379

The Quarries, the “Marble” and the Centre ofStonemasonry and Sculpture

in Chęciny during the Modern Era, in the former Commonwealth of Two Nations

Michał WardzyńSki, iHS UW

introductory remarks

The centre in Chęciny near Kielce, in the 17th century was undoubtedly oneof the largest and most important hubs of stonemasonry and sculpture production inthe Małopolska (Lesser Poland) region and throughout the Crown (the Polish King-dom); while the materials, artists, craftsmen, and the works of small-scale architectureand sculpture created therein forever changed the outlook of art in the early modernperiod, nearly everywhere throughout the vast territory of the Commonwealth of TwoNations (the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth). The role and significance of the dis-cussed centre is very inadequately matched by the existing research on its history;indeed the body of research is very modest, either in the field of material culture, econ-omy, art, or the sociology of art and culture. The majority of the existing historicalwork on the subject dates back to as far as the nineteenth century (1), while after 1945,only Jan Czarnocki, Aleksander Król, Maria Weber-Kozińska, Nina Miks-Rudkowska,Władysław Paulewicz, Eugeniusz Kosik, Mariusz Karpowicz and Dariusz Kalina (2)chose to address the subject. In the more recent period, notwithstanding the coming tolight of numerous, previously unknown works and abundant archival sources, noattempt has been made as yet to recapitulate the body of research. In-depth knowledgeof a number of key subject is still lacking, such as: time frames of the deposits’exploitation, particularly its early stages, listing of basic stonemasonry materials, alsoin terms of their potential application to figural and ornamental sculpture, as well asthe reconstruction of the mining/quarrying, stonemasonry and sculpture staff, and thepertinent methods of stone excavation and processing that they had used. The taskaddressed in the present text is to attempt, for the first time, to answer the aforemen-tioned questions and to reinstate correct proportions in assessing the significance ofthe Chęciny centre for the history of stonemasonry and sculpture in Poland throughoutthe early modern period.

History of the stonemasonry and sculpture centre in Chęciny

The city was founded towards the end of thirteenth century, nearly in the heartof the then Polish Kingdom, at the crossroads of important trade routes, while the royalcastle towering above it came to house the deposit of the crown treasury (pl. 1) (3). Atthe same time, among the surrounding hills, belonging to the south-eastern range ofthe Świętokrzyskie Mountains, extraction of valuable, precious and other metal ores,

particularly copper, silver, and zinc, along with metallurgical industry were started,and lasted until nineteenth century. Concurrently, the Royal eldership (starostwo)established in Chęciny, took over the custody over a lucrative mining administration,which in the fifteenth and the first half of the sixteenth centuries brought profits com-parable to those generated by the richest mines of the same metal ores in Olkusz nearKraków (4). Each consecutive, elected Chęciny elder, administered on King’s behalfalso over the extraction in the local quarries of decorative varieties of limestone andintrusion igneous calcite, which was then called “lazure”, the deposits of which werediscovered and then expanded after the withdrawal of the metal ores has been com-pleted (5). The most complete list of quarries active at the time, along with technicalappliances and workshops, can be found in the so-called “lustrations” or detailed inven-tories of the Chęciny eldership between 1589-1622 (6), and similar documents draftedalready after 1660, and further in mid and late eighteenth century (pl. 2) (7).

The present artistic centre flourished in the first half of the seventeenth century,when at least four architects and masons were active here, as well as the same numberof figurative sculptors, along with joiners and carpenters, painters, casters and gold-smiths, and 14 stonemasons, not counting the retinue, disciples, polishers and miners,both the King’s and the Town’s, specialising in the extraction of limestone and calcite.Chęciny’s demise came with the burnings and killings by the hand of the Swedes andTransylvanians in 1657, followed by recurring plagues and natural disasters. In thatperiod, the town of over 3000 inhabitants was reduced to little more than 300 personsand several households (8). Four-five small stonemason workshops continued to func-tion until the end of the seventeenth century, catering mostly to minor local and regionalorders. The next century brought further regression, caused by the economic situationof the country as a whole, and it was not until after 1787, under the auspices of the lastPolish king Stanisław August Poniatowski, that after the inventory of the quarries inChęciny made by Johann Philipp von Carosi, in 1778 (9), Italian marble processingand polishing experts: Domenico Schanti, Leonardo Galli and Edoardo Gigli, broughthence from a renowned stonemasonry centre in Dębnik near Kraków, shortly revivedthe extraction in particular quarries, when working or architectural details and sourcingthe stone mostly for the needs of the royal court in Warsaw (10). The third partition ofPoland in 1795 put a stop to all the ventures undertaken previously. Only in 1816,thanks to the personal involvement of a prominent Polish scientist and entrepreneur,priest Stanisław Staszic, the authorities of the Polish Kingdom ruled by the tsarist Rus-sia, and the Mining General Direction allowed for the most important quarries to bereopened, and for machinery backup to be built in Chęciny: the cutting, grinding andpolishing workshops, which operated until 1833 (11). In 1874, engineer Alfons Welke(1827-1911) conducted a private field search in Świętokrzyskie mountains and col-lected 120 geological samples of different varieties of decorative rocks, the presentationof which in Vienna and Moscow made the Chęciny “marbles” famous again throughoutCentral Europe (12). In 1875, Welke became the chief shareholder in the newly estab-lished Kielce Marbles Mining Company (Przedsiębiorstwo Kopalń Marmurów Kielec-kich), later known as Kielce Marbles (Marmury Kieleckie) enterprise (pl. 3), whichoperated in Kielce with several longer breaks until the year 1949, when it was takenover by the communist state (or “nationalised”) (13). The small, historical quarry con-

380

tinued to operate without break until 1970s, when it became a protected natural area,a nature’s reserve (14). Until this day, deposits designated for mass extrication of roadcomposites and “marble” slabs are active in several locations, including Bolechowice,Morawica and Łagów (15).

Chęciny “marbles”

Due to the lack of appropriate archival sources, it is at present impossible to estab-lish the exact starting date for the extraction of the local deposits of various types oflimestone, conglomerates, and intrusion igneous calcite. Having said that, however,as early as approximately 1585-1590 we are able to note their presence in the artworksoriginating in that period in the capital of Kraków, and in the nearby, older stonema-sonry and sculptural centre in Pińczów by the Nida river (16). Initially, only one varietyof Upper Devonian compact limestone of a characteristic russet brown shade with localreddish colourings and numerous fossils of Paleozoic era marine fauna of theAmphipora ramosa and Stromatopora species, had been simultaneously extracted fromat least two different quarries: one in the nearby royal village of Bolechowice, and theother in the south-eastern slope of the Castle Hill (Góra Zamkowa) in Chęciny (pl. 4)(17). Due to its colour similarity to the famous reddish “royal stone” from Tardos inHungary and analogous limestone varieties of Rot and Hellrot from Adnet nearSalzburg, from Stara Lubowla in Spiss, and Menyháza in Transylvania (18), the Bole-chowice limestone was treated at the time as a less expensive local alternative to theaforementioned varieties imported from abroad, while its excellent physical parame-ters, which allowed for sculpting mesh (openwork) and obtaining intricate details instatues, gained it the status of the most important material in the whole history of theChęciny centre (19). The earliest example of this variety of Chęciny “marble” used insculpture is the poorly decorated incised slab dedicated to bishop of Kuyavia MaciejWielicki (died 1585) in the cathedral in Włocławek (20). Lesser known, decorativevarieties of the Bolechowice and Chęciny limestone included the Ołowianka andSzewce limestone types (extracted from mountains and quarries of those names, locatedwithin the radius of several kilometres from Chęciny). Due to the numerous streaks ofwhite calcite coupled with the heterogeneous, irregular structure, they found their appli-cation mostly as colourful inserts, or elements in architecture (21).

After 1600, extraction was begun in the quarry located at the southern slope ofthe Jerzmaniec hill – Czerwona Góra (Red Mount), whence limestone of beautifulcolour and texture was obtained: the (Permian) Cechsztyn conglomerate, called “Zyg-muntówka” (pl. 5) – it was so named after the core was made in 1607 out of a singleblock of this material, later used for the column of king Sigismund III Vasa in Warsaw(1642-1644). Due to specific, very irregular and heterogeneous structure, intertwinedwith thick streaks of calcite, with numerous caverns, this rock did not lend itself tosculptural processing (22). It was applied mostly in the form of cut-to-measure, smoothpolished slabs, and in simple, mostly smooth roll-shaped architectural elements – suchas the aforementioned core of Sigismund’s column (23). Only the most talented andexperienced stonemasons could operate this variety of “marble” sculpting figures orornamental elements in it.

381

At the same time, in locations where copper and lead ores were extracted in GóraZelejowa near Chęciny and in Łagów near Kielce, new quarries have been openedwith extremely decorative intrusion igneous calcite, which due to its red-whitish tinthas been named “Różanka Zelejowska” (pl. 6) as well as Middle and Upper Devonbituminous compact limestone of black-grey colouring and minor jointing streaks (pl.7). The first of the two aforementioned “lazure stones” soon came to be appreciatedby stonemasons and sculptors from Kraków, Pińczów and Chęciny, as a perfect com-plement, colour-wise, to the range of shades of limestone used in architecture, sculptureand statues – they used it in internal furnishings and inserts, however the character ofthe deposit, which was scattered in small blocks and therefore produced only fairlysmall nuggets, precluded a wider use (24). The other limestone – also extracted in lim-ited quantities, due to numerous fossils, which weakened its structure – occurred mostlyin the form of inserts and globes moulded in stonemasons’ water mills (25). The onlyarchival source on the utilization of this variety of black “marble” in the Modern Eratreats of the transportation of its blocks in 1609 and 1610 to the Prince MikołajKrzysztof Radziwiłł’s castle in nearby Szydłowiec. The unknown local stonemasonsmade of it the new fireplaces there (26). After 1620 the hard-to-obtain Łagów limestonesuperseded the famous Devon black limestone from Dębnik near Kraków, whichoccurs already around 1627-1628 as a material import present in the works of theChęciny stonemasons (27). In 1650s, with the increased share of the “Dębnik stone”,also the calcite from Góra Zelejowa had to make room for another variety of this mate-rial: the so-called “Różanka” or “Róż Paczółtowicki” extracted in three quarries inPaczółtowice and Czerna near Dębnik (28).

The career of the Chęciny „marbles” towards the end of the 16th century and inthe first half of the 17th century

The difficulty of correct identification of the earliest products originating inthe Chęciny centre follows above all from the poorly studied historical material. Amodel example could be for instance a small limestone figure of a lying lion, depositedin the collection of the National Museum in Kraków, which until this day has beenuniversally regarded as a thirteenth-century object, making reference to Lombard orVenetian tradition of late Romanesque period (29). The material out of which it wasmade – the Bolechowice limestone, extracted beginning in the end of sixteenth centuryat the earliest – as well as the characteristic, summary form, that we find also in thedistinctive group of two identical lion figures at the parish church in Danków nearCzęstochowa (dating to 1640s) (30), make it possible to assume that we are dealinghere with an early modern sculpture, with clearly archaistic stylistic features. Identicalor formally similar lion figures were found in 1638 in the post-mortem protocol ofeffects, or the inventory of belongings of the late Chęciny sculptor Sebastiano Venosta(31), brother or cousin of Bartholomeo, who used these kind of figures in the decorationof tombstones in several imposing funerary monuments, which he made in his ownstudio already in mid-1610s (32).

