Download article in pdf
University of Lodz
The competition in 1898 for the Stanisław Kostka Catholic Church in Łódź (today the Cathedral Basilica) was exceptional in many ways. It was the first international competition in this city and one of the biggest – in terms of the number of designs sent – on Polish lands since the start of World War I. For Łódź and its Catholic community it was very important, and the way it was conducted was precisely reported by the local press. The first prize went to the work submitted by the Łódź construction-architecture company “Wende & Zarske”, the second prize went to I.A. Rüppel “Franz Langenberg Nachfolger” from Bonn, and the third went to the company of Stanisław Jan Cichorski and Edgar Vinson from Paris. The winning paper was sharply attacked by the chief editor of the Łódź daily Rozwój – Wiktor Czajewski, who promoted the proposition by Cichorski and Vinson. One of the arguments against the winning design was the fact that the actual author was an architect from Berlin, Emil Zillmann. Despite that fact, the concept of the company “Wende and Zarske” was (with amendments) executed between 1901–1912 (with the topping of the tower according to a design by Józef Kaban, 1927).
Keywords: architectural competition, Polish sacred architecture, 19th century, 20th century, Łódź
The competition from 1898 for the Stanislaw Kostka Catholic Church in Łódź (today’s Archcathedral Basilica) was exceptional for many reasons. It was the first international competition in this city and one of the biggest in Poland since the start of World War I in terms of the number of designs sent. Several dozen designs were submitted, most of which were sent from abroad – such a situation is unprecedented in the history of Polish Architecture. Despite all this, the competition was largely unnoticed outside Łódź and had no influence on the development of Polish sacred architecture. Moreover, it was entirely boycotted by the Warsaw architectural circle. For Łódź itself and its Catholic community it had great importance and the process was closely followed by the local press.
Trying to, at least partially, explain this untypical situation, one needs to elucidate on the organizational circumstances of this competition. Łódź at the end of the 19th century was a vibrantly developing industrial centre, in fact, the biggest one in Poland, with a population in excess of 300 thousand. The religious composition of the inhabitants of this city was exceptional – in 1897, 48% from the 314 thousand inhabitants were Catholics, 32% were Jews, 18% evangelicals and 2% were orthodox. In the life of the city the rich bourgeoisie with German roots dominated, mostly evangelicals, as well as the less numerous Jewish bourgeoisie. Catholics, although most numerous, were the economically weakest group and the least influential – they were mainly composed of Polish factory workers, and a small group of intellectuals and several families with manufacturing businesses including, among the most prominent ones, the Heinzls. Such a social composition had a visible influence on the situation revolving around the world of art – the Łódź artistic environment was dominated by architects and constructors related to the German and Jewish communities, while local factory owners often ordered designs for their buildings and interior decorations from German professionals from Berlin, Breslau or Vienna.
At the end of the 19th century, Catholics had only three temples, including one that was just a small wooden church. Already at the beginning of the 1890s, Ludwik Dąbrowski, the parish priest of the parish of the Elevation of the Holy Cross, came up with the idea of building a fourth Catholic Church in Łódź. It became a very immediate necessity when the number of the Catholic population in the city reached 100 thousand and the lack of a church seemed palpable especially in the southern part of the city. For the first several years the matter did not move forward. The situation changed in 1895 with the death of Juliusz Heinzl baron von Hohenfels – the richest industrialist of Catholic denomination. The family of the deceased decided to commemorate his death by funding the temple. A committee was set up for the construction of the “fourth Catholic church in Łódź” (this is what the facility was named in the initial phase) headed by the son of Juliusz Heinzl. In 1897 a vast square was obtained from city authorities for the construction, which was called “Fabryczny”, later “Szpitalny” named after the St Alexander hospital situated nearby. The square was located near the southern section of Piotrkowska street. The location suited the ideas of the initiators of the new investment, who planned to build the biggest church in the city, emphasizing the importance of the Catholic and Polish community. The construction committee had big ambitions and in May 1898 it was decided to start an international competition for the design of the new building. Famous Łódź architect Gustaw Landau-Gutenteger was asked to help in the preparation of the competition’s regulations.
