Wpływ zaborcy na kształt architektury drewnianej końca XIX i początku XX w. na terenie Lubelszczyzny

Ewa Netczuk-Pol

doi:10.37190/arc210102

Streszczenie

Celem artykułu było przedstawienie wpływu architektury narodowej rosyjskiej na drewnianą architekturę Lubelszczyzny powstałą na przełomie XIX i XX w., która charakteryzowała się dużą odrębnością. Przedmiotem pracy było ukazanie znaczenia wzmożonej rusyfikacji, która dotykała nie tylko sfery życia społecznego, kulturalnego, ale także architektury. W artykule dokonano analizy zachowanej architektury drewnianej powstałej na przełomie wieków na terenie obecnego województwa lubelskiego. Jako materiał wyjściowy wykorzystano dostępne materiały archiwalne oraz dokumentację stworzoną na potrzeby wojewódzkiego konserwatora zabytków (karta ewidencji zabytków architektury i budownictwa) oraz dokonano wizji lokalnej w celu przygotowania dokumentacji fotograficznej stanu aktualnego. Jako materiał porównawczy posłużyła charakterystyczna zabudowa drewniana powstała pod koniec XIX i na początku XX w. w Samarze w Rosji. Zabudowa ta ma dobrze udokumentowaną historię oraz jest dobrze zbadana przez lokalnych naukowców. Dodatkowo przetrwała do dziś w stanie prawie nienaruszonym. Podczas badań porównano istniejącą zabudowę drewnianej Lubelszczyzny z przełomu wieków z zabudową drewnianą rosyjską przede wszystkim pod względem detalu i dekoracji fasady. Pozwoliło to na zauważenie podobieństw między detalami stosowanymi w tradycyjnym budownictwie drewnianym na terenie województwa lubelskiego. Szczególnie jest to widoczne w detalu stolarki okiennej – bogato dekorowane nad- i podokienniki. Jest to element charakterystyczny tylko dla badanego okresu, co potwierdza tezę o wpływie zaborcy na kształt architektury.

Podgląd pełnego artykułu jest możliwy wyłącznie na większych ekranach.

2021

1(65)

DOI: 10.37190/arc210102

Ewa Netczuk-Pol*

The influence of the foreign invader

on the shape of wooden architecture

of the end of the 19

and beginning of the 20

century

in the Lublin region

Introduction

The area of the present-day Lublin region

at the turn

of the 19

and 20

centuries was under Russian inuen-

ces. The architecture that emerged in this area was very

distinct due to its unique form, which resulted from the

combination of traditional Russian folk architecture with

local art. Two cultures – Polish and Russian – intertwi-

ned here. This was largely due to the foreign invader

government, which introduced its laws into these areas.

After the fall of the January Uprising, the tsarist policy

towards Poles changed. Russication intensied, along

with eorts to limit the freedoms of citizens in all sphe-

res of public life, which also aected architecture. The

invader sought to close all universities in the Kingdom

of Poland. In their place, new ones with Russian as the

language of instruction were created. Architecture adepts

could acquire knowledge only at Russian universities and

at the Polytechnic Institute in Warsaw, which was greatly

inuenced by the invader. In this way, some new patterns

were introduced into the newly emerging architecture. At

that time, numerous buildings were also modernized, thus

receiving features of the national Russian (pseudo-Rus-

sian) style [1].

The subject of the study is to present the inuence of

the invader on the appearance and architectural form of

* ORCID: 0000-0002-2514-8314. Faculty of Architecture, Wro-

cław University of Science and Technology, e-mail: ewa.pol@pwr.edu.pl

The research area was limited to the area of the present Lublin

region. During the discussed period, numerous changes to the borders

of the Lubelskie Voivodeship took place, hence the present area of the

Lublin region was adopted for consideration.

wooden residential buildings that were erected in the Lu-

blin region during the Russian partition and in the rst

years after Poland regained independence, when the buil-

ding regulations issued by the occupant were still in for-

ce. So far, there have been few studies containing general

information on wooden buildings. Worth mentioning here

are works by, e.g. Professor Wiktor Zin [2] or Jan Górak

Both of them studied wooden architecture in this area, but

without taking into account the inuence of the invader on

the character of the dwelling house.