Before stonemasons and sculptors came together and got organised withintheir local community, the Bolechowice limestone, and then the valuable Różanka Zele-

382

jowska calcite, first served the needs of the neighbouring stonemasonry and sculpturecentre in Pińczów upon the Nida river, which flourished under the guidance of theroyal architect and sculptor Santi Gucci Fiorentino, its fame peaking towards the endof the sixteenth century (33). The Bolechowice limestone was used by an unknown,Netherlands-influenced sculptor, Gucci’s partner, who used it to create figural elementsand backgrounds of inscription plaques on the tombstone of Grzegorz and KatarzynaBraniccy in Niepołomice near Kraków (1596-98) (pl. 8) (34), while between 1600-1605 and 1604-1611 respectively, the heir to the Pińczow workshop, Thomas Nikiel,used this new variety of “marble” and the Zelejowa limestone in the creation of highrelief (alto-relievo) figures, inscription tables and cores of the columns in a renowned,late Mannerist tombstone of Mikołaj and Elżbieta Firlej in their own sacellum in Bejsceand in the bishop Primate Jan Tarnowski chapel in Włocławek. These works have beenexecuted by the sculptor’s brother-in-law, himself also a sculptor, Malcher (pl. 9) (35).Before 1614, the Pińczów-Kraków building and stonemasonry workshop of Nikiel’sheirs and successors – Samuel and Stanisław Świątkowicz, used substantial blocksand slabs of the same Bolechowice and Zelejowa limestone varieties for the lining ofwalls, supports, and entablature in the interior of the Myszkowski family funerarychapel adjoining the Dominican church in Kraków – it is the only such stoneworkcommissioned throughout the history of that centre, and therefore a unique piece (pl. 10) (36).

King’s administrative protection was of key significance to the beginnings andthe first stage of the development of the quarries and workshops in Chęciny. Admirerof arts and crafts, privately talented painter and goldsmith, Sigismund III Vasa (37),who, soon after his enthronement in Kraków directed that appropriate blocks of Bole-chowice limestone be selected for the decoration of portals and fireplaces in the RoyalCastle at Wawel Hill in Kraków. After the fire of its northerly, residential wing in 1595,the ruler entrusted his architects: Giovanni Battista Petrini and Giovanni Battista Tre-vano of north Lombardy (partially belonged to the southern Swiss canton of Ticino /Tessin), and stonemasons with the task of commissioning the marbles from no otherplace but from Chęciny and surroundings, to be used for the interior of rooms and hallsnewly designed in the spirit of the Roman il transizione style. Between 1598-1603,manifold blocks of stone material arrived at the royal court from Bolechowice, Jerz-maniec, Zelejowa quarries and probably from Łagów, to furnish several imposing por-tals and fireplaces (pl. 11) (38), while the admiration these newly-discovered local“marbles” produced in the immediate society of the King, ensured their unceasing pop-ularity in similar prestigious courtly commissions for some thirty years to follow (39).Shortly after this foundation, in years 1603-1605, the same group of court sculptorsand stonemasons commissioned identic “marble” interior elements in the former royalcountry residence in nearby Łobzów (40).

The Chęciny limestone varieties were then successfully used by royal sculptorsfrom north Lombardy, who were active in Kraków until mid-1630s: Giovanni Lucanoda Reitino (pl. 12) (41) as well as brothers Andrea and Antonio Castelli, all fromLugano (pl. 13) (42), whose numerous works, featuring tombstones, epitaphs and altarsheralded the arrival of early baroque in Kraków and central Małopolska (Lesser

383

Poland) region. A model example in the process is provided by the commission of kingSigismund III Vasa himself, and by bishops of Płock: Mikołaj Szyszkowski andStanisław Starczewski – for the interior of the Benedictine church at Płock castle,remodelled between 1614 and 1630, where an imposing main portal and central altar-piece, designed by the King’s architect Matteo Castella of Melide, affiliated at the royalcourt, were hewn in Bolechowice limestone by an unknown stonemason from the royalworkshop, employed at the construction of the Royal Castle in Warsaw (pl. 14) (43).In the first three decades of the seventeenth century, this new capital of the Republic’sSejm (Assembly) became the second most important client of the Chęciny limestoneand calcite in the Polish Kingdom, while portals, tombstones, epitaphs, details of altar-pieces and other minor furnishings came to adorn the most important churches as wellas royal and aristocratic palaces in that period (il. 15-17), with the arch-collegiatechurch in Warsaw, which enjoyed the King’s patronage, at the forefront (44). In 1643,in the “Zygmuntówka” quarry, at the order of the King Władysław IV Vasa, theChęciny stonemasons raised the core of the column, commissioned in 1607 by hisfather. After being transported to the polishing workshop in Kraków, according to theruler’s wish, it was fitted to serve as a core of the first column statue of a lay personthroughout Europe. The completed statue of king Sigismund III was mounted in 1644,in the square outside the Royal Castle in Warsaw (45), however the constructors at thetime did not take into consideration the poor durability of this kind of conglomeraterock impacted by external exposure to climatic condition, which brought forth the nec-essary repairs and fillings effected in the years 1743, 1810 and between 1862-1863.Completely weathered, significantly cracked Zygmuntówka limestone was replacedbetween 1885-1887 with a much more durable Swedish granite of a similar colour(46).

artists and their work

The influence of the above discussed Kraków-originated endowments and King’sefforts to develop the extraction of limestone and lazure rocks in the Chęciny area isdirectly linked to the first independent work of Chęciny stone artists: the commemo-rative foundation by the local Elder and administrator of quarries at the time, MikołajPadniewski, adjoining the arch-collegiate church in Pilica, where, between 1600-1601,his private funerary chapel was constructed, with a statue and a number of sculpturaldetails carved in Bolechowice limestone (pl. 18) (47). Low artistic value of the figuresin this stylistically belated, late Renaissance epitaph, leads us to guess it to be the workof an obscure Chęciny workshop (48) – as the author of the building itself was a masonalso residing at that centre, Gaspare Fodiga of Mesocco / Misox in southern Swiss can-ton of Grigione / Graubünden, in his time a respected author of numerous buildings,churches and residences, throughout the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (Wielkie KsięstwoLitewskie) and central Małopolska (Lesser Poland) (49), considered to date by someresearchers supposedly to be a professional figurative sculptor (50). Chęciny urbanarchives, including the copy of the stonemason’s will, testify against that hypothesis(51). Already after the year 1610, in connection with architectural works and privateendowments by Gaspare Fodiga, two outstanding stonework-sculptures were created,

384

the execution of which he entrusted to Chęciny artists, using whitish QuaternaryLithothamnium limestone from neighbouring Pińczów. Between 1610-1614, thanksto the fund of 6000 Polish zloty donated by Zofia Mielecka, the widow of prince JanSymeon Olelkowicz Słucki, the interior of the latter’s funerary chapel was decorated,adjoining the former Jesuit church in Lublin (pl. 19) (52), and already in 1614 the sameworkshop created the sculpted decoration for Fodyga himself in his own chapel at theChęciny town church. The works stopped with the death of the founder himself, aroundthe year 1624. This historical object is a unique example of such an imposing com-memorative project dedicated to an artist-stonemason throughout the Polish Republicas well as central Europe (pl. 20) (53).

Figurative sculptors

It should be noted that already around the year 1610 the stonemasonry circle inChęciny was developed enough to become a workplace of three professional sculptors:four Italians (brothers or cousins?) Bartholomeo and Sebastiano Venosta of north Lom-bardy, alpine region Sondrio, probably from Mazzo in Valtellina (followed later by thesons of Sebastiano: Agostino and Giacomo), and Augustin van Oyen. At the same time,another Italian “marmorarius”, Giovanni Benziola and Pole Marcin Mściszowski werecalled from Chęciny to the royal court at Warsaw, along with a talented Jewish stone-mason specialising in the production of inkwells and inlay tabletops – Hersz, son ofSzyfra (54). Beginnings of Augustin van Oyen’s presence go back to the year 1611,when he was one of shareholder miners in the mining companies excavating lead orein neighbouring mines (between 1610-1616 the aforementioned mason Gaspare Fodigaalso dealt in the same, considerably prosperous, occupation) (55). In 1614 BartholomeoVenosta together with stonemason Janusz Oleksy applied to the fraternity of masonsand stonemasons in Kraków for granting them the status of the same sort for the pro-fessional association they had just been forming in Chęciny (56). Bartholomeo Venosta,died probably in the second half of 1620s, was married to Sophia and had at least twochildren: Giovanni and Anna (57). His own work, otherwise full of excellent, if stylis-tically belated, late Mannerist tombstones and epitaphs, concluded with his workshopsuccessor Sebastian’s bankruptcy in 1636, his death in 1637, and the auctioning of hismovable property in 1639 (58). His effects were taken over by van Oyen as his creditor,who moreover accepted two of Sebastiano Ventosta’s younger sons, Agostino and Gia-como, into his workshop in 1641, and whom he officially promised to educate andtrain for six years, and assist them at work in the advancement of their skills (59). Alldebts were paid off by Venosta’s widow Barbara in 1645 (60).

Bartholomeo Venosta’s early works remain unknown due to the gaps in theChęciny sources, and the artist himself does not become visible until 1620s, althoughthe contents of the already quoted foundation act of the fraternity of curators and stone-masons in Chęciny, dated to 1614, place him as a significant, central member of thelocal sculptors’ community in the beginning of the seventeenth century. We can con-vincingly link Venosta to the group of several dozen distinguishing mannerist figuralepitaphs and relief-sculpted tombstones throughout Małopolska (Lesser Poland),Wielkopolska (Greater Poland), and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, attributed to date

385

to an untill anonymous sculptor from Chęciny, called the “Master of Upright Figures”(“Mistrz Wyprostowanych Postaci” or “Mistrz Sztywnych Figur”) (61). The earliestmonument is the 1608 tombstone of Anna of Dobrzyków Tarnowska in Warsaw’sDominican church (pl. 21) (62), the latest – erected by the orphaned workshop, mostprobably to the design of van Oyen and with participation of the Sebastiano’s sons,Agostino or Giacomo – a collective epitaph of Aleksander Koryciński’s family inGowarczów near Końskie, about 100 km to the north from Chęciny (1649) (63).

In terms of selection of the stone material, as well as stylistics, Bartholomeo andSebastiano Venosta continued the long-standing, Renaissance tradition of the sculpturalcentre in Kraków (pl. 22-23) (64), and yet we cannot fail to notice his interest in thenfashionable forms of Flemish Mannerism such as those “Rollwerk” and “Scheiffwerk”of designers Cornelis Floris de Vriendt and Hans Vredeman de Vries (pl. 24) and thework of a renowned Flemish artist active at the court of archdukes of Tirol in Inns-bruck, Alexander Colijn of Mechelen (1526-1612). It was in their work that he foundinspiration, particularly for significantly more rigid composition of figures in the“northern” style, both knights and ladies, for the arrangements and drapes of women’sdresses, and for a number of characteristic, figural and ornamental details (pl. 25) (65).The decorative technique typical for this workshop consisted in particular way of cut-ting ornamental decorations as reliefs with an emptied and graded background. Afterpolishing, the intricate shape of the pattern clearly contrasted against its surroundings,therefore the effect achieved was much like a traditional bas-relief, and yet unlikerelief, it was possible to achieve it faster and at a lower cost (66). Chęciny stonemasonscontinued to use this technique even in the beginning of the eighteenth century.

Bartholomeo Venosta’s workshop, supplemented throughout 1610s and 1620swith talented disciples-figurative sculptors, specialised in delivering prestigious com-missions by aristocratic families throughout the Polish Kingdom and the Grand Duchyof Lithuania, including also Primates of Poland, archbishops of Gniezno (pl. 26) (67),chancellors and under-chancellors and minor court dignitaries and local administrators(pl. 27) (68). The number of commissions and the artistic format and ambitions ofthese works, are not equalled in that period by anything produced either in the capitalof Kraków or Warsaw. The only comparison at the time can be made to a similarlyfamous Gdańsk (Danzig) workshop of the talented Flemings, Willem and Abrahamvan den Blocke, which monopolised the market of similar stone and sculpture com-missions in the northern and north-eastern part of the Polish Republic until 1629 (69).

