The issue of structural failures at St. Elizabeth’s Church in Wrocław in the light of architectural surveys

Franciszek Hackemer

doi:10.37190/arc250402

Abstract

This article examines the unconventional solutions in the Gothic structural system applied at St. Elizabeth’s Church in Wrocław and their potential impact on historical structural failures. The analysis of the church’s construction allows for the identification of elements that may have contributed to the building’s destabilization in the past.

Architectural surveys conducted on the structure revealed numerous construction features that deviate from typical Gothic solutions. The article presents the findings of these investigations in the context of historical structural catastrophes that affected the church.

Full article view is only available on bigger screens.

2025

4(84)

Franciszek Hackemer*

The issue of structural failures

at St Elizabeth’s Church in Wrocław

in the light of architectural surveys

DOI: 10.37190/arc250402

Published in open access. CC BY NC ND license

Abstract

The article discusses unusual solutions of the Gothic structural system used in St Elizabeth’s Church in Wrocław and their potential inuence on the di-

sasters that took place in its nave. The paper presents the results of stratigraphic surveys of the church walls, which show that its nave collapsed for the rst

time most likely during construction. Later, this part of the parish church suered similar disasters twice more. The author’s goal was to determine the

reasons for these disasters (especially the least understood one – the rst), identify their connection with the unusual placement of the ying buttresses,

and nd the reasons for using such a solution. The author also presented examples of similar load-bearing systems in buildings in Silesia, Alsace, Upper

Rhineland, Baden-Württemberg, Bavaria, and the Czech Republic. Ultimately, study determined that the cause of the disasters was a change in the spatial

design of the church from a hall or pseudo-basilica to a basilica with a very high clerestorium after its foundations had already been laid. The unusual

location of the ying buttresses proved to be eective to a certain extent, although it had practically no analogies among the buildings from the areas

previously considered as a source of inspiration for the Wrocław parish church. The previously postulated workshop connections with Czech churches

were rejected. The reason for using this complicated construction system was assumed to be the desire to erect a nave of exceptional height, inspired by

specic architectural structures from the Lake Constance and Rhine regions, mainly monasteries.

Key words: ying buttress, vaults, gothic architecture, St Elisabeth Church, Wrocław

Introduction

Located in the north-western corner of Wrocław’s Mar-

ket Square, St Elizabeth’s Church has served as a parish

church for centuries. Its main structure was built (in its

present form) in the 14

century. One of the unique fea-

tures of its architecture is the use of an unusual structural

system in which low-set ying buttresses do not balance the

thrust of the nave vaults. This solution shapes the character

of the parish church’s architecture. The result is the majestic

height of the nave, relatively low side aisles, and the expo-

sure of plain walls between the arcades and the windows

of the main nave, while maintaining the synthetic, closed

character of the external structure (Fig. 1). The high walls of

the nave are deviated from the vertical (at the height of the

vault support in bay 3 by approx. 14 cm), which indicates

a certain imperfection in the structure.

The research presented in this paper is part of a broader

eort spanning from 2021 to 2025, culminating in a mono

graphic study of the history of Wrocław’s parish church ar-

chitecture

. It has provided a more complete understanding

of the church’s design and the issues that led to three struc-

tural failures in the building. This contributed to studies on

load-bearing solutions in the church. The author’s primary

goal was to explain the causes of successive structural disas-

ters (especially the rst one), relate them to the problematic

solution of the ying buttresses, and search for justication

and analogies for such an unusual solution.

This monographic study is the author’s doctoral dissertation, pre-

pared under the supervision of Prof. Ewa Łużyniecka.

* ORCID: 0000-0003-1966-4926. Faculty of Architecture, Wro-

cław University of Science and Technology, Poland, e-mail: franciszek.

hackemer@pwr.edu.pl

Franciszek Hackemer

State of research

The structural system of St Elizabeth’s Church was the

subject of interest of Werner Güttel. The author included his

extensive description in the work of Ludwig Burgemeister

and Günther Grundmann. The cited researcher drew at-

ten tion to the very low point of embedment of the ying

buttresses. On this basis, he suggested that the original de-

sign of the nave was to be much lower. He interpreted the

niches in the wall above the arcades, visible in the attics

of the side aisles, as planned window openings. Güttel also

believed that the nave of the church was younger than the

chancel. Furthermore, he suggested that the sixth bay of

the nave collapsed even before the disaster of 1649, known

from written records (Güttel 1933, 74, 80). Hans Tintelnot

(Tin telnot 1951, 90–94) disagreed with the view that the

nave had been raised at a later date, as did Jakub Adam-

ski (Adam ski 2017, 397). Supporters of this thesis includ

ed Czesław Lasota and Jerzy Rozpędowski (Lasota, Roz-

pędowski 1980, 64) and Marian Kutzner, who believed that

the walls of the nave were raised to their full height after

the completion of the chancel (Kutzner 1996, 28). Stanisław

Fig. 1. St Elizabeth’s Church in Wrocław: A – view of the interior of the main nave towards the east, B – fifth bay from the west of the nave,

arcade (south), C – second, third, and fourth bays from the west in the north elevation (orthophotograph generated from a photogrammetric model),

D – plan, E – cross-section through the fifth bay from the west (photo and elaborated by F. Hackemer)

Il. 1. Kościół św. Elżbiety we Wrocławiu: A – widok wnętrza nawy głównej w kierunku wschodnim, B – przęsło piąte od zachodu nawy głównej,

ściana arkadowa (południowa), C – przęsła drugie, trzecie i czwarte od zachodu w elewacji północnej (ortofotografia wygenerowana z modelu

fotogrametrycznego), D – rzut, E – przekrój przez piąte przęsło od zachodu (fot. i oprac. F. Hackemer)

The issue of structural failures at St Elizabeth’s Church in Wrocław in the light of architectural surveys

Stulin, citing examples of many churches, mostly monastic,

noted that hiding the ying buttresses under the roofs may

have originated in Upper Rhine or Burgundy (Stulin 1982,

86). The majority of post-war researchers of the church did

not address the issue of structural solutions or treated them

very briey. They were more interested in the issue of the

order in which parts of the temple were built and, above all,

its stylistic analogies (Adamski 2014a, 395–411, 448–454;

Kutzner 1996, 19–52; Stulin 1982, 81–89). Little attention

was paid to the structural system itself.

