Questions of Privacy at the Zamoyska Palace in Warsaw

Abstract

Countess Ludwika Maria Zamoyska-Poniatowska (1728–1804) and her only child, Urszula Wandalin Mniszech-Zamoyska (1750–1816) were prominent figures at the court of their brother and uncle Stanisław August Poniatowski (1732–98), the last king of Poland from 1764 to 1795. Their influence has been recognised in the past, yet their — informal — politics have started to attract the attention of scholars only recently, while their architectural endeavours have yet to be explored. This paper offers a case-study of the no longer extant Zamoyska palace in Warsaw, the renovation of which was managed by Urszula Mniszech, on behalf of her mother. A set of architectural drawings from the 1780s and a 1799 inventory of the residence form the main focus of study. The distribution and function of rooms, interior decoration and the façade provide clues to the way this residence was to shape the life of Ludwika Zamoyska in a time of political upheaval. The variations between seemingly executed and rejected architectural designs also raise questions that can contribute to a better understanding of the different meanings of privacy in the late eighteenth century.

King Stanisław August Poniatowski of Poland pursued social, cultural and institutional modernisations,¹ which provoked both enthusiasm from allies and escalating interference from political enemies and foreign entities.² Such developments had an impact on expectations of privacy and thus behaviours, which also influenced the architecture of royal and noble residences. At the height of the Polish Enlightenment, women in high ranks of society were actively involved in public life, claiming some of the authority of their male counterparts.³ Although their influence on court life, arts and politics of their time has been recognised, little has been written about Ludwika and Urszula and even less research has been conducted on their architectural endeavours.⁴ This paper offers a case-study of a palace previously overlooked by scholars, that was created by and for a noblewoman and aims to highlight architectural responses to the aforementioned circumstances through the lens of privacy.

The main object of investigation is the Zamoyska Palace in Warsaw, formerly on Krakowskie Przedmieście street, remodelled by Urszula in the late eighteenth century on behalf of her mother.⁵ A set of architectural drawings, presently in the collection of the National Museum in Warsaw, together with the 1799 inventory of the palace retrieved from the State Historical Archive of Ukraine in Kyiv, form the main sources for this study.⁶ The distribution and functions of rooms of the residence will receive close attention and the content of the individual spaces based on the inventory, can help ‘shape our notions about privacy and broader access, about appropriate décor and activity’.⁷ Finally, the formal aspects of the palace will be touched upon, focusing on the need to showcase Ludwika’s public role and secure her status in society: as a woman, a countess and as part of a royal family in a time of political upheaval.⁸

Inspired by the ‘heuristic zones of privacy’ as put forward by Professor Birkedal Bruun of the Centre for Privacy Studies, I will look at the architecture of the Zamoyska palace. Birkedal Bruun’s overlapping zones — the mind, the body, the chamber, the household, the community and society — represent early modern areas related to the private and prompt ‘historical debates regarding privacy’.⁹ Tim Meldrum warns that ‘ the key cultural components of modernity like “privacy”, cannot be read straight from the fabric of contemporary buildings’.¹⁰ Yet, boundaries and intersections in relation to Birkedal Bruun’s zones raise questions that help to interpret the historical sources on the subject of privacy. By investigating spaces with the heuristic zones in mind and by exploring variations of the palace’s designs, I will show that the architectural development of the Zamoyska Palace indeed instigates questions of privacy which can contribute to a better understanding of contemporary notions of the private.

A Noble and Royal Family

Ludwika Maria Poniatowska was born on 30 November 1728 as the eldest daughter of Stanisław Poniatowski (1676–1762) and Konstancja Czartoryska (1695–1759).¹¹ Ludwika mostly grew up in Gdańsk, where her mother was taking care of her brothers’ education.¹² In 1739, Konstancja took her children back to Warsaw. Her family took residence in the new — but not quite finished — Poniatowski palace, designed by Dresden-architect Jan Zygmunt Deybel (ca. 1685–1752), where Ludwika subsequently spent her teenage years.¹³ Ludwika became part of another powerful magnate family when she married Jan Jakub Zamoyski (1716–90) on 1 August 1745.¹⁴ Ludwika and Jan had one child, Urszula, in 1750. This being a political marriage more than anything, the couple separated soon after her birth, though they never divorced and Ludwika would remain in a strong political partnership with her husband, while staying close to her own family.¹⁵

Ludwika’s parents of noble descent were part of the so-called ‘Familia’: a political alliance in the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth centred around the powerful Czartoryski and Poniatowski families. Part of an elective monarchy, the Polish and Lithuanian nobles were in a very strong position, for instance by the principle of ‘liberum veto’. This rule allowed any member of the Sejm (parliament) to end a parliamentary session and nullify any legislation that was passed in that session. Putting personal and foreign interests before national concerns halted necessary decision-making and contributed to the decline of the Commonwealth.¹⁶ Thus, the Familia aimed for political and social reform.¹⁷ Ironically, change did not prove possible via parliament, so after several decades the Familia found an ally in Russian empress Catherine II and as a result, Stanisław’s son and former lover of the Empress, Stanisław August Poniatowski, was elected king on 7 September 1764.¹⁸ As sister of the new king, Ludwika became part of the royal family.

The same was true for her daughter. Urszula played an important role at court: the unmarried king relied on his niece for taking up the ceremonial role of hostess and so she became part of his closest circle.¹⁹ After a short-lived marriage to Wincenty Potocki (c. 1740–1825), Chamberlain of the Crown, she married Michał Jerzy Mniszech (1742–1806) in 1781, who was one of the closest associates of the King and became Grand Marshal of the Crown. Michał was a well-educated and well-travelled lawyer, philosopher and historian.²⁰ He was a member of the National Education Committee and later the Minister of Art and Culture and as such responsible for the plans to establish a national museum, an academy of science and an academy of fine arts.²¹ Conforming to the enlightened ideas of their time, the King and his confidants attached great importance to culture and the dissemination of knowledge. The King was an avid art collector and was very much involved in the design of the new interiors of the Royal Castle, as well as his own summer retreat in Łazienki park on the outskirts of Warsaw.²² Not only could the King depend on talented architects like Domenico Merlini (1730–97) and Johann Christian Kammsetzer (1753–95), he also created his own drawings.²³ Such a courtly environment could only be a source of inspiration, especially to Urszula, who took a keen interest in art and architecture.²⁴

The Original Palace

The palace at Krakowskie Przedmieście 64 in Warsaw was first built by Antonina Zamoyska née Zahorowska (?–1747) in the early 1740s on land donated to, and rented back from, the Carmelite nuns.²⁵ Their monastery complex was located next to Antonina’s plot, with their chapel directly adjacent to the palace.

