“What happens when a traditional, estate-based society confronts modern egalitarian ideals?”

Interview with Aleksandra Oniszczuk about the legal patchwork in the Duchy of Warsaw

The Duchy of Warsaw (1807–1815) was a short-lived state in Napoleonic Europe, where the transition from a feudal to a modern society was particularly visible. Despite the newly constitution and uniform legal codes, the state authorities in some cases continued to rely on older Polish or Prussian legal norms – especially when dealing with the Jewish population. During her fellowship at the Käte Hamburger Kolleg, historian Aleksandra Oniszczuk is investigating why these contradictory legal sources coexisted, what social ideas they reflected, and how they shaped the legal status and the lives of Jews in the Duchy.

Your research at the Käte Hamburger Kolleg focuses on the various legal sources that shaped the Duchy of Warsaw’s policies toward the Jewish population. What makes the Duchy of Warsaw such a fascinating case study, especially in comparison to other Polish territories?

The Duchy of Warsaw merits particular attention as a state at a historical crossroads – between the old feudal system and modernity. Established by Napoleon Bonaparte and existing only briefly, from 1807 to 1815, it was the first Polish state to promise equality, while remaining deeply feudal in social reality. What I find fascinating is the tension between ideological promises and the practical need to adapt the law to existing social conditions. The Duchy is a prime example of the collision between legal unity and legal pluralism, which is precisely the kind of phenomenon that the Käte Hamburger Kolleg investigates. It serves as a kind of laboratory case: what happens when a traditional, estate-based society confronts modern egalitarian ideals? No other Polish state provides such unique conditions for this kind of research.

How did you become interested in this topic?

My interest in the Duchy of Warsaw grew out of a conversation with one of my friends. Over a decade ago, Artur Markowski, an experienced scholar in Jewish studies, drew my attention to a significant research gap. The Jewish policy of the Duchy of Warsaw was in need of a thorough historiographical reevaluation. Earlier studies had focused on just a few legal acts regulating Jewish life, yet these works reached sweeping conclusions – namely, that the Duchy consistently discriminated against Jews. The claim was so clear-cut and one-dimensional that we both suspected it was an oversimplification.

I expected to find more nuance in the story, but I did not anticipate discovering so many fascinating threads. After completing my doctoral history monograph a few years ago, I knew that a significant body of valuable source material, which was not central to my previous research, still awaited further exploration. This prompted me to return to the Napoleonic period in order to write another book on the topic, this time from a more legal-historical perspective. My current research focuses on legal diversity – the patchwork of overlapping legal acts derived from different traditions that were applied within the Duchy.

How did this legal diversity, particularly with regard to the Jewish population, emerge?

As in other European states under his rule, Napoleon Bonaparte sought to introduce a new legal order and reshape existing social hierarchies in the Duchy of Warsaw. The Constitution, legal codes, and the newly created administrative and judicial systems were intended to bring unity within the Napoleonic framework. A consistent implementation of these reforms would have amounted to some social revolution: more than 70 percent of the population were peasants deprived of personal freedom, governed by separate laws that treated them as serfs.

As for the Jews, who made up roughly 10 percent of the population, they were regarded as a quasi-estate – visibly distinct, speaking different language, and organised into self-governing communities regulated by religious law. The local Polish political elites, drawn largely from the aristocracy, although formally loyal to the Emperor, were reluctant to embrace profound social change. They therefore sought to mitigate or postpone several key changes.

In practice, they pursued a dual policy: one official, aligned with Napoleon’s principles, and another, more pragmatic, which relied on older legal frameworks and ad hoc decrees. A telling example is the regulation that deprived Jews of political rights — officially for a period of ten years, ostensibly to allow them time to “eliminate the differences” separating them from the rest of society. In other areas, such as taxation or the purchase of urban property by Jews, the authorities continued to apply the earlier Prussian regulations, deemed proven effective.

Source 1: Judicial case – Estera Wrocławska. Archiwum Główne Akt Dawnych [Central Archives of Historical Records], collection: Trybunał Cywilny Kaliski, call no. 1, p. 89.
Source 2: Notarial deed – lease contract by Małka Ettyngier. Archiwum Państwowe w Lublinie [State Archives in Lublin], Oddział w Chełmie [Branch in Chelm], collection: Akta notariusza Aleksandra Dąbrowskiego w Chełmie, call no. 1, p. 493.
Source 3: Certificate for the Jewish translator in public courts. : Archiwum Główne Akt Dawnych [Central Archives for Historical Records], collection: Centralne Władze Wyznaniowe, call no. 905, p. 320.
Source 4: Berek Szmul to the count Adam Czartoryski. Muzeum Ksią­żąt Czartoryskich [Museum of the Czartoryski Princes], Archiwum Fotograficzne Muzeum Narodowego w Krakowie [Photographic Archive of the National Museum in Krakow], collection: Adam Kazimierz Czartoryski. Korespondencja, call no. MNK 17-rkps-6044-III, p. 955.