Stulin postulated Upper Rhine, Alsatian, and southern

Ger man roots for the architectural style of St Elizabeth’s

Church, citing many examples of analogous solutions for

almost all elements of the building (Stulin 1982, 81–89).

Kutz ner linked the Wrocław parish church with the Cister-

cian church in Zlatá Koruna. This researcher even suggest-

ed that both buildings were erected by the same workshop

(Kutz ner 1996, 32, 33). Adamski, on the other hand, wrote

ex tensively about the style of the nave, agreeing with Stulin

on this matter and expanding on the concept of the Rhen-

ish stylistic origins of the nave (Adamski 2017, 402–410).

However, he agreed with Kutzner on the Czech origin of the

polygonal responds.

Methods

The research presented in this article is part of a broader

eort at St Elizabeth’s Church. It primarily involved the use

of stratigraphic analysis of the walls structure. Digital tools

were used to support the research, including photographic

documentation (including UAV), digital photogrammetry,

LiDAR scanning, and 3D modeling.

Based on 1691 photographs, a textured mesh model of

the exterior of the church was prepared using Agisoft Me-

tashape Pro. It served as the basis for CAD inventory draw-

ings and allowed for an in-depth analysis of the object. Cru-

cial parts of the church interior were scanned. The entire

building (including the interior) was inventoried in draw-

ings of the facades, oor plans, and cross-sections.

In the next step, an attempt was made to search for objects

that were analogous in terms of their structural solutions.

Churches from Germany, eastern France, the Czech Repub-

lic, and Silesia, built around the same time as St Elizabeth’s

Parish Church, were taken into consideration. The selection

focused primarily on buildings identied by researchers

on the basis of similar details and other features, located

in geographical regions considered crucial for the style of

the Wrocław church. Measurements and visual inspections

of elements belonging to the structural systems were car-

ried out in the selected buildings. 3D scans of crucial parts

were made, along with photographic and drawing documen-

tation. Their comparison allowed for the establishment of

connections with St Elizabeth’s Parish Church in terms of

structural solutions. The work was nanced by a minigrant

project for doctoral students at the Wrocław University of

Science and Technology

Project: “A aw in art or a trend worth the risk? The search for

the origins of the unusual structural design of St Elizabeth’s Church in

Wrocław” nr 50SD/0018/24.

Results

The structural design of the church

In order to compare the structure of St Elizabeth’s Church

with similar buildings, one must rst recognize its shape

and attempt to determine what inuenced its formation. The

church is a three-nave basilica with 11 bays. It is character-

ized by a very large dierence in height between the side

aisles and the main nave. From the oor level (original) to

the keystones, the height is 14.5 and 31 m, subsequently.

All aisles have rib vaults. The horizontal composition of the

force with which they press against the walls of the church

is taken over by buttresses and ying buttresses. The letter

were hidden under the roofs of the side aisles. This forced

them to be embedded low in the wall, which would have

been standard if it were not for the exceptional height of

the clerestory. The wall of the nave above the roofs of the

side aisles is 9.90 m high. Its windows have sills just above

the edge of the roof and are approximately 7.00 m high. As

a result, the point of support for the vault is signicantly

(4.50 m) higher than the ying buttress that is supposed to

balance its thrust (Fig. 2). The ineectiveness of this solu-

tion is obvious. The eect of the unbalanced thrust forces

is the outward spreading of the walls, visible to the naked

eye. This problem prompted 19

-century conservators to

install a system of wooden anchors in the attic of the nave to

connect the walls to the roof truss. It is not entirely certain

whether this project was implemented, although a sketch of

this solution (APW no. 167) and some traces in the wall that

could testify to this have been made. The buttresses of the

church have varied shapes. Some of them are quarter-circu-

lar (south side: bays 4/5, 7–10 from the west; north side: bay

1/2 from the west), while others are pointed.

Buttresses adjacent to the arcade walls rise on the ying

buttresses. To some extent, they help balance the thrust forces.

As they do not continue below the arches, this is known as the

Gniezno system. Its use and connections with other build-

ings in Poland will be discussed in the section on analogies.

The foundations of St Elizabeth’s church are partially

visible in the church crypt (Fig 3). These include the foun-

dations of the fth pillar from the west on the north side of

the nave and large sections of the strip and isolated footings

supporting the arcades of the chancel. The foundations of the

nave dier signicantly from those of the chancel. They were

created by lling a narrow excavation with erratic stones

mixed with ceramic debric and light, yellowish lime mortar

(Fig. 3A). The lower parts of the chancel foundation were

also constructed in this way. However, brick isolated foot-

ings for the pillars were erected on the strip created in this

way (Fig. 3B). They are made of bricks measuring 25.5–27

× 11–13 × 8–9 cm in a emish bond. It is therefore clear that

the design of the church’s foundation was changed during

construction. It is worth noting here that at the same time,

a decision was made to raise the usable level of the chan-

cel by about 1.3 m above that designated for the nave. The

nave originally had a oor level of approximately 118.80 m

above sea level, while the chancel was 120.10 m above sea

level. The isolated footings of its pillars were covered with

a thick layer of sand (Lasota, Piekalski 1996, 17, 18).

Franciszek Hackemer

ply (quarter-circular) proled pilaster strips. In contrast,

there are no responds in the chancel. Instead, the pillars are

anked on both sides by pilaster strips, and the vaults rest on

corbels at their apex (Fig. 4).

Although the details of St Elizabeth’s Church were usu-

ally considered separately for the nave and the chancel, the

overall architectural character remained consistent for both

parts. The layout, proportions of the naves, consistency of

the structure, and the general design of the construction

system all contribute to a very uniform building. However,

Güttel noticed a stratigraphic division between the sanc-

tuary and the nave about 40 cm west of the chancel arch.