Information regarding the competition and the planned initiative reverberated around the press in Łódź. The Rozwój daily featured an interesting article dealing with the issue of the form of the future temple. Its author was the head editor of the daily, Wiktor Czajewski (1857–1922), a prominent person in the world of Polish journalism at the turn of the XIX and the XX centuries, having earlier been the editor of the Warsaw magazine Tygodnik Powszechny. He proposed that a new church should be modelled after one of the “commemorative temples”, indicating as a model the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. Czajewski revealed his ignorance in matters of architecture, since this building is marked by a complex structure combining elements of early Christianity with Byzantium and Romanesque ones, as well as an external shape and form that is not very pleasing to the eye. Bishop Karol Antoni Niedziałkowski was quick to point this out to Czajewski, arguing that the said church essentially has no external architecture, is surrounded by chapels and residential buildings and its interior is dark and has a very complex layout. The bishop indicated the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem as a better choice. A similar statement was made soon afterwards by priest Antoni Brykczyński, a famous admirer of Gothic, and, primarily, an advocate of using national elements in sacred buildings. He also rejected the suggestions of Rozwój, claiming that the church in Łódź should stand in opposition to the Holy Sepulchre church:
i.e. 1) should have a certain clear style, which the Church of the Holy Sepulchre (as an amalgamation of different styles), does not have; 2) should have a regular form, rather than an irregular one; 3) should not have a dome and a smaller dome, which here, for numerous reasons, are inappropriate; 4) should be bright and not dark.
Furthermore, priest Brykczyński advocated according to his own views for a Gothic style, “in its local, ‘nadwislanski’ form” (characteristic of the architecture of the Polish lands located near the Vistula river), he also considered the Neo-Renaissance style, but with unplastered facades, while rejecting Romanesque solutions.
The competition was announced at the end of May 1898, in the local press, and in
June, information about it was given in the professional architectural journals in the country and abroad, publishing the main points of the regulations. Full regulations were sent at the request of the interested party. They included detailed guidelines as to the size of the building, which was to host 4 thousand worshippers and the costs of its creation, which were not to exceed 300 thousand roubles. As to the selection of the form of the church, the remarks included: “Selection of style is left to the designers, but it is required that the outside of the building remains without plaster (Rohbau), using a small amount of chiselled stone. A wish of the construction committee was that the church had only one tower with a clock”. Such requirements promoted styles of medieval provenance: Neo-Romanticism and Neo-Gothic, dominant in the sacred buildings of the 19th century. Three prizes were to be awarded: I – the amount of 1250 roubles, II – 750 roubles, III – 500 roubles. The deadline for the submission of the designs was initially set for the 15 of September 1898. This was certainly a justified move, since information about the competition was disseminated only in June. It is interesting that the competition caused significant interest mainly in the Polish and German territories, which is related to the aforementioned dominance in Łódź of architects and constructors from the German community. The organizers received 169 requests for the regulations from interested parties to send them the competition’s regulations.
There were also comments in the press, including opinions voiced by the above-quoted priest Antoni Brykczyński, who criticized – in the context of the number of inhabitants of Łódź – the insufficient size of the church (he did not take into consideration the costs of building a larger structure), but mainly the decision to leave the choice of style to the designers, which he commented on in the following manner: “This is truly absurd! So, the church in Łódź may be constructed in Chinese, Egyptian, Byzantine, Mauritian style etc, since such churches are also being constructed around the world?! Congratulations!” The author expressed at the same time his inclination towards the Gothic style. The doubts raised by priest Brykczyński were dispelled on the next day by priest Zygmunt Łubieński, who rightly pointed out that the competition jury features priests, an archbishop and three specialist constructors who seek to select the most suitable style.
Within the allocated time 19 designs were sent. Information about many works which had been sent but had not yet arrived caused the postponement of the deadline until the 31st of October, thanks to which there were over a dozen more propositions that took part in the competition. Altogether, as the press informed, by the 31st of October 37 papers had arrived, and four more were expected. The competition designs were shown in Warsaw, in Count Berg’s hall, of the local city hall. Forty works were presented, among them three designs received after the 31st of October. Finally, 38 propositions qualified for the competition.
