The Staszic Palace as Affective Heterotopia : New Category of Spatial Description

Introduction

The book The Staszic Palace as Affective Heterotopia : New Category of Spatial Description was created as part of a project carried out at the Institute of Literary Research of the Polish Academy of Sciences,¹ which grew out of literary studies. The Polish edition was released under the title Metamorfozy Pałacu Staszica [Metamorphoses of the Staszic Palace] in 2017. The main premise here was to look at the history of the building’s transformations through the prism of textual records. However, it must be emphasised that the point was not to trace the literary reminiscences of this building but to propose a research category that defines the essence of the process of changes to which specific places are subjected.

My interest in the Staszic Palace and its metamorphoses was associated with reading the works of Wacław Berent² and the movement of research on space. Thus, my work belongs to the field of issues related to the topographic turn, which was variously expressed in the humanities, created a research situation based on which space is treated as a tool introducing new questions about interdisciplinarity. This is also related to understanding it as a culturally active factor. Non-anthropocentric history enables an overview of the past focused on space seen as a partner of human activities. In the case of the story about the fate of the Staszic Palace, it harmonises with the method of microhistory – with the analysis of the past accumulated in a specific building.

Trying to meet the challenges related to the “spatial” theme, I based the compositional structure of the text on a topographic layout planned in such a way as to raise threads relevant to the topic at hand. The structure of the analysed space dictates the order of chapters. Starting from the point at the back of the palace, in the place of the courtyard and the former “gazebo,” I also reached for the earliest historical events. It was important to move from the back, through the body of the palace, to the square in front of the building. I tried to show the areas leading from the ground floor of the building, through the staircase, studies, and rooms, to the meeting room and the Dąbrowski armoury, in their various appearances following one another over time. The narrative is closed with the “exit” in front of the palace building and a look at the external façade, from its original and altered form to contemporary phenomena in the digital age.³

The labyrinthine and palimpsest character of the building is connected with the introduction of secondary threads imitating “side corridors” and “dead ends” that appear in the work. Such architectural concepts also include footnotes (intended to play the role of palace nooks), which you can look at when interrupting the main text or omit them in order to “proceed.” The book about the Staszic Palace is therefore intended to reproduce the palace in terms of composition. A summary of the discussed phenomena in the context of methodological issues appears in the concluding chapter. In the initial section, I examine the location of the palace on the city plan, associating it with the Moscow Chapel in accordance with the Vasa urban plan. In the final section, I explore the placement of the palace on the Warsaw plan, aiming to encapsulate my considerations within an “urban framework.”

While working on the English-language version of the book, the publication has been enriched with information intended to familiarise the foreign reader with characters, events and phenomena related to Polish history and culture. For this purpose, typically informative footnotes have been added. The introduction and epilogue have also been expanded. An introduction has been added that introduces the most important historical events in a synthetic manner, giving the context of the phenomena presented in the book.

The building of the Staszic Palace, closing the perspective of Krakowskie Przedmieście St. in Warsaw, was, from the beginning of its existence, intended for the activities of scientific institutions. Built by the efforts of Stanisław Staszic by Antoni Corazzi⁴ for the Warsaw Society of Friends of Sciences, it is now the seat of the Polish Academy of Sciences and the Warsaw Scientific Society. As in the nineteenth century, it houses not only institutes, workshops, libraries, and archives, it is also a space for open meetings and public events.

In 1620, on the order of King Sigismund III Vasa [Zygmunt III Waza], the Moscow Chapel was erected on the site of today’s Staszic Palace, in which the bodies of the Shuisky Tsars [also known as Shuyskiy] – the dethroned Tsar Vasily IV Shuisky, his brother Dmitry and Dmitry’s wife, Ekatarina. The Tsars were taken prisoner after Poland’s victory over Russia in the Battle of Klushino in 1610 and died in Gostynin in 1612. In 1635, King Ladislaus IV, at the request of the Russian legation, returned the coffins with the bodies of the Shuisky Tsars, which were taken to Moscow. The mausoleum was handed over to the Order of the Dominican Observants in 1668 and brought to Warsaw by King John Casimir [Jan Kazimierz] after the victorious defence of Warsaw during the Swedish invasion of Poland (1656).