In 1610s and 1620s, thanks to vigorous activity by Bartholomeo Venosta, theChęciny centre gained pan-national fame, and its products were sent to places oftenseveral hundred kilometres away, from Gościków-Paradyż in the West, to Vilnius, Hol-szany and Różana in the Grand Duchy (70), and Lvov, Podkamień and Brzeżany inthe Crown (Polish) Ruthenia (pl. 28) (71). A creative crisis visible in SebastianoVenosta’s works, dated to 1630s (earlier recognized by Mariusz Karpowicz as the groupof effigies in the sepulchral monuments ascribed to an anonymous “Master of StubblyBeards” / “Mistrz Sztywnych Bród”) (72), coincided with the general shift in the styleof sculpture and stonemasonry in the Polish Republic. The outworn post-Renaissanceartistic formula of the artist had to make way to a new style of early baroque, which

386

had been successfully promoted since 1620s by the royal court of the Vasa kings inWarsaw, and the competitive Krakovian circle, led by renowned Italian sculptorsAndrea and Antonio Castelli as well as Sebastian Sala.

At the present stage of the research, it can be assumed that the Dutch catholic,Augustin van Oyen could have been a descendant of the family of sculptors and stone-masons named van Noyen, van Noye or van Oye from Utrecht, active in the sixteenthcentury in South Netherlands, among whom the most celebrated was Sebastian knownin Spanish sources as Bastien d’Oya (1493-1557), courtly sculptor and architect ofemperors Charles V and Philip II as well as the Perrenot de Granvelles: chancellors ofthe empire Nicolas and his son cardinal Antoine, mentioned by Giorgio Vasari in his“Lives of Artists...”, and his son Jacques (1523-1600 mentioned), boasting a similarposition at the court of Spanish regents in Brussels and Besançon (73). Augustin, whoarrived at Chęciny before 1611, and most probably directly from the Spanish Nether-lands, after his marriage to a girl called Regina (family name unknown) establishedhis own sculpture workshop in Chęciny, which then functioned until his death in 1655.He had two sons, who, however, did not take over his trade, and he held a station ofan assessor and town councillor (74). Just as many other artists from Low Countriesworking in Central Europe, in his creations he has shown preference for the Flemishlate Mannerist style, and in minor architectural works and elements he combined thatstyle in a creative way with forms made popular after 1630 in the illustrations to theArchitectura moderna treatise, published by Hendrick de Keyser in Amsterdam (75).Thanks to his education, he specialised in the working of alabaster; and in the manyperfectly cut tondi and figurative reliefs he produced (pl. 29), he had replaced the Eng-lish, Burgundian or Thuringian alabaster (76), which was unavailable in the Małopol-ska region, with varieties extracted since 1550s in the Crown Ruthenia in Wasiuczyn,Żórawno and Czerniejów upon Dniestr. Before van Oyen’s time, such alabaster hadalready been used in Kraków and Pińczów by Italian artists Giovanni Maria Padovano,Jan Michałowicz of Urzędów, Giovanni de Simon, Santi Gucci Fiorentino and ThomasNikiel (77).

When analysing sculptural works of Augustin van Oyen from the point of viewof possible formal influences in the sculpture of southern Netherlands at the turn ofthe sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, it is hard to point to clear examples of suchrelationships. It should be noted, however, that unquestioned merit of the discussedartist was to introduce a new type of tombstone to the sculptural repertoire of Chęcinyand Małopolska region: an epitaph with an alabaster medallion, bearing the portrait ofthe deceased, instead of the recumbent or kneeling down figure, or a frontal half-figurethat were used beforehand (pl. 30) (78). This model, unknown for instance to bothVenosta, enjoyed unceasing popularity in Chęciny for as long as until 1670s. Someornamental forms became equally popular, such as “uszaki” (“ears”), a type of voluteswith suspended fabrics with patterned edges, and angel, lion or eagle heads decoratedwith overhanging fruit (pl. 31) (79), present in the works of lesser stonemasons fromChęciny for the next several decades. Another undisputed merit of van Oyen was areplacement (around 1627-1628) of the hitherto red-whitish, post-Renaissance colourrange of the materials selected (pl. 32). The Flemish copied his native, tri-colour com-

387

bination op Nederlandse manier (80) and he was the first artist in Chęciny to introducethe black-grey Devonian limestone from Dębnik near Kraków to the details of hisworks’ structure.

In terms of the scale of production and prestige of commissions, Augustin vanOyen surpassed Bartholomeo and Sebastiano Venosta, and he submitted tombstones,epitaphs, memorial plaques, and imposing altarpieces for many important churches,cathedrals, and pilgrimage centres throughout the country, from the metropolitanGniezno and Łowicz, to Płock, Włocławek, Jasna Góra and Kraków (81). We shouldnote in particular the long-standing collaboration of the sculptor with two senatorialfamilies from the previous district of Sieradz, whose representatives in the secondquarter of the seventeenth century served in the highest church positions, such as Pri-mate, bishop and abbot; namely the Łubieński and Lipski family, as well as two bishopsfrom the same circle: Jakub Zadzik of Kraków and Stanisław Zaremba of Kiev (82).This circle commissioned from van Oyen several score most prestigious worksthroughout the Polish Kingdom, as a result of which the Flemish artistic formulareached out as far as the capital of Małopolska, and beyond to Mazovia, Kuyavia, andcentral Wielkopolska (Greater Poland). As a consequence, in 1640s and 1650s therange of influence of the Chęciny centre in the Polish Kingdom, remained within sim-ilar boundaries, even though in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Crown Rutheniathe markets have been taken over by stonemasons from Gdańsk (Danzig) andKrólewiec (Königsberg) as well as Kraków respectively.

Stonemasons

The other founder of the Chęciny fraternity – entrepreneurial and talented stone-mason Janusz Oleksy (mentioned 1614-1646) – became in turn the creator of his ownfamily business, a workshop specialising in the production of epitaphs, plaques, floorsand minor church and lay furniture, and he practically monopolised the local marketin the first half of the seventeenth century (83). Starting from 1640s, three sons cameto support the father: Piotr (noticed between 1639-1669) (84) and Marcin (noticedsince 1640, died before 27.01.1665) (85) both called Januszowic, who continued stone-masonry work until the end of the 1660s (pl. 33), while at the same time holding pres-tigious offices of mayors, town councillors, and assessors, and dealing also in otherbusinesses, including the extraction and rinsing of lead ore (1647, 1658) (86).

The most important project in the region at the turn of 1630s and 1640s was theconstruction of a monumental Italian style villa for bishop of Kraków Andrzej Zadzikin nearby Kielce, supervised by the bishop’s chief administrator, Stanisław Czechowski(87) and 1641 carried out by disciple stonemasons Jan Sterpnowski and SzymonKrzyżanowski among others (88). The elements of the stonework and sculptural dec-oration in the residence (pl. 34) which have been preserved to this day indicate numer-ous parallels to the work of Augustin van Oyen, where the two disciple stonemasonsmight have trained beforehand. Another significant commission dating to 1640s wasa group of several score of imposing, early baroque door frames, fireplaces and ban-isters for the residence of Stanisław Koniecpolski, Grand-general (Hetman) of the Pol-ish Crown in Podhorce near Lvov (c. 1641) (89).

388

Between 1640s and 1690s, the most important competition of the subsequentJanuszowiczs included, among others, Leonard Ettrig from Germany (1641) (90), andthe Poles: Adam Malarzowic (noticed 1637) (91), Adam Jurkowicz (1641) (92),Andrzej Czernic or Czernica, called Kacik (probably a successor of the Augustin vanOyen’s workshop, mentioned regularly in 1642, 1646-1647, 1664-1665, 1671, 1673-1675) (93), his brother (?) Jan (noticed in 1680) (94) and son Kazimierz (1680, 1687)(95), Andrzej Kornicz or Kornicki vel Wroncza / Wronczy (noticed regularly 1663-1664, 1669-1674, 1680-1684) (96), Michał Mirkowicz / Miskowicz called Drabik(1664-1665, 1669, 1671-1674, died before 23.07.1675) (97), Jan Tropiszowski (1641and 1674) (98) and Marcin Czyż (mentioned 1692) (99), who, along with their numer-ous journeymen, disciples, peons, and polishers, feature in the town ledgers until theend of the seventeenth century. Until that century’s end, quarries in Bolechowice, onJerzmaniec (Zygmuntówka) and Zelejowa (Zelejowa and Różanka Zelejowska)remained active, and the abandoned extraction of black limestone in Łagów wasreplaced by sporadically imported limestone from Dębnik near Kraków. The mainoccupations of the artisans consisted in the creation of various plaques, also withinscriptions, incised slabs as well as headstones for the Jewish communities in the area(100); in cutting and polishing of floor tiles, and in making church furniture, whichwas an easy task as it was mass produced according to blueprint models: wall-mountedlavabos, baptismal fonts (il. 35), and holy water fonts. The identification of authorshipof particular works is only possible thanks to aforementioned inscriptions in the towndocuments, which noted mostly the clients’ complaints, dissatisfied when the artisansdid not meet the contractual terms. The work of the Chęciny “stoneworkers” at thetime exhibit an overwhelming dependence on the earlier models developed by bothVenosta, van Oyen, and Janusz Oleksy (il. 36) (101); only sometimes, and only someornamental details have been replaced with newer motifs of flora and fauna, charac-teristic of a more mature baroque style (pl. 37) (102). In the fourth quarter of that cen-tury, there were no figurative sculptors left in Chęciny, and the general decline in thequality of increasingly simplified stone works was responsible for the fact that onlylocal, second- and third-rate commissioners from the Sandomierz district were usingthe centre’s services. More aware clients and patrons of the arts in that period turnedsolely to Kraków and Dębnik, whose large-scale production of mass-made works,which however presented a much higher artistic value, sentenced Chęciny to inevitablemarginalisation.

Throughout the eighteenth century, the role of the Chęciny stonemasons hadshrunk to merely extraction and initial dressing of stone blocks, according to guidelinesdirected to them on the part of professional designers, sculptors, and stonemasonsfrom the capital of Warsaw, mostly those working for the royal court and the main aris-tocratic families: Czech Johann Georg Plersch and Viennese Johann ChrisostomusRedler, who – other than having the material delivered – were not interested in anyserious investment therein (103). The attention of commissioners, oriented at the late-baroque, and then rococo taste, arriving first from Austria and afterwards from France,and giving preference to abundant, multicoloured combinations of materials, favouringstucco techniques and faux-marble stucco decoration, led to the termination of stone

389

extraction and production. The exceptions which only prove the rule include: a pair ofdoor frames in the presbytery, two holy water fonts and two hand-rails with banistersin the towers of the Pauline church façade, by the north Lombardian stonemason activein Varsaw – Antonio Bay / Baio of 1709-1713 (104), and a pair of identical fireplacesin the White Room of the southerly wing of Wilanów Palace, which were constructedin 1732 at the commission of king August II (the Strong) Wettin, by an another stone-mason from north Lombardy, Pietro Bernardo Aglio (1697-1756), all carved in deco-rative, spotted Zygmuntówka “marble” from Jerzmaniec (105). This conglomerate,along with the Różanka Zelejowska, Bolechowice and Zelejowa varieties, was used in1750s and 1760s by Plersch and Redler in the architectural and sculptural structuresof only three tombstones in the capital: the epitaphs of: Jerzy Wandalin Mniszech’stwo wives at the Reformed Franciscan church (c. 1747-1750) (pl. 38), Jan Tarło in thePiarist church (1752-1753) (pl. 39) (106), and Princess Józefa of Sobieski Wessel atthe church of the order of nuns of the Holy Sacrament (c. 1761), destroyed in 1944(107).

The period of activity of Italian stonemasons affiliated at the court of kingStanisław August Poniatowski – between 1787-1795 – proved too short to turn backthe decline, which had been encroaching for the last 130 years (pl. 40). The commis-sions directed from the painter Marcello Bacciarelli, who administered the king’s con-struction projects, were too modest to make the whole venture feasible (pl. 41). After1795, also Dębnik fell to a similar lot, and the last important stonemason workshopthere was closed due to the lack of demand (108). In wasn’t until 1870s that the stoneextraction and stonemasonry were to be revived and to succeed again (pl. 42).

