3. Music magazines of the interwar period: Lwowskie Wiadomości Muzyczne i Literackie, Poznań’s Przegląd Muzyczny, Mateusz Gliński’s Muzyka – other environmental and local musical magazines – controversies over the model of an expert journal of the milieu
3. Music magazines of the interwar period: Lwowskie Wiadomości Muzyczne i Literackie, Poznań’s Przegląd Muzyczny, Mateusz Gliński’s Muzyka – other environmental and local musical magazines – controversies over the model of an expert journal of the milieu
In the uncertain conditions of the first years of independent Poland, musicologists active in the country looked for any opportunity to announce the results of their work. After the years of the Great War, the few previously functioning musical journals were slowly coming back to life. However, the time was not favourable for such activities; public funds were cautiously granted, directed primarily toward rebuilding the state apparatus. Nevertheless, efforts were made in academic centres to revitalise scientific writing; these efforts were also present in the activities of the broadly understood musical environment, including Polish musicology of the time. The main dramatis personae were Zdzisław Jachimecki, Henryk Opieński, Łucjan Kamieński and a large group of musicologists from Lviv with Adolf Chybiński at their head, who, as has already been presented earlier, had for years held ambitions to actively participate in giving shape to the writing in the field of his discipline.
Just after the war, though for a short period (in the years 1918–19), the Warsaw Przegląd Muzyczny was reopened, still under the editorship of Roman Chojnacki, in an unchanged graphic layout. The opening edition was prepared by Adolf Chybiński, featuring the letters of the Moniuszko spouses from the Ossoliński304 Library’s resources. Gazeta Muzyczna, edited by Stanisław Niewiadomski, operated in Lviv a little longer (until the year 1921). In the capital, after Przegląd Muzyczny closed, in 1922 Stanisław Kazuro attempted to fill the gap, producing Kultura Muzyczna, in 1925, Edward Wrocki’s Wiadomości Muzyczne started activities. In other centres there were editors of local and specialised interest music magazines, such as Muzyk Wojskowy published in Grudziądz as a biweekly (later a monthly), in Poznań Śpiewak (which was a reactivation in 1918, but in ←103 | 104→the face of constant financial problems transformed into Przegląd Muzyczny, also published in the capital of Greater Poland and edited by Opieński), in Katowice Śpiewak Śląski (which turned out to be the most viable music journal, as it was in print until the year 1939, although like other similar writings it did not play a nationwide role)305 and a number of minor, ephemeral publishing houses. In these circumstances, a significant and opinion-leading role, not only at the regional level, was played by Lwowskie Wiadomości Muzyczne i Literackie (further LWML), led by the violinist and teacher Władysław Gołębiowski. Appearing from autumn 1925 to May 1934, with a break between July 1931 and October 1932, the monthly was an organ of the Związek Muzyków-Pedagogów [Union of music teachers] in Lviv. Its wide editorial circle above all included musicians, musicologists and music critics (as well as literary figures) – including Adolf Chybiński and the composer and conductor (also a critic with musicological training) Adam Sołtys, professor of the Conservatoire, Franciszek Neuhauser, composer and lecturer (in Lviv and Katowice) Adam Mitscha, Father Hieronim Feicht, Bronisława Wójcik-Keuprulian.
For Lviv’s relatively large musical-musicological environment, the LWML became a convenient, near (geographically) address, to which were directed – as with other similar titles – chronicles of current events as well as lengthy dissertations, often extending outside the framework of common popularisation. It was established at a similar time as Warsaw’s Muzyka and Poznań’s Przegląd Muzyczny and was consistent with them in terms of content, authors’ letters and the frequency of editions (considering of course certain figures active only locally in each of the cities as well as the ‘fidelity’ of certain names to one of the titles to a larger degree than others). Historical sketches were written, as well as articles devoted to the work of earlier and contemporary composers, often on particular occasions such as birthdays and anniversaries.306 Surprisingly rich for ←104 | 105→the organ devoted only (?) to ‘matters of musical culture,’ articles moving around theoretical and aesthetic issues were represented, supplemented with the themes of practical musical modernity. On the one hand, this was fueled by a comprehensive discussion of new trends in music dynamically developing in the first decades of the twentieth century (considered at the level of straightforward information and reports about concert life, as well as in-depth musicological considerations), and on the other, new media as well (radio and cinema that supported the dissemination of music on a new, previously unknown scale). A few regular authors wrote these subjects appearing in LWML. One of the fundamental goals of publications by Józef Reiss, Zofia Lissa or Stefania Łobaczewska was to somehow make the contemporary listener aware of what was changing in the work of the new generation of composers with regards to previous traditions; how to listen to new music appreciating these changes, how the listener should be prepared to receive the new music.307 To support his actions in propagating avant-garde art, the editors came up with a series of articles by an outstanding musician and writer from Arnold Schöberg’s circle, Erwin Stein, who brought the question of compositional work into not only the latest era of music history, but also the role of the audience in modern times.308
The group of theoretical-aesthetic texts may be complemented by materials referring to the dissemination of music and musical culture, in which sociological issues were of considerable importance. In this case, Józef Reiss also turned out to be one of the primary authors dealing with the sociology of music, as he himself stated, not based so much on strict scientific foundations, but as ‘issues for discussion, a stimulus for independent consideration.’309 The author, otherwise known mainly and primarily from his achievements in the field of historical research, even undertook such polemical topics as music inside prison walls310 ←105 | 106→or gender studies – as we would say today – the theme of women’s musicality, their perception of women mainly as performers and not as creators, the traditional equation of music with the figure of a woman.311 In turn in the article ‘Jak mówić i pisać o muzyce?’ [How to speak and write about music?] he abandoned the sociology of music in favour of discussions about music criticism,312 and his considerations were completed in the following months by publications by Łobaczewska313 and Chybiński.314
Regarding the number of publications on the pages of LWML, Stefania Łobaczewska decidedly surpassed other authors, and it should be emphasised that she filled her texts mainly with reviews of musical and musicological literature, discussing books as well as studies and articles announced in journals (often published in the form of offprints).315 Thanks to Łobaczewska, readers could get to know the latest work of her university colleagues – Bronisława Wójcikówna (for example, Problem formy w muzyce romantycznej [The problem of form in Romantic music]. Lviv 1929),316 Maria Szczepańska (amongst others Nowe źródło do historii muzyki średniowiecznej w Polsce [New sources for the history Medieval music in Poland]. Cracow 1930),317 Zofia Lissa (O harmonice Aleksandra Skriabina [About Alexander Scriabin’s harmony]. Warsaw 1930, Zarys nauki o muzyce [Overview of music principles]. Lviv 1934318 and others), with the ←106 | 107→new Kwartalnik Muzyczny319 and editions appearing under the framework of the WDMP320 series, as well as new compositions (including amongst others works by Jan Maklakiewicz, Kazimierz Sikorski and Szymon Walijewski).321 However, Łobaczewska announced only a few pieces from the field of music criticism and music aesthetics. In the feuilleton ‘O kult muzyki współczesnej’ [About the cult of contemporary music] she joined the group of authors who explained where current musical creation was and the task before the propagators of the newest works – in this case, institutions such as the restored activity of the Lviv section of the TMW.322
Within LWML, Łobaczewska twice raised public controversy with her recent preceptor, Adolf Chybiński. One of the disputes concerned the legacy of Grzegorz Gerwazy Gorczycki which, in her (Łobaczewska’s) assessment, deserved attention not because of its artistic value, which – according to her – was not great, but because it contributed to the narrow body of preserved monuments of Polish baroque literature.323 This critical assessment of the work of the cathedral Kapellmeister is surprising since the same reviewer accepted with praise the edition for Gorczycki’s Missa paschalis prepared by Chybiński, also raising the artistic qualities of this composition, as part of the WDMP series.324
Among the surnames outside the strictly musicological group of Lviv, mention can be made of Wiktor Brumer, a theatrologist and theatre critic who also had his own writing episode in Kwartalnik Muzyczny, or Stefan Śledziński, who spoke about methods of teaching singing in general schools, and Arnold Schönberg or his student Hans Eisler (in the future one of the leading ideologues of socialist realism in communist Germany), whose articles in the field of music theory were published in translations.325
Occasionally, the editors of LWML decided to organise monographic numbers. The May issue of 1928 was partly themed and was devoted to the philosopher, the representative of messianism, Józef Hoene-Wroński, on the occasion ←107 | 108→of the one hundred and fifty years of his birth. At that time, amongst others, the introduction to Christian Cherfils’s study Un essai de religion scientifique – ‘Introduction à Wronski philosophe et réformateur’ (Paris 1898) was published (in translation) and Paulina Chomicz’s large sketch ‘Hoene-Wrońskiego filozofia muzyki’326 [Hoene-Wroński’s philosophy of music]. On the other hand, number 80327 from January 1934 was dedicated to Ukranian music.328
Among about fifty titles of academic journals, which appeared in general in Lviv in the years 1918–39 (most often related to the activities of scholarly societies – Polskie Towarzystwo Filologiczne [Polish philological society], Polskie Towarzystwo Ekonomiczne [Polish economic society], Polskie Towarzystwo Filozoficzne [Polish philosofical society], Polskie Towarzystwo Historyczne [Polish historical society], Polski Związek Entomologiczny [Polish entomological association] and others, whose headquarters were located at UJK), LWML is of course absent, because it is not an academic journal (despite many ‘university’ authors). Grażyna Wrona, press historian, while running queries and studies at the National Archive of Lviv Oblast (within the documents of the Lviv County, Press Office 1925–39), amongst others, recorded and entered into her catalogue ‘writings on the registration of a Polish scientific [emph. MS] magazine Chopin’ (fond 110, description 3, case 285).329 This ‘Popular musical monthly,’ founded and run by the singer and pedagogue Władysław Świeży, appeared only for the last four months of 1932. On behalf of the editors Świeży wrote for the inauguration: ‘In memory of “Chopin Days” in Poland we began publishing Szopen, a monthly magazine serving as a popular read for all those interested in music … The editorial office invites all musicians for cooperation in order to give the magazine the assumed popular character.’
Although the journal had indeed presented mainly news of lesser significance, poetry, musical chronicles, obituaries, reviews of concerts and opera performances, there were also articles and reports written by members of the Lviv musicological community. The very first issue started with an article by Bronisława Wójcik-Keuprulian on Chopin, followed by a text by Stefania Łobaczewska on the Chopin Piano Competition. The second issue began with an ←108 | 109→article by Zofia Lissa ‘Młodzież a życie koncertowe’ [Youth and concert life] and most of the columns were filled with a text by Świeży on Edward Grieg. The third issue was published under the slogan ‘Dni chopinowskie we Lwowie’ [Chopin days in Lviv] and included discussions on the works of Chopin by Seweryn Barbag and Jerzy Freiheiter as well as texts by Zofia Lissa and Stefania Łobaczewska. Finally, the fourth issue included a monograph by Maria Szczepańska entitled ‘O kolędzie polskiej’ [On the Polish carol]. Nonetheless, Chopin had no chance for longer existence. It was issued on poor-quality paper and – like many times before in similar cases – thanks to funds from the chief editor. Despite a benevolent group of authors, it was unable to break through as a ‘mandatory organ for music students in Poland’ (in the notes from the editor’s found in the first issue).
For not much longer – from September 1936 till March 1937 – ‘a monthly dedicated to the musical culture of Lviv’ was also published in Lviv – Echo, whose editor-in-chief was a graduate of Viennese musicology, Józef Koffler, and the responsible editor was Wacław Töpfer. Contrary to Szopen’s ‘popular direction,’ from the beginning the editors of Echo defined the ambitious profile of the magazine. The intention was 1) to educate an aware music lover, 2) to develop and sharpen the sense and awareness of quality which is the foundation for a real musical culture, 3) fight all harmful influences (but which? we do not know), 4) check the activity of factors responsible for music culture.
Also, in this case, the editors were able to invite musicologists and music critics active in the city – Adam Sołtys, Seweryn Barbag, Wiktor Hausman, Zofia Lissa, Stefania Łobaczewska – to collaborate. However, it needs to be stressed that for the widely perceived musical circles of Lviv, the primary forum for discussion and musical criticism in the two-decade inter-war period was above all LWML, which, though it boasted many eminent names among its authors, maintained the character of a local periodical.
It was different in the case of the Warsaw monthly Muzyka, founded merely a year earlier and led by Mateusz Gliński. Encouraged by the state of affairs, also cultural, that reigned in the short time after Poland’s regaining independence, the young editor, active as a conductor and music critic, decided to establish and publish a regularly appearing magazine of an informational character. He had the ambitious concept of collaborating not only with critics and music journalists but also with leading musicologists of the first (and soon also second) generation.
Gliński, born in Warsaw in 1892, began learning to play the violin as a seventeen-year-old with Stanisław Barcewicz and theory with Roman Statkowski and Mieczysław Surzyński at the Warsaw Conservatoire. Before finishing his studies, he was engaged by Fitelberg to join the Philharmonic Orchestra. After ←109 | 110→four years, in 1913 he left to study conducting in Leipzig under Artur Nikisch, thanks to whom he was even a member of the Gewandhaus Orchestra for a short time. At the same time, he studied composition under Max Reger at the Leipzig Conservatoire and attended lectures by Hugon Riemann, Artur Prüfer and Arnold Schering in the musicology department of the local university. In view of the deportation from Germany, which he was subject to in connection with the outbreak of war, he decided to continue his musical studies in St. Petersburg (theory and conducting). As a conductor, he made his debut the following year during a short visit to Warsaw, leading an outdoor concert in the Swiss Valley square.
In 1914, he began to contribute criticism and music reports for the Russian press, and he was active in this field in Warsaw from the first moments following his return in 1918. Soon, it was journalistic and organisational activity that dominated Gliński’s professional life. He was the creator or co-creator of several circles of initiatives already described above, important for the musical life of the Warsaw and nationwide, such as the establishment in 1926 of Stowarzyszenia Pisarzy i Krytyków Muzycznych [Association of music writers and critics] (originally as Klub Fachowej Prasy Muzycznej [Club of professional music press], see chapter I.2). The legal training Gliński obtained in the meantime allowed him many times to support non-profitable cultural and publishing activities through profits gained from his legal practice.