In 1700, a monastery and a church dedicated to Our Lady of Victory were erected and rebuilt in the years 1725–1742 where the Staszic Palace is now located. During the march of French troops through Warsaw (in the period of the Duchy of Warsaw until 1815), the facility was turned into military barracks. In 1816, a decision was made to demolish the church. The square and the demolished building were purchased by Stanisław Staszic⁵ in order to build a seat for the Warsaw Society of Friends of Science, which at the time was located in tenement houses on Kanonia⁶ in Warsaw. In 1820–1823, a palace was built for the Society; it is now called the Staszic Palace. In 1832, as part of the repressions following the failure of the November Uprising,⁷ the Warsaw Society of Friends of Sciences was liquidated, and the Lottery Directorate was located in the building after a certain time. In 1857, it housed the Medical-Surgical Academy, and in 1862 the palace was assigned to the 1^st Male Gymnasium, known as the “Russian” Gymnasium. In 1892–1893, it was rebuilt in the Byzantine-Ruthenian style, and an Orthodox church was located there. During the First World War, the building was taken over by the German army and was the location of the House of the German Soldier. Following Poland’s regaining of independence, the Staszic Palace was entrusted to the Warsaw Scientific Society, an organisation that carried forward the ideals and initiatives of the dissolved Warsaw Society of Friends of Science. In 1924, the palace underwent reconstruction, reclaiming its classicist appearance. During the Second World War, battles between Polish insurgents and German troops took place within its walls. Restored again in 1946, it currently serves – in alignment with its original purpose – as the headquarters for the Polish Academy of Sciences, the Warsaw Scientific Society, and various other academic institutions.

The Warszawskie Towarzystwo Przyjaciół Nauk [Warsaw Society of Friends of Sciences] gathered representatives of sciences from all over the country and from abroad, and was a ground-breaking formation, both elitist and utilitarian. The aim of its activity was to take care of the development of science, preserve the language and national heritage, and maintain national identity in the event of loss of statehood after the partitions of Poland. Maintaining continuity was connected with caring for the country’s economic development, whilst simultaneously taking care of the assembly of book collections, museum collections and national souvenirs. An important element was literary and periodical activity. The Society, founded in 1800, emerged through the efforts of Polish scholars, with its initial meetings held in the residence of the political activist Stanisław Sołtyk,⁸ who was also one of its founding members. It was dissolved by the Russian Tsardom as part of the repressions against the Polish nation after the fall of the November Uprising in 1832. Valuable museum collections, including the collection bequeathed to the Society by General Jan Henryk Dąbrowski,⁹ and the collection of books were confiscated and transported to Russia, and the seat of the Society was taken over by the Russian authorities. This formation is considered to be the first corporation of scholars of an interdisciplinary character (although not defined at that time) and had several names: Towarzystwo Królewskie Przyjaciół Nauk [Royal Society of Friends of Sciences] (or Warszawskie Towarzystwo Królewskie Przyjaciół Nauk [Warsaw Royal Society of Friends of Sciences]), Towarzystwo Warszawskie Przyjaciół Nauk [Warsaw Society of Friends of Sciences] Towarzystwo Przyjaciół Nauk [Society of Friends of Sciences]. The presidents of the Society were successively: from 1800 Jan Chrzciciel Albertrandy, from 1808 Stanisław Staszic, from 1826 (after Staszic’s death) Julian Ursyn Niemcewicz.¹⁰ The Warsaw Scientific Society was established in 1907 as a continuation of the Warsaw Society of Friends of Sciences (1800–1832). Its purpose is to support scientific research and publish papers in Polish, it brings together outstanding researchers and representatives of various fields. During the Second World War and the German occupation, it operated underground, it was closed with the establishment of the Polish Academy of Sciences (PAN) in 1951 and reactivated in 1981. The Polish Academy of Sciences is a state scientific institution currently operating in Poland, as well as a corporation of scientists, composed of national members and correspondents. Its structure includes scientific institutes, which are the leading units in the country in particular fields. The mission of the Polish Academy of Sciences is to maintain the highest scientific standards and to care for the heritage and preservation of the national culture. Individual units conduct research that is crucial for the development of science. The Staszic Palace is currently the seat of the Polish Academy of Sciences and the Warsaw Scientific Society.

The fact that the Russian authorities erased traces of the offices of the Warsaw Society of Friends of Sciences (liquidated by Tsar Nicholas I in 1831) did not erase the memory of this institution. The suspension of the Warsaw Scientific Society did not affect its current activities. Initiatives to resurrect the WTPN (among the “Warsaw Library” community in 1859 and the Krakow “Academy of Arts and Sciences” community in 1904) led to the announcement of the existence of the Warsaw Scientific Society in 1907 and the recovery of the palace building by TNW in 1918 after the First World War and Poland regaining independence. The establishment of the Polish Academy of Sciences was associated with the liquidation of the Warsaw Scientific Society, which, however, was reactivated as the leading scientific institution cooperating within the walls of the palace with the Polish Academy of Sciences. Together with other societies and auxiliary institutions operating in the Staszic Palace, these centres bring together researchers and representatives of scientific and cultural circles, continuing the nineteenth-century mission of intellectual development and basing these activities in the twenty-first century on combining tradition with modernity.

