Five Easy Pieces? What Eliza Orzeszkowa’s early works presuppose

Grażyna Borkowska

Regardless of what the money was spent on, whether debts were paid off or not, what resounds in the presuppositional background of the novel are questions posed by classical economics: how is it possible to escape an economic and financial crisis? How can one’s own farm become wealthier? How can the wealth of an entire country or society be increased? These questions were posed by, among others, Adam Smith in his work An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (vol. 1–2, 1776), as well as by his predecessors and successors. From at least the eighteenth century onwards, there have been systematic efforts to answer questions relating to the foundations of rational actions bringing planned outcomes. Classical economics did not come into disagreement with God, since it accepted that He had established universal laws were being discovered and realized by economists. Successive economic systems and their creators were outlined by Jean Charles Léonard Simonde de Sismondi in the essay Nouveaux principes d’économie politique ou de la richesse dans ses rapports avec la population (vol. 1–2, 1819). He outlined the traits of mercantilism, which recognized trade and money as the main sources of national wealth, and of physiocracy, which saw the Earth and its natural productiveness as a potential source of increasing wealth. Adam Smith, meanwhile, saw labour as the source of wealth while emphasizing competition and criticizing the support offered by the state to the weak who were unable to compete on the labour market. Sismondi, however, took a broader view:

We have examined wealth in its relation to the population which it must support or make happy; a nation does not seem to us in any way grown richer by the sole increase in its capital, but only if its capital, in increasing, is spreading more comforts among the population it must support […].^[1]

There are echoes of these theories in Pan Graba, which resounds with the general interest in rational economy, money flows, the cost of living and ways of making a living. This interest was delayed in Poland and thus all the more intensive. The dialogues and narratorial passages in the novel resemble paraphrases not so much of economics essays but of the background context that they refer to. The moralistic novel transforms into the register of economic deliberations and economic wonders. The basic questions are posed: how to make a living without having wealth? How can money contribute to increasing wealth beyond a narrow group of people with lots of it and instead in society in general? How does money impact the emotional realm and the stability of families? There are several situations and noteworthy quotes in Orzeszkowa’s work: the head of the family Edward Zrębski was obsessed with horseracing following his return from England, buying up the best mares for huge amounts after returning to his estate. This was his main and indeed only activity other than reading The Times and knocking back glasses of porter. He was accompanied in these tasks by an Englishman, David, who also tended to Zrębski’s stables. The sportsman, as the narrator calls David, presents an opinion comparing England and the partitioned Polish lands: “England, my lord, is a land of hard work, factories, trade, crafts and politics. But when I came here, I thought that I had arrived in the land of milk and honey, where nobody lifts a finger” (PG, part 2, chapter II).^[2] He recalled his father, who was a farmer and tenant of the aristocrat Lord George Dudley. He assured the disbelieving Edward that the great Lord Dudley also worked regularly, took an interest in the state of the leased farms, listening to the complaints, remarks and suggestions of his tenant farmers. Once a year, he toured his possessions, looking into every nook and cranny, developing a plan together with his tenants for increasing the quality and quantity of the goods produced. He then returned to London, where he sat in parliament, while also writing speeches and articles that were published and discussed in the press. David continued the subject, noting that the Lord’s income was initially 5000 pounds annually but over a decade it had increased to 10,000. Edward, however, only made losses and his income had halved over five years. Asked about the source of success of his previous employer, David recalled that the Lord had drained one thousand yards of land and turned it into cattle pastures, with the animals then transported to London. He also established a coalmine, launched a steamboat on the Thames, and took control of Yorkshire’s grain transport. The theme of labour as the most certain source of income and increased wealth, regardless of unforeseen circumstances, appears in various plotlines running through the novel. Since the age of Smith and following the critique of mercantilism and physiocracy, productive work across various fields of activity but coordinated around a guiding principle and subject to permanent supervision, came to form the crux of the nineteenth-century British economy, one that was indeed founded upon on a ruthless and merciless exploitation of both labour and colonies.

Orzeszkowa’s novel features an exceptionally large number of calculations and exact amounts. The usurer Wigder, a Jew dedicated to his nation, collects wealth not for himself but for a fatherland that does not exist on a map. He counts: Staś Kloński’s wealth is calculated to be 90,000 rubles, while he further elaborates on Stanisław (Staś’s) financial situation:

He [i.e. Kloński, who has come to take out another loan] owes the bank thirty thousand. Your father, my lord, issued bonds to various people worth fifteen thousand, making forty-five thousand. While you were still a bachelor, Sir, you took on a debt of eighteen thousand, which added to the others makes seventy-three thousand. What I am owed, excepting the money recently taken for the ring, brooch and pearls, comes to almost eleven thousand eight hundred; you borrowed three thousand from the burgher Lis, while you owe the plenipotentiary one thousand two hundred. Small debts accrued at various shops will total a couple of thousand, which altogether makes eighty-one thousand (PG, part 2, chapter VI).

Wigder did not include the small sums owed by Stanisław’s father, although he is certain they must exist “because each and every lord has such debts” (ibid). In a word, the wealth of the Kloński family had been frittered away. Yesterday Stanisław was a wealthy landowner, today he was bankrupt. The Jewish usurer is thus closing his doors to him. Kloński not only failed to secure and increase his wealth but also failed to even add up his outgoings or at least commission someone to take control of them. He did not keep financial records. Instead, he lived as free as a bird. And now, he was facing misfortune, something that was partly down to Graba who was a close match when it came to wastefulness and irresponsibility. A close match, but still no match. Staś’s thoughtlessness knows no bounds. It stems from the customs of the nobility or the noble tradition, some might say, of wasting one’s own wealth in grand gestures while lacking in education and good manners. This all opens the way to thoughtlessness which accepts wastrels, prodigiousness and gamblers.