Show Less
Open access

The Beginnings of Polish Musicology

Series:

Małgorzata Sieradz

The book presents the history of the only strictly scientific Polish musicological periodical Kwartalnik Muzyczny. It shows how the editorial board of the periodi-cal met with true approval and harsh criticism. The subject allows the author to present the beginnings of Polish musicology and its evolution through three epochs: the late partitioning period, the interwar period of Poland’s independ-ence, and the early years after the Second World War
Show Summary Details
Open access

2. Societies, associations, institutes of the interwar period: ‘Club of professional music press’ – Polish Society for Contemporary Music – Polish Musicological Society – Frederic Chopin Institute – Association of Early Music Lovers and Publishing Society of Polish Music as an institutional background to Kwartalnik Muzyczny

2. Societies, associations, institutes of the interwar period: ‘Club of professional music press’ – Polish Society for Contemporary Music – Polish Musicological Society – Frederic Chopin Institute – Association of Early Music Lovers and Publishing Society of Polish Music as an institutional background to Kwartalnik Muzyczny

The change in Poland’s political situation after 1918 and the freedom to consociate in various associations including creative, resulted in numerous initiatives in the world of music in a short period of time. Local music societies and singing associations that focused on musicians, music lovers and connoisseurs, who formed an ever-wider community focusing on the promotion of this art in its various aspects, continued to operate for years with varying degrees of intensity. Soon, these were joined by projects of musicologists and young artists that were often inspired by similar international initiatives – Société Internationale de Musicologie or Société Internationale pour la Musique Contemporaine. Several of them, associations, clubs and various institutions of varying area of influences and a selection of tasks, especially those of a nationwide scope, created a background for the relatively small music and musicological community – the Polish branch of the Musicological Society or the TMW [Society for contemporary music], the SMDM, the IFCh, or associations that associate with musical issues at various levels of the people of the pen. The societies – those mentioned, with a national range, and some industry and local ones – constituted the necessary organisational and personal facilities for the history of Polish musical periodicals. Lists of members of these assemblies often were filled with names of artistic and scientific individuals, such as Chybiński, Jachimecki, Opieński, Gliński, Kamieński, Stromenger, often outstanding people, were not always able to cooperate with each other. The resulting conflicts often caused concern for the parties involved in the controversy. Looking at it from today’s perspective we can see how they significantly colour the view of these years.

Already in 1924, in order to meet the expectations of the environment, composer and conductor, and at the same time a critic and journalist, Mateusz Gliński, in the first monthly magazine Muzyka, pointed at the need to create ←49 | 50→a professional organisation that would focus on ‘creative forces in the field of music criticism’136 – journalists, chroniclers of everyday cultural life, writers, as well as musicologists focused on scientific research. At the time he wrote that ‘perhaps the most appropriate form would be to create a great club of artistic rapporteurs, where music critics would be one of the sections.’137 He repeatedly returned to this subject, and finally, after five years, the idea of the ‘club’ would be finalised. He sought the support for this initiative not among musical critics but musicologists and journalists that had scientific aspirations.

At the beginning of 1929 Gliński, at that time a great admirer of Adolf Chybiński who was then an authority both in the musicological and musical environment, sent a message to Lviv about a group formed in Warsaw of writers who focused in the daily newspapers on – as they identified – ‘rapporteur.’ It is worth citing here a longer fragment from this letter.

Now, I would like to confide … in a very important and urgent matter. Counsellor of the Disciplinary Commission of the Presidium of the Council of Ministers, Mr. Władysław Fabry, together with the Minister of Ministry of Communications, Mr. Jan Głowacki (both are avid music fans and write reviews in Polska Zbrojna and Polak-Katolik), initiated the Union of Daily Scriptwriters under the name ‘Group of Music Rapporteurs’; organised a Board which was already functioning in an ad hoc mode (and for many of us a very strange mode), to which the following were invited: messrs. Wieniawski138 (president), Rytel,139 Binental,140 Zmigryder;141 vice-president is ←50 | 51→Fabry.142 Mention is already made in the ‘related’ press. The union is aimed at professional interests, but at the same time aims to ‘coordinate ideological differences, etc.’ In other words, an organisation is formed which, in the mode of this very creation and personal composition, brings to mind the birth of the ‘Contemporary Composers’ Section.’143/I asked Wieniawski a delicate question yesterday, why I was not asked to attend an organisational meeting; the answer was that I am the rapporteur and editor of the professional magazine, and so far nobody thought of professional magazines just yet.144

This situation prompted Gliński to react immediately and establish a competitive association – ‘Club of professional music press’– and invited the group of members of the organisational committee. Apart from Chybiński, who was also acting as the secretary of the editorial office of the already reborn new form of Kwartalnik Muzyczny, these included Kazimierz Sikorski, Bronisław Rutkowski who was the president of the SMDM (whose organ was the Kwartalnik),145 and Stanisław Wiechowicz, the head of the Poznań Przegląd Muzyczny. At the same time, he hoped for the professor’s quick permission for cooperation, so that in the next magazine of Muzyka some ‘concrete things’ could be given. On 9 February 1929, after the meeting, which took place two days earlier, he wrote a letter to the editors of music magazines (including Chybiński), in which he presented the principles of the initiative sponsored by the monthly magazine, of which he was the editor-in-chief.

At the initiative of Muzyka, a nationwide Club of Professional Music Press is established with headquarters in Warsaw./The club will aim primarily to bring the Polish professional magazines closer together and to establish lasting contact with similar publishing houses abroad. In addition, the Club will have the purpose of providing professional ←51 | 52→support to all those working in both special and general press bodies, and to mitigate any opposition of professional and comradely nature that arise in the music press./The club will aim to bring together all professionals who work professionally in the field of journalism and music criticism in order to play the role of a serious opinion-giving institution in the musical movement of the country and exert a positive influence on the development of our musical movement./The club aims to fill a serious gap that is so far the lack of an organisation that brings Polish musical thought together. This gap is not filled by the established Association of Musical Rapporteurs, because 1) it aims only to defend professional and economic interests and 2) it was created without the participation of professional press, representing only general, daily and periodical publications. The Professional Press is not in any way to interfere with the Association of Musical Rapporteurs; on the contrary, the principles of cooperation with this organisation in the future are discussed already at the present stage./Assuming that my Dear Friend understands the importance of our efforts, want to support them with your participation, I am asking you to accept the dignity of becoming a founding member of the Professional Club of Music Press.146

Next, there were several formal questions and information about the date of the organisational meeting, February 14, in the ‘accelerated … mode due to the arrival in Warsaw for a short time of Prof. A. Chybiński, who already promised his cooperation in the course of the organisation.’147 Chybiński himself did not appear; however, he learned the exact report from the meeting from a letter from Kazimierz Sikorski:

we talked about the ‘Club.’ We have come to the conclusion that the idea of associating the editors of music magazines could hardly be carried out due to the small number of actual editors and inability to invite such people who are not editors but would be desirable to us (e.g. Szymanowski, Szopski, etc.). Therefore, we propose with Rutkowski the name: ‘Association of professional music magazines.’ I think that we can lower ourselves to other magazines that are only ‘professional’ and will never be academic, otherwise, we would never be able to unite with anyone because there is no doubt that a new academic music magazine will not be created soon, equal to the level of Kwartalnik. It will only be about creating a strong organisation of music magazines for outside appearances. There is no way we can let Mr Gliński rule himself; if he thinks so, he’s deeply mistaken. I think that we can agree to this form of cooperation with other music magazines and try to ‘mother’ them all. The future accession to the association was declared by: Muzyka Kościelna, Muzyk Wojskowy and Przegląd Muzyczny, that sent a plenipotence in the name of the professor (in Mr Gliński’s possession). We have ←52 | 53→not decided anything for now, and wait for your reply regarding Gliński’s conditions (changing its name). As Rutkowski is leaving for a few weeks soon, Stanisław Furmanik will be replacing him at organisational meetings (head deep). I am asking for further instructions on how to deal with this matter.148

It is not known how this question was answered by Chybiński, we only know that at the end of February the Secretary of Kwartalnik was explaining himself to the – perhaps – reluctant attitude of the professor: ‘… In the latest Muzyka,149 Mr. Gliński announced the club of professional music as a fact already made, considering our visit as an organisational meeting. This is not true: I explicitly stated that we were speaking privately and after communicating with you, I will give an answer as what to do next. Fortunately, he did not announce the names and titles of magazines that joined this “Club,” however, he acted like Herzenstein,150 not like Gliński. I told him a lot of unpleasant things about his attitude towards SMDM and the publishing house, but apparently not enough.’151

As for the details provided (or not given), Sikorski was wrong, because in the same notebook of Muzyka, just a few pages away, under the heading ‘Variety. Current news,’ there is a note ‘Consolidation of the music press’ (p. 105), in which the names of founding members, ‘editors of professional magazines’ appeared – next to Mateusz Gliński from Muzyka and Adolf Chybiński from Kwartalnik Muzyczny, and Bronisław Rutkowski and Kazimierz Sikorski, representatives of the SMDM Board, whose governing body was Kwartalnik, also: Władysław Gołębiowski (secretary of the Musicians-Pedagogues Union, editor-in-chief of the monthly magazine called Lwowskie Wiadomości Muzyczne i Literackie), Eugeniusz Dawidowicz (editor-in-chief of Grudziądz biweekly magazine, Muzyk Wojskowy), Zygmunt Latoszewski (in the years 1925–28 editor-in-chief of the Poznań monthly Muzyka Kościelna), Stefan (erroneously given: Stanisław) Marian Stoiński (editor-in-chief of the Katowice monthly magazine Śpiewak) and Stanisław Wiechowicz (from 1927 editor in chief of the Poznań Przegląd Muzyczny).

In connection with this note, there was a sharp conflict between the two associations on the line ‘professional press’–‘musical rapporteurs.’ At the end of March, Adam Wieniawski, acting in the name of Władysław Fabry, was offended ←53 | 54→by the words that allegedly fell in the March edition of Muzyka,152 sent an official letter to Gliński. He announced that the Board of the Union of Musical Rapporteurs, at the request of the publicist, designated him (Wieniawski) and Piotr Rytel as arbitrators to explain the contradictions in the relations concerning the details of establishing the ‘Club.’ On March 28, 1929, the newspaper Kurier Poranny published the article ‘O czym powinien wiedzieć p. Gliński’ [What should Mr Gliński know about], in which his author, Warsaw critic and rapporteur Zbigniew Domaniewski, recalled the words of Adam Wieniawski. Wieniawski, citing conversations with Sikorski and Chybiński, argued that: 1) they did not wish to give their names in the list of ‘founders’ given by Gliński as founding members of the Association, 2) they were surprised by the content of the aforementioned press reports and 3) they were firmly protesting against this situation.

In respect of these ‘unjustified’ charges, as Gliński claimed, he decided to report this situation to the arbitration court, relying on Juliusz Kaden-Bandrowski and Stefan Bereza as arbitrators in the case. His representatives were Wacław Karczewski and Jerzy Gaszyński.

An open letter from the editor-in-chief of Muzyka and the minutes from subsequent acts of arbitration proceedings were published in the monthly magazine in April.153 We learn from the writings, that Kazimierz Sikorski during the meeting on 8 April with those acting ‘in accordance with art. 60 of the Honorary Code [Władysław] Boziewicz’154 Karczewski and Gaszyński, stated that on February 14 ‘he declared his ideological accession, accepted the dignity of the ←54 | 55→founding member and continues to participate in the organisational work of the “Club …” ‘and, in addition, representing ‘on behalf of prof. A. Chybiński … never protested against the alleged abuse of his name’ and ‘never asked anybody for advice or asked for intervention in order to protest against the given fact.’ He also told Gliński that Chybiński ‘withdraws all reservations, marked by letter.’155 The only objection he had was to replace the verb ‘arose’ with his imperfective form (‘arises’) because in the middle of February the initiative was merely a proposal and was only implemented. On the other hand, Sikorski claimed that ‘having arrived at Wieniawski’s office, he expressed his surprise and indignation because of Mr. Gliński’s note … about the fact of the establishment of “Club of Professional Music Press” and asked Mr. Wieniawski, in what form “The Union of Musical Rapporteurs” could protest against this fact.’

According to one of the attached documents, Karczewski and Gaszyński went to Adam Wieniawski to clarify the case, but they did not find him that day (April 7) or the next, and therefore they wrote only the report of their efforts, passing it to arbitrators. The consequence of these activities was Wieniawski’s letter, in which, as the chairman of the Union of Musical Rapporteurs, he stated that: ‘Not being subject to the arbitration court ruling, based on customary rules unknown to the Board, we declare readiness to become acquainted with the evidence in the possession of the principal of the honourable gentlemen and those who may, in his opinion, completely display the matter – that is why we invite the honourable gentlemen, as the plenipotentiaries of Mr Mateusz Gliński, to the meeting of the Board of the Union of Musical Rapporteurs on 26 April of the year.’156

Finally, assuming that Gliński had grounds to include the names of Chybiński and Sikorski among other names of supporters of the new organisation, the matter was considered clarified and settled, although – perhaps as a result of Chybiński’s suggestion – Sikorski, however, filed on 12 April 1929 the dignity of the member-founder, which was also reported in the pages of Muzyka in the April edition.157

←55 | 56→

Despite the described circumstances, work on the organisation of the ‘Club’ gradually progressed more and more efficiently, also thanks to the fact that the majority of members of the Statute Committee lived in Warsaw and were in constant contact with each other. In the following months, it was decided that the organisation could gather not only editors and collaborators of music magazines but all those who wrote about music.158 Initially, the organisation’s assumptions were included in a few simple guidelines: ‘focusing professional Polish musical thought, establishing mutual communication between employees in this field, representation of professional magazines both in the country and abroad, establishing close contact with the entirety of our musical movement.’159 The formula of the organisation over the next few months reached and changed, evolving to a significant extent, which can be read from Gliński’s following letters. It was established, among others, that:

1. Not only editors and collaborators of music magazines can be members, but all who write about music, regardless of whether their activities are professional or connected with a permanent position of a music commentator./ 2. The basic condition for admission will be the possession of appropriate professional and ethical qualifications./ The new organisation encompasses slightly wider goals than those initially intended by the initiators of the ‘Club of professional music press’ and will strive not only to bring the journalists closer together but also to create the most favourable conditions for the development of music press and raise the level of criticism./The new organisation’s wide range of goals encouraged the founders to change the name ([from] ‘Club of Professional Music Press’) to ‘Music Press Union’ and to base their activities and reason to be in the constitution. Creation of the constitution was entrusted to the Commission, made up of the following members: prof. dr Łucjan Kamieński, prof. Stanisław Niewiadomski, dr Alicja Simon, Karol Stromenger ad editor Mateusz Gliński.160

Of course, he also invited (perhaps even above all) Chybiński161 to the Statute Commission. Unfortunately, the professor ignored this invitation, although previously he had undoubtedly expressed his opinion on matters related to details, including even the name of the group – he had reservations about the ←56 | 57→term ‘press,’162 he considered it obligatory to add the term ‘Polish.’ In general, the editor of Muzyka appreciated all the remarks, though, as it turned out, he did not follow all the suggestions. For the moment, however, he emphasised how grateful he felt that ‘thanks to the professor we left our intentions in the wider field and became a more serious organisation than the one we initiated previously.’163

Eventually, the Association of Music Writers164 and Critics was registered on 12 October 1929, and members of the temporary board were entered into the Association’s statute, including members of the statutory committee: Mateusz Gliński, Łucjan Kamieński (who, incidentally, according to Gliński’s words, supported him most during the months pre-registration), Stanisław Niewiadomski, Karol Stromenger and Alicja Simon. The goals of the activity were presented: ‘focusing on working in the field of Polish music literature, creating the most prosperous conditions for its development, striving to maintain a high professional and ethical level, defending the interests of those working in its scope and providing them with both moral and material support.’165

The means to achieve these goals were defined very broadly and not always precisely. The creation of sections and local branches was planned, organising reading rooms and discussion clubs, conferences, lectures, music programmes, magazines and newsletters, ‘publishing all kinds of publications,’ cooperating with similar associations abroad, representing members of the Association in official situations, resolving conflicts within the environment, awarding various types of scholarships and awards, and – which seems particularly vague – ‘establishing contact with publishers, in order to fill important institutions in the music literature by qualified forces.’166 In the letter addressed after registration ←57 | 58→to Chybiński and sent to Lviv, the Association Board, anticipating the likely objections of the professor (and possibly also the editors of other periodicals), emphasised:

The ideological bases of the statute were based on the fundamental theses, referred to in the above-mentioned journal editor of Muzyka;167 the only change that we have allowed to introduce is the change in the name of our organisation, made as a result of the opposition of several founders (including Prof. A. Chybiński and Prof. Ł. Kamieński) and due to some objections in this regard from the Commissariat of the Government. Because this change had to be made in such a short time, the possibility of a letter agreement with the honourable Mr Editor was completely excluded. We ask politely whether the change of the name of our ‘Association’ will not cause an objection from you, sir, and whether you will not change your relationship to a new organisation, which on the basis of past cooperation counts you, sir, [to] the group of its co-founders. To avoid any misunderstanding, please kindly inform us immediately if there are any objections in this regard.168

In the following months, relations between Gliński and Chybiński clearly deteriorated; although they still corresponded with each other, it was not as often as before. The professor expressed ‘disinclination for the publishing house [Muzyka] and its editorial staff,’169 accusing them of treating musicology improperly on the pages of the monthly magazine. Gliński defended himself by saying that he is not a musicologist, but he has respect for music. It should be added here that this unrelenting exchange of opinions resulted indirectly from the fact that there were ongoing polemics between the heads of two Polish musicological centres, especially on the subject of priorities in Polish musicological research and poor relations in the environment, polemics, whose arena was, amongst others, Myzyka: Chybiński expected loyalty, but Gliński – according to always verbalised rules – considered it natural also for Jachimecki170 to use the impartial pages of the magazine.