The plan to open a new environmental title dedicated ‘not only to professionals, but to all those who admire beauty and are interested in the development of both Polish and foreign art,’330 was devised at a time when there have already been at least several music magazines, which, though admittedly often featured educated musicologists, usually had a small range, a local character, and were rather short-lived. On the other hand, Gliński assumed that thanks to his mission he would receive acclamation. He spoke more about his goals in the programme note, full of pathos, and the editorial guidelines:
The musical life of Poland, until now immersed in lethargy, will awaken and set itself on the road to progress only when the whole of society takes part. It is already paying much attention to other, related fields of art; only regarding music has it shown great indifference so far. There is thus a tragic gulf that separates the activity of our leading musical institutions and the work of outstanding individuals in this area from the broad layers of Polish society. Therefore, a fundamental goal of our activities will continue to be awakening and stimulating healthy musical instinct, combatting illiteracy and disorientation in the field of music…. The fundamental character of the journal will continue to ←110 | 111→combine serious content with a lightness and accessibility of form, allowing broad layers of our society to have living contact with Muzyka.331
Despite this pretentious form, the editors clearly defined the content of the magazine as of a popularising, informative and educational character. As we shall see later in the work, at the stage of formulating the editorial – referring to the tradition of similar programme notes, many other journals of the milieu, which (also from pure pragmatism and for saving finances) wanted to find readership – Muzyka stood in opposition to the idea of publications of a scientific nature, choosing ‘lightness and accessibility of form,’ appropriate for the assumptions of popularising knowledge about music, and avoiding any ideology. In the further part of the declaration of the programme, we read:
Our journal strives to combine all the healthy currents in our musical lives under the slogans of culture and progress. It does not belong to any movement, any party or clique. Interest in modern musical trends is combined with regard for the past and respect for every serious artistic effort resulting from a sincere love of art. Striving to bring the musical life of Poland closer to European artistic movements is combined with real care for the development of Polish national art and the preservation of its independent ethnographic elements in their pure state…. Muzyka strives to bring music closer to other fields of the fine arts: poetry, painting, sculpture, dance, theatre. … It must not speak for any combative movement, nor proclaim any creative ideology based on excessive individualism.332
The popular character of this publication was perceived by some contemporary critics and publicists, as well as advocates of such music literature, as a basic value, writing that ‘there is no place for “scientism” that would be dry, boring and appeal just to a few people. Reliable musical truth, based on solid ground, is provided in a smooth, engrossing and available manner,’333 or elsewhere: ‘It [the journal] is not intended for a closed group of experts; to the contrary – its task is to popularise the art of music among the broadest circles of society. That is why each issue has eclectic content designed to meet all tastes and demands, as well as an exquisite external layout,’334 and years later: ‘It is a magazine which can be adjusted to suit general needs, to serve popularisation. It is based on strictly scientific principles, but the content is provided in a form that is accessible and comprehensible for all.’335←111 | 112→
Gliński began as editor along with the prevalent wave of fascination with contemporary music, which also in Poland had outstanding representatives, even on a European scale, as was the case with the internationally recognised Karol Szymanowski. The journal’s first issue appeared in November 1924, just a few months after the Prague ISCM festival, during which its Polish section was formed, and its interim board included both Szymanowski and Gliński.336 It was assumed that the periodical would serve the popularisation of music among (as it was termed in the prospectus mentioned above) ‘broad layers of society.’ For this reason, lengthy materials of a scientific character were not accepted for publication: the editors designated 18–20 pages for printed articles, not foreseeing anything ‘to be continued.’ There were, of course, many diversions from this principle: the editor-in-chief himself, a few months after the premiere of Szymanowski’s King Roger, disagreeing with its cool reception among the public and critics, devoted lengthy material to this opera, in which he analysed the current situation regarding opera theatre and the influence of the Wagnerian opera tradition, increasingly unsuitable to contemporary expectations, with examples in the work of Hindemith and Křenek.337 Over the next years, approval for larger texts was also received, for example, by Adolf Chybiński,338 Zdzisław Jachimecki,339 Hieronim Feicht,340 and Stefania Łobaczewska.341 It was therefore clear that work ‘in episodes’ was generally written by professional musicologists presenting the results of their current research, discussed in a methodological ←112 | 113→manner going beyond the formula of journalism and popularisation, despite the limited scientific apparatus enforced by the editors.
Regarding the nature of the materials published in Muzyka, Kornel Michałowski calculated that about thirty-six per cent of the contents were biographical items, over twenty per cent referred to musical news, similarly – to historical texts (in total for the whole history of music, along with – then – latest history); seventeen per cent contained issues in the field of musical practice, eight per cent covered theoretical and aesthetic considerations. Materials were divided between regular columns, which over the years – due to the diversity of materials and for clear arrangement – developed into a dozen: articles, studies, outlines, etc. formats regarding the theory, aesthetics, history of music (also in relation to the current musical movement); the ‘Artists’ tribune’ section that featured opinions of musicians, launched in response to a survey carried out by the editors;342 ‘Musical impressions,’ or in other words comments (mostly made by the editor-in-chief) on the hot topics concerning not only the music community, but also musicologists;343 the ‘Radio and mechanical music’ section, which reflects on the importance attached to the opportunities granted at that time to music and music culture through this new medium. Additionally, ‘Korespondencje z kraju i zagranicy’ [Domestic and foreign correspondence], ‘Przegląd pedagogiczno-muzyczny’ [Pedagogical-musical review], ‘Sylwetki i profile’ [Silhouettes and profiles], ‘Rozmaitości’ [Varia], ‘Komunikaty’ [Announcements], ‘Spotkania i wywiady’ [Meetings and interviews], ‘Listy do Redakcji’ [Letters to the Editor], and a satirical section. In ‘Kronika bieżąca’ [Current chronicle] already in the first edition, apart from concert current affairs, a ‘musicological’ note appeared: information ←113 | 114→was included about a ‘substantial work (141 pages)’ by Adolf Chybiński with the title Instrumenty muzyczne ludu polskiego na Podhalu [Musical instruments of the Polish people in Podhale], and a month later it was stated that ‘Dr Zdzisław Jachimecki, professor of musicology at the Jagiellonian University, gave a series of valuable propaganda lectures about Polish music at Italian universities,’344 and another time, that ‘Our own compatriot Dr Alicja Simon, known in the field of musicology, took the prestigious position of Director of the Music Department of the Library of Congress in Washington’ and reminded everyone, amongst others, of the 375th anniversary of the death of Guido of Arezzo, ‘creator of the contemporary music notation system.’345 In ‘Press Review,’ the editors tried to present news from leading European music magazines – La Revue Musicale, Die Musik, Le Courrier Musical, Zeitschrift für Musik, Listy Hudební Matice. It was possible to persuade ‘hot surnames’ from abroad to cooperate in obtaining materials for current boxes – from Czechia, Austria, Italy, Germany; this was similar in terms of articles: Gliński published translations of works (or their fragments) of such authors as the composer, pianist, but also the creator of the monthly dedicated to contemporary music Musica d’Oggi Alfredo Casella,346 composer (a former student of Arnold Schönberg) and musicologist (from Guido Adler’s school) Egon Wellesz,347 the French Chopinologist Édouard Ganche,348 freshly promoted in Berlin by Wolf, Sachs and von Hornbostel, Otto Gombosi,349 Hugo Leichtentritt,350 the Czech pianist, composer and musicologist Boleslav Vomáčka and many others. Comments were published (sometimes authorised, sometimes perhaps not351) on the topic of contemporary music or illustrious characters ←114 | 115→remarking on their own works, such as Richard Strauss,352 Ferruccio Busoni,353 Igor Stravinsky,354 Sergei Rachmaninoff,355 and for example, in the survey under the slogan ‘Romanticism in the contemporary age’ opinions were quoted from Sergei Prokofiev, Manuel de Falla, Paul Dukas, Edward Elgar, Maurice Ravel, Ernst Křenek, Vincent d’Indy.356 Those are only some of the names, which should be supplemented with a list of all the Polish composers of the time, with Szymanowski at the forefront. Throughout the years, he was treated in a special manner by the magazine editors: a dissertation on the composer (supposedly to be written by Adolf Chybiński, but finally completed by Jarosław Iwaszkiewicz) was to start the monograph cycle Biblioteka Muzyczna [Musical library] initiated at the beginning of Gliński’s term as editor of Muzyka (mentioned below); in 1937 a memorial issue was also devoted to him.357 The musician continued his collaboration with the office until his death, passing his public statements for disposal, such as the foreword at the Warsaw Philharmonic during the Chopin celebrations of 1924 ‘Fryderyka Chopina mit o duszy polskiej’ [Frederic Chopin’s myth of the Polish soul]358 (this text inaugurated the existence of the magazine), or the ‘Chopin’ speech at the University of Warsaw given on 9 November 1930,359 fragments of the speech at the doctor honoris causa ceremony at the Jagiellonian University,360 or original articles, as for example, the piece on Ravel on the 50th anniversary of his birth.361
The editorial team was focused on engaging the most ‘professional’ authors – representatives of university centres. The first name to appear was Adolf Chybiński, the author of the article about piano mazurkas by Karol Szymanowski.362 In the ←115 | 116→spring of 1925, Alicja Simon presented an outline of Józef Hoene-Wroński’s philosophy of music,363 Zdzisław Jachimecki submitted his reflections on the contemporary culture in Italy under the title ‘Pokłosie muzyczne z podróży po Italii’ [Musical aftermath of a trip to Italy],364 and a few months later, Hieronim Feicht gave a spacious, by the standards of Muzyka, article on Giovanni da Palestrina, in which he considered, amongst others, the impact of the composer’s works on early Polish music.365 Gradually, almost all the other Polish musicologists joined the group of authors of the magazine: Seweryn Barbag, Ludwik Bronarski, Jerzy Freiheiter, Melania Grafczyńska, Józef Koffler, Zofia Lissa, Henryk Opieński, Stefania Łobaczewska, Józef Reiss, Adam Sołtys, Bronisława Wójcik-Keuprulian. However, the names of Chybiński’s most loyal students were missing – Maria Szczepańska, Jan Józef Dunicz and Józef Chomiński.
Thematically focused, mostly double or triple editions, which were planned several months in advance turned out to be a handy manoeuvre by Gliński.366 On the one hand, monographic numbers were in a way complementary to the current theme undertaken by Muzyka, and on the other hand, they facilitated ←116 | 117→editorial work during the holiday season and made it possible to circumvent the organisational discomforts of the summer heatwave367 safely.
Besides ‘vacation’ monographs, thematic issues also appeared throughout the year. These were especially numerous in 1926 when along with a triple ‘July–September’ issue, three special editions were published. First of all, a ‘Czechoslovakian issue was prepared (1926 no. 2), which may undoubtedly be explained by the seemingly strong contacts with Czech and Slovak musicologists and journalists (let us not forget the common activities organised by the Slavic Musicological Union initiated by Czechs at the IMS). The editors explained the choice of the music and musical culture of Czechoslovakia for the first thematic presentation in the following way: ‘In recent years, longing for a national ideal in our musical lives, we more often turn with our hearts and thoughts to the music of the brotherly Czechoslovak nation, full of vigour and racial purity. The exchange of information is becoming increasingly relevant, allowing the two nations to come closer and get to know each other better in the musical arena.’368
The volume began with a historical presentation of Czech-Polish relations in music (pp. 45–48), written by Zdeněk Nejedlý, who played a rather shameful role in post-war Czechoslovak musicological history, though he was one of the leading figures of the musicological world in the twenty-year inter-war period, at least in this part of Europe. An article on the most important figures of the Czech national school – Smetana, Dvořák and Fibich (pp. 54–57) – as well as information on journal writing (pp. 63–64) was prepared by one of the leading representatives of the new music in Bohemia, the composer, conductor and teacher Karel Boleslav Jiřak (1891–1972). The composer and musicologist Vladimir Helfert (1886–1945) discussed the creative ideas in Czech music (pp. 49–53), while the critic and music writer (as well as lawyer) Jan Loewenbach (Löwenbach, 1880–1972) presented the main currents in contemporary Czech music (pp. 58–60) and sketched an image of the local publishing movement (pp. 65–66). This was all complemented by reports on the Czechoslovak section of the ISCM by Josef Loewenbach (Löwenbach, pp. 67–68) and on musical education in Czechoslovakia by Jan Branberger (pp. 61–62).←117 | 118→
The continuation of cooperation with the Czechs was to be a ‘Polish’ edition published shortly thereafter as a special issue of the Prague magazine Listy Hudební Matice.
A month later, the opportunity arose to dedicate an edition of Muzyka to Mieczysław Karłowicz (a non-round date, the seventeenth anniversary of his death, but the fiftieth anniversary of his birth). There were no detailed analyses of the composer’s works, apart from a brief sketch by Chybiński containing an outline of characteristics (pp. 100–106). After Władysław Zahorowski’s biographical introduction (pp. 97–99), later on, a memoir text by Stanisław Barcewicz (pp. 106–107) and Grzegorz Fitelberg’s reflections about the Epizod na maskaradzie [Episode at a masquerade] were printed full of personal reflections (pp. 108–109). The edition closed with selected letters from Karłowicz to Chybiński (pp. 110–114).
In autumn the ‘Chopin’ edition appeared, which
was a modest reflection of those feelings and thoughts associated with the unveiling of the Chopin monument.369 Not to be distracted in detail [the editors] wanted to give … a synthesis of the life and work of the immortal Master … a modest wreath of words, thoughts and feelings, which we put with humble reverence at the foot of the pedestal, which will stand for centuries to honour the brilliant figure of the beloved Master.370
For the needs of this edition, Gliński managed to obtain material prepared by music critic, translator and publicist Bernard Szarlitt – fragments of ←118 | 119→Chopin’s letters, in which opinions about music and music are given (pp. 524–526), memories of the history of the design and construction of the Chopin monument noted by its creator, Wacław Szymanowski, starting from the year 1903, in which the idea was conceived, up until its unveiling (pp. 526–527), impressions of Chopin written by Stanisław Niewiadomski (pp. 511–514), fragments of the monograph prepared for publication by Zdzisław Jachimecki Fryderyk Chopin. Rys życia i twórczości [Frederic Chopin. An overview of his life and work]371 – here about the nocturnes (pp. 520–523). Two eminent names supplemented the list of authors – Ignacy Jan Paderewski – the number opened with fragments of his speech delivered years earlier (in Lviv on the centenary of the composer’s birth) – and Édouard Ganche, who at the invitation of Gliński sent an original, polemical article-challenge ‘Chopin na Wawel’ [Chopin at Wawel] (pp. 515–519).