This junction of walls does indeed exist. In addition, the

researchers described the shape of the ying buttress arches

as one of the distinguishing features – quarter-circular in the

chancel and pointed in the nave (Güttel 1933, 74). This is

quite surprising, as this division is now completely illegible.

As already mentioned, quarter-circular arches are found in

both parts of the building. The alteration of these parts of

the church in the years after 1933, when the researchers’

The nave of the church was probably originally designed

as a hall church or, less likely, a pseudo-basilica or even

a basilica with a small clerestory. This is evidenced by trac-

es in the western bay of the church – capitals on the front

wall. This issue has been discussed in more detail by earlier

researchers of the church (Stulin 1982, 81–84; Kozaczew-

ska-Golasz 2015, 232; Adamski 2014a, 313–315). It is not

directly related to the topic of the paper, which focuses on

the ultimately realized structure. However, it seems that the

foundations are a common element of the unrealized and

realized nave. Most likely, they were built, at least in large

part, during the construction of the building according to the

original design. Regardless of the reconstruction of the spa-

tial layout of the originally planned nave, there is no doubt

that its foundations were adapted to a much smaller load.

The pillars of the church generally have a consistent plan,

which diers between the chancel and the nave only in terms

of vertical articulation. In both cases, the arcades are ne-

gatively proled in identical way. The responds of the nave

are half octagonal, on the side aisles superimposed on sim-

Fig. 2. Cross-sections of St Elizabeth’s Church in Wrocław: A – transverse (eastward through the eighth bay from the west),

B – longitudinal in the northward direction, C – flying buttress between the seventh and eighth bays from the west on the north side.

I – main nave vault corbel, II – flying buttress, III – original floor level (nave), IV – probable height of the walls established as part of the hall

concept (orthophotography generated from a photogrammetric model; compiled by F. Hackemer)

Il. 2. Przekroje kościoła św. Elżbiety we Wrocławiu: A – poprzeczny (w kierunku wschodnim przez przęsło ósme od zachodu),

B – podłużny w kierunku północnym, C – łuk oporowy między przęsłami siódmym i ósmym od zachodu po stronie północnej.

I – wspornik sklepienia nawy głównej, II – łuk oporowy, III – pierwotny poziom posadzki (korpus), IV – prawdopodobna wysokość przegród

arkadowych założona w ramach koncepcji halowej (ortofotografia wygenerowana z modelu fotogrametrycznego; oprac. F. Hackemer)

The issue of structural failures at St Elizabeth’s Church in Wrocław in the light of architectural surveys

study was published, would have been documented, and the

face of the wall shows no signs of any secondary changes.

Therefore, this should be considered a mistake.

Structural failures

The rst structural failure that left traces occurred most

likely during the construction of the church. This is evi-

denced primarily by the junctions of the walls in the fth

and sixth bays from the west. On the south wall of the nave,

a secondary lling of a previously existing gap in the wall

is visible from the outside. It runs vertically on the right

side of the fth buttress of the nave from the west (Fig. 5).

This junction proves that further sections of the wall were

added from the east to the existing wall of the fourth bay.

This addition reached approximately the line of the chancel

arch. This edge is marked primarily by the arch of the for-

mer entrance to the staircase, which existed until the 19

century in the sixth bay. It is accessible in the attic of the

main nave, above the vaults (Fig. 5). It was built along with

the wall in which it is located, but its eastern part rests on

a chiselled, previously existing brickwork. This seam is also

visible from the outside, above the mentioned arch and the

nearby buttress. In the exterior wall of the south nave, in the

attic, the seam between the walls can also be seen in the fth

and sixth bays.

On the north side, however, it is more dicult to nd

signs of the disaster. On the exterior of the main nave wall,

in the sixth bay from the west, there is a characteristic trace

of double brick headers. At the bottom, it runs from west

to east, vertically in the middle, and then returns westward

at the height of the window arch (Fig. 5). Double headers

occur quite often in the walls of the church. Their sequences

can be observed in places where two walls built in dierent

time meet. This is the case, for example, at the bottom of the

junction between the tower and the south aisle. The western

edge of the addition, which may have existed in the fth

bay, is now dicult to determine. This part of the church

was destroyed in a later disaster (1649) and rebuilt, which

may have obscured the traces. However, in the eastern part

of the fth bay, a vertical strip of machine-made bricks mea-

suring approximately 27 × 13 × 8.5 cm is visible in the wall,

which is the result of conservation treatments in the second

half of the 20

century (Il. 5). Perhaps originally there was

a wall seam in this place, which was rebuilt due to its poor

condition.

Another element reveals a secondary addition to the space

between the fourth and seventh bays from the west. It is

a massive arch in the thickness of the southern main nave

Fig. 3. Foundations of the pillars

of St Elizabeth’s Church

in Wrocław: A – nave,

B – chancel (orthophotos

generated on the basis of

a photogrammetric model;

elaborated by F. Hackemer)

Il. 3. Fundamenty filarów

kościoła św. Elżbiety we

Wrocławiu: A – korpus,

B – prezbiterium (ortofotografie

wygenerowane na podstawie

modelu fotogrametrycznego;

oprac. F. Hackemer)

Fig. 4. Pillars of St Elizabeth’s Church in Wrocław, plan, side view

of the plinth, and axonometric view of the shaft: A – nave,

B – chancel. Plans of pillars of formally similar churches:

C – Cistercian church in Złota Korona, D – Cistercian church in Lubiąż,

E – Our Lady before Tyn church in Prague, F – parish church

of St Peter and Paul in Legnica, G – St Maurice church in Soultz,

H – Dominican church in České Budějovice,

I – Cistercian church in Kaisheim, J – Cistercian church in Salem (body)

(compiled by F. Hackemer)