In a few letters from 1930 there was a kind of ‘cease-fire’: In July, congratulations were sent from Warsaw to Lviv in connection with the professor’s jubilee and a memorial book published on this occasion, less than two months later, Chybiński’s new article, ‘O zadaniach historycznej muzykologii w Polsce’ [On the tasks of historical musicology in Poland]171, came to the editorial office. Towards ←58 | 59→the end of 1930, two resolutions were published in Muzyka; the Association of Polish Composers and the Association of Musical Writers and Critics. In the second one, it was stated openly that the National Culture Fund should support and ‘maintain close and friendly contact with the entire Polish musical world,’ rather than ‘to only focus on one field and be closed within one circle of any chosen organisation,’ implicitly – beyond the control of public opinion on the distribution of financial resources.172 At the same time, the Ochlewski contra Stromenger case went to the arbitration court of the Association due to the dispute over unequal financing of private institutions from the National Culture Fund – at that time, a large part of the Warsaw music community was convinced about the cronyist relations between the founders of the SMDM and Stanisław Michalski, the director of the Fund, and openly criticised it. Ochlewski’s strong reaction was a result of Stromenger’s offensive publication about SMDM173 written on the pages of Gazeta Polska on November 1. In the article Stromenger talked about unclear accounts of the Association’s finances, providing unjustified foreign scholarships from the FKN and other irregularities. The President of SMDM referred to these and other allegations in an official letter to the author of the article.174 On the subject of WDMP: ‘it is necessary to read about what professionals and educated musicians are writing about this publication before writing articles without knowing things about these matters. To question the necessity of publishing valuable old Polish works, manuscripts that can be found in foreign libraries – can be only the enemy of Polish culture’; about the work of the SMDM Board: ‘Any jokes about “feathering, which was supposed to be proof of their work” towards the Board of SMDM, that eagerly and selflessly devoted to work on this neglected episode – are an ordinary filth that cannot touch us’; about the ‘pillars’ of the Association: ‘About prof. Chybiński, a highly deserving Polish scholar, valued by the scientific world in Europe and about prof. Sikorski, a musician of high education, they should not take on a cheap joke, given voice by dilettantes for whom the level of the Kwartalnik Muzyczny is too serious and professional. All the more, after the fact where we have discredited ourselves of any content with dilettante article … about Bach’s Brandenburg concertos’;175 ←59 | 60→finally, as a summary: ‘You can fight to defend your ideas and criticise impartially, but losing ethics based on lies, slander and falsehood is probably enough reason for me to forget about my relationship with you. You can slander what is better – after all, it’s your profession. Mine is of a different kind. So I hope we will not meet.’176

And so, the earlier publication of Stromenger and the above words by Ochlewski (as a representative of the group of SMDM members) meant that any cooperation between the earlier supporters of the idea of the ‘Club of professional music press’ became impossible. The dispute continued to develop against the thinking of SMDM, as they wrote to Chybiński: ‘The Board of the SPKM rejected the impartial court of arbitration proposed by Mr Ochlewski and only allowed Mr Ochlewski to send his representative to the court for explanations. Of course, we did not find such a proposal acceptable. … In the current state of affairs, we have decided to authorise our president to take a court injunction against the author of a slanderous article.’177

Gliński did not officially approve of either side, and Chybiński probably expected such a declaration. That was the reason why at the turn of 1930 and 1931 the conflict between them was already deep enough, or maybe the professor – with his uncompromising character – decided to sharpen it,178 that he gave his membership card back to Gliński, who was the president of the Association of Writers and Music Critics, with the message of resignation from membership. By signing up on behalf of the Board, Alicja Simon and Stanisław Niewiadomski confirmed the receipt of the ID ‘delivered via the editorial office of the journal Muzyka’ and informed in the return letter about the deletion of the professor from the list of members on January 24.179 Gliński also took note of this decision, which he informed the professor in writing. In the same letter, he loyally warned about the planned publication of the correspondence sent from Cracow by Zdzisław Jachimecki, constituting another voice in one of many sharp discussions (this time about the principles in Polish musicology180 conducted in the interwar period between the ‘fathers’ of Polish musicology: In the January issue there will be a replica of prof. Jachimecki, which is an answer to your article ←60 | 61→on Polish musicology. Anticipating the effects of this article, I have been holding up presenting it for a long series of months, then, after making some changes in it, I asked to soften some of the content; I received a response that I can print it on the author’s total responsibility, i.e. Mr Professor’s. Therefore, currently granting, under the total impartiality of Muzyka, to Mr Jachimecki, who also speaks with his article “on his own responsibility,” I consider it advisable to ensure that I personally completely withdraw from this musicological “exchange of views,” but with all my loyalty, I will put your answer to prof. Jachimecki’s accusations. I have no preconceived judgements, no sympathy, no obligations and no goals or personal interests in this case.181

After this letter, the correspondence between two editors – Kwartalnik Muzyczny and Muzyka – actually froze, also in matters related to the activity of the Association, and we do not have other reports regarding the achievements of the institution itself in the following years. In the archives of Chybiński that were kept in the Jagiellonian Library, eight letters from Gliński from the pre-war period are preserved, in which his distance to the conflict is striking and, nevertheless, respect for the man who for many years was his authority. After the war Gliński, as we mentioned, refreshed his contact in 1950 when he wrote to the professor ‘after long years of pause … under the fresh impression of the beautiful volume of Chopin’s Analyses sent here [to Instituto Internazionale Federico Chopin in Rome] by PWM.’182

At least some of the people associated in the ‘Club,’ or related to the case in different ways, had already been engaged in the project, which was supposed to support the achievements of young Polish artists and combine the most progressive part of the music and musicological community with the European avant-garde. This is about PTMW (based in Warsaw), whose registration took place even before the fifth anniversary of Poland’s regaining its statehood, in 1923. Let us remember that in the summer of 1922, after a series of contemporary repertoire concerts organised in Salzburg by Universal publishing house, Rudolf Réti and Egon Wellesz proposed on the international forum to set up a company with the primary aim to promote the latest trends in music. Music festivals were to become the platform for the confrontation of current European and American music. At the first of them, in Salzburg in 1923, Karol Szymanowski was invited to perform on the festival stage and sent two of the Hafiza Songs. A few months ←61 | 62→earlier, a letter from Stefania Różycka, wife of Ludomir Różycki, was sent to Adolf Chybiński, in which the author of the note communicated: ‘I do not know if you know that an international music committee that has appointed all the nations of the world to form a national committee, has been created in London. … Every year there will be a congress and music festival in different cities, each section must send its delegate. … from London, they ask me to send the widest possible material about the latest creations of Polish music.’183 Redirecting this information to Karol Szymanowski, Chybiński, in a typical biting tone, wrote to the composer: ‘I want to hear your opinion immediately. Answer me immediately, because one day’s lateness can make a difference. You must enter the Polish committee, as long as Poland’s good is in your heart. I am offering you a praesidium for your sake and your relations abroad. Do not pay attention to that monkey (between us!) who wants to do something on his own!’184

When the ISCM festival was held in Prague a few months later, he was already present in the group of ‘delegates’ – next to, among others Szymanowski and Grzegorz Fitelberg – as was Mateusz Gliński, a young musician and music critic at the time, and soon the founder and long-time editor-in-chief of Muzyka, and a musicologist from Poznań, a graduate of the University of Berlin, soon the head of a new musicological centre in the capital of Wielkopolska, Łucjan Kamieński. During the festival, the participants of this trip formed the Polish Section of the Society, and the creator of Stabat Mater185 became (for now) informal president in the provisional management of PTMW; Gliński was the secretary. Immediately after group was formed, from Prague, with the date of June 1, its founders addressed Adolf Chybiński as a well-known and recognised head of one of the first two Polish musicological centres, and a letter that contained information about this fact and an invitation to participate in the Executive Committee was signed by Gliński and Kamieński:

On June 1, 1924, at the general meeting of representatives of Polish music, present at the festival of the International Society for Contemporary Music, held under the chairmanship of prof. dr. Łucjana Kamieński, the Polish section of ISCM was established. The Section Board was composed of: KAROL SZYMANOWSKI – chairman, prof. FELICJAN SZOPSKI, prof. dr ŁUCJAN KAMIEŃSKI, deputies, MATEUSZ GLIŃSKI, ←62 | 63→secretary. Position of the treasurer – vacant. Both the organisation of the Section and the election of the Board were held in close consultation with the ISCM Headquarters and the Delegates present at the festival…. By notifying the above-mentioned Dear Sir, I turn to him at the same time, in accordance with the resolution, adopted at the organisational meeting on 1 VI of this year, with a warm request to support the action that has already started, by kindly taking part in the Executive Committee of the Polish Section of the ISCM. Knowing the sympathetic attitude of Dear Sir to ISCM, which could be proved by Mrs Poraj-Różycka, resignation of the Dear Sir to the temporary organising committee, we believe that the Dear Sir will not refuse his support, which may be of great importance for the Polish contemporary music movement.186

The temporary management board decided to organise the first General Assembly of the Section. Adolf Chybiński, probably as one of many potential future members, received a letter dated September 20, 1924:

The Secretariat of the Polish Section of the INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR CONTEMPORARY MUSIC hereby informs the Honourable Gentleman, that the first General Meeting of the members of the Section will be held at the CONSERVATOIRE OF WARSAW (Meeting Room) on September 29 at 4:00 PM on the first date and at 4.30 PM on the second date (valid for every number gathered). Because of the importance of matters to be discussed, the presence of all members is highly desirable. This notice serves as an entry card.187

During these first sessions, after Karol Szymanowski presented the history of the initiative, and through Mateusz Gliński’s report on the previous several-month activity, it was decided to approve the previously prepared Statute and to construct a new Management Board. Its members included: Karol Szymanowski as the president, Felicjan Szopski and Łucjan Kamieński as vice-presidents, Mateusz Gliński as secretary, Zbigniew Drzewiecki as treasurer and Adolf Chybiński and Emil Młynarski as deputies of the Board members; in addition, Grzegorz Fitelberg, Henryk Melcer, Henryk Opieński and Ludomir Michał Rogowski took part in various Commissions.188 With time, on the occasion of the next General Meetings, the Boards were changing: first of all, from 1930 Szymanowski became the honorary president, and Zbigniew Drzewiecki held his place until 1939, with the exception that Stefania Łobaczewska was there for one term of office. Almost to the end of this period, Mateusz Gliński sat in the close circle of the Society’s members.

←63 | 64→

Over the next two years, contemporary music enthusiasts acted informally, although work in the section was ongoing: Polish compositions were submitted for the next editions of the festival, delegates from Poland took part in the proceedings of the national sections, they were elected to international bodies – Szymanowski was invited to the international jury deciding on the program of the Zurich festival, Gliński became a member of the committee of the newly created ISCM newsletter. Moreover, for the first few years regularly, and from 1928 many times – with only sporadic exceptions – Gliński was a delegate of the Polish Section for annual international festivals. Finally, however, the situation of the Polish Section had to be formalised and in the autumn of 1926. Chybiński, in a note to one of the letters from Warsaw, received the message: ‘PS. More news. We legalise the Polish Society for Contemporary Music urgently, and we will probably develop intense activity. It would be good for the Professor, a member of the Board, to think in advance about the people of Lviv, from which the Lviv section of the Society will be organised.’189

The association was incorporated into the register of associations and unions on February 21, 1927. According to point 2 of the paragraph, its founders were: Zbigniew Drzewiecki, Mateusz Gliński, Felicjan Szopski and Karol Szymanowski, whose main aim was to ‘support contemporary music’ (paragraph I point 4). To achieve this goal, the Society could conduct educational and propaganda activities, participate in international musical life in the field of activities similar to its own, and also ‘publish music and books and magazines, support and distribute its own publications as well as foreign’ (paragraph I point 5.).190 The recruitment and selection of real members seemed a very delicate matter, which Gliński, in confidence, explained bluntly to Chybiński: ‘PTMW has not yet started the correct “recruitment” of members. This issue is very irritating due to the necessity of applying appropriate criteria and limit access to the Society for the “mobs.” The elite of contemporary Polish musicians cooperates with us – together about 20 musicians.’191

When, after a few years, the Society entered a period of marked crisis and stagnation of the number of ‘music lovers’ interested in contemporary music in general, and being part of the Polish Section192 in particular, an action was launched ←64 | 65→to popularise the new creativity under the slogan ‘Mobilizacja Miłośników Muzyki’ [Mobilisation of music lovers]. New members were actively sought. The membership card authorised many discounts in the field of current cultural life, and the upcoming ranks could additionally count on a copy of the Muzyka monthly.193

Muzyka, a monthly magazine founded and run by Mateusz Gliński in exactly the same moment in the middle of 1924 when the decisions on the separation of the Polish branch of ISCM from the international structures were developing. It was – at least in the first years of cooperation – to some extent an informal part of the Society, although the editors stipulated that ‘the monthly … seeks to join all healthy currents of our musical life under the slogan of culture and progress. It does not belong to any camp, to any party or coterie. The interest in modern musical trends is combined with pietism for the past and respect for every serious artistic effort,’194 and the secretariats of both institutions for some time acted under the same private address of the editor and secretary as one person.