Historical background

As a result of three partitions, the State of Poland dis-

appeared from the map of Europe. Under the Treaty of

Tylża (July 7, 1807), Poland received a substitute for in-

dependence in the form of the Duchy of Warsaw, which

was to be ruled by Frederick Augustus, the Saxon king of

the Wettin dynasty. The Lublin region was then entirely

within the borders of the Duchy in 1809. After Napoleon’s

defeat at Moscow, which resulted in the Treaty of Vien-

na, in 1815 another breakthrough took place. The greater

part of the Duchy of Warsaw was incorporated into the

Kingdom of Poland under the reign of Tsar Alexander

I and was joined by a personal union with Russia [5]. The

territory of the Congress Kingdom was divided into ten

governorates (Warsaw, Płock, Łomża, Suwałki, Kaliska,

Piotrków, Kielce, Radom, Lublin, Chełm), which were

further divided into 82 poviats (Russian: ujeździe).

The more important publications include: [3], [4].

12 Ewa Netczuk-Pol

Lublin region during the period

of the Kingdom of Poland

The area of the entire Lublin region was within the bor-

ders of the Kingdom of Poland. It was divided between

two voivodships (governorates): Lubelskie and Siedlce

(in the years 1837–1844 as Podlasie). The outbreak of

the November Uprising in 1830 and the entry of Russian

troops into the Lublin region in 1831 caused signicant

damage to this region. Lubartów, Kazimierz and Puławy

were particularly aected. Szczebrzeszyn and Zamość also

suered signicant losses [6]. Not only was the economy

of the Kingdom aected, but also its autonomy. With the

fall of the November Uprising, Tsar Nicholas I abolished

the constitution in force from 1815 in favour of an organic

statute [7]. It was aimed at even greater dependence on the

Russian authorities, with little internal autonomy. It also

introduced a change of the name of the voivodship to the

governorate [8].

The January Uprising that broke out on January 22, 1863,

after its fall, brought about even greater repressions on the

part of the invader. The tsarist authorities decided to acce-

lerate the process of Russication. As part of the reforms,

a new division into governorates was made. Two poviats

were separated in the Lublin region: Lublin, which inc-

luded the following poviats: Lubelski, Garwolin, Janowski,

Krasnystaw, Lubartowski, Łuków, Puławy, Siedlecki,

So-

kołowski, and Chełm with the following poviats: Chełm,

Biłgoraj, Hrubieszowski, Konstantynów, Włodzimierz [9].

Not only the boundaries of voivodships have changed,

but also the borders of settlement units. In 1867, a Special

Committee for the Reorganization of City Council and City

Economy was established. Its purpose was to verify the

previously granted municipal rights to small towns.

Cities with fewer than three thousand inhabitants were

to be deprived of their rights (town privileges), with at

least 50% of the population living on agriculture. The ac-

tivities of the Reorganization Committee brought about

big changes. Over 75% of all cities in the Kingdom of

Poland have been degraded to the rank of a settlement.

As a result of these eorts, only 13 cities remained in the

Lublin governorate, of which Kraśnik lost its municipal

rights in 1878, and in 1906 they were restored to Puławy.

On the other hand, there were ten towns in the Siedlce

governorate. City boards were also transformed and mu-

nicipalities were deprived of their autonomy. In this way,

the possibilities for the development of many settlements

were eliminated. Additionally, in 1912, the former Chełm

governorate was created in the eastern part of the Lublin

and Siedlce governorates, which after the outbreak of

World War I was separated from the Kingdom of Poland

and incorporated into the Russian Empire [10].

Russification of society

The suppression of the January Uprising started a pe-

riod of increased repression on the part of the Russian au-

thorities on the grounds of nationality. A special body was

established in St. Petersburg to liquidate all the autonomo-

us institutions of the Kingdom.

The tsarist repressions also spread to the socio-cultural

sphere, ruining the foundations of Polish culture. The tsarist

authorities banned the creation of all types of scientic, cul-

tural and economic organizations. At the same time, total

censorship was introduced [11]. Architecture became one of

the elements of the Russication program, in which it was

common to rebuild the forcibly taken over Roman Catholic

churches, as well as former Greek Catholic churches into

Orthodox churches. They were given elements characteri-

stic of the national Russian style, developing in the 19

century rst on the basis of romanticism, and then eclecti-

cism with numerous elements of folk tradition. At that time,

over two hundred Orthodox churches were built, of which

only over twenty were built from scratch [12]. In addition,

military facilities were built, incl. military barracks, forts.

Professional education was abolished, which was to

signicantly aect the appearance of future architecture

[13]. In 1832, the Institute of Civil Engineers was esta -

blished at the Tsarist Academy of Fine Arts in St. Peters-

burg, educating young architects from the Russian partition

[1]. It was not until 1898 that the Polytechnic Institute in

Warsaw was established, in which, among others, engine-

ering and construction eld. The trends prevailing in Rus-

sia also signicantly inuenced the process and program

of education there [14].

Regulations

The binding legal regulations in the eld of construc-

tion had a signicant impact on the shape of buildings.