Il. 4. Filary kościoła św. Elżbiety we Wrocławiu, rzut, widok cokołu

i widok aksonometryczny trzonu: A – korpus, B – prezbiterium. Rzuty

filarów kościołów zbliżonych formalnie: C – cysterski w Zlatej Korunie,

D – cysterski w Lubiążu, E – Matki Bożej przed Tynem,

F – fara św. Piotra i Pawła w Legnicy, G – św. Maurycego w Soultz,

H – Dominikanów w Czeskich Budziejowicach, I – Cysterski

w Kaisheim, J – cysterski w Salem (korpus) (oprac. F. Hackemer)

Franciszek Hackemer

Fig. 5. Visible seams of the walls

of the nave in bays five and six

on orthophotos from

the photogrammetric model:

A – north wall, bay 6,

B – south wall, bay 6,

C – north wall, bay 5,

D – arch of the former staircase

opening in the south wall of

the nave (from the interior,

main nave attic)

(elaborated by F. Hackemer)

Il. 5. Widoczne styki murów

korpusu w przęśle piątym

i szóstym na ortofotografiach

z modelu fotogrametrycznego:

A – ściana północna, przęsło 6,

B – ściana południowa, przęsło 6,

C – ściana północna, przęsło 5,

D – łęk otworu dawnej klatki

schodowej w ścianie południowej

nawy głównej (od wnętrza,

strych nawy)

(oprac. F. Hackemer)

wall above the arcades. It was stretched between the fourth

and sixth pillars from the west (Fig. 6). It is clearly visible in

the attic of the south nave. It was built simultaneously with

the wall in which it is embedded, as evidenced by the lack

of traces of chiselling. This can only be explained by the

assumption that at the time of its construction, both pillars

that it connects already existed.

Traces in the church walls prove that the sixth bay and

part of the fth bay were built later than the adjacent parts

of the church on both sides. The assumption that this is the

result of the planned sequence of works is dicult to de-

fend. It seems relatively unlikely that most of the nave and

the entire chancel were erected to their full height, leaving

a free space between them. This part of the church most

likely collapsed and was rebuilt.

It is not easy to determine the exact time of the disaster.

Dating the construction of the nave and chancel of the church

has posed diculties for researchers and is quite broad. De-

termining the approximate time of their construction was

part of the research on the stratigraphy of the church and

will be presented in the author’s doctoral dissertation. How-

ever, some information should be mentioned. The rebuilt

walls were made in the emish bond from bricks measuring

25.5–27 × 12–13 × 8.5–9.5 cm on beige-colored lime mor-

tar, with visible lumps of calcium. These materials and tech-

nique are very similar to those used in the chancel and nave

of the church. The pattern of the seams in the northern wall

of the main nave, which can be seen from exterior, is quite

irregular (Fig. 5) and can probably be considered a direct

trace of the collapse. In contrast, in the south wall, the seam

is exactly vertical (Fig. 5). Therefore, it does not repeat the

line of the rupture. It should be assumed that at the time of

the disaster, the southern wall of the main nave had not yet

reached its full height. The vertical seams are remnants of

its construction within the fth and sixth bays with some

delay. The builders continued work on the adjacent bays,

bricking up the window area while rebuilding the damaged

parts. The collapse of the fth and sixth bays, which were

under construction at the time, most likely took place when

the northern wall of the main nave was already completed,

while the southern was still being raised by a clerestory.

The matzeva used as a oor slab under the base of the

fth pillar from the west on the north (Figs. 3, 7) is of par-

ticular interest. It is worth mentioning the year 1345, when

John of Bohemia abolished the 30-year-old inviolability

of the Jewish cemetery, allowing the use of tombstones in

the construction of the city’s fortications. These slabs ap-

peared in many buildings in Wrocław from that period (Wo-

dziń ski 1996, 197, 198). The matzeva under the pillar of

the nave could date from after 1345. This cannot be known

for certain, but it seems very likely. It is dicult to imagine

that after the collapse of two bays of the nave, the pillar was

de molished down to the oor slab and then rebuilt without

strengthening the foundations. It can rather be assumed that

the lower parts of these supports were built around 1345.

The disaster must therefore have occurred later. It should

also be remembered that at the time of the collapse of the

nave bays, the chancel had already been raised at least to

the level of the window sills.

The cause of the disaster can be attributed to the poor

foundation of the pillars. This is evidenced primarily by the

arch in the southern wall of the main nave, which relieves

the load on the pillar below it. The builders must have been

aware that the collapse of two bays of the nave was caused

The issue of structural failures at St Elizabeth’s Church in Wrocław in the light of architectural surveys

by excessive load on the supports. The foundations of the

nave (at least in large part) were most likely built as part of

the initially planned hall or pseudo-basilica structure. They

were designed to bear much smaller loads than those re-

sulting from the construction of the enormous height of the

nave (Fig. 2 IV). After the modication of the design, the

load on the foundations more than doubled. The collapse

of the church was caused by the insucient load-bearing

capacity of the foundations, not by the low setting of the

ying buttresses.

Another disaster that took place in St Elizabeth’s church

was the collapse of large sections of the nave and north aisle

on August 10–15, 1649 (Luchs 1860, 6). In 1627, the walls

of this part of the church were additionally burdened with

organs, which was considered to be the cause of the disaster.

Three northern pillars collapsed, along with the wall above

them and the vaults built on it (Güttel 1933, 80). Recon-

struction began immediately. Records from 1649 show pay-

ments to stonemasons, as well as fees for beer and food for

bricklayers and carpenters (Bimler 1936, 73). The names

of the masters leading the work are known: Hans Hentsch,

Friedrich Wol, and David Roch. On August 23, Joachim

Wolgang, the builder of the Legnica fortress, arrived in

Wrocław to inspect the church. The work was completed in

1653 (Güttel 1933, 82).

In 1856–1857, the interior was renovated under the su-

pervision of building counselor von Roux. Unfortunately,

this work caused another disaster. After removing the plaster

from the southern wall of the main nave, cracks were discov-

ered. It was decided that repairs were necessary, and wooden

supports were erected to secure the arcades. After removing

one of the pillars (the second from the west), the two adja-

cent pillars (the third and fourth from the west) collapsed,

bringing down the vaults of the south aisle. Reconstruction

work began again immediately. The nave of the church was

put into use as early as 1858 (Güttel 1933, 85, 86).