That issue must have left him feeling hungry for more because several years later Gliński decided to dedicate one of the ‘summer’ monographs to the great composer, which in that case included thirteen papers in total – analytical, literary, problem-oriented ones. As for an introduction, the editors used a speech provided by Karol Szymanowski given two years earlier at the University of Warsaw (pp. 7–12). It was followed by the articles of all the leading musicologists, journalists and critics, to whom the study of Chopin’s life, work and legacy was particularly close – again Édouard Ganche, and in addition Bronisława Wójcik-Keuprulian, Stefania Łobaczewska, Aleksander Michałowski, Henryk Opieński, Leopold Binental, Jarosław Iwaszkiewicz, Stanisław Niewiadomski and Mateusz Gliński himself.
One should also note further topics undertaken by the editors – an article on Beethoven, generously filled with literary materials (on the centenary of his death, Muzyka 1927/4, and in it, among others, reflection by Hugo von Hofmannstahl on the works of Beethoven (p. 146), translations from Romain Rolland (pp. 153–154) and Guido Adler (pp. 162–166) as well as a selection of letters written by Beethoven prepared by Władysław Fabry (pp. 167–171) along with articles by Stanisław Niewiadomski (pp. 147–152), Łucjan Kamieński (pp. 157–161), and fragments of prose by Witold Hulewicz (pp. 155–156), or the jubilee, 100th issue of the monthly including the ‘studies, outlines and fragments of the greatest artists of our day,’ organised in three blocks: 1) ‘voices on the essence of music’ (Ignacy Jan Paderewski, Gabriel d’Annunzio and Karol Szymanowski, pp. 3–4), ←119 | 120→2) ‘voices on the principles of the development of music,’ 3) ‘voices on the forms of its incarnation.’ As it is written in the foreword, ‘in the abundance of these works the reader will find much material already published on the pages of Muzyka … mostly reprints of works that are nowadays inaccessible to a wider base of readers due to exhaustion of the relevant issues.’372
Coming back to the origin of the idea behind the monographs, the ‘summer’ special issue of 1926 called Muzyka Współczesna [Contemporary music] had been on Gliński’s mind at least since mid-1925, as this is what he wrote around that time to Adolf Chybiński: ‘I would be very glad, Professor, if you could provide us with an analytical “introduction” to the basics of the new music (new forms, new harmony etc.). Such an introduction would be even more appropriate as all the articles, no exceptions, steer clear from theoretical problems. It would simply be a first-class accomplishment to introduce the readers in a professional yet friendly manner to purely musical issues.’373
Indeed, the volume consisted of twenty-six, generally very brief and very essential reviews of the current creative output of European countries (only sometimes, in case of papers concerning Poland, Czechoslovakia, Russia, France and Germany – slightly lengthier ones) and ‘America’ (which included a paper outlining music in the United States supplemented with information about the creative output of countries from South America). Whereas in the introductory essay Chybiński mainly put emphasis on the speed of changes taking place in contemporary art, on the parallel operation of various ‘-isms,’ attempting to explain the ‘linear technique’ commonly found in the new music as the composers’ response to ‘harmonic Baroque’ typical for the older ages, stressing that a lack of melody is only an illusion and that ‘any attempts to negate melodiousness are a result of looking at it from another epoch’s perspective and thus – an example of disloyalty in criticism.’ Whereas the critical issue in his opinion was to find the ‘new form,’ avoiding ‘the need to repeat motifs and architectural symmetry that seems forced and schematic.’ Even though in Chybiński’s essay one can see his complete acceptance and understanding of the current trends in music, it seems that a moment was approaching when yet another generation of musicologists was to create Avant-Garde among the connoisseurs of the latest musical creations.
The material gathered in this volume was described in the next issue of Muzyka by the editor himself as ‘an encyclopaedia of contemporary music, [in which] there is a clear and transparent picture of contemporary trends in musical ←120 | 121→thought in all European countries.’ And not resting on his laurels, in connection with new ideas, he began to send invitations to other writing musicians and musicologists, encouraging them to take part in subsequent collective monographic publications.
Thanks to the indisputable passion behind Mateusz Gliński’s work, and later also thanks to various initiatives which he continuously employed to enrich the magazine, Muzyka met with great interest from the very first issues. According to the editors, the main reason for this success lay in the right assumptions of the adopted programme: combining interest in the latest music with pietism and respect for the past, placing Polish musical culture in Europe on the one hand, but also caring for the purity of national art and ‘its self-contained ethnographic and racial elements’374 on the other. To substantiate the good opinion enjoyed by the publication, nearly every issue featured ‘news from the press,’ which always said ‘very well edited magazine,’ ‘publication in a purely European style,’ ‘excellent editorship,’ ‘an example to follow for every magazine’ in terms of both contents and editorship; it should be stated that without a doubt the editors chose the quotes subjectively, but – of course – the publication certainly deserved good feedback. The publishers’ efforts were recognised, among others, by Adam Wieniawski, a publicist working for Rzeczpospolita, who in the past had got in a serious conflict with Gliński over actions connected to the establishment of the ‘Klub fachowej prasy muzycznej’ [Club of professional music press].375 Meanwhile, however, he wrote: ‘Finally, on a Thursday, the long-awaited publication edited by Mateusz Gliński – the monthly magazine Muzyka – was released. The need for such a publication could be easily felt with increasing activity in music. The monthly magazine was a brand new publication. No other existing music publication had such a wide-scale, professionally, skilfully and objectively developed plan. Perfectly edited, presented in a visually pleasing manner just like foreign publications of a similar type, discussing clearly and without pedantry the whole activity in the world of music in Poland and abroad…,’376 and later: ‘The most noticeable feature is the sophisticated appearance of every issue, in a better taste than many other well-known foreign publications of a similar type. The quality of the whole contents of the magazine is very high thanks to the competence of the impressive range of collaborators working on the magazine, including the best-known composers, musicians and musicologists, both Polish ←121 | 122→and foreign. The editors also showed great skill in being able to balance and maintain great objectivity.’377
After a few years it seemed that everyone continued to favour the works of the editorial team: ‘One can safely say about this publication, which appears second to none abroad, that it brings great honour to its initiator, editor Mateusz Gliński’ (Tygodnik Ilustrowany), ‘Muzyka monthly under the editorship of Mateusz Gliński has maintained an excellent European level. It is interesting, lively, abundant in information, knows how to keep in touch abroad’ (Sztuka i Życie).378 Alas, neither the good opinion of both the community and the readers nor the editors’ efforts to increase the attractiveness of the magazine through new publishing ideas – further regular columns, thematic editions, a growing number of authors – none was able to protect Muzyka against crisis. In view of the financial troubles after the subsidies received from MWRiOP were reduced by half, the editor-in-chief founded the Circle of Friends of Muzyka. The aim of the association was to secure the financial basis and ‘support the newspaper particularly in the field of propagating music in the widest circles of Polish society and representing it abroad.’ The only requirement to become a member was to make a one-off payment (250 PLN) or declare in favour of 4 PLN monthly contributions. According to lists published in consecutive issues of Muzyka, the group of members increased from month to month – here we find the names of Emil Młynarski, Eugeniusz Morawski, Adam Wieniawski, Karol Szymanowski, Władysław Skoczylas, Jan Kiepura, members of the Tyszkiewicz and Szembek family, and many others – however, among them there are no representatives of musicology who at that time (1934), despite their cooperation with Muzyka, did not regard it as a forum for the exchange of scholarly ideas, but only one of the possibilities to publish their minor works (contributions, messages). Seeking support (and endorsement) from the state coffers while planning themed editions, in 1935 Gliński – in connection with the death of Marshal Józef Piłsudski, published an issue under the slogan Józef Piłsudski and his Legions, the profile of which went astray from the first issues of the journal. In any case, after a collapse in 1933, when he published only four books (none was published in the second half of the year), only a dozen volumes (respectively: eight, five and two) were prepared in the following period 1934–36. Although six issues were published again in 1937, Kornel Michałowski claimed that ‘the magazine’s “revival” of 1937 was ostensible, its assurance of “independence and intransigence” sounded ←122 | 123→more hollow and false than ever, and the hope for stabilising the publication was nothing but vain.’379 The publication concluded with the only double issue with the date ‘1938.’380
Stefan Jarociński saw the failure of Muzyka in the editor-in-chief’s type of conformism, allowing him ‘to gain readers and financial resources necessary to run the magazine or be a good advertisement for him,’ defining Gliński as ‘a typical faceless critic,’ though ‘skilful’ and not devoid of ‘ingenuity.’381 It seems that in over thirteen-years’ worth of history of the periodical one can find plenty of evidence that there was a need for such a publication as Muzyka: perhaps less so among publicists, critics or musicologists (there were at least several or around a dozen other local and trade publications at that time, where they could publish their papers), and more so among readers interested in the current life of the music community, and at the same time in historic knowledge about music culture or in theoretical issues explained in a quite reader-friendly way. From the very start, Gliński himself stressed that Muzyka was not aimed at filling the niche created by a lack of a purely professional trade magazine. ‘Our aim is to promote music, and we have to make sure at any reasonable cost that the rather strong relationship which we have already established with society does not become weaker even for one moment.’382 A few years later, Gliński wrote even more bluntly:
I am not and will never be a musicologist, so I can say with complete confidence that I have respect, first of all, for music. Despite that, I can definitely say that with regard to musicology, Muzyka plays a very important and current role. It is Muzyka, rather than any other publication, that presents society with the results of musicological research, moving them from a laboratory research platform into the open world and disseminating them among the educated population. However, to be able to play that role, it has to ensure that everything it says is indeed being read rather than sharing the fate of other publications, only published for the use of a small number of specialists.383
In spite of the dissonance which could be felt at the turn of the 1920s and 1930s in the contact between Gliński and Chybiński, it was the Lviv leader of musicology who appeared most often as an author in the Warsaw periodical. His articles were usually of a monographic nature: ‘Kolęda w dawnej muzyce polskiej’ ←123 | 124→[Carols in early Polish music],384 ‘O muzyce górali tatrzańskich’ [About the music of Podhale highlanders],385 ‘O instrumentach muzycznych ludu polskiego’ [About musical instruments of the Polish people].386 He departed from popularisation in the lengthy dissertation ‘Z dziejów muzyki polskiej do 1800 roku’ [From the history of Polish music to the year 1800]387 written for the needs of one of the monographs, although this work was also construed to bring a history of Polish music and musical culture in an interesting way to the average reader of the monthly. On several occasions he provided the editorial office with materials from his favourite research on Karłowicz: in the aforementioned special number, apart from the composer’s profile, he prepared an edition of several of his letters from the years 1904–08 from his own archive.388
For the milieu of musicologists, but also journalists and music critics, the polemics in which Chybiński repeatedly appeared in Muzyka were very significant. One of them, on the subject of differences in assessment of significance and evaluation of the value of research on medieval music, and concerning Stefania Łobaczewska’s controversial (according to the professor) column in Lviv’s Słowo Polskie.389 Chybiński entered the discussion in defence of his beloved research on early music and early musical culture, the German musicological school and his own activities in various fields of music scholarship, using the magazine’s pages several times. He published his views on the obligations of music historians in a comprehensive article ‘O zadaniach historycznej muzykologii w Polsce’390 [On the tasks of historical musicology in Poland]. The starting point for the opinions formulated in the text (and at the same time the conclusion) was the thesis that ‘research on the history of music and musical culture in Poland must be the focal point of the work of a Polish musicologist-historian,’391 and ‘the study material’ within ‘polish music’ – its history and ethnography (presuming – as could be expected – historical and ethnographic sources) and the author develop his reflections in this direction. The thesis presented in this form does not seem controversial, but some musicians were upset by several phrases which clearly defined the ‘pattern’ of musicological activity according to Chybiński. For ←124 | 125→example, he wrote that ‘only research and papers which comply with scientific methods and lead to results valuable for science can be considered musicology’ (p. 590), which should be pursued ‘not only in the scope of music scores but also archive materials’ and ‘the task of a musicologist-historian in Poland is not only to study the history of our music, but also to disseminate such works’ (p. 591), which should be achieved, for example, through an initiative such as WDMP, which combined the efforts of ‘Warsaw’s, Lviv’s and Poznań’s resources’ (p. 592).
Such phrases could not go unnoticed by the second ‘father’ of Polish musicology, who held a rather different position on research. In the polemical article published shortly later in Muzyka392 Zdzisław Jachimecki, predictably, criticised the fact that ‘prof. Chybiński emphasises the importance of archival research such … as if only archivists had the right to be called “scientifically working musicologists”‘.393 It seems that he was affected by claims regarding the musicologists’ promotional activities, often reckless and careless, a result of rattling the work off. As an example of popularisation, he gave the publications of Henryk Opieński – La musique polonaise394 [Polish music] and the monograph Stanisław Moniuszko. Życie i dzieła395 [Stanisław Moniuszko. Life and works] – which Chybiński also highly recommended; he also disagreed with Chybiński’s division of musicologists into ‘scientific’ and ‘former,’ in which the main criterion would be the frequency of publishing the results of scholarly research.
