14 MILLENIUM
Feudal Period into nine parts, where standard practice favoured a tripartite divi-
sion into 'emergence', 'stabilization', and 'decline'. Above all, they criticized his
neglect of 'regionalization', that is, the problem of adjusting any over-all scheme
of Polish History to the experiences of provinces like Silesia or Pomerania which
had never formed part of the modern Polish state. Although Arnold was a
medievalist, his suggestions for the Feudal Period proved less acceptable than
those for the 'Epoch of Capitalism'. Apart from his fatuous inclusion of the
Russian Revolution as a separate period of Polish History, his outline for the
'Epoch of Capitalism' is not too dissimilar from the one in use today.
The genuine Marxists, as distinct from the Stalinist hacks, did not really find
their feet until the late 1950s. At the Historical Congress of 1958, a new genera-
tion of historians launched a determined attack against the spurious practices of
the recent past. By a decision of the Congress, the Institute of History of the
Polish Academy of Sciences was authorized to accelerate publication of its own
definitive, multi-volume 'History of Poland'. The main lines of the Academy's
'Historia Polski' were drawn by an editorial committee council under the late
Tadeusz Manteuffel (1902-70). In this version, the 'Epoch of Feudalism' takes
over from 'Pre-feudal Society' in AD 965, and lasts to 1864, occupying nine-
tenths of recorded history. It is divided into four periods - 'Early Feudalism' to
1200; 'The full bloom of Feudalism' to 1550; 'The entrenchment of the
Manorial-Serfdom system' from the mid-fifteenth century to 1764; and 'The
Liquidation of the Feudal system' to 1864. The Capitalist Epoch' runs for eighty
years from 1864 to 1944. This again seems destined for a fourfold division. In
the volumes which have so far appeared, 'The Time of Laissez-Faire Capitalism
1850/64-1900' and The Stage of Imperialism, 1900-18' have been identified. It is
obvious, however, that an agonizing debate is still in progress behind the scenes.
In Marxist usage, terms such as 'ugruntowanie' (entrenchment) or 'rozkwit'
(burgeoning) may aptly convey a correct sense of delight for states of imperma-
nence. At the same time they disclose a definite reluctance to make clear-cut,
interpretative decisions. Omissions speak loudest of all. Although twenty years
and more have passed since the series was announced, the long-awaited volumes
on the contemporary period are constantly delayed. Little has appeared in rela-
tion to events in the last forty years. The Polish student has still no authoritat-
ive guide to the decades which interest him most. The gestation of just one
section of one volume has lasted three times longer than the historical period
under discussion. The first editorial meeting to prepare the first section of
Volume IV, covering 1918-21, was held on 7 February 1957. This led to the
publication in 1966 of an unbound 'dummy' which was later withdrawn. The
section was finally brought forth in 1970, after a mountain of revision. At this
rate, the chapters dealing with the Second World War can be expected as from
AD 2024. Undoubtedly, the labour pains are partly caused by continuing ideo-
logical qualms. But they are compounded by extraneous political interference.^18
The 'Thaw' after 1956 liberated the formidable talents of Leon Lech Beynar
(1909-70), better known by his pen-name of Pawel Jasienica. A former AK