Krakowskie Przedmieście is a main street in Warsaw leading away from the centre in southern direction, parallel to the Vistula River. Several Polish magnate families had an urban palace on this street, since it was very close to the Royal Castle and offered more spacious plots than within the walls of the old town. During the summer the noble families would often reside in their family seats in the countryside, but when staying in Warsaw to exercise their noble right to engage in politics, an urban palace near the Sejm in the Royal Castle was both convenient and prestigious.²⁶

Antonina’s palace was a compact two-storey building that was slightly set back from the adjoining chapel on one side and the associated gatehouse on the other. The representational rooms were located on the first floor. After Antonina’s death, the property changed hands several times, until Ludwika became the owner in 1782. She cleverly convinced the Holy See to grant the emphyteutic rent, previously set to forty years, in perpetuity and contracted royal architects Jan Griesmeyer (ca. 1760–post 1817) and Jakub Kubicki (1758–1833) to design the palace’s remodelling.²⁷

The New Palace

Several architectural drawings were prepared for the renovation and extension of Ludwika’s residence. A new, separate wing was designed perpendicular to the main palace, along the north wing of the Carmelite monastery, towards the river. Stables were placed in a semi-circle at the end of this wing and a utility building was located in the courtyard (fig. 1). The functions of some of the rooms are indicated on some of the drawings, but it is the inventory of 12 January 1799 that helps to assign individuals to apartments and the intended purpose of the rooms.²⁸

Figure 1 (attributed to) Jan Griesmeyer and Jakub Kubicki, Zamoyski Palace in Krakowskie Przedmieście Warsaw, Drawing No. 3, plan of the palace complex, projections of all floors, pen, ink and watercolour on paper, c. 1782. In red A: apartment Michał, in red B: apartment Urszula, in red C: apartment Ludwika, in blue: representative rooms, in green: utility buildings and stables (Collection of National Museum Warsaw, inv. nr. 15644 MNW)

From the inventory we can conclude that Ludwika herself had her apartment on the streetside of the palace, her daughter had an apartment next to her, facing the courtyard and Michał had his apartment placed in the new extension. There is no apartment mentioned for Ludwika’s husband, who in his final years mainly lived in the Zamoyski palace in Łabunie (near Zamość).²⁹ The main staircase was to be found in the main body of the palace, streetside, surrounded by representational rooms like two antechambers, the Grand Salon and a dining room. A library was placed at the far end of the new wing.

Plan and Interior: The Main Body of the Palace

Visitors would enter the palace from the street, going up the grand staircase to the Piano Nobile on the first floor. The representational route would take the visitor to the first antechamber, then the second antechamber, followed by the Grand Salon (fig. 2, red route — going up anti clockwise). Urszula’s bedroom, cabinet and wardrobes come after the Grand Salon, creating a route that increased in luxury and decorations — traditionally offering more limited access to each following room.³⁰

Figure 2 (attributed to) Jan Griesmeyer and Jakub Kubicki, Zamoyski Palace in Krakowskie Przedmieście Warsaw, Drawing No. 3 (detail), plan of the palace complex, projections of all floors, pen, ink and watercolour on paper, c. 1782 (National Museum Warsaw, inv. nr. 15644 MNW) (Inset top left) (detail) Jan Griesmeyer, Zamoyski Palace in Krakowskie Przedmieście Warsaw, main body, projections of floors, pen, ink, watercolour on paper, c. 1782 (Collection of National Museum Warsaw, inv. nr. 15476 MNW)

To have Urszula’s bedroom at the end of the representational route might suggest that she was the main lady of the house, where in fact her mother was the main resident of the palace. One could also expect the representational route to end with the more common symmetrical male/female apartments or — if that is not possible — to end in the male apartment. In this case, a less obvious, but apparently more tailor-made solution was chosen, resulting in a prominent place of the female apartments in the main body of the palace.

Looking closer at this main representational route coming from the stairs, the visitor would access the first antechamber. The inventory mentions two large folding tables and nine chairs in this room as well as a chest with drawers and a wooden box. It is not mentioned if the chest and box were locked. No decoration is mentioned either, other than two mirrors and linen curtains with white and yellow stripes, giving the impression this was indeed the first and most modest space of the representational route. The first antechamber also gave way to a private lodge in the chapel of the Carmelite sisters. The lodge would allow Ludwika to join mass with the nuns or engage in private prayer — without having to leave the house and be seen by outsiders. The lodge would allow for a more intimate religious experience, away from the general public eye. However, the presence of the lodge in the representative rooms of her house also signalled to visitors that Ludwika was able to go to mass and pray, as would have been expected from a pious woman. It indirectly made the private a little more public, and indicated Ludwika was a respectable woman fitting the ‘traditional Polish model of womanhood’ as the guardian of house and religion.³¹ The balcony was upholstered with Turkish crimson cloth and green curtains at the window. The small space was made comfortable with a single chair in red leather plus a wooden footstool next to it.³²

The second antechamber on the representational route, called ‘the Blue Room’, contained most notably a large billiards table. It made this room not just part of the ceremonial route, but also a perfect entertainment and meeting space, similar to the Białystok palace of Ludwika’s sister, Countess Izabella Branicka née Poniatowska (1730–1808).³³ Over time, billiards became more of a men’s game, and the billiard rooms would move away from women’s quarters.³⁴ However, in the late eighteenth century is was still a game for both men and women and in Ludwika’s residence it could take in a very central place between the male and female apartments.