In the mid-1930s, fulfilling the Statute on the promotion and dissemination of publications, PTMW cooperated with the thriving TWMP, even moving its headquarters to the address of the publisher. As part of the reorganisation, as one of several, a publishing section was preparing a newsletter called Contemporary Music. Cooperation with the publishing house also in the organisation of the current musical life resulted in the revival of stage activity, concert halls were filled with listeners (which resulted with good reviews from contemporary music concerts in the Warsaw press), and also the first editions of works by young Polish composers.195 At that moment, Mateusz Gliński both in the structures of PTMW, as well as in terms of the contents of the magazine he had edited for over ten years, clearly began to place himself on the edge of the environment associated with new music. This was maybe because, on the one hand, he could not sufficiently mobilise the provinces to work for the Society, and on the other hand, he did not develop enough loyal back-up facilities in the local circles that undertook the work. To the question about the branch’s activities that was asked by Chybiński several years earlier, in one of the letters he replied: ‘PTMW has no branches in the provinces. There was only an initiative taken in Vilnius in this ←65 | 66→direction (Tadeusz Szeligowski), even one concert took place under our emblem. The Lviv section will be the first section, which I think corresponds to the level of modern music culture in Lviv. I must add that I informed the Headquarters about the establishment of the Lviv section at a meeting of delegates on the first of this month in Frankfurt and this announcement was met with great recognition.’196

Among the ‘people of Lviv’ there was a large group, which in a relatively short time managed to organise a thriving centre, with initiatives that were equal to almost the activities of the headquarters in Warsaw. On February 28, 1930, the chairman Zbigniew Drzewiecki attended the constitutional meeting of the branch of the Lviv-based PTMW. The following people were elected to the local Board: musician and musicologist, director of the Lviv PTM and conservatoire Adam Sołtys (as president), two local musicology graduates Stefania Łobaczewska (vice president) that was a secretary and treasurer – Zofia Lissa, and members – Seweryn Barbag (composer and musicologist, formerly a pupil of Guido Adler), Józef Koffler (also a ‘Viennese’ musicologist and composer as well as a music journalist), Zofia Kozłowska (pianist and singer, pedagogue in vocal studies) and outstanding pianist Leopold Münzer. As Łobaczewska wrote in Muzyka, ‘Creating [the Lviv branch] has long been an urgent need of the cultural spheres of our city, deprived of constant contact with new art, the best proof was the great interest in the first broadcast of the Lviv Branch of the PTMW on the fifth of this month.’197

Just a year later, the next general assembly of the Lviv branch elected the new Board, lead by Łobaczewska, and in addition to the re-elected Münzer and Barbag, it also included: Zofia Drexler-Pasławska, Janina Grzegorzewska-Lachowska, Tadeusz Majewski and Adam Szmar. However, the issue of honorary presidency seems unclear. In 1930, this title was given to Adolf Chybiński, from the accounts of 1931, we learn, however, that Adam Sołtys was honoured this time. Could this dignity not be given forever? There is no doubt that Chybiński did not want to get involved in the works of the Lviv committee, but perhaps he was expelled from the circle of the Lviv Society by the younger generation, which would be painfully felt. In any case, the trace of his assessment of the situation can be found in the words strongly emphasised in one of the letters to Ludwik Bronarski: ‘There are different young and the youngest musicologists of various religious denominations and various public testimonies, that are for setting ←66 | 67→up the section of the contemporary music Association in Lviv. Let it be! … Actually, I would support this interest, but it is these founders who are simply demonstrating against earlier music, despite having – thanks to studying under me – theses from earlier music, and they are supposedly advertising these theses whenever, wherever they like.’198

Similarly, he reacted to another invitation, this time four years later, to the next local association, whose animators were, among others, enthusiasts Lissa and Łobaczewska who were actively acting on various fields in the Lviv environment, focusing particularly on contemporary music. They were prominent representatives of the Chybiński school, but through their emancipated (in scientific terms) attitude conflicted with their master. Moreover, as often happened in the professor’s case, the decision was influenced by his chauvinistic beliefs, which pierces almost every word of his: ‘In Lviv, a “Society of Composers, Performers and … Musicologists” is being established. For this reason, I have nothing to do with it, because such “cooperation” seems to me illusory and consists of some confusing concepts: art and science – like Warsaw’s model. These various musicological madams here, “chasing after the feather,” as someone has said, always establishing something new.’199

For the work of Adolf Chybiński, these ideas, more or less successful, no longer had much significance, first of all, because for him, the synonym of ‘contemporary music’ was the work of composers who began their creative career at the beginning of this century. On the subject of the latest trends, the works of Honegger, Hindemith, and composers of the Viennese school, he did not undertake a scientific discussion, and it seems that he was closer to opinions similar to those expressed in a letter to him from Łucjan Kamieński, reporting his impressions from the musicological congress in Vienna:

Every [composer] discovers America, but in his imagination. Instead of tonics, a falsehood will be written, he will divide the scale into a quarter or 78 semitones and then is considered a genius. Learn? for what! I was also at some opera of this Hindemith or what the Jew is called. Think about it, the bandmaster waving and waving with a truncheon, people are waiting, and this rabble in the orchestra tunes and tunes and cannot tune in properly. The singers roar their kilometre long coloraturas … they roll their arms and legs, and here – nothing; they keep tuning, and after two hours they finally reach the tonic – and the end! What a worry those poor atonalists have, to get to what our grandparents already know in diapers.200

←67 | 68→

Soon, after the lovers of contemporary music began to act institutionally, Polish musicologists also began to think about joining a separate association, which was somehow the result of initiatives taken in international societies. In the spring of 1927, during the Beethoven congress in Vienna, after several years of a break, the Internationale Musikgesellschaft resumed its activity, so a few months later they could adopt a less artistic and more scientific perspective under the name, Internationale Gesellschaft für Musikwissenschaft/Sociéte Internationale de Musicologie. As part of this organisation, the Slavic Musicological Union emerged, in which Łucjan Kamieński, then-current head of the Department of Musicology in Poznań showed his interest by founding the Polish Section.201 As described by Kamieński, the Slavic section was formed in the act of protest against the marginalisation of musicologists from outside the main European centres – German and French – placing their speeches at the end of the debate. On the initiative of Czech musicologists, the representatives of the then Yugoslavia, Russians and two Poles – Kamieński and Opieński joined the organising committee and the provisional board of the new association, the second one – as he lived permanently in Switzerland – with the proviso that he would pass his mandate to somebody else (implicitly – due to the respect he was given and the position of the Nestor among musicologists – Adolf Chybiński). The president was the founder of the first Czech department of musicology (in Prague) Zdeněk Nejedlý. The plans for the new organisation included publications of ‘monuments’ and the editorial office of the quarterly. The first Slavs’ meeting was to take place in May 1928 in Poznań. On the other hand, relations with an international society were to depend on the course of the talks: ‘As for the Polish section of the “Slavic Society,” I really think that it should be considered primarily as the “Towarzystwo Muzykologiczne Polskie” [Polish musicological society], and ←68 | 69→whether it will adhere to the “Société” at all, may depend on the relationship of Nejedlý, which I will demand.’202

Over the next few months, Nejedlý managed to win one place for the Union Slave member of the Directorate of the international society, which in the meantime he took. As is clear from the accounts, he ‘fiercely fought’ for the postulates of all Slavs. However, it soon turned out that cooperation between the members of the Union was not going well. A group of several musicians quite quickly invited to talks by Kamieński from Polish branches, decided at the first meeting in February 1928 to establish an independent, Polish National Musicological Society (PTM), so that in the international arena the interests of the Polish environment could be represented without pressure from foreigners.

On February 4, 1928, a meeting took place at the Warsaw headquarters of the Institute for Supporting Science – the Józef Mianowski Fund, or rather a meeting of musicologists during which PTM was established.203 This fact was even reported by the daily press: ‘The newly formed [musicological] society is the first attempt at organising Polish musical knowledge, knowledge represented by three university departments and a whole range of serious employees, who at the time of lack of a proper environment, their efforts had to be distracted by various other scientific corporations or popular publications, with obvious detriment to the development and influence of musicology itself. The centring of these efforts is, therefore, a significant fact, not only from a scientific point of view but also for the whole musical and cultural life in Poland.’204

The Polish Section of Internationale Musik-Gesellschaft was supposed to connect the communities of the main national science and music centres. According to published announcements, ‘The Statute of PTM [put first] in the organisation of strictly scientific work (in the form of publishing houses, scientific meetings, conventions) and representation of Polish musicology on the international forum, and also [to] include in the Society’s tasks “to intensify the influence of musicology on practice, education and writing in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth”‘.205 Łucjan Kamieński wanted to encourage ←69 | 70→and invite musicologists working not only in the academic circles of musicological centres – Cracow, Lviv and Poznań – but musicologists from all over Poland to cooperate with him. Only three people came from Lviv to meet on 4 February: Seweryn Barbag, Bronisława Wójcik and Maria Szczepańska (arriving with friendly but abstemious support for the initiative from Adolf Chybiński). Although initially Chybiński himself referred to Kamieński’s idea sceptically, in time both he and his associates in the Society were actively working (Chybiński even became one of the vice presidents).

The following signed under the Association’s Statutes: Bronisława Wójcikówna, Seweryn Barbag, Maria Szczepańska, Melania Grafczyńska, Wacław Piotrowski, Łucjan Kamieński and (on behalf the Circle of Students of Musicology in Cracow) Maria Chmielikowska. A date was also made for the second meeting – February 14 of that year – during which the composition of the Board was chosen in absentia. This group includes all three leaders in Polish musicology: Łucjan Kamieński (Poznań) – president, Adolf Chybiński (Lviv) – vice president, Zdzisław Jachimecki (Cracow) – vice president; Bronisław Wójcikówna (Lviv) became the secretary, Wacław Piotrowski (Poznań) – treasurer; in the Audit Committee and Court of the Society, Fr. Wacław Gieburowski and Kazimierz Zieliński (both from Poznań) and Lviv, Seweryn Barbag and Stefania Łobaczewska.

The fact that the members of the Board represented such geographically distant centres strongly hampered running communication and daily functioning of the Society, which may have provoked Chybiński to try to dominate the group and become more involved in the launch, already in the middle of March, of the Lviv branch: Adam Sołtys became his deputy, Maria Szczepańska secretary. Meanwhile, in the Statute as the headquarters of the institution declared Poznań, as did the court registration (incidentally completed more than a year later, on June 12, 1929).206 But almost from the beginning, there were doubts about this location. On March 8, 1928, only three weeks after the formation of the Board, Bronisław Wójcikówna wrote to Maria Szczepańska: ‘In the last letter, our President, prof. Kamieński, wrote that together with other Poznań musicologists they came to a consistent conviction that the headquarters of the Polish Musicological Society should be in Lviv. They have their reasons, which cannot be denied apart from one maybe, that if we start our publications this ←70 | 71→year (either separate academic papers or academic journals), they will naturally emerge in Lviv as a place where a current secretary resides and is the one who will run the publishing agencies.’207 Two years later, president Kamieński saw this situation slightly differently: ‘Bronka [Wójcikówna] thinks that the president is sitting too far from … Lviv. Oh what! At the assembly meeting, I was against such a scattering of the board, especially in the organisational period, – well, when Wójcikówna herself pushed through the current combination, believing that her energy would overcome all difficulties resulting from the dislocation of power.’208

When Bronisława Wójcik wrote about ‘our publications’ in March 1928, it was not about the Kwartalnik Muzyczny where the idea was rising at the same time, but in another group altogether. Wójcikówna’s words referred to one of the Society’s first goals: ‘work on the development and scientific progress of musicology in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, on strengthening the position of Polish musicology on international science, and … on increasing the influence of musicology on practice, upbringing and musical writing in Republic. Among the measures leading to the achievement of this goal, he lists the statute amongst other publishing of scientific papers in the field of musicology and artefacts of Polish artistic and folk music in an academic and practical form.’ At the end of the quoted letter, the question was asked: ‘Is the scientific work that has already been prepared or is currently being prepared by dear Sir, and would you like to publish it in the scientific publications of our Society? … The same concerning musical artefacts that could find their place in “Monumenta Musices”’.209

As for the editions, the Board of Directors, for its part, proposed to develop and publish a long list of both musical and theoretical works included in the artefacts of Polish music history, from the Middle Ages to Chopin, and also by creators, as Kamieński described them, ‘from the periphery’ (foreigners creating in Poland). With regard to Chopin’s compositions, it was planned to prepare a critical edition, which was to be directed by the Polish musicologist Ludwik Bronarski who lived in Switzerland, together with Bronisław Wójcik. Questions ←71 | 72→regarding possible publishing plans were addressed to each of the potential active members of the Society, where the Statute said that ‘that any musicologist of Polish nationality who has an academic diploma in the field of musicology (doctorate or magisteriate) can become a member … someone who can show at least one printed academic work in the field of musicology. … It is the duty of the active member to present at least every three years one academic work at the branch or the Society’s meetings.’210 In addition, ‘a supporting member who has undertaken deserving academic musicological work, although he does not have an academic degree, may exceptionally become an active member of the Society.’211

On June 1929 lists of the Society’s active members were, along with the addresses, the names of twenty people: from Lviv – Seweryn Eugeniusz Barbag, Adolf Chybiński, Józef Koffler, Stefania Łobaczewska, Maria Szczepańska, Bronisława Wójcik, Adam Sołtys, from Cracow – Melania Grafczyńska, Zdzisław Jachimecki, Józef Reiss, Helena Windakiewiczowa, from Poznań – Wacław Gieburowski, Łucjan Kamieński, Wacław Piotrowski, Kazimierz Zieliński, from Warsaw – Helena Dorabialska, Hieronim Feicht, Alicja Simon, and staying outside Poland Ludwik Bronarski (at that time in Geneva) and Henryk Opieński (in Morges). Being under numerical pressure from Lviv musicologists, the members of other communities were not too keen to engage in social work on the Board. First, Wacław Piotrowski wanted to resign from the function of the treasurer, who offered his function to Bronisława Wójcik, who, however, due to personal issues – her recent marriage – also decided to withdraw from the activities of PTM. She was replaced by Kazimierz Zieliński from Poznań, and so far, Piotrowski also remained.

In mid-1929, a group of active members (musicologists with published scientific achievements) decided to publish the PTM Bulletin, including works in the field of musicology. Unfortunately, difficult relations between the vice presidents – Chybiński and Jachimecki, the divergence of priorities as to the main directions of the Society’s activity, Kamieński’s proposals – unacceptable for Chybiński – to take over of subsidies granted by the Ministry of Religious Denominations and Public Education and the University of Lviv to publications that are already in the process of developing in WDMP (patronised and led by the professor), complicated the situation and actually prevented smooth cooperation. As Michałowski writes, ‘Earlier, in January 1929, Łucjan Kamieński ←72 | 73→proposed to Adolf Chybiński, as the editor of the Kwartalnik Muzyczny, that this journal would be published together … as the organ of the SMDM and the PTM – with Chybiński as “a delegate” of the Society to the editorial office of Kwartalnik – which, however, did not take place on account of Chybiński’s objection.’212

It can be surmised that Chybiński, at this point as the editor-in-chief of the first de facto musicological journal, Kwartalnik Muzyczny for a few months now in its second incarnation, would have been reluctant to see competition for academic publications in the pages of the PTM periodic organ. PTM, however, turned out to be a weak organisation that posed no threat to Kwartalnik. It also did not provide an academic background for the magazine. Having been in constant contact with Łucjan Kamieński for years, Chybiński perhaps promised him that he would help join the activities of the Warsaw group and very active Poznań. This supposition could be inferred from the words of the President of the Society, who reminded that the professor ‘the matter of PTM’s relation to Kwartalnik was to be raised at the next “music lovers” meeting.’213 The professor did not settle this matter, perhaps because he did not have a high opinion of representatives of other (than Lviv) musicological milieus. On the other hand, a little later, as the editor-in-chief, he complained that, contrary to his intentions and efforts, Kwartalnik was not a nationwide journal. In December 1929, he wrote to Ludwik Bronarski on the occasion of preparing the next issue of the periodical: ‘It’s already coming to my ears that Kwartalnik is a magazine of Lviv musicologists … But why, despite my hot and polite requests, the malcontents do not send their or their student’s work, or if they do send something, it is to the wastepaper basket, I do not know. I would sit quietly in such cases or send scientific revelations.’214

The conviction about the insufficient level of academics from other centres and the conflict between leaders from Lviv and Cracow215 lasting for years did not help cooperation in the implementation of the plans set out at the beginning ←73 | 74→of the activity by the Board. In addition, during the 1930s a sharp dispute arose between professors against the background of different positions in the book ‘Do historii polskiej muzyki świeckiej w XV stuleciu’ [To the history of Polish secular music in the fifteenth century] by Chybiński’s pupil Maria Szczepańska,216 who even found herself ‘on trial’ in the Society’s court, where the aggressive and excessively ironic form of the charges from Cracow against the researcher were negatively rated.217

Despite constant conflicts between the centres and in the absence of support for his efforts from colleagues, Kamieński consistently made further attempts to unite the environment and, regardless of the bad atmosphere, tried to organise a conference of musicologists. None of his efforts, however, succeeded in breaking the existing animosities. In a large feuilleton published in the first edition of Muzyka in 1931, its editor-in-chief, Mateusz Gliński, analysed the lack of success in implementing the idea of a nationwide association:

In the small group of employees representing our musicology, the most bizarre relations have been established: here we find outstanding individuals walking on their own, working in complete isolation from their colleagues, we find groups and circles closed within their work, pushing away the participation of other companions. Time and again ←74 | 75→we are witnessing violent controversies between the most prominent representatives of the science of music, the scandals, the scandalised confusion of professional-scientific issues with personal matters. Such relations preclude any possibility of peaceful, systematic work…. When the Polish Musicological Society was established a few years ago, we welcomed them enthusiastically, linking with the fact of its creation the possibility of healing relations in the field of musicology. Reality has lied to these predictions: for several years of existence, the Society has failed to hold a single board meeting due to personal frictions between some of its members…. Can this state of affairs be reconciled with logic and the artistic and scientific interest of our country?218

There were also no plans for teamwork integrating the environment, for which special privileges were reserved in one of the points of the Statute (point 20): ‘If the need to make a certain collective scientific work required the joint action of a larger number of Society members, then in the Society as a whole, and in individual departments, special sections may be established with the consent of the Board, governing their own regulations under these statutes.’ The bad atmosphere in the environment and the lack of any causative power to implement even some projects from the beginning of the Society’s existence caused an issue with organising the first Congress of Polish Musicologists planned for the end of May 1931, and the activities for PTM ceased for several years.

