3. Musicology among academic disciplines in the interwar period – systematics, discussions
Polish musicology has, already since the first period of its existence, seen several ‘program declarations’ given by its representatives, followed by summaries of the assessments of the previous and current state of this discipline, both in the press and in compact publications. Comments on this subject can also be found in private correspondence of the main characters from the erstwhile scientific community. They can be divided into two groups: one, which includes statements the authors of which aimed at explaining the specificity of musicology as a science and justifying its presence within the structures of universities as well as underlining the essence of cooperation between musicologists and other representatives of the world of culture and arts, and the importance of the work conducted by historians of music for the general education of the population. This topic was elaborated throughout the second, third and fourth decade of the twentieth century by the leading representatives – Chybiński, Jachimecki, Reiss, Pulikowski as well as music publicists – Gliński, Stromenger, many other anonymous authors. The second group consists of a small number, yet important for Polish music literature, attempts to either systematise this science or explain the specifics of some of its branches – Barbag, Wójcik-Keuprulian, Kamieński. One should also mention the periodical heated disputes about the differences in the perception and understanding of research methodology adopted by the representatives of musicology, or the assessment of the activities of associations of active musicologists, which took place in music, socio-cultural and environmental magazines. The catalyst for any discussion about this Polish scholarly discipline, new at that time, could be the decisions to open – almost in parallel – two departments of music history at two Polish universities – in Cracow and Lviv, followed by the attempts to justify these decisions, and later on – the need to acquaint potential candidates with the study programme.
Musicology, like earlier in other European centres, grew in Poland from nineteenth-century historiography, a process not as banal as may seem with a mere cursory reflection. The thoughts formulated by Maria Ossowska and Stanisław Ossowski are adequate concerning Polish musicology, as they are in the case of the history of the development of other fields: ‘Usually … before the emergence of a new science, there are already issues that will constitute its ←239 | 240→framework, which have previously been assigned to other sciences…. It is only with the passage of time, when we become sufficiently accustomed to new frames and when new issues arise from borrowed issues, only then are we just starting to treat the issues of the new science as especially appropriate.’309
Katarzyna Morawska310 devoted her extensive sketch of the nineteenth-century basis for the shaping of future musicological studies, and at the outset of her considerations noted that ‘a relatively small interest in nineteenth-century [Polish] musical literature stems primarily from the conviction of its primitivism in comparison with the achievements of Western European musicography.’311 Numerous examples of compact publications and contributions in the field of musical historiography, quoted by her in dozens of footnotes, indicate how rich the literature was and how the extensive her research had to be in order to present as full a review as possible.
Morawska considers the history of Polish historiography within the century from 1803 (a reading by Jan Paweł Woronicz on the patriotic songs presented at the meeting of the Warsaw TPN, and published in the yearbook of this Society, 1803 vol. II) to 1907, when Dzieje muzyki polskiej w zarysie [Sketch of Polish music history] was published by Aleksander Poliński in Lviv. Musical historiography, which had been dominant in the works of this period and the long-term subject of which had been early music, focused primarily on topics relating to – most frequently – works from the sixteenth century, with trips to the seventeenth and eighteenth century (more often), and – rarely – due to limited research – to medieval music. A lack of educated Polish music historians placed research in this area far below the achievements of foreign musicographers as well as local representatives of other historical scholarship – history of literature, history of art and general history, the critical scientific methods of which have been outlined already in the eighteenth century. Morawska reiterates the eighteenth-century ‘unearthing of the monuments of Old Polish literature’ or the attempts to organise the material in the field of visual arts. The field of music also gained through these initiatives, for as the author notes, ‘antiquarian collectors312 included materials on the history of Polish music in a wide range of works. Music history also owes them a number of important discoveries and source information. … however, the history of music ←240 | 241→was still marginalised, mainly due to the fact that it required the researcher to have additional special professional preparation.’313
Following the example of Western European centres, detailed factual documentation had been collected to serve as the basis for considering the creativity and culture of the past, including music. The main form of historiographical discourse on the history of music were contributions, mostly of an anecdotal nature, rarely undertaking a critical evaluation of sources and monuments. Using the chronological breakdown of Polish music historiography, as proposed by Katarzyna Morawska, we can identify three periods. The first, chaotic in terms of organisation of activities, rich in material publications, was primarily the domain of general history researchers;314 the fledgeling Polish music periodical press, by meeting the expectations of a relatively small number of readers generally did not make any attempts to get closer to the scientific level. The author draws attention to the character and activities of Ambroży Grabowski, a Cracow historian. He was a collector and antiquarian, who, upon gathering ‘ancient’ materials of all kinds, came across a number of messages about music and musicians, among others, royal, aristocratic and urban (mostly Cracow-based) and passed them on both in compact publications,315 and minor forms.316 ←241 | 242→Admittedly, as Morawska underlined, ‘he did not take care about the exact systematisation and segregation of the material,’317 however, the searches he undertook to find archives and the analysis of historical works of Old Polish literature anticipated the methodology that became the basic means of scholarly investigation of a large part of Polish musicology in the twentieth century. Another nineteenth-century musicographer, Maurycy Karasowski, author of several books, including the monograph Rys historyczny opery polskiej [Historical sketch of Polish opera] (Cracow 1859), in 1855 published in Biblioteka Warszawska318 an article ‘Przegląd muzykalny’ [Music review]. This article, in turn, can be regarded as important due to the much more synthetic description of history than earlier historiographic publications, and its task was to ‘illustrate the role and importance of music in the intellectual culture and social life of the country… [the author] does not collect a large number of factual messages, but using selected examples tries to show the systematic and continuous development of music in Poland, and news about folk music, music at magnate’s and royal courts, musical associations and others illustrates the presence of this art among all estates and in many circumstances.’319 Already at that time, he drew attention to Czech and, later, Italian influences, so in Karasowski’s achievements, we can see the second of the underlying trends of future musicological research – showing musical phenomena against a broad historical and cultural background.
The future, most-favourite subject of analysis and investigation amongst the first generations of musicologists – issues of monody and Gregorian chant – were not touched upon in local publications in the absence of prepared Polish researchers. Furthermore, the issue of the history of universal music was also rarely raised. On the other hand, importantly, this period provided Polish musical studies with at least a few reasonably reliable publications of a lexicographical nature – alongside the admittedly controversial and differently assessed Słownik muzyków polskich [Dictionary of Polish musicians] published in Paris (1857) by Wojciech Sowiński, and the earlier Słowniczek wyrazów polskich znaczących narzędzia muzyczne niegdyś w wojskowym i pokojowym używaniu będące [A glossary of the Polish words meaning musical tools used to be in military and peaceful use] (1828) developed ‘from a manuscript of Adam Czartoryski’ for the Lviv-based Czasopismo Naukowe Księgozbioru Publicznego imienia Ossolińskich320.←242 | 243→
The second period in the development of nineteenth-century Polish musical historiography indicated by Katarzyna Morawska were the years from the 1850s–1870s, dominated by the activities of Józef Sikorski and people from the circle of Ruch Muzyczny. It seems that during this period interest in historiography or ‘antiquities’ diminished significantly, whereas contemporary creativity and musical life became the focus of attention. Sikorski himself, creator and editor of Ruch, was heavily involved in current criticism and music journalism, but it should not be forgotten that it was him who devised a plan of action regarding work with materials that were previously unavailable. Sikorski appealed to the clergy to open archives and monastic and church libraries in order to enable researchers and music historians to describe artefacts and documents of the past stored there and contribute in this way to a gradual enrichment of knowledge about (particularly) religious music and musical culture of past centuries. Sikorski’s activities – both through personal journeys to provincial centres and contributory achievements created on the basis of the achievements from these journeys – gave the first Polish musicologists a legacy that cannot be overestimated.321
In the subsequent study by Katarzyna Morawska on the nineteenth-century studies of early music in Poland, two features of the second period of this study have been outlined: ‘explicit clarification of the scientific goal of the detailed documentation tasks. The chief task is to develop the history of Polish music, which should be made from the point of view of the present and considered as a whole as a lasting achievement of Polish musical culture,’322 and an ‘attempt to incorporate Polish music in the development of universal music history.’323 (As can be told from reading numerous articles and contributions, the emphasis placed on prioritising the issues related to the history of Polish music was also verbalised by the two founding fathers, Chybiński and Jachimecki, even at the time of their acute confrontation regarding different choices of manners of scholarly discourse). There are also the first major syntheses, which were an important point of reference for those interested in studying the past of Polish music: in Ruch Muzyczny Sikorski announced, in fragments, part his Krótki rys powszechnej historii muzyki [Brief history of common music]324, he also planned ←243 | 244→a similar synthesis in relation to the history of Polish music, Maurycy Karasowski published Rys historyczny opery polskiej [An historical sketch of Polish opera],325 Kazimierz Łada, a trained violinist and composer, published the Historia muzyki [History of music]326 – these are just a few titles, which reliably, although still without the support of academic activities, laid the foundation for the next generation of historiographers.