From the drawings we can surmise that the design of the Blue Room was a point of discussion. In one design the room was very large and almost equal in size to the Grand Salon.³⁵ The National Museum of Warsaw has this plan dated around 1800 as an executed plan, based on the inscriptions with a masonry heater and trumeau ‘that is already here’, concluding the whole drawing is an existing state. However, these elements are located in the old part of the palace, not the new wing, so the drawing could just as easily have been an unexecuted design, showing old elements already there. I argue this design was not executed as we can tell from Zakrzewski’s city plan of Warsaw of a later date — showing a distinct smaller passage — and the description of the inventory that we can now include in the analyses.³⁶ Instead, a Blue Room half the size was created, followed by a smaller passageway leading to the new wing (fig. 3).³⁷ The passage forms a connection between the main house and the wing and insofar seems a communication space. It contained two large plaster figures in niches opposite the window and a lantern hanging from the ceiling for three candles. A small alcove made room for a stove. Moreover, the inventory mentions furniture; some chairs and a sofa.³⁸ Was this space a boundary between the processional route and the new wing, directing people towards the Grand Salon, away from the apartment? The choice for a passage, rather than a larger billiards room could suggest this: visitors would not be confused as to where to go next as the corridor would be a signal not to go further. It could indicate to a more private nature of the apartment that followed. However, this space would also allow people to move away from the Blue Room next door, out of sight or out of hearing range, to sit down and have a quieter conversation. Perhaps conducting informal politics, to which women especially had to resort, not being allowed to be appointed to official positions, when others were busy playing billiards in the other room.³⁹ The furniture in the passage would be inviting to this end.

Figure 3 Unknown author, Zamoyski Palace on Krakowskie Przedmieście Warsaw, Sketch of the rooms at the joining of the main body and the side wing, after 1785 (National Museum Warsaw, inv.nr.15675 MNW)

The route via the two antechambers culminated in the Grand Salon, the largest of the three spaces and elaborately decorated. The inventory describes the room in most detail: the walls were upholstered with white Turkish fabric with gold and coloured embroidery and a golden border all around. Green valances and curtains with Parisian fringes and silk cords, two sofas in embroidered Turkish fabric, two large chairs upholstered in Persian fabric, cushions with silver flowers, two mahogany tables with green cloth on top, a large mahogany clavichord with a console for it, several colourful embroidered satin screens, two oval shaped tables with marble tops, many chairs and stools, several mirrors with gilded frames, a green marble chimney with bronze and four paintings, among others.⁴⁰

An alternative representational route was available to Ludwika’s apartment (fig. 2, blue route — bottom, going left to right). Coming from the grand staircase, the route would first lead to a dining room that could also serve as an antechamber.⁴¹ Next was the Petit Salon, as mentioned on the plan.⁴² Ludwika’s apartment would follow after, with a bedroom and small cabinet. There are different designs of her apartment. An alternative is shown in the inset of figure 2. Coming from the Petit Salon, this alternative design has the cabinet placed before the bedroom, which is somewhat irregular. The names allocated to different rooms in the, bottom, going left to right inventory and the route that may have been followed drafting the document, do not offer absolute clarity about which design was chosen. However, close study of the inventory in combination with the different floorplans can offer a solution. As opposed to the inset in figure 2, I argue that the drawing of the main body — and thus Ludwika’s apartment — shown in figure 2 comes closer to the executed plan: the inventory mentions one iron rod and curtain for the window in the ‘study next to the bedroom’, while the description of the bedroom mentions two windows. This corresponds with the plan in figure 2, while the plan in the inset has only a single window for each room. The inventory further mentions considerably less furniture for the study compared to the bedroom, which corresponds to the size of those rooms in figure 2. Finally, the second wardrobe — unlike the first wardrobe — does not mention a window in the inventory, only an ‘iron rod over the door to the portico’. This also corresponds to figure 2, while the plan of the inset has a window in both wardrobes.⁴³ In any case, the two different designs could be an indication of changing ideas of privacy relating to the positioning and function of cabinet and bedroom, with the cabinet now also considered as a more accessible space or even a meeting space, as was the case in other contemporary palaces. For example, the first-floor apartment of the King’s Palace on the Isle in the Łazienki park had an antechamber and small gallery where guests could wait, before they were allowed access to the King’s study. This study is nowadays referred to as ‘the most public of the monarch’s private rooms’ and was a representative space where he ‘held meetings and councils in small groups’, and ‘studied architectural plans and engravings’.⁴⁴ The more private bedchamber and wardrobe were located behind the study. There was no additional private cabinet attached to the bedchamber, however, a corridor did give way to a small private library and librarian’s room.⁴⁵

A different use of the cabinet can be found in the Poniatowski palace in Solec (near Warsaw), owned by Ludwika’s older brother Kazimierz. The palace had cabinets on the ground floor that also not necessarily indicated the endpoint of a sequence of rooms of an apartment: they were directly connected to other spaces that were considered more public, like a ballroom. As such, they seem to have offered a retreat for guests — away from the hustle and bustle of festivities, and not solely a private space of the resident of the apartment. One cabinet was not part of an apartment at all, but located between the dining room and salon, two representative spaces.⁴⁶ Thus, various interpretations of the cabinet and their subsequent expectations of privacy can be found in different palaces at this point in time. However, it is my suggestion that in the case under study, somewhat less accessible location of bedroom and especially cabinet was decided by Ludwika.

Apart from a bed, Ludwika’s bedroom contained a fireplace with a mirror above it and a bronze candlestick next to it, a cabinet with six drawers, a sofa, small tables made of Parisian wood, a clock on a white marble pedestal and a glass lamp shade, a mahogany writing table with seven drawers, covered with green leather on top and several personal items like drawings and portraits of family, among others.⁴⁷

The cabinet or study contained a white painted closet with four drawers and shelves, a separate shelf for books and a single chair covered in leather.⁴⁸ Ludwika’s bedroom and her small cabinet were decorated as more intimate spaces, designed for solitude rather than receiving guests. More than in the rest of the house, it offered many drawers to keep papers and objects away from prying eyes. Most indicatively, it was especially mentioned in the inventory that Ludwika kept these specific drawers locked and the key on her person.⁴⁹ It was here Ludwika could spend time by herself, reading a book in her leather chair or writing one of her letters at her desk to her husband, her brothers and sister, or her beloved daughter and son in-law. Ludwika left many letters behind for us to read today.⁵⁰ She wrote to her husband on behalf of others for loans or jobs — forming patron/client relationships and exercising influence in an informal yet real way.⁵¹ She wrote to her daughter about events and gossip and about her health and feelings — especially about feelings of loss when her daughter was not with her, trying to convince her to visit soon.⁵² So, the privacy of her bedroom allowed Ludwika to write letters that reached out and impacted other people’s lives and communities; touched public life. Simultaneously, this space made it possible for her to share personal feelings with her family — strengthening the loving bonds and connecting from a distance.⁵³ The expectation of privacy Ludwika could have felt writing her letters, was enhanced by the public discussion on privacy of mail delivery in Parliament in the last half of the eighteenth century. From the start of his reign onwards, the King pushed various legal reforms of the post office and especially the Act on the Security of Letters of 22 June 1789 is an example of tighter regulations to ensure confidentiality of correspondence.⁵⁴ So, although Ludwika’s bed chamber, cabinet and locked drawers indicate a more personal and private space when considering access, different heuristic zones of privacy could still overlap at certain times — for instance, by the act of writing and the reach of her letters.⁵⁵

