Prächtiges Haus – festes Haus. Uwagi o „miejskim” i „wiejskim” modusie domu w środowisku patrycjatu Wrocławia w początkach epoki nowożytnej

Artur Kwaśniewski

doi:10.37190/arc220102

Streszczenie

We współczesnych badaniach nad architekturą dawną coraz częściej kwestią pierwszoplanową staje się społeczny sens i kontekst dzieła architektonicznego. W takim ujęciu zasadne jest definiowanie obszaru badań i analizowanie zjawisk z perspektywy środowiska społecznego, które posługiwało się architekturą, a nie według tradycyjnego klucza „tematu architektonicznego”, „genezy artystycznej” itp. Autor artykułu zwraca uwagę na zjawisko architektury rezydencjonalnej w kręgu patrycjatu Wrocławia w okresie wczesnonowożytnym i postuluje, aby przedmiotem badań uczynić relacje zachodzące w sferze architektury między miejskim i wiejskim domem patrycjuszowskim. Treść artykułu stanowią architektoniczne wyróżniki tych siedzib, interpretowane pod kątem komunikowanych treści i znaczeń. Autor w skrótowy sposób charakteryzuje cechy siedzib miejskich (wyróżniając grupę domów realizujących formułę „pałacu miejskiego”) oraz siedzib wiejskich (wskazując na powszechność formuły zamkowej). Analizując język form domu miejskiego i wiejskiego, wskazuje istotne różnice wynikające z funkcji ideowych, jakie każda z siedzib realizowała: z jednej strony wytworność, kunsztowność, nowatorstwo, z drugiej – epatowanie warownością, rozmyślna surowość, akcentowanie „dawności”. W konkluzjach zostały m.in. zawarte postulaty dotyczące przyszłych badań architektonicznych, które powinny być prowadzone ze świadomością retrospektywnego programu podwrocławskich siedzib patrycjuszowskich doby wczesnonowożytnej.

Słowa kluczowe:
article
historia-architektury
śląsk
epoka-nowożytna
wrocław
patrycjat

Podgląd pełnego artykułu jest możliwy wyłącznie na większych ekranach.

2022

1(69)

Artur Kwaśniewski*

Prächtiges haus – festes haus:

Notes on the “urban” and “country” architectural modus

of the house of Wrocław patricians in the Early Modern Period

Introduction

For at least several decades there has been an observ-

able shift in priorities in mainstream research on historical

architecture

. A building’s style, authorship, genesis and

artistic value, its functio-spatial layout and similar tradi-

tional research subjects slowly cease to be the objective

and essential matter of studies and analyses. The socie-

tal sense of a work of architecture comes to the fore; its

operation in social space, communicating messages and

meanings, its place in a developer’s plans and strategies.

Determinants and contexts – including landscape, settle-

ment, sociotopographic, socioeconomic and other con-

texts – cease to act as a “background”. They become an

essential part of a narrative, they serve to interpret a build-

ing’s function and content. They allow us to view a work

of architecture from the perspective of people from a past

age and not that of a contemporary observer who lives in

a world of research problems and criteria such as “stylistic

development”, “innovation”, and “artistic qualities”.

In line with contemporary methodological assumptions,

the social environment of a given time and place is to be

a starting point for studies of architecture. By asking ques-

tions about the social functions of art, one can more eec-

tively notice links between architecture and other “means

of media expression”, as well as dependencies between ar-

chitectural themes that are typically seen as separate. For

instance, noble manors from the early modern period and

* ORCID: 0000-0002-5094-2050. Faculty of Architecture, Wro cław

University of Science and Technology, Poland, e-mail: artur.kwasniewski

pwr.edu.pl

The contemporary research paradigm mentioned in the intro -

duction has often been discussed at length, which is why references on

this matter have been conned to a minimum.

churches founded by nobles are, from the standpoint of

traditional arts history, two typologically distinct groups

of buildings. However, they formed a functional whole, an

“infrastructure” that satised housing and spiritual needs,

and was used to engage in politics and developing careers.

This is why it is justied to study them together, within the

broad framework of “artistic sponsorship”, or a

narrower

one, that encompasses architecture and the landscape – the

physical and symbolic living space of the nobility.

The contemporary research paradigm suggests looking

at urban housing architecture also through the prism of

it being a social setting. From this perspective, a “town-

house” should not be treated as a homogeneous phenom-

enon, as houses of patricians – a group of burghers that

governed a city – and houses of the plebs were distinctive

housing spaces. In cases that there were any architectural

similarities between them, they primarily stemmed from

common determinants such as the parcellation structure

of an “internal city”, municipal construction regulations,

and the monopoly of local masons’ guilds on construction

work in the city. The prime distinction was the utilitar-

ian program of a patrician house and the manner it was

lived in, in addition to the use of “second houses” located

outside cities by patricians. This last circumstance means

that it is justied to analyze the architecture of patrician

townhouses – or its functional aspect, strictly speaking

– in conjunction with rural residences.

Piotr Korduba’s book Patrycjuszowski dom gdański

w czasach nowożytnych [Gdańsk Patrician House in Early

Modern Era] [1] is a model example of this approach. Kor-

duba rst characterized the developer: career paths, intel-

lect and cultural horizons, the means used to build and

manifest high social status. The essential content of the

monograph concerns the architecture of the houses, ideo-

logical programs of façade and interior decoration, and

DOI: 10.37190/arc220102

Published in open access. CC BY NC ND license

16 Artur Kwaśniewski

The ndings and hypotheses concerning townhouses

presented in this paper are an attempt to summarize and

reinterpret the current state of the art on their architecture,

which expanded signicantly over the past quarter cen-

tury by way of architectural studies and formal analyses.

In the case of country residences, the basis for interpreta-

tion was formed by original in situ studies, an analysis of

iconographic and cartographic sources, and the content of

genealogical lexicons, heritage site inventories and docu-

mentary studies

In this paper, the author formulated and developed the

following hypothesis: during the early modern period, the

townhouse and country house of a Wrocław patrician dif-

fered fundamentally, and the essence of this dierence lay

in their ideological programs and the language of archi-

tectural forms used to communicate them.

The relations between a patrician’s “rst” and “sec-

ond” homes on the plane of architecture have not been

analyzed in reference to Wrocław or other Silesian cities

before. Historians who studied the history of Wrocław’s

patrician class noted the activity of the burgher elite in

purchasing landed estates [6], [2], but mostly ignored the

matter of how these estates were occupied. This theme

appeared in detailed studies, such as in discussing the his-

tories of individual families [7], localities [8] and country

estates [9].

Synthetic studies of Wrocław townhouse architecture

[10]–[15] ignored the matter of “second houses”. Country

estates were laconically noted in monographs on the ar-

tistic sponsorship engaged in by prominent burghers [16],

[17]. In cases where a patrician’s country estate’s archi-

tecture was analyzed, it was done in separation from its

urban counterpart

Similarly as in the case of research into the architec-

ture of feudal residences in Silesia: the phenomena of the

“burgher castle” and “patrician manor” were observed, but

functional and formal relationships between these build-

ings and burgher townhouses were not explored [19], [20].

However, works in which Wrocław patrician country resi-

dences were isolated as a subject of research and analyzed

in terms of the social context and their sense and scale as

a phenomenon do deserve a mention. Mieczysław Zlat in

a paper on artistic forms of manifesting “knighthood” by

burghers in the 15

and 16

centuries noted ve subur-

ban castles located near Wrocław and their “villa func-

tion” and “knightly costume”, in addition to the sense of

drawing on “building types traditionally associated with

knighthood and forms commonly understood as attributes

of a knight’s castle” [21]. The study by Hanna Górska [22]

was an attempt at synthetically presenting the typology

Such documents include O. Pusch’s monograph [2] (it lists data

on patrician families and their properties), H. Lutsch’s heritage site

inventories [3] and those by K. Degen [4], the various issues of the New

Series of the monumental multi-author Katalog zabytków sztuki w Polsce

[Art Monuments Catalog in Poland] (Vol. 4, b. 1–7 on the Lower Sile-

sian Voivodeship), referenced collectively as [5].

