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#0099
praised so much in the Duchy of Warsaw was a strong monarchie rule, based on
heredity of the throne, which the Sejm Wielki introduced before the partitions, and
Napoleon morę recently confirmed.
It was only in the further part of the dedication that Sierakowski wrote about
architecture, the advance of which - in other words, heading towards the classi-
cal ideał - was to be a natural consequence of the political reform, which was so
favourable to Poles. He wrote that “when happiness inereases and national famę
comes to morę light” - which was supposed to be the fate of the Polish subjects
under Frederick Augustus - this should happen “not only from the internal [...]
government, but also from the external splendour” and “among all other things, the
First step towards this is probably the science and the art of the builder, that is to say,
the architecture”.17 Sierakowski thus explained why his treatise was dedicated to
the king. On this occasion, he referenced examples of other, earlier theoreticians of
architecture from abroad, whose works were “kindly received monarchs”, pointing
to the universal tradition of royal patronage over such publications. Also the local
tradition of construction art, the outline of which was presented by Sierakowski in
the oration that followed the preface, was meant to prove the fact that architecture
owed a lot to kings. For example, Sierakowski mentioned in this context the Sigis-
mund chapel that was “famed for its excellent taste”, dating to the times of the last
kings of the Jagiellonian dynasty, and the “finest architecture” of the Wilanów pałace,
erected for king John iii Sobieski. These examples were supposed to prove that “in
times of good government” Poles had a natural “desire” to “support such art and sci-
ence with considerable expense”.18 Clearly, he felt that not only the epoch of the last
Polish dynastie rules deserved the denomination of “good governance” in national
history, but so did the rule of the elective king who triumphed at Vienna, under
whose leadership the Poles achieved their last memorable military victory. In the
absence of appropriate analogies in recent centuries that would match the political
position of Frederick Augustus, Sierakowski apparently recognized the architectural
patronage of these monarchs, who could be regarded as model national leaders,
enjoying popularity and influence, and embodying the power of Poland. These
historical examples demonstrated the benefits of attachment to the throne, and of
supporting it rather than seeking to weaken its power.19 Among such crowned albeit
non-hereditary leaders of the nation, there were also the predecessors of Sobieski,
including kings Sigismund iii, Ladislaus iv and John ii Casimir, remembered by
Sierakowski as patrons to the Roman architect Jan Baptiste Piclenus, praised on his
tombstone in one of the churches of the Eternal City (no doubt, he meant Giovanni
Battista Gisleni).20 In the historiographical vision of Sierakowski, the Saxon times
constitute a downside, a point of turning baekwards (though he could not name
them as such, bearing in mind the fact that Frederick Augustus was the grandson
17 Ibidem, unpaged.
18 Ibidem, p. iii.
19 However, support for the leading political role of the ruler of the Duchy of Warsaw did not mean
support for the strong position of his ministers, who were sometimes identified with former
magnates - not so much supportive of the ruler but seeking to harm him. See: M. Mycielski,
Miasto ma mieszkańców, pp. 64-65.
20 It was not only Sierakowski who distorted the name of Gisleni in this way. See: M. Rożek, Źródła
do fundacji i budowy królewskiej kaplicy Wazów przy katedrze na Wawelu, “Biuletyn Historii
Sztuki”, 35,1973, issue 1, p. 8.
Sebastian Sierakowskie treatise and the question of disseminating architectural knowledge... 97
heredity of the throne, which the Sejm Wielki introduced before the partitions, and
Napoleon morę recently confirmed.
It was only in the further part of the dedication that Sierakowski wrote about
architecture, the advance of which - in other words, heading towards the classi-
cal ideał - was to be a natural consequence of the political reform, which was so
favourable to Poles. He wrote that “when happiness inereases and national famę
comes to morę light” - which was supposed to be the fate of the Polish subjects
under Frederick Augustus - this should happen “not only from the internal [...]
government, but also from the external splendour” and “among all other things, the
First step towards this is probably the science and the art of the builder, that is to say,
the architecture”.17 Sierakowski thus explained why his treatise was dedicated to
the king. On this occasion, he referenced examples of other, earlier theoreticians of
architecture from abroad, whose works were “kindly received monarchs”, pointing
to the universal tradition of royal patronage over such publications. Also the local
tradition of construction art, the outline of which was presented by Sierakowski in
the oration that followed the preface, was meant to prove the fact that architecture
owed a lot to kings. For example, Sierakowski mentioned in this context the Sigis-
mund chapel that was “famed for its excellent taste”, dating to the times of the last
kings of the Jagiellonian dynasty, and the “finest architecture” of the Wilanów pałace,
erected for king John iii Sobieski. These examples were supposed to prove that “in
times of good government” Poles had a natural “desire” to “support such art and sci-
ence with considerable expense”.18 Clearly, he felt that not only the epoch of the last
Polish dynastie rules deserved the denomination of “good governance” in national
history, but so did the rule of the elective king who triumphed at Vienna, under
whose leadership the Poles achieved their last memorable military victory. In the
absence of appropriate analogies in recent centuries that would match the political
position of Frederick Augustus, Sierakowski apparently recognized the architectural
patronage of these monarchs, who could be regarded as model national leaders,
enjoying popularity and influence, and embodying the power of Poland. These
historical examples demonstrated the benefits of attachment to the throne, and of
supporting it rather than seeking to weaken its power.19 Among such crowned albeit
non-hereditary leaders of the nation, there were also the predecessors of Sobieski,
including kings Sigismund iii, Ladislaus iv and John ii Casimir, remembered by
Sierakowski as patrons to the Roman architect Jan Baptiste Piclenus, praised on his
tombstone in one of the churches of the Eternal City (no doubt, he meant Giovanni
Battista Gisleni).20 In the historiographical vision of Sierakowski, the Saxon times
constitute a downside, a point of turning baekwards (though he could not name
them as such, bearing in mind the fact that Frederick Augustus was the grandson
17 Ibidem, unpaged.
18 Ibidem, p. iii.
19 However, support for the leading political role of the ruler of the Duchy of Warsaw did not mean
support for the strong position of his ministers, who were sometimes identified with former
magnates - not so much supportive of the ruler but seeking to harm him. See: M. Mycielski,
Miasto ma mieszkańców, pp. 64-65.
20 It was not only Sierakowski who distorted the name of Gisleni in this way. See: M. Rożek, Źródła
do fundacji i budowy królewskiej kaplicy Wazów przy katedrze na Wawelu, “Biuletyn Historii
Sztuki”, 35,1973, issue 1, p. 8.
Sebastian Sierakowskie treatise and the question of disseminating architectural knowledge... 97