We learn about the next idea of resurrecting the PTM from one of Chybiński’s letters, written almost ten years later to Ludwik Bronarski: ‘Under the beautiful auspices of the Poznań convent, a new “Musicological Society” designed and also founded by the author of the attached article [Łucjan Kamieński] therefore, of course, a cultural parasite and a social pest like me (and my co-workers) will not want to push where such lofty slogans and noble ideals are spoken and cultivated to which we have not grown up to at all … The organisers hope to win over state coffers for their “socially-useful” works.’219

Representatives, or coordinators of individual centres, were supposed to be: the instigator of this initiative, Łucjan Kamieński in Poznań, Zdzisław Jachimecki in Cracow, Stefania Łobaczewska in Lviv and Stefan Śledziński in Warsaw. The first congress was planned in Warsaw in January 1938, another one in Cracow ←75 | 76→in June. According to Julian Pulikowski, a young and new musicologist in the milieu, a trusted Chybiński man who referred these messages to the professor, the Society’s goal was to be, among others ‘Exchange master’s theses, circulars in various matters, … taking back the editorial staff of the Musicological Yearbook from the Professor and transferring this editorial office to the Society!!!’220 All subsidies and funding from FKN would also be directed at the Society. In order to achieve success in the circles of the nationalistically marked leadership of the FKN, the initiative ‘imposed a coat of anti-Semitism and introduced an Arian paragraph.’221 Pulikowski, known at that time in the community for his anti-Semitic convictions, a few months earlier, in the middle of August 1938, tried to convince Chybiński to participate in the congress using such arguments:

it is supposed to be a meeting of POLISH musicologists only…. If we Poles do not stick together and for example, on such an occasion as the [organisation] of the “POLISH Music Week,” and if we gather together for purely demonstrative purposes, only Jews will win. I am a supporter of this even a formally bizarre reunion, for all POLES to gather at least ONCE WITHOUT JEWS…. If Mr Professor is not be persuaded by me … at least send Dr Szczepańska, Dr Dunicz, etc.! The LVIV School MUST be represented, by as many if possible!’222

Nevertheless, a month later, Pulikowski resigned himself, arguing that ‘it is not the time to create a Musicological Society, which instead of uniting all older and younger generation of musicologists in cooperation, it would only exacerbate the current relations and perpetuate them’223 and suggested, that no one from Lviv would participate in the congress. However, not everyone, especially the representatives of the youngest generation of the students of the Jan Kazimierz University, negatively judged this event. For beginner musicologists, it was an opportunity to present their first research, recognise the environment and contact with numerous live music performances during the festival that was taking place at the same time. Jan Józef Dunicz, a recent graduate of Lviv musicology, shared his doubts with Chybiński:

I received, already announced by Mr Professor, an invitation from Poznań to be part of a musicological meeting which will take place on 2–5th October current year, ←76 | 77→and requested – if possible – a short talk about one of the topics I am working on. They ask for an answer, will I come … I’m in a difficult position now. I must admit that I am interested in the congress, especially since it is connected with a rich concert programme (Harnasie, Straszny dwór [The haunted manor] in a new staging, Father Gieburowski’s choir, etc.). … If I were to take part in the congress, I would probably like to give a talk, and here I was informed about this with such short notice … I really do not know if I will make it…. I will probably be forced to deny myself the pleasure of travelling and participate in this unusual event in Poland.224

In a very similar tone, though with a different dilemma, one of his students turned to the professor, Józef Chomiński, who said:

I am asking you, Professor, for kind advice on a certain matter. I received a letter from Dr Zygmunt Latoszewski with an invitation to a meeting of musicologists in Poznań, which will be held on the occasion of the “Polish Music Week” on October 3–5 this year. In addition, Dr Latoszewski225 asks me to present a paper there. Although I am not a good speaker, I could prepare a talk and ultimately deliver it. … Currently, with my salary (PLN 138), it is very … difficult for me to go to Poznań … I do not know how and what I should write back to Dr Latoszewski. Does the “Lviv school” participate in this congress? If not, it would be all right, because my presence would be superfluous there.226

The congress eventually took place in a small group, and the next meeting of delegates from all musicological centres (including the emerging unit in Warsaw) was planned for January 1939 in the capital and for June the same year in Cracow. Before September 1939, no major initiatives in the Society were taken, but after the war, the musicologists focused as a separate section within the Polish Composers’ Union.

Strongly chauvinistic, nationalistic and racial issues disturbed the work of the musicological society, divided the environment also at the launch of the Frederic Chopin Institute. Chopin’s cult in the field of connecting enthusiasts of his work, of course, had a long tradition. Recall that after the Section named after Stanisław Moniuszko was spun out in 1891, and the Church Music Section six years later, in 1899 the Frederic Chopin Institute started its activity at the ←77 | 78→Warsaw Music Society, which, following the Moniuszko model, dealt with the collection of manuscripts and music prints, and memorabilia of the composer, which in turn was to give a basis for the creation of the composer’s museum. This initiative was a natural consequence of the cult of Chopin, which from the moment of his death was present in various forms in the social and cultural life of the country.227 One of the main tasks of the Section was to conduct publishing activity, which was meant to be the result of systematic research on the work and the figure of Frederic. Although the publishing projects included planned translations of Chopin monographs, such as Frederick Chopin as a man and musician by Friedrich Niecks (London 1888), this was not yet the moment when the music historians and critics community would be ready to publish their own periodical dedicated to the composer.

In the twenties and thirties, various committees and societies began to form, including those taking care of Chopin’s home in Żelazowa Wola or organisation of occasional ‘days.’ The Chopin Section at WTM still dealt only with the protection of the existing collections, and there was no question of research or scientific activity. This aspect was to be taken care of by the Frederic Chopin Institute initiated by a group of artists, politicians, organisers of musical life and enlightened music lovers.228 Although the date of establishment of IFCh is assumed to be April 1934, Grażyna Michniewicz in her article on the history of the Institute229 recalls that already in the autumn of 1933, the Ministry of Religious Denominations and Public Education received a bill of association, prepared by Mieczysław Idzikowski,230 signed by the Organising Committee made up of: Leopold Binental,231 Karol ←78 | 79→Stromenger,232 Maurycy Mayzel,233 Zofia Jaroszewiczowa234 and ‘as the owner of the everyday magazine and great music lover’235 Mieczysław Łubkowski. The beginning of the initiative can be found even in 1932.236

Among the founding members, along with the signatories of the project were Karol Szymanowski, Ferdynand Hoesick, Stanisław Niewiadomski, Władysław Zawistowski, Henryk Opieński, Eugeniusz Morawski, Emil Młynarski, Juliusz Kaden-Bandrowski, Adam Wieniawski, and Witold Maliszewski; after a short time, Bronisława Wójcik-Keuprulian and Jarosław Iwaszkiewicz also joined this group. Even before the information gathering in April, the association received an approved Statute, in which the aims and objectives of the Institute were to ‘promote … cult for Frederic Chopin … by publishing a permanent organ dedicated to Chopin.’ The composition of the selected Board was severely criticised by the permanent columnist of Muzyka Polska, Jan Olcha (used by Bronisław Rutkowski), who pointed to the propagandistic character of this ‘amateur-musical institution,’ and casting of figures such as Karol Szymanowski and Eugeniusz Morawski on less prominent positions of the board – only in the conciliation court or the audit committee, and to the distinction of people who were not so accomplished in the cause of Polish Chopinology, such as Zofia Jaroszewiczowa (against other, much more prominent Polish pianists), or Leopold Binental and ←79 | 80→Karol Stromenger (against the background of authors more experienced in research on Chopin).237

The financial situation of the Institute, as in many similar cases of societies and associations, was very uncertain. Theoretically, the funds for activity should flow from the state coffers, but the subsidies from the Ministry were small and sporadically directed, and the subsidies received from the National Culture Fund were intended entirely for the implementation of the main project – the National Edition of Chopin’s Works.238

Ludwik Bronarski already in 1934 considered the plan for the preparation of the National Edition as justified by all means, even (or maybe: all the more) considering the fresh edition, the so-called Oxford, Édouard Ganche239 edition, which, of all his (Bronarski) expectations, did not satisfy even by the fact that 1) that it did not include the complete works, only piano compositions, 2) that the publisher relied only on the first French edition in his edition, not including German and English, and at the same time 3) is not deprived of numerous (significant) typographical errors.240 In the article on the new Polish critical edition of Chopin’s works,241 he proposed, as we say today, a ‘road map’ of all activities that should accompany the beginning of work on a complete set of Chopin works and their conduct – from the collection of a competent editorial team to editorial details aimed at the maximum approaching the composer’s artistic intentions. He also thought it is important to decide if the new publication would only be ←80 | 81→a ‘scientific-historical reconstruction’ or serve pedagogical purposes, while he was inclined towards the non-instructional character of the publication, with any minor additions described in the commentary. The argument of ‘national pride,’ which should have an impact on making decisions about works on publishing, fell several times in the article, also by comparison to the so-called Sejm edition of Mickiewicz’s works.242 At that time, the plans were finished after the war with the edition of Chopin’s Complete Works under the editorship of Ignacy Jan Paderewski, Ludwik Bronarski and Józef Turczyński (Cracow 1949–61), as established in the 1930s.

They could not count on full financial support for the Institute’s other projects. One of the victims of the material problems of the institution was the previously mentioned organ – the Chopin magazine, which was initially conceived as a quarterly, with time to be a monthly, but appeared only twice in a cycle similar to a quarterly. August Zaleski, president of the IFC Board, wrote in a text from the editorial office that ‘the Institute wants to fill the gap in the Polish literature that was the result of lack of a magazine that would serve as a reflection of the current state of research in the field of Chopinology.’243 The editorial committee of the journal was formed in March 1936 and consisted of three people: Bronisława Wójcik-Keuprulian was responsible for academic editing, Stanisław Niewiadomski had the general department, and Leopold Binental – historical, ‘artefacts.’ It soon turned out that despite the letters addressed to potential authors experienced in Chopin (including members of the association) – Bronarski, Opieński, and also Lissa, Pulikowski, Jachimecki and others – materials were not delivered in significantly large numbers. The ones that were received by the editorial staff from other authors and correspondents did not meet expectations especially in terms of academic level.244 Postponed from month to month, the volume came ←81 | 82→to fruition only in June 1937, and the subject matter of the texts of the first edition – except for the dissertation on Chopin’s youthful compositions by Zdzisław Jachimecki245 – oscillates mainly around matters related to Chopin: contributions about the history of Żelazowa Wola,246 the history of the Institute,247 the history of the Chopin competition.248 In addition, the issue included a report ‘Fryderyk Chopin w Polskim Radio’ [Frederic Chopin on Polish Radio] and memories of the recently deceased Emil Młynarski, Stanisław Niewiadomski and Karol Szymanowski – also members of IFCh.

The Chopin edition was definitely different from the number one inaugural edition. Although the publication had to wait another few months, this time the authors were musicologists, not publicists or music critics. Furthermore, everyone was literally or indirectly connected with the Lviv mainstream of interwar musicology. The students of the Jan Kazimierz University – Zofia Lissa,249 Stefania Łobaczewska250 and Bronisława Wójcik-Keuprulian251 published their texts here; moreover, so did the leading Polish Chopinologist of the time, Ludwik Bronarski,252 a Lvivian by birth, who had been in close contact with Adolf ←82 | 83→Chybiński for years, as well as a friend of Chybiński and Henryk Opieński253 who exchanged his editorial experience with him.

Unfortunately, even such an excellent team of the authors of the second issue failed to mobilise the rather small number of scholars interested in the work and character of Chopin, too few for the needs of the magazine. Problems with the academic level of materials and delays in the preparation of the edition caused changes in the editorial board: after a temporary resignation, the function of the academic editor was maintained by Bronisława Wójcik-Keuprulian, who, however, soon died. Julian Pulikowski was responsible for organising the editorial work, supported informally by Bronarski; they were also joined by Konstanty Régamey (who at more or less the same time worked with the team of another Warsaw periodical, Muzyka Polska), and Stanisław Golachowski (who dealt with the chronicle of Chopin events). The new Editorial Committee proposed that Chopin be transformed into a yearbook, but the magazine did not appear again before the war, even in such a formula.

Chybiński, as it often happened, was irritated by the establishment of an institute that had the main task of conducting scientific and research activities (this time concerning Chopin) in a situation when he himself, away from Warsaw, somehow stood on the sidelines of this initiative.

They write to me from Warsaw as follows: ‘We are impressed here by the creation of the Chopin Institute, organised under the auspices of MWRiOP. The Board of this institution was constituted not long ago …. It seems that the only “Chopinologist” in this company is … Mr Binental. At the first general meeting of the Institute, the lecture “O uskutecznieniu w Polsce zbiorowego, naukowo-artystycznego wydawnictwa dzieł Chopina” [Making the collective scientific and artistic publishing of Chopin’s works in Poland effective] was given by Mr Idzikowski … the owner of the local bookshop and music printer”– Is there not a man who would show the whole absurdity of similar actions? In the corridors, they say that the patronage of the Institute is to be taken over by the master Paderewski. I do not want to believe it. No comment!!! But a question for your friend: is his last message essentially the truth? It would be unbelievable!.’254

Finally, at the beginning of 1937, he decided that since both Bronarski and the Master (Paderewski) agreed to cooperate, he could ‘sign himself up as a member.’ Commenting on the planned National Edition of Chopin’s Works, he remarked that ‘Warsaw residents … must be constantly monitored…. The same applies to publishing works in the Chopin quarterly. It is understood that this publication ←83 | 84→deserves support, but only in this case, when Mr Binental (known for his arrogance and hysteria) will not put his two cents in.’255

Chybiński himself was soon (in the war years) involved in a project prepared together with the management of TWMP (and personally Tadeusz Ochlewski) of the series of Analizy i Objaśnienia Dzieł Wszystkich Fryderyka Chopina [Analysis and explanation of all of Frederic Chopin’s works], which – in the new reality – only two volumes appeared: Mazurki prepared by Janusz Miketta (Cracow 1949) and Preludes by Józef Michał Chomiński (Cracow 1950).

In the meantime, however, he did not undertake major Chopin initiatives, especially since he had been dealing with another group of music activists from the capital for several years. None of the previously described associations was for Adolf Chybiński and his plans – both in the field of science and publishing –such support emerged in the mid-1920s in Warsaw among a few local young musicians. In 1926, three graduates of the Warsaw Conservatoire, Tadeusz Ochlewski, Teodor Zalewski, and Bronisław Rutkowski returning from his scholarship in Paris, having already had their first experiences of making music together, created a project to popularise the early music repertoire in the form of regular chamber presentations. In order to formalise these activities, at the request of Zalewski, the group decided to form a ‘registered association,’ and for this purpose – for formal reasons – two more people had to be involved. Adolf Chybiński and Emma Altberg, a pianist and journalist, a bit later for a number of years (1931–39) a writer associated with the Warsaw Express Poranny, where she wrote reviews, were invited to participate in the project. In the early years of the twentieth century, Altberg studied philosophy and social sciences in Switzerland, but then she devoted herself above all to playing the piano. She studied in Paris and St. Petersburg, after that she took (in 1926 and 1928) master classes in interpretation of early music with Wanda Landowska and Paul Brunold (this contact soon allowed Chybiński to recruit Brunold as the author of as many as four organology dissertations published in Kwartalnik Muzyczny, mainly about keyboard instruments256). She also became a pedagogue – a professor of piano and harpsichord, a specialist in teaching methodology of playing the piano. She was invaluable, on the one hand, in establishing contacts with the Warsaw cultural and intellectual circles in which she was involved. These contacts were needed ←84 | 85→for young musicians to be successful in their activities. On the other hand, she was invaluable as an excellent harpsichordist – on the stage of the Association; collaborating with Kwartalnik; she was also a translator of Brunold’s texts.