The jury held their meetings in Warsaw under the leadership of the archbishop of Warsaw, priest Wincenty Chościak-Popiel. The jury also included famous architects from Warsaw, Konstanty Wojciechowski and Stefan Szyller, representatives of the construction committee, Juliusz Heinzl junior and Stanisław Hertzberg, the director of the Łódź iron railways, Władysław Knapski, and the constructor from Łódź Juliusz Jung. The competition was decided upon on November 19th. The first prize and the sum of 1250 roubles was awarded to the architecture-construction company “Wende and Zarske” for a work marked with the emblem “Bogu na chwałę” (For God’s Glory). The second award went to a design by I.A. Rüppel from the company “Franz Langenberg Nachfolger” (erroneously quoted as Langenbeck) from Bonn (emblem “Ave Maria”), and the third to the company of Stanisław Jan Cichorski and Edgar Vinson from Paris (emblem “Gloire à Dieu”).
Apart from the authors of the awarded works, at the request of the interested party, the creator of one of the awarded propositions was revealed; he turned out to be a famous architect from Łódź named Dawid Landé. It is known that “Wende and Zarske”, submitted another design under the emblem “Kółko w kółku” (Circle in a circle). From among the remaining works, the author of this paper has managed to identify the authors of 25 designs on the basis of archive materials. Altogether, with the earlier mentioned designs, one arrives at the number of 20 designs submitted by 27 authors. The vast majority consisted of propositions sent from abroad, mainly from Germany, France, Holland, Sweden and the territory of Austro-Hungary. The most well-known architect from among the authors was certainly Ludwig Schneider, from Gliwice, the creator of several dozen churches in the territory of Silesia, another well-known brand was the architect Johann Franziskus Klomp, born in Holland, but operating in the territory of Germany, who also had works in Upper Silesia under his belt . The “Franz Langenberg Nachfolger” company – the winner of the second award – was very active not only in the territory of Germany but also beyond. Several dozen churches were built to their designs, including the current cathedral in Osijek in Croatia.
What is surprising among the submitted papers is that there is not a single design from Warsaw. Two designs arrived from Kraków (which was then “abroad”) – including the proposition of Władysława Żychiewicza, who shortly afterwards garnered acclaim as a co-author of the competition design for the Saviour Church in Warsaw. The inscription made by priest Tadeusz Graliński also features the mysterious Maria Wojciechowska from Kraków as well as two unidentified works from Lviv. In this situation, the only acclaimed Polish architect who submitted work was Dawid Landé from Łódź, who was of Jewish denomination. The participation of Polish architects in the competition, practically boycotted by Warsaw architects, was very modest indeed. This reflects the Polish intelligentsia’s disinclination towards Łódź and the local socio-economic conditions, perfectly captured in Ziemia obiecana by Władysław Reymont. This attitude was fuelled by the domination of German architects in the local market, which was not broken by lucrative awards and the possibility of creating a prestigious construction design.
The results of the competition evoked surprise and confusion. First of all, it was surprising that the first place was awarded, against huge foreign competition, to the unknown company “Wende and Zarske”. The situation is captured well in the archive materials:
The results of the competition were a surprise to all of the members of the committee, since the names Wende and Zarske were not known to almost anyone apart from mister Jung, who clarified to the jurors of the competition that Mr. Wende was a young construction entrepreneur, who worked under his (Mr. Jung’s) supervision.
This young construction entrepreneur was Johannes Wende (1873–1954), who played a significant role in the company and, later, became one of the more prominent constructors in Łódź. He came from a family of weavers from Konstantynów near Łódź and was a Lutheran. To the present day, no certain information regarding his education has been established; all that is known is that he attended a unspecified construction school in Germany – some clues point to the Zittau (Żytawa) school in Łużyce. After coming back to the country, as pointed out above, he worked under the mentorship of Juliusz Jung, most probably during the construction of the Kindler palace in Widzew under Pabianice, and later he directed the works on the Evangelical-Augsburg church in Tomaszow Mazowiecki. In September 1898, during the competition, Wende started a company with Adolf Zarske, about whom it is known that he was a subject (citizen) of Prussia. He, therefore, came to Łódź shortly before the competition was announced, and most probably he brought in capital to the company and dealt with organizational matters. The victory of the company’s design, which was established at the moment that the first deadline for submitting competition works was due to lapse, raises the observation that the plans had been created earlier. This raises the question of the true author of the work awarded the first prize – an issue to which we shall return later.