The oldest regulations regulating construction principles

dened location privileges and their subsequent approvals

granted to cities by their owners. Most of the towns were

founding centres, operating mainly under the Magdeburg

Law and later privileges until the beginning of the 19

century. Numerous res accompanying the wars of the

century and natural disasters in the 18

century de-

stroyed the wooden buildings of the Lublin region many

times. However, the reconstruction took place in a chaotic

manner. For this reason, as early as the mid-17

centu-

ry, legal regulations were introduced, modelled on regu-

lations from other cities, aimed at limiting the spread of

res. In addition to the municipal re and order service

(the so-called 2

ordinance in the Magdeburg Law), laws

were introduced to protect houses against re

[15]. Ho-

uses were ordered to be covered at least with clay-covered

shingles. However, the thatch, made of straw dipped in

clay, was still more common, although compliance with

these provisions was not properly supervised.

The rst general regulations governing the construction

industry in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth were

passed in 1764. They mainly concerned the buildings of

Warsaw, later they were extended to larger cities such as

Lviv and Vilnius.

In 1784, the Boni Ordinis Commission passed a ban

on building non-refractory houses within the city limits

For example, the instruction of Jan Daniłowicz issued in 1644 after

the re of his town Międzyrzec was checked in the Landwójtowska Book.

 Theinuenceoftheforeigninvaderontheshapeofwoodenarchitecture 13

within their walls and ordered the relocation of, among

others, workshops, bakeries and forges in the suburbs.

The rst regulations covering the entire territory of the

country appeared in 1791. They concerned the ban on the

use of roof coverings made of ammable material, which

were mainly thatch and shingles. Moreover, wooden buil-

dings were forbidden to be built in larger cities. Munici-

palities of individual cities could additionally create regu-

lations of local importance, after obtaining the consent of

the Police Commission. The building law of the Duchy

of Warsaw forbade construction without submitting an

appropriate ar chitec tural design to the appropriate police

authority [16].

In the rst years of the Kingdom of Poland, the legal

acts contained in PrzepisyOgólnePolicjiBudowlanejdla

miastwKrólestwiePolskim [the General Regulations of

the Construction Police for cities in the Kingdom of Po-

land], which were issued in 1820, were in force. These

laws concerned mainly re safety.

They ordered the construction of structures on a foun-

dation and the erection of chimneys of refractory mate-

rials. In addition, they obligated to create regulatory plans

of cities, taking into account the regulatory lines at which

new buildings should be located. The designed objects

were to be erected in a ridge arrangement, facing the stre-

et. On the other hand, the residential outbuildings should

be located at one of the borders and were to be covered

with a shed roof. Each person building a new house had

to apply for a building permit, presenting the building de-

sign together with the site plan to the appropriate govern-

mental bodies. It was forbidden to erect wooden buildings

near brick buildings, in city centres or when there were

no other non-reproof buildings nearby, and if they were

built, they had to be covered with tiles, additionally the

chimney in these buildings had to be made of brick. The-

se regulations also obligated the builder to maintain the

aesthetics of the building. They ordered, inter alia, pain-

ting houses stone colour, yellowish and pale greenish. In

later years, the law was further detailed. The provisions

related to re protection were extended, e.g. balconies and

railings made of non-refractory materials were banned.

These rules applied mainly in cities [17].

Characteristics of Russian wooden buildings

Russian wooden buildings were characterized by a gre-

at variety, both in terms of functional and spatial arrange-

ments and decorations (Fig. 1). The simplest type were

one-story, two-room houses, most often belonging to the

less wealthy population. Their spatial arrangement resem-

bled a country cottage, to which utility rooms could be

added. Objects with a more extensive program were also

erected. Apart from single-storey buildings, two-storey

buildings were put up for wealthier people

Wooden bourgeois houses were most often made of

a log or mixed construction, with a brick ground oor and

The characteristic functional layouts of bourgeois houses have

been arranged in the form of a table in: [18, p. 23, 24].

wooden storeys above the ground [19]. The external walls

were erected in a carcass structure, most often with a char-

red “dovetail” or “log lock” without remnants, while uti-

lity rooms, porches, extensions, towers and bay windows

were most often made of a skeleton structure.

Russian architecture was characterized by rich deco-

rations referring to phytomorphic, zoomorphic and geo-

metric forms [20]. The elevations of these buildings were

accentuated, among others, by through bay windows, to-

wers (at the corners), breaks (emphasizing the entrance

area), balconies and dormers. Towers and bay windows

were most often crowned with a hipped roof with a spire,

less often bulbous roof or gable roofs were used (Fig. 2).