Reading the memoirs of Teodor Zalewski,257 one can probably get the impression that in 1924–25 he became an instigator of the situation, which soon resulted in artistic and publishing ideas important for the musical milieu, not only in Warsaw but also nationwide. At that time, Zalewski lived in Brwinów near Warsaw, as did Tadeusz Ochlewski’s parents. The close neighbourhood encouraged both musicians to play chamber music together. However, before this relationship was strengthened, Zalewski’s fate was full of turmoil connected with the historical events of the first decades of the twentieth century.

The Zalewski family – professional musicians – stayed in Rome in the 1890s then moved to Moscow. It was there that Teodor began to learn to play the piano with the Gniesin sisters; shortly before the outbreak of the war, he joined the Law Faculty of the Moscow State University. The independence of Poland prompted the Zalewskis to make a decision to return to their country – their repatriation journey lasted from September 1918 to April 1920. When the family finally arrived in Warsaw, Teodor, in connection with the Bolshevik war, was mobilised, but for a short time: first, he was transferred to the Ministry of Military Affairs, and in April 1922 he was completely released from service. Back in 1921, he returned to the law studies interrupted in Moscow, this time at the University of Warsaw, and at the same time, he began to take theory lessons with Piotr Rytel. He also joined the amateur symphony orchestra at WTM, whose conductor was Józef Śliwiński, and his deputy Mateusz Gliński. After demobilisation, in the autumn of 1922, he joined the Warsaw Conservatoire conducting class and thus gradually penetrated the musical milieu of Warsaw: he met Michał Kondracki, Piotr Perkowski, Jan Maklakiewicz, Kazimierz Wiłkomirski and Szymon Laks.

He met with both Rutkowski and Ochlewski at the conservatoire: Before leaving for a scholarship in Paris, Rutkowski recommended him as the manager and conductor of the musical ensemble in Leon Schiller’s theatre complex, with Ochlewski – a violinist – he had a joint diploma exam during which he conducted the orchestra accompanying the soloist (June 1925, less than a year later he graduated from the Law Faculty and began training three years later also a lawyer258).

←85 | 86→

A native of the Vilnius area, Bronisław Rutkowski, left home at the age of seventeen to take up music studies in St. Petersburg. After four years, however, he moved to Vilnius, to study at the Stefan Batory University at the Faculty of the Humanities (Polish Studies), and after another two to return to music education: this time at the Warsaw Conservatoire he studied the organ with Mieczysław Surzyński, theory with Piotr Rytel and Roman Statkowski, and conducting with Henryk Melcer. After graduating, in Paris, he perfected the organ playing with Louis Vierne and studied aesthetics with André Pirro, and after returning to the country, he took the organ class at the Warsaw Conservatoire. For several years he was an organist in the capital’s cathedral and also gave concerts in Poland and abroad, he cooperated with the radio, preparing regular cycles that popularised music, in the summer months he organised and led the Music Holiday Centre at Krzemieniec High School.259 As far as artistic activity is concerned, he made invaluable contributions to Polish organists and organs. He was not only a virtuoso of this instrument but also an excellent teacher and activist of the organist community. It is worth recalling that at the end of the 1920s he edited the Pismo Organistowskie, to which he invited Adolf Chybiński as an author. At the beginning of 1928, he wrote to Lviv: ‘Thank you most cordially for the submitted article for Pismo Organistowskie, which will be published in the February issue…. I was afraid that you would not send your valuable work to such a small publishing house. For the time being, Pismo Organistowskie is a very modest publishing house. I edit it out of necessity because in Warsaw no one wants to take care of this important matter.’260 For musicology, however, his decision to cooperate with Zalewski and Ochlewski in the organisation of SMDM became more important, and he became the president and – as Zalewski said – the ‘minister of foreign affairs’261 of the group, delegated to contacts with governmental and academic authorities.

←86 | 87→

Another responsibility fell to Tadeusz Ochlewski, whose task was to select the concert repertoire, and, in this connection, also obtaining music materials for both performances and new co-performers. Like other musicians, he was simultaneously supplementing his artistic education with another field of study, but – which was rare – in his case, it was not a humanistic study field, but more scientific, as he studied electromechanics at the St. Petersburg Polytechnic Institute. As a young man, however, he also performed as a violinist, and he decided to improve this skill – first at the Conservatoire in St. Petersburg, and after the war, from 1921 at the Warsaw Conservatoire and in 1929 with Wanda Landowska during courses of interpretation of early music in Paris. At all times he was a member of various music ensembles, both orchestral and chamber music – the Trio-Sonata and the Polish Quartet. In 1927, he became a professor at the Warsaw Conservatoire, and for over a dozen seasons he was also a teacher at the Music Holiday Centre at Krzemieniec High School.

Ochlewski’s passion, shared with other colleagues from SMDM, was to promote and popularise musical culture. After the first years of regular Warsaw concerts, the group decided to go with their idea to the provinces. The result of this idea was the initiation in 1934 of the Music Movement Organisation (ORMUZ), which Ochlewski directed to the outbreak of World War II. The statistics turned out to be impressive: fifteen symphonic concerts took place in Warsaw, four opera performances, and in the provinces, there were 624 concerts, moreover over two and a half thousand school programmes all over the country (more than half outside the capital).

From 1937, Ochlewski was appointed manager in TWMP, which had been established by SMDM activists in 1930. However, he is most associated with PWM. In 1945, at the request of the Minister of Culture and Art, he undertook the establishment of PWM on the remains of the pre-war institution, and he ran this until 1965.262 He was given prizes and awards many times.

In mid-December 1926, a group of enthusiasts of a new artistic idea met for the first time to select the first board of the Association.263 It was obviously ←87 | 88→formed by group initiators, of whom the ‘functionaries’ were: Rutkowski as president, as secretary – Ochlewski, as treasurer – Zalewski; in addition to the five founders, pastor August Loth,264 Zdzisław Dziewulski265 and Wacław Kochański266 joined the board. On some of the magazines, there is also a signature of a pianist and harpsichordist, an educator of the Warsaw Conservatoire, Margerita Trombini-Kazuro.267

Initially, SMDM focused on concert activities – chamber music evenings that took place every two weeks from January 1927, in which other musicians participated as well. They were concentrated in the room given to this purpose by Rector Melcer, in the building of the Conservatoire, an increasing number of people added to the list as part of the Association, on which there were – as Teodor Zalewski recalled – ‘many pedagogues of various levels – from professors of higher education to public school teachers, some doctors and lawyers, a wide variety of so-called white-collar workers and a fairly large group of academic youth.’268 Two years after the initiation of the activity, the Association had about five hundred members. For a long time, the performers, and even more so the members of the Board, did not derive any material benefits from their activities and only financial support from the FKN allowed for the development of further plans. The group could not count on ministerial subsidies, because young musicians were outside the circle of influence of MWRiOP officials – head of the Music Department of the Department of Art, Felicjan Szopski, professor of the competing music school – the Frederic Chopin Higher Music School of the WTM, and his successor, Janusz Miketta, also associated with the school at WTM. It was only in 1934 – according to some circles, ‘as a result of a complicated, very cleverly run campaign against prof. Witold Maliszewski’269 (in ←88 | 89→the years 1927–34 acting as the head of the music section in the Ministry of Religious Denominations and Public Education) – the position of music referent in the Ministry was awarded to Stefan Śledziński, SMDM’s ‘man’ (slightly later criticised in connection with entrusting him with department of musicology in Warsaw Conservatoire).

From the beginning, the protector of the Association’s activities was Stanisław Michalski, an educational activist, academic and science organiser, editor of Nauka Polska, creator of libraries and reading rooms, but first and foremost the head of the science department of the Józef Mianowski Fund during the entire interwar period and director of the FKN in 1928–39 (also a co-creator of the creative work home in Mlądz near Otwock, the so-called Mądralin). Michalski’s great managerial talent allowed him to build the funds coming from everywhere – not only from intellectual and academic circles but also from the working class – donations that, in turn, were deliberately and rationally allocated for subsidies of scientific research, publications, scholarships and prizes. Subsequently, Ochlewski and his colleagues began to seek subsidies from the 1927–28 season.

Broad information about SMDM was published, among others in the chronicle of the first edition of Kwartalnik Muzyczny – it was explained what the Association was and what its tasks were, a report was added from the next, third general meeting of members, which took place on 15 October 1928, and there was also information about the selection of office bearers along with the definition of the scope of duties, the activities of the choir and the library, a list of previous programmes and concerts (also coming announcements), and about the goals and characteristics of the new series.270 SMDM’s new plans included intensifying concert activity, initiating the work of WDMP and setting up a music magazine. For these purposes, in 1928, the Fund granted PLN 25,000, in the following years an annual fixed amount of PLN 10,000 was established, which without unnecessary formalities, was sufficient to settle accounts with attached copies of the publication of the publishing house. Thanks to the funds provided, the nature of the concerts changed. While they had previously only been chamber concerts, from 1928, they included symphonic concerts (also with the choir).

From the beginning, the concert activity of the Association met with considerable enthusiasm from music critics and music lovers. After the group’s first concerts, Mateusz Gliński, wrote a few kind words about the new initiative in Muzyka: ‘Music lovers were reminded of a series of unknown and forgotten ←89 | 90→compositions through the interesting and useful concerts by the “Society of Early Music,” held on Mondays in the hall of the conservatoire; they effectively fill the gap in our musical life, which until recently was very painful.’271 Unfortunately, with time, friendly reactions and comments began to give way to criticism, most often on the line SMDM-editors of Muzyka, mainly from the editor-in-chief of the monthly. After the concert organised on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the Association, the section ‘Musical Review. Musical life in the capital’ included a polemical report signed by Mateusz Gliński, in which the author asked, among others the question about the advisability of running a business that popularises musical culture in the form adopted by the members of the Society:

There is no doubt … that early music can give many deep emotions and beneficial stimuli. But only music which is very good and very well performed. Meanwhile, SMDM, using the special care of FKN and MWRiOP, has developed an action that is completely disproportionate in relation to the essential needs of our concert life. An excess of concerts has caused dilution to programmes of secondary importance, sometimes simply uninteresting, schematic.272

Such unfavourable opinions appearing more frequently with the years, however, did not affect the achievement of the Association’s main goals, that is, propagation of early Polish music – in addition to concert activity, also by providing them in printed form as part of WDMP, to which musical artefacts were directed – or previously found, or continuously obtained from archives and libraries penetrated by the next generation of young musicologists, that were better prepared for this kind of exploration and preparation of discovered materials. Initially, the compositions of the fifteenth and eighteenth centuries were considered, with time they were expanding this repertoire with works from the nineteenth century. Together with the first issue of WDMP, the SMDM Management Board issued a statement informing about the assumptions of the series, in which, amongst others, it could be read:

In the area of SMDM’s activity in Warsaw, it is the dissemination of early Polish music. One of the means of this activity is the publishing of works by early Polish masters, which are a testimony that Poland has been involved in the development of European musical culture since the Middle Ages. The WDMP that is being started with this book, it is not aimed solely at academic but rather – and above all – practical and performance goals. The aim of SMDM is to publish all those artefacts of Polish music that undoubtedly are characterised by an outstanding and lasting artistic value, not just historical…. ←90 | 91→The SMDM Board hopes that the Publishing House will be embraced by the loving care of the Polish musical community, which has not yet had the opportunity to learn about old native music to the same extent as works of art and fine arts.273

For the credibility and raising the prestige of the series, in May 1927, the Board of the Association invited Adolf Chybiński by letter. It was known that Chybiński, from the time of his studies in Munich and throughout his scientific activity, devoted himself primarily to the recognition of the history of Polish music – mainly the Renaissance and Baroque periods, and debuted with the work of Bogurodzica pod względem historyczno-muzycznym [Bogurodzica from an historical-musical perspective] (Cracow 1907). At the end of the 1930s, Hieronim Feicht counted more than one hundred contributions, notes and materials about monuments and figures from the Polish musical past by his promoter274 who, penetrating mainly Cracow’s archives, brought to light and brought to order many musical artefacts, previously forgotten and completely absent from the repertoire.

For musicians with solid practical education and ambitious plans to promote high-level musical culture, such as the founders of SMDM – Ochlewski, Rutkowski, Zalewski – but not sufficiently prepared to implement these plans in scientific terms, the consent of the professor of the Jan Kazimierz University, head of one of the three Polish musicological centres specialising in the history of early music, for them to cooperate, was an indispensable condition for the implementation of this idea. In the spring of 1927, duly encouraged by earlier contact with the professor regarding the preparation for one of Mielczewski’s canzonas by the musicians, they wrote to Lviv:

Dear Professor, At the beginning of the current year [SMDM was founded in Warsaw], of which we send short information, wanting to interest you, Honorable Sir, and gain his valuable knowledge and experience for our purposes. The matter of the Association’s activity is of great importance: the elaboration and possible publishing of Polish early music. We understand that in this area, without the help of you, Honorable Sir, it would be difficult for us to do anything…. We would like to seek the advice and guidance of you, Honorable Sir, in a whole range of matters (publishing houses, preparations of old Polish compositions and texts etc.), which are difficult topics to talk about via letter.275

←91 | 92→

Undoubtedly, Chybiński himself, in the past notorious for undertaking excessive obligations, many of which he was unable – for reasons of time – to fulfil, could not reject this proposal particularly on account of his own interests. In any case, many times – also in the press – he encouraged other centres to take part in Warsaw initiatives. In 1930 he wrote: ‘The Association’s aim is to ensure the artistic and scientific cooperation of all Polish music environments. Currently, the Warsaw, Lviv and Poznań forces are already cooperating, though not fully yet…. It would be a good thing for the research on early Polish music, which is very desirable so that other Polish milieus – each in their own scope – will join similar publications.’276

For him, working with sources was a passion, and the possibility of using them for purposes, alongside scientific and artistic ones, had to give additional satisfaction. Chybiński was the author or co-author of most WDMP editions that appeared before the war (as well as the first post-war editions released from materials prepared in the 1930s). As Zalewski recalled, ‘he put a lot of work into the Publishing House and did not take a penny for it, accepting our principle of work “for an idea,” unpaid, purely social, without objection.’277 The professor mainly dealt with the scientific context of the journal, compiled comments, notes on composers, and revised the musical text. When, after many years, on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the existence of SMDM, the President was receiving numerous expressions of appreciation for his activity, Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Religious Denominations and Public Education, prof. Józef Ujejski, a historian of Polish literature, an outstanding expert in Romanticism, sending a congratulatory letter to the whole team, he also wrote warm words ‘in recognition of merit’ for Adolf Chybiński, thus proving that in the broadly understood humanist milieu, the Lviv professor was a well-known and respected figure, and the scientific achievements of the Association were identified with him.