Analogous buildings

The structural systems of the analogous buildings cited

by previous researchers of St Elizabeth’s Church are not en-

tirely uniform. Of course, all of them are basilicas, but they

dier in the presence and location of ying buttresses.

One of the most important characteristics of St Elizabeth

church external shape is location of the ying buttresses un-

der the roofs of the side aisles. This solution, or even aban -

donment of their use, was quite common in Germany and

France (Cistercian churches in Lahr, Kaisheim, and Salem,

the parish church in Soultz, Dominican and Franciscan

churches in Regensburg). The principles of shaping the ar-

ticulation of walls in interiors can also be linked to temples

with this solution. This refers primarily to leaving a plain

wall between the window sills and the arcading (St Pierre-

le-Jeune in Strasbourg, St Lawrence in Nuremberg, the pa-

rish church in Soultz, Thann and Nabburg, the Cistercian

churches in Lahr and Kaisheim, the Franciscan and Domin-

ican churches in Regensburg, St Martin’s in Colmar, and the

collegiate church in Freising). Some of these buildings also

feature a similar method of proling the arcades and articu-

lating the walls (Fig. 8). In terms of the overall appearance

and proportions of the interior, as well as to some extent the

details, there are numerous similarities between the parish

church in Wrocław and many buildings in the Upper Rhine,

Baden-Württemberg, and Bavaria. The monastery churches

of Kaisheim, Salem, and Regensburg stand out in this re

spect, as apart from certain internal similarities, they have

structures shaped in a synthetic, restrained manner. This is

more reminiscent of Silesian buildings than the fragmented

Fig. 6. The structrural arch in the southern arcade wall

on the cross-section through the south nave and a detail of the arch

(elaborated by F. Hackemer)

Il. 6. Łęk oporowy w południowej ścianie arkadowej

na przekroju przez nawę południową oraz detal łęku

(oprac. F. Hackemer)

Fig. 7. Fraction of a matzeva used as a floor slab under the fifth pillar

from the west in the north aisle (elaborated by F. Hackemer)

Il. 7. Fragment macewy użytej jako płyta posadzkowa

pod piątym od zachodu filarem nawy północnej (oprac. F. Hackemer)

Franciszek Hackemer

forms known from churches with other functions. Examples

include the churches of St Lawrence in Nuremberg, the ca-

thedral in Freiburg im Breisgau (originally a parish church),

St Martin in Colmar, and St Theobald in Thann (Fig. 8).

Most of the monastery churches mentioned here have

a conventional design (Fig. 9). Although usually hidden, the

ying buttresses are at the correct height thanks to the lower

clerestories. Sometimes (the nave in Salem), a system of

Fig. 8. Views of main nave

walls, external buttresses and

flying buttresses of churches

in Germany and France bearing

stylistic similarities to

St Elizabeth’s Church in Wrocław:

A – St Lawrence church in Nuremberg,

B – Freiburg Minster,

C – St Pierre-le-Jeune church

in Strasbourg,

D – St Theobald church in Thann,

E – St Maurice church in Soultz,

F – Cistercian church in Salem,

G – Cistercian church in Kaisheim,

H – Franciscan church in Regensburg

(photos by F. Hackemer)

Il. 8. Widoki ścian arkadowych

i zewnętrznego systemu przypór

i łuków oporowych kościołów

Niemiec i Francji noszących cechy

stylowego podobieństwa do fary

św. Elżbiety we Wrocławiu:

A – św. Wawrzyńca w Norymberdze,

B – katedralnego we Fryburgu

Bryzgowijskim,

C – St Pierre-le-Jeune w Strasburgu,

D – św. Teobalda w Thann,

E – św. Maurycego w Soultz,

F – cysterski w Salem,

G – cysterski w Kaisheim,

H – franciszkański w Ratyzbonie

(fot. F. Hackemer)

The issue of structural failures at St Elizabeth’s Church in Wrocław in the light of architectural surveys

extending the buttresses by adding them to the pillars of the

nave so that they reached the oor was used. Such solu-

tions were missing in the Dominican church in Regensburg,

which led to visible (more so than in St Elizabeth’s church)

deviations from the vertical. However, this is a much small-

er building. In contrast, in the Franciscan church in the same

city, no vaults were built at all, and the majestic basilica was

covered with ceilings. The tendency of monastery build-

ers to hide the ying buttresses naturally forced the use of

buttresses at the pillars or the reduction of the dierence in

height between the nave and the aisles and the overall scale,

or the abandonment of vaults.

Apart from southern German and eastern French buildings,

Czech churches were another source of inspiration mention-

ed in the literature. Undoubtedly, the proling of the pillars

in Zlatá Koruna, the design of the arcades in České Budě-

jovice, and the half octagonal responds in both buildings

bring to mind the temple in Wrocław. Kutzner considered

the churches in Zlatá Koruna and Wrocław to be the work

of a single workshop. Other researchers had dierent views

(Stulin 1982, 82–89; Adamski 2017, 402–410). Re sistance

to such a direct connection between the buildings seems en-

tirely justied. The proling of the pillars and the half oc-

tagonal responds may indeed give the impression of very

similar architecture, but it should be noted that the way in

which the loads are transferred from the vaults is com pletely

dierent. There are currently no ying buttresses in Zlatá

Koruna, but in the older, northern parts of the nave (the rst

three bays), they were probably located above the roof of the

aisle. They were only abandoned during the reconstruction

after the destruction of the temple (Mareš, Sedláček 1918,

203; Libal 2001, 576). It is dicult to nd any craftsman-

ship connections between the two buildings. The Cistercian

church is made of stone, which means that the method of

its construction clearly diers from that used in the brick

archi tecture of Silesia. In St Elizabeth’s parish church, a very

high level of masonry can be seen from the earliest stages of

its

construction. Cleanly laid junctions, a regular bonds, and

very

skillfully developed corners testify to the high level of

crafts manship at work there. Experienced bricklayers worked

there, which does not conrm the workshop connections be-

tween the two buildings. Similarly, the method of bricklaying

in the few brick sections (e.g., buttresses in the attics) of the

Dominican church in České Budějovice seems very distant

from the skilled bricklaying of St Elizabeth’s church.