Wooden built-up windows were an important element

with the richest decoration. It could consist of drip and

window sill, which together with the window framing

formed a decorative frame (Fig. 3a). In addition, shutters

were used mainly in the homes of less wealthy society,

which were treated as a simpler version of window deco-

ration. Another characteristic element of this type of de-

velopment are wooden porches (Fig. 3b). They appeared

in many forms, from fully built-up ones, to simpler ones,

reduced only to the roof above the main entrance.

The façades of traditional wooden buildings were ri-

chly decorated (Fig. 4). Wind girders were additional ele-

ments which, apart from the function of securing the roof

covering against the wind, had a decorative function. The-

se were boards nailed along the edge of the roof, the lower

part of which had an ornament in geometric forms, e.g.,

a diamond or an oval. Also, the corner decoration (Pol. ko-

żuchowanie) served both a protective and decorative func-

tion. It was a vertical formwork located in the corners of

the building, with decorations of mostly geometric forms.

Wooden housing development

in the Lublin region – examples

The paper presents selected examples of wooden re-

sidential architecture in the Lublin region, in which the

inuences of Russian architecture from the period of in-

tensied repressions after the January Uprising are clearly

Fig. 1. An example of traditional Russian wooden buildings in Samara

(photo by E. Pol, 2011)

Il. 1. Przykład tradycyjnej rosyjskiej zabudowy drewnianej w Samarze

(fot. E. Pol, 2011)

14 Ewa Netczuk-Pol

Fig. 3. An example of traditional Russian wooden buildings in Samara: a) window detail, b) porch detail (photo by E. Pol, 2012)

Il. 3. Przykład tradycyjnej rosyjskiej zabudowy drewnianej w Samarze: a) detal okna, b) detal ganku (fot. E. Pol, 2012)

a b

Fig. 2. Two-story wooden houses in Samara (photo by E. Pol, 2012)

Il. 2. Dwukondygnacyjne domy drewniane w Samarze (fot. E. Pol, 2012)

a b

 Theinuenceoftheforeigninvaderontheshapeofwoodenarchitecture 15

It is worth noting here that in the period in question,

objects inspired by styles other than Russian were also

created

According to statistical data, in 1845, out of the total

number of 22,742 houses, only 2,103 were made of brick

[23]. Brick buildings existed mainly in large cities. Un-

til the beginning of the 1860s, they did not exist at all

in some places, e.g., in Dubienka, Horodło, and Frampol.

This was related to the availability of wood as a building

material and the speed of construction.

An example of a typical town housing development at

the turn of the 19

and 20

centuries with a wooden struc-

ture was a house in Kock (Fig. 5). The building is desi-

gned on an irregularly shaped plan, similar to a rectangle,

with three entrances from the street. It consisted of seven

rooms, including three living rooms. There is a similarity

to the functional systems of Russian wooden buildings

As it is not the subject of this study, it will not be developed, but it

is one of the aspects and catalysts of changes in the style features of

wooden (also brick) Orthodox and Uniate church architecture, as well

as housing.

In the 19

century, the interest in nature and hydrotherapy in-

creased, which contributed to the development of health resorts and

towns such as Nałęczów. Most of the buildings erected at that time

were of wooden construction, referring to the spa style architecture in

Switzerland and Germany. They had a detail with geometric, phytomor-

phic forms, which appeared, e.g., in the decoration of windows, doors

and verandas. In the health resorts of the Lublin region, we can also

nd examples of references to the Zakopane style. One of the authors

of these projects was Jan Koszczyc-Witkiewicz, nephew of Stanisław

Witkiewicz. In the Lublin region, an example of a housing development

in which the inuence of Zakopane style architecture can be seen is

a one-story house with an attic located in Dęblin at 22 Stawska Street.

An overview of the functional layouts can be found in the work

by E.A. Sysoeva [18].

visible. Unfortunately, the sheer scale of stylistic inuen-

ces of Russian architecture on the objects studied in this

area cannot be precisely dened today. The main reasons

for this are:

– the state of preservation of the objects from the pe-

riod in question (in the Lublin region, there are denitely

fewer objects of this type than originally built or could

have been built, due to, inter alia, war damage, numerous

res and other destructive factors);

– today it is impossible to determine the original num-

ber of buildings that were built under the inuence of the

discussed style due to the lack of not only the buildings

themselves, but also their design documentation, which

– as already mentioned – was not strictly required for the

group of buildings in question until 1928;

– the preserved historical iconography covers only

a small percentage of small towns in the Lublin region

and does not allow for an unequivocal determination of

the scale of the phenomenon, but only documents the con-

dition of individual objects, which can be compared with

the present state, as long as the object has survived. Very

rarely, iconography gives the opportunity to trace the hi-

story of style changes in preserved houses.