As a period in the Polish study of music, the end of the century brought the years immediately preceding the birth of Polish musicology. At that time, both the number and the level of ‘professionalism’ of the publications grew, and Morawska observed the sources of this, among others in the increased access to professional European literature. As she wrote, ‘important features of Polish musical writing of this period include … the transition from writing a chronicle of history to the discussion of particular issues, dividing the history of music into smaller periods, centres, problems. Monographic musical writing was beginning to develop. On the other hand, the “history of history,” which had been so popular in the past, was almost disappearing. … . There is an awareness of the difference between the description of historical events regarding music and the study of musical creation itself.’327←244 | 245→
Still, however, musicology did not exist as a university study in Poland. Further ordering and cataloguing the library resources was undertaken by subsequent researchers of the musical past – Jan Kleczyński, Aleksander Poliński and Father Józef Surzyński. This time, they headed for the collections held in Cracow – the Wawel archives, Jagiellonian and Czartoryski libraries – resources that soon, based on modern methodologies known for studies abroad, were studied in-depth by the first Polish musicologists. Unfortunately, the lack of a fully professional preparation and unfair treatment of historical material brought Poliński an abundance of critics among the young blood educated in the West, contrary to the research works conducted by Father Surzyński, which were repeatedly, even after years, highly appreciated Adolf Chybiński, mainly for his initiative in editing music from the past (publication of compositions by Zieleński, Wacław of Szamotuły, Gorczycki and Pękiel in his own cycle Monumenta Musices Sacrae in Polonia). As we know, in the future Chybiński was the co-founder of another series of this kind (WDMP), and he regarded his editorial activities as one of the principal duties of a musicologist. Morawska devotes a separate section within her outline to this type of publication, indicating the two breakthrough positions for Polish musical editing, including the Śpiewy kościelne na kilka głosów dawnych kompozytorów polskich [Polyphonic church songs by early Polish composers] prepared by Józef Count Cichocki (1838) and the afore-mentioned Monumenta by Father Józef Surzyński.
The evolution of historical research (including the history of music), which could be traced in the nineteenth century, continued in the next century. Among several manifestations of historicism typical of the twentieth century, to which Irena Poniatowska drew attention in her speech during the jubilee tenth MAEO Congress in Bydgoszcz in 1994,328 for music historians, particularly those working in the first decades of the century, the closest was to pursue it as ‘the need for knowledge, acquaintance with the past, or some of its manifestations for the purposes of historical synthesis’;329 but the generation which several decades later would have to get through the hardships of scholarly activity in the complicated political realities of the period of socialist realism (and also a narrow but active group of sociologising and aestheticising musicologists/musicians ←245 | 246→working in the interwar period – Lissa, Łobaczewska) already saw historical research through ‘understanding of the ideas and mechanisms of change that led to the current situation in music or music culture.’330
Zbigniew Skowron, starting in one of his treatises331 from the then accepted view concerning the relationship of nineteenth-century musical historiography with models of contemporary general history, he treated precisely historicism (and therefore the study of social phenomena and cultural products in a broad context of their creation and on the background of general historical processes) as one of the cognitive tools of historiography, whereas ‘in the foreground he places metahistorical reflections; to a lesser extent he includes the subject of music history in the strict sense, i.e. factography.’332 Upon considering the thoughts of Carl Dahlhaus contained in his Grundlagen der Musikgeschichte,333 he asks the German musicologist a question: ‘Does historiography mean assimilation of the past, or rather practising the criticism of tradition?,’ and stops on the issue of the difference between this criticism in the nineteenth and twentieth century. If, after Skowron, we quote Dahlhaus ‘the greater the pietism in reconstructing the past … rather than criticising it, the greater the suspicion towards the testimonies that it evidences,’334 perhaps it will help us understand the existence of an entire group of ‘works-in-progress’ by Adolf Chybiński, announced, refined, created for years and often unperformed, sometimes giving his adversaries a pretext for attack.
A hundred years of efforts to further and popularise the knowledge of music history, frequently undertaken by amateurs and enthusiasts, was not enough to lay a solid foundation for the new field of science at Polish universities. Let us recall that the medieval quadrivium was held dear in German and Anglo-Saxon culture and until the eighteenth century, music was a mandatory subject. From the turn of the twentieth century, departments of music in those circles were often staffed by groups of teachers. In Poland, on the other hand, ever since the study of music became an academic discipline, its teachers had to stand up against a general misunderstanding of musicology as a branch of science and justify its presence within the walls of academia. History has shown that the efforts taken a century earlier by Józef Elsner to ensure that classes on the knowledge of music ←246 | 247→(in the framework of the Warsaw School of Music335) which took place within the walls of the University of Warsaw, generally could not count on the support of the university authorities. It seemed, however, that over time, when in the last decades of the nineteenth-century musicology faculties were being launched at major European universities, also on Polish soil, the situation may change. Maciej Gołąb, in his brief, but extremely interesting, outline of the beginnings of Polish musicology, including in the Polish context of the University of Wroclaw, wrote that ‘formation of musicology on the current territory of Poland – in 1910 at the Friedrich Wilhelm University of Wroclaw, in 1911 at the Jagiellonian University in Cracow and in 1912 at the Jan Kazimierz University in Lviv – was … the ultimate consequence of the hundred-year-old process of institutionalisation … of the studies on music; a process that began in the history of European culture at the beginning of the nineteenth century.’336
However, this process was not over yet. Even ten-odd years after the ‘inauguration’ in Cracow and Lviv, in a different epoch and a different social, political and academic reality, when an organisational chart of Polish universities was being prepared at the Faculty of Philology in the University in Warsaw at the beginning of the 1920s, it was suggested that musicology should be excluded from higher education curriculum. Zdzisław Jachimecki reminded everyone of this a few years later during his speech at the opening of the Musicological Faculty at the State Conservatoire of Warsaw, a speech from which extensive fragments were published in the monthly Muzyka.337 According to him, over ten years of presence of this major at Polish universities was not enough to stop the representatives of Warsaw university from devising a project which stated that musicology ‘should be excluded from higher education in Poland because it is not up to academic institutions to teach girls how to play dance music.’338 The ←247 | 248→lack of widespread awareness of the scientific discourse about music – both in academic circles and in popular opinion – was also discussed around the same time by Seweryn Barbag in his short column on ‘today’s day’ of Polish musicology: ‘Polish musicology is still regarded as a mysterious field of science in the opinion of an enlightened citizen, whose awareness of the diverse phenomena and issues of musical knowledge is disproportionately primitive compared to his knowledge of history and literary criticism, about the problems of visual arts and theatre. This is not to mention the non-humorous, but simply outrageous sentiment of cultural spheres on the essence and the tasks of musicology.’339
Adolf Chybiński had already tried to justify the purpose of the presence of musicology in the area of academic sciences in his inaugural lecture at the opening of the department entrusted to him in 1912 in Lviv.340 In the opening, he expressed the conviction that universities should not be treated only as institutions preparing students for public functions, but first and foremost as ‘the highest scientific institutions’ that give listeners ‘higher academic knowledge.’ Concerning musicology, one should not confuse theoretical and historical musical knowledge taught in the university classes with the improvement of practical skills, which is the purpose of conservatoires and music schools. However, practical preparation for musicological studies is necessary, unlike even in the case study of the visual arts or poetry, in which the researcher’s practical skills are not nearly needed at all either to follow the development of the entire history of the discipline or to analyse the selected examples. At the same time, it must be understood that musicology often uses more exact methods than many of the humanities. It is impossible to conduct research on the historical development of music without knowledge of the theoretical basics. Also, vice versa – the lack of historical knowledge and knowledge of past eras means that ‘proficiency in theoretical subjects of music does not go beyond the artisanal routine.’341 Going further, one can neither ‘judge’ nor ‘understand’ a musical ←248 | 249→work without knowledge of the epochs that both preceded and followed it, so that the basis of knowledge of music is, as indicated by Chybiński, the knowledge of its history in its various aspects: ‘One of the most significant aspects of musical skills is the history of music, which gives us a view on the development of musical forms and styles, compositional techniques, recognised as the quality and manner of using melody, harmony, polyphony, vocal and instrumental texture. Here is the place where historical method and theoretical knowledge come together…. The subsequent relationship between theory and history is the mutual interaction of these areas of musical knowledge. If the theory is essentially on a par with history and constitutes the first condition of scientific work, then, on the other hand, for music practice and its history, it is indispensable to know the history of music theory.’342
Following this path, one must assume that historical knowledge ought to be complemented with a number of auxiliary studies and, in this respect, Chybiński recognised some points of contact with other fields of university studies – history, paleography, history of literature, theology, philosophy, philology as well as specialised areas such as historical chronology, diplomacy, library studies as well as biographical information and statistics – amongst the abundance of others which he indicated. He associated the history of musical instruments with iconography, and considered ‘folkloric area’ – musical ethnography – as a particularly important section, ‘with which musical skills maintain an unbreakable bond.’343 Another supporting group are the natural sciences (acoustics, physiology, psychology) and philosophical (logic, aesthetics), which, according to the Adlerian division, including ethnography, belong to systematic musicology.