After the results of the competition had been announced the designs were shown in Łódź, in the hall of the Cyclists’ Association (Towarzystwo Cyklistów) near Przejazd street (currently J. Tuwima street). This gave the inhabitants of Łódź an opportunity for a more exact evaluation of the submitted architectural ideas. Already several days after the designs had appeared in Łódź, the daily “Rozwój”, having shown a significant interest in the course of competition from the very beginning, published a number of articles penned by the abovementioned Wiktor Czajewski, critically evaluating the presented designs. The author emphasized the dominant Neo-Gothic forms stating that: “in recent years, everybody seems to be entranced with the Gothic”, which he claimed to be monotonous and repetitive, expressing an opinion diametrically different to that of priest Brykczyński. Czajewski saw Wende and Zarske’s design from this perspective, evaluating it negatively: “Heavy tower, ugly, with too many buttresses. Windows give a lot of light but are ugly, […] short, voluminous, ugly-looking in the drawing”. As a result, he also made unflattering comments about the design awarded second prize, while giving good marks to the Neo-Gothic designs marked with the emblems “Gloria” (by Landé) and “Sanctus Johannes Baptista” (by the Dutch Anton Johanna Mialareta from The Hague. A favourite of Czajewski was the design by Stanislaw Jan Cichorski and Edgar Vinson, that was awarded the III prize. They presented a specific interpretation of the French renaissance reminiscent of French architecture of the II French Empire (especially with the Sainte Trinité church in Paris), and was characterized by massive stature and richness of detail. The editor of Rozwój magazine described it as a “renaissance design, based on Romanesque elements”, claiming that it had an ugly and overly heavy tower, while adding that “the rest is splendid”. In the next article, he clearly stated that: “We already have one Gothic [or Neo-Gothic!] church in Łódź, a second Romanesque one, so it is time for a renaissance one” and at the same time he proposed to invite two Warsaw architects, Józef Dziekoński and Apoloniusz Nieniewski, to ask them for their opinions.
Being awarded the I prize did not necessarily mean that the design would be executed, which is not rare in architectural competitions. In 1898 the construction committee, in order to learn more about the potential costs of building the temple, ordered its member Henryk Ferrenbach to make initial cost estimates for the materials and the work. They showed that the cost of building a Neo-Gothic church capable of housing 4000 people – here a compilation of the works of “Bogu na chwałę” and “Ave Maria” – would cost about 239 949 roubles, while the proposition by Cichorski and Vinson, calculated at 7000 people, would come to 546 947 roubles. This calculation eliminated the Paris design as exceeding the planned financial resources.
The construction committee was still, however, not convinced as to the execution of the victorious design, surely concerned about the negative public opinions voiced in “Rozwój” magazine. It was inclined to agree with the suggestion to invite two authorities of Polish architecture, namely Józef Dziekoński from Warsaw and Sławomir Odrzywolski from Kraków, for them to express their opinions about the awarded designs. Against the expectations of Czajewski, their opinion confirmed the selection made by the jury. In an elaborate protocol dated January 8, 1899, the “Bogu na chwałę” design was evaluated as follows:
The award-winning sketch has a beautiful plan that was made more practical with the added changes. The “rohbau” architecture [raw brick] is expanded exquisitely and persistently by the sketch. Without much change the use of stone might be reduced to a minimum.
They ordered, at the same time, the execution of a number of corrections and improvements to the functionality that would decrease the costs. They positively evaluated the “Ave Maria” Design, specifying the beautiful proportions of the facade. In relation to the work by “Gloire à Dieu” they stated:
it strongly diverges from the conditions that must be fulfilled for a church in Łódź. In our opinion, the strong construction shown in the design on the church’s facade cannot be by any means replaced with plaster or brick […] and shaping them as it should be done would require significant costs exceeding the allocated sum by 300 to 500 thousand roubles.
This unequivocal opinion, shattering for the design by Cichorski and Vinson, dispelled any doubts of the construction committee. In effect, it was decided to realize the construction of the award-winning work, “Bogu na chwałę”, after “Wende and Zarske” made appropriate corrections, that were carried out later according to guidelines by Józef Dziekoński, mainly regarding the front section. Wiktor Czajewski was defeated, but he did not give up and sent a frank letter to the construction committee demanding that they justify choosing the “worst design”, accusing its authors of not having appropriate construction authorization. This did not change the decisions taken.