NOTES

(1) K. Stronczyński, Dziennik podróży. 1844 rok, Kielce 1996, s. 26, 28; F.M. Sobieszcza-ński, Wycieczka archeologiczna w niektóre strony Gubernii Radomskiej odbyta w miesiącuwrześniu 1851 roku, Warszawa 1852, p. 192, 203-218, map; F. Siarczyński, Obraz wiekupanowania Zygmunta III, Poznań 1858, vol. 2, p. 233-234; Dokumenty i rękopisy związane zgórnictwem kruszcowym w Łagowie, XVI-XVIII w., ed. by S. Chodyński, in: Monumenta His-torica Dioeceseos Vladislaviensis, vol. 6, Wladislaviae 1886, p. 4-36; Ustawy i Statuta, takżeporządek Sądowy z Praw Górnych Prawa Górnego pisanego przez Artykuły pewne podane iopisane od Urodzonego Pana Jana z Msticzowa Płazę, ed. by S. Chodyński, in: ibidem, p. 37-56; J. de Hempel, Description géologique de Kielce, de Chenciny et de Malogoszcz situés AuCentre de la Pologne, Varsovie 1899, p. 142-183, maps; W. Grzeliński, Monografia Chęcinskreślił…, Kielce 1908, p. 24-36; H. Gessler, Opinja Kopalń i Fabryki Marmurów Kieleckich,Kielce 1912.

(2) A. Król, Kasper Fodyga budowniczy chęciński z początku XVII w., in: “Biuletyn HistoriiSztuki”, 13, 1951, no. 2-3, p. 88-117; M. Weber-Kozińska, Kamieniarka w Polsce w okresierenesansu. Główne etapy rozwojowe w historii naszego kamieniarstwa, in: “Architektura”, 1954,no. 1 (75), p. 14-18; eadem, Z problematyki historii kamieniarstwa w Polsce, in: “KwartalnikArchitektury i Urbanistyki”, 8, 1958, no. 1, p. 61-83; J. Czarnocki, Marmury świętokrzyskie, in:

390

Państwowy Instytut Geologiczny, Prace, 21, 1958 (= idem, Prace geologiczne, vol. 5, z. 3, ed.by K. i S. Pawłowscy), p. 100-116; idem, Materiały użyte na niektóre części budowli oraz pom-niki na obszarze Gór Świętokrzyskich, in: ibidem, p. 218-220; S. Kowalczewski, Marmurykieleckie, Warszawa 1972; N. Miks-Rudkowska, Rzemiosło kamieniarskie Kielecczyzny (zaryshistoryczny), in: Z dziejów rzemiosła na Kielecczyźnie. Materiały sesji 11-12 XII 1969, Kielce1973, p. 58-60; M. Paulewicz, E. Kosik, Kasper Fodyga gwarek chęciński, in: “TowarzystwoPrzyjaciół Górnictwa, Hutnictwa i Przemysłu Staropolskiego w Kielcach. Informator”, VII 1974,p. 1-9; Z. Kowalczewski, O surowcach mineralnych i rozwoju górnictwa w okolicach Chęcin,in: VII wieków Chęcin. Materiały sesji naukowej 24 V 1975 r., ed. by Zenon Guldon, Chęciny1976, p. 91-99; Z. Guldon, Chęcińskie górnictwo i hutnictwo kruszcowe w XV-XVIII wieku. Bazaźródłowa i stan badań, in: ,,Studia Kieleckie”, 1/21, 1979, p. 7-21; Z. Rubinowski, Chęcińskiezłoża rud metali w świetle geologicznych badań metalogenezy Gór Świętokrzyskich, in: ibidem,p. 23-36; Z. Guldon, Górnictwo ołowiu w starostwie chęcińskim w początkach XVII wieku, in:ibidem, p. 37-43; Z. Wójcik, Opis górnictwa okolic Chęcin Jana Filipa Carosiego z 1781 roku,in: ibidem, p. 45-57; M. Karpowicz, La Capella Fodiga: Eccezionale monumento di un mesoc-cone in Polonia, in: “Quaderni Grigioniitaliani”, LIX, 1990, no. 1, s. 3-19; M. Paulewicz, Chę-cińskie górnictwo kruszcowe (XIV do poł. XVII wieku), Kielce 1992; E. Kosik, Chęcińskiemarmury, in: W królewskich Chęcinach: monografia historyczno gospodarcza miasta i gminyChęciny, ed. by E. Kosik, R. Nagdowski, Kielce 1996, p. 51-59; Z. Guldon, J. Muszyńska, Żydzii Szkoci w Chęcinach w XVI-XVIII wieku, in: Chęciny. Studia z dziejów miasta XVI-XX wieku,Kielce, ed. by St. Wiech, Kielce 1997, p. 9-10; Michał Rawita-Witanowski, Dawny powiat chę-ciński. Z ilustracjami prof. Jana Olszewskiego, ed. by D. Kalina, Kielce 2001, s. 80-84; M. Kar-powicz, Da contadino a magnate. Gaspare Fodiga, architetto e scultore di Mesocco in Polonia,Mesocco 2002; idem, Tomasz Poncino architekt pałacu kieleckiego, Kielce 2002, p. 33-43, 51,55-56, pl. 15, 16, 37-43, 58, 59, 77; M. Karpowicz, Chronologia i geografia niderlandyzmu wrzeźbie 1. połowy XVII wieku, in: Niderlandyzm na Śląsku i w krajach ościennych, ed. by M.Kapustka, A. Kozieł, P. Oszczanowski, Wrocław 2003, p. 45-48, pl. 2-4; J. Rajchel, KamiennyKraków. Spojrzenie geologa, 2nd edition, Kraków 2005, p. 56–64; W. Zapart, M. Karkocha,Dzieje parafii Chęciny do 1815 r., Kielce 2007, p. 31, 39-40, 67-68; D. Kalina, Świętokrzyskieślady Kacpra Fodygi, in: Szkice z dziejów miasta. Chęciny na starej fotografii, ed. by D. Kalina,Kielce 2008, p. 15-26; D. Kalina, Dzieje Chęcin, Chęciny 2009, p. 88-89, 131-132, 168-176.

(3) W. Grzeliński, op. cit., p. 3-5; F. Kiryk, Chęciny w epoce piastowskiej i jagiellońskiej,in: VII wieków Chęcin…, p. 25-90; E. Kosik, Chęciny na surowym korzeniu lokowane, in: Wkrólewskich Chęcinach…, p. 22-29; Michał Rawita-Witanowski..., p. 34-39; D. Kalina, DziejeChęcin…, p. 33-58.

(4) W. Grzeliński, op. cit., p. 6-9, 24-25; D. Molenda, Górnictwo chęcińskie w XVI i XVIIw. i jego związki z górnictwem śląsko-krakowskim, in: Dzieje i technika świętokrzyskiego gór-nictwa i hutnictwa kruszcowego. Materiały sesji naukowej odbytej z okazji jubileuszu IXwieków Kielc, Kieleckie Towarzystwo Naukowe, Kielce, 16 XI 1970, ed. by Z. Kowalczewski,Warszawa 1972, p. 107-120; M. Paulewicz, Chęcińska ordynacja górnicza z 1608 roku, in:’’Towarzystwo Przyjaciół Górnictwa, Hutnictwa i Przemysłu Staropolskiego w Kielcach. Infor-mator”, III 1975, p. 5-17; idem, Czternastowieczne związki miasta Chęcin z górnictwem krusz-cowym starostwa chęcińskiego, in: ’’Towarzystwo Przyjaciół Górnictwa, Hutnictwa i PrzemysłuStaropolskiego w Kielcach. Informator”, VI 1975, p. 1-13; idem, Szyby górnicze w rejonieChęcin w latach 1610-1614, in: ’’Towarzystwo Przyjaciół Górnictwa, Hutnictwa i PrzemysłuStaropolskiego w Kielcach. Informator”, Kielce, XII 1975, p. 3-17; idem, Przywileje górniczemiasta królewskiego, in: ibidem, I 1976, p. 9-20; Z. Kowalczewski, O surowcach mineralnych…, p. 91-97; M. Paulewicz, Chęcińskie górnictwo kruszcowe…, p. 27-39; D. Kalina, DziejeChęcin…, p. 151-166.

391

(5) J. Pazdur, Górnictwo i hutnictwo kruszcowe w okolicy Kielc, in: Górnictwo i hutnictwometali nieżelaznych w Polsce w XVI i XVII w., in: ”Kwartalnik Historii Kultury Materialnej”, 3,1955, no. 1, p. 80-86; idem, Kierunki i metody badań dziejów świętokrzyskiego górnictwa i hut-nictwa kruszcowego, in: Dzieje i technika świętokrzyskiego górnictwa i hutnictwa krusz-cowego…, p. 13-27; S. Miczulski, Początki rozwoju górnictwa i hutnictwa kruszcowego wrejonie Kielc od końca XVI w., in: ibidem, p. 79-145.

(6) Chęcińskie góry kruszcowe w świetle lustracji z lat 1564-1615, in: M. Paulewicz, Chę-cińskie górnictwo kruszcowe…, p. 99-103, appendix I.

(7) M. Paulewicz, Chęcińskie górnictwo kruszcowe…, p. 5-6, 42-44, appendix IV.(8) W. Grzeliński, op. cit., p. 8, 18; L. Stępkowski, Przemiany ludnościowe w Chęcinach

w XVII i XVIII wieku, in: VII wieków Chęcin…, p. 108-109.(9) F.M. Sobieszczański, op. cit., p. 213-218; D. Kalina, Dzieje Chęcin…, p. 172-175.(10) W. Tatarkiewicz, op. cit., p. 99-101; M. Paulewicz, Chęcińskie górnictwo kruszcowe…

, p. 111-121, appendix V; E. Kosik, Chęcińskie marmury…, p. 55.(11) E. Kosik, S. Marcinkowski, Próby odbudowy górnictwa i hutnictwa w rejonie chę-

cińskim w I połowie XIX wieku, in: ,,Studia Kieleckie”, 1/21, 1979, p. 59-66; E. Kosik, Chę-cińskie marmury…, p. 55-56.

(12) H. Walendowski, Kielczanin Alfons Welke (1827-1911). Architekt, przedsiębiorca,znawca i kolekcjoner kamieni, in: ’’Nowy Kamieniarz”, 33, I, 4/2008, p. 62-66.

(13) T. Langner, Marmury świętokrzyskie – przedsiębiorstwo eksploatacji i obróbki w Kiel-cach, in: ’’Towarzystwo Przyjaciół Górnictwa, Hutnictwa i Przemysłu Staropolskiego w Kiel-cach. Informator”, VI 1975, p. 58-78; Z. Kowalczewski, O surowcach mineralnych i rozwojugórnictwa w okolicach Chęcin, in: VII wieków Chęcin…, p. 98-99; E. Kosik, Chęcińskie mar-mury…, p. 55-58.

(14) I. Janowski, M. Kozłowski, M. Mularczyk, Góra Zamkowa – Chęciny – Zelejowa –Jaskinia Raj. Przewodnik dydaktyczno-krajobrazowy, Kielce 1996, p. 37-38, 46-47, 49-50, 53-55, 58-60.

(15) E. Tołkanowicz, Marmury polskie. Wydobycie i zastosowanie w budownictwie, in:“Świat Kamienia”, 2001, 4 (11), p. 74-75; eadem, Marmury świętokrzyskie / ŚwiętokrzyskieMarbles, part I, in: “Świat Kamienia”, 2001, 5 (12), p. 93-95; eadem, Marmury świętokrzyskie/ Świętokrzyskie Marbles, part II, in: “Świat Kamienia”, 2001, 6 (13), p. 73-76.

(16) To know more about this variety of limestone read: M. Weber-Kozińska, Kamienie wPolsce w okresie renesansu..., p. 18-19; S. Ogerman, Stare i nowe dzieje eksploatacji i obróbkiwapieni pińczowskich oraz marmurów kieleckich, Pińczów [1980], p. 13, 17, 19, 21, pl.