Justifying the necessity of including studies on music within the university structures, in the inaugural speech cited in Przegląd Muzyczny Chybiński also stressed that ‘musical skills also [offer] themselves as a source of knowledge capable of providing significant help to other fields of learning.’ He wrote: ‘We know that in the studies on poetic metre, songs, the history of culture as well as psychology, psychiatry, and even social economy … musical knowledge plays a significant role.’344 He personally was explicitly tied to archival exploration and research, one of the pillars of historical musicology. Furthermore, he was convinced that Polish music (considered in the context of musical culture) ought to comprise the primary research material, penetrated – as he lamented at that ←249 | 250→time – to a minimum. He prepared his most trusted students for this direction, placing meticulousness in the documentation of sources above all else.
Chybiński returned to the same topic many years later, upon publishing an extensive essay ‘Muzykologia wśród nauk uniwersyteckich’ [Musicology amongst university sciences’]345 in the Katowice-based Myśl Muzyczna. Starting with a concise presentation of the history of many centuries of music studies at European universities, he aimed at answering his own question: ‘why do music studies have an inherent right to occupy a rightful place amongst the fields of scholarship taught at universities.’ He found an analogy in related sciences, pointing to archaeology, history of art (or, as he asserts – ‘fine arts studies’), studies on belles-lettres. According to Chybiński, the lack of understanding for the study of music, which was manifested by many people, could have been caused by the ‘immateriality’ of the object of musicological research, that is music itself, which cannot be touched nor seen. He assumed that this was also why representatives of exact science who deal with abstract mathematics often admired this art form. The professor also proved that it is correct to apply the Polish term ‘muzykologia’ [musicology] to his field of study by making a reference to the same terminology in English, French and Italian, excluding German (which might be surprising given that since the very beginning, Polish musicology had been based on the German model). Chybiński announced the further part of his reflections, this time regarding the scope and purpose of musicology ‘in light of the current state of our scholarship,’346 but he did not, however, realise these announcements.
His style of work and the methodology that he adopted was appreciated even at the very beginning of his academic career. Printing the text of his lecture given in Lviv in 1913 was most probably the first attempt to present the basics of musicology to the Polish academic and music community. It cannot be ruled out that it became the impetus for discussion on the importance of exploring historical sources. Józef Reiss also spoke his mind and presented his views on music historiography in an article published in Przegląd Muzyczny at the same time.347 Reiss pointed to Chybiński’s recent publications as examples of works fundamental for Polish historiography, as well as Jachimecki’s dissertation. He stated: ‘Between the historical-musical essays using … the method according to which source material is subjected to material and close evaluation, the works of Dr Adolf Chybiński … and Dr Zdzisław Jachimecki are in the foreground. These three ←250 | 251→works348 may form the foundation for a bright synthetic construction, for they summarise, with little leftover, the germinal form of all almost all significant manifestations in the music of the sixteenth century.’349
He also stressed how ungrateful a task it is to promote knowledge about music: ‘Papers based on academic sources, despite their high scientific value, cannot count on being disseminated among the general public. They are meticulously carved, tiny mosaic stones, but they gain importance only when they become parts of a sophisticated whole, the elements of one coherent organism. The general public wants to be informed and instructed by means of established views and precise results, acquired through skilful analytical work.’350
Returning to Chybiński’s view on ‘building from the foundations’ for the music historian, it is possible to recognise that he realised that he would make Herman Kretzschmar’s (who to the question ‘what can university teach about music’ answered that everything that contributes to a deeper understanding of music that music schools do not teach351) postulate, cited in the article cited above, a reality, it is necessary – within one centre – to divide the work, specialise and separate didactic duties between several ‘scholarly’ forces, so that all musicological knowledge could be received by students in every field at an equally high level of competence.352 The aim of the speech printed by Chojnacki was not to present a detailed classification of musicology. We need to remember that the speech was originally aimed at the university teaching staff. A large group of university teachers, as has happened more than once in history, did not understand the difference between practical musical education provided by conservatoires and strictly scientific instruction offered to graduates of this major. On the other hand, the speech was also aimed at young musicology novices, who often ←251 | 252→failed to grasp the differences between attending a conservatoire and a university and opted for university education unaware of the in-depth knowledge that they would be expected to master. So what was expected of candidates applying for admission to musicology? Well: ‘a thorough knowledge of harmony, counterpoint, and musical forms, at least a basic knowledge of instrumentation and score reading. No candidate applying for admission to this new department that year had any idea what a musicology professor may demand; that is why that year’s students of doctor Chybiński had to fill knowledge gaps under his supervision and with huge effort on their own part.’353
Here it should be emphasised how different in this respect the situations of Lviv and the aforementioned Wroclaw were, as we learn from Agnieszka Drożdżewska’s monograph about local musicology354 and the article by Maciej Gołąb already quoted. The department led by Otto Kinkeldey had its roots in Das Königliche Akademische Institut für Kirchenmusik, whose last leader was the outstanding music historian and collector of musicalia, Emil Bohn. Other Wroclaw music societies, which for decades had been gathering collections that cannot be overestimated for the work of academic institutions, provided not only artistic and intellectual support, but above all library and archival resources for musicologists: Verein für Kirchenmusik existing from 1819, Singakademie (from 1825), and functioning in the first decade of the twentieth century, the Philomusische Gesellschaft.
