The article deals with the development of architectural interests in the circle of the Warsaw (Royal) Society of Friends of Learning, 1800–1832. The author takes into account the topics of lectures, publications and other types of scientific initiatives of the members from their active period in the Society but also its new member recruitment policy. The case of architectural interests in the Society gives us an opportunity to raise the question of the significance of architecture at the time (in the eyes of the intellectual elite sanctioned by authorities) as a factor of civilization progress, a role that the Society’s spreading of knowledge was meant to serve. Architecture was a field of interest throughout its entire existence. Initially, during the Prussian occupation and the Duchy of Warsaw, this interest focused on promoting the Greco-Roman ideal, or higher architecture, in line the paradigm of classical order. In the period of the Kingdom of Poland, however, we note a clear shift toward lower architecture and the affirmation of a new way of thinking about construction, breaking away from the classical tradition (which is best expressed by the choice of Karol Podczaszyński, a Durandist, as a member).

The article lists the first applications of the Joseph Monier patent for the construction of reinforced concrete bridges that took place on the Polish lands. The history of the construction of Monier reinforced concrete arch bridges by Biuro Techniczne Arnold Bronikowski & S-ka Inżynierowie in the Kingdom of Poland was described on the basis of written sources, iconography, literature and current records. In particular, these included the bridge on the pond in the Ujazdów Park in Warsaw, the Reformacki Bridge on the Rypinowski Canal in Kalisz, the bridge over the Czechówka River in Lublin and the viaduct along the Karowa Street in Warsaw. The basic technical parameters of these constructions, dates of implementation and current status were specified. The life and professional achievements of engineer Arnold Bronikowski were presented in the context of his constructions, both beautiful and innovative at the time. Three of the engineering objects described in the article survived the ravages of war and remain in use toda

The Poznań and Lwów gasworks were established in the 1850s; the former being an urban enterprise, the latter a private company. At the beginning of the 20^th century, the gasworks and the entire gas infrastructure in Lwów were seriously outdated as compared to Poznań in terms of the volume of production and technology. After the municipalization of the plant in 1898, Galicia’s capital quickly began to reduce a backlog using the effects of technical progress in Europe. As part of the modernization and expansion of both gasworks in the first decade of the 20^th century, modern water-gas plants with Humphreys & Glasgow systems were commissioned in Poznań (1900) and Lwów (1906). Moreover, the gas network and public lighting system were intensively developed in both cities. In 1910, 11.3 million cubic meters of gas flowed into the municipal network in Poznań, whereas 6.1 million cubic meters did so in Lwów. The number of gas street lights amounted to 3456 and 3541, respectively. In both cities, major extensions of their gasworks were planned in the very years preceding the outbreak of World War I. In Poznań, the investment was implemented to a large extent during World War I, when a unique and innovative Koppers retort house and a dry-seal gas holder with a capacity of 50 thousand cubic meters were built. In Lwów, due to the Russian occupation of the city between 1914 and 1915, ultimately the works had to be stopped. Due to wartime hardships, the planned Glover-West vertical retort house was eventually replaced by the Dessau vertical retort furnace. The retort house was completed in 1917, but the rest of the investment was finalized in the first years of the Second Polish Republic. Nevertheless, when the Partitions of Poland ended, both gas plants were among the largest and most modern in terms of technology in the country, in which their directors at the time, Hans Mertens in Poznań and Adam Teodorowicz in Lwów, had considerable merit.

The article discusses the educational journey Józef Jerzy Hylzen embarked upon between 1752 and 1754, paying special attention to the interest of the peregrinator in natural sciences. A noticeable change took place in the approach to the things he saw; collections of curiosities were slowly being replaced by physical cabinets of 18^th-century scholars. Thanks to participation in Jean-Antoine Nollet’s demonstrations of experimental physics, young Hylzen gained a new curiosity of the world. Nollet gave him the opportunity to meet other naturalists from France and the Netherlands: René Antoine Ferchault de Réaumur, Pieter van Musschenbroek and Jean-Nicolas-Sébastien Allamand. Hylzen visited their physical cabinets which no longer reflected collector’s passion as they became places of scholarly study. Dividing the collected items by genre made them into prototypes of today’s museums, as scholars would often pass their collections to them.

The article presents the sources of inspiration, assumptions and implementation of a long-term (2009–2018) project devoted to the biography of Professor Józef Kostrzewski, a leading 20^th-century Polish prehistorian. This project was implemented by the author of the article as an employee of the Archaeological Museum in Poznań, and later, following retirement, as a worker in the Poznań Branch of the Archives of the Polish Academy of Sciences. As a result of an extensive archival and bibliographic query, a number of new facts about the life and work of the Professor were unearthed, especially regarding his activities outside the academic field of interest (including a number of social, patriotic and religious initiatives, often carried out within the underground movement, since Poland existed only as a partitioned land). The results obtained will be soon presented in a monograph entitled Żywot długi, pracowity i spełniony. Profesor Józef Kostrzewski (1885–1969) – prehistoryk, patriota, Europejczyk, which is underway since 2014 in co-authorship with Dr. Jarmila Elżbieta Kaczmarek.