The stage of studies on history of this stonemasonry ans sculpture center to see: W.Kieszkowski, Santi Gucci Fiorentino. Uwagi na marginesie pracy dr Krystyny Sinko: SantiGucci Fiorentino i jego szkoła, Kraków 1933, Bibljoteka Historji Sztuki no. 3, in: “Biuletyn His-torii Sztuki i Kultury”, 3, 1934, no. 2, p. 145-147, 148-150; M. Weber-Kozińska, op. cit., p. 15,18-19; N. Miks-Rudkowska, Rzemiosło kamieniarskie Kielecczyzny (zarys historyczny), p. 42,43-56; A. Fischinger, Santi Gucci architekt i rzeźbiarz królewski, Kraków 1969, p. 64-67, 79-86; S. Oterman, op. cit., p. 25-49; H. Kozakiewiczowa, Rzeźba XVI wieku w Polsce, Warszawa1984, p. 153, 156, 157, 163.

(17) J. Czarnocki, Marmury świętokrzyskie…, p. 105, 107; S. Kowalczeski, op. cit., p. 19-20, fig. on p. 19; J. Rajchel, op. cit., p. 57-58; H. Walendowski, Bolechowice [Minimonografiepolskich kamieni budowlanych], in: ,,Nowy Kamieniarz”, 4, 2008, no. 33, p. 70.

(18) M. Wardzyński, The Great Competitors. The Import and Use of ”Red” Marble fromHungary, Adnet, Stara Lubowla and Upper Hungary / Transylvania in Small Architecture andSculpture in the Commonwealth from the Fourteenth Century to the First Half of the SeventeenthCentury, in: Actes du XVIe Colloque International de Glyptographie à Muensterschwarzach

392

(Schwarzach-am-Main), 7–12 juillet 2008, ed. by J.-L. Van Belle, Braine-le-Château 2009, p.343-344, fig. 32-35.

(19) M. Wardzyński, Nagrobek Pawła Sapiehy i jego żon w kościele oo. Franciszkanów wHolszanach, in: Litwa i Polska. Dziedzictwo sztuki sakralnej, ed. by W. Boberski and M. Omi-lanowska, Warszawa 2004, p. 111-112.

(20) Katalog Zabytków Sztuki w Polsce, vol. XI: Dawne województwo bydgoskie, ed. byT. Chrzanowski i M. Kornecki, z. 18: Włocławek i okolice, ed. by W. Puget, M. Paździor as wellas T. Chrzanowski, M. Kornecki, Warszawa 1988, p. 25-26.

(21) J. Czarnocki, Marmury świętokrzyskie…, p. 104, 105, 109, 114; E. Tołkanowicz, Mar-mury świętokrzyskie…, p. 95, photo 2; eadem, Marmury polskie..., p. 77.

(22) J. Czarnocki, Marmury świętokrzyskie…, p. 110, 114; A. Kostecka, Charakterystykazlepieńców cechsztyńskich synkliny gałęzicko-bolechowickiej (Góry Świętokrzyskie), in:“Kwartalnik Geologiczny”, 6, 1962, no. 3, p. 416, 422-423; S. Kowalczewski, op. cit., p. 21-23, fig. on p. 21; S. Zbroja, M. Kuleta, Z. Migaszewski, Nowe dane o zlepieńcach zkamieniołomu ,,Zygmuntówka” w Górach Świętokrzyskich, in: “Biuletyn Państwowego InstytutuGeologicznego”, 1998, no. 379, p. 41-51, fig. 1, 3, 5; J. Rajchel, op. cit., p. 60-62.

(23) N. Miks-Rudkowska, Rzemiosło kamieniarskie Kielecczyzny…, p. 58; J. Rajchel, op.cit., p. 61-62.

(24) J. Czarnocki, Marmury świętokrzyskie…, p. 112, 114; M. Weber-Kozińska,Kamieniarka w Polsce…, p. 17, 18; J. Wrzosek, L. Wróbel, Uwagi o występowaniu żył kalcy-towych na Górze Zelejowej koło Chęcin, in: “Zeszyty Naukowe AGH. Geologia”, no. 31, 1961,z. 4, p. 89-106, pl. 1-2; Z. Rubinowski, Pozycja żył kalcytowych typu ,,Różanka” w regionalnejmetalogenezie Gór Świętkorzyskich, in: “Kwartalnik Geologiczny”, 11, 1967, z. 4, p. 962.

(25) J. Czarnocki, O tektonice okolic Łagowa oraz kilka słów w sprawie trzeciorzędu i złóżgaleny natym obszarze, in: “Posiedzenia Naukowe Państwowego Instytutu Geologicznego”,1929, no. 24, posiedzenia z dnia 9.04.1929, p. 34-36; J. Fijałkowski, Zarys dziejów eksploatacjikruszców w rejonie Łagowa, in: Dzieje i technika świętokrzyskiego górnictwa i hutnictwa krusz-cowego…, p. 121-125; Cz. Hadamik, Pradzieje i średniowiecze gminy Łagów w świetle doty-chczasowych badań archeologicznych, in: Cz. Hadamik, D. Kalina, E. Traczyński, Dzieje izabytki małych ojczyzn, ed. by R. Mirowski, Gmina Łagów, Kielce 2004, p. 19, 20-21, 109-113;D. Kalina, Historia miejscowości i zabytki gminy, in: ibidem, p. 154-158; B. Wójtowicz, J. Wój-towicz, Przyrodnicza Ścieżka Dydaktyczna Łagów – Dolina Łagowicy – Wąwóz Dule – JaskiniaZbójecka, Kielce 2004, p. 14, 16, 20; W. Jagodzińska-Hadamik, Geologiczna przeszłość kluczapiórkowskiego, in: Cz. Hadamik, Zarys dziejów Łagowa, cz. 1: Od czasów najdawniejszych dolokacji miasta. Geologia – Prahistoria – Kasztelania Łagowska, Kielce-Łagów 2008, p. 21-22,25-26.

(26) W. Puget, Z dziejów zamku w Szydłowcu, in: “Rocznik Muzeum Świętokrzyskiego”,vol. 4, 1967, p. 292, note 34; T. Kempa, Mikołaj Krzysztof Radziwiłł Sierotka (1549-1616) woje-woda wileński, Warszawa 2000, p. 193, note 42.

(27) About this famous variety of the “black marble” in the former Commonwealth of TwoNations see: W. Tatarkiewicz, Czarny marmur w Krakowie, in: “Prace Komisji Historii Sztuki”,10, 1953, p. 89-152; W. Koziński, O europejskiej karierze marmuru z Dębnika, in: “PrzeglądGeologiczny”, 7, 1959, no. 4, p. 156-158; W. Pęczkowska, Mała architektura z czarnego mar-muru w Chrzanowskiem, Chrzanów 1976; E. Tołkanowicz, Marmury rejonu śląsko-krakowsko-częstochowskiego, in: “Świat Kamienia”, 2002, no. 1 (14), p. 88-89; J. Rajchel, op. cit., p. 27-33;Piotr Niemcewicz, Konserwacja wapienia dębnickiego, Toruń 2005, p. 7-37; A. Środoń, Dębnik– reaktywacja, in: “Nowy Kamieniarz”, no. 18, 1/2006, p. 28-31.

(28) E. Tołkanowicz, Marmury rejonu śląsko-krakowsko-częstochowskiego, in: “ŚwiatKamienia”, 2002, no. 1 (14), p. 89-90; J. Rajchel, op. cit., p. 71-73.

393

(29) R. Quirini-Popławski, Rzeźba przedromańska i romańska w Polsce wobec sztukiwłoskiej, Kraków 2006, p. 120, 123, 132, notes 622, 640, 694, pl. 64; W. Marcinkowski, T.Zaucha, Galeria "Sztuka Dawnej Polski XII-XVIII wiek" : przewodnik, ed. by J. Popielska-Michalczyk, Kraków 2007, p. 12, pl. on p. 10.

(30) Katalog Zabytków Sztuki w Polsce, vol. VI: Województwo katowickie, ed. by I. Rej-duch-Samek i J. Samek, z. 7: Powiat kłobucki, ed. by T. Małkowska-Holcerowa and J.Mańkowska-Jurczakowa, Warszawa 1963, p. 6.

(31) Kraków, Jagiellonian Library, sign. BJ rkps 5232, BN mf 2136, Acta officii consulariscivitatis Chencinensis ad anno 1631 usque ad annum 1649, f. 243v. ,,Tamze w sieni okrąglykamien do fontany, Lewkow dwa dorobionych, dwa niedorobionych […]”.

(32) Bartholomeo Venosta decorated with such lions the two tumbas of his greatest sepul-cral monuments of: Stanisław Krasiński in the cathedral of Płock (1617) and Stanisław Zapolskiin the parish church in Chojne near Sieradz (1617). M. Karpowicz, Da contadino a magnate…, p. 55-60, pl. on p. 145, 150, 154, 158 (attributed incorrectly to an Italian architect GaspareFodiga of Chęciny).

(33) W. Kieszkowski, op. cit., p. 145-147, 148-150; M. Weber-Kozińska, op. cit., p. 15,18-19; N. Miks-Rudkowska, Rzemiosło kamieniarskie Kielecczyzny…, p. 42, 43-56; A.Fischinger, op. cit., p. 64-67, 79-86; S. Oterman, op. cit., p. 25-49.

(34) A. Fischinger, op. cit., p. 70-72, pl. 94-96; J.Z. Łoziński, Grobowe kaplice kopułowew Polsce 1520-1620, Warszawa 1973, p. 138, 141, pl. 97.

(35) A. Fischinger, op. cit., p. 84-85, pl. 117-118; A. Kurzątkowska, Mauzoleum Firlejóww Bejscach – wybitne dzieło ,,manieryzmu pińczowskiego”, in: “Biuletyn Historii Sztuki”, 30,1968, no. 1, s. 121-122; F. Stolot, Testament Tomasza Nikla (przyczynek do dziejów pińczowskichwarsztatów budowlanych i kamieniarsko-rzeźbiarskich na przełomie wieków XVI i XVII), in:“Biuletyn Historii Sztuki”, 32, 1970, no. 3-4, p. 228, 232, 234, 235, 241, appendix, pl. 1, 2, 13;J.Z. Łoziński, op. cit., p. 129-130, 132, pl. 67-70, 75-77, 80.

(36) A. Fischinger, op. cit., p. 69-70, pl. 87; J.Z. Łoziński, op. cit., p. 146-147, 156, 158-159, pl. 117, 118.

(37) F. Siarczyński, op. cit., p. 233-234; W. Tomkiewicz, Z dziejów polskiego mecenatuartystycznego w wieku XVII, Warszawa 1952, p. 11-29, particularly p. 17; H. Sygietyńska, Dziełazłotnicze Zygmunta III Wazy na Mazowszu, in: “Biuletyn Historii Sztuki”, 48, 1996, no. 3-4, p. 311-315.

(38) K. Kuczman, Przełom wawelski, in: Sztuka XVII wieku w Polsce, ed. by T.Hrankowska, Warszawa 1994, p. 165, 167-168, 176, pl. 5, 6, 10; M. Karpowicz, Artisti ticinesiin Polonia nella prima metà del ‘600, Bellinzona 2002, p. 23, 28-30, pl. 4.

(39) A. Miłobędzki, Architektura XVII wieku w Polsce, Warszawa 1980, vol. 1, p. 116-117,128; vol. 2, pl. 241-243.

(40) W. Kieszkowski, Zamek królewski w Łobzowie, in: “Biuletyn Historii Sztuki i Kul-tury”, 4, 1935, p. 17-19, pl. 8-10; J.W.Rączka, Królewska rezydencja pałacowo-ogrodowa naŁobzowie. Stan badań i zachowane źródła archiwalne (1585-1655), cz. II, in: “Teka KomisjiArchitektury i Urbanistyki”, 17, 1983, p. 34, pl. 10a-11, 15.

(41) M. Karpowicz, Kilka obserwacji o autorze nagrobka Firlejowej w kościele Fran-ciszkanów w Krośnie, in: Kościół i klasztor franciszkański w Krośnie : przeszłość oraz dziedz-ictwo kulturowe. Materiały z sesji naukowej. Krosno, listopad 1997, ed. by E. Mańkowska,Krosno 1998, p. 169-176, pl. 1, 3; idem, Artisti ticinesi in Polonia…, p. 30-33, pl. 7, 9, 10.