For instance, M. Pierzchała [18], in analyzing the artistic

foundations of Andreas Hertwig, extensively discussed the residence

in Wojnowice (pp. 354–356), but mentioned Hertwig’s townhouse at

Rynek 6 with only one sentence (pp. 353, 354).

modes of inhabiting, yet it essentially aimed to demon-

strate links between a house’s architecture and the societal

condition of the patriciate, and the users’ model of living

and needs. Knowledge of housing and the role of archi-

tecture in the lives of the members of Gdańsk’s patrician

class was complemented with studies of suburban resi-

dences: manors and villas in country estates – buildings

that, in a traditional, mono-disciplinary view, are seen as

a separate research subject.

Korduba’s work can be seen as a methodological model

for conducting research on residential architecture of cit-

ies that, like Gdańsk, acted as capitals of regions and were

economic and cultural centers of supra-regional signi-

cance. Certainly, this methodology is advised in the case of

Wrocław. The historical capital of Silesia is a close analo-

gy to Gdańsk, for instance due to their patricians’ similar

goals and deeds, as they strove to bolster their respective

city’s political power and autonomy and to strengthen the

socioeconomic position of their own families. The Spey-

manns, Bahrs and Schachmans of Gdańsk and the Rehdi-

gers, Hanniwalds and Hornigs of Wrocław built their so-

cial position in similar ways, working towards obtaining

noble status and landed estates, and ultimately – aspired

to an aristocratic lifestyle. Urban houses and houses in

country estates were used to achieve lifetime goals in both

communities.

Wrocław patricians’ houses

as an object of research

The academic paper as a form does not allow for

a comprehensive presentation of early modern residences

of Wrocław’s patricians while accounting for their entire

sociocultural context. The very subject of the origins of

patrician families, their careers and cultural horizons de-

serves a monograph no smaller than the ve-volume study

by Oskar Pusch with short biographies of all families that

governed Wrocław prior to 1741 [2]. This is why this

study focuses on just one aspect of the “Wrocław patrician

house”: the distinctiveness of the language of architectur-

al forms of urban and country residences. In this paper,

the author will merely signal the role of landed estates in

the process of the aristocratization of the burgher elites of

Wrocław, the forms of demonstrating social status and the

architectural program of a patrician townhouse and coun-

try residence. At the current stage of presenting ndings,

the main focus was placed on the distinct architectural

features of these residences, interpreted in terms of com-

municating messages and meanings.

The temporal scope used in the study is dened by two

signicant points in the history of Wrocław and the en-

tirety of Silesia: the cessation of many years of wars for

Bohemian succession in 1479 and the end of the Thirty

Years’ War in 1648. These dates also mostly correspond

to the periodization of artistic phenomena in Wrocław: in

the 1480s the language of art of the elite was extended

to include decorative and compositional motifs that had

originated in Graeco-Roman ancient history (in the deco-

ration of the town hall), while in the 1760s a new modus

now called the early Baroque entered into use.

Comments on the “urban” and “country” modus of Wrocław patricians’ houses 17

and transformation of burgher country estates between the

and early 20

century.

The lack of comparative studies on the architecture of

townhouses and country houses of Wrocław’s patrician

class of the early modern period stems mostly from the

specicity of the research material. Our knowledge of ear-

ly modern architecture of urban residences is fragmentary

and relatively modest: only a precious few buildings have

survived to the present time with façades from before the

mid-17

century, with around a dozen others known only

from iconographic accounts, with most having undergone

substantial remodeling or demolition. Likewise, in the

case of country residences, it would be dicult to recon-

struct their early modern appearance without familiarity

with historical drawings, graphics, and photographs, as

only one building – the castle in Wojnowice – has sur-

vived with its 16

-century massing, façade and spatial

layout unmodied.

The house as an element

of patrician social space

The purchase of landed estates by burghers in Silesia

began in the 13

century. It was a consequence of the de-

velopment of the settlement network and the adoption of

Western social, legal, and political models. The elite of

newly established cities purchased land primarily for eco-

nomic gain. Suburban estates – peasant farms and feudal

estates with land tenure involving military service – were

an investment and a form of increasing one’s capital and

a source of income, typically from a grange and rent from

elds farmed by tenants. Chancellery sources document-

ed the existence of numerous burgher estates surrounding

economically developing princely cities, such as Wrocław,

Świdnica, Legnica and Brzeg.

Possessing a landed estate “by knightly law” made bur-

ghers princely or royal vassals, but it did not allow them

access to knightly status. Membership in the burgher es-

tates limited one’s potential career among knights and

for intermarrying with knightly families. Likewise, links

between knights and a city – with the social space of bur-

ghers, strictly speaking – were sporadic at the time and

conned to real estate ownership.

In subsequent centuries, the barrier between the bur-

gher and knightly estates functioned selectively. Each of

these estates of the realm treated the other as competition,

protected their own political and economic privileges, and

fought to maintain inuence. However, both communities

interwove at a personal level. Many burghers, thanks to

favor with their feudal superiors, obtained coats of arms

and noble titles, in addition to political rights aorded to

nobility and stemmed from possessing a rural estate “by

knightly law”. Meanwhile, certain noble owners of plots

in a city adopted municipal laws, proted from trade, and

were members of municipal governing bodies. This inter-

weaving entrenched itself by means of familial ties be-

tween nobles and burghers [11], [2].

The process of inter-estate migration greatly intensied

in Wrocław and the Wrocław principality in the 15

and

centuries. A number of circumstances led to it, such as:

– the takeover of the principality’s governance by Wro -

cław’s patrician class, namely the procurement of a royal

privilege that allowed the town council to act in place of

the oce of starost (temporarily in 1359, 1360–1369, 1403,

continually between 1424 and 1636), which meant admin-

istering the principality in the name of all members of es-

tates who inhabited its territory [23];

– the economic, political and military might of the city,

which was a major player on the political stage of the

monarchy during the period of wars for Bohemian succes-

sion (between 1437 and 1479) [24];

– the vast career opportunities available to ambitious

and industrious individuals, ranging from municipal of-

ces to positions and titles at the imperial court or in the

central administration [2];

– the oligarchic character of the town council, which

consisted of representatives of the wealthiest merchant

houses that had typically been active in a town’s public

life for generations and was further fueled by families

with blood ties to these houses – membership in this group

of power brokers aided the development of an individu-

al’s career on the municipal, princely and royal stage, for

instance by providing cultural capital that aided in social

advancement [23], [2].

Specic “infrastructures” and attributes were used to

demonstrate one’s social status:

– ownership of real estate in the city, including a town-

house – typically sited on a plot near the Market Square

and the Merchant’s Quarter, which included the area of

Solny Square [25], [26];

– a burial chapel alongside one of two of the city’s par-

ish churches – the Church of St. Elizabeth or St. Mary

Mag dalene – along with having funded equipment and

furnishing, such as an altar or pews;

– tomb statues that commemorated members of one’s

family – displayed in the space of a church;

– displays of one’s family’s coat of arms in urban

space – on the façade of one’s house, on tombstones, on

the vault or wall of a church’s side chapel, and in unique

cases – “pseudo-heraldic” motifs (images sourced from

a coat of arms) in façade ornamentation [27];

– a country estate, especially one based on knightly

laws, including grange buildings and a country residence

– a castle or manor;

–

a country church with the right of patronage that was

either wholly or partially owned by a patrician family, along

with elements of liturgical equipment and furnishings (an

altar, an ambo, a baptism font, a patron’s bench, etc.);

– tomb statues commemorating family members – dis-

played within the space of a country church (provided that

the body of a patrician was not interred in a church in the

city);

– the display of a family’s coat of arms on the façades

of a country residence, on the façades of a church, or on

tombstones.