The editorial team of Muzyka did not engage in the described polemics between the chiefs in Lviv and Cracow. Otherwise a few years later, when a strong reaction of Chybiński was triggered by the words of Mateusz Gliński in the short ‘impression’ ‘ “Zmierzch nauki” w dziedzinie muzycznej’ [The twilight of education in music].396 This alluded to the suspension of Kwartalnik Muzyczny, run by Chybiński, and the purposefulness of running a somehow niche magazine that absorbs funds in abundance, and all this due to the stagnation that started to overwhelm the community. The professor was most agitated by the comment indicating the handful of readers. Responding to this objection, he pointed to forty-seven, as he calculated himself, names of ‘workers,’ potential readers of scholarly texts (with the provision that it was definitely not all of them). He also stressed that there was no collapse of the magazine, since, at the same time, ←125 | 126→there was the new, strictly academic Polski Rocznik Muzykologiczny (further PRM [Polish musicological yearbook]) in place of the periodical, which – in his words – never was one. In the following, malicious reply to Chybiński’s letter, the editor used, and in a perverse manner, quotes from the above-described polemics of 1930, amongst others on recognising as ‘scientific musicologists only [those individuals], who continuously and systematically perform scientific work and present the results of it to the public in a form adopted in science’397 – using such a principle, it would be difficult to speak of close to fifty professionally active musicologists listed by the professor. (A few months later, Chybiński once again published another controversial text in Muzyka Polska, this time focusing on the Karłowicz theme. As it referred to a dissertation published a few years earlier Rozwój kultury muzycznej w Polsce [Development of musical culture in Poland] (1913), its author, Zdzisław Jachimecki, answered with a pamhplet Pod jakim kątem patrzy prof. dr Adolf Chybiński na kwestię wpływologii muzycznej (wyjaśnienie enigmatyczności artykułu ‘Do kwestii wpływologii muzycznej’) [From what angle is Prof. Dr. Adolf Chybiński looking at the issue of musical influence (Explanation of the enigma of the article ‘To the question of musical influences’)].398)
The editors of the monthly could not restrain themselves from their own comment and presented another dispute on the Cracow–Lviv line, again not sparing the professor from Lviv, in one of the press reviews.399 Then, for several years, Gliński and Chybiński remained in conflict. As we remember, it was not always this way. In the first period of their acquaintance, their contacts were more than courteous, letters from Warsaw to Lviv indicate the admiration and respect of the leader of Muzyka for the leading authority in the field of musicology. In the autumn of 1924, Gliński, who had previously had correspondence with Chybiński in connection with the activities aimed at establishing the PTMW, asked the professor to ‘as soon as possible send the promised: article about “New Music” and the books by Weismann and Reiss’400 and supplement – apparently ←126 | 127→sent earlier – to the chronicle of musical life in Lviv. Along with this letter, a package with twelve copies of the first issue of the magazine went from Warsaw asking Chybiński to mediate in giving these free copies to the representatives of the local music community at his own discretion – the best musicians – and selected editorial offices (a prospectus was also attached for them). Gliński also expected the target list of the Lviv recipients. The first edition, of course, was also addressed the professor, adding another letter asking for an opinion: ‘I am much interested in the opinion it [Muzyka] evoked. Mr Professor, have you noticed any deficiencies that could be eliminated? I kindly ask you Mr Professor, please give me any tips before the release of the second issue.’401 The expected, though unspecified ‘administrative guidance’ came probably from Lviv. This included reservations of a personal nature, which, however, the Warsaw editor refuted with words taken almost explicitly from the editorial, speaking of ‘free tribune for all the outstanding employees of the musical realm, regardless of their beliefs.’402
Gliński enjoyed the animated correspondence between Warsaw and Lviv, feeling ‘goodwill for the magazine and lively creative enthusiasm in his [Chybiński’s] letters.’403 He would share his publishing concerns and problems, and at least for some time, he was hoping to intensify or maybe even formalise the cooperation, calling the musicologist the editor of Muzyka rather than just a co-worker or author. Many times he wanted to ‘confer’ by drawing up and consulting plans for subsequent issues of the magazine and accompanying Biblioteka Muzyczna volumes. He confided his desire to dissolve cooperation with Adam Sołtys and Witold Friemann as correspondents, and at the same time asked for help in pulling Stefania Łobaczewska ‘into our circle’404 – a successful idea as for years Łobaczewska was one of the most prolific authors of the monthly. When in 1925 Chybiński planned a visit to Warsaw, he immediately received a letter from Gliński with an invitation: ‘I am very glad that I will see you, Professor, in a few days in Warsaw. I have lots of plans that we will discuss personally…. I would be very happy if you could agree to “step” into my editorial office, where we will be ←127 | 128→happy to welcome you. We do not have extraordinarily comfortable facilities to host you, but we will welcome you with all our hospitality.’405
Unfortunately, the correspondence in the other direction is no longer extant, but it seems that, apart from words of appreciation and encouragement, it also had to include criticism, which, moreover, was received by Gliński for a long time with humility: ‘you must be certainly annoyed, Professor, with the superficiality of our requirements and our criteria. Oh well. Sometimes, I too feel that we are gliding on the surface, avoiding going into any serious “depth,” both in theoretical and empirical terms. Sadly, that is the way it has to be and the way it will remain.’406 Almost from the beginning, Gliński’s patience was repeatedly put to the test. Time and again, Chybiński’s vice came to the fore: failing to deliver work to the editorial office as promised. Any delays in the completion of the announced texts might just turn against the author of the would-be publications, were it not for the fact that the delays resulting amongst others from stopping the uncompleted material for composition and printing lead to adverse repercussions that encumbered publishers, usually financially, but not only. In addition, the professor ‘reserved’ a number of topics for himself – in one of Gliński’s letters there is mention of even twenty407 volumes of the aforementioned Biblioteka Muzyczna: apart from Szymanowski and Karłowicz, there were also ‘carols and pastorals’ and ‘Polish dances’ and ‘a few French themes,’ and it turns out he also counted on works about Bach, a theme entrusted to Zdzisław Jachimecki.408
At a certain point another issue was the question of Chybiński’s loyalty, as he published his works, among others, in Warsaw’s Wiadomości Muzyczne (the organ of the Warsaw Musicians’ Association), whose editors (the chief editor was a collector and music critic, Edward Wrocki) were in a serious conflict with Gliński. But even though year by year the tone of the letters from Warsaw to Lviv was becoming colder and colder, towards the end of the 1920s Muzyka’s editor still sought advice from Chybiński on editorship-related matters and the professor accepted another request, this time to write an organology article for the next special issue entitled Instrumenty muzyczne409 [Musical instruments]. ←128 | 129→A serious source of misunderstanding was Gliński’s initiation of the activity of the ‘Club of professional music press,’ the idea of which (and putting it into practice) Chybiński did not accept for a moment.410 Despite that, he received an invitation from Warsaw to take part in the sessions of the organisational-statutory committee of the Association. He did not accept that invitation, only presented several organisational suggestions, for example, concerning the name of the Club. From that moment on the period when the editor of Muzyka pursued a close collaboration with the Head of Lviv’s musicology was reaching an end. Only one more time, in 1932, Gliński asked Chybiński about the possibility of writing an article on Bach’s impact on Polish music for a planned special issue of the Parisian Revue Musicale. A year later an official request came to Lviv to write an opinion on the magazine in relation with its 100th jubilee issue, and several months later, in connection with the letter from Stefania Łobaczewska to the editors quoted above, Gliński once again confirmed his loyalty to the professor, as he wrote:
taking into account the long-standing cooperation between you, Dear Professor, and your excellent moral and professional assistance while launching the magazine and throughout the first few years of its existence, and remembering your long-standing pleasant and kind attitude to the editors and their chief, the attitude that sadly, as a result of some misunderstandings has changed slightly in the recent years – I believe it to be my moral obligation to present you, Dear Professor, with a copy of Dr Łobaczewska’a statement before publishing it and to express my complete readiness to publish a copy of your statement next to it, Dear Professor.411
Further cooperation between Gliński and Chybiński was no longer possible. In the 1930s, apart from the letter presented in Łobaczewska’s matter, Chybiński only twice sent his texts to Muzyka – either he caused controversy and prompted polemics, as in the case of the aforementioned article ‘O zadaniach historycznej muzykologii w Polsce’ [On the tasks of historical musicology in Poland], or he answered it – as an already former editor of Kwartalnik Muzyczny – to the allegations made by others about the purposefulness of the magazine (as just discussed).
Mateusz Gliński, for whom, at the beginning of his publishing experience, Chybiński was a mentor and consultant for editorial work, for years, consistently but with great difficulty, tried to acquire the Professor’s work for Muzyka, like for example, some of his special projects, such as an edition entitled Muzyka ←129 | 130→współczesna [Contemporary music] from 1926, based on the authority of the professor, giving him introductory articles to edit. Following the correspondence of Gliński to Chybiński, we repeatedly encounter solicitations and strong requests from Warsaw for further texts, for example, ‘some fragment (at your own discretion) of the material about Karłowicz, such as you already have prepared at the moment. I would be so personally and editorially infinitely grateful for such an honour on Karłowicz’s Anniversary,’412 and, in requesting texts, he was ready to make numerous concessions.413 Quite quickly, though reluctantly, he had to accept the fact that Chybiński also submitted his writings to other magazines.
Such a publication, which Chybiński gladly worked with at that time, in the late twenties, was Poznań’s Przegląd Muzyczny. It appeared on the music publications market around the same time as Lviv’ Lwowskie Wiadomości Muzyczne i Literackie and Warsaw’s Muzyka. Even though initially a lot of space in Przegląd was occupied by news dedicated to the vocalist community, it soon became (which was without a doubt an accomplishment achieved by its chief editor, musicologist Henryk Opieński, who had studied under the wings of Hugo Riemann) one of such periodicals where many critics, publicists and academics active at that time wanted to present their articles, arguments and inputs, and probably the only (until 1928) publication which so skilfully catered to the community’s need for news and at the same time pursued academic ambitions. Even though initially the editors sought popular materials, it was mainly aimed at encouraging the readers with lighter contents and gaining loyal fans.414 It was called into life as a bi-weekly, but from 1926 to the end of 1931, he appeared only once a month.
The idea to publish a periodical in a more extensive form than just a bulletin for vocal music lovers through the Poznań’s vocalists’ association was born ←130 | 131→in 1924 or even maybe slightly earlier. While staying in regular contact with Chybiński, Opieński wrote to him towards the end of the year:
My letter has a special purpose. The Vocalist Club Association of Wielkopolska, which I preside, is starting a biweekly magazine on 1 January: Przegląd Muzyczny, under my editorship; it should replace or rather fill the gap that exists in the Polish music community which does not have a serious periodical. The aim we need to have: teaching a blind man about colour. – … So please, if you may, send us something for issue no. I (by15 XII). … Perhaps something in the area of highlander folklore would be most convenient for you? Please!!415
Three weeks later, in his typically colourful and emphatic manner, he presented the assumptions and purpose which were to guide the editorial staff and himself: ‘the motto of our Przegląd is development – evolution of Polish music…. I will be very glad if in two corners of the Polish Republic fires of Polish music culture burn brightly; judging by your own work – Lviv is already a significant centre for musicology – here we mainly have to work from scratch.’416
In the first years of Przegląd, Chybiński was present in almost every edition; he opened many of them; when he was invited to collaborate as an author, he immediately responded by sending an article in the field of musical ethnography, this time addressing this department of musicological research from the side of methodology. As years earlier, this time Opieński again showed particular trust and respect to Chybiński, placing the first part of this text which for the norms of the magazine was very extensive, almost at the opening,417 right after the programme article of his own authorship, ‘Muzykalność a estetyczna kultura’ [Musicality and cultural aesthetics], in which he described the tasks to be undertaken by the newly established journal in order to support the spreading of musical culture throughout the community, with an attempt to characterise and assess its level.418 Immediately after the first article which was extremely important then for the folklore research, Chybiński began to overwhelm the editorial staff of Przegląd ←131 | 132→with ‘Old Polish music.’ As late as 1925, he presented four contributions, the first of which, ‘On a number of putative, known and unknown Polish composers from the seventeenth and eighteenth century,’419 caused – not without exception in the pages of the Poznań magazine – an argument with Zdzisław Jachimecki.420 The Lviv professor made the unfair allegation that the Cracow adversary had disregarded his contribution in undertaking historical research around the name of the seventeenth-century composer Sebastian Antoni Kaszczewski. The second of the polemics took place three years later and referred to the assessments of the figures of Marcin Leopolita and Mikołaj Gomółka, and it was preceded by a discussion of the issues published in 1913 by Józef Reiss about Gomółka’s Melodie na psałterz polski421 [Melody on the Polish psaltery].
In the next annals – 1926–28, and even 1929, when he was already leading a scholarly journal422 – Chybiński presented a dozen or so dissertations and reviews (often extensive enough to encourage the editors to divide them and print them in installments), mainly concerning the history of music and musical culture until the end of the eighteenth century, but also newer music, as for an example article on the ‘problems of national style and folklore in the work of ←132 | 133→Polish composers of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries’ – ‘Sny o “pieśniach o ziemi naszej”‘423 [Dreams about songs of our land]. In addition to the already mentioned work on ethnographic issues inaugurating the first issue of Przegląd, he addressed folklore two more times: firstly – writing recollections about Bartuś Obrochta,424 the second time – preparing a review about the monumental study Puszcza kurpiowska w pieśni [Kurpie Forest in songs] by Father Władysław Skierkowski.425 In turn, in the periodical Henryk Opieński reviewed Chybiński’s ethnographic works: Instrumenty muzyczne ludu polskiego na Podhalu [Musical instruments of the Polish people in Podhale] (Cracow 1924) and O muzyce górali podhalańskich [About the music of Podhale highlanders] (Zakopane 1927).426
After changes in the editorial office, the professor responded in the following years to the new needs of the journal by sending several works on the dissemination of choral music, combining academic knowledge with practical aspects of the problem and assessing the current work on vocal ensembles.427
The Old Polish compilation, published in Przegląd by the Lviv professor, was complemented by dissertations by his young assistant, Maria Szczepańska. In one of these428 the Lviv musicologist enriched the then ‘state of possession’ in the field of Polish fifteenth-century polyphonic song with a third work, O nadroższy kwiatku panieńskiej czystości [About the dearest flower of maiden purity], known, as the author pointed out, from the reproduction included by Aleksander Poliński to his Dzieje muzyki polskiej [History of Polish music], but not previously analysed by anyone. She had an opportunity to get to know the historical piece from her own experience; she performed a ‘palaeographical analysis’ which not only made a discussion about the music layer possible but also facilitated an attempt to reconstruct the text. Szczepańska maintained an interest in similar pieces and the culmination of her work on another fifteenth-century song ←133 | 134→originating from sources preserved in Polish archives was an extensive monograph of the hymn to Saint Stanislaus, which the researcher sent to the editors in Poznań a year later.429 She also wrote several reviews for the magazine, and to celebrate Chybiński’s fiftieth birthday, probably at the editors’ request, she prepared a list of musicological works written by the professor, which accompanied an extensive report by Henryk Opieński on a commemorative book prepared by his students and friends.430
Stefania Łobaczewska contributed to the pages of Przegląd Muzyczny first and foremost as a trusted reviewer of musicological publications. She published two original works – both focused on issues in the field of theory, particularly contemporary music, which at that time interested her in the highest degree.431
Having known Chybiński for many years and his ‘school,’ Opieński, from the first weeks of work for the Przegląd Muzyczny, also sought texts from Bronisława Wójcik, counting on her ‘like on Zawisza,’432 and Fr. Hieronim Feicht, in the mid-twenties, one of the most experienced musicologists of the young generation. Perhaps using the professor’s mediation, he commissioned Feicht to publish a treatise on sources for hymn Bogurodzica [Mother of God] (along with notes and text prepared by the author based on a seventeenth-century manuscript found in Lviv), and immediately, in December 1924, he sent it to print.433 In the following years, he wrote regularly for Przegląd. Already in 1925 he signalled his interest in the figure and work of Bartłomiej Pękiel,434 and also participated in a discussion ←134 | 135→on the revival of the practice of Gregorian chant and the choral movement in Poland.435
In turn, Wójcikówna, despite the efforts of the editorial board, only sporadically collaborated and only in the first period of Przegląd’s activity. In one of three texts, a short feuilleton ‘O pewnym nieporozumieniu,’436 [About a certain misunderstanding] commented on the wording of the well-known Chopinologist, James Huneker (duplicating the current opinion also held in German literature), talking about the ‘Asianness’ of Chopin’s music, preventing full understanding of the master’s works by the ‘western’ listener. The second of the texts was of a different character – ‘O “gamie” w muzyce współczesnej’ [About the ‘scale’ in contemporary music’]437 – in the journal’s bibliography it was assigned to the section of ‘Theory, aesthetics, psychology,’ being, however, just a popular lecture, explaining to laymen the goal of modern composers’ search for new ‘sound’ environments, not limiting their creative intentions in the field of musical material.