Perhaps many of the existing buildings of the type in

question originally had the stylish features of Russian ar -

chitecture, but they were removed after 1918, making ana -

lysis impossible. It should also be emphasized that con-

ducting thorough material and architectural research and

dating wooden residential architecture based solely on style

features and construction techniques, in the absence of the

preserved design documentation and iconography, is in the

current conditions (technical condition, no conservation

protection and ownership status – objects in mostly priva-

te or social) made very dicult

Analogies to the style changes of the wooden housing architec-

ture of small towns in the Lublin region can be found in the transforma-

tions of the sacred architecture of this area, when many Pounick church-

es, as well as Roman Catholic churches were transformed in the Russian

national style, and new Orthodox churches were built in this style. Many,

if not the vast majority of wooden churches in this area were built after

the Brest Union, therefore the point of reference for a comparative ana-

lysis is mainly the period after 1596. It should be remembered, however,

that the transformation processes depended on the political and religious

situation. At the end of the 19

century, increased Russication, and thus

– the religious situation, led to the transition of many Uniates to the Or-

thodox Church. As a result of the liquidation of the Uniate Church, the

ownership of the Orthodox Church in the Kingdom of Poland increased

six-fold [22, pp. 17–21].

During World War I, ocials, clergy and part of the population

of these areas were evacuated deep into Russia, which resulted in an

outow of both the faithful and the partitioning administration, and Po-

land’s regaining independence in 1918 resulted in the consolidation of

Polish interests, which were enforced, often brutally, also in the eld

of architecture. Similarly to what happened after the Union of Lublin,

many Uniate churches were transformed, sometimes demolished, and

after 1918, the religious architecture of the former Uniate churches was

“cleansed” of Russian inuence. As a result, many Pounice churches

were transformed into Roman Catholic churches, blurring not only

the style features of the Russian inuence after the January Uprising,

but also the original architectural features of these churches, whether

originally Orthodox or later Uniate, built according to the guidelines

of the Zamość Synod. The subject of changes in church and religious

aliations is extremely sensitive and widely described in the literature.

Fig. 4. Traditional Russian wooden construction housing

– gable wall (elaborated by E. Netczuk-Pol based on [21])

Il. 4. Tradycyjna rosyjska zabudowa mieszkaniowa

o konstrukcji drewnianej – ściana szczytowa

(oprac. E. Netczuk-Pol na podstawie [21])

16 Ewa Netczuk-Pol

The front façade was symmetrical with seven axes. The

windows had decorative frames with drip and window sil-

ls. Doors with transoms were decorated in a similar way.

The corners have been accentuated by a decorative corner

with a detail of geometric forms. The façade was entirely

boarded with formwork in a vertical arrangement up to

the height of the sill cornice, and the rest in a horizontal

arrangement. It referred to the features of the Russian na-

tional style.

An interesting example is a two-story log house built in

1895 for the director of a sugar factory in Klemensów

. It

has a much more extensive functional and utility program.

As in the previous building, its windows have characteri-

stically decorated drip and window sills, as well as vertical

and horizontal planks with no architectural details (Fig. 6).

The development of the railroads at the end of the 19

century was of great importance for the ourishing of the

cities. The railway line on the Vistula, established in 1887,

connected Warsaw with Kowel, and later with Brześć nad

Bugiem and Lwów [25], creating a great development

potential for the towns situated alongside it (including

Chełm, Hrubieszów and Dęblin).

Along with the development of rail transport, the mo-

vement of the population also increased, which introdu-

ced its building traditions along with settling in these are-

as. Hrubieszów is a city where the inuence of the invader

on the appearance of architecture was signicant, which is

mainly reected in architectural details. Most of the one-

story houses had decorated porches (Fig. 7). In the case

The building underwent a major renovation in 2010. Its original

function was changed from residential to commercial. There is a restau-

rant in the basement, while guest rooms are located on the rst oor [24].

Fig. 5. Plan of a house in Kock from 1900

(source: APL AMK, sygn. 350)

Il. 5. Plan domu mieszkalnego w Kocku z 1900 r.