Did this legal diversity influence the everyday lives of Jewish men and women?

Yes, definitely. On the one hand, all the discriminatory regulations maintained the social and cultural separation of Jews and Christians, solidifying the existing order. At the same time, the broad Napoleonic laws imposed a series of some changes. Interestingly, in everyday administrative and judicial practice, Jewish cases were mostly handled in an egalitarian manner. For instance, if a Jew approached the public administration and no specific substantive law regulating Jewish matters could be referred, their case was resolved according to general laws.

The newly established administration was overwhelmed by the sheer volume of work and faced the challenge of rapidly learning the new, standardised procedures. There was simply no time to create special procedures for Jewish matters. As a result, it became quite normal – something impossible in the previous Polish state – for a city president, for instance, to be investigated by administration in order to ensure that a Jew received compensation for property requisitioned by the army. In such cases, the Jew was no longer treated as a member of a separate group but was regarded simply as a ‘petitioner’.

The same applied in courts. At the end of the 18th century, there were no uniform, general Polish courts. In the Duchy, however, such courts were established, and in most cases, the religious affiliation of a party no longer mattered. For the first time, there was space for formally equal competition based on legal arguments in courts applying standardised substantive and procedural law. These egalitarian principles, imposed by Napoleonic order, affected the majority of minor cases handled by both administration and courts. Egalitarian rules also characterised the newly established notarial system, contributing to gradual social and cultural changes.

You also examine the legal status of Jewish women. Do you have the impression that the Napoleonic reforms truly opened up new opportunities for them – or did the existing legal pluralism rather reinforce old inequalities?

The situation of Jewish women in the Duchy of Warsaw had never been studied before. They were, in a sense, almost invisible to researchers, even though they made up roughly five percent of the state population. This was largely due to the general tendencies of historiography, but also because previous studies of Jewish status in this state focused mainly on the suspension of political and civil rights. Of the small minority of Jews petitioning for these rights, there were naturally no women – at the time, even Christian women lacked any political rights.

However, this does not mean that the primary sources are silent on Jewish women’s lives. Fortunately, many administrative cases involved women, often in relation to their occupations or residences. Even among the scarce surviving judicial records, a small percentage concern women. Perhaps the most interesting discoveries come from notarial records. These document, for example, activities of a rabbi’s wife managing his business affairs, commissioning the construction of a ship, and renting part of their apartment in the town center to house the first-instance court and municipal archive. Notably, the notary himself had his office in their apartment – symbolically, this reflected a shift in roles that had previously been dictated mostly by religious divisions.

Some Napoleonic regulations thus brought new opportunities for Jewish women. At the same time, however, other rules – especially those laid down in the Civil Code regarding a husband’s authority over his wife, which restricted independent participation in most court cases or the management of personal property – reinforced existing inequalities.

What kinds of sources do you work with, and where do the experiences of the Jewish population become most visible in them?

My main sources include legal acts, correspondence between various state officials, court records, and notarial deeds. The first category of sources usually overlooks the Jewish experience; however, at least one of them records the voice of this population: the decree converting compulsory military service into a tax mentions Jewish delegations from across the country requesting this solution.

The most engaging sources are the individual cases solved by the administration, the courts, or the notaries. These records provide unique insights into how people reacted to legal regulations and the actions of state authorities. Equally valuable is the exceptionally rare — indeed, the only known – diary of a Jew from the Duchy of Warsaw, Moses Wasserzug, available in printed editions in German and Polish. It records the dynamic life of its author, who held a range of administrative functions within the Jewish community, was knowledgeable in some legal regulations, and navigated the courts at all levels with ease.

Although no other sources of this kind are known, my research illustrates how the modern law, administration, courts, and notarial institutions of the Duchy of Warsaw shaped the experiences of Jews. Despite facing certain discriminatory laws, they learned quickly how to interact with a modern state in order to gain some agency.

Interview by Kathrin Schulte

---

Cite as:

Aleksandra Oniszczuk/Kathrin Schulte: “What happens when a traditional, estate-based society confronts modern egalitarian ideals?” Interview, EViR Blog, 17.11.2025, https://www.evir.uni-muenster.blog/en/interviewoniszczuk

Licence:

​​This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

---