With a good knowledge of the musicological community, which back then was obviously still quite small, the editor of Przegląd mainly sent his invitations to Lviv, where the most ‘academic’ papers were written. His collaboration with colleagues from Cracow was much less frequent, and he was not really hoping for any papers from Poznań. Even though the respectable group of German musicologists, who gained their qualifications still before the war, included the ‘respectable’ Łucjan Kamieński, who settled in Wielkopolska’s capital after the war, so he was only a stone’s throw away, but sadly in Opieński’s opinion he was ‘so painfully slow that it was a real art to get something from him.’438 Over the years, he was known as an efficient organiser in various fields – we can remember here that living for almost ten years in Königsberg (1909–18) he write the music column for the Königsberger Allgemeine Zeitung, and already was the director of the touring operetta in Poznań, then the deputy director of the local State Music Academy (later Conservatoire), and in 1922 he was entrusted with organising the department of musicology at the University, which he led until the outbreak of war and where in the meantime (in 1930) he founded a phonographic ←135 | 136→archive. For the whole musicological milieu, he became a key figure when in the years 1928–31 he took up organisation of and then running the PTM. He published much in German – still during his studies in Berlin, and also after the war in Archiv für Musikwissenschaft, Allgemeine Musikzeitung, and in Polish – in Poznań’s university publishing houses and in the Sprawozdania Poznańskiego Towarzystwa Przyjaciół Nauk [Reports of the Poznań Society of Friends of Sciences], he was a reviewer of Kurier Poznański. Music magazines where his works can be found include the local Życie Muzyczne i Teatralne which appeared only for a few months of the 1934/35 season and in which he posted the article ‘Folklor a kultura muzyczna’ [Folklore and musical culture], the Warsovian Muzyka and PRM, led by Chybiński, in the first volume of which he published ‘Monografia pieśni zmówinowej z Kaszub południowych’439 [Monograph about chant song from southern Kaszuby]. However, it was not possible to persuade Kamieński to become an author cooperating with Przegląd Muzyczny.
Of course, these few names of musicologists should be supplemented with the names of journalists and music critics who filled Przegląd Muzyczny with both reports and information addressed to the main readers of the magazine – members and activists of singers’ circles – as well as attempts to disseminate knowledge about the history of music and musical culture, or discuss performance issues. Among regular columnists and reporters was vocalist and pedagogue Roman Heising (in the 1930s he completed his education also with musicological studies), composer, conductor and activist of the singing movement Stanisław Kwaśnik, or above all, one of the journal’s editors, Stanisław Wiechowicz, composer, conductor, music critic.
Henryk Opieński formally led the magazine until mid-July 1927, although he left Poznań already on 27 VI 1926 to the Swiss home of his newly wed (1925) wife Lidia.440 However, he intended to keep in touch both with the Związek Kół Śpiewaczych [Union of Singers’ Circles] and the editors of Przegląd Muzyczny, although he planned ‘to have peace from direct contact with people for two years, and if health allows, work on compositions.’441 In fact, we have evidence that for many of the following months he certainly received news from Poznań and personally intervened with authors, even if already known from not meeting ←136 | 137→their original commitments, like the head of Lviv musicology, whom he asked for: ‘They whine from Przegląd in Poznań that they have received nothing from you for a long time. Sir Professor, if you would be so generous to look kindly toward them and send them something from your portfolio.’442
Mirosława Stempniewicz443 probably rightly points out that the duties of the editor-in-chief to date had been performed by another musician and theoretician from Warsaw, Kazimierz Sikorski, who – let us add – studied theoretical subjects at the Higher School of Music at WTM years earlier under Opieński. His name does not appear on the pages of the journal, but only in a small note informing about the acquisition of the editorial position by Wiechowicz.444 Sikorski had adequate preparation (let us remember that in addition to a diploma in the field of theory and composition, he also studied philosophy at the University of Warsaw and started, but quickly abandoned, studies with Chybiński in Lviv). Sikorski was ambitious to keep the profile of the publication as given by the first editor, and thus not limit it to the activities of singer unions, but also carefully propagate more thorough knowledge of music. Soon, less than a year later, he could solidify his first editorial experience by accepting an offer from the reactivated Przegląd Muzyczny.
Together with the new editor Wiechowicz, who was primarily a practising musician, whose passion included choral creativity and performance, he transformed the profile of the magazine: to a greater extent editions concerned the musical culture of choral communities and performance practice, yet still included – although much less frequently – historical materials, most often related to issues of vocal music.
Adolf Chybiński, his constant and most productive colleague, was asked to write a special text on the occasion of the magazine’s fifth anniversary. Chybiński primarily spoke of a ‘friendly gate’ that Henryk Opieński, the first editor – whom he referred to as ‘a professional musicologist’ – opened for musicological works entering a higher level at that time. He did not fear the inconsistency of his decisions with the assumptions and goals of any organ of singing associations, because in Chybiński’s understanding the duty of every music magazine (also ←137 | 138→popular) is propagating ‘in one form or another, the history of our native music among wide-ranging groups of singers,’ the more so that ‘a considerable number of musicological works [published here] concerned earlier choral music and early choral culture.’445 Summing up the activities of the editorial staff to date, he pointed out that thanks to the adopted programme, Przegląd Muzyczny also inspired other magazines to take on a greater interest in historical issues, and its content etched in the annals of music press forever. Regarding his experience as an author, he wrote: ‘I would say both now and in the future that I will deem the years of cooperating with Przegląd Muzyczny the nicest and most productive years. Moreover, when I think of the line of development of Przegląd Muzyczny, I see that thanks to the ideology and perseverance of publishing and editorial factors, Przegląd Muzyczny is shaping up for a very real future filled with broad perspectives.’446
The last words were rather polite. While two years earlier, in 1928, seven of Chybiński’s articles (in eleven editions) were published in Przegląd, along with two pieces by Wiechowicz, Opieński, Kwaśnik and Jachimecki each, and one by Feicht, Reiss (in three editions), Szczepańska (in four editions) and several other authors (and I mention only musicology texts here), a year later from the author-musicologists only Chybiński (five essays in six editions) and Opieński (four titles in seven editions) remained; the remaining content consisted of materials on current issues relevant to the singing environment. Never-the-less, when Chybiński reminisced about his ‘most productive’ years, he did not refer solely to his collaboration with the Poznań-based Przegląd Muzyczny.
Analysing his ‘contributory’ writing on this occasion and taking into account the bibliography in this period until 1939,447 three periods can be observed, characterised by a special intensity of ‘small’ forms, both scholarly and popularising knowledge about the history of music and musical culture. The first period stretches from 1910 to 1912, when he submitted his works – let us remember – generously to columns of the Warsaw-based Przegląd Muzyczny run by Roman Chojnacki (nearly thirty items). Moreover, he sent his texts to the ethnographic quarterly Lud (run by dialect-specialist Szymon Matusiak) and to the Warsaw artistic, literary and scientific magazine Sfinks (the creator and editor of ←138 | 139→which was the poet, journalist and literary critic Władysław Bukowiński). First and foremost, he was then one of the pillars of Kwartalnik Muzyczny, the organ of WTM, and also published abroad.448
Another peak of his activity that made him a matchless role model for authors of contributions falls in the second half of the 1920s. At that time, he associated himself simultaneously with several magazines, whose editorial staffs operated in various centres of the reborn Poland. On the pages of Muzyka, until the collapse of cooperation between Warsaw and Lviv, there appeared a total of twenty smaller and larger articles and reviews. Thus, the editor of the monthly had to rapidly, though reluctantly, accept the fact that Chybiński submitted his essays to other magazines as well. ‘Yesterday I read, and with high interest, Sir Professor, your excellent piece in Przegląd Muzyczny,’ he wrote at that time, ‘Why on earth have you sent us absolutely nothing for many weeks? Have you ceased to consider MUZYKA as your organ? … I could not and would not impose anything on you Mr Professor. Please believe me that everything the Professor will send will be accepted with sincere joy.’449 In turn, he published both independent, original articles and comments in Opieński’s Przegląd Muzyczny in the running columns: ‘Letters,’ ‘Current news,’ ‘Reports on notes and books’ – more than thirty essays, reviews, comments, and reports by Chybiński appeared there over six years. At the same time, he was still publishing in the Poznań Muzyka Kościelna, the Warsaw Wiadomości Muzyczne, the Cracow Kurier Literacko-Naukowy, the Tarnow monthly Hosanna, and Muzyk Wojskowy450 published in Grudziądz. However, a special place among these titles was occupied – albeit briefly for less than a year – by the monthly Myśl Muzyczna [Musical thought] given the subtitle Dodatek Muzykologiczny do miesięcznika Śpiewak (Śpiewak Śląski) [Musicological supplement to the monthly singer (Silesian singer)]. Already in 1927, the professor associated his exiguous career with this literary and musical periodical, which was an organ of the Zjednoczenie Polskich Związków Śpiewaczych i Muzycznych na Śląsku [Union of Polish singer and musical ←139 | 140→associations in Silesia]. Evidently, he found a valuable partner for scholarly discussion and a faithful and grateful recipient of his dissertations in his founder and editor-in-chief, Stefan Marian Stoiński, a former student of Leichtentritt and Fleischer.451 In 1928, several years of collaboration resulted in the idea of developing a musicological supplement, in which the index of authors’ names came down de facto to two positions: Stoiński and Chybiński, with a quantitative – and qualitative – dominance from the latter. Six articles and reports by the supplement’s editor and twelve of the professor’s publications were issued in nine volumes; this set was supplemented by a dissertation by Maria Szczepańska about unknown Polish ‘lamentations’ from the end of the fifteenth century.452
In fact, the bulk of Chybiński’s publications in Katowice was based on results – as usually in his case – of many years of research conducted on archives, mainly from Wawel. In Myśl Muzyczna he published material on the instrumental canzone of Marcin Mielczewski, the biography of Walentyn Bakfark, the founding and the early years of the St. Mary’s band in Cracow, the biography of Wacław of Szamotuły, Jan Fabrycy of Żywiec, the history of music in Wawel Cathedral in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, the issue of Italian influence in the sixteenth century Polish music, the biography of Sebastian of Felsztyn, motet works of Marcin Mielczewski as well as inventories of musical requisites and instruments of the Jesuit bands in Cracow in the eighteenth century. The historical sketch ‘Muzykologia wśród nauk uniwersyteckich’ [Musicology among university sciences]453 was important for disseminating knowledge about the history of the discipline. The article brought attention to the clue to propagating early music through source publications ‘Renesans dawnej muzyki polskiej’ [Renaissance of early Polish music] referring to the first volume of the new WDMP series just ←140 | 141→released and from the end of the nineteenth century Father Surzyński’s monumental series about sacred music, Monumenta Musices Medii Aevi in Polonia.454
As mentioned, there were nine supplements to Śpiewak, all published in 1928. During the last quarter of that year Chybiński devoted all his creative force to prepare for the release of the first Kwartalnik Muzyczny, which was to become the primary platform for his scholarly writing. This did not mean however that the smaller formats – contributions, messages, and materials, were not published in friendly publications. Let us trace Chybiński’s bibliography from 1928.
Kornel Michałowski, in the set attached to Księga pamiątkowa takes into account thirty-seven titles during this period, which could be supplemented with at least a few more positions, for example, articles whose printing, begun in 1927, continued in editions during the next year,455 and reports, probably not always included by Michałowski. Many of them were published in parts, so that the frequency of appearance of the professor’s name was, in fact, even higher. On the other hand, some of the materials were used by various publications, although reprints generally did not occur simultaneously. Such a solution was by no means a rarity: to complete their portfolios, editors often sought to obtain each and every name found in the narrow circle of writing musicologists, critics and musicians; this bothered neither the authors nor the readers. Publications from the interwar period generally constituted either local or environmental projects, usually reaching to a limited and specific range of readers – the amateur singer movement, church musicians, organists, members of musician trade unions, a wide group of music lovers. In order to raise the prestige of such publications, ←141 | 142→it was worth to invite the established authorities from time to time. Alas, due to lack of either time or original themes, but also on special requests from the editorial staff, they often duplicated their essays.
In the case of Chybiński and in relation to the year 1928, the reprint issue probably concerns six works. It would appear that the two titles included in the monthly Muzyka were published almost in parallel and ‘with permission’ in other periodicals due to the importance that Chybiński attached to the matters that he discussed in them. The article ‘Renesans dawnej muzyki polskiej’ [Renaissance of early Polish music],456 the problem of which was close to him, has been discussed above. This is a short presentation of all attempts to identify the Old Polish repertoire and bring it closer to the contemporary audiences; amongst others publication of Śpiewy kościelne by Józef Count Cichocki, publication of sources of old Polish music in the pages of Kwartalnik Muzyczny by Henryk Opieński, Józef Reiss editing Lilius’s composition for the magazine Muzyka i Śpiew works included as examples in monographs, for example, in Jachimecki’s Wpływy włoskie w muzyce polskiej [Italian influence in Polish music] (Cracow 1911). To continue this tradition, Chybiński joined from the beginning of his academic career, and at this point, in 1928, he managed to lead to the opening of a new source series.