Neither Adolf Chybiński nor Zdzisław Jachimecki could rely on such source materials. They created their libraries from scratch, often using their own funds. Generally, they also could not count on the local community and its understanding of the essence of the majors they designed. The anonymous author of the words cited above was delighted with the fact that a musicological department was opened in Lviv and firmly believed that appointing Chybiński as associate professor of Lviv Alma Mater would make it clear to everybody that musicology is an academic discipline. He was all the more impressed with the fact that the activity of the department was supposed to be inaugurated with a monographic lecture on the hermetic and unpopular topic of ‘mensural notation.’ For the record, let us recall that at the same time, Chybiński organised compensatory classes to help students catch up with the basics of music knowledge. In the first semester, he introduced lectures on more general topics (such ←252 | 253→as the history of the fifteenth- and sixteenth-century polyphony and theory of counterpoint in the sixteenth century) and classes devoted to the analysis of Beethoven’s sonatas. In the next semesters, he added more lectures: on instrumental works by Bach, on symphonic poems by Liszt and Strauss, and a review of the development of the sonata (from Beethoven to Reger). In the following years, he managed to take up topics ranging from medieval music (e.g. medieval musical palaeography) to the works of nineteenth-century composers.355 Neither the programme of the Lviv department (focused mainly on the study of musical ‘antiquities’) nor other centres (Cracow with a focus on the history of music of the nineteenth century, Poznań developing a fruitful ethnomusicology programme) were able to fill the whole spectrum of musicological problems. Even a quarter of a century later, Seweryn Barbag still pointed to the gaps that still needed to be filled: ‘Numerous branches of music scholarship do not have representatives in Poland. … And none of the above-mentioned Polish universities has any specialist for natural musicology (acoustics, psychophysiology, or instrumentology), only comparative musicology initiated by dr Wójcik-Keuprulian … No one lectures the theory of composition in the framework of a systematic history of forms, nor aesthetics nor psychology; there are also no separate style studies, no one deals with the sociology of music…. In the musicological departments, there is almost only the history of music, especially Polish, and folklore is vastly expanded.’356
Several years of stagnation followed (starting from 1914 and ending with 1918, and even 1920) caused by war (to a lesser extent in Cracow, more in Lviv, where, for example, the classes in the academic year 1914/1915 were completely suspended). This stagnation hampered the development of Polish music studies at the very beginning of its existence. In such a difficult moment, just after entering into a new, independent reality (although at the beginning of another conflict, albeit local, Polish-Ukrainian War, and within it more than six months of the siege of Lviv), on the pages of the first issue of Gazeta Muzyczna, newly-launched (and despite unfavourable circumstances) by Stanisław Niewiadomski, who had recently arrived, the sense and secrets of this poorly promoted new discipline, though present at universities for several years, were described by Bronisława Wójcikówna. In a short sketch titled ‘Muzyka jako przedmiot studiów uniwersyteckich’ [Music as a subject of study at university]357 at the outset she emphasised that ‘learning music at the university is neither learning ←253 | 254→composition nor does it deal with the education of performers [because] the aim of musicology is to examine the developmental process of music, and on this basis to learn the essence of this art.’358 On the one hand, it is a historical branch of science which studies, for example, the history of musical notation, musical forms, and instruments (using a whole array of auxiliary sciences, such as diplomacy, biographical studies, linguistics, and plastic arts history, among others); on the other hand, ‘as a philosophical science … it only studies the musical matter, that is sound, in various combinations …: it studies function, rhythm, melics … and strives to justify the laws it discovers.’359 According to Wójcik, the laws governing these relations influence the determination of the category of beauty in music, and this is already a matter which falls within the scope of aesthetic considerations, and furthermore – philosophy. The primary mode of action of a musicologist is analysis, which, subject to further generalisations, aims at forming a synthesis.
This brief statement by Bronisława Wójcik can be considered on the one hand a ‘new opening’ of musicology for the youth interested in studying in this field after several years of wartime trauma and in the free Polish state. On the other hand it can be treated as one the first presentations (very simply) on the Polish market of systematics of the musicological field; subsequent attempts, much more robust, were soon undertaken by other Polish musicologists, including the author herself and her colleague-peer from Lviv, Seweryn Barbag (more below).
Zdzisław Jachimecki approached the issue of presenting the field he was practising differently. He wrote about native musicology in the pages of Polska Współczesna, addressed to intellectual circles of the Cracow quarterly ‘devoted to civic education.’360 The article indicated, in a concise form, current achievements of Polish music historiography, with an emphasis on the achievements of modern (at that time) Polish musicology: the nineteenth-century ‘dilettante attempts’ by Józef Cichocki, ‘encyclopaedic work’ by Wojciech Sowiński, ‘the history of opera’ by Maurycy Karasowski and pre-1880 ‘monographic studies on Chopin’ he opposed to publications of the founder, as he called him, of Polish music historiography of music – Fr. Józef Surzyński and then (poorly evaluated by the next generation of music historians) Aleksander Poliński. He emphasised that the activities of these musicographers in the next two or three decades were supported by modern knowledge from young musicologists educated at German ←254 | 255→universities – the author of these words – Zdzisław Jachimecki, Adolf Chybiński, Józef Reiss, Henryk Opieński, Łucjan Kamieński. They became the basis of new personnel in Polish institutions while being ‘almost the only co-workers’ of the most important music press titles (Przegląd Muzyczny and the first edition of Kwartalnik Muzyczny). Jachimecki stressed that ‘the complicity of several musicologists became soon distinguishable in Polish music literature and Polish scholarship in general. … An overview of works issued in the last five years … will allow us to realise the tasks accomplished in this field.’361
This task was not just to teach a small group of students attending musicological departments or to have a discussion with a growing group of music publicists, critics, and music lovers, but also to promote Polish music and Poland itself abroad. According to Jachimecki, this was evidenced by a paper written by Henryk Opieński La musique Polonaise, essai historique sur le développement de l’art musical en Pologne.362 Other publications being created in the form of textbooks, like the mentioned Historia muzyki w zarysie [An overview of music history] by Józef Reiss,363 and monographs, also announced in the pages of musicological journals and series by Polish and foreign publishers, also had the value, that they effectively inhibited the influx of publications dedicated to our musical circles from European (and mainly German) sources, in which it is often possible to feel the stigma – today we would say – of colonialism.
According to the author of the article, ‘for the time being, the fields of aesthetics and pure theoretical speculation present themselves poorly in Polish musicology.’364 Let us remember that when he wrote these words in 1923, two graduates of the department in Lviv were about to start independent activity there – Stefania Łobaczewska and Zofia Lissa, both with a lively interest in systematic musicology; Łobaczewska, however, made her first attempts before the war with topics from the field of musical aesthetics in the pages of Przegląd Muzyczny,365 just like Zdzisław Jachimecki366 himself. The researchers successfully ←255 | 256→established the foundations for this branch of musicology (as well as philosophy, psychology and pedagogy) and in the future made a significant contribution to its development also in the international field.
Jachimecki’s brief presentation in Polska Współczesna ended with a reflection on the lack of Polish musical journalism367 and monumental editions of Polish music artefacts, which did not even satisfy – according to him – the special publishing commission called up for this two years earlier in the Department of Culture and Art of MWRiOP. There was still hope that ‘the staff involved in this branch of science, which is based on the most precise research methods possible and supported by a whole array of auxiliary measures, will be growing steadily to serve knowledge and society.’368
A few years later Chybiński once again presented the historian-musicologist’s tasks in Poland. Nearly twenty years after the publication of the Lviv inaugural lecture from 1930, he presented his views on historical musicology in Muzyka. He wrote, amongst others, that: ‘One can deal not only with Polish music, or even not deal with it at all. However, I think that there are many reasons to not deplete the research on the history of Polish music for the benefit of others, provided you have sufficient reverence for the development of native art…. While being, for example, a Polish music ethnographer, is it worth exploring the music of American Negroes, since Polish folk music remains almost completely unexplored? … In any case – in my opinion – research on the history of music and musical culture in Poland must constitute a focal point of the work of a Polish historian-musicologist.’369
Extensive consideration on this subject was preceded by a reminder of the difficult beginnings of Polish music scholarship, when the work was not limited to ‘scholarly creation,’ but for the training of new academic workers, it was naturally necessary to take on the burden of organisational and pedagogical activity.370 Moreover, even those efforts did not yield entirely satisfactory results, because not all ‘doctors in musicology’ remained in pursuit of academic musicology and strictly scientific research. Once again, he argued that scientific research on both the creativity and musical culture ‘must take place not only in terms of musical material but the archives as well. Only a synthesis of these studies ←256 | 257→can create a picture of music’s historical reality.’371 In addition, this should be accompanied by musicological works on editions of artefacts of early music, an example of which are the few publications, significant for Polish scholarship and culture, of the series Monumenta Musices Sacrae in Polonia by Father Surzyński, Melodie psalmowe edited by Józef Reiss, Stanisława Ferkówna and Roman Ferek, and initiatives new at that time – the editions of Wydawnictwa Dawnej Muzyki Polskiej [Publications of early Polish music] and Monumenta Musices Medii Aevi in Polonia prepared by a group of Lviv musicologists.