(źródło: APL AMK sygn. 350)

Fig. 6. A residential building from 1895, located in Słodka Street in Szczebrzeszyn

– formerly the house of the director of the Sugar Factory Klemensów, now a restaurant:

a) view from Skłodowskiej Street, b) detail of the window (photo by E. Pol, 2013)

Il. 6. Budynek mieszkalny z 1895 r. mieszczący się przy ul. Słodkiej w Szczebrzeszynie

– dawniej dom dyrektora Cukrowni Klemensów, obecnie restauracja:

a) widok od strony ul. Skłodowskiej, b) detal okna (fot. E. Pol, 2013)

a b

 Theinuenceoftheforeigninvaderontheshapeofwoodenarchitecture 17

Fig. 7. A one-story residential house in Zamojska Street in Hrubieszów: a) front elevation, b) porch details (photo by E. Pol, 2013)

Il. 7. Parterowy dom mieszkalny przy ul. Zamojskiej w Hrubieszowie: a) elewacja frontowa, b) detale ganku (fot. E. Pol, 2013)

of one-story buildings with an attic, the entrance area was

accentuated by attics with loggias or bay windows.

As already mentioned, after the January Uprising, the

partitioning state authorities introduced large repressions.

At that time, there was a need to create barracks for other

military units, and Chełm was to become a garrison town

[26]. An example of a wooden barracks together with

the accompanying residential buildings are the buildings

in Lubelska Street in Chełm. The buildings referred to the

Russian wooden buildings. They were made of logs with

remnants. The window and door had rich decoration of

drip and window sills as well as door bands. Residential

buildings in the barracks area additionally had porches

(see [27]).

Another city where Russian troops were stationed was

Dęblin. It was here in 1893 that one of the rst aeronau-

tical troops of the tsarist army equipped with observation

balloons was established [28]. The presence of the Rus-

sian population inuenced the shape of the city’s build -

ings. In one of the main streets, wooden buildings were

built, referring to traditional Russian architecture. It is vi-

sible mainly in the decoration of window trims and porch

gables (Figs. 8, 9).

References to the traditional Russian wooden buildin-

gs can also be found in other cities of the Lublin region.

Examples include houses in Ostrów Lubelski or Kock

(Fig. 10).

Conclusions

In the Lublin region – during the partitions under the

tsar’s rule – the authorities tried in many ways to russify

the society. This was also reected in the architecture, the

shape of which was largely inuenced by Russian legi-

slation (e.g., building houses on a foundation, building

balconies and bay windows made of refractory materials,

or using the colours available in the colour chart), the lack

of Polish universities educating architects, as well as the

Fig. 8. House in Warszawska Street in Dęblin: a) general view, b) detail of a window with a shutter (photo by E. Pol, 2013)

Il. 8. Dom przy ul. Warszawskiej w Dęblinie: a) widok ogólny, b) detal okna z okiennicą (fot. E. Pol, 2013)

18 Ewa Netczuk-Pol

Fig. 9. Wooden buildings in Warszawska Street in Dęblin: a) general view, b) detail of the door and window (photo by E. Pol, 2013)

Il. 9. Zabudowa drewniana przy ul. Warszawskiej w Dęblinie: a) widok ogólny, b) detal drzwi i okna (fot. E. Pol, 2013)

Fig. 10. A window frame with a decorative window drip and shutters in a one-story single-family house:

a) in July 22 Street (currently May 3 Street) in Kock (defunct), b) in Czerwonego Krzyża Street in Ostrów Lubelski (photo by E. Pol, 2013)

Il. 10. Obramienie okienne z dekoracyjnym nadokiennikiem oraz okiennicami w parterowym domu jednorodzinnym:

a) przy ul. 22 lipca (ob. 3 Maja) w Kocku (nieistniejący), b) przy ul. Czerwonego Krzyża w Ostrowie Lubelskim (fot. E. Pol, 2013)

inux of Russian population related to the stationing of

the invaders’ troops, the stang of important administra-

tive positions and simply the development of cities along

the newly created railway line.

The wooden structures erected at that time were cha-

racterized by exceptional architectural detail of the fa-

cades. Windows and doors in the Russian pattern were

richly decorated with frames and shutters. Corners, the

so-called pol. winkle, accentuated with decorative corners

with geometric and phytomorphic forms, but in most ca-

ses they did not have an ornament. The entrance zone was

emphasized by adding porches with gable roofs supported

on pillars to the main body of the building or, in the case

of houses with an attic, through an attic with a balcony or

bay window.

Currently, it is dicult to show in situ how many build-

ings were erected in the Russian style, as the building law

did not require the submission of a project at the time. In

addition, numerous armed struggles that took place in this

area destroyed many buildings. Due to the wooden mate-

rial, this type of residential buildings is not durable. Some

of the houses, although surviving the turmoil of war, did

not survive due to material wear and biological corrosion,

and those that still exist today, most of them underwent

numerous modernizations involving the replacement of

woodwork or insulation, which makes it impossible to re-

create the original detail.

