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#0110
felt from his youngest days that there was need for this science in this country of
ours. He had turned almost all the time of his travels to foreign countries into the
pursuit of this science, and supported with a collection of books, he did not cease
to nurture the knowledge that he had acquired, and to further multiply that knowl-
edge”.73 The significance of Potocki and the group of experts that he had gathered
(on whose exact composition and proceedings we lack morę information - and the
“preface” to Sierakowskis treatise is so far the only known source mentioning this
particular enterprise74) consisted in giving this “desire” the proper, concrete direc-
tion of development. However, Potockis active participation in the sessions of the
Sejm Wielki (the Four-Year Parliament) and, subsequently, “the breaking apart of
the fatherland”75 became an impediment to the implementation of the said project.
The fruit of that era was some (albeit limited) dissemination of architectural
science, as the latter proved impossible due to difficult political circumstances. Ac-
cording to Sierakowski, the “seeds thus cast by the Education Commission” clearly
started to “spread” on the highest level of the social ladder, motivating “the nobles
who loved science and possessed the learning” to become patrons and benefactors
to “our compatriots” by giving them an opportunity to “travel abroad in acquisi-
tion of this learning.” Thanks to such talents as Stanisław Zawadzki, Jakub Kubicki,
Chrystian Piotr Aigner, Fryderyk Albert Lessel, Hilary Szpilowski, Jan Chrystian
Kamsetzer and Wawrzyniec Gucewicz76, “who should be counted in the first place
among architects” (Sierakowski also mentioned “an architect and a painter together”
Franciszek Smuglewicz and Zygmunt Vogel), “it has been demonstrated that the
genius of Poland has a particular proclivity for architecture, as for all the other Sci-
ences”.77 It was supposed to be an experience that bodę well for the futurę - well
educated society needed well trained architects. Thus, the Duchy of Warsaw took
over the legacy of king Stanislaus era, however, as Sierakowski noted, it was able to
nurture and develop that legacy in much better conditions, which bodę well - in
fact, all the better - for the futurę. After all, referring here specifically to the issue
of incorporating architecture into the system of universal education, the “resurrec-
tion” of Poland by Napoleon was supposed to provide “eternally lasting good fate
for our homeland”, due to special considerations of Providence, which the French
emperor enjoyed, in Sierakowskis opinion.78 The political disturbances, which were
a characteristic trait of the eighteenth century and interfered with the continuation
of work on the treatise under the leadership of Potocki, were also avoided. In any
case, the inflammatory system of “free election of kings” and the “civil wars” con-
nected therewith, were no longer to “tear apart [...] the Homeland”.79 Therefore,
73 Ibidem, p. i.
74 See: J. Polanowska, Stanisław Kostka Potocki, p. 65 (footnote no. 62); also: T. Mańkowski, Mecenat
artystyczny Stanisława Augusta, Warszawa 1976, p. 160.
75 S. Sierakowski, Architektura, vol. 1, p. i.
76 In the treatise, in the name of Gucewicz there is a typo (incidentally, not the only one in fam-
ily names): instead of “Gucewicz”, his name is spelled as “Gaiewicz”. Carolyn Guile associated
this notę not with Gucewicz, but with Jan Krzysztof Glaubitz, the leading architect of Vilnius
Baroąue, which denied classical taste. C. Guile, Sebastian Sierakowski, p. 119 (“The eighteenth-
century Polish architects [... ] and Johann Christoph Glaubitz in Wilno were, for Sierakowski,
especially worthy of praise”).
77 S. Sierakowski, Architektura, vol. 1, p. iii.
78 Ibidem, p. iv.
79 Ibidem, p. iv.
108
ARTICLES
Mikołaj Getka-Kenig
ours. He had turned almost all the time of his travels to foreign countries into the
pursuit of this science, and supported with a collection of books, he did not cease
to nurture the knowledge that he had acquired, and to further multiply that knowl-
edge”.73 The significance of Potocki and the group of experts that he had gathered
(on whose exact composition and proceedings we lack morę information - and the
“preface” to Sierakowskis treatise is so far the only known source mentioning this
particular enterprise74) consisted in giving this “desire” the proper, concrete direc-
tion of development. However, Potockis active participation in the sessions of the
Sejm Wielki (the Four-Year Parliament) and, subsequently, “the breaking apart of
the fatherland”75 became an impediment to the implementation of the said project.
The fruit of that era was some (albeit limited) dissemination of architectural
science, as the latter proved impossible due to difficult political circumstances. Ac-
cording to Sierakowski, the “seeds thus cast by the Education Commission” clearly
started to “spread” on the highest level of the social ladder, motivating “the nobles
who loved science and possessed the learning” to become patrons and benefactors
to “our compatriots” by giving them an opportunity to “travel abroad in acquisi-
tion of this learning.” Thanks to such talents as Stanisław Zawadzki, Jakub Kubicki,
Chrystian Piotr Aigner, Fryderyk Albert Lessel, Hilary Szpilowski, Jan Chrystian
Kamsetzer and Wawrzyniec Gucewicz76, “who should be counted in the first place
among architects” (Sierakowski also mentioned “an architect and a painter together”
Franciszek Smuglewicz and Zygmunt Vogel), “it has been demonstrated that the
genius of Poland has a particular proclivity for architecture, as for all the other Sci-
ences”.77 It was supposed to be an experience that bodę well for the futurę - well
educated society needed well trained architects. Thus, the Duchy of Warsaw took
over the legacy of king Stanislaus era, however, as Sierakowski noted, it was able to
nurture and develop that legacy in much better conditions, which bodę well - in
fact, all the better - for the futurę. After all, referring here specifically to the issue
of incorporating architecture into the system of universal education, the “resurrec-
tion” of Poland by Napoleon was supposed to provide “eternally lasting good fate
for our homeland”, due to special considerations of Providence, which the French
emperor enjoyed, in Sierakowskis opinion.78 The political disturbances, which were
a characteristic trait of the eighteenth century and interfered with the continuation
of work on the treatise under the leadership of Potocki, were also avoided. In any
case, the inflammatory system of “free election of kings” and the “civil wars” con-
nected therewith, were no longer to “tear apart [...] the Homeland”.79 Therefore,
73 Ibidem, p. i.
74 See: J. Polanowska, Stanisław Kostka Potocki, p. 65 (footnote no. 62); also: T. Mańkowski, Mecenat
artystyczny Stanisława Augusta, Warszawa 1976, p. 160.
75 S. Sierakowski, Architektura, vol. 1, p. i.
76 In the treatise, in the name of Gucewicz there is a typo (incidentally, not the only one in fam-
ily names): instead of “Gucewicz”, his name is spelled as “Gaiewicz”. Carolyn Guile associated
this notę not with Gucewicz, but with Jan Krzysztof Glaubitz, the leading architect of Vilnius
Baroąue, which denied classical taste. C. Guile, Sebastian Sierakowski, p. 119 (“The eighteenth-
century Polish architects [... ] and Johann Christoph Glaubitz in Wilno were, for Sierakowski,
especially worthy of praise”).
77 S. Sierakowski, Architektura, vol. 1, p. iii.
78 Ibidem, p. iv.
79 Ibidem, p. iv.
108
ARTICLES
Mikołaj Getka-Kenig