The academic work of a historian should be accompanied by ‘desirable and necessary’ activities which promote knowledge. However, it may also have ‘a negative effect on scientific output.’ ‘Promotion of musicology in our country is currently … an ad hoc activity, which can be effective only when it is preceded by precise research…. A mistake made in an academic paper does not bring about universal damage, whereas a mistake made in a work aimed at the general public does.’372
For the musicological community, the innuendos hiding in these last sentences were clear.373 Together with the words about pseudoscientific snobbism spoken in the same text by Chybiński, they triggered the reaction of Zdzisław Jachimecki, who soon published a polemic in Muzyka,374 proposing ‘agreeing on the basic postulates of Polish musicology and the manners in which to implement them.’375 And the difference between these basic postulates between the Lviv and Cracow schools was primarily that under Wawel they did not consider that it was necessary towards archival research to sacrifice one’s ‘entire life force, … to print dozens of pages with mechanical extracts from old inventories and to parade with this as if a scientific achievement.’376 In the year 1931 Jachimecki was already the author of many monographs.377 He complained of using archival ←257 | 258→queries as the sole determinant of their formation almost from the beginning of his research activities. As to Chybiński’s belief that it is impossible to create syntheses ‘complete and free of gaps,’378 before all the historical material is gathered, he replied with one sentence: ‘the sense of history is not based on storing “everything,” but on correct ordering of significant historical values.’379 He defended his rich heritage especially in compact publications, opposing them to quite a few achievements of a similar type made by his adversary from Lviv, mentioning – and not without irony – the long-announced monograph on Bach, the planned ‘monumental collection of folk songs,’ the unpublished although signalled for years works on the methods of collecting and organising folk melodies,380 the organisation of work on folk melodies381 and on the tasks of Polish musical ethnography.382 He completely agreed, however, with Chybiński as to the main task that ought to be fulfilled by every ‘former,’ ‘semi-’ and ‘complete’ Polish musicologist who ‘has a passion for the work and the research subject, therefore for Polish music, and will be thus glad to continue studying our musical past in hope that by doing so he will contribute to the welfare of social culture.’383←258 | 259→
A kind of re-opening of wounds took place from time to time, sometimes with regard to matters that were already distant, such as Chybiński’s polemic concerning the essay published twenty years earlier by Jachimecki, Rozwój kultury muzycznej w Polsce [Development of musical culture in Poland] (and the idea presented there by the author of Liszt’s alleged influence on the work of Mieczysław Karłowicz),384 and Jachimecki’s answer to this polemic.385 It did not put an end to the discussion. The swordplay concerning priorities in the approach to different research styles continued. Chybiński wrote that ‘brochures and leaflets written by the professor from Cracow do not bring knowledge one step forward, but they are full of words which express dissatisfaction with those who … cannot accept … many views held by professor Jachimecki.’386 Jachimecki answered with these words: ‘Prof. Chybiński always tolls with great emphasis at the huge bell of “Science,” when trying to convince the readers of his numerous forays into thinking against my views, into believing that they do not deserve trust as being void of any scientific basis. … This science, to which Professor Chybiński is always referring, is indeed very small, written by the smallest “s” possible.’387
In a commentary on this dispute between the founding fathers Seweryn Barbag submitted a column to the editorial office of Muzyka, summarising the current situation of musicology as not the best, though promising, provided that the ‘embattled disagreements’ were discontinued in the face of a situation in which ‘the fight is still valid, the hatred is seething, but neither victors nor losers can be seen’ and considered one of the necessary requirements for ‘the fully-fledged functioning of Polish musicology’ to be the ‘cessation of fruitless and harmful personal attacks.’388 The ‘unpleasant matters’ of the Polish musicological environment had already been discussed openly for a long time. A few years earlier, in the monthly, its editor-in-chief, Mateusz Gliński wrote a short column called ‘Musical impressions’: ‘Such relations exclude any possibility of calm, systematic work, and make it difficult, if not completely impossible, to introduce any healthy competition and fruitful exchange of ideas, which constitute a prerequisite for progress in any field. They paralyse the organisational ←259 | 260→development of our musicology, discredit it in the eyes of Polish society and remarkably reduce our achievements in this field in the eyes of foreigners.’389
The pleas, which Gliński put in his ‘impressions,’ also gave rise to other similar expressions of opinion. From time to time there were words of criticism aimed at the discipline and actions of its representatives spewed by some journalists who questioned the sense and value of research that came down, in their understanding, to the collection and analysis of historical details useless for presenting the history of music to a wider audience. Here, Jachimecki’s unwillingness to practice these kinds of studies on music was accompanied by voices of representatives of non-academic circles of Warsaw journalists and music critics, namely Leopold Binental and Karol Stromenger. There was a well-known controversy, raised and flared by part of Warsaw society at the turn of the 1920s and 1930s, concerning the futility of devoting funds from the FKN to such an ineffective (and inefficient) activity as scientific publications produced only for a handful of specialists. Allegations were made of supporting ‘paper and pedantic tedium.’390 The defence against both this type of writing and the meticulous, archival searches and analyses that took place in the comforts of offices and archives was undertaken by Mateusz Gliński, who saw at least part of the problem as resulting from the short history of the discipline and the small number of adversaries prepared for specialist discussion. He emphasised the analogies that join partial laboratory experiments typical of exact and natural science, marked with reports on these experiments abundant in numbers and symbols (which ‘always has a somewhat non-public feature as it remains, despite being published, within the narrow limits of a small group of scholars united by kinship of undertaken topics’), with equally partial ‘contributory’ humanities research stages, perhaps uninteresting for the popularisation of universal studies on music, yet needed to move from analysis to synthesis.391
In the 1930s, Julian Pulikowski – enfant terrible of the Warsaw music and musicological society – decided to present his vision of musicology and solutions that link it to musical life. He exemplified his controversial ideas, amongst ←260 | 261→others, by presenting a plan for organising musicology studies at the University of Warsaw, as already mentioned above at the presentation of musicological centres. He, in turn, saw the nature of the widespread misunderstanding of this field of studies in the lack of cooperation between musicologists and musician-practitioners, while the latter should familiarise themselves with professional publications that would help them cultivate this art form with full awareness. Moreover, he quite imprecisely stated that musicology should ‘enrich musical life; to simplify the task of musical creativity; rush to the help of a music performer; give the music lover the deepest possible experience; provide the music teacher a well-thought-out and proven basis for practical and theoretical education in music, music criticism should lead to an opinion which is justified and free from prejudices.’392 Albeit, it is difficult to determine what he understood through all this. Pulikowski paid particular attention to music critics, who had the task of presenting the most competent assessment, based on a thorough musicological education (this refers less to criticism of performance, more to criticism of the piece, compositional technique, resulting from objective, scholarly criteria), which would help form higher and higher expectations amongst average listeners to the presented repertoire. At the end he demanded to use the term ‘musicologist’ only to persons thoroughly educated in this direction, acting on the floodplain of academic researchers instead of each and every author of a publication on music material, and serving primarily for popularising music.
