Talk:Polish Constitution of May 3, 1791

Missing image Cscr-featured.png Featured article star

Polish Constitution of May 3, 1791 is a featured article, which means it has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you see a way this page can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, feel free to contribute.

Template:Oldpeerreview

Contents

1 Translation 2 Second free? 3 Poland's Constitution of May 3, 1791 4 Government Act 5 Quotes 6 The term 7 FA close 8 Numbers/rerefences for this: 9 State of this article 10 Sections to give direct reference to. 10.1 important information 10.2 might be disputed 10.3 potentially controvercial phrasing which should be attributed 11 Section titles 12 World's second modern codified national constitution 13 Corsican constitution

Translation

Making the first translation - I know it is not today's English, I am at the same time trying to make it understandable and keep the orginal form. Believe me, it sounds as bad in today's Polish as in English. Any suggestions welcome. --Piotrus 18:37, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Hmmm, I found the translated text here: http://www.polishconstitution.org/index1.html I will @ them if they allow us to use it here. --Piotrus 19:30, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

...And..? Halibutt 12:10, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)

And they have not replied at all. Perhaps if few more people would enquire and send emails to info@polishconstitution.org that would help? Tommorow I will post here the text of email I sent, so you can just copy&paste. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:21, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

update - good news. I have received email from the above site (from Andrzej Batorski) and he kindly writes: I have no problem releasing it, but I did not translate it and I don't know the source of this translation. All other content on the web site is original, written by my wife, and can be used without limitations. The only thing I ask is to give proper credit when publishing any information coming form www.polishconstitution.org --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:43, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

published polish and english text on wikisource, see external links in the article for links --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:53, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Second free?

From [1] (http://www.oefre.unibe.ch/law/icl/pl__indx.html): May 1791: After four years of discussion and drafting, Poland gets the first freely adopted, written constitution in Europe. The only earlier written Constitution in Europe was imposed on Sweden.. What was this Sweden constitution? When, imposed on whom, etc.? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:41, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia article, Constitution of 1772. Following the Swedish King Gustav III's coup d'etat against the country's oligarchs, its Estates-General on August 21, 1772, at the King's demand, within 20 minutes adopted a constitution of 57 articles. The document was subsequently amended in January 1789. This Swedish constitution, however, is considered a far cry from what would be regarded as a modern national constitution. Indeed, it is entirely passed over in the collection of constitutions, Najstarsze konstytucje z końca XVIII i I połowy XIX wieku; wybrał, przełożył i wstępem opatrzył Paweł Sarnecki, Warszawa, Wydawnictwo Sejmowe, 1997. logologist 03:12, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Swedish Instrument of Government from 1772 was not even the first codified constitution in Sweden. It basically ended the period of relative democracy preceding it, what was known as the Age of Liberty (which had been established by the Constitution of 1719). I use the world relative here because in early 18th-century Sweden nobles were still one of the most dominating groups in society. But that's not important. What I think is important is that the key word in this debate is modern. The May Constitution can correctly be considered the first modern codified national constitution in Europe. But simply saying that it was the first codified constitution in Europe (of any kind) is misleading, and is likely to confuse some readers. —Gabbe 15:15, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for this information, some of which I've incorporated into the article. It does help put perspective on the matter of "first constitutions." logologist 23:58, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Poland's Constitution of May 3, 1791

This document is known in Polish as "Konstytucja 3 maja" — "May 3rd Constitution." (It is in fact — due to its unique importance, which was immediately recognized at the time — the only Polish constitution that is called by a specific date; all subsequent ones are commonly designated only by month of adoption.) I propose that this article be retitled either "Polish 1791 Constitution" or "Polish Constitution of May 3, 1791."

The second version has the advantage of being more faithful to the Constitution's Polish name, including as it does the date of adoption. The first version, on the other hand, is recommended by simplicity. (This was, after all, the only Polish constitution that was adopted in 1791).