Ludwika’s chosen solution for bedroom and cabinet was by no means unique, yet the different architectural designs make us think about the discussion they might have provoked and how other patrons have fulfilled their needs of privacy with a particular type of space like the cabinet. All in all, the location of the respective rooms in the main body offered some flexibility according to the function or use of the room, the status of possible guests, and the expected ceremonial for the occasion.

Plan and Interior: The New Wing

Unlike the two-storey main body of the palace, the extension could be three storeys, since the ground sloped downwards towards the river. This also meant that the stables — at the far end of the complex — were out the line of sight, allowing for what must have been a magnificent view from the library (and possibly its adjoining balcony) at the end of the wing.⁵⁶ That Ludwika appreciated a good view to the world outside can be understood from her remarks when writing her daughter about a refurbished apartment in Henrietta Lullier’s house, a confidante of the King, located not far from her own Warsaw residence. Ludwika calls it ‘the prettiest thing in the world for proportion and size’ and is impressed that the Vistula River, the Prague district and Krakowskie Przedmieście street can be seen from the same place ‘without moving’.⁵⁷

A library was not necessarily solely for keeping books and enjoyment of individual reading, but could be a space to be admired by guests and even a scene for entertainment: reading aloud from memoirs, looking at drawings and etchings and even enjoying small theatrical performances.⁵⁸ It could therefore be a representational space used by both men and women. Its location in this palace — with its large windows and wonderful views — as well as the many available seats, can be understood in this way. The ‘Arabesque painted’ library was beautifully decorated with many mirrors on the walls, shutters and cabinets.⁵⁹ Sofas and chairs were upholstered with satin, stools woven with reed, postal horns were carved in a wooden table with a marble white top and the fireplace, made from Italian marble, was most likely designed by Jakub Kubicki.⁶⁰

A library is also a repository for knowledge and although female libraries were common by the late eighteenth century, in this case, its location far away from the ladies’ apartments and next to Michał’s study, made it effectively designed as a more male space. Especially when considering that in one of the designs, it was to serve as both library and cabinet, making it part of Michał’s apartment (fig. 1).

Although there are different designs of the new wing, the drawing in figure 4 seems to fit the descriptions from the inventory best. It confirms that coming from the main body via the passage, the wing included a beautiful bathroom. It was easily accessible to all residents, without having to go through individual apartments. After the bathroom, the inventory mentions Michał’s bedroom, followed by the wardrobe, a gallery with a door to the stairs, a separate study and finally the library. As mentioned earlier, one design of the architects combines a library with a cabinet, but the inventory mentions a separate space with a window towards the Carmelite Garden, in line with several drawings (including figure 4). This hints to the idea that more privacy was required in the study than a library could offer.⁶¹

Figure 4 Jan Griesmeyer, Zamoyski Palace in Krakowskie Przedmieście Warsaw, side wing, projections of four storeys, pencil, pen, ink, and watercolour on paper, c. 1782 (Collection of National Museum Warsaw, inv. nr. 15466(2) MNW)

As part of an elaborate decoration, the inventory mentions two large paintings in the library, one of the Prince Primate Poniatowski — a brother of Ludwika — and one painting of her daughter Urszula, the latter which also appears on an architectural drawing.⁶² Considered from Ludwika’s position, this image might create a more comforting personal space: having her loving daughter nearby when she is not physically present. Simultaneously, the life-size paintings could serve a political and more public purpose in a representative space: promoting her relatives as important members of a royal family.

It is up for debate whether guests coming from the main body of the palace, would be able to go to the library via the passage, the bathroom and Michał’s bedroom, or if they would be directed to the second staircase further down the wing and avoid Michał’s apartment all together, making these more private spaces. The earlier mentioned choices regarding the Blue Room and passage indicate a more private use of Michał’s apartment. Yet, there are also arguments that support the idea that guests were allowed to reach the library in a more direct manner. Avoiding Michał’s apartment meant having to go outside or via a different floor, to reach the second staircase. Weather conditions and the fact that a tenant occupied an apartment on a lower floor of the palace, argue against such a solution.⁶³ Also, even the King himself did not feel the need to behave in a reserved and formal manner and welcomed all sort of courtiers, men of business and other visitors in his private rooms, which may have set an example for Ludwika and her daughter.⁶⁴ Furthermore, the enfilade-like positioning of the rooms and doors in the wing of Ludwika’s palace, and the elaborate décor of the bathroom and large bedroom of Michał, could suggest that these rooms were indeed there to be seen. The example of Izabela Czartoryska’s residence in Powązka (near Warsaw), that was transformed in 1771, comes to mind. In descriptions of Czartoryska’s bathroom, J. Bernoulli highlights a niche that hid the bathtub under a sofa upholstered in gold fabric and walls that were lined with expensive porcelain tiles. He calls the bathroom and its equipment extremely sophisticated and original, while S.B. Zug singles out the bathroom as the most expensive space of the Powązka palace.⁶⁵ Although somewhat hidden, Czartoryska’s bathroom was clearly not just a space meant for personal hygiene of the residents.