In addition to striving to maintain identity and preserve cultural heritage, members of the nineteenth-century Warsaw Society of Friends of Sciences also gave significant attention to issues of technical development of the country. Thanks to Stanisław Staszic, many social institutions were created. The Hrubieszów Agricultural Society he founded brought the beginning of democratic thinking, which was realised in the enfranchisement of peasants and granting them land ownership and social utilitarianism. The organisation of open scientific lectures, running public libraries and publishing houses, as well as the organisation of museum spaces, focused on the presence of the public within the walls of the Staszic Palace, were essential elements of the Society’s programme. The activity of scientific institutions gathered today around the Staszic Palace (PAN, TNW and other scientific societies) is a continuity with previous generations of researchers. This continuity is present in maintaining the ideals and main assumptions of scientific and cultural activity, which function to this day, despite breaks and turns. In addition to research activities and scientific meetings, the social aspect of the activities undertaken is also important, which took the form of research conducted in response to current challenges and the organisation of cultural life.

The foundational point and overarching framework for the work dedicated to the history of the transformation of the Staszic Palace involve examining this structure through the lens of Wacław Berent’s records and the textual context that forms the basis for his perspective. Thus, the sources from which Berent drew, the Annals of both the Warsaw Society of Friends of Sciences and the Warsaw Scientific Society, as well as the notes of its individual members, constituted my primary material, enriched with chronicle and journalistic testimonies published in the press and statements of architects implementing successive reconstruction processes. In addition, architectural plans were valuable material. It is impossible to talk about the building at Krakowskie Przedmieście St., about the activities of the Society and the essence of the activities carried out in it, without referring to the thoughts of Stanisław Staszic himself, whose activities, both physically and mentally, had a decisive influence on their shape.

In the selection of materials concerning the history of the building, it was important for me to see the meaning of its transformations, which obviously become an element of history, but which can be seen through the record of experience, reactions to changes and meanings inscribed in the space. I have woven historical facts and accounts of the building’s evolution into a narrative, interpreting their nature in the context of the emotional dimension of spatial transformations and historical events that instigated this process for the Palace. All reflections and conclusions of this nature are my own.

The display of a multitude of diverse messages concerning the same topic is deliberate. The existence of mutually exclusive approaches, particularly in this case, may be linked to the nature of the issues forming the backdrop of the discussed political tenders. These issues find their ultimate expression through the manipulation and utilisation of space. I did not attempt to solve historical puzzles or investigate archival sources in depth (although these activities were part of the work), but I shifted the emphasis towards the meanings of the history of transformations of place. I was interested in its culture-forming dimension, inextricably linked with the activities of the institutions located in it. Nevertheless, the fate of the building at Krakowskie Przedmieście St. is also shared by other processes (the Russification of architecture, the influence of the significance of the mausoleum, and the relationship between military and mental struggle) – they all connect and intertwine.

As an exemplification of the literary approach, I treated the Staszic Palace as depicted by Wacław Berent. I tried to extract elements from his thought pattern that can be developed and translated into further research activities. I introduced the topic of his writing (although I am aware that it is associated with a temporary “break in the journey” around the palace) because it is the theme that underlies the project presented here, devoted to the transformation processes of the building and places similar to it. In addition, it is an attempt to activate an imaginary space related to the scientific activity conducted in the palace. The proposal to transpose the model of characters-role models into objects-ideas, which appears in this part of the work, is not, in principle, competitive to the category of affective heterotopia developed here (cf. parts III and V) but it is at the heart of it. The experience of space seen through the prism of literature finds its equivalents in historical facts and architectural transformations; adding materials from other disciplines to the analysis leads to distinguishing the features of space that are of interest to me here and, as a result, enables me to join in methodological discussions. The evocation of the figures of Stanisław Staszic and Wacław Berent is intended to indicate cultural continuity (or rather the need to cultivate it) and the persistence of certain patterns of thought in subsequent epochs in a situation of completely different political realities on the one hand, and similar social problems on the other.

The transition from the mental models of the mentioned individuals to the matter of scientific circles was to emphasise that the activity of this type of institution (from the Warsaw Society of Friends of Sciences, through the Warsaw Scientific Society, to the Polish Academy of Sciences) fulfils its function thanks to being rooted in the past, and formulas which frequently appear describing “the magic of the place” of the Staszic Palace or even the “spirit of Staszic” patronising this facility become more important when, speaking of the activities of scientific institutions, one reaches to the ideals and values authentically professed by Staszic. I have not dealt with the interpretation of Wacław Berent’s texts (this is not the purpose and character of this book), but I have only indicated selected elements of his thought project. I intentionally recall his optics in various workplaces, returning from time to time to fragments of this writer’s works.

The category I introduced has proven to be valuable in researching and analysing other cultural objects. These objects possess a complex semantic structure, and their history of transformation results from the dynamic processes to which a particular place is subjected. The evolution of these changes must be rooted in a systematic approach that draws on the previous incarnations of the object, involving transformations that entail a reversal or reinterpretation of the meanings previously inscribed in it.