(42) M. Karpowicz, Andrea i Antonio Castelli rzeźbiarze krakowscy XVII w., Warszawa2002, p. 4, 5-6, 12-13, pl. 2, 3, 5, 6, 51, 52.

(43) M. Karpowicz, Matteo Castello architekt wczesnego baroku, Warszawa 1994, p. 40-41, pl. 41-45; M. Wardzyński, Ołtarz główny fary w Płocku, in “Mazowsze”, 10, 2002, no. 15,p. 67, 71, 79, pl. 1, 5.

394

(44) M. Wardzyński, Marmur i alabaster w małej architekturze oraz plastyce sakralnej isepulkralnej XVII w. w Warszawie, Warszawa 2011 (in print).

(45) R. Mączyński, Kolumna Zygmunta III Wazy – nowe ustalenia, in: “Kronika Zamkowa”,1(25), 2 (26) 1992, 1(27), 2(28) 1993, p. 28-38, pl. 1-3.

(46) K. Lesiak, Kolumna Zygmunta - jej kolejne przekształcenia i restauracje, in: “OchronaZabytków”, 50, 1997, no. 2, p. 124-134, 139-140, pl. 4, 5, 6-11.

(47) A. Król, op. cit., p. 92-97, pl. 2, 6, 7; J.Z. Łoziński, op. cit., p. 178, 184, pl. 153, 155;M. Karpowicz, Da contadino a magnate…, p. 27-28, pl. on p. 102, 107, 108.

(48) A. Król, op. cit., p. 94-97, pl. 8; M. Karpowicz, Da contadino a magnate…, p. 27, pl.on p. 107.

(49) A. Król, op. cit., p. 88-117; J.Z. Łoziński, op. cit., 183-184; M. Karpowicz, Da con-tadino a magnate…, p. 1-43, pl. on p. 87-125.

(50) M. Karpowicz, DA contadino a magnate…, p. 6-9, 45-71, 75-76, pl. on p. 126-212.(51) Wrocław, The Ossolinski National Institute, sign. BOs 4750/I, BN mf 11994, Ex actis

consularibus et scabinalibus civitatis Chęcinensis, 1584-1643, p. 474 (feria sexta post festumSanctae Margarethae AD 1624; 23.10.1624). Compare with M. Karpowicz, Da contadino amagnate…, p. 8, note 21.

(52) L. Zaleski, Katedra i jezuici w Lublinie, cz. 1, Lublin 1947, s. 97, 221, note 28; J. Z.Łoziński, op. cit., p. 173-177, 178, pl. 147-150.

(53) A. Król, op. cit., p. 98-99, pl. 15-17; J. Z. Łoziński, op. cit., p. 178, pl. 157, 158; M.Karpowicz, La Capella Fodiga…, p. 13, 15, 16-19, pl. on p. 4, 8, 14, 17-18; idem, Da contadinoa magnate…, p. 33-37, 47-51, pl. on p. 128-137.

(54) W. Tomkiewicz, Z dziejów polskiego mecenatu artystycznego…, p. 17; J. Lileyko,Zamek warszawski : rezydencja królewska i siedziba władz Rzeczypospolitej 1569-1763,Wrocław-Warszawa-Kraków-Gdańsk-Łódź 1984, p. 91-92.

(55) Kraków, Jagiellonian Library, sign. BJ rkps 5231, BN mf 52224, Regestra mierzeniakruszców ołowianych w górach Chęcińskich i pobierania tamże olbory z lat 1610-1614, f. 34r(16.12.1611), 44r (6.09.1612), 66v (16.06.1615).

According to the activity of Gaspare Fodiga as the shareholder miners in the mining com-panies read: Kraków, Jagiellonian Library, sign. BJ rkps 5231, BN mf 52224, op. cit., f. 6r, 7r,14r, 16r, 17r, 21r, 25r, 26r, 33r, 44r-45r, 47v, 55v, 59v, 60v, 61r, 66r-66v; M. Paulewicz, E. Kosik,Kasper Fodyga gwarek chęciński, p. 1-9.

(56) Kraków, National Archive, sign. APKr, AD 480, Regest seu liber actorum contubernimurariorum et Stameciorum clarissi urbis cracoviensis AD MDLXXII, p. 230.

(57) Kraków, Jagiellonian Library, sign. BJ rkps 5477, BN mf 52293, Prothocollon actorumcivilium officii consularis civitatis Chencinensis ab anno 1622 usque ad annum 1696, f. 122r,131v-132r, 135r (feria sexta post festum Sanctae Elisabetae AD 1642; 25.11.1642).

(58) Kraków, Jagiellonian Library, BJ rkps 5232, BN mf 2136, Acta officii consularis civ-itatis Chencinensis ad anno 1631 usque ad annum 1649, f. 71, 74v-75v, 101v-102r, 105r-105v,111r-111v, 214v-215v, 216v-227v, 228v-246.

(59) Kraków, Jagiellonian Library, BJ rkps 5232, BN mf 2136, op. cit., f. 331r-331v (feriaquarta in vigilia festum Assumptionis BVM AD 1641; 11.08.1641); Kraków, JagiellonianLibrary, sign. BJ rkps 5477, BN mf 52293, op. cit., f. 143v (feria sexta post Domenicam JubilataeProxima AD 1647).

(60) Ibidem, f. 502r (feria tertia post festum Sancti Petri in vinculi AD 1645; 1.02.1645).(61) M. Karpowicz, Rzeźba około roku 1600-1630, in: Sztuka około roku 1600, ed. by T.

Hrankowska, Warszawa 1974, p. 72, pl. 18; idem, Artisti ticinesi in Polonia nel ‘600, Bellinzona1982, p. 61-63, pl. 45-53; idem, Barok w Polsce, Warszawa 1988, p. 22, 281, pl. 26-27; idem,Da contadino a magnate…, p. 45-71, pl. 118-120, 128-211 (here an incorrect identification ofthis artist as architect and building entrepreneur Gaspare Fodiga himself).

395

(62) Katalog Zabytków Sztuki w Polsce, Seria Nowa, vol. XI: Miasto Warszawa, cz. 2:Nowe Miasto, ed. by M. Kałamajska-Saeed, Warszawa 2001, p. 46, fig. 238, 241; M.Wardzyński, Marmur i alabaster w małej architekturze... (in print).

(63) Katalog Zabytków Sztuki w Polsce, vol. III: Województwo kieleckie, z. 5: Powiatkonecki, ed. by J.Z. Łoziński i B. Wolff, Warszawa 1958, p. 9, fig. 46.

(64) M. Wardzyński, The Great Competitors…, p. 341, 343, 345.(65) H. Dressler, Alexander Colin, diss., Karlsruhe 1973, p. 69, 71-72, 92-93, 95, 97-98,

109, 111, pl. 138-140, 148 a-b, 176-178, 185, 186, 199; A. Teurlinckx, Der Coliner Kreis. Ausder Geschichte der niderländischen Expansion, Bloemfontein 1987, p. 31, 35-37, pl. 51, 66, 67,71.

(66) M. Karpowicz, Da contadino a magnate…, p. 46, 56, 61-62, 64, 66, pl. on p. 135,140, 142, 147, 149, 153, 172-175, 183-185, 188-189, 194-195, 206-209, 211.

(67) According to this hypothesis see the sepulcral monument of bishop Primate WojciechBaranowski (died 1615) in the arch-cathedral in Gniezno, commisioned c. 1615-1620. L.Krzyżanowski, Nagrobki i epitafia, in: Katedra gnieźnieńska, ed. by A. Świechowska, Poznań-Warszawa-Lublin 1970, p. 224-226, pl. 168, 169, XCIX B, XCVI; M. Karpowicz, Da contadinoa magnate…, p. 71, pl. on p. 212.

(68) Venosta’s workshop is responsible for creating in 1620s or 1630s the huge sculpturalmonument for the Oleśnickis – magnate family of central Lesser Poland, in the former Bene-dictine abbey on the Holy Cross Mountain called Łysiec, with at least five live-size standingstatues, 1777 partially destroyed. J. Gacki, Benedyktyński klasztor świętego Krzyża na ŁysejGórze, Warszawa 1873, reprint Kielce 2006, p. 68-69; Katalog Zabytków Sztuki w Polsce, vol.III, z. 4: Powiat kielecki, Warszawa 1957, p. 62.

(69) K. Mikocka-Rachubowa, Block (Blocke) vn den (van der; von dem), Architekten-, Bild-hauer- und Maler-Familie in Gdańsk, in: Saur Allgemeines Künstlerlexikon. Die Künstler allerZeiten und Völker, vol. 11, Leipzig-München 1995, p. 534-535; F. Skibiński, Warsztat Willemavan den Blocke w świetle akt gdańskiego cechu murarzy, kamieniarzy i rzeźbiarzy, in: “BiuletynHistorii Sztuki”, 72, 200, no. 1-2, p. 85-92.

(70) M. Wardzyński, O pierwotnym kształcie ołtarza głównego w kościele parafialnym wRóżanie na Białorusi, in: “Przegląd Wschodni”, vol. 7, z. 3 (27): 2001, p. 917, 921-922, 926-927, pl. 1-8; idem, Nagrobek Pawła Stefana Sapiehy w Holszanach…, p. 111-116, pl. 1-6; idem,Z zagadnień genezy i przekształceń struktury architektonicznej ołtarza głównego w kościele Św.Michała Archanioła w Wilnie, in: “Ikonotheka”, 17, 2004, p. 128-130, 132-134, 136-137, pl. 3-4.

(71) T. Mańkowski, Bernardyńskie pomniki grobowe, in: ”Prace Komisji Historii Sztuki”,9, 1948, p. 193-195, pl. 5-6 (Saint John’s of Dukla monument in Lvov’s Bernardine church,commisioned 1608); T. Zaucha, Kościół parafialny p.w. śś. Piotra i Pawła oraz Matki BoskiejRóżańcowej (d. Narodzenia Najśw. Panny Marii) w Brzeżanach, in: Materiały do dziejów sztukisakralnej na ziemiach wschodnich dawnej Rzeczypospolitej, ed. by J.K. Ostrowski, cz. 1: Koś-cioły i klasztory rzymskokatolickie dawnego województwa ruskiego, vol. 15, Kraków 2007, p.56, 62, pl. 76-77 (the Kraizers’ epitaph in the parish church in Brzeżany, 1631); J.K. Ostrowski,Kościół parafialny p.w. Wniebowzięcia Najśw. Panny Marii w Nawarii, in: Materiały do dziejówsztuki sakralnej…, cz. 1, vol. 1, Kraków 1993, p. 59-60, pl. 249 (Elżbieta Humnicka’s tombstonein the parish church in Nawaria near Lvov).

(72) M. Karpowicz, Da contadino a magnate…, p. 70-71.(73) Oyen (Sébastien van), in: Bibliographie National de Belgique, vol. XVI, Bruxelles

1901, p. 434-437; M.G. Ozinga, Noyen (Noye, Oyen usw.) Sebastiaan van, in: Allgemeines Kün-stlerlexikon…, vol. 25, Leipzig 1931, p. 532-533.

(74) Kraków, Jagiellonian Library, sign. BJ rkps 5232, BN mf 2136, Acta officii consulariscivitatis Chencinensis ad anno 1631 usque ad annum 1649, f. 28r (feria sexta post domenicam

396

Misericordiae proxima 1633); sign. BJ rkps 5477, BN mf 52293, Prothocollon actorum civiliumofficii consularis civitatis Chencinensis ab anno 1622 usque ad annum 1696, f. 283v (feria sextapost festo Visitationis BMV 1674).

(75) K. Ottenheym, P. Rosenberg, N. Smit, Hendrick de Keyser – Architectura Moderna.'Moderne' bouwkunst in Amsterdam 1600 – 1625, Amsterdam 2008.

