ABSTRACTThe aim of the article is to analyse the most intellectually challenging conceptions of Polish political thought at the time of the Four Year Seym, specifically those of Stanisław Staszic and Hugo Kołłątaj, when viewed from the perspective of the dilemmas of the republicanism of the period. At its heart, it places the issue so provocatively put forward by Rousseau’s Considérations sur le gouvernement de Pologne, that of reforming a previously noble republic against the monarchical tendencies that prevailed in Europe. (...) The analysis shows that, indeed, in both reformers’ advocacy for the hereditary throne, having no other justification but geopolitical reasons, and especially in some Kołłątaj’s later proposals, one can find evidence of their doctrinal compromises. On the other hand, their argumentations revealed an extraordinarily modern approach that could pave the way for new promising prospects of Polish republicanism. Its value lay mainly in the fact that they combined the ideals of more passionate civic patriotism with those of an economically free and active society. At any rate, all their endeavours can confirm, especially when juxtaposed with those of their political adversaries, that that tradition was approaching perhaps one of its most challenging turning points. (shrink)

W artykule proponuje się dyskusję z tezami Philipa Pettita zawartymi w książce On the People’s Terms: A Republican Theory and Model of Democracy i artykule „Two Republican Traditions”. Skupiając się na tzw. tradycji włosko-atlantyckiej, Pettit wskazywał na kluczowe dla republikanizmu powiązania etosów sprzeciwu obywatelskiego (contestatory citizenry) i ustroju mieszanego (mixed constitution). Nie jest przypadkiem, że do tak pojętej tradycji republikańskiej Pettit nie zaliczył Jeana-Jacques’a Rousseau, uznanego raczej za prekursora komunitaryzmu. Trudno się jednak zgodzić z prezentowaną przez Pettita klasyfikacją tradycji republikańskiej (...) i — zwłaszcza — jego odczytaniem myśli Rousseau. Przede wszystkim to właśnie ta myśl ukazuje najlepiej, że republikanizm, uosabiający wszak ideę rządów obywatelskich, mógł przyswoić wartości ustroju mieszanego jedynie w sposób doraźny i warunkowy — jedynie dopóty, dopóki sprzyjały one ograniczeniu nieobywatelskich (niewybieralnych) czynników władzy. Trudno też przyjąć tezę Pettita, że zapoczątkowana przez Rousseau teoria zwierzchnictwa ludu musi podważać ideały kultury czujności obywatelskiej. (shrink)

ABSTRACT The article presents the federalist thought of Carlo Cattaneo, Giuseppe Ferrari and Alberto Mario and Gaetano Salvemini. Referring briefly to the recognised failures of the federal idea in Italy and the corresponding difficulties with its territorial puzzle’ as well, the author proposes to analyse their argumentation through the prism of their attempts to find a proper federal structure for this country. The article shows that despite their eagerness to make Italy perfectly compatible with its ‘natural’ diversity, they gave different (...) answers to the Italian federalist dilemma: whether to begin the whole process with the communes or with more subnational units or rather somewhat include both elements. As will be seen, it was perhaps Salvemini who outlined the most coherent and Cattanean conception that recognised again the necessity of local initiative. Yet, as will be also seen, his federalism, intertwine from the beginning with his concern about the Italian South, was not free from its own weaknesses. (shrink)