Another clue to a somewhat accessible bathroom of Zamoyska can be found in an alternative design of the wing. In this design, the second staircase would not lead directly to the library: one would have to cross the bedroom as well, which suggests that these second stairs were not necessarily planned to avoid guests from entering the bathroom and bedroom. Perhaps they were rather for the use of servants, as the stairs also seem to be connected to the kitchen building next to the palace, via a gallery (fig. 1 and 4). Besides, it was not unique for a bathroom to be a semi-public room. In the second half of the eighteenth century, the King had commissioned the Myślewicki palace as one of the first buildings of the new royal park. The palace had a bathroom in the main body on the ground floor, next to what was envisioned as a dining room. Thus, a bathroom not necessarily as part of an apartment, but as a seemingly semi-private space of enjoyment.⁶⁶ The same can be said of the already mentioned Palace on the Isle, the former suburban retreat and bathhouse of nobleman Stanisław Herakliusz Lubomirski (1642–1702) designed in the late seventeenth century as a space for leisure and relaxation, a ‘privilege of a specific social group, separating it from the common nobility’.⁶⁷ Lubomirski’s villa was redeveloped by the King into a summer residence in the second half of the eighteenth century, preserving the bathroom as part of the representational setting.⁶⁸ And the previously mentioned Poniatowski palace in Solec had a semi-circular bathroom with a spacious sofa and a fireplace at the end of the longer axis, connected to the ballroom only by a short corridor and in close vicinity of the dining room.⁶⁹ Surely, Ludwika and Urszula were well acquainted with these palaces. The tin bathtub ‘in the form of a sofa’ in Ludwika’s palace, covered with a mattress and pillows — allowing alternative use — is reminiscent of the King’s solution in the Palace on the Isle and Czartoryska’s tiled bathroom.⁷⁰ However, without further research regarding the use of the palace, it is not yet possible to resolve this issue of access with confidence.

Imaginations of a New Façade

The seven-axis façade of the palace as originally designed by Antonina Zamoyska née Zahorowska in the 1740s had a rusticated strip on the ground floor, but the windows of the Piano Nobile were separated by pilaster strips. The gatehouse was built in similar style. The central, three-axis Avant-corps of the palace was emphasized with a canopied entrance and somewhat richer decoration, including stucco ornaments above the windows and two urns with garlands on the corners of a cornice that adorned a high gabled roof with oval dormer, also topped with an urn (fig. 5A).⁷¹

Figure 5. (A) (left) Bernardo Bellotto, Krakowskie Przedmieście Street Looking towards the Zygmunt III Column (detail) (Royal Castle Museum, Warsaw, inv. no. ZKW/450, photo by Andrzej Ring, Lech Sandzewicz) FIGURE 5(B) (right) Zygmunt Vogel after Bernardo Bellotto, View of Krakowskie Przedmieście Street towards Zamkowy Square (detail), Watercolour on Paper, ca.1785 (Collection of National Museum in Warsaw, inv. no. 11217 MNW)

Ludwika’s architects drew several designs for a new, larger and more robust façade: a public statement, befitting a member of the royal family. Some designs copied the use of rustication and garlands from the old façade, but they were all influenced by classicist principles and some included an impressive tympanum.⁷²

A painting by Zygmunt Vogel from 1785 offers an interpretation of how the new building could look in-situ (fig. 5B).⁷³ The Zamoyski and Poniatowski coats of arms proudly advertise the union between two distinguished families. The Zamoyski name alludes to Ludwika’s husband. The prominent display of the Zamoyski coat of arms for the public eye was in stark contrast to Jan Jakub’s absence inside the building: not a single portrait of him is mentioned in the inventory, compared to several of the Poniatowski family. Although Jan Jakub would not live in the palace with his wife, they were in fact still married. Ludwika would gladly showcase her association to this important family and her title of countess, as these designs suggest.⁷⁴

Whatever comments the new designs of the façade may raise, eventually none of them were executed. The façade was not touched, Vogel’s interpretation remained a fantasy. The only changes that occurred happened in the interior decoration and with an extension at the back, away from the view of the street, but to be seen by all noble and the high-ranking guests of the sister of the King.

Conclusion

Urszula imagined a palace that suited the particular circumstances of her own family as well as her mother who wrote to her in 1782 that ‘the house is very useful and very pleasant’.⁷⁵ Urszula’s eye for architecture and the need for prestige — assisted by accomplished architects — resulted in designs suited for a royal family member.

Not all plans were executed — most notably the façade. What was left on the outside was a somewhat more modest city palace for a countess, that nevertheless provided contemporary functional and representational spaces that offered flexibility between personal use and public display. To some extent, its design was in line with known developments: having more rooms for specific purposes, spatial differentiation between male and female spaces, as well as the traditional sequence of rooms for the female apartments in the house. Yet, the drawings also show more unusual choices of the patron and her daughter, such as the prominent location of the female apartments in the overall lay-out, signalling the close connection between Ludwika and her daughter, not only emotionally, but also spatially.

The discussion of the different drawings of the palace in combination with the inventory showed that an investigation of architecture through the lens of privacy concerns not only space, access and function, but also their intersection with other privacy zones like the mind, body, community and even society at large. Spaces and their use are not static, but a constant negotiation between these zones, giving different meanings to the idea of privacy. The study of architectural boundaries and connections can contribute to an understanding of the private. This does not only become apparent through a look at the executed designs or an inventory of what once was, but also — or especially — through the alternative drawings that were suggested (and apparently rejected) — for instance in the Blue Room or Ludwika’s apartment. This leaves us with most interesting designs that not only show the patron’s wishes, but also raise questions about society’s changing codes of behaviour in the sphere of privacy — and beg for further investigation.⁷⁶

Epilogue

Ludwika left her residence due to the political circumstances in the first months of 1795. She eventually joined the King in exile, who had to leave Warsaw on order of Empress Catherine II, after the Kościuszko Uprising failed to liberate the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth from influence of the Russian empire and kingdom of Prussia.⁷⁷ The third partition of the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth was signed in October 1795, which meant the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth seized to exist. The King abdicated soon after.