A country estate with a residence, a privatized religious

or sepulchral space, a tomb statue and their heraldic and

inscriptive complement are a set of media means used both

in the city and in the country, but that took on a dierent

form depending on the place-based context. It is dicult

18 Artur Kwaśniewski

to notice these dierences in the architecture of religious

and sepulchral buildings as up to the mid-17

century tra-

ditional (Gothic) forms were distinctive features of a re-

ligious use, and medieval massings and façades of cha-

pels or churches still had semantic value. In the case of

tomb statues, there was a clear dierentiation of means

of expression. In the burghers’ space, a wall epitaph or

its more monumental versions predominated [13], [21].

In space inhabited by the nobility and its subjects, the

same was true for graves with full-gure representations

of the deceased along with the attributes of knightly status

(a sword, tournament armor and a misericord), which was

a statue common among Silesian landed nobles between

the end of the Middle Ages and the mid-17

century.

Likewise, in lay buildings the language of forms derived

from the place-based context.

The townhouse

The abovementioned deciency in knowledge on pa-

trician urban residences means that it is dicult to point

to a model case of massing, façade, or hall design. The

market townhouses located at numbers 6 (property of the

Boner family, later Uthmann, Röbers), number 7 (Bock-

witz, Henscher) and number 8 (Uthmann) that stood out

in Wrocław’s social space – were interconnected by pas-

sages and used during homage visits of Bohemian kings

as a royal residence [28] – a range of spectacular interior

decoration elements survived, but none of the key archi-

tectural components from the period (apart from a heral-

dic cartouche of the Bockwitz family, probably from the

façade of house number 7) [29]–[31]. The architecture

of Wrocław’s elite is best depicted by the house at 2 Ry-

nek, called Unter den Greifen (remodeled in 1587–1589),

which is exceptional in terms of form and content, but was

not the house of a patrician, but Konrad Költsch, a wealthy

trader originally from Bruges (?) who intermarried with

the noble von Tarnau family from the village of Święta

Katarzyna near Wrocław [27].

Elements of “Renaissance” buildings along the Market

Square that have either survived or are known from ico-

nography allow us to identify the three fundamental fea-

tures of a patrician townhouse from the years 1520–1650:

– Its massing and oor plan layout were almost always

the result of an adaptation, modernization and extension

of an older frontal building, without major changes to

a spatial layout and without exceeding the wall height set

in a given street or square frontage;

– the façade was designed based on the principles of

composition, the forms of detail and decorative motifs refer-

enced ancient architecture; a regular layout of window axis

was standard; the ground oor and gable were highlighted

by inter-story cornices; gate portals and gables had an artic-

ulation and architectural decoration that typically followed

the prevalent formal mode of the period (e.g. Rynek num-

bers 2, 3, 9, 11, 16, 31); medieval portals were undisturbed

in unexposed areas, while gables – from the front, sporadi-

cally so (Rynek numbers 14, 58, perhaps also 5) [32], [33];

– hallways that acted as the reception section of a house

were covered with groin vaults with ornamental decora-

tion that followed contemporaneous patterns (e.g., Rynek

numbers 7, 19).

The feature that set patrician houses apart from other

townhouses that followed the scheme above – with a ga-

bled façade – appeared to be the artistic quality and for-

mal sophistication of the gable, gate portal and interior

decoration.

A dierent scheme, applied in three Wrocław buildings,

was also used to demonstrate one’s social status: a build-

ing with a horizontal façade top and mass. The three-story

building at 29 Rynek called zur Goldenen Krone (from the

years 1521–1528) which belonged to Johann Holtz was,

from the side of Oławska Street and the market square,

topped with semi- and quarter-circular crenelles and abut-

ted traditional steep roofs [34] (Fig. 1a). The house of

Hein rich Rybisch at 2 Oar Oświęcimskich Street (from

the years 1526–1531) consisted of three two-story build-

ings separated by two courts; the frontal building had

a at roof with a turret (a belvedere?) and a largely un-

determined horizontal façade termination; a at roof and

horizontal termination were also present on the posterior

building [36]. The house of Andreas Rehdiger at 16 Sol-

ny Square (probably from the 1560s) was given an attic

story topped with ornamental “crenelles” and either a at

or buttery roof that supported a turret [15] (Fig. 1b). The

common feature of these houses was not only their hori-

zontal façade termination, but also sophisticated classical

architectural detail (hypothetical in the last case).

It is dicult to determine which of the potential archi-

tectural and ideological patterns was more signicant: the

palatial wings of the castle in Ząbkowice Śląskie with its

arched gables and a belvedere that topped the gatehouse

tower, which belonged to Karol of Podiebrady, prince of

Ziębice and Oleśnica, descriptions of classical Roman pal-

aces such as those from Alberti’s treatise (known in this

part of Europe already towards the end of the 15

century)

or contemporaneous depictions of the Palace of Solomon

in Jerusalem, which was presented on the pages of Martin

Luther’s Bible of 1534 as a building with a cuboid mass

topped with gables with semicircular and quartercircular

motifs [38, p. CVIv]. However, regardless of the gene-

sis of Wrocław’s houses with crenelles and/or belvederes,

such buildings should be interpreted as “urban palaces”

Possessing attributes of royal or princely residences, they

strikingly expressed their owners’ and developers’ social

status and ambitions.

The city elite also used another element distinctive

of palatial architecture that was common in 16

-century

residential architecture – terminating the top of an elon-

gated façade with a series of ornamental dormer gables

In Wrocław, this motif was rst applied probably around

1580 in the municipal St. Elizabeth’s gymnasium building

(its palatial character was strengthened by a turret placed

on its façade’s axis; Fig. 1c). The massing of the house at

The term “urban palace” was previously used only to describe

Rybisch’s house [13, pp. 201, 202], [25, p. 43].

The genesis and use of this motif as an attribute of palatial ar chi-

tecture was discussed by, among others, S. Hoppe [39] and M.M. Mül -

ler [40].

Comments on the “urban” and “country” modus of Wrocław patricians’ houses 19

52 Rynek (remodeled in the early 17

century; Fig. 1d)

was accentuated with a rhythm of dormer gables, as was

the Bockwitz residence at 6 Rynek (this was suggested by

G. Hayer’s visual plan of Wrocław from 1591).

The owner of the property at 14 Solny Square, patrician

Anton Hertwig, used a solution that was a fusion of both

of these façade crowning types, most probably in the 3

quarter of the 16

century. In light of a drawing from the

mid-18

century, the façade was topped with a quasi-attic

wall that obscured the building’s dormers and was crenel-

lated (Fig. 1b).

Country house

While attempting to characterize the rural residence,

one should note three essential circumstances

1. Located in a landed estate, a residential building,

especially one in that tted the castle formula (with a de-

fensive ring, an enclosed layout, and elements of archi-

Most of the factography concerning rural residences discussed in

this chapter are included in the works referenced in footnote 3.