For the third time, Chybiński intensified his ‘contributing’ creativity in the mid-1930s. He strengthened his contacts with the editors of Ilustrowany Kurier Codzienny and its supplement entitled Kurier Literacko-Naukowy he prepared profiles of composers, essays on early music, columns about Tatra and highlander themes, and his favourite music by Norwegian composers.
As for other representatives of the first generation of Polish musicologists, their activity in the pages of musical periodicals of the 1920s and 1930s looked different. As is known, Zdzisław Jachimecki led his academic career in a manner entirely different from Chybiński. For him, the time came in the twenties for the publication of syntheses and monographs: Historia muzyki polskiej (w zarysie) [History of Polish music (An overview)] (Warsaw 1920), Stanisław Moniuszko (Warsaw 1921), the extended edition Wagner. Życie i twórczość [Wagner. Life and work] (Warsaw 1922), he was undoubtedly already preparing Fryderyk Chopin. Rys życia i twórczości [Frederic Chopin. An overview of his life and work] (Cracow 1927). As for the smaller forms, after 1915 a clear break can be seen in his activities lasting until the mid-twenties, when he began to publish more contributions, articles, polemics, reviews, mainly in Muzyka, Muzyka Kościelna, ←142 | 143→the Poznań Przegląd Muzyczny, or the series of the Akademia Umiejętności [Academy of Learning]. It should not be forgotten that during all these years his articles were also published in foreign publications: The Musical Quarterly,457 La Revue Musicale,458 the entry in A Dictionary of Modern Music and Musicians (London 1924) and Das neue Musiklexikon (Berlin 1926).
Józef Reiss, connected to Cracow, indeed regularly included his works in the Sprawozdania Polskiej Akademii Umiejętności (for example, ‘Wielogłosowa pieśń religijna w XVI wieku w Polsce’ [Polyphonic religious songs of the sixteenth century in Poland], 1920, vol. 28; ‘Jan Brożek-Broscius jako teoretyk muzyki’ [Jan Brożek-Broscius as a music theorist] 1923, vol. 29). In the twenties Reiss also published articles in Zeitschrift für Musikweissenschaft (amongst others ‘Georgius Libanus Lignicensis als Musiker’ and ‘Zwei mehrstimmige Lieder aus dem 15. Jahrhundert,’ both texts in the years 1922/23), and amongst the Polish music magazines – in Muzyk Wojskowy and Orkiestra – and also in Ilustrowany Kurier Codzienny.
Before 1918 Alicja Simon was only sporadically459 a guest writer in the pages of the music magazines – Kwartalnik Muzyczny and Przegląd Muzyczny. Living abroad for years – in Berlin, Geneva and finally in the years 1924–28 in Washington – she worked professionally and published much there. After the war but still before returning to Poland she sent an article about the philosophy of Hoene-Wroński460 to Muzyka; in the thirties, she started cooperation among others with Polski Rocznik Muzykologiczny.461
Henryk Opieński, while occupied with running the ‘Motet et Madrigal’ choir that he organised in 1917 in Lausanne, was still involved in conducting historical research: his work La musique polonaise was published in Paris in 1918 followed by the monograph Stanisław Moniuszko. Muzyka i dzieła, issued a few years later (in 1924) in Lviv. In one of the few post-war editions of the Warsaw Przegląd Muzyczny edited by Roman Chojnacki he included a text about Hugo Riemann462 (after which, as described, a few years after the closure of the ←143 | 144→magazine, the title was taken by a periodical operating in Poznań under the auspices of the Zjednoczenie Polskich Związków Śpiewaczych [Union of Polish singing unions]). In the absence of Opieński’s publications from the period before 1925, fragments of his few letters sent to Chybiński sound rather striking. Therein, he agrees to the Lviv proposals to prepare material for (maybe – this we still do not know) the new musicological periodical planned by the professor. At the beginning of 1920 Opieński wrote from Łódź: ‘Regarding the collaboration, I will be glad to include a little work in the annal [?]; – just as you suggested – on the Bakfark project, along with some of his letters and messages on his hitherto unknown manu[scripts] and Polish compositions – Agreed?,’463 and after a few months: ‘For the work ordered by you [?] I will get started in November after returning from Switzerland, from where I am leaving for concerts in mid-October; I will also use it to see what new materials to look for abroad,’464 and a year later: ‘Of course, I agree [to your proposal] by agreeing to the terms…. Please, just kindly specify the exact number of lines on the page and the number of syllables in the line, and at the same time the deadline by which I have to provide the manuscript.’465
The mentioned material about Bakfark’s letters appeared only years later.466 Meanwhile, however, Opieński, as has been said, initiated the edition of a new journal in 1925, in which he himself published various materials on a number of occasions: historical articles, texts on musical culture and dissemination of music and current affairs, occasional notes on the singing movement, polemics, posthumous recollections. Beginning in 1926, he regularly wrote for Muzyka, and from 1928 he became a trusted and reliable author cooperating with Adolf Chybiński in Kwartalnik Muzyczny.
It should also be asked what was the attitude – at least in some cases – of Chybiński’s students and colleagues towards other magazines from the musicians’ and musicologists’ environment. A wealth of information on this topic can be found in the next chapter. In this case, one has to conclude that their activity was enormous, which is not surprising because in those years such publications were probably a major supplement for the scholars’ budgets. Having this in mind, we cannot be surprised that young people submitted their texts not only to their ←144 | 145→mentor-editor of the most significant music journal but to other addresses as well, including the more ‘hostile’ ones. Bronisław Wójcik-Keuprulian clearly presented her arguments, who addressed these words to her mentor467 in the spring of 1930:
In my opinion, the interests of Kwartalnik in no way collide with the interests of Muzyka. Kwartalnik is a scientific journal, Muzyka – a popular music ‘magazine’ and these journals cannot compete with each other, nor should they. … with regards to the completely different purposes of the two magazines, I see no good reason why the collaborators of Kwartalnik should not also write in Muzyka from time to time. To the contrary, I would consider it wrong, as then there would be a lack of expertly written articles in Muzyka, which would be harmful to Polish writing on music in general. Therefore, I do not refuse collaboration with Mr Gliński, and if I find enough time, I’ll always write some little article for Muzyka. I emphasise: ‘article’; as for ‘scientific dissertations,’ fortunately, we now have Kwartalnik.468
The religious periodicals are surprisingly numerous in the interwar period. Remigiusz Pośpiech, who briefly undertook the characterisation of the editor of the Theological Department at Opole University’s half-yearly Liturgia Sacra,469 citing, among other things, the bibliography collated by Father Zygmunt Zieliński and bibliographies by Michałowski and Pigła,470 on this occasion indicates more than twenty titles that interest him. The majority consists of organist publications, while others are devoted to church singing and liturgy. Poznań was traditionally rich in musical life associated with religious practice. That is where Fr. Wacław Gieburowski had run his magazine – Vademecum dla Muzyków Kościelnych [Vademecum for church musicians] – for two years (1923–24). In the period between 1918 and 1939 six periodicals were issued in Warsaw. They were published generally at intervals not more than two to three years, although the monthly Hosanna – dedicated to matters of religious and church music, first edited by Fr. Wojciech Orzech and afterwards by Fr. Henryk Nowacki, had been published from 1926 until the outbreak of World War II, for the final ten years in Warsaw. Likewise, Muzyka Kościelna – from the [Organists’ Association of the Archdiocese of Gniezno–Poznań] – also enjoyed a long life. Its permanent authors (at least in the early years) included Fr. Wacław Gieburowski, Adolf Chybiński, Fr. Hieronim Feicht, and a musicologist from Poznań – Kazimierz Zieliński. In the years 1927–28, Bronisław ←145 | 146→Rutkowski, a representative of the SMDM also led a journal which belonged to this same trend, Pismo Organistowskie. Miesięcznik poświęcony wiedzy fachowej i życiu organistów, and directed it as if it was a side issue and independent of the editor’s musical and organisational activity. In a letter he wrote to the professor during the first months of acquaintance with Chybiński: ‘Thank you very much for the article submitted to Pismo Organistowskie, which will be included in the February edition.471 … I was afraid that you wouldn’t want to send your valuable work to such a small publishing house. Pismo Organistowskie for now is a very modest publishing house, I edit it out of necessity, because in Warsaw, no one wants to deal with this important matter.’472
In view of the rich and diversified periodical press offer available in the interwar period, there is a somewhat humorous story of the unfulfilled plans of a young musicologist – Julian Pulikowski – whose activities in various fields left a significant imprint, especially on the capital-based circles (elaborated further in chapter II). It should be emphasised that one of his desires was to take up editorial work, which he was able to partly realise in Muzyka Polska (the quarterly, bi-monthly and monthly which emerged in 1934 after the division of Kwartalnik Muzyczny) – that is where Adolf Chybiński patronised the ambitious, new to the Warsaw environment, protege of Guido Adler and Egon Wellesz in Vienna, amongst others. Even then, exchanging letters with the professor, he misread his words about the ‘co-redaction’ of the simultaneously planned Muzyka Polska annals and ‘with sincere joy and with all his heart’ gave thanks for the honour he dreamed of.473 Unexpectedly, after four years, in autumn 1938, he presented his own idea for a magazine. Referring to the proposal of an unspecified professor at the University of Warsaw, he began to weave plans to initiate a new title ‘for cultured spheres, for “intellectuals” (and therefore not only for professional musicians)’474 – not a strictly musicological journal, but something of the type ‘Zeitschrift für polnische Musikkultur, Zeitschrift für die gebildeten Stände. Works on music, music culture, etc., etc., in scholarly terms, but for broad cultural layers. … Everything at the highest level strictly scholarly, but accessible to a ←146 | 147→normal educated reader.’475 The magazine was to be a quarterly (with the perspective of being bi-monthly), perhaps with the title Wiedza o Muzyce. Pismo poświęcone polskiej kulturze muzycznej’ [Knowledge about music. A magazine devoted to Polish musical culture], or perhaps Kultura Muzyczna. Kwartalnik dla miłośników muzyki’ [Musical culture. A quarterly for music lovers]. Considering Pulikowski’s research interests, we can assume that it was probably for his own initiative for which he wanted to gain Chybiński. Although no editorial office was yet formally working, he commissioned the professor to write articles (with a request to state their size), for example, on the theme of ‘Niezrozumialstwo w muzyce i muzykologii’ [Misunderstanding in music and musicology], ‘Renesans muzyczny’476 [Musical renassaince]. He needed ready texts in order for the first edition to be ‘totally druckreif, to start to establish [the magazine], receive funds, etc.’477 He even suggested a separation of functions in the editorial committee, in which ‘should be a musicologist, a musician, or a music enthusiast who would serve as a link between music and “gebildete Stände” for whom the magazine is to be published. As for now, we can see only two names: the name of Mr Professor as the musicologist and Mrs Prof. [Cezaria] Jędrzejewiczowa, an expert in folk music and a highly cultural music enthusiast…. Furthermore, Professor Schumann [Stefan Szuman] from Cracow, who is a great music aficionado, was mentioned as well. But rather as a loose remark. The name of general Stachiewicz also appears…. I kindly ask you Sir Professor for your consent on a Membership of such a committee.’478
I think we can assume that Pulikowski, who had previously suggested to Chybiński that he collaborate in editing the PRM, sought to create his own magazine, a matter in which he did not succeed, and the planned title remained in the realm of dreams. His accounts of the course of work on the inauguration of editorial work sounded quite credible, but it seems that everything depicted in the lists of events were just figments of his imagination. In any case, the periodical did not appear before September 1939, and thus did not become competition either for PRM, or for other contemporary titles.←147 | 148→←148 | 149→
304 ‘Nieznane listy Stanisława i Aleksandry Moniuszków’ [Unknown letters of Stanisław and Aleksandra Moniuszko] (PM 1918/1–2, 1–5).
305 Fojcik 1985/1986.
306 Chronologically speaking – starting from the four hundredth anniversary of Palestrina’s birth (Zofia Pohorylesowa, ‘Palestrina,’ LWML 1925/6, 1), through two hundred years from Gorczycki’s death (Adolf Chybiński, ‘Grzegorz Gerwazy Gorczycki,’ LWML 1934/84, 1), the fiftieth anniversary of Wieniawski’s death (an emotional article by Józef Reiss demanding the restoration of a supposedly worthy place in the history of Polish music as a somewhat forgotten composer: ‘Czy to nie wstyd?’ [Is this not a disgrace?], LWML 1930/7–8, 1) and a whole range of other contributions to commemorate or honour important figures of musical life. This group of materials includes a comprehensive biography devoted to Chybiński, which the editorial team prepared in connection with the fiftieth anniversary and twenty-fifth anniversary of his academic work (LWML 1930/11, 1–2).
307 Here see for example, the reprint of Józef Reiss’s extensive lecture given to the Literary-Artistic Circle in Lviv called ‘Ideologia dzisiejszej muzyki’ [Ideology of today’s music] (LWML 1929/12, 2, 1930/1, 1–2, 1930/2, 2), or Zofia Lissa’s article ‘O słuchaniu “nowej” muzyki’ [On listening to ‘new’ music] (LWML 1930/26, 2, 1931/1, 1–2), and that of Stefania Łobaczewska, ‘Problemy współczesnej estetyki muzycznej’ [The problems of contemporary musical aesthetics] (LWML 1931/2, 1–2).
308 Erwin Stein, ‘Muzyka współczesna a publiczność’ [Contemporary music and the public] (LWML 1928/3, 1–2); ‘Melodia w muzyce współczesnej’ [Melody in contemporary music] (LWML 1928/7–8, 2); ‘Co to jest muzyka atonalna?’ [What is atonal music?] (LWML 1929/5, 2) (all texts translated from German into Polish).
309 Józef Reiss, ‘Socjologia muzyki’ [Sociology of music] (LWML 1928/5, 3).
310 LWML 1928/9, 1.
311 LWML 1928/6, 1. We are talking about shared music and love of the sensual element, about identifying a melody with a woman, rhythm with a man, singing as a woman’s domain, and playing an instrument – a man’s; Reiss derived all of these claims from sociological and psychological conditions.