Ludwika was no longer part of a royal family and would not return to live in her Warsaw palace. In 1801, she transferred ownership of the palace to the count of Provence (1755–1824), future Louis XVIII of France, who spent part of his exile in Warsaw.⁷⁸ However, it is debatable whether he actually made use of the palace or if the transfer was only meant as a temporary safeguard against foreign rulers. Ludwika spent her final years abroad and died in Vienna in 1804. Finally, on 22 February 1805, Urszula took ownership of the house she had so lovingly designed for her mother; however, it would not serve as a palace again.⁷⁹

The National Museum of Warsaw named the designs that of the ‘Zamoyski Palace’. Perhaps from now on, the former residence should be better known as ‘Zamoyska Palace’, after its female patrons and occupants.⁸⁰

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Esther Griffin-Van Orsouw

Esther Griffin-van Orsouw

Esther Griffin-van Orsouw is a PhD candidate at the University of Warsaw and a Marie Skłodowska-Curie Fellow of the European Training Network PALAMUSTO. Her research involves material culture and architecture in a courtly setting. Collecting practices and spaces in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Europe are her particular focus.

Notes

1 This research is part of the PALAMUSTO project, www.palamusto.eu, which received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 861426. This paper reflects only the author’s views and the Agency is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains.

2 Richard Butterwick, ‘The Enlightened Monarchy of Stanisław August Poniatowski (1764-1795)’, in Richard Butterwick (ed.) The Polish-Lithuanian Monarchy in European Context, c. 1500–1795 (London, 2001), pp. 193-218.

3 Paul D. McLean, ‘Patrimonialism, Elite Networks, and Reform in Late-Eighteenth-Century Poland’, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 636 (July 2011), pp. 88-110; Anna Penkała-Jastrzębska, ‘Introduction’, in Bożena Popiołek, Urszula Kicińska, Anna Penkała-Jastrzębska and Agnieszka Słaby (eds), Studies on Female Patronage in the 17^th and 18^th Centuries (Cracow, 2019), pp. 9-10.

4 Anna Berdecka and Irena Turnau, Życie codzienne w Warszawie okresu oświecenia (Warsaw, 1969), p. 99.

5 Maria Irena Kwiatkowska and Marek Kwiatkowski, Historia Warszawy XVI–XX wieku — zabytki mówią (Warsaw, 1998), pp. 13-18.

6 I would like to express my gratitude to Piotr Kibort, curator at the Cabinet of Prints and Drawings of the National Museum in Warsaw, for introducing me to the architectural drawings. I also thank both dr. hab. Barbara Arciszewska, my thesis supervisor at the University of Warsaw, and dr. Dorota Wiśniewska, of the University of Wrocław, for their useful comments on this paper. Lasty, I owe thanks to the Centre for Privacy Studies in Copenhagen, for offering me the opportunity to present my research at the ‘Privacy and the Eastern European Courts, 1400–1800’ research workshop on 24 September 2021 and this resulting publication.

7 Susan M. Pearce, On Collecting (New York and Oxon, 1995), pp. 270-71.

8 In the last three decades of the eigtheenth century, the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth lost territory to the Russian empire, the kingdom of Prussia and the Habsburg monarchy in three territorial divisions. The last so-called partition of 1795 ended the existence of the Commonwealth altogether.

9 https://teol.ku.dk/privacy/research/work-method/ (accessed 2 November 2022).

10 Tim Meldrum, Domestic Service and Gender, 1660–1750: Life and Work in the London Household (Harlow, 2000), p. 78.

11 Dunin Borkowski and Jerzy Sewer, Panie polskie przy dworze rakuskim (Lviv, 1891), p. 78.

12 Krystyna Zienkowska, Stanisław August Poniatowski (Wrocław, 1998), p. 11.

13 Zienkowska, Stanisław August Poniatowski, pp. 16, 25-26.

14 Borkowski and Sewer, Panie polskie, p. 79.

15 Dorota Wiśniewska, ‘Dla dobra rodziny. Wokół działalności Ludwiki z Poniatowskich Zamoyskiej w latach 1751–1772’, Przegląd Historyczny CVIII, no. 4 (2017), pp. 674-85.

16 Norman Davies, ‘The Third of May 1791’, in Samuel Fiszman (ed), Constitution and Reform in Eighteenth-Century Poland (Bloomington and Indianapolis, 1997).

17 Zofia Zielińska, Walka “Familii” o reformę Rzeczypospolitej 1743–1752 (Warsaw, 1983), p. 16.

18 Zofia Zielińska, ‘Poland between Prussia and Russia in the Eighteenth Century’, in Fiszman (ed.), Constitution and Reform in Eighteenth-Century Poland, n.p.; Adam Zamoyski, The Last King of Poland (London, 1992), p. 82.

19 Polski Słownik Biograficzny, Tom XXI, 1976, pp. 457-8 https://www.ipsb.nina.gov.pl/a/biografia/urszula-mniszchowa-ur-ok-1750-zm-po-1808-marszalkowa-wlk-kor (accessed 14 February 2022).

20 Marek Bratuń, ‘Ten wykwintny, wykształcony Europejczyk’: zagraniczne studia i podróże edukacyjne Michała Jerzego Wandalina Mniszcha w latach 1762–1768 (Opole, 2002).

21 Ewa Miszczak, ‘Michał Jerzy Mniszech, pierwszy “minister kultury”’, in Mówią wieki 6 (1964) https://www.wilanow-palac.pl/michal_jerzy_mniszech_pierwszy_minister_kultury.html (accessed 14 February 2022); Michał Mencfel, ‘The English Voyage of Michał Jerzy Wandalin Mniszech and Plan to Found the Polish Museum’, Muz. 62 (2021) pp. 214-19.

22 Izabella Zychowicz, The Royal Łazienki (Warsaw, 2018), pp. 8-10; for an extensive overview of the King’s architectural endevours, see Marek Kwiatkowski, Stanisław August, Król — Architekt (Wrocław, Warsaw, Cracow, Gdansk, Łódż, 1983). For an impression of the King’s art collections, see Dorota Juszczak and Hanna Małachowicz, The Stanisłąw August Collection of Paintings at the Royal Łazienki, Catalogue (Warsaw, 2016); Jolanta Talbierska (ed.), Metamorphoses, from the Print Collection of Stanisław August Poniatowski (Warsaw, 2013); Ewa Manikowska, Sztuka — Ceremoniał — Informacja (Warsaw, 2007).