Fig. 1. “Urban palace” in Wrocław from around 1520–1620:

a) house at 29 Rynek called zur Goldenen Krone (not preserved), 1521–1528, the residence of Johann Holtz; photo from before 1902

(source: [35], p. 138, Abb. 156),

b) houses at Solny Square – number 14: 1560s, residence of Andreas Rehdiger, number 16: 3

quarter of the 16

century (?),

residence of Anton Hertwig; drawing by F.B. Werner from ca. 1750 (source: [37, p. 357]),

c) building of the gymnasium of St. Elizabeth in Wrocław, built ca. 1560; drawing by F.B. Werner from ca. 1750 (source: [37, p. 333]),

d) house at 52 Rynek called Zum goldenen Anker, remodeled in the beginning of the 17

century, as seen ca. 1800

(drawing by A. Kwaśniewski based on a reconstruction drawing by R. Stein, [35], plate XVII;

articulation of the 2

and 3

story from the 18

century – simplified presentation)

Il. 1. „Pałac miejski” we Wrocławiu, z lat 1520–1620:

a) dom Rynek nr 29 zwany Pod Złotą Koroną (niezachowany), 1521–1528, siedziba Johanna Holtza; fot. sprzed 1902

(źródło: [35], Abb. 156),

b) domy przy pl. Solnym – nr 14: lata 50. XVI w., siedziba Andreasa Rehdigera, nr 16: 3. ćwierć XVI w. (?), siedziba Antona Hertwiga;

rys. F.B. Wernera z ok. 1750 (źródło: [37], s. 357]),

c) gmach gimnazjum św. Elżbiety we Wrocławiu, zbudowanego ok. 1560; rys. F.B. Wernera z ok. 1750 (źródło: [37, s. 333]),

d) dom Rynek 52 zwany Pod Złotą Kotwicą, przebudowany w początku XVI w., stan z ok. 1800

(oprac. A. Kwaśniewski na podst. rysunku rekonstrukcyjnego R. Steina

[35, tabl. XVII], artykulacja 2. i 3. kondygnacji – z XVIII w. przedstawiona w uproszczeniu)

20 Artur Kwaśniewski

tectura militaris), was a manifestation of the “knightly”

legal status of the estate. It was of key signicance to its

owner, as it provided them with economic privileges (the

services and labor of serfs) and political rights (the right

to vote at an assembly of the principality, eligibility for

holding estate oce, being part of a noble court of law).

In the case of purchasing an estate “under military law” on

the territory of the prince of Oleśnica, Brzeg, Legnica and

Grodków, the ennobled patrician gained the opportunity

to pursue a career not only in burgher governing bodies,

but also at a prince’s or bishop’s court.

2. It is dicult to interpret the residences of Wrocław’s

patricians as suburban villas, namely as a counterpart to

the Italian villa suburbana. They were probably a space

for social and family life and provided contact with na-

ture, but we have no historical sources that would indi-

cate how essential these functions were. Thus, we should

view the purchase of landed estates primarily as a form of

capital investment and the necessary means to obtaining

knightly status and its associated privileges.

3. One of the ways that the aristocratization of Wro-

cław’s elite manifested itself during the early modern

period was investment in education and culture: partici-

pating in the Grand Tour, exploring European countries,

especially Italy, France and the Netherlands, studying at

a university, artistic patronage, and sometimes a passion

for collecting. These experiences should have theoretical-

ly made themselves evident in the architecture of patrician

country residences, but it is dicult to point to innova-

tions that were “artistic imports”. No landed estates near

Wro cław were found to feature the architectural model of

the Italian villa. None of the Italized designs of outstand-

ing architect Valentin von Saebisch (1577–1657) [41] who

had ties with Wrocław, could be linked with the re si dences

of Wrocław’s patricians.

In light of the state of the art, all country residences

in landed estates that belonged to patrician families were,

in architectural and ideological terms, either castles (sep-

arated from their grange setting) or manors (integrated

with the grange’s building complex). When one studies

the drawings by Friedrich Bernard Werner from the mid-

century [37], the topographic maps called Urmesst-

shblätter von Preussen from the years 1825–1830 [42]

and contemporary digital terrain models based on aerial

scans, it can be seen just how numerous landed estates

with water-lled moats were in the territory of the former

Wrocław principality. Such moats were the basic attri-

butes of a castle structure. We can identify the following

layout variants among them:

– a moat surrounded an earthen mound with a residen-

tial building at its center (e.g., Gniechowice, Popowice)

– the entire layout forms a residential motte-type complex

that is medieval in origin, or is its early modern modi-

cation (with an extensive platform instead of a mound

supporting a residential tower);

– a moat that surrounded an extensive bailey with

a courtyard in the center and detached buildings along its

periphery: a house and service buildings (e.g., Stabłowice);

– a moat that surrounded a three- or four-wing struc-

ture with a small courtyard in the center, that was a fully-

edged castle; its development covered practically the

entire square (Komorowice) or “emerged” from a water

surface presenting itself as a Wasserschloss (Wojnowice;

Fig. 2a).

A traditional moat – either singular or double (as seen

in Wojnowice) – was fully sucient as an attribute of

status and a potential defense against intruders. In cases

where it was replaced with fortications, they had a spec-

tacular form. For instance, at the start of the 17

century

the castle of Heinrich von Hornig in Leśnica was given an

internal ring of bastei-type fortications that corresponded

to corner towers, as well as extensive external bastion for-

tications (Fig. 2c). While interpreting the sense behind

this project, it should be noted that between the 15

and

centuries Leśnica was a stop along the travel route of

Bohemian kings who traveled to Wrocław to receive the

homage of the Silesian princes and estates of the realm;

in 1611, with Matthias Habsburg, Holy Roman Emperor,

staying there probably shortly after the project’s comple-

tion. In the case of Żórawina, the property of Adam von

Hanniwald, the castle was developed around 1600 on an

old village square via the incastellation of a privatized

church area (Fig. 2d). It took on the form of an earthen

platform framed by embankments, half-bastions, and

a moat, and featured a modest house and a lavishly deco-

rated church. The goal of this project was fully achieved

in 1608, when Hanniwald obtained town rights for the vil-

lage, and the status of “a free castle ef” (freie Burglehn).

The development of the plan and massings of Silesian

castles during the early modern period, including patri-

cian country residences, was based on two fundamental

principles:

– structures were preserved, remodeled, wings and tow-

ers were added, forming an irregular layout of masses (in

the terminology of German scholars: additive Konglomerat

von Bauten), which allowed for reecting the process of the

“layering” of buildings, and thus to display the old pedigree

of a residence (Wojnowice, Figs. 2a, 3; Smolec, Fig. 2b);

– regularly-shaped complexes were designed, with

wings that had unied heights and tower accents that

highlighted the layout’s regularity (Dobroszyce).

The tower is an archetypical attribute of power. An old

tower is also a manifestation of a residence’s great age.

If it did not conict with an owner’s needs – any medi-

eval residential towers were preserved and highlighted

(e.g., in Gniechowice, as reported in an inventory doc-

ument from 1582), or underscored in a newly-designed

building square complex (Ślęza, Biestrzyków). The ne-

cessity of a tower accent in a patrician castle is attested

by cases of extensions during which the medieval walls

of a residential tower became a part of a castle wing. In

Wojnowice, a tower building was “incorporated” into the

northern wing, but a slender corner turret was added into

its frontal façade, ignoring technical diculties (it was

necessary to demolish a signicant part of the wall and to

support the turret via cantilevers; Fig. 3c–e)

. In Smolec,

the incorporation of a former donjon into the side wing

An interpretation based on original, unpublished research.

Comments on the “urban” and “country” modus of Wrocław patricians’ houses 21

was compensated in the frontal part of the castle, where

a ve-story gatehouse was topped with a quasi-defensive

masonry machicolated cornice – clearly a reminiscence of

old castle towers (Fig. 2b).

The castle in Wojnowice, which survived without ma-

jor modications, allows us to formulate a range of hy-

potheses concerning the language of architectural forms

used in castle structures.