While discussing the first issues of WDMP – S.S. Szarzyński’s Sonatas and Concerto Deus in nomine tuo by M. Mielczewski – the editorial staff of the Poznań Przegląd Muzyczny, who were friendly with the group of Warsaw music lovers, published an extensive commentary in the magazine:

The activity of the SMDM in Warsaw marked last season not only giving concerts, but also a lasting memento: the publication of the above-mentioned Polish works – Fortunately, they are individuals in the younger generation of our musicians who have ←92 | 93→not only vitality and willingness to work, but also the ability to achieve their goals…. one should not overlook the names of these activists: B. Rutkowski, K. Sikorski, T. Zalewski, T. Ochlewski. … Intending to join the publishing house, the management of SMDM entrusted the leadership to Adolf Chybiński, professor of musicology at the University of Lviv; it was difficult to find a better choice, because knowledge, thoroughness and accuracy in the application of research are known, diligence and knowledge of early Polish literature of this scholar.278

Kazimierz Sikorski was invited to help with the realisation of the figured bass and to prepare the performance edition of the WDMP publication. Sikorski was a graduate of the Frederic Chopin Higher School of Music at WTM, where he studied composition with Felicjan Szopski in the years 1911–19, theoretical subjects were taught by the writer of the words above, Henryk Opieński.279 At the same time, in the years 1915–21, Sikorski also attended the Philosophy Department (philosophy and law) of the University of Warsaw. After graduating, he left for Lviv to become a student of Chybiński, but rather soon pragmatic considerations dictated he had to abandon musicological studies and start to work in one of Lviv’s private music schools. In the same year, 1921, Sikorski started a pedagogical career lasting several dozen years – he lectured (depending on the institution) harmony, counterpoint, composition, solfege, musical forms and instrumentation successively at the Helena Kijeńska-Dobkiewicz Music Conservatoire in Łódź (1921–25), the State Conservatoire Music in Poznań (1926–27), the State Conservatoire of Music in Warsaw (1927–39);280 he was also one of the lecturers at courses for teachers at the Music Holiday Centre in Krzemieniec.281 In the meantime, he benefitted from the MWRiOP scholarship ←93 | 94→twice, and in 1925 and 1930 he studied with Nadia Boulanger in Paris. Already in the interwar period, he was an active member of various creative unions: a founding member of SKP (from 1932 a member of the Board), deputy president of the Polish Section of MTMW (1928–30).282 In the Society named and initiated after the death of Karol Szymanowski, Sikorski, as a great admirer of the work of the author of Harnasie, became president. Even before the war, he received his first awards and distinctions, including the Polonia Restituta Order, 1937, and after the war the Golden Cross of Merit, 1952, the Jurzykowski Foundation Award, 1981, and awards from the milieu. An important episode in Sikorski’s life for the system of music education in Poland was his participation in the preparation of the reform of music education. (Works under the System and Programme Committee at MWRiOP, including, among others, Karol Szymanowski and Janusz Miketta, chaired by Adolf Chybiński.)

As mentioned above, it was originally intended to limit the publishing plans to items covering the Polish musical renaissance and baroque, to works – as Chybiński himself declared – of not only historical but also artistic value.283 Publishers wanted to provide a wide range of genres and types of works both for scientific and performance purposes – also as an offer for foreign centres – by Pękel, Różycki, Gorczycki or works extracted ‘from total oblivion by Jarzębski, Mielczewski, Szarzyński,’ first of all previously unknown or known from other editions, but revised due to perceived imperfections and inaccuracies against the original. The professor also dreamed about publishing further works of ‘great in value and size’284 – Szarzyński’s Litanies and Completorium or compositions by Zieleński.285

←94 | 95→

Just over a year from the establishment of SMDM, in March 1928, another organisation was founded based on the personal ‘pillars’ of association – Towarzystwo Wydawnicze Muzyki Polskiej (TWMP; Polish Music Publishing Society). Representatives of the newly educated group of musicians knew how much young composers lacked a publishing house which would undertake the publication of new native art, and they were also aware of the lack and shortcomings of pedagogical literature. Only the very few could afford the editions of the European publishing houses (only a few – Karol Szymanowski, Józef Koffler) had contracts with Universal Edition at that time. Artists from the generation born at the end of the nineteenth century concentrated around TWMP who were close both ‘ideologically and with age’286 to the founding members of the new publishing house. The instigators of the project declared that the publishing programme should serve various factions ‘often standing at extremely different artistic positions and representing various creative trends,’287 including the achievements of past eras, which, moreover, did not always appeal to young musicians. As a result, TWMP’s offer included both compositions by Jan Maklakiewicz, Eugeniusz Pankiewicz, Piotr Perkowski, Bronisław Rutkowski, Kazimierz Sikorski, Tadeusz Szeligowski, as well as Roman Statkowski, Henryk Melcer, Feliks Nowowiejski, Stanisław Moniuszko and Juliusz Zarembski, and this is also an incomplete list. The publishing plans grew rapidly and, as Zalewski recalls, three lithographs for the production of music were used; for the graphical side of the covers – unified ←95 | 96→for all publications – responsibility was held by Edward Manteufel, a graphic designer who had already designed the cover of the flagship title of the publishing house – Kwartalnik Muzyczny. At one point organising the production of music in the flat at 16 Żurawia Street obliged the Management Board of the Society to formalise contacts with creators, elaborate the principles of taking over copyright and transferring fees to composers according to contracts developed for this purpose. The publishing house could settle into routine work also thanks to the changes that took place in the government when Wojciech Jastrzębowski was promoted to the new publishers as the director of the Department of Art. As it turned out; unfortunately, they received less support from the Department of Music, which was managed by Janusz Miketta. However, they could always count on the help of FKN and its head Stanisław Michalski.

The new TWMP statute, approved on December 20, 1934, indicates its primary goals, valid since the beginning of the Society’s activity: ‘supporting Polish musical creativity, strengthening its position and significance as one of the manifestations of the cultural life of the Polish nation, spreading love for music among broad layers society and cooperation of Polish musicians on the promotion of musical culture in Poland.’288 In addition, in agreement with MWRiOP, the Society organised a collection of manuscripts by Polish composers, in which the works submitted from the departmental subsidies for this purpose were written out in parts and made available in such a form for a fee. Less than three months later, in March 1935, a new Board was elected: Teodor Zalewski became the president, board members – Kazimierz Sikorski (secretary, chairman of the Publishing Committee), Tadeusz Ochlewski (chairman of the ORMUZ Committee), Feliks Łabuński289 (chairman of the Contemporary Music Committee); the treasurer and chairman of the Propaganda Commission (being at the same time the editor of the Muzyka Polska quarterly, which was launched in 1934), was Bronisław Rutkowski, and the deputies were Roman Palester and Julian Pulikowski.

In the next few years, the only music publisher so widely conceived at that time realised its plans including both music publications, as well as books and ←96 | 97→magazines. Its organ was the aforementioned Muzyka Polska; The Society also dealt with the printing and compiling of the next periodical for musicologists – Polski Rocznik Muzykologiczny (PRM) – transformed from Kwartalnik Muzyczny, and Gazetka Muzyczna – a magazine for the youngest generation. In 1935 the TWMP also published an excellent monograph by Ludwik Bronarski, Chopin’s Harmony, probably in this respect the first analytical oriented dissertation in Polish on issues related to research on Chopin’s work, and also the first such a serious publication on the Society’s list of titles.

In Warsaw, the opinions about the ‘clique’ of the ‘Music Lovers’ were obviously not unambiguous. On the part of the milieu focused in particular around Muzyka, allegations were made to take over the lion’s share of state subsidies for musical purposes, similarly as regards funds from FKN. An anonymous publicist of Muzyka, perhaps the editor-in-chief, Mateusz Gliński, posted the text ‘Clique or not a clique? In response to the “answers”‘,290 Zalewski’s replica of the defence of SMDM, replete with irony, was published in Muzyka Polska,291 (this, in turn, was the answer to the anonymous column in the section ‘Musical impressions’ entitled ‘Apology and apologists of ancient music’).292 Zalewski’s arguments that ‘The scope of work of these institutions [SMDM and TWMP] is indeed quite wide: permanent concerts in Warsaw, music notes and music book publishing house, magazine, organisation of musical movement in the province, programmes for school youth,’293 were reminded with a comment that the members of the Association ‘made energetic efforts to include the Warsaw Opera, the Warsaw Music Society, the Directorate of concerts at the Conservatoire’294– conclusion: they wanted to take control of the entire musical life of the capital. The tone of the note was, of course, overly ironic and resulted from the animosities that divided the Warsaw music community in the fight for public funds, but it gives an image of how strong the Zalewski-Ochlewski-Rutkowski group and colleagues team was, full of new ideas implemented in larger and larger areas of culture.

The creators of SMDM and Adolf Chybiński had a special intimacy. The professor and Warsaw musicians set themselves the goal for their association’s activity: to discover, announce and save from oblivion – through performances ←97 | 98→and editions – artefacts of Polish music. Everyone did the best they could. Chybiński was almost a full generation older than the rest – in the 1920s, when they started their cooperation, the Lviv musicologist released his subsequent group of graduates, Zalewski, Rutkowski and Ochlewski had only just received their diplomas, so for them he was also a kind of master and guide in the musical Old Polish literature. They were impressed by his personality. Zalewski recalled: ‘I met with prof. Chybiński quite often and received much cordiality and kindness from him. Personally, I liked him very much and appreciated him immensely,’295 and then presented such a personality characterisation of the professor’s personality: ‘erudite, a bookworm, a pedantic and meticulous researcher – in his research he was characterised by accuracy, the ability to use all sources in a comprehensive manner and a great sense of responsibility in formulating conclusions. … introverted, somewhat mysterious, hardly communicating outside, always hidden somewhere …. He had something of a Benedictine monk in his posture.’296

In those years, Chybiński was the dean and vice-dean of the Faculty of Humanities at the Jan Kazimierz University, chairman of the faculty’s examination committee, vice-president of the PTM, chairman of the Opinion Committee of the Music School System, member of the composition competitions committee. Despite all these duties, he had to welcome the invitation to participate in a project involving the promotion of early music, which came from Warsaw, with great satisfaction. Not only was he chosen as the leading authority in Poland, which must have been flattering for him but the invitation itself opened before him completely different possibilities of ‘organising’ his own research passions. Zalewski and colleagues counted on the inflow of a new repertoire for their broadcasts – at last the professor could hope that he would be able to show his musical discoveries to the world in a manner he thought fit.

He had a very sceptical, ironic and unwilling attitude towards the Warsaw environment, and even to the city itself as a cluster of people. We do not know the correspondence he directed to the members of the Association’s Board, but in letters to Ludwik Bronarski, he repeatedly mentioned ‘manifestations of Warsawism,’ ‘Warsaw’s conduct’ or ‘Warsaw’s cunning’ as a synonym of deviousness. He complained: ‘I have a real “Warsaw poverty” with Kwartalnik…. I cannot bring “Warsaw” to order. I will probably go one day to give someone an ultimatum.’297 And other times: ‘I am kindly asking to inform me about ←98 | 99→possible Warsaw insubordination, which sometimes becomes my bone in my throat. Warsaw’s mess has its own style, and because there is a “Stylish” theatre and a “Stylish” cinema in Warsaw, the magazines must be “stylish” as well.’298 It even seems that due to various misunderstandings, at some point a split could have occurred in the SMDM Board. Anticipating some information about Kwartalnik Muzyczny itself, it is worth mentioning that at the turn of 1929 and 1930 disputes continued about the profile and content as well as the definition of the ‘target group’ of the magazine’s readers. From two subsequent letters to Bronarski, we find out what Chybiński was going to Warsaw with and what he returned with:

… On Sunday I have a meeting of the board of the SMDM. It will be hot there because the board is not fired up by ‘musicology’ and therefore is not happy with the direction of Kwartalnik. They would like more ‘news.’ I do not oppose it, yes, but who will write it?… Of course, I know that the SMDM board will be beaten and at least helpless. But let’s just get a resolution that Kwartalnik will live until the end of his second volume, and I will not grieve at all, because then, on the model of Switzerland, we will create a yearbook – only that it is no longer musical but musicological. Support from governmental factors will be certain, we will receive the money. Then the whole ballast of various headings and reports will fall off, and no one will cramp us with anything or anybody. There will be a lot of news and news, but for more serious people.299

And two weeks later:

We have not changed in Warsaw. In my own way, I hit the argument with whatever fist I hit the table and I saw (or maybe it just seems to me that I saw) how they put their ears down. The most important was my query, or rather two questions: 1. Is the Kwartalnik to be changed into Muzyka of Mr. Herzenstein-Gliński? 2. What other collaborators are proposed by the Association’s management? Because ‘no’ came as an answer, I found the matter settled. I also threatened the yearbook.300 … As it was, it will be.301

Among the members of the SMDM–WDMP group, surely the most intimate contact was between Chybiński and Kazimierz Sikorski for several reasons. First of all – they knew each other before; at the beginning of the 1920s, for a short time, Sikorski was his student at Lviv musicology. Although the plans – as it turned out soon – were different then, as mentioned above, he devoted himself ←99 | 100→to pedagogy there, but it was known that he came to the UJK especially for classes with the professor. Secondly, they shared their common tasks within the Association: running Kwartalnik Muzyczny, in which Sikorski became a secretary. Even though Chybiński, as seen, often complained about cooperation with Warsaw, they trusted each other. Above all, however, Sikorski was an excellent theoretician, which in Chybiński’s eyes was his great asset. According to the professor, a real musicologist should absolutely have their skills deepened in the field of learning harmony and counterpoint, which he repeatedly emphasised. Although Sikorski did not claim to be a musicologist, he nevertheless perfectly suited Chybiński’s expectations when it came to the academic treatment of the musical matter, which they dealt with together.

Less is known about the relations between the professor and Rutkowski and Zalewski, apart from the brief reflection of the latter cited above. On the other hand, he often corresponded with Ochlewski before the war, mainly on a professional basis. Their contacts tightened strongly after 1945, when he became director – created on the basis of pre-war structures – of the state-owned music publishing house, which also included the executive editing of the post-war edition of the Kwartalnik Muzyczny and in which the various pre-war publishing plans were resumed. From the large amount of correspondence between Chybiński and Ochlewski from 1944–52, on the only ‘war’ card, Chybiński turns to Ochlewski with a formula ‘Dear and beloved Colleague,’ but in the letters there are only very cordial phrases ‘My Dear and Dear Tadziu,’ ‘Dear Tadzieńku,’ ‘Dear Teddy.’ The professor probably wrote one of his last letters to Ochlewski, revealing intimate details related to his health. The then director of PWM wrote the opposite, probably almost as often, always starting with the heartfelt phrase ‘Dear Dolek,’ but it seems that due to his function and duty as the head of the publishing house he tried to keep some distance; he often drew his friend’s attention to his imperfections as an author and editor, although he always tried to do so gently – once he turned the situation into a joke, another time patiently lecturing.

In the mid-1930s, Chybiński’s contacts with the founders of SMDM and WDMP became colder, mainly due to the changes that took place in the field of publishing politics, and marginalisation of the position of the professor to the role of a one-man editor in the PRM – a newly created journal, admittedly academic when it comes to for content, but more niche in terms of reception than the previous Kwartalnik. At the same time, the group of associates of the Association was growing, and the functions in the structures of institutions were passed into the hands of new members. In the spring of 1938, for example, after another change in the TWMP Management, Kazimierz Sikorski from the old ←100 | 101→circle became the president, Tadeusz Szeligowski was already the secretary, and the treasurer was the composer and conductor Michał Jaworski, and members Stanisław Wiechowicz and Piotr Perkowski. Muzyka Polska in 1937–39 was edited by Konstanty Régamey. Pulikowski, who shortly after arriving in Warsaw was admitted to all ‘formations’ of ‘Lovers’ – SMDM, WDMP and the editorial board of Muzyka Polska, a new organ of the group – after the fuss that took place at the turn of 1937/38, which was associated with the person acting as the secretary of the editorial office of the monthly Stefan Kisielewski,302 he left the Association. The details of these events will, however, be the subject of further chapters.

From the above brief sketch outlining the panorama of the main environmental associations and societies of the interwar period, it is clear that Adolf Chybiński, who was never an initiator of establishing these organisations, was usually engaged in their works by being invited to a close group of boards, or even taking over the chairman function. From the first years of the new century, he was one of the central figures of the nascent Polish musicology and, with time, its Nestor, around whom the opinion-forming part of the musical community was focused. Unfortunately, his unstable nature, irritability, and the tendency to contest the actions of other circles than his friends meant that, with time, he gave up on work that would benefit further organisations or led to situations in which he was marginalised. Mieczysław Tomaszewski, writing about Chybiński in the context of his difficult contacts with Jachimecki, stated that the first of them ‘he did not sin with openness, he was easily offended and often withdrew.’303 This brief, but very accurate description can be related to the collaboration of Chybiński with almost the entire environment operating in these years, although – paradoxically – it is difficult to imagine the life of this environment without the professor. After the war, this sphere of activity – an activist and organiser – was continued by his pupils and the next generation of Polish musicologists.