Pierre des Noyers (1608–1693), a disciple of Gilles Personne de Roberval, is the most important correspondent of Johannes Hevelius. Their correspondence consists of 257 letters, in a corpus of 2700 letters, i.e. about 10% of the total. Pierre des Noyers came to Poland with Queen Louise-Marie de Gonzague. During his Polish travels he spent some time in Gdańsk (December 1646) and met the astronomer who was a prominent member of the city elite, as one of the most important brewers. During this period, Hevelius was completing his Selenographia (1647) and Pierre des Noyers was very helpful in expanding a European network that already included Marin Mersenne and Pierre Gassendi. The relations between the two scholars were very intense. After the death of the Queen (1667), des Noyers stayed in his friend’s house. The last letter is dated October 1686. Hevelius died in January 1687. Pierre des Noyers remained in Poland where he died in 1693. At this point I would like to present some conclusions based on my analysis of this correspondence, thereby introducing the third volume of the series Correspondance de Johannes Hevelius to be published in 2019.

The correspondence with Stanisław Lubieniecki (1623–1675) is the fourth most voluminous in the corpus of letters of Johannes Hevelius (1611–1687) – there are over ninety letters they wrote to each other between 1664 and 1673. Their positions in the learned world, however, were very unequal. Hevelius was a reputed astronomer and a fellow of the Royal Society, while Lubieniecki was an amateur interested in comets and astronomy. In this paper, I present the goals they have in this correspondence and the ways in which they tried to achieve them, and I try to explain why their correspondence was so numerous and long-lasting.

Pierre des Noyers was a major personality at the court of Queen Louise-Marie. Officially her secretary and personal treasurer, des Noyers was also an important middle-man for French and Polish relations. Thanks to his knowledge of Poland, the Polish political system and the nobility, as well as having a dense network of correspondents around Europe, he was an invaluable asset and unofficial advisor for France. Through him it was possible, for instance, to bring to fruition the French attempt to place the Prince of Condé onto the Polish throne.

Pierre des Noyers was also a man of science. He was known for his interest in astrology, but also astronomy, the weather, and medicine. His curiosity had no observable boundaries. His letters are full of observations, prodigies and even include one of the earliest mentions of the Vampire. He used his network of contacts to spread scientific discoveries, observations and discussions.

The letters of Johannes Hevelius reveal a very interesting map of the European astronomy of the 17^thcentury. Significantly, Hevelius was not only a key agent in the transmission of scientific information among the main centres which, for example, made Gdańsk equally important as London and Paris for early modern uranography. Hevelius also exchanged letters with astronomers whose achievements are hardly ever discussed within the framework of the general history of astronomy. And yet the analysis of their activities allows for the complete reconstruction of 17^th century astronomy, including its diversification which stemmed from the tensions between tradition and modernity as well as from the specific research interests of minor scholars. One such case is Maria Cunitia (1610–1664) and her husband, Elias von Löwen (Crätschmair; c. 1602–1661) based in Silesia. Maria Cunitia is acknowledged for her Urania Propitia (1650), an innovative adaptation of the mathematical astronomy of Johannes Kepler’s Rudolphine Tables. In turn von Löwen authored astronomical calendars and ephemerids. Their correspondence with Hevelius – 22 letters from the years 1648–1654 – constitutes an important source of knowledge about the astronomical ‘background’ which allowed them to complete their published works as well as about the activities of such astronomers from outside the major scientific centres. It is my intention to discuss the astronomical content of these letters.

Jerzy Jedlicki (1930–2018) should be regarded as one of the best and most interesting historians of the post-war generation. Not only can his oeuvre be defined by its wideranging scope (from economic and social history, including research on the 19^th-century nobility and intelligentsia, to the history of ideas), but also by peculiar research methodology. By choosing letters Jedlicki wrote to Witold Kula, his mentor, between 1963 and 1974, and providing them with an original commentary, Marcin Kula strived to characterize the most important traits of this historical methodology. He called Jedlicki an ‘unusual historian’ which begs the question whether Jedlicki can really be referred to as such. According to the reviewer, the approach to historiography developed and practiced by Jedlicki should be treated as exemplary; some of its peculiarities stemmed mostly from his personality. As a deeply self-aware individual, by the way in which he chose his research interests, formulated and solved research problems, he was able to adjust them to his personality and transform weaknesses he found into strengths. He succeeded in combining the career as an historian with maintaining a keen interest in current affairs, which is reflected in his journalistic writings; also while examining the past, he always bore in mind its impact on the contemporary human condition. His historical works have served readers if not as a source of ready-made answers, then at least as creative reflection on the problems bothering modern man.