1. The peripheral buildings of a courtyard consisted

typically of single-bay buildings – both in castles with

compact development that surrounded an internal court-

yard, and in those where a masonry house occupied only

a part of the earth platform (e.g., Strzeszów – the proper-

ty of Heinrich Rybisch, that passed to the Rehdigers in

1559). Outliers here include the castle of Melchior Hirsch

von Kaltenbrunn in Komorowice, built in 1529 with three

wings and a two-bay western wing, highlighted both in

the plan and massing. This wing not only contributed to

the additive Konglomerat von Bauten eect, but also pre-

sented itself as a palatial building, a castle-like corps de

logis. If indeed all three wings date backto the same con-

struction phase, then Hirsch’s project could be considered

precursory in all of Silesia.

2. It is dicult to determine how common the cases

of exposing brick and unplastered façades were. In Woj-

nowice, external walls had never been plastered (with

the exception of blendes in gales), and the Gothic brick

wall pattern of its residential tower (1513) was repeated

Fig. 2. Cases of castle residences of Wrocław’s patricians, located in country estates:

a) Wojnowice – the residence of the Schewitz, Boner/Huber, Hertwig and other families, constructed between 1513 and ca. 1560,

steel engraving by K.U. Huber, from a drawing by R. Drescher (source: [43, after p. 168]),

b) Smolec – residence of the Uthman von Schmolz family, extended in 1523, end of the 16

century; drawing by L. Dorst, pre-1851

(in the collection of Herder-Institut, Marburg, Bildarchiv, Inv.-Nr. 77315),

c) Leśnica – reconstruction of the castle’s layout after its remodeling and extension to include rings of bastei and bastion fortifications

by Heinrich von Hornig, pre-1611 (by A. Kwaśniewski),

d) Żórawina – reconstruction of the castle field layout as delineated ca. 1600 by Adam Hanniwald von Ecksdorf (by A. Kwaśniewski)

Il. 2. Przykłady zamkowych siedzib wrocławskich patrycjuszy w majątkach wiejskich:

a) Wojnowice – siedziba rodzin Schewitz, Boner/Huber, Hertwig i innych, zbudowana między 1513 a ok. 1560,

staloryt K.U. Hubera wg rys. R. Dreschera (źródło: [43, po s. 168]),

b) Smolec – siedziba rodu Uthmann von Schmolz, rozbudowana 1523, koniec XVI w., rys. L. Dorst, przed 1851

(źródło: Herder-Institut, Marburg, Bildarchiv, sygn. 77315),

c) Leśnica – rekonstrukcja rozplanowania zamku po przebudowie i rozbudowie o pierścienie fortyfikacji bastejowych i bastionowych przez

Heinricha von Hornig, przed 1611 (oprac. A. Kwaśniewski),

d) Żórawina – rekonstrukcja rozplanowania areału zamkowego urządzonego ok. 1600 przez Adama Hanniwalda von Ecksdorf (oprac. A. Kwaśniewski)

22 Artur Kwaśniewski

during each extension (after 1525, after 1537–1546, af-

ter 1557) [3, pp. 491–493] (Fig. 2a). Furthermore, the

aforementioned turret was constructed so that the point of

contact between the older and newer wall faces would be

invisible

(Fig. 3e). The late medieval façades of country

churches (e.g., in Sośnica Jaszkotle, Brzezinka, and Biela-

ny Wrocławskie), was treated with equal attention during

this time, which allows us to assume that a brick wall face

was perceived as an attribute of a building’s old age.

3. At least since the mid-16

century, the wings of pa-

trician castles were topped with traditional stepped gables

(Wojnowice, Smolec, Leśnica), which were fashionable

in Wrocław during this period (the “stepped” contour of

the quasi-attic of the house at 14 Solny Square that can be

dated to the 3

quarter of the 16

century appears to be

an exception).

As above.

4. The “Renaissance” gate portals of castles from around

Wrocław – in Wojnowice, Gałów and Ślęza – fully corre-

spond with the castle formula of a residence: their rusti-

cated frameworks clearly displayed a fortied image. Es-

pecially as they were preceded by a bridge with one of its

spans acting as a drawbridge, and which sometimes was

located right beside the portal and was used to close the

gate aperture – to this end, the portal jamb had a recess or

niche intended for the setting in of the raised drawbridge

(such as in Wojnowice, Fig. 4a; in Gałów). Around 1600,

a rusticated, “fortress” portal became an element of the

decoration of houses of Wrocław’s burgher elite (Rynek

numbers 5, 52, 58, 12 Solny Square / 6 Szajnochy Street,

Fig. 4b) and canon residences on Ostrów Tum ski (Kate-

dralna Street numbers 5, 7 and 9), but in a form enhanced

with ornamental motifs, pilasters, and cornices.

5. Bringing to mind associations with the past was

achieved perhaps not only by using brick wall faces, but

also wooden post-and-beam structures exposed in resi-

Fig. 3. Castle in Wojnowice – reconstruction of construction development phases:

a) phase I (1513, Niclas Schewitz) – platform with a masonry residential tower and masonry and wooden side wings,

b) phase II (post 1525, Niclas Schewitz) – extension of the platform from the west, addition of a masonry tower segment to the north wing,

c) phase III (after 1437–1546, Lucretia Huber and her husband Jacob I Boner) – extension of the platform from the south,

replacement of wooden building sections with masonry ones (formation of the present northern and eastern wings),

addition of a turret, construction of the western and southern wing,

d) ground floor plan with phases I (red), II (blue), III (green), IV (post 1557, Andreas Hertwig – yellow) marked, d) turret (phase III)

added to the former residential tower (phase I) while preserving the brick wall face (drawings and photos by A. Kwaśniewski)

Il. 3. Zamek w Wojnowicach – rekonstrukcja faz rozwoju budowlanego:

a) faza I (1513, Niclas Schewitz) – majdan z murowaną wieżą mieszkalną oraz murowano-drewnianymi skrzydłami bocznymi,

b) faza II (po 1525, Niclas Schewitz) – powiększenie majdanu od zachodu, dostawienie murowanego wieżowego segmentu skrzydła północnego,

c) faza III (po 1437–1546, Lukrecia Huber i jej mąż Jacob I Boner) – powiększenie majdanu od południa,

wymiana drewnianych partii zabudowy na murowane (ukształtowanie obecnych skrzydeł: północnego i wschodniego),

dostawienie wieżyczki, budowa skrzydła zachodniego i południowego,

d) rzut kondygnacji parteru z oznaczeniem faz rozwoju: I (czerwony), II (niebieski), III (zielony), IV (po 1557, Andreas Hertwig – kolor żółty),

e) wieżyczka (faza III) dostawiona do byłej wieży mieszkalnej (faza I) z zachowaniem ceglanego lica muru (oprac., fot. A. Kwaśniewski)

d e

Comments on the “urban” and “country” modus of Wrocław patricians’ houses 23

dential buildings (and not covered in plaster). Certainly,

its use was not solely motivated by practical consider-

ations. An analysis of the structural elements of the castle

in Wojnowice led to the conclusion that the central part

of the frontal wing – located between the tower building

(1513) in the north-eastern corner of the castle and the

brick segment in the north-western corner (post 1525)

had a timber frame structure, which functioned for at least

two decades, exposing the entrance to the castle and was

replaced with a masonry wall only during a moderniza-

tion around 1545

(Fig. 3a–d). In the case of the castle in

Bielany Wrocławskie, only the cellar and a single-story

segment in the south-western corner were built using ma-

sonry – the remaining elements of the two-story frontal

wing were built using timber frames.