In the beginning of 1901, after the design had been confirmed by the ministerial authorities in Saint Petersburg and after funds had been accumulated, the construction started according to the executive plans prepared by the company “Wende and Zarske”. The ground-breaking ceremony took place on the 10th of May. This, however, did not mean the end for the campaign led by Wiktor Czajewski directed against the authors of the winning design. Their offer for the conduct of the construction work was not accepted and it was granted to a company from Warsaw headed by Władysław Stelmachowski; there were also complications regarding the preparation of detailed executive drawings.
At that time Wiktor Czajewski obtained a new argument against the “Bogu na chwałę” design, even though it was already being executed. During the ground-breaking ceremony in the Łódź and Warsaw press, news came out that the true creator of the design was not Johannes Wende, but a young architect from Berlin hired for a short period in the company called Zellman. After many years the editor of Rozwój described the “revelations” on this topic, adding some spice:
There was in Łódź a construction company, which was set up by two masons: Carske [sic!] and Wende. They contracted a constructor from Germany to conduct the work. The young man had a prepared plan for an “evangelical church”, which had already been submitted to a competition in Germany and lost. This design was prepared for a small church in some small town. The design of the church in Łódź required a building of substantial size; the architect from Germany made corrections to the metric system and changed it into the measurement system binding in the Moscow-controlled territories. This architect’s plan had been rejected. […] Carske and Wende purchased the design from the German architect for 700 roubles and before the works commenced they released him from his duties in their office.
The information about Zellmann being the actual author of the design of the temple in Łódź was repeated by many authors writing about the archcathedral in Łódź. Already at the end of 1898, referring to the results of the competition in Łódź, the Berlin architectural magazine. Deutsche Bauzeitung, provided the names of the creators as “Wende & Zarske” and Emil Zillmann, which was the proper name of the Berliner creator, living between 1871–1937. This was not a new piece of information and it was surprising that only after two years did it reach the press in Łódź and Warsaw. The news about the participation of Zillmann in the creation of the design of the temple in Łódź is confirmed today. In materials in the possession of the family of the grandson of the architect, Jörn Zillmann, there is a copy of the competition design (lateral facade and frontal facade), signed “E. Zillmann”, as well as correspondence of the architect with his fiancé, where he mentions his execution of the design in Łódź. Later changes in the plans were made by Johannes Wende.
Exchange of opinions regarding the competition for the design of the biggest Catholic church in Łódź were a reflection of the multinational and multi-religion situation characteristic of the city at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. Although in his attacks on the award-winning design “Bogu na chwałę”, Wiktor Czajewski emphasised the aesthetic values, indicating the clichéd Neo-Gothic forms, in reality he had a problem with something completely different. The unease was evoked primarily by the fact that the biggest Catholic Church in Łódź, which, in the intention of the organizers of the competition, was to bear witness to Catholicism and the Polish nature of the city, was being built based on plans prepared by Lutheran Germans. This issue should be understood in the context of a broader phenomenon of ordering by Łódź’s factory owners of designs for landmark buildings from Berlin- or Vienna-based professionals. This was something the Polish circle, of which Rozwój was a perfect example, were steadfastly opposing. The “foreign” architects were juxtaposed with the country’s “own” creators stressing their successes and professionalism in several Warsaw competitions. As one short note states:
We have in Łódź excellent constructors, which has been shown in competitions […]. As proof one should mention the Scheibler mausoleum elevated according to the plans of the constructor Lilpop from Warsaw and the Heinzl mausoleum currently under construction, plans of which were ordered from the Academic from Berlin. The first is beautiful, the second heavy, monotonous and unaesthetic from the beginning to the end, despite being costly.
It is paradoxical that in the case of the competition in Łódź, the de facto local constructor, Johannes Wende, despite being a descendent of weavers living in Konstantynów near Łódź since the 1830s, was considered as foreign due to his German origins and Lutheran denomination. Moreover, the “our own one”, turned out to be a Pole from Paris, cooperating with a French national, even though their design presented forms that had nothing to do with Polish architectural forms.