Among Czech churches, a certain similarity can be seen

in the case of the Church of Our Lady before Týn in Prague,

whose overall spatial layout, scale and proportions are most

reminiscent of the architecture of Silesian parish churches

(Fig. 10). However, it is most likely younger than the church

of St Elizabeth (Čevonová Pařízková 2021, 31–39; Prix

2006), so as such it rather became part of a common trend

together with it. Inspiration from Silesian churches cannot

be ruled out either.

It is also worth mentioning the temples of northern Po-

land, where the so-called Gniezno system was used – the

cathedral in Gniezno, as well as the Cistercian temples in

Oliwa, Koronowo, Pelplin, and St James’s Church in Toruń

(Za chwatowicz 1934–1935, 187). However, all these tem-

ples have correctly balanced vaulting forces. Additional

parts based on ying buttresses provide further support for

the already correctly designed structure, unlike in St Eliza-

beth’s church. It is also worth noting here that Adamski re

cently argued convincingly that the architecture of Gniezno

Fig. 9. Sketches of structural systems on cross-sections of the churches

discussed: A – St Elizabeth’s church in Wrocław, B – St Stanislaus and

Wenceslaus church in Świdnica, C – St Nicholas’ church in Brzeg,

D – St Peter and Paul’s church in Strzegom (nave), E – Dominican

church in Regensburg, F – Franciscan church in Regensburg,

G – Cistercian church in Lahr, H – Cistercianchurch in Salem,

I – St Theobald church in Thann, J – Cathedral in Freiburg im Breisgau,

K – Cistercian church in Kaisheim, L – St Pierre-le-Jeune church

in Strasbourg, M – St Lawrence church in Nuremberg,

N – Dominican church in České Budějovice, O – Cistercian church

in Zlatá Koruna, P – Cistercian church in Lubiąż

(compiled by F. Hackemer)

Il. 9. Szkice systemów konstrukcyjnych na przekrojach poprzecznych

omawianych kościołów: A – św. Elżbiety we Wrocławiu,

B – św. Stanisława i Wacława w Świdnicy, C – św. Mikołaja w Brzegu,

D – św. Piotra i Pawła w Strzegomiu (korpus), E – dominikańskiego

w Ratyzbonie, F – franciszkańskiego w Ratyzbonie, G – cysterskiego

w Lahr, H – cysterskiego w Salem, I – św. Teobalda w Thann,

J – katedralnego we Fryburgu Bryzgowijskim, K – cysterskiego

w Kaisheim, L – St Pierre-le-Jeune w Strasburgu, M – św. Wawrzyńca

w Norymberdze, N – dominikańskiego w Czeskich Budziejowicach,

O – cysterskiego w Zlatej Korunie, P – cysterskiego w Lubiążu

(oprac. F. Hackemer)

Franciszek Hackemer

Cathedral has Silesian origins. The Gniezno system itself

was used not only in St Elizabeth’s Parish Church, but also

in Brzeg, at the Dominican monastery in Wrocław, and in

Głogów (Adamski 2014b, 161, 162). It therefore seems

that considering the aforementioned buildings in northern

Poland as the origin of the solutions used in the Wrocław

church is unjustied.

Extending the clerestory so high that the existing ying

buttresses do not balance the pressure of the vault is com-

pletely unusual. This should come as no surprise, given its

ineectiveness. Nevertheless, it was repeated in Silesia.

We refer here to the parish churches in Brzeg and Świdnica

(Fig. 9). In these buildings, the point of embedment of the

buttresses is vertically distant from the point of pressure of

the vaults (in Brzeg by approximately 6 m). What is parti-

cularly interesting is that in the 16

century, the original

vaults in the church in Świdnica collapsed as a result of

a re and were rebuilt much lower, creating a kind of fake,

blind clerestory (Pilch 1978, 266, 267). The reason for this

decision by the builders is unknown, but perhaps they were

aware of the danger posed by the previous solution.

Cross-sections of the churches in Brzeg and Wrocław

reveal similar proportions and structural design principles

(Fig. 9). However, the church dedicated to St Nicholas dif-

fers signicantly in terms of detail, with particular emphasis

on octagonal pillars without proling, which is why it was

rarely mentioned in the context of its Wrocław counterpart.

Nevertheless, it seems that the similarity in the design of the

external structure as a synthetic form of a basilica without

visible ying buttresses, together with the very high clere-

story, indicate at least some inspiration from the Wrocław

parish church. This is possible because the construction of

Fig. 10. Views of arcades, external buttresses and flying buttresses of Czech churches, bearing stylistic similarities to St Elizabeth’s Church

in Wrocław: A – Cistercian church in Zlatá Koruna, B – Dominican church in České Budějovice, C – Franciscan church in Jindřichův Hradec,

D – Our Lady before Týn church in Prague (photo by F. Hackemer)

Il. 10. Widoki ścian arkadowych i zewnętrznego systemu przypór i łuków oporowych kościołów czeskich, noszących cechy stylowego

podobieństwa do fary św. Elżbiety we Wrocławiu: A – cysterskiego w Zlatej Korunie, B – dominikańskiego w Czeskich Budziejowicach,

C – franciszkańskiego w Jindřichův Hradec, D – Marii Panny przed Tynem w Pradze (fot. F. Hackemer)

The issue of structural failures at St Elizabeth’s Church in Wrocław in the light of architectural surveys

the temple in Brzeg began when St Elizabeth’s Church was

almost completed, and continued into the 15

century (Kutz -

ner 1980, 82).