23 For example, drawings with signature 8032, 8034 and 8036 at the Print Room of the Warsaw University Library, http://egr.buw.uw.edu.pl (accessed 14 February 2022). Marzena Królikowska-Dziubecka, ‘Kamsetzer, Johann Christian’, in Paweł Migasiewicz, Hanna Osiecka-Samsonowicz and Jakub Sito (eds), Słownik architektówi budowniczych, środowiska warszawskiego XV-XVIII wieku (Warsaw, 2016), pp. 235-42; Przemysław Wątroba, ‘Merlini, Domenico’, in Paweł Migasiewicz et al. (eds), Słownik architektówi, pp. 314-18.

24 The National Museum of Warsaw holds a miniature of Urszula, in which she is depicted sitting in an armchair, holding a portfolio with drawings under her arm and a drawing pen in her hand, alluding to her artistic aspirations: Heinrich Freidrich Fuger, Urszula née Zamoyski Michałowa Wandalin-Mniszchowa, gouache and watercolour, 1791, National Museum of Warsaw (hereafter MNW), Min.887 MNW.

25 Aleksander Wejnert, Starożytności warszawskie: dzieło zbiorowo-zeszytowe (Warsaw, 1848), vol. II, p. 229.

26 For a detailed impression of the royal and noble residences in and around Warsaw, see: Jolanta Putkowska, Warszawskie rezydencje na przedmieściach i pod miastem w XVI–XVII wieku (Warsaw, 2016).

27 Jarosław Zieliński, Atlas dawnej architektury, p. 294; Wejnert, Starożytności warszawskie, p. 231; emphyteutic lease is a contract that allows the lessee to make use of a property or build a property on land that is rented long term. The lessee needs to take care of the property and land, pay tax and sometimes a yearly rent. When the lease term ends, the contract is either renewed or the landowner buys the property at market value, determined by experts. Przemysław Watroba, ‘Griesmayer, Jan W.’ and ‘Kubicki, Jakub’, in Paweł Migasiewicz et al. (eds), Słownik architektówi, pp. 186-90, 267-75.

28 State Historical Archive of Ukraine (hereafter SHAU), Zamoyski Archive (hereafter ZA), Fond 256, op. 1, unit 2180; I would like to thank Bohdan Berezenko for his help retrieving the inventory and some letters from the archive; Translation of the inventory is done by the author, and checked/improved by Justyna Halko, with gratitude.

29 Wiesław Bondyra, ‘Zamoyski Jan Jakub’, in Tadeusz Radzik, Adam Witusik and Jan Ziółek (eds), Słownik biograficzny miasta Lublina (Lublin, 1996), vol. II, p. 312.

30 SHAU, ZA, Fond 256, op. 1, unit 2180, 2r-v, 5r.

31 Maria Bogucka, ‘Women and Religion in the Early Modern Period’, Acta Poloniae Historica 77 (1998), p. 24.

32 SHAU, ZA, Fond 256, op. 1, unit 2180, 5r.

33 Karol Łopatecki and Walczak Wojciech, The History of Branicki Palace until 1809 (Białystok, 2015), p. 180, https://repozytorium.uwb.edu.pl/jspui/bitstream/11320/9997/1/K_Lopatecki_W_Walczak_The_history_of_Branicki_palace_until_1809.pdf (accessed 16 February 2022).

34 Michael Phelan, The Game of Billiards (New York, 1857), pp. 19-23, https://books.google.pl/books?id=Rb9NAQAAMAAJ&source=gbs_similarbooks (accessed 16 February 2022).

35 Jan Griesmeyer, Zamoyski Palace on Krakowskie Przedmieście Warsaw, Plan of the Blue Salon (at the joining of the main body and the side wing) with a commentary (existing state), c. 1800, Museum of Warsaw (hereafter MHW), inv.nr.15674 MNW. I argue that this is not an executed plan and its date is therefore more likely from around 1782–85, when the palace was first designed.

36 Aleksander Zakrzewski, Plan of the Capital City of Warsaw scale c. 1:4800, hand coloured lithography on paper on canvas, 1825, MHW, inv. nr. MHW 7718/PI, https://kolekcje.muzeumwarszawy.pl/en/objects/5509/ (accessed 14 February 2022).

37 Unknown author, Zamoyski Palace on Krakowskie Przedmieście. Sketch plan of the rooms at the junction of the main body and the side wing, after 1785, inv.nr.15675 MNW. I believe the drawing can be dated more likely 1782–85. The outline of an outside wall with three windows in pencil is also visible, similar to the drawing with inv.nr. 15674 MNW, that shows one large Blue Room. This gives a good impression of the differences between the two designs.

38 SHAU, ZA, Fond 256, op. 1, unit 2180, 5v.

39 Maria Bogucka, Women in Early Modern Polish Society, Against the European Background (New York, 2004), pp. 162-64, 174; Women could not become deputies of parliament or hold positions in public offices, but women from the higher nobility had the education, money and position to exert power through diplomacy, political games, sponsoring and brokerage.

40 SHAU, ZA, Fond 256, op. 1, unit 2180, 2r-v. The inventory refers to the Grand Salon as the parade hall.

41 SHAU, ZA, Fond 256, op. 1, unit 2180, 4v. The inventory refers to the dining room as the ‘hall facing the street’.

42 SHAU, ZA, Fond 256, op. 1, unit 2180, 4r. The inventory refers to the Petit Salon as ‘the guest room facing the street’.

43 SHAU, ZA, Fond 256, op. 1, unit 2180, 4r.

44 Grzegorz Piątek, The Royal Łazienki, a Guidebook to its History and Architecture (Warsaw, 2021), pp. 69-71.

45 Piątek, The Royal Łazienki, p. 72-73.

46 Putkowska, Warszawskie rezydencje, p. 274.

47 SHAU, ZA, Fond 256, op. 1, unit 2180, 3v and 4r.

48 SHAU, ZA, Fond 256, op. 1, unit 2180, 4r.

49 SHAU, ZA, Fond 256, op. 1, unit 2180, 9r. ‘In the seven-drawer mahogany table covered with green leather and in the sleeping room of Your Highness standing there are various papers and things which cannot be written down because the keys to this table are kept by Your Highness.’

50 For example, SHAU, ZA, Fond 256, op. 1, unit 1060, 1249, 1407, 1831, 1911, 1918 and 1962.

51 Dorota Wiśniewska, Zapomniana siostra króla, Ludwika z Poniatowskich Zamoyska, https://www.lazienki-krolewskie.pl/pl/edukacja/baza-wiedzy/zapomniana-siostra-krola-ludwika-z-poniatowskich-zamoyska (accessed 16 February 2022).