As can be seen from the above-cited opinion, both musicologists and other persons to whom this subject was not inconsequential from time to time recalled in the debate about the shape of this young discipline on the floodplain of Polish humanities, that the image of musicology and expectations as to its shape, the nature of the research, teaching models, programmes of individual departments or rhetorics of professional publications appeared to be extremely diversified. It seems important, however, that such discussions took place at all, which might mean that in short time since the birth of this discipline in Poland it was not niche and managed to cause excitement throughout a wide group of academics, critics, journalists and artists. This notion is confirmed by the words of Mateusz Gliński that ‘sometimes we talked about this with a number of colleagues who were also interested in … the raised matter of musicological research and progress of works in this field.’393←261 | 262→
In these years Stefania Łobaczewska and Łucjan Kamieński joined in the discussion about the principles of musicological research, preferred methodologies and the essence of this science. The latter prepared an article for Muzyka, which briefly describes in historical terms the achievements of Polish musical ethnography, including from before its university period.394 Let us note that he had a special mandate to draw such a conclusion: upon developing the department of musicology as entrusted to him by the authorities of the University of Poznań, on the one hand, he took into account his own interests, and on the other hand, the visible gaps in the area of studies on folklore in the existing centres in Cracow and Lviv. In the programme of studies he proposed, he placed great emphasis on this subject. Here we should also remember that in the area of Polish musicology he was the creator of the term ‘ethnomusicology.’395
Stefania Łobaczewska, in turn, received an invitation from Mateusz Gliński to prepare material on the subject of musicology for the monograph edited by him under the title Muzyka polska.396 She began her outline with a brief estimation of the history of the discipline, paying attention to the presence of music theory in the golden period of the Jagiellonian University (15th–16th century) and the broad reception of all the most important European theoretical treaties throughout that time in the Cracow Alma Mater. Łobaczewska placed the next opening on the expertise on music around the mid-nineteenth century, recalling the figures and accomplishments of Józef Cichocki, Józef Sikorski, Fr. Józef Surzyński, Aleksander Poliński, Ferdynand Hoesick and – closer to her times – Opieński, Reiss and the founding fathers – Chybiński, Jachimecki as well as Kamieński, and further – musicologists of her generation – Bronisława Wójcikówna and Seweryn Barbag. In brief, she also characterised the profiles of ←262 | 263→research conducted by Polish musicology centres. In 1927, when she prepared her brief outline of Polish musicology, she considered issues of national music monuments as one of the most important tasks for the representatives of this field of studies, while regretting that the issue of ‘Pomniki muzyki religijnej i świeckiej w Polsce’ [Monuments of religious and secular music in Poland], which was launched in 1921, still remained in planning while the ‘prepared materials for the first issues of Monuments edited by dr. Chybiński at the department of Gebethner and Wolff in Warsaw await better times.’397
At the turn of the twenties and thirties, when Polish musicology (despite material miseries) was already well-established in academic structures, Seweryn Barbag and (again) Bronisława Wójcik-Keuprulian – each separately – were tempted to ‘organise’ the field they dealt with. Barbag published his dissertation called Systematyka muzykologii [Musicological systematics] (both in the form of a compact publication, referred to here earlier and also – in parts – in the pages of the periodical398) in the magazine Lwowskie Wiadomości Muzyczne i Literackie. What induced him to write the paper was his conviction that ‘the value of systematics lies in being aware of the organic connection that exists between individual phenomena, facts and issues and general knowledge, [whereas] each idea needs to be manifested in such a form so that it is possible to capture it logically as a representation.’399 He put his thoughts in five parts: In the first, he took up the subject of musicology, in the second – ‘the entirety of the material,’ followed by a review of German systems. Chapter four was an extract of mandatory bibliography to complete musicological studies (for practical purposes he even left blank pages for notes on the reading). Finally, all was crowned by ‘Comments on musicological studies’ which are a set of Barbag’s loose remarks of this field of science.
Assuming that ‘knowledge’ is a broader term than ‘science,’ he began by saying explicitly: ‘Musicology is knowledge about music. Its subject is all of the phenomena, facts and problems, scientifically and practically in direct or indirect relation to music combined.’400 She explained how she understood these concepts on the first pages of the work. She devoted the preliminary considerations to the mutual complementarity of approaches towards ‘the world of tones’: perception of music in the context of science and art, division between musicology as ←263 | 264→‘cognition’ in opposition to music as an ‘object of cognition.’ Here she mentions the names of German scientists – Handschin, Kretzschmar, Adler – which can be considered as an indication (and this is confirmed by other chapters of the essay) that Barbag also identified with the circle of German schools yet subjected them to criticism. For example, she noted that in his systematics Adler ignored music sociology (which was justifiable as sociology did not exist as an independent field of science at the time of the publication of Umfang, Methode und Ziel der Musikwissenschaft in 1885) and also attached insufficient weight to acoustics, ‘tone-forming mechanics’ and physiology of musical hearing, recognising them merely as auxiliary sciences. Finally, Barbag underlines the ‘uniqueness’ of Adler’s assignment of the term ‘musicology’ only to research from the field of ethnography.
Barbag did not relate Riemann’s Grundriss der Musikwissenschaft (1919) but rather recapitulated its assessment on the pages of Zeitschrift für Musikwissenschaft (1920/1) submitted by Arthur Wolfgang Cohn. Perhaps he valued, among others, Cohn’s ideas such as the one in which he indicates philosophy, as a discipline representing a synthesis of all the special and distinct sciences, on the first and chief place before them. Bringing Cohn’s original systematics a little closer, he stressed that the author of Die Erkenntnis der Tonkunst, Gedanken über Begründung und der Aufbau Musikwissenschaft (1919) himself ‘created … a very logical and consistent division of musicological knowledge’ opposing general musicology against detailed musicology and dividing the ‘intuitive’ disciplines from ‘inductive,’ whereas history occupied a special place in this systematics.
Barbag concluded his reasoning in this brief review of selected systematics and devoted the rest of the work to presenting a selection of bibliography from the existing European and Polish literature, mandatory for any student of musicology.
Barbag’s Systematyka met with great interest throughout the musicologist community, an assertion confirmed in the pages of contemporary newspapers as well as personal correspondence. It was assessed in different ways. Łucjan Kamieński was sceptical towards this new publication. Shortly afterwards he wrote about his impressions to Lviv: ‘What do you think about Barbag’s Systematyka? Interesting thing. It seems to me, however, that it fails to sufficiently separate musicology as a science from the conservatoire based practical teaching of music [sic] (of this “knowledge” of Rytlów et consortium). It is unfortunately not suitable to serve as an introduction to musicology for beginners, just as Riemann’s “Grundriss,” and therefore I do not introduce it at all.’401←264 | 265→
Stefania Łobaczewska showed keen interest and expressed her opinion about the work twice. On the pages of Muzyka, she wrote that the adopted systematics deserved acclaim, and its main advantage was the fact that it treated the entire knowledge of music ‘from the point of view of an organic and necessary connection of music as an art with science, and practice with theory.’402 According to Łobaczewska, the task undertaken by the author was to standardise the relationships between individual fields which he had distinguished, such as philosophy of music, theory of artistic technique, music practice, natural musicology, sociomusicology and music history (along with auxiliary sciences). The reviewer also appreciated Barbag’s erudition and the fact that he emphasised, ‘the role of philosophy of music in the structure of musicological sciences,’ (which was close to her heart).403 Evaluating Systematyka in the pages of LWML,404 as the basic merit of the work, she considered putting music history on a par with fields taken into account by Barbag – philosophy of music, theory of artistic techniques, natural musicology, music sociology and a range of auxiliary sciences. According to Łobaczewska, another achievement in the field of discipline systematics was underlining the role of sociology and dividing philosophy of music from musical aesthetics and separating psychology from physiology.405
In the extensive review included in the pages of Kwartalnik Muzyczny Bronisława Wójcik-Keuprulian,406 similarly to Łobaczewska, as one of the basic values adopted by the author of the assumptions, recognised the emphasis of ‘an inseparable connection between practice and theory, art and science,’407 and as new and valuable – including questions quite specifically understood by Barbag, such as ‘emphasising the importance of the philosophy of music and delimiting it from aesthetics, placing emphasis on musical sociology.’408 Nonetheless, she also claimed that the author in the central part of the work only enumerates a series of musicological sciences, setting out their mutual relationships (including relationships with other humanities), which makes the whole resemble an ‘introduction to musicology’ rather than scholarly systematics. The second allegation ←265 | 266→relates to the not entirely consistent classification attached at the end of the said extensive bibliography. However, as a whole, it was assessed very positively with an indication of the particularly high educational value of the publications.