312 LWML 1929/6, 1.
313 ‘O celach i zadaniach krytyki muzycznej’ [About the goals and tasks of music critics] (LWML 1929/12, 3–4).
314 ‘O kilku problemach krytyki muzycznej’ [About a few problems of music criticism] (LWML 1930/2, 1, 1930/3, 1).
315 At the same time, Łobaczewska was also a regular reviewer, columnist, reporter and critic in Gazeta Lwowska Magdalena Dziadek, who years ago presented a lengthy study on the subject of the music critic activity of the Lviv musicologist (Dziadek 2004/3), stated: ‘Łobaczewska wrote much on various matters, which resulted from her duties as a regular critic at a daily newspaper, as well as from the prevailing confidence of the musicologists, who considered themselves competent enough to discuss music of all cultures and periods. However, she did express her thoughts at a professional level, giving evidence of her knowledge of European cultural life’ (ibid., 91–92).
316 LWML 1930/1, 4.
317 LWML 1931/1, 3.
318 LWML 1931/1, 3–4, 1934/84, 4.
319 LWML 1926/6, 2–3.
320 LWML 1930/7–8, 4.
322 ‘O kult muzyki współczesnej’ [About the cult of contemporary music] (LWML 1932/68, 3).
323 The polemics between Chybiński and Łobaczewska took place in LWML 1933/73–1933/75, passim.
324 See LWML 1930/7–8, 4.
325 Fragments of Harmonielehre in LWML 1927/11, 1; ‘Co należy wiedzieć z teorii muzyki?’ [What should one know of music theory] (LWML 1928/10, 3).
326 LWML 1928/5, 2, 3.
327 Initially, the journal was marked with a double numbering system – according to the year and in continual numbering. After the break, from the last issues of 1932, only continual numbering was used.
328 Wasyl Barwinski’s comprehensive review study: LWML 1934/80, 1–2, 1934/81, 1–2, 1934/82, 2–3.
330 ‘Od Redakcji’ [Editorial], Muzyka 1924/2, no page numbers.
334 Wiadomości Literackie [Literary news] 1925/7, quotation after: ibid.
335 Kurier Warszawski 1933 from 12 February, quotation after: ibid.
336 More about this theme in chapter I.2 dedicated to associations operating in those twenty years.
337 Muzyka 1927/1, 18–20, 1927/2, 60–64, 1927/3, 110–113.
338 See for example, the text which is very important because of the approach to the clash of cultures ‘Wschód i Zachód w muzyce’ [East and West in Music] (Muzyka 1929/1, 18–20, 1929/2, 74–78, 1929/3, 134–136).
339 ‘Nokturny Chopina’ [Chopin’s nocturnes] (Muzyka 1926/10, 520–523, 1926/11–12, 591–594) were fragments of Jachimecki’s monograph Chopin. Rys życia i twórczości [Chopin. An overview of his life and work] which was published the following year in Cracow’s Drukarnia Narodowa.
340 The article ‘Polska muzyka kościelna w epoce barokowej (od Zieleńskiego do Pękiela)’ [Polish church music in the Baroque period (from Zieleński to Pękiel)] (Muzyka 1928/10, 437–439, 1928/12, 573–576), similarly to Jachimecki’s sketches mentioned above, was an ‘exception from a larger whole.’
341 She published exceptions from the item being prepared for printing Ogólnego zarysu estetyki muzycznej [A general sketch of musical aesthetics] (Lviv 1938) in the two-part essay ‘Co jest treścią dzieła muzycznego?’ [What is the content of a musical work?] (Muzyka 1935/8–9, 103–104, 1935/10–12, 214–216).
342 For example, on the subject of the spelling of the name of Frederic Chopin (Muzyka 1926/1 and following, passim), romanticism in the modern era (Muzyka 1928 / 7–9, 91–140) or musical talent (amongst others Muzyka 1927/2).
343 This section included the brief but trenchant criticism of these circles written by Seweryn Barbag (‘Przykre sprawy muzykologii polskiej’ [Unpleasant affairs in Polish musicology], Muzyka 1935/1–2, 18–19). A few years earlier, the editor-in-chief Mateusz Gliński, who was also a regular writer in this section, on its pages (Muzyka 1930/11–12, 683–684) took on the defence of the attitude of Adolf Chybiński, presented previously by the professor in an article on the state of musicology at the time and priorities in musicological research (‘O zadaniach historycznej muzykologii w Polsce’ [On the tasks of historical musicology in Poland], Muzyka 1930/10, 587–595). Jachimecki, in a sense called on to take a position in this matter, replied with a lengthy, polemic article ‘Polska muzykologia i polscy muzykologowie’ [Polish musicology and Polish musicologists] (Muzyka 1931/1 24–27). More about the subject of disputes concerning the shape of Polish musicology in chapter II-3.
344 Muzyka 1924/2, 101.
345 Muzyka 1925/1, 43.
346 Including: ‘Zagadnienia harmonii nowoczesnej’ [Issues of modern harmony] (Muzyka 1925/11–12, 71–78), ‘Myśli o postępie w muzyce’ [Thoughts on progress in music] (Muzyka 1927/1, 15–17).
347 ‘Uwagi o współczesnej twórczości muzycznej’ [Notes on contemporary music creativity] (Muzyka 1925/2, 64–66).
348 Including: ‘Nieznany utwór Chopina’ [Unknown work by Chopin] (Muzyka 1925/4–5, 146–148); ‘O polskość Chopina’ [About Chopin’s Polishness] (Muzyka 1929/1, 14–17); ‘Życie muzyczne Fryderyka Chopina w Paryżu’ [The musical life of Frederic Chopin in Paris] (Muzyka 1932/7–9, 31–43).
349 ‘Walenty Bakfark w Polsce’ [Walenty Bakfark in Poland] (Muzyka 1929/6, 299–306).
350 Correspondence from Berlin in Muzyka 1924/2, 86–89.
351 Jerzy Waldorff voiced doubts about the authenticity of some of the statements published in Muzyka in a short article in the magazine Prosto z Mostu (1937 no. 26).
352 Considerations on his own creativity: ‘O stylu operowym’ [About operatic style] (Muzyka 1925/1, 8–12).
353 ‘Mój testament muzyczny’ [My musical testament] (Muzyka 1932/3–4, 77–79).
354 ‘O mych ostatnich utworach’ [About my last works] (Muzyka 1924/1, 15–17); ‘Moja spowiedź muzyczna’ [My musical confession] (Muzyka 1934/2, 56–57).
355 ‘Z mych przeżyć’ [From my experiences] (Muzyka 1930/6, 369–370).
356 Muzyka 1928/7–9 special edition called Romantyzm w muzyce [Romanticism in music], 91–140.
357 Muzyka 1937/4–5.
358 Muzyka 1924/1, 3–5.
359 Muzyka 1932/7–9 (special number with the title Szopen), 7–12.
360 Muzyka 1931/1, 8.
361 Muzyka 1925/3, 94–96.
362 Muzyka 1925/1, 12–15, 1925/2, 61–64. Already in the second edition of the first year, Łucjan Kamieński made his debut, not with a musicological text, but a review from the Poznań staging of the Legendy Bałtyku [Legends of the Baltic] by Feliks Nowowiejski.
363 Muzyka 1925/3, 99–103. Sketches from the field of the theory of acoustics authored by Hoene-Wroński were published in the pages of Muzyka three years later (1928/10, 482).
364 Muzyka 1925/4–5, 171–174. He continued the Italian thread with the essay ‘Związki muzyki italskiej z Polską’ [Links between Italian music and Poland] (Muzyka 1925/10, 4–8).
365 Muzyka 1925/1–2, 61–66.
366 Monographic editions should not be confused with the monographs issued and edited by Gliński, for they functioned as a completely independent entity, even though managed by the same editor. Gliński introduced a detailed plan for a cycle presenting composers’ monographs and other topics compiled in a series entitled Biblioteka Muzyczna to Chybiński in autumn 1925 (Gliński to Chybiński from Warsaw 12 X 1925, AACh-BJ, box 4, G-5/21). Previously, he agreed with the professor that the cycle will open with Chybiński’s publication on Szymanowski, whereby the goal of the Warsaw publisher was that ‘these [monographs – MS] were not too heavy so as to be able to combine “professionalism” (mostly in general aesthetic terms) with the brilliance and literariness of the form’ (Gliński to Chybiński from Warsaw 1 I 1925, AACh-BJ, box4, G-5/13). Finally in 1928, issued by publishers Gebethner & Wolff the following monographs were added: Adam Wieniawski, Ludomir Różycki; Stanisław Niewiadomski, Stanisław Moniuszko; Felicjan Szopski, Władysław Żeleński; Karol Stromenger, Franciszek Schubert; Henryk Opieński, Jan Ignacy Paderewski; André Coeuroy, Dzieje muzyki francuskiej [History of French music]). Five years later, Biblioteka was supplemented by a monograph by Mateusz Gliński on Alexander Scriabin.
367 In total, eleven monographs appeared as (double or triple) numbers of Muzyka, including: 1926 Muzyka współczesna [Contemporary music], 1927 Muzyka polska [Polish music], 1928 Romantyzm w muzyce [Romanticism in music], 1929 Instrumenty muzyczne [Musical instruments], 1930 Nowa muzyka [New music], 1931 Taniec [Dance], 1932 Szopen [Chopin], 1934 Opera [Opera]; a few others, for example, Radio i gramofon [Radio and grammophone], remained in the sphere of plans.
368 ‘Od Redakcji’ [Editorial] (Muzyka 1926/2, [no page numbers]).
369 Discussion as to the proper spelling of the name Frédéric/Fryderyk Chopin/Szopen was carried on for a few years in the inter-war period on the pages of Muzyka; in a few issues of 1926 in the form of a survey in which musicologists, musicians, journalists, literary experts and historians were invited to take part: Stanisław Niewiadomski, Adolf Chybiński, Feliks R. Halpern, Bolesław Busiakiewicz, Tadeusz Boy-Żeleński, Jan Baudouin de Courtenay, Ferdynand Hoesick, Zdzisław Jachimecki, Adam Kryński, Ludomir Różycki, Piotr Maszyński, Bernard Szarlitt, Stanisław Pereświet-Sołtan, Tadeusz Szeligowski, Aleksander Michałowski, Henryk Opieński, Emil Młynarski. The editorial staff summarised the survey in the June issue of Muzyka (1926/6, 273–274). Only Busiakiewicz, a music critic and radio journalist, categorically supported the polonised spelling, referring to the spelling used by the authorities – Paderewski and Przybyszewski. The vast majority of the survey participants treated the problem with flexibility (for example, the use of the spelling ‘Szopen’ in publications intended ‘for less enlightened masses’). A completely different view was presented by Chybiński, who even suggested that an apostrophe should be used for the declination of the name to highlight its foreign origin. Gliński himself preferred the Polish version and even named one of Muzyka’s ‘holiday’ collective monographs of Szopen (1932/7–9); Stanisław Niewiadomski also referred there to the question of ‘Ch czy Sz’ [Ch or Sz] (pp. 88–90).
370 ‘Od Redakcji’ [Editorial] (Muzyka 1926/10, [no page numbers]).
371 Cracow 1927.
372 ‘Od Redakcji’ [Editorial] (Muzyka 1933/2, [no page numbers]).
373 Gliński to Chybiński from Warsaw 27 VII 1925, AACh-BJ, box 4, G-5/21.
374 ‘Od Redakcji’ [Editorial] (Muzyka 1924/2).
375 I write about this in more detail in chapter I.2.
376 Quote in Muzyka 1924/2, 100.
377 Rzeczpospolita 1926 from 29 May, quote in Muzyka 1926/5, no page numbers.
378 Rzeczpospolita 1926 from 29 May, quote in Muzyka 1926/5, no page numbers.
382 Gliński to Chybiński from Warsaw 1 II 1926, AACh-BJ, box 4, G-5/31.
383 Gliński to Chybiński from Warsaw 7 III 1930, AACh-BJ, box 4, G-5/109.
384 Muzyka 1927/12, 559–564.
385 Muzyka 1926/11–12, 584–588.
386 Muzyka 1929/6, 307–310.
387 Muzyka polska. Collective monograph edited by Mateusz Gliński, 31–72.
388 Muzyka 1926/3, 100–105 i 110–114.
390 Muzyka 1930/10, 587–595.
391 Ibid., 595.
393 Ibid., p. 24.
394 Paris 21929.
395 Lviv 1924.
396 Muzyka 1934/5, 217–218. Chybiński’s letter titled ‘W obronie muzykologii polskiej’ [In defence of Polish musicology] (Muzyka 1934/6–7, 270–271).
397 (mgl) [Mateusz Gliński]: [no title], Muzyka 1934/6–7, 272.
398 Cracow 1935. The discussion was continued, amongst others in the form of another booklet by Jachimecki Jeszcze trochę o ‘Wpływologii muzycznej’ w oświetleniu prof. dra Adolfa Chybińskiego [A little more about ‘musical influence’ in the light of prof. dr. Adolf Chybiński] (Cracow 1935).
399 Muzyka 1935/1–2, 39–40.
400 Gliński to Chybiński from Warsaw 4 XI 1924, AACh-BJ, box 4, G-5/7. Józef Reiss’s review of the monograph ‘Skrzypce. Ich budowa, technika i literatura’ [Violins. Their construction, technique and literature] in: Muzyka 1924/2, 91–94. In the case of the second review, perhaps this concerned Adolf Weissmann’s monograph Chopin (Leipzig 1910).
401 Gliński to Chybiński from Warsaw 8 XII 1924, AACh-BJ, box 4, G-5/10.
402 Gliński to Chybiński from Warsaw 16 XII 1924, AACh-BJ, box 4, G-5/11.
403 Gliński to Chybiński from Warsaw 28 XII 1924, AACh-BJ, box 4, G-5/12.
404 See for example, Gliński to Chybiński from Warsaw 17 V 1926, AACh-BJ, box 4, G-5/44.
405 Gliński to Chybiński from Warsaw 16 IV 1925, AACh-BJ, box 4, G-5/18.
406 Gliński to Chybiński from Warsaw 1 II 1926, AACh-BJ, box 4, G-5/31.
407 See Gliński to Chybiński from Warsaw 11 I 1928, AACh-BJ, box 4, G-5/84.
408 Gliński to Chybiński from Warsaw 24 XII 1926, AACh-BJ, box 4, G-5/53.
409 Chybiński, as usual, was late with the delivery of the text. His article ‘O instrumentach muzycznych ludu polskiego’ [About musical instruments of the Polish people] appeared not in a special number of Muzyka (1929 no. 5), but in the next issue (pp. 307–310).