Despite all the doubts, the design prepared by the “Wende and Zarske” company was executed (after the corrections) between 1901–1912 (the topping of the tower was done in 1927 according to a plan by Józef Kaban). A building was constructed with Gothic forms, drawing on the best French and German forms which became, as intended initially, the biggest temple of industrial Łódź and a great work of architecture, becoming a cathedral with the creation of the archdiocese in 1920.
M. Rudowska, Warszawskie konkursy architektoniczne w latach 1864–1898, “Polska Akademia Nauk. Studia i materiały do teorii i historii architektury i urbanistyki”, vol. X, Warszawa 1972.
 J. Janczak, Ludność Łodzi przemysłowej 1820–1914, “Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Historica” 11, 1982, p. 109.
 S. Pytlas, Łódzka burżuazja przemysłowa w latach 1864–1914, Łódź 1994.
 K. Stefański, Berliner Architektur in Lodz zu Beginn des 20. Jahrhunderts, “Architectura. Zeitschrift für Geschichte der Baukunst/Journal of the History of Architecture”, Bd. 21, 2/1991, pp. 164–176; idem, Łódź około roku 1900 – między Berlinem a Wiedniem, in: Sztuka około 1900 w Europie Środkowej. Centra i prowincje artystyczne. Materiały międzynarodowej konferencji zorganizowanej w dniach 20–24 października 1994, eds. P. Krakowski, J. Purchla, Kraków 1997, pp. 101–110.
 Ks. T. Graliński, Kościół katedralny św. Stanisława Kostki (I), “Wiadomości Diecezjalne Łódzkie”, 1948, no. 12, pp. 309–316; Z. Wieczorek, Kościół katedralny p. wezw. św. Stanisława Kostki w Łodzi, “Nasza Przeszłość” 64, 1985, pp. 58–60; K. Stefański, Architektura sakralna Łodzi w okresie przemysłowego rozwoju miasta 1821–1914, Łódź 1995, pp. 86–87; idem, Bazylika archikatedralna w Łodzi pw. św. Stanisława Kostki, Łódź 1996, p. 9.
 Archiwum Państwowe w Łodzi, Akta miasta Łodzi 1794–1939, sign. 4518.
 Archiwum Archidiecezjalne w Łodzi (hereinafter as: AAŁ), Akta Dekanatu Łódź (hereinafter as: ADŁ), sign. 96, p. 12.
 Ł. Grzejszczak, Wiktor Czajewski – literacka legenda Łodzi. Między zasługą a zapomnieniem, w: Sztuka w Łodzi 2, Łódź 2003, pp. 193–202.
 X. A. [Rev. Antoni] Brykczyński, W sprawie budowy nowego kościoła w Łodzi, “Goniec Łódzki” I, 1898, no. 74, p. 1.
 M. Brykczyńska, Brykczyński Antoni (1843–1913), in: Polski Słownik Biograficzny, vol. III, Kraków 1937, pp. 27–28; cf. K. Stefański, Polska architektura sakralna w poszukiwaniu stylu narodowego, Łódź 2000, p. 53.
 Brykczyński 1898 (fn. 9).
 Warunki konkursu, “Goniec Łódzki” I, 1898, no. 82 (24 May), p. 3.
 Information about the competition was included in “Czasopismo Towarzystwa Technicznego Krakowskiego” XII, 1898, no. 6, pp. 61–62, Lviv’s “Czasopismo Techniczne” XVI, 1898, no. 12, p. 179 and German “Deutsche Bauzeitung” XXXII, 1898, Heft 46, p. 292. There was no information in the Warsaw Przegląd Techniczny, which was probably reflected in the absence of the representatives of this area in the competition.
 AAŁ, ADŁ, sign. 96, p. 63 (program in Polish) and 64–65 (program in German language); cf. Wieczorek 1985 (fn. 5), pp. 83–85 (Annex); Stefański 1995 (fn. 5), pp. 162–164 (Annex 6).
 AAŁ, ADŁ, sign. 96, p. 67. These requests were sent by many famous Polish artists, including Kazimierz Mokłowski from Lviv, Józef Pomianowski from Będzin, Hugo Kudera from Zawiercie, Bronisław Muklanowicz from Warsaw, Stanisław Noakowski from Saint Petersburg, Mikołaj Tołwiński from Odessa, Franciszek Mączyński from Kraków, Tomasz Pajzderski from Charlottenburg and Karol Jankowski, studying at that time in Riga. None of these, however, submitted a design to the competition.
