A Royal Rendezvous on the Dnieper

In the spring of 1787, Empress Catherine II of Russia embarked on a grand tour of her newly acquired southern territories. Flanked by her favored courtier Prince Grigory Potemkin, she sailed down the Dnieper River in a magnificent flotilla, receiving elaborate welcomes from local subjects lining the banks. This journey was more than a display of imperial power—it was a strategic demonstration of Russia’s expanding influence in Eastern Europe. Coinciding with her progress, King Stanisław August Poniatowski of Poland-Lithuania departed Warsaw, traveling along a tributary of the Dnieper to meet the empress. On May 6, the royal vessels anchored near Kaniv , where the Polish monarch boarded Catherine’s flagship.

After formal courtesies, the two rulers—once lovers nearly three decades prior—retired for a private conversation. Their meeting lasted only thirty minutes. When they reappeared, courtiers and diplomats sensed immediately that the discussion had gone poorly. Catherine hosted the king with superficial generosity but refused his invitation to a ball in her honor ashore. Stanisław felt deeply humiliated, not merely on personal grounds but for the diplomatic snub that undermined his political standing.

The Proposal That Never Was

Stanisław had come to Kaniv with a bold strategic proposal: a military alliance between Poland-Lithuania and Russia against the Ottoman Empire. Under this plan, the Commonwealth would raise a substantial army, simultaneously guarding against potential hostilities from Prussia and Sweden. In return, Poland would gain Moldavia and a Black Sea port following a victorious war. For Stanisław, this offered multiple advantages: it would professionalize the Polish military, ease domestic political tensions, and strengthen his own authority. Catherine’s rejection left the king without a viable strategy at a critical juncture, emboldening his opponents back in Warsaw.

The Polish Commonwealth in Crisis

To understand the significance of this meeting, one must appreciate Poland-Lithuania’s precarious position in the late 18th century. The Commonwealth had already suffered the First Partition in 1772, losing significant territory to Russia, Prussia, and Austria. Stanisław, elected king in 1764 with Russian backing, had accepted the post-partition conditions imposed by Catherine’s government. However, not all Poles acquiesced to this diminished sovereignty or the king’s apparent subservience to foreign powers.

By the late 1780s, a growing movement—particularly among younger nobles influenced by Enlightenment thinkers like Rousseau—argued that Russian “protection” was stifling reform and modernization. They believed the time had come to cast off these external constraints. Key magnates, including Ignacy Potocki, Stanisław Małachowski, Michał Kazimierz Ogiński, and Stanisław Potocki, joined forces with disaffected patriots like Karol Radziwiłł to oppose the king’s cooperative policy toward Russia.

The Military and Political Context

The contrasting fortunes of Poland and its neighbors were stark. While Prussia and Russia devoted up to two-thirds of their state revenues to military expenditure, Poland’s army remained small and underfunded. Many reformers concluded that the Commonwealth’s survival depended on abandoning its traditional liberties—notably the liberum veto, which allowed any noble to block legislation—and transforming into a centralized, efficient modern state with a proper standing army.

International relations offered a brief window of opportunity. Prussia, allied with Britain and the Netherlands, viewed Russian expansion as its primary concern. Berlin suggested that if Poland severed ties with Russia, it could count on Prussian support. With Russia engaged against the Ottomans and Sweden, and Prussia adopting a hostile stance toward both Russia and Austria, it appeared the partitioning powers might be divided enough for Poland to act.

The Great Sejm and Revolutionary Reforms

In 1788, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth convened what became known as the Great Sejm . Dominated by the patriotic opposition, this parliament moved swiftly to assert national sovereignty. It voted to expand the army and placed it under the control of a parliamentary commission. Foreign policy was similarly entrusted to another committee. In 1789, the Sejm abolished the Permanent Council, which had effectively governed under Russian oversight since 1775, and declared itself a confederation—extending its session indefinitely to prevent dissolution by the liberum veto.

That March, the Sejm passed a groundbreaking fiscal measure: a 10% tax on noble land incomes and 20% on church estates. This marked the first direct taxation of these privileged estates in Polish history, providing crucial revenue for military modernization. The patriotic faction faced little organized opposition initially, as the king’s supporters were disorganized and conservatives were stunned by the pace of change.

The Impact of the French Revolution

The outbreak of the French Revolution in July 1789 electrified Polish reformers. They saw their own struggle as part of a broader Atlantic movement toward constitutional government and national sovereignty. On November 25, 1789, Warsaw illuminated its streets to celebrate the 25th anniversary of Stanisław August’s coronation—though many feared the festivities might spark civil unrest. While the night passed without major incident, a political revolution was indeed underway. That September, the Sejm established a committee, chaired by Ignacy Potocki, to draft a new constitution for the Commonwealth.

Intellectual Foundations of Reform

The debate over Poland’s future grew increasingly radical, guided by two prominent political thinkers: Stanisław Staszic and Hugo Kołłątaj. Staszic , a priest of burgher ancestry, was a man of wide learning and broad experience. A friend of Józef Wybicki and protégé of Andrzej Zamoyski, he traveled through Germany to Paris, where he befriended the naturalist Comte de Buffon and translated his Histoire Naturelle into Polish. A subsequent stay in Rome shaken his religious faith, and upon returning to Poland, he dedicated himself to political writing.

Staszic would later use his commercial wealth to found the Society of Friends of Science in 1800. His intellectual interests ranged widely: in 1815, he published an influential geographical study on the formation of the Carpathian Mountains, and he worked on translating Homer’s Iliad. But in the late 1780s, his focus was squarely on political reform. He argued passionately for a strong central government, the abolition of the liberum veto, and the extension of civil rights to townspeople and peasants.

Hugo Kołłątaj, another key figure, was more directly involved in drafting constitutional proposals. A priest and educational reformer, he advocated for a constitutional monarchy with a hereditary throne, a strengthened executive, and greater social equality.

The Legacy of Kaniv and the Path to Partition

Catherine’s rejection at Kaniv had set in motion a chain of events that would ultimately lead to the Commonwealth’s demise. Without a Russian alliance, Stanisław’s authority weakened, while the reformers overestimated Prussia’s support and underestimated Russia’s determination to maintain control. The Constitution of May 3, 1791—a visionary document that established a constitutional monarchy and addressed long-standing political flaws—provoked immediate hostility from Catherine, who saw it as a threat to Russian influence.

In 1792, under the pretext of defending “Polish freedom” against “revolutionary” changes, Russia invaded. Prussia, despite earlier promises, offered no assistance. The resulting war led to the Second Partition in 1793, followed by a national uprising under Tadeusz Kościuszko in 1794. Its defeat paved the way for the Third Partition in 1795, erasing Poland from the map for 123 years.

Modern Relevance and Historical Reflection

The meeting at Kaniv represents a pivotal “what if” moment in Eastern European history. Had Catherine accepted Stanisław’s proposal, Poland might have emerged strengthened, with a modernized army and a secure Black Sea port. Instead, her refusal accelerated the Commonwealth’s decline. The reforms of the Great Sejm demonstrated the potential for Polish self-renewal, but they also highlighted the geopolitical realities that constrained smaller nations caught between expansionist empires.

Today, this history resonates in Ukraine, where Kaniv is located, and in Poland, where the Constitution of May 3 remains a symbol of democratic aspiration. It reminds us that national sovereignty is often fragile, shaped by both internal courage and external forces beyond one’s control. The intellectual legacy of figures like Staszic and Kołłątaj endures in Central European traditions of constitutionalism and reform, reflecting a persistent struggle to balance liberty with security, innovation with tradition, and national identity with international realities.