursyn Niemcewicz (1757-1841),
dramatist and novelist, started his literary career as a French translator. His
comedy Powrot posla (The Return of the Envoy), first staged in 1791, merci-
lessly mocking the selfishness of the magnates, significantly sharpened the polit-
ical atmosphere. In it, he penned the lines which so aptly summarize one of the
basic defects of the whole period: 'For we ourselves are to blame for our own
misfortunes ... We thought of ourselves and never of our country!'^20 Elsewhere,
in the Fragment Biblii targowickiej (Fragment of the Bible of Targowica, 1792),
written in pseudo-Old Testament style, and in his Obrona wojska
moskiewskiego (Defence of the Muscovite Army, 1793), he perfected the art of
political travesty. All these men were in close touch with the King, who shared
an interest in their ideas. They frequented the King's philosophical lunches
which were held every Thursday at the Royal Palace. They were all familiar
with conditions abroad, having travelled widely or studied in France or Italy.
They had a ready clientele in Warsaw in the graduates of the Collegium
Nobilium, and in the Corps of Cadets. As the ideals of the Enlightenment and
later the slogan of 'Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite', made their impact, they knew
perfectly well what was involved. The trouble was that they had no freedom to
put their ideas to the test. They had to count on the certainty that any attempt
to remove political reform from the stage, the newspaper column, or the debat-
ing chamber into the realm of concrete action would immediately arouse the
protest of the Russian ambassador and the eventual intervention of Russian
troops. They were advanced political gastronomists, highly skilled in the theory
of haute cuisine. They knew their French recipes by heart, but had no hope of
feeding the nation on any sort of diet until they took control of their own
kitchen.
The second related problem concerns the significance of lost causes. In all the
volumes expended by Polish historians on the period 1788—94, very few words
are wasted to explain that none of the splendid constitutional and social projects
of the reformers were ever put into effect. Neither the Constitution of 3 May,
nor Kosciuszko's Manifesto of Polaniec, was ever implemented. The future of
the inhabitants of Poland-Lithuania was decided not by the reformers and rev-
olutionaries, but by the despots of St. Petersburg, Vienna, and Berlin. It is in this
period that the historian first meets with that Polish tradition where the 'Word'
has precedence over the 'Fact': where more attention is paid to what people
would have liked to happen than to what actually occurred. In Polish eyes, the
refusal to accept the political situation as the reality has formed an essential spur
to national consciousness; but it has tended to cloud the vision of the past. At
the same time, one cannot deny that idealism is itself real enough. In the revo-
lutionary era, as in the nineteenth century, there were many Poles who were not
content to dream. They worked and fought and bled for their ideals in the most
real and practical way. The problem is whether they should be brought to the
centre of the historical stage, or left in the wings. Does it not matter that their
sacrifices brought no tangible result? It is regrettable no doubt; but it is hard to