Period iconographic accounts are a crucial source for

studying the semantics of timber framing “in the Renais-

sance period”. A painting from 1549 depicting a bust por-

trait of patrician Niklas II Rehdiger (?) against a back-

ground of a landed estate deserves a special mention

[13], [45], [22] (Fig. 5). It shows a hunting scene and the

buildings of a country residence with an extensive timber

frame building with a wooden fence around the courtyard,

along with some form of external ring resembling a post-

and-beam wall. Regardless of whether the painting actu-

ally depicts Niklas II and his residence in the estate of

As above.

Fig. 4. Representative cases of “castle-like” gate portals in suburban and urban residences of Wrocław’s patricians:

a) Wojnowice, castle – gate portal, ca. 1545, post 1557 (photo and descriptions by A. Kwaśniewski),

b) Wrocław, patrician house at 12 Solny Square / 6 Szajnochy Street, called Riembergshof – gate portal to a posterior house (not preserved)

from 1619, in a photo by E. v. Delden from ca. 1900 (source: [44], descriptions by A. Kwaśniewski)

Il. 4. Reprezentatywne przykłady „zamkowych” portali bramnych w podmiejskich i miejskich rezydencjach patrycjuszy wrocławskich:

a) Wojnowice, zamek – portal bramny (fot. i oprac. A. Kwaśniewski),

b) Wrocław, dom patrycjuszowski przy pl. Solnym 12 / ul. Szajnochy nr 6 zwany Riembergshof

– portal bramny domu tylnego (niezachowany) z 1619 r. (źródło: [44], oprac. A. Kwaśniewski)

Fig. 5. Fragment of a portrait of Niclas II Rehdiger (?, 1549,

previously in the collection of the Schlesisches Museum

für Kunstgewerbe und Altertümer, missing after 1945)

with a depiction of the buildings of a landed estate (in Stary Śleszów?),

including a manor with a half-timbered structure

(photo: Niclas II Rehdiger (?),

[in:] Katalog Strat Wojennych, Wydział Restytucji Dóbr Kultury,

nr\no 11104, http://www.dzielautracone.gov.pl/katalog-strat-

wojennych/obiekt/?obid=11104 [accessed: 12.02.2022],

descriptions by A. Kwaśniewski)

Il. 5. Fragment portretu Niclasa II Rehdigera

(?, 1549, dawniej w zbiorach Schlesisches Museum

für Kunstgewerbe und Altertümer, po 1945 zaginiony)

z przedstawieniem zabudowy majątku ziemskiego

(w Starym Śleszowie ?), w tym dworu o konstrukcji fachwerkowej

(fot. Niclas II Rehdiger (?),

[w:] Katalog Strat Wojennych,

Wydział Restytucji Dóbr Kultury, nr 11104,

http://www.dzielautracone.gov.pl/katalog-strat-wojennych/obiekt/

?obid=11104 [data dostępu: 12.02.2022],

oprac. A. Kwaśniewski)

24 Artur Kwaśniewski

Stary Śleszów (where a manor on a square surrounded by

a moat had existed as late as in 1824 [42, Blatt 2955]), this

depiction proves that in the mid-16

century wood was

a fully acceptable material for use in a patrician’s country

house; and perhaps even a desirable one.

Depictions of estates of landowners on the previously

mentioned drawings by Werner are proof that even in the

mid-18

century timber framing was still exhibited on the

façades of noble manors around Wrocław (e.g., in the es-

tates of Żerniki Małe, Bledzów, Skarszyn, Maślice Małe,

Popowice). A telling case here is the manor in Pruszowice,

which had a timber frame structure from the end of the

century, erected by a descendant of an ennobled pa-

trician family, Georg Dietrich von Gartz, and has retained

its original façades to this day, as they were apparently

approved of by successive generations of owners between

the 18

and the 20

centuries.

The sgrato façade articulation in the form of framed

divisions used in Silesia in ca. 1590–1620 by represen-

tatives of the noble elite could have been an artful vari-

ation on the theme of post-and-beam structures [46]. It

was rst used in around 1595 in Siestrzechowice, in the

castle of Andreas von Jerin (the nephew of Andreas, bish-

op of Wrocław), and was repeated in around 1600 in the

façades of the “castle” church in Żórawina by Adam von

Hanniwald (a bishop’s councilman who probably was per-

sonally familiar with the Siestrzechowice residence) and

on the façades of the castle of Andreas von Heugel in Do-

broszyce, from the years 1598–1601). It is worth noting

that the descendants of Wrocław’s patrician families were

the rst to copy this solution.

Architectural solutions that clearly distinguished patri-

cian urban houses from country ones included the articula-

tion of vaults in formal spaces: hallways and chambers. In

country residences – e.g., in the castles in Dobroszyce, Ko-

morowice and Ślęza – the vaults were not covered in richly

ornamented molding as in urban residences (Fig. 6a) but

with plaster ribs that formed reticulated vaults (Fig. 6b).

This form of articulation, based on mimicking traditional

(late medieval) ribbed vaults was widely used in Silesia

and Kłodzko Land towards the end of the 16

and the be-

ginning of the 17

century. In noble residences, the use of

this modus should be tied with the desire to demonstrate

the house’s age – either actual (Ślęza) or mimicked using

an architectural language (Dobroszyce) – and thus the age

of the castle lord’s nobility.

Conclusions

The country residences of Wrocław’s patricians were not

“second houses”, but functional extensions of urban resi-

dences. They were living spaces with autonomy in relation

to the house in the city, associated with a patrician’s mem-

bership in the noble community. They were a manifesta-

tion of this membership and a form of legitimizing one’s

“knightly” status. The architectural forms of the house in

the city and the house in the country – the “resplendent”

(prächtig) and “fortied” (feste) moduses – were messages

directed to two dierent audiences, two dierent social

communities in which a patrician functioned. In other

words, the urban house and the country house illustrate

the dual estate membership of a patrician: as belonging to

the burghers, due to having town rights, and the nobles,

due to having an estate based on knightly law, a noble

title, and a coat of arms. A status’s attributes did not trans-

fer. Country castles and manors of Wrocław’s patricians

were practically devoid of burgher or princely signs of “re-

splendence”. In urban palaces, the castle language of ar -

chitecture was used, but in a “resplendent” form, drawn

from princely or aristocratic residences.

Future research can allow us to trace how the process

of the “incorporation” of patrician families into the no-

Fig. 6. Examples of vault decorations in the formal spaces of urban and country patrician residences:

a) vault in the hall of the house at 5 Rynek in Wrocław, the urban residence of Hieronymus Uthmann von Rathen, 1574,

on a photo by E. v. Delden before 1920 (source: [10, p. 13]),

b) vault of a ground-floor chamber in the castle in Dobroszyce, the country residence of Andreas von Heugel, 1598–1601 (photo by A. Kwaśniewski)

Il. 6. Przykłady dekoracji sklepień w reprezentacyjnych pomieszczeniach siedzib patrycjuszowskich miejskich i wiejskich:

a) sklepienie sieni domu Rynek 5 we Wrocławiu, siedziby miejskiej Hieronymusa Uthmanna von Rathen, 1574

(fot. E. v. Delden, przed 1920, źródło: [10, s. 13]),

b) sklepienie izby parteru zamku w Dobroszycach, siedzibie wiejskiej Andreasa von Heugel, 1598–1601 (fot. A. Kwaśniewski)

a b

Comments on the “urban” and “country” modus of Wrocław patricians’ houses 25

ble community and the “erasure” of their burgher origins

altered the rank of each house and its form of use. The

Rehdigers can serve as a model example here – they were

a family with links to Wrocław dated back to as early as

1512, that was ennobled in 1544, and whose members

abandoned trading and banking in favor of prots from

landed estates already in the 17

century, having sold the

urban palace at Solny Square and relocating to country

castles and manors. They furthered their careers by hold-

ing state and court oces as members of the nobility.

