Family History
The family traces its origins to the Łaźiński family. In 15th century Tomasz Lazninski bought an estate in Stary (Old) Zamość. His sons Florian (died 1510) and Maciej assumed the name Zamojski. The family begun to raise in prominence. Florian’s grandson Stanisław was the castellan of Chełm, and his son, Jan Zamojski, arguably the most famous member of the family, became a chancellor, hetman, and founded the Zamojski's Ordynat - a large estate that was a major source of the family's wealth. He was the 1st Ordynat of the Zamoyski family. His son, Tomasz Zamojski, the 2nd Ordynat, was also a chancellor in Poland. Many of their descendants held important positions within the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, often that of a voivode.
In 18th century, the 10th Ordynat, Andrzej Zamoyski, became the third chancellor of Poland in the family's history. He was one of the authors of a plan for general reform of the nation, known as Zamoyski Code. The family received the title of count from the Holy Roman Emperor in the late 18th century. Brothers Andrzej Artur Zamoyski and Władysław Stanisław Zamoyski, supported Polish movements aimed at regaining independence during the partitions period; Władysław was exiled after participating in the November Uprising, and Andrzej, in the aftermath of the January Uprising.
Andrzej's grandson, Maurycy Zamoyski, was a Minister of Foreign Affairs in the Second Polish Republic for seven months in 1924.
Read more about this topic: Zamoyski Family
Famous quotes containing the words family and/or history:
“In the years of the Roman Republic, before the Christian era, Roman education was meant to produce those character traits that would make the ideal family man. Children were taught primarily to be good to their families. To revere gods, one’s parents, and the laws of the state were the primary lessons for Roman boys. Cicero described the goal of their child rearing as “self- control, combined with dutiful affection to parents, and kindliness to kindred.””
—C. John Sommerville (20th century)
“To summarize the contentions of this paper then. Firstly, the phrase ‘the meaning of a word’ is a spurious phrase. Secondly and consequently, a re-examination is needed of phrases like the two which I discuss, ‘being a part of the meaning of’ and ‘having the same meaning.’ On these matters, dogmatists require prodding: although history indeed suggests that it may sometimes be better to let sleeping dogmatists lie.”
—J.L. (John Langshaw)