Piotr Miłosz Pilarczyk

Militia, Open Up! About Crime Fiction in People’s Poland. Szczecin–Warszawa: Instytut Pamięci Narodowej, 2019, 231 Pages

In People’s Poland, a distinct type of crime fiction was developed. Popular militia novels were entertaining, but also dictated attitudes towards the legal system.

Instructions for Lithuanian Treasury Commissioners Delegated to the Sejm (1780–1790)

Five instructions prepared by the Treasury Commission of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania were published. This Commission, founded in 1764, consisted of two Lithuanian treasurers, and varying number of commissioners elected by the parliament. The Commission functioned as a court and administrative organ in charge of managing state finances. It was part of the executive, due to which fact it was answerable to the parliament (the Sejm of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth). Every two years, the Commission delegated two commissioners for convened Sejm sessions. During parliamentary control of the Commission these Commissioners were present to provide information for members of the parliament. The first instruction that the Commissioners prepared was in 1780, during the affair concerning treasurer Antoni Tyzenhauz. He was accused of financial abuse, and the Commission tried to convince the members of the parliament, that Tyzenhauz alone was responsible for these crimes. Subsequent to this first one, instructions (1782, 1786, 1788, and 1790) contain reform proposals. The Treasury Commission described practical problems and possible solutions, suggested changes to tax structures, issued new legal regulations, and reorganized rules of operation in the institution.

Medice, cura te ipsum. A response to Andrzej Zakrzewski

Andrzej Zakrzewski’s article reviews the book The judiciary adopted by the Treasury Commission of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in fiscal cases (1765–1794) by Piotr Miłosz Pilarczyk. The article was published in Krakowskie Studia z Historii Państwa i Prawa 14, issue 4 (2021). It is an unpleasant example of academic misconduct. Due to the doubts it raises, it is necessary to indicate the abuses committed by the reviewer.

Among Zakrzewski’s numerous remarks, his charge of insufficient use of the literature available on the subject stands out. However, the majority of issues raised by the reviewer either do not relate to things found in the book, or the references found there are irrelevant. The next objection relates to the language used in the work. The reviewer’s arguments result from misunderstanding of the assumptions elucidated in the work.

Polemics with the reviewer are in many cases impossible, because they often fail to justify criticisms with substantiable arguments, or they lack rational bases because of being ad personam. Criticism also applies to what is not in the book, because the reviewer does not focus on the content of the work, but refers to other topics that he would like to read about. Bearing all this in mind, one cannot consider Zakrzewski’s text be substantive and conforming to reasonable standards of academic criticism.