CENSORSHIP

• The editorial work on preparing subsequent issues of SPCh underwent organisational changes in line with changing realities and technical, financial, as well as political and social conditions. Most of the SPCh's activities took place during a period when scientific and publishing activities in Poland could not be carried out freely and independently, but remained under the strict control of the authorities of the Polish People's Republic. It should be remembered that at that time, every publication had to obtain the consent of the relevant authority of the Polish People's Republic (PRL) before it could be published. This also applied to the creation of the journal. In addition, all publications were subject to state censorship. Censorship in the PRL lasted from 1944 to 1990 and operated under the authority of the Main Office for Press, Publication and Performance Control (GUKPPiW), which was renamed the Main Office for Publication and Performance Control in July 1981. For the same reasons, access to modern equipment and editing tools was severely restricted. Anna Lemańska, a long-time member of the SPCh editorial team and deputy editor-in-chief, recalls: "When I started working at the SPCh editorial office, printing texts was obviously not computerised. The typescript sent to the printer had to be ‘labelled’ so that the typesetter knew how to prepare the galley proofs for printing. The work in the editorial office was therefore twofold. Of course, there was the substantive work – ensuring that the texts were of an appropriate academic standard. But that was not all. Once the texts had been compiled, the typescript had to be prepared for printing. This required placing ‘instructions’ for the typesetter on the typescript, i.e. information about the column size, font size, line spacing, etc. I had to learn a specific ‘alphabet’ that the typesetter could understand. After the text was typeset and the so-called brushes were printed, the text had to be proofread. Here, too, it was necessary to describe the corrections in a clear manner that was understandable to the typesetter” (from a conversation with A. Świeżyński, January 2025). In turn, restrictions resulting from state control caused other difficulties, which sometimes further complicated the process of editing texts. “Censorship was in place in Poland and every text (except, of course, those distributed in the so-called second circulation) had to be approved by a censor. Censorship also applied to academic publications. Therefore, before the final printing of an issue of Studia, it was sent to the censor and could only be printed and distributed after the censor’s approval. I remember two instances of censorship in particular. Both were somewhat bizarre. The censor ordered the word ‘solidarity’ to be deleted from the text of an article, even though it did not refer to the trade union. The word “solidarity” itself was subject to censorship. The second case concerned the name ‘Papal Academy of Theology in Krakow’, which was also subject to censorship. In January 1985, a meeting of natural philosophers from the ATK, KUL and PAT took place in Anin. The first issue of SPCh in 1986 included a report on this symposium. The censors did not agree to publish the name of the PAT. It had to be replaced with an enigmatic description: “representatives of the natural philosophy section (...) from a theological university in Krakow” (p. 5). I would like to add that these representatives were Rev. Prof. Michał Heller and Rev. Prof. Józef Życiński, later Archbishop of Lublin” (from a conversation with A. Świeżyński, January 2025).