The interpretative proposals featured in this paper can

be useful in conducting architectural, archaeological and

conservation studies. The presence of a large number of

non-original old bricks in walls from the 18

and 19

centuries (e.g., in the southern wall of the eastern wing

of the Rehdiger family castle in Strzeszów

) can be in-

As above.

terpreted as the remains of the nogging of post-and-beam

walls. The argument concerning the “old-fashioned char-

acter” of patrician country estates should be taken into ac-

count while analyzing façade plaster stratigraphies: such

analyses should be conducted while bearing in mind that

the exposure of the brick pattern of a wall (the lack of

plaster) was a programmatic element. All visualizations

of the appearance of country residences from the early

modern period should include the historical components

of a “castle” or “manor” program: a moat, the placement

of grange buildings, and the possible extent of the resi-

dence’s elds.

Studies on early modern patrician residences allow us

to note that the social environment is the raison d’être of

architecture, and familiarity of environmental determi-

nants and contexts is the basis for all interpretation.

Translated by

Krzysztof Barnaś

References

[1] Korduba P., Patrycjuszowski dom gdański w czasach nowożytnych,

Neriton, Warszawa 2005.

[2] Pusch O., Die Breslauer Rats- und Stadtgeschlechter in der Zeit

von 1241 bis 1741, Bd. 1–5, Forschungstelle Ostmitteleuropa, Dort -

mund 1986–1991.

[3] Lutsch H., Verzeichnis der Kunstdenkmäler der Provinz Schlesien,

Bd. 2, Die Kunstdenkmäler der Landkreise des Reg.-Bezirks Bres-

lau, Willhelm Gottlieb Korn, Breslau 1889.

[4] Degen K., Die Bau- und Kunstdenkmäler des Landkreises Breslau,

Verlag Wolfgang Weidlich, Frankfurt am Main 1965.

[5] Katalog zabytków sztuki w Polsce. Seria nowa, t. 4, Województwo

wrocławskie (dolnośląskie), z. 1–7, Warszawa–Wrocław 1983–

2018.

[6] Pfeier G., Das Breslauer Patriziat im Mittelalter, Trewendt &

Granier, Breslau 1929.

[7] Weltzel A., Geschichte des Geschlechts der Saurma und Sauerma.

Denkschrift 300 jährigen Gedächtnisfeier der Fideikomiß-Stiftung

Jeltsch […], Selbstverlag, Ratibor 1869.

[8] John G., Chronik von Deutsch Lissa, Flemmings Verlag, Breslau-

Deutsch Lissa [1936].

[9] Glaeser E., Aus Bestandverzeichnissen von drei Gutshöfen und ihren

festen Häusern im Fürstentum Breslau von 1591, 1600 und 1601.

Ein Beitrag zur schlesischen Wirtschafts- und Sittengeschich te von

dem 30 jährigen Kriege, “Zeitschrift des Vereins für Geschich te

Schlesiens” 1940, 74, 159–190.

[10] Burgermeister L., Das Bürgerhaus in Schlesien, Verlag der “Deut-

schen Bauzeitung”, Berlin 1921.

[11] Stein R., Das Breslauer Bürgerhaus, Ostdeutsche Verlagsanstalt,

Breslau 1931.

[12] Stein R., Das deutsche Bürgerhaus in Schlesien, Ernst Wasmuth,

Tübingen 1966.

[13] Zlat M., Od humanizmu i Reformacji do wojny trzydziestoletniej.

Sztuka renesansu i manieryzmu 1500–1650, [in:] T. Broniewski,

M. Zlat, Sztuka Wrocławia, Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich,

Wrocław–Warszawa–Kraków 1967, 183–263.

[14] Rozpędowski J., Architektura mieszkalna od XVI do połowy XVII

wieku, [in:] Z. Świechowski (red.), Wrocław, jego dzieje i kultura,

Arkady, Warszawa 1978, 215–221.

[15] Kwaśniewski A., Dom mieszczański we Wrocławiu w okresie rene

sansu, [in:] Architektura Wrocławia, t. 1, Dom, Instytut Historii

Architektury, Sztuki i Techniki Politechniki Wrocławskiej, Werk,

Wrocław 1995, 105–137.

[16] Oszczanowski P., Casus Żórawina. Kościół Trójcy Świętej w Żóra

winie około 1600 roku, Starostwo Powiatowe we Wrocławiu, Wro-

cław 2007.

[17] Wysocka J., Późnorenesansowy wystrój i wyposażenie kościoła

p.w. Podwyższenia Krzyża Św. w Strzeszowie koło Trzebnicy, “Dzie -

ła i Interpretacje” 2002, t. 7, 95–107.

[18] Pierzchała M., Fundacje artystyczne wrocławskiego patrycjusza

Andrzeja Hertwiga (1513–1575), [in:] J. Harasimowicz (red.),

Sztuka miast i mieszczaństwa XV–XVIII wieku w Europie Środko-

wowschodniej, PWN, Warszawa 1990, 345–359.

[19] Rozpędowski J., Późnogotyckie rezydencje na Śląsku, [in:] P. Sku-

biszewski (red.), Sztuka i ideologia XV w., PWN, Warszawa 1978,

493–520.

[20] Kutzner M., Późnogotycka rezydencja patrycjuszowska w Wojno-

wicach, [in:] J. Harasimowicz (red.), Sztuka miast i mieszczaństwa

XV–XVIII wieku w Europie Środkowowschodniej, PWN, Warszawa

1990, 103–128.

[21] Zlat M., Nobilitacja przez sztukę – jedna z funkcji mieszczańskiego

mecenatu w XV i XVI w., [in:] J. Harasimowicz (red.), Sztuka miast

i mieszczaństwa XV–XVIII wieku w Europie Środkowowschodniej,

PWN, Warszawa 1990, 77–101.

[22] Górska H., Podmiejskie siedziby wrocławskiego mieszczaństwa

XVI–XIX wieku, [in:] H. Okólska (red.), Mieszczaństwo wrocław-

skie. Materiały z sesji naukowej zorganizowanej przez Muzeum

Miejskie Wrocławia w dniach 7–9 grudnia 2000 r., Muzeum Miej-

skie Wrocławia, Wrocław 2003, 71–82.

[23] Goerlitz Th., Verfassung, Verwaltung und Recht der Stadt Breslau,

Tl. 1, Mittelalter, Holzner, Würzburg 1962.

[24] Czechowicz B., Idea i państwo. Korona Czech w latach 1457–

1547, t. 2, t. 4, cz. 1, Quaestio, Wrocław 2017–2018.

[25] Kienitz H., Das Karrengeldregister von Breslau aus dem Jahre

1564, “Der Schlesische Familienforscher” 1937, Bd. 2, Nr. 5/6,

81–98.

[26] Goliński M., Socjotopograa późnośredniowiecznego Wrocławia,

Wydawnictwo UWr, Wrocław 1997.

[27] Oszczanowski P., Kamienica pod Gryfami, Mak, Wrocław 2002.

[28] Śliwowska A., Uroczyste wjazdy monarsze do Wrocławia w latach

1527–1620, Ocyna Wydawnicza ATUT, Wrocław 2008.

[29] Chorowska M., Lasota C., Rozpędowski J., Układ przestrzenny ka-

mienicy Rynek 6 we Wrocławiu w XIII–XIX w., [in:] Architektura

Wrocławia, t. 1, Dom, Instytut Historii Architektury, Sztuki i Tech-

niki PWr, Werk, Wrocław 1995, 139–162.