Translated by

EwaNetczuk-Pol

a b

 Theinuenceoftheforeigninvaderontheshapeofwoodenarchitecture 19

References

[1]

Omilanowska M., Polscy architekci w petersburskiej Akademii

SztukPięknychwlatach1814–1918, “Biuletyn Historii Sztuki” 2004,

t. 66, nr 3/4, 351–373.

[2] Zin W., Narodzinykrajobrazukulturowego, Wyższa Szkoła Infor-

matyki i Zarządzania z siedzibą w Rzeszowie, Rzeszów 2005.

[3] Górak J., BudownictwoDrewnianeLubelszczyzny.Stanbadań,bi-

bliograa,inwentaryzacje, Wydawnictwo Lubelskie, Lublin 1977.

[4] Górak J., RegionalneformyarchitekturydrewnianejLubelszczyzny

natlezagadnieńosadniczych, Państwowa Służba Ochrony Zabyt-

ków, Zamość 1994.

[5] Gierowski J.A., Historia Polski 1764–1864, PWN, Warszawa

1987.

[6] Mencel T., Międzypowstaniami1831–1864, [w:] J. Mazurkiewicz,

H. Zins (red.),DziejeLubelszczyzny, t. 1,

PWN,

Warszawa 1974.

[7] Przesmycka E., Lubelszczyzna.Wielokulturowośćosadnictwa,bu-

downictwai architektury, Wydawnictwo Politechniki Lubelskiej,

Lublin 2008.

[8] DziennikprawKrólestwaPolskiego, t. 20, nr 68–70, http://pbc.bia-

man.pl/dlibra/docmetadata?id=4390&from=publication [accessed:

11.09.2014].

[9] AdminisfracyarosyjskawKrólestwiePolskiem, Wydawnictwo Na-

czelnego Komitetu Narodowego, Wiedeń 1915.

[10] Przesmycka E., Przeobrażeniazabudowyikrajobrazumiasteczek

Lu belszczyzny, Wydawnictwo Politechniki Lubelskiej, Lublin 2001.

[11] Buczko J., HistoriaPolski1864–1948, PWN, Warszawa 1987.

[12] Sokoł K., Sosna A., Kopuły nad Wisłą. Prawosławne cerkwie

wcentralnej Polsce wlatach 1815–1915, MID “Synergia”, Mo-

skwa 2003.

[13] Paszkiewicz P., PodberłemRomanowów:sztukarosyjskawWar-

szawie1815–1915, Instytut Sztuki PAN, Warszawa 1991.

[14] Baraniewski W., Międzyopresjąaobojętnością.Polsko-rosyjskie

relacjearchitektonicznewXXwieku, M. Poprzęcka, L. Jowlewa

(red.), Warszawa–Moskwa/Moskwa–Warszawa1900–2000, ka-

talog wystawy, Narodowa Galeria Zachęta – Galeria Tretiakowska,

Zachęta – Narodowa Galeria Sztuki, Warszawa 2004, 98–107.

[15] Chomicki J., PowstanieirozwójukładuurbanistycznegoMiędzy-

rzeca odśredniowiecza do czasówobecnych, “Rocznik Między-

rzecki” 1988–1990, R. 20–22, 78–169.

[16] Przesmycka E., Wpływprzepisówprawnychnaobrazmiastwza-

borzerosyjskimnaprzykładzieLubelszczyzny, “Architectus” 2002,

nr 2(12), 79–87.

[17] PrzepisyOgólnePolicjiBudowniczejdlamiastwKrólestwiePol-

skim, 1820.

[18] Sysoeva E.A., OsobennostiderevyanoyarkhitekturySamarykonca

XIX–nachalaXXvekov, Niżny Nowogród 2009.

[19] Sysoeva E.A., Gradostroitelnye predposylki i osobennosti raz-

vitiyaderevyannoyzastroykikoncaXIX–nachalaXXveka, “Vest-

nik Tomskogo Gosudarstvennogo Arkhitekturno-strotelnogo Uni-

versiteta” 2008, No. 4, 58–69.

[20] Pol E., ArchitekturadrewnianaSamarykońcaXIXipoczątkuXX

wieku, “Teka Komisji Architektury, Urbanistyki i Studiów Krajo-

brazowych” 2011, t. 7, 183–196.

[21] Sobolev A., Derevyanyjdom.Oderevneivremenizagotovkilesa,

ELPA, Archangielsk 2003.

[22] Pelica G.J., Kościółprawosławnywwojewództwielubelskim(1918–

1939), Fundacja Dialog Narodów, Lublin 2007.