A detail very similar to the forms known from St Eliza-

beth’s parish church was used in the church of St Peter and

Paul in Legnica. We are talking about a comparable form

of the plinth with half octagonal pilasters and arcade pro-

ling. As a result, the parish church in Legnica seems to

be the closest Silesian analogy to the building in Wrocław,

despite the striking dierence in the proportions of the inte-

rior. However, this discrepancy results from a change in the

design at a late stage of construction. This could have tak-

en place after 1341 (Adamski 2017, 495), perhaps around

1360–1378 (Stulin 1982, 90). Thus, it could have occurred

after the collapse of part of the nave of St Elizabeth’s parish

church. This event must have had an impact on other build-

ings in Silesia. It is possible that the structural failure of the

Wrocław church inuenced the change in construction plans

in Legnica. Under this assumption, the Legnica nave would

have been designed as an almost exact copy of the nave of

St Elizabeth’s Church, but after a revision of the concept, it

was limited to the form known today. Due to the very uncer-

tain dating of both events, this assumption must remain in

the realm of speculation, but it is worth considering.

Conclusions

The research revealed that most of the foundations of the

nave were built during the implementation of the hall de-

sign. The weak rubble trench foundation, which was intend-

ed to bear the load of much lower walls, was not suitable for

the partitions that were actually built. This was the cause of

the rst (and most likely the next two) disasters at St Eliza-

beth’s Church. This is conrmed by the absence of any such

incidents in the chancel, whose structure is essentially a rep-

etition of the solutions used in the nave, with the exception

of the reinforcement of the foundations.

The direct workshop connections with the church in Zlatá

Koruna postulated by Kutzner are not conrmed by the ma-

sonry and structural system of either building. It would be

more appropriate to agree with Stulin and Adamski that

these churches belong to a group of buildings inspired by

the achievements of workshops from the Lake Constance

and Rhineland regions. However, it seems that Kutzner’s

ge neral observation regarding the “monastic” character of

the architecture of the Wrocław parish church is justied to

some extent. Churches whose external structures are syn-

thesized, compact basilicas with hidden (or no) ying but-

tresses are mostly monastic buildings. Their inuence on

St Elizabeth’s Church led Kutzner to conclude that the aim

of the Wrocław patriciate was to erect a temple that stood

in opposition to the aristocratic traditions of gothic cathe-

dral architecture. According to the researcher, the inspira-

tion from Cistercian architecture was primarily due to the

characteristic spirituality of the bourgeoisie (Kutzner 1975,

64–68; 1996, 50–52). The question of the validity of such

a far-reaching statement cannot be resolved solely through

the architectural research presented here.

The assumption made by Güttel, according to which the

nave was initially supposed to be lower, is not conrmed by

the masonry. There is no doubt that the pointed niches in the

arcade walls in the attics of the side aisles are a structural

element and not the remains of windows. Their purpose is

to reduce the weight of the wall by reducing its thickness

in areas of lesser structural importance. Perhaps the build-

ers did indeed originally plan to extend the window area

slightly lower. This is a quite plausible explanation for the

dierence in the height of the starting points of the vaults

and the ying buttresses. However, we have no evidence to

conrm this.

The unusual design of St Elizabeth’s Church structure

was most likely not a mistake, but rather an attempt to

achieve a specic expression of external and internal archi-

tectural form. This, in turn, was probably a reection of the

architecture emanating from centers, especially monaster-

ies, on Lake Constance and the Rhine, although obviously

adapted to local conditions and possibilities. The inuence

of monastic buildings from these regions (probably through

the mediation of the less distant temples of Regensburg or

Lubiąż) should be attributed to the concealment of the ying

buttresses under the roofs and the overall synthetization of

the structure. At the same time, the builders of the Wrocław

temple sought to achieve a majestic height for the nave,

which led to a rather dangerous but ultimately stable solu-

tion. Interestingly, it was adopted in Silesia in the churches

in Brzeg, Świdnica, Legnica (partially) and Strzegom.

The analyses conducted concerned the buildings most

frequently mentioned in the literature and those located in

their regions. In further research on St Elizabeth’s Church,

other buildings erected around 1300 in Central and Western

Europe should be subjected to similar analyses, with partic-

ular emphasis on the Baltic temples of Hanseatic cities. It is

also necessary to conduct in-depth research on the architec-

ture and construction of other 14

-century Silesian parish

churches, with particular emphasis on the church in Legni-

ca. Its comprehensive stratigraphy would allow for verica-

tion of the concept suggested here regarding the modica-

tion of the design after the disaster at St Elizabeth’s Church.

References

Archiwum Państwowe we Wrocławiu [APW], Paraa św. Elżbiety we

Wrocławiu, “Renovation der Kirchen, Denkmäler, Kapellen”, sygn.

167.

Adamski, Jakub. Gotycka architektura sakralna na Śląsku w latach 1200–

1420. Towarzystwo Naukowe Societas Vistulana, 2017.

Adamski, Jakub. “Między Strasburgiem a Wrocławiem. O genezie artyku-

lacji elewacji wewnętrznych śląskich bazylik XIV wieku.” In Procesy

przemian w sztuce średniowiecznej. Przełom – regres – innowacja –

tradycja. Studia z historii sztuki, edited by Rafał Eysymontt and Ro

muald Kaczmarek. brak wydawcy, 2014a.

Adamski, Jakub. “Śląska geneza gotyckiej katedry gnieźnieńskiej.” Rocz-

nik Historii Sztuki 39 (2014b): 157–75.

Bimler, Kurt. Quellen Zur Schlesischen Kunstgeschichte. Heft 1. Kommis-

sionsverlag Maruschke & Berendt, 1936.

Franciszek Hackemer

Čevonová Pařízková, Jana. Týnský Kostel a architektura poděbradské doby.

Univerzita Palckého, 2021.

Güttel, Wener. “Die Elisabethkirche” W Die Kunstdenkmäler Der Pro vinz

Niederschlesien. Tl. 2. red. Ludwig Burgemeister, Günther Grund -

mann, 73–154. Breslau: Wilhelm Gottlieb Korn Verlag, 1933.

Kozaczewska-Golasz, Hanna. Halowe kościoły z XIII wieku na Śla̢sku. O-

cyna Wydawnicza PWr, 2015.

Kutzner, Marian. “Kościoły bazylikowe w miastach śląskich XIV wieku.”