It is difficult to assess the extent to which Wójcik-Keuprulian had based her idea on systematics at that moment in time; it is enough to state that only a few years after the publication of Barbag’s systematic, the musicologist published a habilitation lecture, which she had the opportunity to deliver at the Jagiellonian University on April 28, 1934.409 Starting from a cursory presentation of the history of the field, she posed the question of whether musicology is one science or a collection of sciences.410 Just like Barbag, she undertook to review and assess the selected systematics, and for her further considerations, she selected three areas belonging to the general study of music: acoustics included in the systematic field, palaeography as one of the historical studies and aesthetics as part of the philosophy of music. This choice allowed her to indicate a variety of research methods that can be used in musicology. The author devoted many pages to acoustics, which as a ‘physical and mathematical’ branch of science is not only directly related to sound, which is the object of its research, but also, as Wójcik wrote, ‘does not break its ties with music as an art form, which means that by necessity it draws from other sciences related to musicology, such as music history, ethnography, psychology and aesthetics. … music acoustics, which laid the foundation for the aforementioned fields, is a constituent of a vast and varied study of music, that is musicology, so it is not exclusively and solely a branch of physical and mathematical sciences.’411 To Julian Pulikowski this perception of acoustics seemed to overly distinguish this field of studies compared to other areas of musicology. Hiding under the acronym T.K., in Muzyka Polska he published a quite critical overview of Wójcik-Keuprulian’s proposal, indicating, for example, her erroneous identification of musical aesthetics with the philosophy of music or assignment of acoustic music to the circle of humanities, for example, in the place where the researcher states that ‘acoustic music is not a field of physics, but it is a branch of music studies.’ Further,412 she stated, ‘It cannot be treated like a field of mathematics and natural science, because its subject is not a creation of nature, but a creation of culture.’ We know that Pulikowski, having ←266 | 267→experience in working in acoustic laboratories, could provide reliable feedback on the false assessment presented by the author of acoustic research conducted through the prism of methodologies typical for humanities. Nevertheless, it seems that the reviewer unnecessarily highlighted such ‘acoustic’ optics (with close attention to the mentioned competencies), in a manner disproportionate to the place which it occupied in the presented hierarchical structure of musicology. Through this Pulikowski managed to goad Wójcik into discussion. The authors submitted a reply to the next Muzyka Polska which primarily addressed the topic of the relationship between acoustics and other departments of musicology, defending the earlier theses on the superiority of the former over the latter if only for the reason that the subject of musicological research is ‘musical work and this work, whatever it would be, wherever and whenever created, has and ought to have a sound form.’413
A discussion of Wójcik-Keuprulian’s systematics closed Pulikowski’s extensive answer in the same edition of Muzyka Polska,414 which only sharpened the previous controversy and undoubtedly contributed to increasing the polarisation of positions and deepening the conflict between the ‘Cracow-centered’ and ‘close to Lviv’ musicological groupings.
Following the above-quoted statements, a conclusion comes into mind that the discussion on its shape, which arose at the beginning of the development of Polish musicology, was often not of a constructive character, except perhaps for purely informational publications. The arguments invoked in disputes regarding different perceptions of both the applied research methodology and organisation of studies were often of a personal nature, branded with a long-standing conflict between the heads of the two main musicological centres – Lviv and Cracow. Approaches on contentious issues taken by the persons concerned were full of invective and malice, and non-essential topics often prevailed over professional polemics. Was this reflected on the pages of the trade press? Sometimes editorials granted columns in a somewhat selective manner, guided by personal sympathies and interests (such as in the case of the weekly Wiadomości Literackie, always critical towards ‘paper’ Lviv musicology), while at other times they tried to take an objective stance, inviting different parties to exchange views (as was done loyally for many years by Mateusz Gliński in his Muzyka or by a group of artists from SMDM and TWMP in Muzyka Polska). The only scientific journal – Kwartalnik Muzyczny – despite ←267 | 268→the repeated declarations of its head on its national character, broke the prevailing ‘arrangement’ reluctantly and was usually filled with publications from ‘proven’ and ‘faithful’ authors presenting their views on musicology converging with the attitude of the editor-in-chief.←268 | 269→
310 Morawska 1976. For more about the idea of development of historicism see Poniatowska 1993/2.
311 Morawska 1976, 8.
312 This term was used to identify any historical sources and artefacts found and collected at that time.
313 Morawska 1976, 15.
314 Zofia Helman links music historiography in terms of methodological issues not with general history (political, economic), but above all to the history of literature and art, ‘and thus the fields that focus on works – especially products of human activity, aimed at inducing aesthetic experiences,’ see Helman 2002, 115.
In her reflections, the author begins with indicating the bipolarity which characterised the beginnings of historical research on music: ‘recognition of the history of music in historical and cultural associations, designated by the “zeitgeist” [here she indicates works by Johann N. Forkel and August Wilhelm Ambros], and isolation of historical-musical process from general phenomena and treating it “in an autonomous manner” limited to issues of form and compositional technique’ (in work of François-Joseph Fétis and Hugo Riemann) (ibid., 115–116). Her correct remark that their successors (Guido Adler, Ernst Bücken) also did not incline toward this dichotomy, but united these two methodological trends, we can relate – though with varying intensity – to the scientific outlooks of the representatives of the very first generations of Polish musicologists.
315 Amongst others: Dawne zabytki miasta Krakowa [Ancient monuments of the City of Cracow] Cracow 1850; Starożytnicze wiadomości o Krakowie [Ancient news about Cracow] Cracow 1852.
316 See for example, ‘Okruszyny wiadomości z dziedziny sztuki i starożytności naszych’ [Crumbs of news from the field of art and our antiquity] (Biblioteka Warszawska 1854).
317 Morawska 1976, 20.
318 Biblioteka Warszawska 1855/4, 302–310.
319 Morawska 1976, 38.
320 1828/2, 81–88.
321 Let us remember that Adolf Chybiński presented extensive material about Sikorski’s visits to the libraries and archives of Pułtusk, Częstochowa, Piotrków and Łowicz, with reference to excerpts from his notebooks, several decades later (KM 1928/1, 82–85).
322 Morawska 1976, 45–46.
323 Ibid., 47.
325 Maurycy Karasowski, Rys historyczny opery polskiej poprzedzony szczegółowym poglądem na dzieje muzyki dramatycznej powszechnej [Historical outline of Polish opera preceded by a detailed review of the history of universal dramatic music] (Warsaw 1859). Furthermore, one can also add that Karasowski was an admirer of the works of Frederic Chopin (author of the book Młodość Fryderyka Chopina [Frederic Chopin’s youth]. (Warsaw 1869) and Friedrich Chopin. Sein leben und seine briefe. (Berlin 1878), trans. to Polish Fryderyk Chopin – życie – listy – dzieła [Frederic Chopin – life – letters – works] (Warsaw 1882) and thanks to his work he is remembered as one of the first researchers from the field of Polish Chopinography and Chopinology.
326 Warsaw 1860.
327 Morawska 1976, 59–60. It can said that one of the examples of this type of research on music history was the still highly-regarded monograph by Ferdynand Hoesick (a Warsaw bookseller and publisher, literary expert and intellectual, and at the same time a passionate musicologist and propagator of the cult of Chopin) – Chopin. Życie i twórczość [Chopin. Life and work] (vol. I–III Warsaw 1910–11). Hoesick continued the above-mentioned monograph tradition, through his actions giving value to works based on striving to faithfully reproduce the originals and gather reliable documentation, as Irena Poniatowska also argues in an extensive biographical sketch devoted to Hoesick, see Poniatowska 1993/1.
328 Among others definitions, we can understand historicism as ‘the desire to cultivate, practice the art of the past, expand the repertoire’ and ‘seeking models in the past as a result of the need for creative inspiration’ and ‘idealising the past, flowing from criticism of the present day,’ see Poniatowska 1995, 120–121.
