DOI Heft:
Recenzje
DOI Artikel:Kurzej, Michał: Jeannie Łabno, "Commemorating the Polish Renaissance Child": [Rezension]; Ashgate, Farnham 2011
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.32431#0199
193
by the form of the works of art (pp. 153,154). In this way
Łabno attempts to prove that children’s tombstones are Pol-
ish not due to the fact of their particular popularity in Poland,
but due to the fact that their popularity is connected with
a specific model of Polish culture which impacted also the
neighbouring territories. Thus, a self-confirming theory has
emerged, proposing that it is possible to include completely
random phenomena characteristic of randomly selected
areas within Polish culture.
Such an approach to historical geography stands in con-
tradiction with the assumptions adopted by the author at
the beginning, when she decided to limit the area of her
research to the Kingdom of Poland (p. 2). In truth, the
tombstones discussed in the book make an impression of
being randomly selected. Using data from the National
Centre for Research and Documentation of Monuments,
the author identified 333 children’s tombstones in the ter-
ritory of the present day Poland (pp. 8, 9,157), yet in her
catalogue she included only 45 of them, failing to provide
the criteria for her selection. On page 13 she stated that in
the catalogue she had included only tombstones from the
territory of the Kingdom of Poland, whereas in reality, the
catalogue also contains three such monuments from Silesia,
two from Lithuania, and one from Pomerania. The cata-
logue is not limited to one type of monuments - next to
the most characteristic tombstones with the representation
of a putto reclining on a skull, it also contains tombstones
with dressed figures, depicting the deceased as standing
or kneeling, as well as family tombs depicting children
with parents. These are not exclusively preserved works,
or those the author had a chance to view herself. Not only
do presented works fail to prove the exceptionality of Pol-
ish culture, but they also prevent one from arriving at any
conclusions whatsoever. Based on this sample, the author
attempts to analyse the distribution of tombstones within
the space of a church (p. 143, 175), but she is not always
capable of determining their original location. She describes
the tombstones of the Ocieski and Grot families as orig-
inally located in the cloisters of the Cracow’s Dominican
monastery, whereas they were transferred to that location
from the church 31, while Labno recognises the tombstone’s
location outside of the presbytery to be equally prestigious
as inside (p. 293). In the context of the main thesis, analyses
of distribution of tombstones against the background of
the present administrative division of Poland (p. 153,173),
which is obviously significantly less adequate than the his-
torical boundaries rejected by the author, are even more
bizarre. Furthermore, the conclusions that may be drawn
from the presented statistics firmly negate the book’s thesis,
argue, that it is cultural and possibly confessional borders that are
relevant in such discussion, not political ones”. (p. 203).
31 The author used the work of S. Starowolski, Monumenta Sar-
matarum, Cracoviae 1655, yet she failed to draw any conclusions
from the fact that the mentioned tombstones had been described
in that work as located inside the church.
BeNEDICTO 'IORDANO IO BAPT P-qVJ-PATRUt
■SENATgLn ■ MVNERIS • ADMINI5TRATIONE • ET
CIVIBV5* MOP.VM • 5VAVITATE • CHARISSIM.VS
HOC • SACELLVM DD-DOMiNICO-ET-HYACmTO
SACRVV • AD • MISSA. -SACilFlCIVM ■ IN • E O
qVOTECK ■ PERAGENDVM • CENTVM *LIB - ANNVIS
TXSTAMENTO ■ /. -10 -FRANCISCO ■ VALETARlO
RECEPTO -DOTaTVM- ARE- SVO -EXORNARI
MAN DAVIT
LAVRA- VXOR ■ OBSIQVENTISS • DVLCISS • 7IR0
AMORIS ET DQLORIS SVI -MONVM AT-EtL
M/LSTISS ■ P •
ANNO • POST • INVENTAM • SALVTEM |
MDCIV
10. The tombstone of Benedetto Iordano, Dominican church in Genoa
(S. Maria di Castello) (photo: M. Kurzej)
11. The tombstone of Richard Benefeld, post-Benedictine church (pres-
ently a Cathedral) in Southwark (London) (photo: K. Blaschke)
by the form of the works of art (pp. 153,154). In this way
Łabno attempts to prove that children’s tombstones are Pol-
ish not due to the fact of their particular popularity in Poland,
but due to the fact that their popularity is connected with
a specific model of Polish culture which impacted also the
neighbouring territories. Thus, a self-confirming theory has
emerged, proposing that it is possible to include completely
random phenomena characteristic of randomly selected
areas within Polish culture.