←101 | 102→←102 | 103→

136 Muzyka 1924/1, 21–22, the column ‘Impresje muzyczne’ [Musical impressions].

137 Ibid., p. 21.

138 Adam Wieniawski (1876–1950), composer, conductor, musical rapporteur. He was secretary of the Polish Section of the MTMW, co-founder of SKP (ZKP) (secretary and long-term president), co-initiator of IFCh, member of the artistic council of the opera in Warsaw.

139 Piotr Rytel (1884–1970), composer and music critic, teacher among others of harmony and composition at the Warsaw Institute of Music, in the interwar period, and also after 1945, a columnist and columnist for capital newspapers and social and cultural periodicals. In the field of music critics, like Adam Wieniawski, he presented a conservative option in the music journalism of the interwar period.

140 Leopold Binental (1886–1944), violinist, publicist, and Chopinologist. He was one of the initiators of establishing the Frederic Chopin Institute. The exhibition of Chopin’s documents and memorabilia organised in 1932 in Warsaw was preceded by the Chopin album, published in 1930 (On the 120th birthday. Documents and memorabilia).

141 Stanisław Zmigryder (1877–1930), pianist, pedagogue, reviewer, publicist. He studied at the Music Institute in Warsaw as well as in Berlin and Paris. He ran a piano playing school in Warsaw. He also lectured at the Stanisław Moniuszko Music School in Warsaw. He was the secretary of the Union of Musical and Theatrical Rapporteurs.

142 Władysław Fabry (1888–1946), Warsaw critic and publicist, music reviewer for journals Śpiewak, Polska Zbrojna. He was (together with Adolf Chybiński, Mateusz Gliński, Teodor Zalewski, Łucjan Kamieński, Janusz Miketta, Tadeusz Czerniawski and Zbigniew Drzewiecki) member of the jury of the state music award granted by the Ministry of Religious Denominations and Public Education in Warsaw.

143 The Association of Music and Theatre Speakers has been active since 1925; its co-organiser and vice-president in 1925–33 was Piotr Rytel, who at the same time in the years 1925–35 served as a member of the Board of the Polish Contemporary Composers Association. Apparently, in 1929, Fabry and others decided to narrow down the group of ‘musical rapporteurs’ to ‘rapporteurs of everyday newspapers.’

144 Gliński to Chybiński from Warsaw 4 II 1929, AACh-BJ, box 6, G-5/91.

145 We will return to the history of SMDM below.

146 Gliński to Chybiński from Warsaw 9 II 1929, AACh-BJ, box 6, G-5/92.

147 Ibid. Letters of the same content were sent to many representatives of musicologists and music critics.

148 Sikorski to Chybiński from Warsaw 15 II 1929, AACh-BJ, box 4, S-10/24.

149 See Muzyka 1929/2, 88, section ‘Musical Impressions.’

150 In the correspondence between Chybiński and his trusted associates and friends, one can often hear the name ‘Herzenstein,’ which was the family name of Mateusz Gliński.

151 Sikorski to Chybiński from Warsaw 26 II 1929, AACh-BJ, box 4, S-10/21.

152 In the above-mentioned column ‘Wesołe i smutne’ [Happy and sad] in March 1929, we do not find any controversial statements about Fabry. Unruly jokes about the achievement of sexual maturity, which does not go hand in hand with the critical maturity of another ‘rapporteur,’ Zbigniew Domaniewski, were to be found earlier in the February issue (p. 108); perhaps these remarks became one of the catalysts of the upcoming dispute.

153 Muzyka 1929/4, 177–181. Earlier, because in the numbers under the date of 10 April (Muzyka appeared on the twentieth of each month), Gliński also publicised the matter via two capital dailies – Kurier Polski and Epoka.

154 The honorary code based on traditional rules concerning Polski kodeks honorowy [Polish code of honor] (Cracow 1919), publication on honourable conduct, including duelling. Section 60 of the Code read: ‘Unless it is certain whether the insulting person was actually going to insult the defiant, he should ask for one, if possible, mutual friend who would ask the insulter to explain the words or dubious acts. If the intention is stated, the 24-hour time allowed to the offended person to the challenge counts from the moment that the mutual friend informs him about it.’

155 The fact that Chybiński favoured the initiative was also to be proved by the words about the many years of fruitful cooperation between the Warsaw editorial office and the professor. Gliński wrote: ‘I think it is advisable to add that prof. Chybiński is a co-founder and one of the most active co-editors of Muzyka, where from the bright and efficient co-operation the scripture is used until the last moment,’ see Epoka 1929, 10 April, 6.

156 Letter of the Board of the Union of Music Speakers from 23 IV 1929, quote from Muzyka 1929/4, 180.

157 Muzyka 1929/4, 181.

158 See Muzyka 1929/6, 346.

159 ‘Konsolidacja prasy muzycznej’ [Consolidation of the music press] (Muzyka 1929/2, 105–106).

160 Gliński to Chybiński from Warsaw 19 VIII 1929, AACh-BJ, box 6, G-5/102.

161 See Gliński to Chybiński from Warsaw 6 VII 1929, AACh-BJ, box 6, G-5/101.

162 ‘in the event that the name “Press” seemed so wrong that in the event of its maintenance, the Professor would not consider it possible to remain a founding member of the organisation, I am asking for immediate notification. Clara pacta [claros] faciunt amicos; we would avoid all misunderstandings,’ see Gliński to Chybiński from Warsaw 24 VII 1929, AACh-BJ, box 6, G-5/103.

163 Ibid.

164 For the term ‘Music Writers,’ Gliński himself had reservations previously, ‘it seems to me that the word “Press,” although inaccurate, will eventually last, even though we all understand the meaning of the Professor’s remarks. How else to write: “Publicists”? – wrong … “Musical writers” – even worse. It seems, however, that this compromise name will not hurt, because in fact today, with the Kwartalnik uprising, all those who write about music are part of an active press army,’ ibid.

165 Statut Stowarzyszenia Pisarzy… [Statute of the Writers’ Association], Warsaw 1929 (without pagination).

166 Ibid.

167 See the previously quoted letter from July 19, 1927 (note 25).

168 Gliński to Chybiński from Warsaw 12 X 1929, AACh-BJ, box 5, S-5/1.

169 See Gliński to Chybiński from Warsaw 7 III 1930, AACh-BJ, box 6, G-5/109.

170 See Jachimecki 1931.

171 Muzyka 1930/10, 587–595.

172 Muzyka 1930/11–12, 698.

173 Stromenger 1930/1.

174 Ochlewski to Stromengera from Warsaw 2 XI 1930 (copy), AACh-BJ, box 1, O-1/46 (attachment).

175 See Karol Stromenger, ‘O koncertach brandenburskich J.S. Bacha’ [About J.S. Bach’s Brandenburg concertos] (KM 1930/5, 14–18). Just a few months earlier, Chybiński adopted Stromenger’s text at Ochlewski’s explicit request, as can be read in Zalewski 1977 (p. 11).

176 Ochlewski to Stromenger from Warsaw 2 XI 1930, ibid.

177 SMDM to Chybiński from Warsaw 20 XI 1930, AACh-BJ, box 5, S-3/11.

178 One should always take into account Chybinski’s chauvinistic views, which in those years seemed to intensify.

179 Association of Musical Writers and Critics to Chybiński from Warsaw 28 I 1931, AACh-BJ, box 5, S-5/2.

180 Jachimecki 1931.

181 Gliński to Chybiński from Warsaw 28 I 1931, AACh-BJ, box 6, G-5/118.

182 Gliński to Chybiński from Rome 3 II 1950, AACh-BUAM, fol. D–J, p. 209 (see also the letters under the date 16 VIII (p. 214) i 4 X 1951 (p. 215)).

183 Różycka to Chybiński from Warsaw 5 III 1923, see Szymanowski II / 1, 529–530 (attachment in note 2 to the letter of Adolf Chybiński to Karol Szymanowski from Lviv from 8 III 1923).

184 Chybiński to Szymanowski from Lviv 8 III 1923, see Szymanowski II / 1, 528.

185 On the presence (and absence) of works created by Polish composers at MTMW festivals see Chłopecki 2007.

186 Gliński and Kamieński to Chybiński from Prague 1 VI 1924, AACh-BJ, box 5, S-1/1.

187 Gliński to Chybiński from Warsaw 20 IX 1924, AACh-BJ, box 4, G-5/1.

188 Muzyka 1924/1, 46–47.

189 Gliński to Chybiński from Warsaw 1 IX 1926, AACh-BJ, box 4, G-5/53.

190 See Statut PTMW 1927.

191 Gliński to Chybiński from Warsaw 22 VII 1927, AACh-BJ, box 4, G-5/67.

192 I am talking about supporting members that could have been all those who would like to declare a specific annual contribution to the Association.

193 More on this subject in Muzyka 1932/12, 329, ‘Kronika’ [Chronicle].

194 ‘Od Redakcji’ [Editorial] (Muzyka 1924/2, cover).

195 In 1937 TWMP published scores for the symphonic poem Żołnierze [Soldiers] by Michał Kondracki (1932) as well as Taniec z Osmoły [Danse from Osmoła] by Roman Palestra (1932).

196 Gliński to Chybiński from Warsaw 22 VII 1927, AACh-BJ, box 4, G-5/67.

197 Stefania Łobaczewska: [correspondence] ‘From opera and concert halls. Lviv’ (Muzyka 1930/4, 244).

198 Chybiński to Bronarski from Lviv 15 III 1930, AACh-BUAM, Bronarski’s archive, p. 34.

199 Chybiński to Bronarski from Lviv 4 V 1934, AACh-BUAM, Bronarski’s archive, p. 112.

200 Kamieński to Chybiński from Poznań 25 IV 1927, AACh-BJ, box 6, K-3/35.

201 Zdzisław Jachimecki, Adolf Chybiński and Maria Szczepańska also planned to go to the Beethoven congress, but this did not happen. However, Henryk Opieński was there. After returning from Vienna, Kamieński criticised the course of the congress very critically, and it can be seen that he had at least a cautious attitude to the new research methodologies presented there. He wrote: ‘it was poor. A few of the elders, like Mr. [Peter] Wagner, did indeed give something positive, but mostly – and the majority were young people – feuilleton fairy tales. … I believe that not only music but also musicology has fallen ill with war psychosis. They are doing something there, some spiritism, dialectics, revisions of bricked, unshakable methods – dung, dung, without justification or accuracy. It’s not science anymore. Everyone discovers America, but in his imagination …,’ see Kamieński to Chybiński from Poznań 25 IV 1927, AACh-BJ, box 6, K-3/35.

202 Kamieński to Chybiński from Poznań 3 XII 1927, AACh-BJ, box 6, K-3/42.

203 Details of three years of PTM’s activity can be found in the letters from Łucjan Kamieński preserved both in AACh-BJ and AACh-BUAM (folder with PTM materials, here, among others, a notary certified statute with the signatures of the aforementioned persons (p. 3–5), a list of active members dated June 1929 (p. 21), applications to the PTM Court (p. 22)). See also Michałowski 1979.

204 Przegląd Muzyczny 1928/2, 11 (‘Różne’ [Varia]); see also Kurier Poznański 1928/72, 8.

205 Ibid.

206 The registration formalities stretched out for many months. The first letters to potential members were sent over half a year earlier, in October 1928 (notary public M. Koszewski to Chybiński from Poznań on 11 X 1928, AACh-BUAM, from K-Ł, p. 6).

207 Wójcikówna to Szczepańska from Lviv 6 III 1928, AACh-BUAM, Szczepańska’s archive, p. 44.

208 Kamieński to Chybiński from Poznań 2 II 1930, AACh-BJ, box 6, K-3/60.

209 From an invitation letter from 8 III 1928 to potential members of PTM, in this case to Ludwik Bronarski in Geneva (for information, among others, Adam Sołtys, Józef Koffler, Józef Reiss, Henryk Opieński, Hieronim Feicht, Alicja Simon, Helena Dorabialska, Helena Windakiewiczowa), preserved at. AACh-BUAM, folder with PTM materials, p. 23.

210 Statut PTM, § II-7, print extant at AACh-BUAM, folder with PTM materials, pp. 7–10.

211 Ibid., § II-8.

212 Michałowski 1979, 25. See also Kamieński to Chybiński from Poznań 18 I 1929, AACh-BJ, box 6, K-3/52, where the question is being asked: ‘How is it with “Kwartalnik”? I am asking you for prompt information on what to do about PTM joining the publishing house.’

213 This was about members of SMDM, which was created almost simultaneously in Warsaw, and whose history will be presented below. Quote: Kamieński to Chybiński from Poznań on 4 II 1929, AACh-BJ, box 6, K-3/53.

214 Chybiński to Bronarski from Lviv 11 XII 1929, AACh-BUAM, Bronarski’s archive, p. 26.

215 This conflict is known today mainly thanks to the edition of correspondence between Chybiński and Jachimecki prepared by Krystyna Winowicz, see Troski i spory 1983.

216 KM 1929/5, 1–10.

217 By the way, it can be mentioned that not only Jachimecki polemicised with Szczepańska on the interpretation of Breve regnum and with Chybiński as the editor-in-chief of Kwartalnik Muzyczny on the admission to publication of a text containing false conclusions in the academic journal. In Wiadomości Literackie (1930 / 51–52, 8), a feuilleton by Karol Stromenger appeared entitled ‘Mumifikacja muzyki’ [Mummification of music], in which we read: ‘A certain young music researcher announced an essay on a abecedarian’s song from the fifteenth century, sponsored by the National Cultural Fund in Kwartalnik Muzyczny…. The author puts a bold hypothesis that the song refers to Kazimierz Jagiellończyk. [For a misinterpretation] the author of the essay lost so much time and effort, and Kwartalnik Muzyczny devoted so much space to introduce the reader to an obvious complete error using the “strictest” scientific musicological method, with a number of references to professional literature to support the researcher’s deductions.’ Here was an extensive quote from the polemical Jachimecki’s booklet called Na marginesie pieśni studenckiej z XV w. [On the margins of a student song from the fifteenth century] (Cracow 1930) and further words of Stromenger’s comment: ‘Here, finally, is the voice of reason about musicology, detached from music, about musicology of the kind that the Kwartalnik Muzyczny cultivates. Paper pedantry, mummification of music … it would ultimately be purely university affairs, if it wasn’t for the clear pretensions of musicologists to pope in every musical matter, even on the bureaucratic ground of the capital.’ We will return to this polemic in subsequent chapters.

218 Muzyka 1931/1, 29–30. A few years later, Gliński, commenting on Chybiński’s replica for his polemic, analysing the poor condition of the discipline, the article ‘ “Zmierzch nauki” w dziedzinie muzycznej’ [“Twilight of science” in the musical field] (Muzyka 1934/5, 217–218) he wrote about the Lviv professor as the founder of the ‘infamous vegetating Society of Musicology’ (Muzyka 1934 / 6–7, 272).

219 Chybiński to Bronarski from Lviv 11 XI 1938, AACh-BUAM, Bronarski’s archive, p. 170.

220 Pulikowski to Chybiński from Warsaw, October 1938, AACh-BJ, box 3, P-28/190.

221 Pulikowski to an undefined (maybe fictional?) professor from Warsaw [October] 1938, AACh-BJ, box 3, P-28/189.

222 Pulikowski to Chybińsk from Warsaw 17 VIII 1938, AACh-BJ, box 3, P-28/168.

223 Pulikowski to Zygmunt Latoszewski from Warsaw 15 IX 1938, AACh-BJ, box 3, P-28/170 (copy).

224 Dunicz to Chybiński from Lviv 15 IX 1938, AACh-BJ, box 3, D-13/58.

225 Latoszewski was an active musician – from 1933 he was the conductor of the Poznań Opera Orchestra – as well as a musicologist. He was one of the first graduates of the department at the University of Poznań, obtaining his doctorate in 1932 based on the dissertation Pierwsze opery polskie Macieja Kamieńskiego [First Polish operas by Maciej Kamieński].

226 Chomiński to Chybiński from Warsaw 14 IX 1938, AACh-BJ, box 5, C-10/73.

227 About the cult of Chopin in Poland during the partitions and after the state gained independence, a number of works were created, see e.g. Szczepańska-Lange 2010.