329 Ibid., p. 120.
330 Ibid., p. 121.
332 Ibid., 146.
333 Köln 1977.
336 Gołąb 2012, 3. It is also worth recalling a letter of Jan Józef Dunicz to Chybiński, as quoted by Gołąb, certifying that, for example, contact between libraries of the ‘bor derland’ universities was a day-to-day basis: ‘I returned Zieleński’s old print, according to the wish of Sir Professor, immediately to the Univ[ersity] Library so that it can be sent to Wroclaw’ (Dunicz to Chybiński from Lviv 24 VII 1933, AACh-BJ, box 3-D 13/6). The idea which was controversial, in the context of the universities of Lviv and Wroclaw, of ‘borderland’ was tackled by Maciej Gołąb in the indicated article (Gołąb 2012 footnote 31).
338 Ibid., 113.
339 Barbag 1935. He had already written in a similar tone in the past: ‘The word “musicology” is, in the spheres of Polish intelligence, a term for a strange university study, the aim of which no one understands: it is kind of “black magic,” available only to musicians who do not play an instrument, do not sing, do not compose nor orchestrate,’ see Barbag 1928, 108.
340 A comprehensive summary, prepared by Chybiński for the purposes of the publication entitled ‘Uniwersytet a muzyka’ [University and music], was published by Roman Chojnacki in Warsaw’s PM (1913/2, 1–5 and supplementary text published there in PM 1913/19, 15).
341 Ibid., 2.
342 Ibid., 3.
343 Ibid., 4.
346 Ibid., 12.
348 Adolf Chybiński, Materiały do dziejów królewskiej kapeli rorantystów na Wawelu [Materials for the history of the royal chapel of rorantists at Wawel] (part I: 1540–1624, Cracow 1910); also, Teoria mensuralna w polskiej literaturze muzycznej pierwszej połowy XVI wieku [Mensural theory in Polish music literature of the first half of the sixteenth century] (Cracow 1911); Zdzisław Jachimecki, Wpływy włoskie w muzyce polskiej [Italian Influences in Polish Music] (part I: 1540–1640, Cracow 1911).
350 Ibid., 9.
351 Chybiński refers to Hermann Kretzschmar’s reflections in his Musikalische Zeitfragen: Zehn Vortrage published a few years earlier (Leipzig 1903).
352 Almost a quarter of a century later in his Systematyka muzykologii [Musicological systematics] (Barbag 1928, 109) Seweryn Barbag wrote about the fact that ‘specialisation in musicology is unavoidable.’
353 ‘List ze Lwowa (Kilka uwag o stosunkach muzycznych)’ [Letter from Lviv (A few comments about musical relations’] (PM 1913/18, 11–14, see p. 13).
357 GM 1918/3, 21–22.
359 Ibid, 22.
361 Ibid., 126, 127.
362 Paris 1918.
363 Warsaw 1920.
365 Stefania Gérard de Festenburg [Łobaczewska], ‘W kwestii pochodzenia muzyki’ [In the question of the origins of music] (PM 1911/11, 6–10, 1911/12, 1–4); also, ‘Schopenhauer o muzyce’ [Schopenhauer about music’] (PM 1912/4, 1–5).
366 ‘Wyraz i technika kompozytorska w muzyce polskiej’ [Expression and compositional technique in Polish music] (PM 1910/20, 11–14); also ‘Stefano Arteaga i Ryszard Wagner jako teoretycy dramatu muzycznego’ [Stefano Arteaga and Richard Wagner as theoreticians of music-drama] (PM 1912/11, 1–8, 1912/12, 1–6, 1912/14–15, 1–5).
367 This was about scholarly musicological titles, because journalism and music criticism were quite good at that time, although not without significance, of course, was the interruption in the edition of press titles caused by several years of war turmoil.
370 Ibid., 588.
371 Ibid., 591.
372 Ibid, 594.
373 The diametrical difference in the treatment of historical musicology as a science by the Lviv and Cracow departments was well known, as well as the understanding of the functions and tasks of musical-historical publications by the heads of both departments. On the subject of Jachimecki’s erudite, humanistic and interdisciplinary approach to musicological research, while avoiding excessive detail, see Przybyszewska-Jarmińska 2016.
375 Ibid., 24.
377 Here we can mention Historia muzyki polskiej (w zarysie) [History of Polish music (An overview)] (Warsaw 1920), Wagner. Życie i twórczość [Wagner. Life and work] (Warsaw 1922), Fryderyk Chopin. Rys życia i twórczości [Frederic Chopin. An overview of his life and work] (Cracow 1927).
379 He recalled that Chybiński, before he researched ‘everything,’ himself became the author of two syntheses: ‘Muzyka kościelna w Polsce’ [Church music in Poland]. Addition in: Karl Weinmann: Dzieje muzyki kościelnej [History of church music]. Ratyzbona/Raciborz ), and the study ‘Z dziejów muzyki polskiej do XVIII w.’ [From the history of Polish music to the XVIII century’] (Muzyka 1927/7–9, 31–73).
380 This remark may be surprising, as already in 1907 Chybiński published an extensive dissertation on this subject: ‘O metodach zbierania i porządkowania melodii ludowych’[About methods of collecting and organising folk melodies] (Lud 1907/13, 171–201), which Jachimecki did not remember (or perhaps did not know?). Years later he returned to the same theme, preparing ‘Wskazówki zbierania melodii ludowych’ [Indications on how to collect folk melodies] (PM 1925/1, 6–12, 1925/2, 1–9).
381 Adolf Chybiński, ‘O organizację pracy nad melodiami ludowymi’ [‘About the Organisation of Work on Folk Melodies’] (Lud 1922/21, 29–39).
382 Chybiński published the two-part sketch ‘O potrzebach polskiej etnografii muzycznej’ [About the needs of Polish music ethnography] after WWII, in the pages of the newly establish quarterly Polska Sztuka Ludowa [Polish folk art] (part 1. ‘Zagadnienia Kolbergowskie’ [Kolberg’s Issues], 1947,1–2, 16–19, part 2. ‘Zagadnienia pokolbergowskie’ [Post-Kolberg issues], 1948/1, 6–8).
384 Chybiński 1934/1.
385 Jachimecki 1935/2.
387 Jachimecki 1935/1.
389 Muzyka 1931/1, 29–30.
390 Stromenger 1930/2. At the same time, Karol Szymanowski, amongst others, criticised Chybiński’s attitude, at the same time also supporting Jachimecki in the dispute: ‘About Ch[ybiński] – this is really a grim matter for me – such “smallness” in a man … What’s worse: completely psychologically incomprehensible … at the level of your tasks and works, he almost brushes against some paranoid psychosis!’; see Szymanowski III, part. 3, 511.
395 This is how he saw the transition from description to general considerations of scholarship about mankind and culture: ‘I started to write a paper entitled “Nuta o Krzyżu” w śpiewnikach Jana Seklucjana [Note about the cross in the songbooks of Jan Seklucjan], a preliminary study of Polish musical ethnology. […] By combining folklore with the study of hymnals and sequences, we can go from musical ethnography to ethnology,’ Kamieński to Chybiński from Poznań 24 VII 1926, AACh-BJ, box 6, K-3/28.
396 Warsaw 1927. This publication, like several other collected monographs edited by Gliński (Muzyka współczesna [Contemporary music], Warsaw 1926, Nowa muzyka [New music], Warsaw 1930, Opera, Warsaw 1934 and others) was prepared by the Muzyka magazine and, as mentioned, filled the publishing year during the summer downtime.
398 See LWML starting from number 1927/10 from the year 1927 with breaks to 1929/11.
400 Ibid., 7.
401 Kamieński to Chybiński from Poznań 29 II 1930, AACh-BJ, box 6, K-3/65.
404 1930/7–8, 5.
405 For precision we should add that Barbag in general considered that ‘ “Aesthetics” as an interchangeable concept for the philosophy of art … is an inaccurate term and irrelevant in its original meaning,’ see Barbag 1928, 31.
407 Ibid., 324.
408 Ibid., 325.
411 Ibid., 4.
412 Ibid., 12.
413 MP 1935/5, 71 (original emphasis).
414 MP 1935/5, 74–76.