 X. A. Brykczyński, Kilka słów z powodu, Programu konkursu…, “Goniec Łódzki” I, 1898, no. 97, p. 1.
 X. Z. [Rev. Zygmunt] Łubieński, W sprawie konkursu, “Goniec Łódzki” I, 1898, no. 98, p. 1.
 Kronika. Konkurs na kościół, “Rozwój”, 1898, no. 238, p. 3.
 AAŁ, ADŁ, sygn. 98, pp. 8–12; Z ostatniej chwili. Nowy kościół, “Goniec Łódzki” I, 1898, no. 221, p. 3; Kronika. Nowy kościół, “Rozwój”, 1898, no. 251, p. 3.
 Kronika. Konkurs na kościół, “Rozwój”, 1898, no. 265, p. 2; Die Conkurrenzpläne für den Bau der vierten katholischen Kirche, “Lodzer Zeitung” 35, 1898, no. 268, p. 4.
 AAŁ, ADŁ, sign. 98, pp. 13–14. The report provides different versions regarding the number of submitted works: Rev. T. Graliński (Spis parafii i kościołów diecezji łódzkiej i krótki ich opis historyczny, “Wiadomości Diecezjalne Łódzkie” XXVI, 1952, no. 10–11, p. 296) writes about 31, Rudowska 1972 (fn. 1), p. 38, writes about “many works”.
 AAŁ, ADŁ, sign. 96, pp. 413–421; Kronika. Konkurs na kościół, “Rozwój”, 1898, no. 266, p. 3; Kronika łódzka, “Goniec Łódzki” I, 1898, no. 239, p. 3; Tageschronik, “Lodzer Tageblatt” 8, 1898, no. 261, p. 3; Zum Bau der vierten katholischen Kirche in Lodz, “Lodzer Zeitung” 35, 1898, no. 270, p. 3.
 AAŁ, ADŁ, sign. 96; Rev. T. Graliński (Kościół katedralny św. Stanisława Kostki (II), “Wiadomości Diecezjalne Łódzkie” XXIII, 1949, no. 1, p. 12) mentions 30 designs authored by 29 architects; his list does not fully overlap with the numbers uncovered by the author hereof.
 AAŁ, ADŁ, sign. 96, p. 312 – letter of L. Schneider to the construction committee dated 28 Dec. 1898 with the request for return of the sent plans; for more about Schneider see: D. Głazek, Ludwig Schneider – architect of the churches, in: Architektura Wrocławia – Świątynia, Wrocław 1997, pp. 263–274; eadem, Domus celeberrima. Architektura sakralna (katolicka) przemysłowej części Górnego Śląska 1870–1914, Katowice 2003, pp. 57–71.
 G. Sorger, Johannes Franciskus Klomp 1865–1946. Architekt des Späthistorismus in Westfalen, Hannover 1998.
 http://home.arcor.de/stefan.langenberg/chronik/node12.html [accessed: 30 Mar. 2016].
 Rudowska 1972 (fn. 1), p. 52.
 Graliński 1949 (fn. 23), p. 12.
 AAŁ, ADŁ, sign. 98, pp. 8–10.
 AAŁ, ADŁ, sign. 96, pp. 414–415.
 K. Stefański, Johannes Wende – zapomniany budowniczy dawnej Łodzi, “Tygiel Kultury”, 2008, nos. 7–9, pp. 100–111.
 K. Stefański, Johannes Wende und Richard Schlein – zwischen Lodz und Zittau, in: Lodz jenseits von “Fabriken, Wildwest und Provinz”, eds. S. Dyroff, K. Radziszewska, I. Röskau-Rydel, München 2009 (= Kulturwissenschaftliche Studien über die Deutschen in und aus den polnischen Gebiet, Polono-Germanica 4, Schriften der Kommission für die Geschichte der Deutschen in Polen e.V.), pp. 117–128.
Kronika Łódzka. Nowe firmy, “Goniec Łódzki” I, 1898, no. 179, p. 2.
 Stefański 2008 (fn. 31), pp. 102–103.
 Kronika, “Rozwój”, 1898, no. 272, p. 2.
 http://www.glass-portal.privat.t-online.de/hs/m-r/mialaret_anton.htm [accessed: 30 Mar. 2016].
