EN
In this article the author discusses the prospects of Copernican Studies in Poland. He addresses the following six issues: 1. The history of Copernican Studies in Poland in four periods: 1795–1918 (when the First Rzeczpospolita [Republic] lost her independence); 1918–1945 (when the Second Rzeczpospolita existed); 1945–1989 (when the Polish People’s Republic existed, i.e. the period of Communism in Poland), and 1989–2012 (the Third Rzeczpospolita – from the regaining political sovereignty to the present). 2. The key facts about the history of the discipline of history of science in this country, and how it has been organized. Namely, that there have been only one research institute for such study in Poland, i.e. the Institute for the History of Science of the Polish Academy of Sciences, and there is no institute or even a department for history of science at Polish universities, though some historians of science work at these universities. 3. The achievements in the field of Copernican research in two other leading countries, i.e. in Germany and the USA. Some remarks on the mechanism of funding grants for such studies in these countries are made. 4. The current situation in the field of Copernican research in Poland. It is a common view (not only in Poland) that Copernican subjects (regarding the person of Nicolaus Copernicus as well as the essence, the genesis, and the reception of his achievements), have long been exhausted. However, this is a misconception for a number of reasons. In particular, scholars: (a) have not yet found a large portion of writings by Copernicus and writings by Tiedeman Giese’s and Joachim Rheticus’ on the theory and the person of Copernicus; (b) have not yet precisely identified the origins and the content of Copernicus’ achievements and have not thoroughly examined the issue of advocates of Copernicus with the exception of a small group of 10–12 people. 5. The author makes a few suggestions as to why Polish experts in the field should intensify their contacts with the international scientific community, and several comments on the necessity to create in Poland a normal mechanism for funding Copernican Studies, and – more broadly – research in the history of science. 6. In this context, the author formulates two fundamental questions. (a) Will good times ever come to study Copernican subjects in Poland, and in general, the history of science? (b) Will the history of science become a normal field of research supported by normal funding mechanisms? The author hopes that these will not remain only rhetorical questions and that an appropriate response to these questions will come from the relevant scientific authorities in Poland.