On the deeper complexities of this entreaty.

This essay contains reflections on the problems of discourse that appear in analyzing written historical sources. The author refers to Krzysztof Gajewski’s book, Reprezentacje komunizmu. PRL z perspektywy badań literackich i kulturowych [The Representation of Communism: The PPR from the Perspective of Literary and Cultural Studies] (2018). The primary findings concern the necessity of taking into account the linguistic framework of the given era.

Commenting on Łukasz Bertram’s book on Polish communists, Kula appreciates Bertram’s efforts in presenting and understanding the communists and their movement. Bertram does not limit himself to presenting solely the facts; he does not judge communism, since a great deal has already been said on that topic. He analyses, or above all takes a good look at, how the communists thought and the conditioning they were subjected to. He creates a picture significantly more complex than that currently functioning in Poland, and skilfully combines the approaches of historians and sociologists. This is a connection worth supporting, and the book in question constitutes a good example of how much it can give.

The author reflects on the evaluation of the notion of money in history. In many situations coins and banknotes were a proof for the existence of local, independent, political power. People’s attitude toward money was quite an important matter, too; in many situations neither money nor those professionally dealing with money were appreciated socially. Numerous utopian movements disliked money. Communism was one of them. The communist economy was driven — at least in theory — by overwhelming planning rather than by the incentive of money. After the fall of communism a question arised whether all or nearly all public activity should be driven by money or whether some domains of social activity should rather be kept as public domains.

Starting from the statement that self-reflection is necessary for the development of any scientific discipline, the author of this article—a historian and sociologist—considers the characteristics of research on everyday life. What is the subject of this subdiscipline and when did such research start? What methods does it use? The author reflects on these issues, while referring to his own experience as a historian and to the book by Bogumiła Mateja-Jaworska and Marta Zawodna- -Stephan, Badania życia codziennego. Rozmowy (nie)codzienne w Polsce (2019) [Studies of Everyday Life: (Not) Everyday Conversations in Poland], in which the statements of contemporary everyday researchers are quoted. The author concludes that the beginnings of such research should be sought in the very distant past and that its material might be provided by all the creations of human culture. He also wonders if and how evidence of the modern digital age will survive.

The history of literature and art history were not included in the programme of my historical studies (1960–1965). Naturally, all history professors would usually include something about art and literature in their lectures on “their” historical period, but not as a key element. Efforts were made to separate history and belles‑lettres (in its various manifestations). A strongly positivist vision of research and transferring its results to the general public was cultivated – which had its advantages in the face of ideological pressure on science in the People's Republic of Poland. Today, the function of both historical sources and statements on history are frequently taken on by literature, which I define very broadly: literary texts (sometimes even of clearly inferior quality), political texts, diaries and journals, journalistic reports, petitions, defence speeches, sometimes letters. Also interesting for the historian is the route these texts take to the reading or listening public, as well as their reception, sometimes their renaissance after many years. There is no need to add that with such an approach, the people who are the authors of even outstanding historical works are not necessarily those who are professional historians.

In 2009 Pentor Research International, acting on behalf of the Museum of the 2nd World War in Gdańsk, organized impressive research into the knowledge and memory of the war in Poland. The comprehensive results are published in the book Między codziennością a wielką historią (Between everydayness and monumental history) by Piotr T. Kwiatkowski and others (Warsaw, Gdańsk 2010). The author of the present article comments on this research. He is mostly astonished by the regional differences in memory of the war in a country like present day Poland that is relatively homogenous. He proposes differentiating between what he calls „a stable memory” and a „momentaneous memory”. The latter appears strong but in fact it depends on what the TV says the last week before the research is done.

Article is a review of Maciej Bugajewski’s book Brzemię przeszłości. Zło jako przedmiot interpretacji historycznej

The Author comments on a new book by Mariusz Mazur O człowieku tendencyjnym... — a book on the communist endeavour to create a new man. He considers the book excellent. Its important positive point is the analysis of the theme in a large framework of human history. Communism was a very singular regime but the idea of a new man appeared several times through centirues and in different countries.

The article is a commentary to the Code of ethics by Polish Historical Society published in 2020.