The article's present title, "May Constitution of Poland," is perhaps the worst that could be selected: it is both ahistoric and uncommunicative. logologist 04:11, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good point. I support "Polish Constitution of May 3, 1791". Unless there any objections, which I don't really expect, I'll move it in a day or two. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 09:29, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If the Polish name is Konstytucja 3 maja, then why isn't this article called Polish Constitution of May 3? Were there other Constitutions made in Poland on other May 3s? Kingturtle 02:36, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

For example, nihil novi constitution of 1505 was adopted on the very same day. There are several English names, but Google test shows that 'Polish Constitution of May 3' is the most common. Adding a date is simply a kind of a disambig extention. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:55, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Government Act

Dear Peter,

In your "Note on Polish constitution definition," you overexerted yourself in seeking to justify why the May 3rd Constitution was adopted as a "Government Act" rather than as a "Constitution." The body of the Government Act itself (i.e. the text of the Constitution) refers to itself repeatedly as "this Constitution," as inspection of either the Polish original or its English translation (on Wikisource) will show.

The reason that the document went through the Sejm as the "Government Act" was simply that the Polish May 3rd Constitution, contrary to the way the U.S. Constitution came into force, was voted in by the existing national legislature as an ordinary act, instituting a framework of government. logologist 08:18, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Goes to show that working ot 2am is not always the most efficient way :) Btw, I adopted this info from [2] (http://www.senat.gov.pl/k5eng/historia/noty/nota16a.htm). You may want to check this, seems fairly credible (being the official Polish government site). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 09:35, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference. I find its argument and language a bit difficult to follow.

Regrettably, even the writings of "experts" must be approached cum grano salis. For example, the caption to Matejko's painting that illustrates the paper by "Hon. Carl L. Bucki" describes the painting as "show[ing] Stanislaw August Poniatowski, King of Poland, being bourn [sic] in triumph from the Royal Palace..." If so, then who is the gentleman in the regal-looking ermine-lined cape, entering the Cathedral on the left?

"Constitutions" were very much in the air well before the various "world's first written national constitutions" were adopted. Much as Polish politicians in the 1990s sought constitutional models in western Europe and America, so on the eve of the First Partition of Poland a member of the Polish-Lithuanian Sejm was sent on a mission to ask the French philosophe Mably and antiphilosophe Rousseau to draw up tentative constitutions for a new Poland. Mably submitted his recommendations in 1770-1771; Rousseau finished his in 1772, when the First Partition was already underway.

I think the May 3rd Constitution article already qualifies for Featured Article status. The introduction is now adequate. The article is comprehensive, with nearly all linked references worked up, is informative, and is well written. logologist 00:24, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think I can still expand this article a little - for axample with your info on Mably and Rousseau. Do give me a few more days :) Could you redirect/write articles about Mably and antiphilosophe? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:00, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Quotes

I urge that the "Quotes" not be italicized (it's distracting and unnecessary) and that they be rearranged in chronological order: Burke, von Hertzberg, Establishing Act, Szczęsny Potocki, Kołłątaj and Ignacy Potocki, Marx, Churchill, John Paul II. (In their current order, they're a historic hash.) logologist 08:42, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Be bold :) I agree with you. I will do it soon. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:23, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've added a quote from Thomas Jefferson and rearranged some quotes. (I think the reasons are clear, but I'll be happy to provide them.) I've also abridged, without loss of substance, the quote from Edmund Burke, who uses an obsolete expression ("defacated") that the reader will probably misread as "defecated." logologist 05:01, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The term

We must be careful not to overdo the uniqueness of the Polish political system. Yes, Poland had one of the world's first modern written national constitutions and was not burdened with a divine-right monarchy. But Britain, for example, even if she still doesn't have a "written constitution," had gone through a civil war a century and a half earlier to limit monarchical power (and had killed her king). The Polish story is remarkable enough without gilding the lily. logologist 09:28, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I try to be NPOV, but sometimes I may get to POV - it happens. I hope you and others will correct me when I make such mistakes :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:23, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

FA close

The article is 32kb now, which means it reached my bottom-lenght line for a comprehensive article. What it needs now is:

• logical restructuring - i.e. rewriting - of the Features section. It contains all the needed information, but reads *bad*. Not only it has too many short paragraphs, but it jumps from one fact to another, repeats itself, and such.
• general 'Logologist magic' for the entire article, yet again - i.e. making it into beautiful English prose. I am sure I can count on you, L, for this :)
• well, that's all I can think of. We are close :) Hopefully FAC will be made this weekend. Perhaps we can make if for the May 3 anniversairy? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:23, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Numbers/rerefences for this:

Under the May 3rd Constitution, Poland extended political privileges to its townspeople and to its nobility (the szlachta), which latter formed some ten percent of the country's population. This percentage closely approximated the extent of political access in contemporary America, where effective suffrage was limited to male property owners. Ok, I can just see this being torn apart at FA. We need info on: what % of Commonwealth population were the townsfolk? Reference for what % of USA were the 'male property owners', and what is meant by the 'effective' in this sentence? I will have to rewrite it or move it here if we cannot back this statement up by sources. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:19, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

State of this article

I've re-edited half this article, and have some questions and misgivings. For example:

I'm not sure that mandatory majority rule at sejmiks was introduced at the early stage suggested in the article. In any case, at sejmiks the threat of the liberum veto could be overridden by means of "confederating" the session, as with sejms.

I did some research. I couldn't find the exact answer to your question (i.e. about history of voting specifically on sejmiki), but the history of voting in sejm shows that majority voting was common until late 16th century, when unanimity and liberum veto took hold. This concides with the rise of confederated sejms which preserved majority voting. It appears logical that this voting custom chage is true for both sejms and sejmiks. I assume that whatever holds true for sejms is true for sejmiki. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:20, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If both sejm and sejmik abolished the liberum veto at the same time, then the sejmik couldn't have done so before the First Partition (the impression given by the article) since the sejm did so on May 3, 1791.

Some reforms that were introduced after the First Partition, e.g. Andrzej Zamoyski's proposed codification of laws (completed 1780), seem to be alluded to anachronistically before the First Partition (1772). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:20, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I see you fixed this mistake.

So, did Andrzej Zamoyski present a plan for municipal reform? When? In what form? What became of it? Was it acted on? Was it implemented?

How many deputies total were there at the time of the April 19, 1773, Sejm?

Good question. It would be nice to find the answer, but I don't think it is of key importance.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:20, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

logologist 10:02, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Saying that "Only 102 deputies attended..." is meaningless if we don't know how many didn't. logologist 15:15, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sections to give direct reference to.

A quick start on some examples of sections which should have references.

• Replied to some, will check others. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:22, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

important information

• The Constitution instituted political equality between townspeople and nobility (Polish: szlachta) and placed the peasants under the protection of the government, thus mitigating the worst abuses of serfdom.
  • This is explained in text and based directly on constitution text available on wikisource. Perhaps I will add articles numbers to make it more evident. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:22, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• The first such constitution [....] The second was the constitution adopted by the Polish-Lithuanian ...
  • Well...this is basic encyclopedic knowledge - but I can add a source. For example: John Markoff, 'Waves of Democracy'. 1996, ISBN 0803990197 which I have just next to me: p.121 'The first European country to follow the U.S. example was Poland in 1791'. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:22, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• while the peasants languished in abysmal conditions and the city dwellers were hemmed in by an array of anti-municipal legislation and fared much worse than their thriving Western contemporaries.
  • This is confirmed by many sources, and in such strong terms definetly expressed in 'Rzeczpospolita Obojga Narodów' by Paweł Jasienica --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:05, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Catherine vowed to "protect in the name of Poland's liberties":
  • The quotes are translated by me and logologist from Polish orginal text. On Wikiquote there are links to site I found them, and that site gives printed references. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:22, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Even before the First Partition, a Sejm deputy had been sent to ask
• the ensuing debate and adoption of the Government Act took place in a quasi-coup d'etat:
  • The phrase 'coup d'etat' is used for example in this external link [3] (http://www.polishconstitution.org/index1.html) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:22, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Also it is used by Norman Davies in 'God's Playground'. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:05, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

might be disputed

• feared the rebirth of a strong Commonwealth
  • Stressed by both Jasienica and Davies. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:05, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Most historians agree

potentially controvercial phrasing which should be attributed

• internal traitors
  • Again, many magnates were labelled as such by Jasienica and Davies. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:05, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mozzerati 19:39, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)