 The proper name of Cichorski was said to be: Piotr Wymyśliński, see: Graliński 1949 (fn. 23), p. 12. This author, either as Cichorski, or Wymyśliński, is not known to Polish history of art, he was said to have been born in Warsaw, and studied in Paris, in École Spécial d’Architecture; see – AAŁ, ADŁ, sign. 96, p. 16.
 He was described as archdiece architect, ibidem.
 O nowy kościół, “Rozwój”, 1898, no. 287, p. 3.
 In the described period this was the case in a competition for the Warsaw Church of the Saviour from 1901. The winner was a Neo-Gothic design by Stefan Szyller but the one submitted for execution included renaissance-baroque works by Dziekoński, Panczakiewicz and Żychiewicz; see: Rudowska 1972 (fn. 1), pp. 52–53; M. Omilanowska, Stefan Szyller 1857–1933. Warszawski architekt doby historyzmu, Warszawa 1995, vol. I, pp. 48–49, vol. II, pp. 46–47.
 AAŁ, ADŁ, sign. 98, pp. 16–18.
 AAŁ ADŁ, sign. 96, p. 417; cf. Zum Projekt der Erbauung einer vierten katholischen Kirche in Lodz, “Lodzer Zeitung” 36, 1899, no. 12, p. 3.
 K. Stefański, Józef Pius Dziekoński a budowa łódzkiej katedry, “Kwartalnik Architektury i Urbanistyki” XL, 1996, issue 2, pp. 161–167.
 AAŁ, ADŁ, sign. 96, p. 353.
 Poświęcenie kamienia węgielnego pod nowy kościół, “Rozwój”, 1901, no. 138, p. 2; W. Rowiński, Założenie kościoła w Łodzi, “Tygodnik Ilustrowany” 5, 1901, no. 27, p. 531.
 AAŁ, ADŁ, sign. 98, pp. 44–45.
 Rev. T. Graliński, Kościół katedralny św. Stanisława Kostki (III), “Wiadomości Diecezjalne Łódzkie” XXIII, 1949, no. 2, pp. 49–50; Wieczorek 1985 (fn. 5), pp. 65–67; Stefański 1995 (fn. 5), pp. 95–97.
 See fn. 45.
 W. Czajewski, Pamiątka dwudziestopięciolecia pracy kapłańskiej i społecznej ks. Wincentego Tymienieckiego, Łódź 1920, pp. 8–9.
 Graliński 1949 (fn. 23), p. 12; Rudowska 1972 (fn. 1), p. 38; Wieczorek 1985 (fn. 5), pp. 61–62.
 Preisbewerbungen, “Deutsche Bauzeitung” XXXII, 1898, Heft 98, p. 632.
 K. Chojnacka, Emil i Georg Zillmannowie – architekci z Charlottenburga. Omówienie twórczości na wybranych przykładach, MA thesis written at the University of Lodz under the supervision of prof. dr. hab. Krzysztof Stefański, Łódź 2015, p. 18. Emil Zillman along with his cousin Georg Zillmann, leading an office in Charlottenburg are known in Poland as the creators of two interesting blocks of flats for workers near Katowice: in Giszowiec and Nikiszowiec as well as the Church of St Anna standing in Nikiszowiec. See: D. Głazek, Architektura sakralna Emila and Georga Zillmannów, in: Sztuka Górnego Śląska na przecięciu dróg europejskich i regionalnych. Materiały V Seminarium Sztuki Górnośląskiej odbytego w dniach 14–15 listopada 1997 roku w Katowicach, ed. E. Chojecka, Katowice 1999, pp. 405–413; J. Tofilska, Emil i Georg Zillmannowie, architekci z Charlottenburga, in: Przemiany protoindustrialne i industrialne jako czynnik miastotwórczy Katowic, ed. A. Barciak, Katowice 2007, pp. 219–223.
 Cf. K. Stefański, Jak zbudowano przemysłową Łódź. Architektura i urbanistyka miasta w latach 1821–1914, Łódź 2001, pp. 194–195.
 Zygzaki, “Rozwój”, 1902, no. 89, p. 2.
 Graliński 1949 (fn. 47), pp. 49–54; Wieczorek (fn. 5), pp. 65–73; Stefański 1996 (fn. 5), pp. 19–30.