(76) Among most important studies on this subject read: R.J. Firman, A GeologicalApproach to the History of English Alabaster, “The Mercian Geologist”, 9, 1984, no. 3, s. 161-178; N. Llewelynn, Funeral Monuments in Post-Reformation England, Cambrigde 2000, p. 183-215; F.W. Cheetam, Alabaster Images of Medieval England, Woodbrigde, Suffolk, UK –Rochester NY 2003; H. Walendowski, Alabastry z Anglii dawniej i dziś, “Nowy Kamieniarz”,18/1/2006, p. 54-56 (England); J. Baudoin, La sculpture flamboyante en Bourgogne et Franche-Comté, edition Crées 1993, particularly p. 27-28 (Burgundy); V. Schneider, Michael Kern (1580-1649). Leben und Werk lines deutsche Bildhauers zwischen Renaissnace und Barock, Ostfildern2003, p. 19, 28-29; A. Lipińska, Wewnętrzne światło. Południowoniderlandzka rzeźba alabas-trowa w Europie Środkowo-Wschodniej, Wrocław 2007, p. 33, 37 (German Reich).

(77) M. Wardzyński, Alabaster ruski w rzeźbie w Rzeczypospolitej i na Śląsku w XVI w.,in: Między Wrocławiem i Lwowem. Sztuka na Śląsku, w Małopolsce i na ziemiach ruskich Koronyod XVI do XVIII wieku, ed. by A. Betlej, K. Brzezina, P. Oszczanowski, Wrocław-Kraków 2010(in print).

(78) M. Karpowicz, Barok w Polsce…, p. 32, 290, pl. 101; idem, Chronologia i geografianiderlandyzmu…, p. 45, 47, pl. 4.

(79) M. Karpowicz, Barok w Polsce…, p. 32, 290, pl. 102; idem, Chronologia i geografianiderlandyzmu…, p. 45, pl. 4; idem, Tomasz Poncino architekt pałacu kieleckiego…, p. 33, 35,36, 37, 40-42, 55-56, pl. 15, 18, 35, 37-39, 41; idem, Tomasz Poncino na Jasnej Górze, in: “Stu-dia Claromontana”, 26, 2008, p. 408, pl. 4-11.

(80) M. Wardzyński, Import and Use of Belgian Marble and Limestone in Small Architec-ture and Stone Sculpture on Polish Territory from the Middle Ages to the Second Half of theEighteenth Century, in: Actes du XVe Colloque International de Glyptographie de Cordue, 17–21 juillet 2006, ed. by J.-L. Van Belle, Braine-le-Château 2007, p. 393; idem, Między Italiąi Niderlandami. Środkowoeuropejskie ośrodki kamieniarsko-rzeźbiarskie wobec tradycjinowożytnej. Uwagi z dziedziny materiałoznawstwa, in: Między technologią i semantyką. Materiałw rzeźbie do końca XIX w. Materiały międzynarodowej konferencji naukowej, Wojnowice 5–6X 2007, ed. by A. Lipińska, Wrocław 2010, p. 447.

(81) M. Karpowicz, Chronologia i geografia niderlandyzmu…, p. 45, 47-48, pl. 2-3.(82) M. Karpowicz, Chronologia i geografia niderlandyzmu…, p. 47-48, pl. 4; idem,

Tomasz Poncino architekt pałacu kieleckiego…, p. 32-42, pl. 15, 35-43.(83) Kraków, National Archive, sign. APKr, AD 480, Regest seu liber actorum contuberni

murariorum et Stameciorum clarissi urbis cracoviensis AD MDLXXII, s. 230; Kraków, Jagiel-lonian Library, sign. BJ rkps 5477, BN mf 52293, op. cit., f. 82r, 121r, 124v, 127v, 168r; BJ rkps5232, BN mf 2136, op. cit., f. 295r-295v, 306v, 310r, 338v, 353r, 361r, 439r, 443v, 496v, 501v,506v, 511v-512r, 527r, 532v-533r

(84) Kraków, Jagiellonian Library, sign. BJ rkps 5476, BN mf 52273, op. cit., 81v; BJ rkps5477, BN mf 52293, op. cit., f. 63v, 65v, 72r, 78v, 82v, 115r, 159v, 163r, 179v, BJ rkps 5232,BN mf 2136, op. cit., f. 309r-309v, 358r, 360v, 377v, 388v, 390r, 399r-399v, 413r, 422v-423r,443v, 461r, 472v, 474r, 479v, 488v, 490r, 492v, 496v, 507v, 526v, 556r-556v; Wrocław, TheOssolinski National Institute, sign. BOs 4750/I, BN mf 11994, op. cit., p. 312, 369, 896-897.

(85) Kraków, Jagiellonian Library, sign. BJ rkps 5477, BN mf 52293, op. cit., f. 88v, 93v,126v, 148r, 162v, 170v, 172r, 178r, 179v, 187r, 208r; BJ rkps 5232, BN mf 2136, op. cit., f. 278v.

(86) M. Paulewicz, Chęcińskie górnictwo kruszcowe…, p. 108-109, appendix IV.

397

(87) J. Lewicki, Najnowsze odkrycia związane z kielecką siedzibą biskupów krakowskich,in: Siedziby biskupów krakowskich na terenie dawnego województwa sandomierskiego. Mate-riały sesji naukowej, Kielce 20 IX 1997 ed. by L. Kajzer, Kielce 1997, p. 147-155, pl. 6-11.Compare with M. Karpowicz, Tomasz Poncino architekt pałacu kieleckiego…, p. 17, 20-21, 24,pl. 3, 7, 9, 11-14.

(88) Kraków, Jagiellonian Library, sign. BJ rkps 5232, BN mf 2136, op. cit., f. 310r-311r(die sabbato post domenicam Misericordiae proximae AD 1641).

(89) A. Miłobędzki, op. cit., vol. 1, p. 201, 202; vol. 2, pl. 293-297, 299-300; Z. Bania,Pałac w Podhorcach, in: “Rocznik Historii Sztuki”, vol. 13, 1981, p. 103, 111, 114, 117, 156-158, pl. 21, 24-31; J.K. Ostrowski, J. Petrus, Podhorce : dzieje wnętrz pałacowych i galeriiobrazów, Kraków 2001, p. 15-27, pl. 20, 21, 30, 31, 59-63, 65-70, 72, 81, 82, 88-91, 96, 112-114, 124-126, 128-130, 140-143, 147.

(90) Kraków, Jagiellonian Library, sign. BJ rkps 5232, BN mf 2136, op. cit., f. 331r-331v(feria quarta in vigilia festum Assumptionis BVMariae AD 1641).

(91) Kraków, Jagiellonian Library, sign. BJ rkps 5232, BN mf 2136, op. cit., f. 127r (feriasexta post festum Sancti Margarethae Virginis et Martiris proxima AD 1637; 19.07.1637).

(92) Kraków, Jagiellonian Library, sign. BJ rkps 5232, BN mf 2136, op. cit., f. 331v (feriaquarta in vigilia festum Assumptionis BVMariae AD 1641).

(93) Kraków, Jagiellonian Library, sign. BJ rkps 5476, BN mf 52273, Prothocollon actorumcivilium officii consularis civitatis Chencinensis 1613-1680, f. 124v, 128v, 131v, 132v; BJ rkps5477, BN mf 52293, op. cit., f. 105v (feria secunda ipso festo Nativitatis BVM AD 1642), 140v,144v, 169v-170v, 190r, 199v, 203v, 205v, 207r-208r, 219v, 227v-228r, 230r, 233r-233v, 238r-238v, 241r, 243r, 244r, 253r, 255r-260v, 271v, 275r, 277r-277v, 278v, 284r, 288r, 291v-292r,298v; Kraków, Jagiellonian Library, BJ rkps 5232, BN mf 2136, op. cit., f. 535r (feria tertia postfestum Sancti Joannis Baptistae proxima AD 1646).

His most imposing oeuvre was the sepulchral monument of Jaksa Gryfita, medieval noble-man and founder of the Order of the Holy Sepulchre abbey in Miechów near Kraków, ordered3.12.1667, not preserved. According to this source read: Z. Pęckowski, Miechów: studia zdziejów miasta i ziemi miechowskiej do 1914 r., Kraków 1967, p. 259, 455-456, appendix IV b;D. Kalina, Dzieje Chęcin…, p. 172.

(94) Kraków, Jagiellonian Library, sign. BJ rkps 5476, BN mf 52273, op. cit., f. 140r.(95) Kraków, Jagiellonian Library, sign. BJ rkps 5477, BN mf 52293, op. cit., f. 328r (feria

secunda post festum Sancti Petri et Pauli 1687; 31.06.1687); 334r, 335r, 343v, 345v, 359v; BJrkps 5476, BN mf 52273, op. cit., f. 140r.

(96) Kraków, Jagiellonian Library, sign. BJ rkps 5232, BN mf 2136, op. cit., f. 66v, (feriaquinta ipso die festo Sancti Marci Evangelistae 1669; 25.04.1669), 68v, 69, 72v, 86r, 94r, 100v,103r, 104r, 108r, 112r, 115v, 124v, 138r-138v, 144v, 146v; Kraków, Jagiellonian Library, sign.BJ rkps 5477, BN mf 52293, op. cit., f. 192v, 195r-196r, 198r, 199r, 202r-202v, 216r, 221r, 226r,227r-228r, 230r, 233v, 235r-235v, 239v, 243r, 247r, 259v, 262r-263r, 266v, 268r-268v, 270v,271r, 273r-274r, 276v, 278r-279r, 280r-280v, 281r, 284r, 285v, 321r,

(97) Kraków, Jagiellonian Library, sign. BJ rkps 5476, BN mf 52273, op. cit., f. 82r (feriaquinta ante festo Exaltationis Sancti Crucis AD 1669; 9.09.1669), 117v, 118r, 124v, 126v, 128r,128v, 143v; BJ rkps 5477, BN mf 52293, op. cit., f. 190v-191r, 208v, 211r, 212r, 219v-220r,224v, 230r-230v, 232v, 233v, 244r, 253r, 260v, 270v, 274r-274v, 277r, 280v, 286v.

(98) Kraków, Jagiellonian Library, sign. BJ rkps 5476, BN mf 52273, op. cit., f. 128r;Kraków, Jagiellonian Library, sign. BJ rkps 5477, BN mf 52293, op. cit., f. 272v.

(99) Kraków, Jagiellonian Library, sign. BJ rkps 5477, BN mf 52293, op. cit., f. 384v, 385r,387v.

(100) A. Trzciński, Symbole i obrazy. Treści symboliczne przedstawień na nagrobkachżydowskich w Polsce, Lublin 1997, p. 47-48; A. Trzciński, M. Wodziński, Nagrobki z XVII wieku

398

na starym cmentarzu żydowskim w Lublinie przy ulicy Siennej, in: Żydzi w Lublinie. Materiałydo dziejów społeczności żydowskiej Lublina, vol. II, ed. by T. Radzik, Lublin 1998, p. 73-76,note 21, pl. 5-7.

(101) Study the group of three identic sculptural epitaphs commisioned c. 1650 in LesserPoland and former district of Sieradz, dedicated to: Marianna Łubieńska (1649) and ZygmuntLanckoroński (died 1651) in Bernardine churches in Piotrków Trybunalski and Opatów, and toCanon Mikołaj Obłamkowicz (died 1652) in the former collegiate church in nearby Sandomierz,which were designed after the Van Oyen’s earlier inventions. Katalog Zabytków Sztuki w Polsce,vol. II, ed. by J.Z. Łoziński, z. 7: Powiat piotrkowski, Warszawa 1953, p. 16; Katalog ZabytkówSztuki w Polsce, vol. III, z. 7: Powiat opatowski, Warszawa 1959, p. 49; Katalog Zabytków Sztukiw Polsce, vol. III, z. 11: Powiat sandomierski, Warszawa 1962, p. 61.

(102) Katalog Zabytków Sztuki w Polsce, vol. III, z. 8: Powiat radomski, Warszawa 1958,p. 38 (two Tynickis’ epitaphs in the parish church in Skrzyńsko, commisioned c. 1664); KatalogZabytków Sztuki w Polsce, Seria Nowa, vol. XI, cz. 2, p. 7, fig. 242 (identic monument of canonMaciej Jagodowicz in the parish chuch of the New City in Warsaw, 1673).