[23] Kalinowski W., Trawkowski S., Uwagi o urbanistycei architek-

turzemiejskiejKrólestwaKongresowegowIpołowieXIXwieku,

“Studia i Materiały do Teorii i Historii Architektury i Urbanistyki”,

t. 1, PWN, Warszawa 1956.

[24] http://www.polskaniezwykla.pl/web/place/40204,szczebrzeszyn

-karczma-z-muzeami.html [accessed: 10.09.2019].

[25] DrogaŻelaznaNadwiślańska, “Andriollówka” 2011, nr 26.

[26] Sobieraj M., Pod skrzydłami dwóch czarnych orłów. Wojskowe

dzieje Chełma w latach 1889–1918, “Chełmskie Zeszyty Histo-

ryczne” 1993, t. 1, 11–12.

[27]

Koszary65.MoskiewskiegoPułkuPiechoty, W. Smyk (photo), https://

fotopolska.eu/529373,foto.html?o=b125577 [accessed: 12.05. 2019].

[28] Dęblin, https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C4%99blin#Historia [ac-

cessed: 10.09.2019].

Abstract

The inuence of the foreign invader on the shape of wooden architecture

of the end of the 19

and beginning of the 20

century in the Lublin region

The aim of the article was to present the inuence of the Russian national architecture on the wooden architecture of the Lublin region, created

at the turn of the 19

and 20

centuries, which was characterized by great distinctiveness. The subject of the work was to show the importance of

increased Russication, which touched not only the spheres of social and cultural life, but also architecture.

The article analyzes the preserved wooden architecture from the turn of the century in the present-day Lubelskie Region. The starting material

used was the available archival materials and documentation prepared for the needs of the provincial conservator of monuments (the card for the

records of architectural and construction monuments) and a local inspection was made to prepare photographic documentation of the current state.

Characteristic wooden buildings were used as comparative material, built at the end of the 19

and the beginning of the 20

century in Samara, Rus-

sia. The buildings have a well-documented history and are well researched by local scientists. Additionally, they are kept almost intact.

During the research, a comparative method was used for the existing wooden buildings in the Lublin region from the turn of the century with

the Russian wooden buildings, mainly in terms of detail and façade decoration. It allowed us to notice the similarities between the details used in

traditional wooden construction in the Lublin Province. It is especially visible in the details of the window decorations – richly decorated drip and

window sills. It is an element characteristic only for the analyzed period, which conrms the thesis about the inuence of the foreign invaders on the

shape of architecture.

Key words: wooden buildings, Lublin region, Russication, turn of the 19

and 20

centuries

Streszczenie

Wpływ zaborcy na kształt architektury drewnianej końca XIX i początku XX w. na terenie Lubelszczyzny

Celem artykułu było przedstawienie wpływu architektury narodowej rosyjskiej na drewnianą architekturę Lubelszczyzny powstałą na przełomie

XIX i XX w., która charakteryzowała się dużą odrębnością. Przedmiotem pracy było ukazanie znaczenia wzmożonej rusykacji, która dotykała nie

tylko sfery życia społecznego, kulturalnego, ale także architektury.

W artykule dokonano analizy zachowanej architektury drewnianej powstałej na przełomie wieków na terenie obecnego województwa lubelskie-

go. Jako materiał wyjściowy wykorzystano dostępne materiały archiwalne oraz dokumentację stworzoną na potrzeby wojewódzkiego konserwatora

20 Ewa Netczuk-Pol

zabytków (karta ewidencji zabytków architektury i budownictwa) oraz dokonano wizji lokalnej w celu przygotowania dokumentacji fotogracznej

stanu aktualnego. Jako materiał porównawczy posłużyła charakterystyczna zabudowa drewniana powstała pod koniec XIX i na początku XX w.

w Samarze w Rosji. Zabudowa ta ma dobrze udokumentowaną historię oraz jest dobrze zbadana przez lokalnych naukowców. Dodatkowo przetrwała

do dziś w stanie prawie nienaruszonym.

Podczas badań porównano istniejącą zabudowę drewnianej Lubelszczyzny z przełomu wieków z zabudową drewnianą rosyjską przede wszyst-

kim pod względem detalu i dekoracji fasady. Pozwoliło to na zauważenie podobieństw między detalami stosowanymi w tradycyjnym budownictwie

drewnianym na terenie województwa lubelskiego. Szczególnie jest to widoczne w detalu stolarki okiennej – bogato dekorowane nad- i podokienniki.

Jest to element charakterystyczny tylko dla badanego okresu, co potwierdza tezę o wpływie zaborcy na kształt architektury.

Słowa kluczowe: zabudowa drewniana, Lubelszczyzna, rusykacja, przełom XIX i XX w.