In Sztuka i ideologia XIV wieku: Materialy Sympozjum Komitetu Nauk

o Sztuce Polskiej Akademii Nauk Warszawa, 29 i 30 Listopada 1973 r.

[Kunst Und Ideologie Des 14. Jahrhunderts], edited by Piotr Skubi-

szew ski. PWN, 1975.

Kutzner, Marian. “Technika i organizacja budowy gotyckich kościołów miej-

skich na Śląsku na przykładzie realizacji kościoła św. Mikołaja w Brze-

gu.” Acta Universitatis Nicolai Copernici. Nauki Humanistyczno-Spo-

łeczne. Zabytkoznawstwo i Konserwatorstwo 9, no. 112 (1980), 75–125.

Kutzner, Marian. “Kościół św. Elżbiety we Wrocławiu na tle śląskiej szko-

ły architektonicznej XIV w.” In Z dziejów wielkomiejskiej fary: wro-

cławski kościół Św. Elżbiety w świetle historii i zabytków sztuki, edited

by Mieczysław Zlat. Wydawnictwo UWr, 1996.

Lasota, Czesław, and Jerzy Piekalski. “Kościół św. Elżbiety we Wrocławiu

w świetle badań archeologicznych.” In Z dziejów wielkomiejskiej fary:

wrocławski kościół św. Elżbiety w świetle historii i zabytków sztuki,

edited by Mieczysław Zlat.Wydawnictwo UWr, 1996.

Lasota, Czesław, and Jerzy Rozpędowski. “Pierwotny kościół paralany

św. Wawrzyńca i św. Elżbiety we Wrocławiu”. Prace Naukowe Insty-

tutu Historii Architektury, Sztuki i Techniki Politechniki Wrocławskiej,

nr 13 (1980): 61–6.

Libal, Dobroslav. Katalog gotické architektury v České Republice do husit

ských válek. Unicornis, 2001.

Luchs, Hermann. Die Denkmäler der St. Elisabeth-Kirche zu Breslau: mit

einem lithographirten Grundriss der Kirche. Ferdinand Hirt’s Königl.

Universitäts-Buchhandlung, 1860.

Łużyniecka, Ewa. “The Use of 2D Vector Studies as an Architectural

Research Stage in the Era of Digital Spatial Models.” Architectus 71,

no. 3 (2022): 79–86. https://doi.org/10.37190/arc220308.

Mareš, František, and Jan Sedláček. Soupis památek historických a umě lec-

kých v politickém okrese krumlovském. Archaeologická kommisse pri

Ceské akademii císare Frantiska Josefa, 1918.

Pilch, Józef. Zabytki architektury Dolnego Śląska. Zakład Narodowy im.

Ossolińskich – Wydawnictwo, 1978.

Prix, Dalibor. “Związki śląsko-czeskie w architekturze średniowiecznej

w okresie panowania Luksemburgów.” In Śląsk. Perła w Koronie Czes -

kiej. Trzy okresy świetności w relacjach artystycznych Śląska i Czech,

edited by Mateusz Kapustka, Jan Klipa, Andrzej Kozieł, Piotr Osz cza-

nowski, Vit Vlnas. Narodni Galerie, 2007.

Stulin, Stanisław. Kierunki kształtowania się stylu regionalnego architek-

tury sakralnej na Śląsku 1320–1370.PhD diss., Politechnika Wrocław-

ska, 1982.

Tintelnot, Hans. Die Mittelalterliche Baukunst Schlesiens. Holzner-Verlag,

1951.

Wodziński, Marcin. Hebrajskie inskrypcje na Śląsku XIII–XVIII wieku. To-

warzystwo Przyjaciół Polonistyki Wrocławskiej, 1996.

Zachwatowicz, Jan. “Katedra gnieźnieńska. Gotycki system konstrukcyj-

ny.” Biuletyn Historii Sztuki i Kultury, nr 3 (1934–1935): 180–195.

Streszczenie

Problematyka katastrof budowlanych kościoła św. Elżbiety we Wrocławiu w świetle badań architektonicznych

Tematem artykułu są nietypowe rozwiązania gotyckiego systemu konstrukcji zastosowane w kościele św. Elżbiety we Wrocławiu i ich potencjalny

wpływ na katastrofy, jakie miały miejsce w jego korpusie. W pracy przedstawiono wyniki badań stratygracznych murów kościoła, dzięki którym wy-

kazano, że jego korpus zawalił się po raz pierwszy najpewniej jeszcze podczas budowy. W późniejszym czasie ta część fary ulegała podobnym katastro-

fom jeszcze dwukrotnie. Celem autora było ustalenie powodów tych katastrof (zwłaszcza najsłabiej rozpoznanej – pierwszej), określenie ich związków

z nietypowym umieszczeniem łuków oporowych oraz odnalezienie przyczyn zastosowania takiego rozwiązania. Przedstawił też przykłady analogicznych

rozwiązań systemów przenoszenia obciążeń wśród obiektów Śląska, Alzacji, Górnej Nadrenii, Badenii-Wirtembergii, Bawarii oraz Czech. Ostatecznie

ustalił, że przyczynę katastrof stanowiła zmiana koncepcji przestrzennej kościoła z halowej czy pseudobazylikowej na bazylikową o bardzo wysokiej stre-

e okiennej już po wykonaniu jego fundamentów. Nietypowe położenie łuków oporowych okazało się do pewnego stopnia skuteczne, choć praktycznie

pozbawione analogii wśród obiektów z terenów rozważanych dotychczas jako źródło inspiracji dla fary wrocławskiej. Wykluczono postulowane wcze-

śniej związki warsztatowe z kościołami czeskimi. Za przyczynę użycia kłopotliwego systemu konstrukcyjnego przyjęto chęć wzniesienia nawy o wyjąt-

kowej wysokości przy jednoczesnej inspiracji konkretnymi obiektami architektury znad Jeziora Bodeńskiego i Renu, głównie o funkcjach klasztornych.

Słowa kluczowe: łuki oporowe, sklepienia, architektura gotycka, kościół św. Elżbiety, Wrocław