Section titles

...are now decent. People, don't make redundant titles. Don't say "History of the blah" if the article's title is already "Blah." What else would a "History" section concern, if not the topic of article? And for god's sake, don't make a sub-article section inside the article. Why was there a "May 3 constitution" section inside an article about the May 3 constitution? Is the rest of the article unrelated to the May 3 constitution or something? Jesus christ. 141.211.234.229 16:49, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

While the titles were to long (tnx for trimming them), I had to reintroduce 2nd level sectioning (i.e. subsectioning) to make the table of contents more readable. I have also moved the 'features' section to the bottom of the article - it is now structured into history first, features later, instead if features in the middle of the history sections. I have also merged 'importance' into legacy, it makes more sense now. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:32, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

World's second modern codified national constitution

The current article states that it was "the world's second [modern codified national constitution] after the United States Constitution. How was this determined? Specifically, why do the Articles of Confederation not qualify as an earlier "modern codified national constitution?" -- Fingers-of-Pyrex 16:59, 2005 May 5 (UTC)

I never heard Articles of Confoderation described as a constitution. Perhaps you should ask this on the articles or US constitution talk page. As far as May constitution - which I researched - is concerned, many sources, including Markoff (referneced in text) mention that PCM3 was the second constitution. To quote Markoff: "Constitutions explicitly describing and limiting the authority of powerholders: The Constitution of US, ratified in 1789, was the model, inspiring numerous successors. Important precursors include some of the documents produced in the course of the English revolution of 1640s and the 18th century Swedish constitution. The first European country to follow the US example was Poland in 1791." I'd say that any documents before that era simply don't qualify to requirements of the constitution definition. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:22, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Corsican constitution

After a note on Polish wiki, I found out there is another legal act that might be the 'first' constitution - before Polish May and US: the Corsican Constitution of Pasquale Paoli. Direct text of the constitution is linked from PP wiki article. Some aditional info I googled: "It all started when Pascal Paoli led the Corsican nationalists of the day to resist the rule of Genoa and drew up a democratic constitution in 1755. In 1765, the writer Boswell said of Corsica that it was "the best model... ever to exist in the Democratic tradition"." [4] (http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JBrannan/corsica.htm). "In this text of 1755, during the independence of Corsica, Pascal Paoli defined the great principles of the Corsican Constitution that will later be part of the inspiration for the Constitution of the United States of America." [5] (http://www.kallistetours.com/corsica-about.htm). "In 1755, at the Consulta of Casabianca, the representatives of the people adopted a modern constitution. It asserted national sovereignty and organised the separation of powers and the election of a national representative assembly with the power to raise taxes, pass laws and declare war, elected by all citizens over 25, including women. The assembly elected an executive, the Supreme Council, which was the government. The head of the government was directly elected by the assembly, which kept the name of Consulta. One of the first decisions was to create the University of Corte to train the future cadres of the nation. It was no doubt not a model of absolute democracy." [6] (http://www.redflag.org.uk/frontline/twelve/12corsica.html). "Settling the capital in Corte he made vote there a Constitution asserting the sovereignty of the Corsican Nation and also the separation of powers, made strike a coin, gave the law regular courts, created an army and tried hard to give the country a small fleet." [7] (http://www.corsica.net/corsica/uk/discov/hist/histhom.htm). "He wrote a project of egalitarian Constitution which was known by Jean-Jacques Rousseau and possibly inspired Thomas Jefferson." [8] (http://www.1uptravel.com/flag/flags/fr-co.html). "a local called Pascal Paoli managed to unite the Corsicans and lead an insurrection against the Genoese. He gained enough power to cobble together a rough constitution, a unique act in an era of dynasties and absolutism." [9] (http://www.zuji.com.au/dest/guide/0,1277,ZUJIAU%7C15902%7C7091%7C1,00.html) I was unable to find, so far, any references to this constitution in more academic texts, though. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 11:55, 6 May 2005 (UTC)