26 Artur Kwaśniewski

Abstract

Prächtiges haus – festes haus: Notes on the “urban” and “country” architectural modus

of the house of Wrocław patricians in the Early Modern Period

In contemporary studies of historical architecture, the social sense and context of a work of architecture increasingly often becomes a crucial

matter. From this standpoint, it is justied to dene the eld of study and to analyze phenomena from the perspective of the community that used

the given architecture and not following the traditional approach of “architectural theme”, or “artistic genesis”. The author of this paper explores the

phenomenon of residential architecture in the community of Wrocław’s patrician class during the early modern period and postulates that the rela-

tions between the urban and country patrician houses should be made a subject of study. This paper focuses on the distinctive architectural elements

of these residences, as interpreted from the perspective of the messages and meanings they conveyed. The author briey characterizes the features

of urban residences (distinguishing a group of houses that embodied the formula of the “urban palace”) and country residences (pointing to the

prevalence of the castle formula). The author analyzed the language of forms of the urban and country house and pointed to signicant dierences

stemming from ideological functions that they performed: they were resplendence, artfulness, and innovation on the one hand, while on the other:

aunting a fortress-like appearance, a deliberate austerity, and an accentuation of “oldness”. The paper’s conclusions include, among others, postu-

lates concerning the future of architectural studies that should be conducted with an awareness of the retrospective program of early modern patrician

residences from around Wrocław.

Key words: history of architecture, Silesia, the early modern period, Wrocław, the patriciate

Streszczenie

Prächtiges Haus – festes Haus. Uwagi o „miejskim” i „wiejskim” modusie domu

w środowisku patrycjatu Wrocławia w początkach epoki nowożytnej

We współczesnych badaniach nad architekturą dawną coraz częściej kwestią pierwszoplanową staje się społeczny sens i kontekst dzieła archi-

tektonicznego. W takim ujęciu zasadne jest deniowanie obszaru badań i analizowanie zjawisk z perspektywy środowiska społecznego, które posłu-

giwało się architekturą, a nie według tradycyjnego klucza „tematu architektonicznego”, „genezy artystycznej” itp. Autor artykułu zwraca uwagę na

zjawisko architektury rezydencjonalnej w kręgu patrycjatu Wrocławia w okresie wczesnonowożytnym i postuluje, aby przedmiotem badań uczynić

relacje zachodzące w sferze architektury między miejskim i wiejskim domem patrycjuszowskim. Treść artykułu stanowią architektoniczne wyróż-

niki tych siedzib, interpretowane pod kątem komunikowanych treści i znaczeń. Autor w skrótowy sposób charakteryzuje cechy siedzib miejskich

(wyróżniając grupę domów realizujących formułę „pałacu miejskiego”) oraz siedzib wiejskich (wskazując na powszechność formuły zamkowej).

Analizując język form domu miejskiego i wiejskiego, wskazuje istotne różnice wynikające z funkcji ideowych, jakie każda z siedzib realizowała:

z jednej strony wytworność, kunsztowność, nowatorstwo, z drugiej – epatowanie warownością, rozmyślna surowość, akcentowanie „dawności”.

W konkluzjach zostały m.in. zawarte postulaty dotyczące przyszłych badań architektonicznych, które powinny być prowadzone ze świadomością

retrospektywnego programu podwrocławskich siedzib patrycjuszowskich doby wczesnonowożytnej.

Słowa kluczowe: historia architektury, Śląsk, epoka nowożytna, Wrocław, patrycjat

[30] Oszczanowski P., Dobrzyniecki A., Pod Złotym Słońcem. Rynek 6

we Wrocławiu: dom mieszczan, rezydencja władców, arcydzieło ar-

chitektury, Ossolineum, Wrocław 2016.

[31] Brzezowski W., Przemiany architektoniczne kamienicy Pod Błę-

kitnym Słońcem w okresie nowożytnym, [in:] M. Smolak (red.),

Wrocławski Rynek. Materiały konferencji naukowej zorganizowa-

nej przez Muzeum Historyczne we Wrocławiu w dniach 22–24 paź-

dziernika 1998 r., Muzeum Historyczne, Wrocław 1999, 144–151.

[32] Chorowska M., Średniowieczna kamienica mieszczańska we Wro-

cławiu, Ocyna Wydawnicza PWr, Wrocław 1994.

[33] Czechowicz B., Późnogotycka kamieniarka i rzeźba architekto-

niczna domów wrocławskich, [in:] H. Okólska (red.), Mieszczań-

stwo wrocławskie. Materiały z sesji naukowej zorganizowanej

przez Muzeum Miejskie Wrocławia w dniach 7–9 grudnia 2000 r.,

Muzeum Miejskie Wrocławia, Wrocław 2003, 25–45.

[34] Łaba B., Renesansowy dom “Pod Złotą Koroną” we Wrocławiu,

“Dzieła i Interpretacje” 1993, t. 1, 65–86.

[35] Stein R., Der Grosse Ring in Breslau, Priebatsch’s Buchhandlung,

Breslau 1935.

[36] Sulej K., Fundacje artystyczne wrocławskiego patrycjusza Heinri-

cha Rybischa (1485–1544), Ocyna Wydawnicza ATUT, Wrocław

2011.

[37] Werner F.B., Topographia oder Prodromus Delineati Silesiae Du-

catus, Das ist Præsentatio und Beschreibung derer Städte, Flek-

ken, Clöster, Schlösser, Ritter Sitz und adelichen Häusern, Gärten,

Kirchen, Dorfschaten etc. des Hertzogthum Schlesiens durch viel-

jährige mühsame Reisen colligiret, oder zusamen getragen, 1755,

[manuscript in: Wrocław University Library, sygn. R 551].

[38] Biblia das ist die gantze Heilige Schrit Deutsch, transl. M. Luter,

H. Lut, Wittenberg 1534, https://haab-digital.klassik-stiftung.de/

viewer/toc/137512481/1/-/ [accessed: 11.02.2022].

[39] Hoppe S., Wie wird die Burg zum Schloss? Architektonische Inno-

vation um 1470, [in:] H. Lass (Hrsg.), Von der Burg zum Schloss.

Landesherrlicher und adeliger Profanbau in Thüringen im 15. und

16. Jahrhundert, Quartus-Verlag, Bucha bei Jena 2001, 95–116.

[40] Müller M., Das Schloss als Bild des Fürsten. Studien zur herr-

schaftlichen Metaphorik in der Residenzenarchitektur des Alten

Reichs (1470–1618) unter besonderer Berücksichtigung Mittel-

deutschlands, Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht Verlag, Göttingen 2005.

[41]

Saebisch V., Grundrisse von Schloessern, 1600–1650 [manuscript in:

Wrocław University Library, sygn. R 939], https://bibliotekacyfrowa.

pl/dlibra/publication/37269/edition/64238 [accessed: 12.02.2022].

[42]

Urmesstischblätter von Preussen, 1823–1829 [manuscript in: Staats-

bibliothek in Berlin, Prussissche Kulturbesitz, sygn. Kart. N 729].

[43] Schroller F., Schlesien. Eine Schilderung des Schlesierlandes, Bd. 3,

Verlag von Carl Flemming, Glogau [1885].

[44] Łagiewski M., Breslau Gestern, Wydawnictwo Wokół Nas, Gliwi-

ce 1996.

[45]

Pierzchała M., Houszka E., Lejman B., Łukaszewicz P., Malarstwo ślą-

skie 1520–1800, Muzeum Narodowe we Wrocławiu, Wrocław 2009.

[46] Jagiełło-Kołaczyk M., Sgrata renesansowe na Śląsku 1540–1650,

Ocyna Wydawnicza PWr, Wrocław 2003.