228 It is worth mentioning surnames Emil Młynarski, Stanisław Niewiadomski, Józef Beck, Janusz Jędrzejewicz, Mieczysław Idzikowski, Karol Szymanowski, and August Zaleski.

229 Michniewicz 1983.

230 Mieczysław Idzikowski (1898–1974), Warsaw bookseller, publisher, one of the co-founders of IFCh.

231 Leopold Jan Binental (1886–1944), an ardent propagator of Chopin’s cult. He was the author of many articles about Chopin in the pages of mainly the Warsaw press (Kurier Warszawski, Muzyka monthly). He collected souvenirs of Chopin. He organised the exhibition on the twentieth anniversary of the composer’s birth. He is the author of the monograph Chopin, życiorys twórcy i jego sztuka [Chopin, biography of the creator and his art] (Warsaw 1937).

232 Karol Stromenger (1885–1975), music critic, publicist, pedagogue, composer. In 1909–13 he studied musicology in Vienna (where he also studied law). In the 1920s, when he already lived in Warsaw, he became the first critic of the Kurier Polski, later the Tygodnik Ilustrowany, the Kurier Poranny, he wrote to Muzyka, Wiadomości Literackie. He was involved in organisational work, including in the Association of Music Writers and Critics, see Dmitrowicz/Sowa 2006–07.

233 Maurycy Mayzel (1872–1940 (1941?)), social activist, chairman of the Jewish kehillah, very active in the self-governmental structures of Warsaw; Vice-president of the City Council of the city in the years 1927–34. In addition to many functions in trade associations, he was also an extraordinary member of the Union of Polish Stage Artists, see Fuks 1975.

234 Zofia Jaroszewiczowa was the wife of Władysław Romuald Jaroszewicz, an activist of the Piłsudski camp, who from 1926 until the beginning of September 1939 served as the Government Commissioner for the capital city of Warsaw, which meant that he was the ‘head of the administrative authority of the second instance, in the rank of voivode. He was subjected, among others, to police, press censorship, etc.,’ see Żarnowski 1964–65.

235 Chopin 1937/1, 50.

236 Idzikowski wrote in Muzyka about the creation of the idea of founding the Institute, see Idzikowski 1934.

237 Jan Olcha [Bronisław Rutkowski], ‘Refleksje’ [Reflections] (MP 1937/2, 143).

238 As it is known, Ludwik Bronarski was also soon invited by the editorial office of the National Edition. In the spring of 1934, however, when the Institute had just begun, and its statute (and the words about the new edition of Chopin’s works) had already been approved, and the principles of activity announced, this musicologist, in a letter to Adolf Chybiński, expressed his surprise: ‘Apparently an “Institute for Chopin” has been established in Warsaw, which for one of his tasks has set itself a monumental edition of Chopin’s works. As I put forward the “postulate” of such a publication at the end of my review of the Oxford edition, maybe the Professor will find it appropriate to provide this review with an appropriate “Comment from the Editor” with an allusion to the Institute that did not exist at the time of writing,’ Bronarski to Chybiński from Geneva 28 II 1934, AACh-BJ, box 6, B-26/93; Bronarski’s review was published in the first volume of the PRM published in 1935 (pp. 144–149).

239 The Oxford original edition of Frédéric Chopin edited from the original edition and the manuscripts by Edouard Ganche, London 1932.

240 See Bronarski’s review in the PRM (op cit.).

241 Ludwik Bronarski,’W sprawie nowego wydania dzieł Chopina’ [On the new edition of Chopin’s Works] (MP 1934/3, 191–195).

242 Adam Mickiewicz, Dzieła wszystkie [Complete works], Artur Górski, Stanisław Pigoń (ed.), vol. I–VIII, Warsaw 1933–36.

243 It is worth noting that the discussion that had already taken place in the mid-twenties over the spelling of the composer’s name was resolved, and the Polonised version of ‘Szopen’ gave way to the French version.

244 A letter inviting authors to work also came to Adolf Chybiński. August Zaleski informed him that ‘The Management Board of the IFCh in Warsaw has the honour to make it known that in fulfilling its objectives set out in the statute, in 1937 will issue its own organ, which will be a quarterly dedicated entirely to Chopin. The Board wants the quarterly to become a focus of all academic and literary works related to the life and work of Frederic Chopin, and also give a full picture of the Chopin cult in the country and abroad, and through the articles published therein expanding and deepening the cult of Chopin…. Deeply convinced that Dear Sir fully shares the need and purpose of such a publication, the Management Board is honoured to ask for kind cooperation by sending his dissertations or articles related to the life, work and worship of Frederic Chopin,’ see IFCh to Chybiński from Warsaw 22 X 1936, AACh-BJ, box 5, I-2/1.

245 Zdzisław Jachimecki, ‘Kompozycje Fryderyka Chopina z okresu dziecięctwa i lat chłopięcych’ [Compositions of Frederic Chopin from the period of childhood and boyhood], Chopin 1937/1, 25–41.

246 Kazimierz Hugo-Bader, ‘O dawnej i nowej Żelazowej Woli’ [On the old and new Żelazowa Wola] (Chopin 1937/1, 2–10).

247 Witold Maliszewski, ‘Historia powstania Instytutu’ [History of the establishment of the Institute] (Chopin 1937/1, 50–51).

248 Jerzy Żurawlew, ‘Jak powstały konkursy chopinowskie’ [How the Chopin competition came into being] (Chopin 1937/1, 42–43); Adam Wieniawski, ‘Z okazji III Międzynarodowego Konkursu Chopinowskiego’ [On the occasion of the III international Chopin competition] (Chopin 1937/1, 44–48).

249 Zofia Lissa, ‘O pierwiastkach programowych w muzyce Chopina’ [‘About Programmatic Elements in Chopin’s Music’] (Chopin 1937/2, 64–75).

250 Stefania Łobaczewska, ‘Problemy wykonawcze w muzyce Chopina’ [Performance problems in Chopin’s Music] (Chopin 1937/2, 82–93).

251 Bronisława Keuprulian, ‘Co winniśmy Chopinowi’ [What do we owe Chopin?] (Chopin 1937/2, 94–97).

252 Ludwik Bronarski, ‘Muzyka Chopina a muzyka salonowa’ [Chopin’s music and salon music] (Chopin 1937/2, 76–81).

253 Henryk Opieński, ‘Czy Chopin jest romantykiem?’ [Is Chopin a romantic?] (Chopin 1937/2, 57–63).

254 Chybiński to Bronarski from Lviv 3 V 1934, AACh-BUAM, Bronarski’s archive, p. 110.

255 Chybiński to Bronarski from Lviv 14 I 1937, AACh-BUAM, Bronarski’s archive, p. 154.

256 ‘Fortepiany Chopina’ [Chopin’s pianos] (KM 1928/1, 50–54); ‘Dawne instrumenty klawiszowe’ [Early keyboard instruments] (KM 1930/6–7, 167–184); ‘Pianoforte’ (KM 1930/9, 9–18); ‘O lirze’ [About the lyre] (KM 1932/16, 659–664).

257 Zalewski 1977.

258 After the Second World War, legal powers allowed him to become a legal advisor in the Union of Polish Stage Artists. He soon left the bar, however, to devote himself to teaching: in 1952–69, he was a professor, deputy rector and finally – in 1966, he took over Kazimierz Sikorski’s function – the rector of the PWSM in Warsaw. In 1947–49 he was also the director of the Warsaw Philharmonic.

259 During the war, he conducted a similar activity in the underground. After the war he held similar functions as Teodor Zalewski, except that in Cracow he was a professor, dean, vice-rector and rector of the PWSM there, for a short time the artistic director of the Cracow Philharmonic, he lectured in Gregorian chant at the Faculty of Theology of the Jagiellonian University, he led Ruch Muzyczny for two years, he started cooperating with the Polish Radio again. He was active in various fora of the milieu, for which he received recognitions and awards many times.

260 Rutkowski to Chybiński from Warsaw 17 II 1928, AACh-BJ, box 4 R-19/1.

261 Zalewski 1977, 89.

262 In the war years, as well as colleagues, he took part in the underground musical life of Warsaw, he participated in the Secret Musicians’ Union, organised underground home concerts, but also performed in the Café Salon Sztuki [Art salon] run by Bolesław Woytowicz. After the war, he moved to Cracow.

263 Information about this fact can be found in the press chronicles as early as in January 1927: ‘On the initiative of T[adeusz] Ochlewski and Br[onisław] Rutkowski, the Association of Early Music Lovers was founded in Warsaw to cultivate the works of unknown and forgotten creators of the past,’ see Muzyka 1927/1, 39.

264 August Karol Loth (1869–1944), Evangelical clergyman, social activist, organiser and president of the Society of Polish Evangelical Youth. For nearly 45 years, he was associated with the parish of the Holy Trinity in Warsaw.

265 Music lover, counsellor of the Supreme Audit Office.

266 Wacław Kochański (1878–1939), violinist, educator, he studied, among others with J. Joachim in Berlin. From 1923, he was a professor at the State Conservatoire of Music in Warsaw, in various years he was also associated with music schools in Lviv (including the school of Sabina Kasparek and the Lviv Conservatoire).

267 See for example, the SMDM Board to Chybiński from Warsaw 16 April 1928, AACh-BJ, box 1, O-1/116.

268 Zalewski 1977, 92.

269 See ‘Klika czy nie klika? W odpowiedzi na “w odpowiedzi”‘ [Clique or not a clique? In response to the ‘answers’] (Muzyka 1937/3, 85).

270 KM 1928/1, 98–100.

271 Muzyka 1927/3, 122, column ‘From opera and concert halls.’

272 Muzyka 1937/1, 24.

273 See Stanisław Sylwester Szarzyński, Sonata a due violini e basso d’organo, ed. by Adolf Chybiński and Kazimierz Sikorski (WDMP 1) (Warsaw 1928).

274 Feicht 1937.

275 SMDM to Chybiński from Warsaw 16 V 1927, AACh-BJ, box 5, S-3/1.

276 Chybiński 1930, 592.

277 Zalewski 1977, 105.

278 Przegląd Muzyczny 1928/7, 7.

279 A lot of information about Kazimierz Sikorski’s life and activities can be found in Peret-Ziemlańska 1995, Peret-Ziemlańska 1999, Kowalczyk/Jaraczewska-Mockałło 1995.

280 During the Second World War (1940–44), Sikorski ran the Staatliche Musikschule in Warsaw, an institution opened with the approval of underground authorities. (Adolf Chybiński informed Ludwik Bronarski at the end of 1941 in a letter from 19 December: ‘Our music colleagues in Warsaw give some advice. Sikorski runs a music school. Others play in cafes,’ see Chybiński to Bronarski from Lviv 19 XII 1941, AACh-BUAM, Bronarski’s archive, p. 159). After the war, in 1945–54, he began working at the PWSM in Łódź, where he was first the dean of Faculty I, then the rector. At the same time, from 1951, he lectured at the PWSM in Warsaw, which he eventually chose and in which from 1957 until his retirement in 1966 he was the rector, and in 1975 he received the honorary doctorate degree of this university.

281 He expressed his pedagogical passion by preparing a series of textbooks for learning harmony, counterpoint and instrumentation.

282 After the war, he was the president of the Polish Composers’ Union (1954–59), chairman of the Polish Music Council (1960), president of the TiFC board (1972–80, since 1980 an honorary president), co-organiser of the first Warsaw Autumn.

283 Dunicz 1937.

284 Ibid, 11.

285 Feicht 1937, 8. Before the war, seventeen editions were published as part of the series: S.S. Szarzyński, Sonata a due violini con basso pro organo (1707), ed. A. Chybiński, K. Sikorski (WDMP 1 Warsaw 1928); M. Mielczewski, „Deus in nomine tuo”: Concerto a 4, ed. A. Chybiński, K. Sikorski (WDMP 2 Warsaw 1928); J. Różycki, Hymni ecclesiastici: quatuor vocibus concinendi, ed. A. Chybiński, B. Rutkowski (WDMP 3 Warsaw 1928); B. Pękiel, Audite mortales, ed. H. Feicht, K. Sikorski (WDMP 4 Warsaw 1928); S.S. Szarzyński, Pariendo non gravaris: Concerto a 3, ed. A. Chybiński, K. Sikorski (WDMP 5 Warsaw 1928); M. Mielczewski, Canzona a 3, ed. A. Chybiński, Z. Jahnke (WDMP 6 Warsaw 1928); G.G. Gorczycki, Missa Paschalis ed. A. Chybiński (WDMP 7 Warsaw 1930); Anonimus, „Duma” na 4 instrumenty, ed. M. Szczepańska, T. Ochlewski (WDMP 8 Warsaw [1930]); Wacław z Szamotuł: „In te Domine speravi” (Psalmus XXX…), ed. M. Szczepańska, H. Opieński (WDMP 9 Warsaw 1930); S.S. Szarzyński, „Jesu spes mea.” Concerto a 3 de Deo, ed. A. Chybiński (WDMP 10 Warsaw 1931); A. Jarzębski, „Tamburitta” a tre voci, ed. M. Szczepańska, K. Sikorski (WDMP 11 Warsaw 1932); M. Zieleński, „Vox in Rama.” Communio, ed. A. Chybiński (WDMP 12 Warsaw 1933); P. Damian [Stachowicz] P.S., „Veni Consolator.” Concerto a 2, ed. A. Chybiński (WDMP 13 Warsaw 1934); G.G. Gorczycki, „Illuxit sol.” Motetto de Martyribus, ed. A. Chybiński (WDMP 14 Warsaw 1934); A. Jarzębski, „Nova Casa.” Concerto a 3 Violini e Cembalo, ed. M. Szczepańska, K. Sikorski (WDMP 15 Warsaw 1936); J. Różycki, Magnificemus in cantico, ed. A. Chybiński (WDMP 16 Warsaw 1937); B. Pękiel, Missa pulcherrima, ed. H. Feicht (WDMP 17 Warsaw 1938).

In the 1930s TWMP, founded and led by members of SMDM, also opened the Polish Choral Song series, in which choral compositions of contemporary Polish composers were published, including Tadeusz Mayzner (booklet I), Jan Maklakiewicz and Władysław Raczkowski (booklet II), Tadeusz Szeligowski (booklet III), Stanisław Kazuro (booklet IV), Bronisław Rutkowski (booklet V) and others.

286 Zalewski 1977, 115.

287 Ibid.

288 MP 1935/5, 88.

289 Łabuński first studied music in Warsaw, and from 1926 in Paris with Nadia Boulanger (composition and counterpoint) and from 1928 with Paul Dukas (orchestration). In 1926 he also undertook musicology studies with Georges Migot. He was a co-founder of the Association of Young Polish Musicians (including secretary in 1927–29, vice-president in 1929–30 and chairman in 1930–33). After returning to Poland in 1934, he was among others the head of the classical music editorial office at Polish Radio and a member of the TWMP Management Board.

290 Muzyka 1937/3, 84–86.

291 Zalewski 1937.

292 Muzyka 1937/, 21–22.

293 Zalewski 1937, 98.

294 Muzyka 1937/3, 84.

295 Zalewski 1977, 104.

296 Ibid.

297 Chybiński to Bronarski from Lviv 21 III 1929, AACh-BUAM, Bronarski’s archive, p. 14.

298 Chybiński to Bronarski from Lviv 3 VI 1930, AACh-BUAM, Bronarski’s archive, p. 39.

299 Chybiński to Bronarski from Lviv 24 I 1930, AACh-BUAM, Bronarski’s archive, k. 30.

300 The issue of the shape of the magazine and the idea for the year came back three years later and ended with the separation of the team into two editorial offices – a quarterly (with the bi-monthly and monthly periodical) Muzyka Polska and PRM, below.

301 Chybiński to Bronarski from Lviv 10 II 1930, AACh-BUAM, Bronarski’s archive, p. 31.

302 Pulikowski did not reveal his chauvinistic tendencies at the time, preferring anti-Semitic beliefs to professional cooperation. Kisielewski, accused by Pulikowski of communism, was ready to pursue his rights in court, see letter of 4 IV 1938, quoted in Pulikowski to Chybiński from Warsaw in April 1938, AACh-BJ, box 3, P-28/197.

303 Tomaszewski 2004, 185.