Such an approach to historical geography stands in con-
tradiction with the assumptions adopted by the author at
the beginning, when she decided to limit the area of her
research to the Kingdom of Poland (p. 2). In truth, the
tombstones discussed in the book make an impression of
being randomly selected. Using data from the National
Centre for Research and Documentation of Monuments,
the author identified 333 children’s tombstones in the ter-
ritory of the present day Poland (pp. 8, 9,157), yet in her
catalogue she included only 45 of them, failing to provide
the criteria for her selection. On page 13 she stated that in
the catalogue she had included only tombstones from the
territory of the Kingdom of Poland, whereas in reality, the
catalogue also contains three such monuments from Silesia,
two from Lithuania, and one from Pomerania. The cata-
logue is not limited to one type of monuments - next to
the most characteristic tombstones with the representation
of a putto reclining on a skull, it also contains tombstones
with dressed figures, depicting the deceased as standing
or kneeling, as well as family tombs depicting children
with parents. These are not exclusively preserved works,
or those the author had a chance to view herself. Not only
do presented works fail to prove the exceptionality of Pol-
ish culture, but they also prevent one from arriving at any
conclusions whatsoever. Based on this sample, the author
attempts to analyse the distribution of tombstones within
the space of a church (p. 143, 175), but she is not always
capable of determining their original location. She describes
the tombstones of the Ocieski and Grot families as orig-
inally located in the cloisters of the Cracow’s Dominican
monastery, whereas they were transferred to that location
from the church 31, while Labno recognises the tombstone’s
location outside of the presbytery to be equally prestigious
as inside (p. 293). In the context of the main thesis, analyses
of distribution of tombstones against the background of
the present administrative division of Poland (p. 153,173),
which is obviously significantly less adequate than the his-
torical boundaries rejected by the author, are even more
bizarre. Furthermore, the conclusions that may be drawn
from the presented statistics firmly negate the book’s thesis,
argue, that it is cultural and possibly confessional borders that are
relevant in such discussion, not political ones”. (p. 203).
31 The author used the work of S. Starowolski, Monumenta Sar-
matarum, Cracoviae 1655, yet she failed to draw any conclusions
from the fact that the mentioned tombstones had been described
in that work as located inside the church.
BeNEDICTO 'IORDANO IO BAPT P-qVJ-PATRUt
■SENATgLn ■ MVNERIS • ADMINI5TRATIONE • ET
CIVIBV5* MOP.VM • 5VAVITATE • CHARISSIM.VS
HOC • SACELLVM DD-DOMiNICO-ET-HYACmTO
SACRVV • AD • MISSA. -SACilFlCIVM ■ IN • E O
qVOTECK ■ PERAGENDVM • CENTVM *LIB - ANNVIS
TXSTAMENTO ■ /. -10 -FRANCISCO ■ VALETARlO
RECEPTO -DOTaTVM- ARE- SVO -EXORNARI
MAN DAVIT
LAVRA- VXOR ■ OBSIQVENTISS • DVLCISS • 7IR0
AMORIS ET DQLORIS SVI -MONVM AT-EtL
M/LSTISS ■ P •
ANNO • POST • INVENTAM • SALVTEM |
MDCIV
10. The tombstone of Benedetto Iordano, Dominican church in Genoa
(S. Maria di Castello) (photo: M. Kurzej)
11. The tombstone of Richard Benefeld, post-Benedictine church (pres-
ently a Cathedral) in Southwark (London) (photo: K. Blaschke)