DOI article:
Getka-Kenig, Mikołaj: Traktat Sebastiana Sierakowskiego a problem popularyzacji wiedzy architektonicznej w Księstwie Warszawskim
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.44918#0096
the so-called ‘historical styles’”.4 Thus, it concluded a certain era, which found
appreciation not before the times of Powidzki, when it came to be considered an
appropriate model for current architectural practice. Wacław Ostrowski spoke in
similar terms in his most comprehensive monographic study on the subject of the
Kraków treatise (though he only addressed a selected aspect thereof), titled Sebastian
Sierakowski - szermierz polskiej postępowej myśli urbanistycznej [“Sebastian Siera-
kowski - a fighter for Polands progressive urban-planning thinking”], published
in 1951. He emphasized the “social progressiveness”5 of Sierakowskis many theses,
which he believed to underpin the modern Polish urban and architectural thought.
As he had written, in the Architecture... treatise, “we should see a manifestation of
the development path of Polish architecture, closely related to the best traditions of
world architecture, yet separate [...] and with distinctive ‘national characteristics’”.6
The only monographic account ever of Sierakowski s achievements as an archi-
tect-practitioner, published in 1968, hardly enriched previous studies on the subject
of his treatise. For Józef Lepiarczyk, author of Działalność architektoniczna Sebas-
tiana Sierakowskiego [“Architectural work of Sebastian Sierakowski], the treatise
merely provided the context, enriching his analysis of Sierakowskis architectural
heritage, rather that being a problem in itself, requiring the development of earlier
studies on the subject (which he mentioned in the introduction, albeit without
any critical commentary on his part).7 Zygmunt Mieszkowski, on the other hand,
devoted a lot of space to the treatise in his critical (rather than descriptive, as in the
case of Lauterbach) 1970 work titled Podstawowe problemy architektury w polskich
traktatach [“Basic architectural questions in Polish treatises”], and later; so did Adam
Małkiewicz, who further elaborated on the issue in his 1976 book Teoria architek-
tury w nowożytnym piśmiennictwie polskim [“Theory of architecture in modern
Polish literaturę on the subject]. Like Lauterbach, Mieszkowski appreciated the
unprecedented breadth and comprehensiveness of Sierakowskis treatise (“for the
first time in Polish literaturę, basie architectural problems have found such a broad
approach”).8 Małkiewicz also shared this view, adding, however, that Sierakowskis
book was the “last one” that deserved the title of the treatise sensu stricto, because
“later writings on architecture fail to combine technical and artistic problems to-
gether”.9 By that token, he saw it as marking the end of the “modern period of
architectural theory in Poland”.10 Morę than a decade later, Andrzej Rottermund
spoke about the treatise in similar tones, in his monograph on Jean-Nicolas-Louis
Durand a polska architektura 1 połowy xix wieku [“Jean-Nicolas-Louis Durand and
the Polish architecture of the first half of the nineteenth century”]. Rottermund s
subject was one of the major modern breakthroughs in thinking about architecture,
relying on the re-evaluation of technical aspects, and putting them at the centre of
4 Ibidem, p. 66.
5 W. Ostrowski, Sebastian Sierakowski - szermierz polskiej postępowej myśli urbanistycznej, “Myśl
Współczesna”, 6,1951, issue 8, p. 120.
6 Ibidem, p. 144.
7 J. Lepiarczyk, Działalność architektoniczna Sebastiana Sierakowskiego: projekty klasy cysty czne
i neogotyckie (1777-1824), Kraków 1968, p. 6-7.
8 Z. Mieszkowski, Podstawowe problemy architektury w polskich traktatach od połowy xvi do
początków xix w.. Warszawa 1970, p. 21.
9 A. Małkiewicz, Teoria architektury w nowożytnym piśmiennictwiepotskim, Kraków 1976, p. 28.
10 Ibidem, p. 10.
94
ARTICLES
Mikołaj Getka-Kenig
appreciation not before the times of Powidzki, when it came to be considered an
appropriate model for current architectural practice. Wacław Ostrowski spoke in
similar terms in his most comprehensive monographic study on the subject of the
Kraków treatise (though he only addressed a selected aspect thereof), titled Sebastian
Sierakowski - szermierz polskiej postępowej myśli urbanistycznej [“Sebastian Siera-
kowski - a fighter for Polands progressive urban-planning thinking”], published
in 1951. He emphasized the “social progressiveness”5 of Sierakowskis many theses,
which he believed to underpin the modern Polish urban and architectural thought.
As he had written, in the Architecture... treatise, “we should see a manifestation of
the development path of Polish architecture, closely related to the best traditions of
world architecture, yet separate [...] and with distinctive ‘national characteristics’”.6
The only monographic account ever of Sierakowski s achievements as an archi-
tect-practitioner, published in 1968, hardly enriched previous studies on the subject
of his treatise. For Józef Lepiarczyk, author of Działalność architektoniczna Sebas-
tiana Sierakowskiego [“Architectural work of Sebastian Sierakowski], the treatise
merely provided the context, enriching his analysis of Sierakowskis architectural
heritage, rather that being a problem in itself, requiring the development of earlier
studies on the subject (which he mentioned in the introduction, albeit without
any critical commentary on his part).7 Zygmunt Mieszkowski, on the other hand,
devoted a lot of space to the treatise in his critical (rather than descriptive, as in the
case of Lauterbach) 1970 work titled Podstawowe problemy architektury w polskich
traktatach [“Basic architectural questions in Polish treatises”], and later; so did Adam
Małkiewicz, who further elaborated on the issue in his 1976 book Teoria architek-
tury w nowożytnym piśmiennictwie polskim [“Theory of architecture in modern
Polish literaturę on the subject]. Like Lauterbach, Mieszkowski appreciated the
unprecedented breadth and comprehensiveness of Sierakowskis treatise (“for the
first time in Polish literaturę, basie architectural problems have found such a broad
approach”).8 Małkiewicz also shared this view, adding, however, that Sierakowskis
book was the “last one” that deserved the title of the treatise sensu stricto, because
“later writings on architecture fail to combine technical and artistic problems to-
gether”.9 By that token, he saw it as marking the end of the “modern period of
architectural theory in Poland”.10 Morę than a decade later, Andrzej Rottermund
spoke about the treatise in similar tones, in his monograph on Jean-Nicolas-Louis
Durand a polska architektura 1 połowy xix wieku [“Jean-Nicolas-Louis Durand and
the Polish architecture of the first half of the nineteenth century”]. Rottermund s
subject was one of the major modern breakthroughs in thinking about architecture,
relying on the re-evaluation of technical aspects, and putting them at the centre of
4 Ibidem, p. 66.
5 W. Ostrowski, Sebastian Sierakowski - szermierz polskiej postępowej myśli urbanistycznej, “Myśl
Współczesna”, 6,1951, issue 8, p. 120.
6 Ibidem, p. 144.
7 J. Lepiarczyk, Działalność architektoniczna Sebastiana Sierakowskiego: projekty klasy cysty czne
i neogotyckie (1777-1824), Kraków 1968, p. 6-7.
8 Z. Mieszkowski, Podstawowe problemy architektury w polskich traktatach od połowy xvi do
początków xix w.. Warszawa 1970, p. 21.
9 A. Małkiewicz, Teoria architektury w nowożytnym piśmiennictwiepotskim, Kraków 1976, p. 28.
10 Ibidem, p. 10.
94
ARTICLES
Mikołaj Getka-Kenig