52 SHAU, Mniszech Archive (hereafter MN), Fond 250, op. 1, unit 89, 6r.

53 Leonie Hannan, Women of Letters, Gender, Writing and the Life of the Mind in Early Modern England (Manchester, 2016), pp. 123-25.

54 Rafał Zgorzelski, ‘O tajemnicy korespondencji za panowania Stanisława Augusta’, in Silva Rerum (Museum of King Jan III’s Palace at Wilanów, 2009), https://www.wilanow-palac.pl/o_tajemnicy_korespondencji_za_panowania_stanislawa_augusta.html (accessed 31 October 2022).

55 Compare: Dustin M. Neighbors and Natacha Klein Käfer, ‘Zones of Privacy in Letters Between Women of Power: Elizabeth I of England and Anna of Saxony’, Royal Studies Journal IX (2022), pp. 60-89.

56 Inv.nr.15453 MNW and inv.nr.15682 MNW.

57 SHAU, ZA, Fond 256, op. 1, unit 1962, 11r; I thank dr. Dorota Wiśniewska for pointing my attention to this phrase.

58 Urszula Mniszech née Zamoyska to Ludwika Zamoyska née Poniotowska dated 21 and 24 February 1787, Rocznik Towarzystwa Hystoryczno-Literackiego w Paryżu. Rok 1866 (Paris, 1867), pp. 185-86. Writing about her palace in Wiśniowiec, Urszula states ‘We did not fail to show the Ambassador the library, which he knew how to value’, and ‘we will have to arrange a small theatre in the library. The shape of the room is very conducive to it’.

59 SHAU, ZA, Fond 256, op. 1, unit 2180, 6v.

60 Urszula Mniszech née Zamoyska to Ludwika Zamoyska née Poniotowska dated 22 April 1787, Rocznik, p. 209. ‘At this moment I learn that the Italian marbles, which lay for so long in Gdańsk, have finally arrived in Warsaw; everything is in very good condition, except for one broken piece. … And according to our instructions, as soon as Kubicki the architect will be in Warsaw, he will immediately put in that marble chimney in the library.’

61 Figure 4 shows the location of the window drawn in with pencil.

62 Jan Griesmeyer(?), Jakub Kubicki(?), Zamoyski Palace on Krakowskie Przedmieście Warsaw, A room at the end of the wing on the second floor, southern wall, inv.nr.15509 MNW; Z. Zielińska, ‘Poniatowski Michał Jerzy’, in Andrzej Romanowski (ed. in chief.), Polski słownik biograficzny (Wrocław 1983), vol. XXVII, pp 455-71: Michał Jerzy Poniatowski was archbishop of Gniezno and Primate (most important official in the Senate), as well as one of the King’s closest political allies.

63 SHAU, ZA, Fond 256, op. 1, unit 2180, 9r. The inventory has a heading ‘in the lower rooms above the laundry where Madame Noppe lives’.

64 Zamoyski, The Last King of Poland, p. 110.

65 Contemporaries J. Bernoulli and S.B. Zug quoted in Jolanta Putkowska, ‘Warszawska podmiesjka rezydencja Izabeli Czartoryskiej w powązkach’, Kwartalnik architektury i urbanistyki: theoria i historia 53, nr. 3 (2008), p. 30.

66 Piątek, The Royal Łazienki, pp. 97-103.

67 Franciszek Skibiński, ‘Politics, Pleasure and Sensuality in the Seventeenth-Century Villa in Poland-Lithuania’, in Barbara Arciszewska (ed.), The Baroque Villa, Senses and Perceptions versus Materiality (Warsaw, 2009), p. 204.

68 Piątek, The Royal Łazienki, p. 102. Łazienki means bathroom in the Polish language.

69 Putkowska, Warszawskie rezydencje, pp. 277, 279.

70 SHAU, ZA, Fond 256, op. 1, unit 2180, 5v; Central State Archives of Historical Records in Warsaw, Inwentarz Łazienki, 1788 Roku, 346/0/0/162/18; Putkowska, Warszawska podmiesjka, p. 30.

71 Jarosław Zieliński, Atlas dawnej architektury ulic i placów Warszawy (Warsaw, 2001), vol. VII, p. 293.

72 For example: J. Griesmeyer, Zamoyski Palace on Krakowskie Przedmieście in Warsaw, reconstruction project, elevation drawing (and detail), after 1780, inv. nr. 15445 MNW.

73 Zygmunt Vogel after Bernardo Bellotto called Canaletto, View of Krakowskie Przedmieście Street towards Zamkowy Square, Watercolour on Paper, ca.1785, inv.nr. 11217 MNW.

74 On some of the architectural drawings the palace is referred to as ‘Palais Podolie’, after Jan Jakub Zamoyski, voivode of Podolia and husband of Ludwika.

75 SHAU, MN, Fond 250, op. 1, unit 89, 6r.

76 The extensive correspondence of the King, Ludwika, Urszula and her husband Michał that can be found in the in the Zamoyski and Ghigiotti funds of the Central Archives of Historical Records in Warsaw, in the Zamoyski and Mniszech funds in the State Historical Archive of Ukraine in Kyiv or the National Library in Warsaw — to name but a few — could possibly provide new clues on the use of Ludwika’s residence.

77 Norman Davies, God’s Playground, A History of Poland (Oxford, 2013), pp. 407-08.

78 Wejnert, Starożytności warszawskie, pp. 231-34; https://www.lazienki-krolewskie.pl/pl/wydarzenia/ludwik-xviii-lokator-bialego-domku-w-lazienkach-krolewskich (accessed 16 February 2022).

79 Wejnert, Starożytności Warszawskie, p. 231; Kwiatkowska and Kwiatkowski, Historia Warszawy, pp. 13-18. The palace eventually turned into a tenement house. It was demolished around 1860.

80 The descriptions of the National Museum of Warsaw accompanying the architectural drawings refer to the palace as ‘Zamoyski palace’, giving the name a male suffix, rather than ‘Zamoyska’, a female suffix. Given the influence of Urszula and Ludwika on its reconstruction and decoration, as set out in this paper, I chose to use the name ‘Zamoyska palace’ instead.