(103) J. Sito, Firmitas, venustas i magnificentia. O użyciu kamienia w warszawskiej architek-turze i rzeźbie doby saskiej, in: Materiał rzeźby…, p. 404, 408, 414, 417-418, notes 6, 7.

(104) Częstochowa-Jasna Góra, Archiwum Jasnogórskie, sign. AJG 468, Percepta proEcclesia Varsaviensi sub titulo Sanctissimi Spiritus nec non S. Pauli Primi Eremitae coepta aed-ificari AD 1707 die 30 Aprilis / Expensa pro Ecclesia Varsaviensi sub titulo Sanctissimi Spiritusnec non S. Pauli Primi Eremitae coepta aedificari AD 1707 die 30 Aprilis, p. 37-38 (April 1708,May 1709), 40 (February 1710), 52 (November 1712), 55 (July 1713); Katalog Zabytków Sztukiw Polsce, Seria Nowa, vol. XI, cz. 2, p. 19, 31, fig. 60, 84, 85; Rejestr dochodów i wydatków zokazji budowy kościoła Ducha Świętego w Warszawie, ed. by J. Zbudniewek, in: “StudiaClaromontana”, 28, 2010, p. 213, 257, 258, 267, 269, 279; J. Gajewski, Bay (Bai; Baia; Baij;Baio) Antonio, in: Saur Allgemeines Künstlerlexikon…, vol. 7, Leipzig-München 1993, p. 657.

(105) D. Trier, Aglio Pietro Bernardo, in: Saur Allgemeines Künstlerlexikon…, vol. 1,Leipzig-München 1992, p. 522; M. Karpowicz, Artisti ticinesi nella prima metà del ‘700,Bellinzona 200, p. 160, pl. 168, notes 23, 24.

(106) Z. Batowski, Pomnik Tarły w kościele jezuickim w Warszawie i jego twórca. Przy-czynek do rzeźby w Polsce XVIII wieku, in: “Sprawozdania z Posiedzeń TowarzystwaNaukowego Warszawskiego. Wydział II”, 26, 1934, no. 3-6, p. 43-59; Z. Hornung, Wpływydrezdeńskie w rzeźbie polskiej XVIII wieku, in: “Teka Komisji Architektury i Urbanistyki”, 3,1965, p. 232-234; M. Karpowicz, Malarstwo i rzeźba czasów saskich, in: Sztuka Warszawy, ed.by M. Karpowicz, Warszawa 1986, p. 178-179, il. 130; J. Gajewski, Sztuka w prymasowskimŁowiczu, in: Łowicz. Dzieje miasta, ed. by R. Kołodziejczyk, Warszawa 1986, p. 577-578; K. Mikocka-Rachubowa, Plersch Johann Georg, in: Słownik artystów polskich i w Polsce działających. Malarze, rzeźbiarze, graficy, vol. 7, ed. by U. Makowska, Warszawa 2003, p. 278-279.

(107) H. Hornung, op. cit., p. 236; I.M. Walicka, Kościół i klasztor sakramentek w Warsza-wie. Pomnik zwycięstwa pod Wiedniem, Warszawa 1988, p. 82-83; J. Gajewski, Sztuka w pry-masowskim Łowiczu…, p. 578.

(108) A. Bartczakowa, Jakub Fontana architekt warszawski XVIII wieku, Warszawa 1970,p. 242-245, pl. 225; H. Sygietyńska, Kamień w architekturze i rzeźbie Warszawy…, p. 58, pl.48, 49; M. Kwiatkowski, Wielka Księga Łazienek, Warszawa 2000, p. 115-116.

399

1. Panoramic view of the Chęciny city from the north, photo by author, 2005.

2. Map of the localities of “marble” quarries in the sourroundings of Chęciny, worked out byauthor.

400

3. Kielce Marbles Mining Company (Przedsiębiorstwo Kopalń Marmurów Kieleckich) probesprospect, 1920s, photo by author, 2003.

4. Bolechowice “marble”, photo by author, 2004.

401

5. Zygmuntówka “marble”, photo by author, 2007.

6. Różanka zelejowska “marble”, photo byauthor, 2004.

7. Łagów “marble”, photo by author, 2004.

402

8. Niepołomice near Kraków (Lesser Poland),parish church, Branickis’ chapel, tombstone ofGrzegorz and Katarzyna Branickis, 1596-1598,Santi Gucci Fiorentino’s workshop, photo byauthor, 2007.

9. Włocławek (Kuyavia), cathedral, bishop Pri-mate Jan Tarnowski chapel, statue of Saint Flo-rian, 1605-1607, sculptor Malcher of Pińczów,photo by author, 2008.

10. Kraków, Dominican church, Myszkowskis’chapel, interior columns and entablature, before1614, Samuel and Stanisław Świątkowicz’ work-shop, photo by author, 2008.

11. Kraków, Wawel Hill, Royal Castle, The BirdRoom / Audience Hall, fireplace, c. 1598-1603,designed by Giovanni Battista Trevano (attri-buted), executed by Giovanni Lucano da Reitino(attributed), 1920s partially reconstructed, photoby Dariusz Błażewski (Wawel Royal Castlephoto service), 2010.

403

12. Krosno (Lesser Poland), Franciscan church,tombstone of Jadwiga of Włodek Firlej, 1609,Giovanni Lucano da Reitino, photo by author,2008.

13. Kraków, Dominican church, PrincesZbaraskis’ chapel, entrance portal, 1627-1629,Andrea and Antonio Castelli, photo by author,2007.

14. Płock (Mazovia), parish church, high altar(formerly in the Benedictine church in Płock cas-tle), 1620s, designed by Matteo Castello ofMelide (attributed), executed by unknown stone-masons of Chęciny worked at the royal court inWarsaw, photo by author, 2008.

15. Gniezno (Greater Poland), archcathedral,tombstone of canons dr dr Tomasz Josicki andWincenty Oczko, 1612, unknown workshop ofKraków or Pińczów, photo by author, 2009.

404

16. Kalisz (Greater Poland), Jesuit church, tomb-stone of Primate Stanisław Karnkowski, 1611-1614, unknown workshop of Kraków, photo byauthor, 2008.

17. Kazimierz Dolny nad Wisłą (eastern LesserPoland), parish church, nave, rests of original pave-ment, 1610s or 1620s, unknown workshop of Chęciny,photo by author, 2008.

18. Pilica (Lesser Poland), collegiate church, Pad-niewskis’ chapel, tombstone of Mikołaj iAgnieszka Padniewski, about 1601, unknownworkshop of Chęciny, photo by author, 2006.

19. Lublin (eastern Lesser Poland), Jesuit church,Prince Jerzy Symeon Olelkowicz Słucki’s chapel, inte-rior pillars and entablature, 1610-1613, unknown work-shop of Chęciny, photo by author, 2010.

405

20. Chęciny, parish church, Gaspare Fodiga’schapel, altar, c. 1614-1624, unknown workshopof Chęciny (in collaboration with sculptorsBartholomeo Venosta and Augustin van Oyen,both of Chęciny), photo by author, 2004.

21. Warsaw (Mazovia), Dominican church, tomb-stone of Anna of Dobrzyków Tarnowska, 1608,Bartholomeo Venosta of Chęciny (attributed),photo by author, 2010.

22. Środa Wielkopolska (Greater Polnad), colle-giate church, Gostomskis’ chapel, tombostone ofAnna Sieniawska and Urszula Gostomska, 1610s,unknown workshop of Chęciny (in collaborationwith sculptor Bartholomeo Venosta, attributed),photo by author, 2008.

23. Toruń (Pomerania / Royal Prussia), Bernardinechurch, effigy of Bartłomiej Tylicki (formerly in theSaint Rosa chapel in the Dominican church in Toruń),c. 1609-1615, Bartholomeo Venosta of Chęciny(attributed), photo by author, 2007.

406

24. Kazimierz Dolny nad Wisłą (eastern LesserPoland), Reformed Franciscan church, epitaph ofMikołaj Przybyło, c. 1627, unknown workshopof Chęciny, photo by author, 2006.

25. Płock (Mazovia), cathedral, tombstone ofStanisław Krasiński, 1617, Bartholomeo Venostaof Chęciny (attributed), photo by author, 2007.

26. Gniezno (Greater Poland), archcathedral,tombstone of bishop Primate Andrzej Bara-nowski, c. 1615-1625, Bartholomeo Venosta’sworkshop of Chęciny (in collaboration withunknown Flemish sculptor of Gdańsk, attributed),photo by author, 2007.

27. Holy Cross Mountain (Lesser Poland), formerBenendictine abbey, sacristy, lavabo, 1620s,Bartholomeo Venosta’s workshop of Chęciny(attributed), photo by author, 2004.

407

28. Wilno / Vilnius (Lithuania), Bernardine Nunschurch, tombstone of Lew Sapieha’s family, c.1635-1637, unknown workshop of Chęciny(attributed), photo by Piotr Jamski, 2006.

29. Lublin, Jesuit church, tombstone of MarcinLeśniowolski the Younger, Saint Martin de Toursrelief tondo, 1627-1628, Augustin van Oyen ofChęciny (attributed), photo by author, 2007.

30. Włocławek (Kuyavia), cathedral, tombstoneof bishops Maciej Pstrokoński and StanisławŁubieński, 1629, Augustin van Oyen of Chęciny(attributed), photo by author, 2004.

31. Lisów near Kielce (Lesser Poland), parishchurch, Krasinskis’ chapel, Saint Babara altarwith epitaphs of Gabriel and Zofia Krasińskis, c.1650, Augustin van Oyen of Chęciny (attributed),photo by author, 2008.

408

32. Warta near Sieradz (former Land of Sieradz),Bernardine church, sarcophagus of BlessedFather Raphael of Proszowice, 1640, Augustinvan Oyen of Chęciny (attributed), photo byauthor, 2006.

33. Chęciny, parish church, epitaph of city mayorJakub Zyzański, 1643, Piotr Januszowicz ofChęciny, photo by author, 2004.

35. Łęczyca (capital of the former Land ofŁęczyca), parish church, baptismal font, 1630s,unknown workshop of Chęciny (attributed),photo by author, 2008.

34. Kielce (Lesser Poland), bishop of KrakówJakub Zadzik’s Italian villa, entrance loggia, c.1637-1643, executed a.o. by Jan Sterpnowskiand Szymon Krzyżanowski of Chęciny, photoby author, 2006.

409

36. Opatów (Lesser Poland), Bernardine church,epitaph of Zygmunt Lanckoroński, c. 1651,unknown workshop of Chęciny (attributed),photo by author, 2010.

37. Warsaw – New Town, parish church of Visi-tation of Blessed Virgin Mary, epitaph of canonMaciej Jagodowicz, 1673, unknown workshop ofChęciny (attributed), photo by author, 2006.

38. Warsaw, Reformed Franciscan church, tomb-stone of Jerzy Wandalin Mniszech’s wifes:Mechtilda of Szembek and Amalia von Brühl,1747-1750, Johann Georg Plersch with work-shop, photo by author, 2007.

39. Warsaw – Old Town, Jesuit church, tomb-stone of Jan Tarło, 1752-1753, Johann GeorgPlersch with workshop, partially destroyed 1944-1945, reconstructed 2010, photo by author, 2010.

410

40. Warsaw, Royal Castle, Marble Room, 1640-1642, designed by Giovanni Battista Gisleni, rebuilt 1769-1771 after Jakub Fontana’s design, reconstructed 1980-1984, photo by Royal Castle archive.

41. Warsaw, Royal Baths, Palace on the Water, The Round Room, 1792-1795, designed by Domenico Mer-lini, partially reconstructed before 1960, photo by Muzeum of Royal Baths in Warsaw archive.

411

42. Map of the former Commonwealth of Two Nations (15th-18th cc.) with location of the most importanthistoric monuments made of several varieties of the Chęciny “marble”; circles: localities of monuments(small) or groups of them (larger). Map worked out by author.

412