410 A short history of the club is already described in chapter I.2.
411 Gliński to Chybiński from Warsaw 9 XII 1933, AACh-BJ, box 4, G-5/121.
412 Gliński to Chybiński from Warsaw 22 I 1926, AACh-BJ, box 6, G-5/32.
413 ‘I would even be willing to move “Highlander Music” to the leading place of the first post-vacation number,’ see Gliński to Chybiński from Warsaw 20 VII 1926, AACh-BJ, box 6, G-5/32. Article with the title ‘O muzyce górali tatrzańskich’ [About the music of Podhale highlanders] published in Muzyka 1926/11–12, 584–588.
414 During the preparation of the first editions, Opieński explained to Chybiński the wording he used in a letter (unknown to us today) to Bronisława Wójcik: ‘If I wrote “popular” to Wojcikówna, it was because initially I would like to draw the audience in with an easier read, but at the same time give them a taste of more exact and professional things,’ see Opieński to Chybiński from Poznań 11 XII 1924, AACh-BJ, box 6, O-2/73.
415 Opieński to Chybiński from Poznań 13 XI 1921, AACh-BJ, box 6, O-2/72.
416 Opieński to Chybiński from Poznań 3 XII 1924, AACh-BJ, box 6, O-2/77.
417 Adolf Chybiński, ‘Wskazówki zbierania melodii ludowych’ [Tips for collecting folk melodies] (PM 1925/1, 6–12, 1925/2, 1–9). Opieński wrote enthusiastically about Chybiński’s article with hope for a response from the milieu: ‘is perfect for us and I hope that consequently it will be of interest to various provincial musicians (let alone those from the capital),’ see Opieński to Chybiński from Poznań 15 XII 1924, AACh-BJ, box 6, O-2/74.
418 Henryk Opieński, ‘W miejsce programu. Muzykalność a estetyczna kultura’ [In place of the program. Musicality and aesthetic culture] (PM 1925/1, 2–6).
419 PM 1925/13–14, 1–7, 1925/15–16, 1–7.
420 Zdzisław Jachimecki, ‘Konieczne sprostowanie. Z powodu rozprawy Adolfa Chybińskiego’ [Necessary correction on account of Adolf Chybinski’s essay] (PM 1925/17–18, 9–10), and Chybiński’s polemic titled ‘W sprawie dawniejszych kompozytorów polskich’ [On the matter of early Polish composers] (PM 1925/20, 6).
421 See Henryk Opieński’s review in nr. 3 from 1928 (p. 10) and the polemics in PM: Adolf Chybiński, ‘O rehabilitację Mikołaja Gomółki’ [About the rehabilitation of Mikołaj Gomółka] (PM 1928/9, 4–7); Zdzisław Jachimecki, ‘Kto ma prawo do rehabilitowania Mikołaja Gomółki’ [Who has the right to rehabilitate Mikołaj Gomółka] (PM 1928/10–11, 17–18); Adolf Chybiński, ‘W sprawie Marcina Leopolity i Mikołaja Gomółki’ [In the matter of Marcin Leopolita and Mikołaj Gomółka] (PM 1928/12, 10–12; next to the continuation of the dispute concerning Gomółka, an additional polemical commentary on Jachimecki’s article ‘Spuścizna artystyczna M. Leopolity w muzykologii polskiej’ [The artistic inheritance of M. Leopolita in Polish musicology], PM 1928/10–11, 13–17); Zdzisław Jachimecki, ‘Profesorowi Drowi Adolfowi Chybińskiemu w sprawie Leopolity i Gomółki wyjaśnień kilkoro’ [To Professor Dr Adolf Chybiński in the case of Leopolita and Gomółka, several explanations] (PM 1929/2, 12–13; continuation of skirmishes for meritorical arguments and more).
422 It should be noted here that in the meantime he sent a fragment of the article to Poznań ‘Do dziejów muzykologii w Polsce’ [To the history of musicology in Poland] prepared for the requirement of KM (1928/1, 82–85): reprint of fragments under the title ‘Do bibliografii dawnej muzyki polskiej’ [To the bibliography of early Polish music] in PM 1929/11, 7.
423 PM 1926/4, 5–6, 1926/6, 7–9.
424 ‘Śp. Bartłomiej Obrochta z Kościeliska’ [The late Bartłomiej Obrochta of Kościelisko] (PM 1926/6, 15–16).
425 PM 1928/9, 11–12.
426 PM 1925/11, 18–19, 1928/1, 9.
427 For more about the place of the singing community and the activities of choirs see in PM for example, ‘O wyższy poziom zespołów chóralnych’ [About the higher standard of choral ensembles] (1927/9, 1–5, 1927/10, 1–4), ‘O potrzebie odrodzenia twórczości chóralnej w Polsce’ [About the need to revive choral creativity in Poland] (1929/1, 2–5).
428 Maria Szczepańska, ‘Do historii polskiej pieśni z XV wieku’ [To the history of Polish songs of the fifteenth century’] (PM 1927/5, 6–8, 1927/6, 1–5).
429 Maria Szczepańska, ‘Hymn ku czci św. Stanisława z XV w. (Przyczynek do historii średniowiecznej muzyki w Polsce)’ [Hymn in honour of Saint Stanislaus from the fifteenth century (A contribution to the history of medieval music in Poland)] (PM 1928/7, 1–5 ff.).
430 PM 1930/11–12, 4–5.
431 See sketch ‘Podstawy rytmiki i metryki muzycznej’ [Basics of rhythm and musical metrics] (PM 1926/9, 4), and a monographic article on the work of Schönberg and his place in contemporary music ‘Problemat atonalności i Arnold Schönberg’ [The problem of atonality and Arnold Schönberg] (PM 1926/11, 4–5, 1927/1, 4–8, 1927/2, 5–7, 1927/3, 8).
432 See Opieński to Chybiński from Poznań 15 XII 1924, AACh-BJ, box 6, O-2/74.
433 Hieronim Feicht, ‘Historyczno-muzyczne uwagi o lwowskich rękopisach Bogarodzicy’ [Historical-musical remarks about the Lviv manuscripts of Bogurodzica] (PM 1925/2, 10–14, 1925/3, 5–8 and sheet music supplement).
434 Hieronim Feicht, ‘Bartłomiej Pękiel. 1. Zarys biografii. 2. Twórczość. 3. Charakterystyka kompozytora’ [Bartłomiej Pękiel. 1. Biographical sketch. 2. Creativity. 3. Characteristics of the composer] (PM 1925/10, 1–5, 1925/11, 5–10, 1925/12, 1–3).
435 PM 1925/24, 6–7. He preceded his speech with an article-report about the cultivation of early music in choral practice ‘Kult Palestriny u pierwszych odnowicieli polskiej muzyki kościelnej’ [The cult of Palestrina and the first revivers of Polish church music] (PM 1925/24, 4–6).
436 PM 1925/3, 11–12.
437 PM 1925/10, 5–9.
438 Opieński to Chybiński from Poznań 15 XII 1924, AACh-BJ, box 6, O-2/74.
439 PRM 1935/1, 107–131.
440 Lidia Barblan-Opieńska (1890–1983), Swiss singer and composer. Studied in Fribourg, Paris and Basel, she taught singing in Fribourg, Basel, Poznań and Lausanne. She was a co-founder and member of the ‘Motet et Madrigal’ ensemble led by Opieński. She is also the author of piano variations and cantatas.
441 Opieński to Chybiński from Morges 9 VII 1926, AACh-BJ, box 6, O-2/93.
442 Opieński to Chybiński from Morges 19 XII 1926, AACh-BJ, box 6, O-2/ 94.
444 PM 1927/7, 16. Indeed Sikorski himself wrote to Chybiński about his nomination: ‘A few days ago I took over the editorial office of Przegląd Muzyczny …. Seeing that you, Sir, are a regular contributor to Przegląd, I respectfully request you continue to supply this magazine with your valuable articles,’ see Sikorski to Chybiński from Poznań 12 XI 1926, AACh-BJ, S-10/2.
445 Adolf Chybiński: [text on the occasion of the fifth anniversary of PM] (PM 1930/1, 3).
446 Ibid., 4.
447 Kornel Michałowski prepared the most complete bibliography of Chybiński for the needs of the second memorial book dedicated to the professor ‘on the occasion of his seventieth birthday’ (Księga pamiątkowa 1950, 26–43) and again as a supplement to the edition of Chybiński’s memoirs (Chybiński 1959/1, 210–257).
448 On the subject of ‘small forms’ in the form of reviews and polemics emerging for the cooperation of Chybiński with numerous literary and cultural journals, etc. see chapter I.1. Here, let us only add that in the 1920s and 1930s, or even from the moment of dedicating himself to a university career, he basically gave up musical criticism for musicological criticism, and the ‘small forms’ he wrote were always the results of academic research, not journalistic polemics.
449 Gliński to Chybiński from Warsaw 5 VIII 1925, AACh-BUAM, fol. D-J, p. 208.
450 I refer to the aforementioned bibliography prepared by Kornel Michałowski (see footnote 144).
451 Stefan Marian Stoiński (1891–1945), Polish ethnographer, conductor and composer. He studied at the Julius Stern Conservatoire in Berlin and privately studied musicology with Hugo Leichtentritt and Otto Fleischer. After World War I he settled in Silesia; in the years 1922–24 was the head of the Opera in Katowice, in 1925 he founded the Instytut Muzyczny [Institute of Music] there, in the years 1926–39 he edited the monthly Śpiewak Śląski (later Śpiewak). In 1931 he became president of the Związek Śląskich Kół Śpiewaczych [Union of Silesian singing circles]. He was an organiser of the singing movement in Silesia, founder of the Secondary Music School (then PSM) in Bytom in 1945. PSB reports that in the pages of Śpiewak, Przegląd Muzyczny, Polonia and other magazines, he published nearly one hundred articles, see Wypych-Gawrońska 2005.
452 Myśl Muzyczna (suplement to the monthly Śpiewak) 1928/8, 49–51.
453 Myśl Muzyczna 1928/2, 9.
454 A note on the planned publication also appeared in Przegląd Muzyczny: ‘Monumenta musices medii aevi in Polonia. Later that year, the Faculty of Musicology of Lviv University released the first volume, which included the monuments of Polish music from the Middle Ages towards the end of the fifteenth century. The publication remained under the direction of Prof. Dr Adolf Chybiński and the editorial committee, consisting of: X. Dr Hieronim Feicht (Freiburg), Dr Maria Szczepańska (Lviv) and Dr Bronisława Wójcikówna (Lviv). Volume 1, containing several dozen 2- and 3-voice pieces was compiled by Dr Maria Szczepańska and included, among others, compositions of the great Polish composer – Mikołaj of Radom. The publication will consist of several volumes and will be exclusively of a scientific nature’ (PM 1928/5, 15–16).
455 See for example, ‘Kult muzyki Orlanda di Lasso w dawnym Krakowie’ [The cult of Orlando di Lasso in early Cracow] (Muzyka Kościelna 1927/11, 213–215, 1928/3, 49–50); ‘Lutnia, lutniści i tańce w poezji polskiej XVII wieku’ [The lute, lutenists and dance in Polish poetry of the XVII century] (Śpiewak 1927/11, 105–107, 1927/12, 117–120, 1928/1, 2–5, 1928/2, 19–22).
456 Muzyka 1928 no. 6 pp. 225–229, Myśl Muzyczna 1928 no. 3 pp. 17–19.
457 For example, ‘Polish Music’ in the year 1920, ‘Karol Szymanowski’ in the year 1922.
458 ‘Deux opéras polonais sur Napoleon’ in the year 1924.
459 ‘Stosunek Sperontesa Singende Muse an der Pleisse… do muzyki ludowej polskiej’ [The relationship of Sperontes’ Singende Muse an der Pleisse… to Polish folk music] (KM 1911/1, 48–54); ‘Kilka notatek muzycznych z gazet pisanych’ [A few musical notes from written gazettes] (PM 1911/1, 8–9).
460 Muzyka 1925/3, 99–103.
461 ‘Życie muzyczne w świetle Pamiętnika Józefa hr. Krasińskiego’ [Musical life in the light of count Józef Krasiński’s diary] PRM 1935/1, 91–106.
462 PM 1919/17–18.
463 Opieński to Chybiński from Łódź 11 II 1920, AACh-BJ, box 6, O-2/67.
464 Opieński to Chybiński from Miłosław 3 VIII , AACh-BJ, box 6, O-2/68.
465 Opieński to Chybiński from Poznań 7 VII 1921, AACh-BJ, box 6, O-2/69.
466 ‘Sześć listów lutnisty Bakfarka’ [Six letters by Bakfark the lutenist], ed. Henryk Opieński (KM 1930/6–7, 158–167).
467 Wójcikówna was Chybiński’s first student, and quickly also became his first assistant.
468 Wójcik to Chybiński from Lviv 9 IV 1930, AACh-BJ, box 4, W-24/92.
469 Pośpiech 2009.
471 Chybiński published two articles in Pismo Organistowskie: ‘Organista jako współpracownik naukowy’ [The organist as a scholarly collaborator] (1928/2) and ‘Organista a pieśń ludowa’ [The organist and folk song’] (1928/4).
472 Rutkowski to Chybiński from Warsaw 17 II 1928, AACh-BJ, box 4, R-19/1.
473 Pulikowski to Chybiński from Warsaw in mid-September 1934, AACh-BJ, box 3, P-28/69.
474 Pulikowski to Chybiński from Warsaw 29 X 1938, AACh-BJ, box 3, P-28/191.
475 Pulikowski to Chybiński from Warsaw 29 X 1938, AACh-BJ, box 3, P-28/191.
476 Pulikowski to Chybiński from Warsaw 4 XI 1938, AACh-BJ, box 3, P-28/193.
477 Pulikowski to Chybiński from Warsaw 24 XI 1938, AACh-BJ, box 3, P-28/176.
478 Pulikowski to Chybiński from Warsaw 20 XII 1938, AACh-BJ, box 3, P-28/195.