4. Authors and subjects: historical-musical work – ‘technical history’ (Chybiński) versus ‘live history’ (Jachimecki); contemporary music as a subject for research; music theory and acoustics; philosophy, aesthetics, sociology; psychology, pedagogy; ethnography and musical folklore; themed editions
4. Authors and subjects: historical-musical work – ‘technical history’ (Chybiński) versus ‘live history’ (Jachimecki); contemporary music as a subject for research; music theory and acoustics; philosophy, aesthetics, sociology; psychology, pedagogy; ethnography and musical folklore; themed editions
At the beginning of 1928, Adolf Chybiński stated that ‘I will succeed … in establishing or renewing Kwartalnik Muzyczny’415 and in the spring started collecting materials for the editorial file. The launch of a new scientific title, which Kwartalnik Muzyczny would be – at least according to the editor-in-chief – required names that would ensure continuous functioning and regular publishing of the magazine. According to forecasts, its content included a fairly broad panorama of topics and research interests as well as a provenance of invited authors. It seems that there had been many more plans than were actually realised throughout the upcoming few years: in the editorial advertisements published in a majority of booklets we read about, amongst others, an article prepared by Maria Remertówna, one of the students of Lviv musicology, on the Warsaw lute tablature of the seventeenth century, also about the work of the head of Poznań musicology Łucjan Kamieński ‘on a certain Old-Polish melody and polonaises from the seventeenth and eighteenth century,’ about an article by Adam Sołtys on the symphonic and opera works of Karol Szymanowski, about an article by Jan A. Maklakiewicz on the studies of folk melodies, about an article by Heikki Klemetti, a Finnish composer, conductor and music critic, on a dance known in Finland as ‘polska,’ or about ‘[Eugène Marie Valentin] Borrel’s article on the embellishments in the works of J. Tartini.’416
As a matter of fact, for Chybiński, there was no alternative methodology in historical research that he was willing to accept and that could replace the one he had acquired during his studies in Munich. He was also trying to instil this ←269 | 270→approach towards scholarship in his students. I have already written about the extent to which this scientific attitude (‘paper musicology’) was opposed not only by some music critics but by some musicologists as well. The professor had a passion for approaching his research material in a ‘technical’ way (which applied to both music sources and archival materials on past music), which was the exact opposite of ‘living history,’ filled with literary narration and advocated by Zdzisław Jachimecki, who was Chybiński’s long-time antagonist. This passion not only determined the direction of the professor’s academic career but also stamped its influence on the form of the Lviv musicological school which he developed and on Kwartalnik which he headed. As a result, it also influenced the choice of authors involved with the journal. Kwartalnik, through which the current state of knowledge was passed as small forms of academic literature (articles, contributions, reports, papers),417 was an ideal ‘medium’ for Chybiński, who penetrated archives and libraries, extracting information from countless readings he collected in both private and institutional libraries, and (in reference to ‘folklore’ themes) during ethnographic expeditions. He rarely crowned his activities with extensive monographs; in his bibliography, he had several hundred academic titles and materials published on the pages of music, cultural and literary periodicals.418
Already the contents of the first issue of the new magazine, based on classic designs from key European music periodicals, indicated the direction that the editors chose for the upcoming years: display of historical themes (though not limited to them), supplementing the basic, article content with smaller contributions and informing in many (if possible) reports about the novelties in both Polish and foreign literature. (Even at this stage of preliminary work, it was declared that the editorial team of Kwartalnik should avoid dividing publications between two volumes, which automatically meant that the desired materials had to be limited to relatively brief papers.419 In practice, it turned out that both in this edition of Kwartalnik and in its few post-war issues, this rule was continuously broken.)←270 | 271→
A natural source, from which the editors could draw original materials, was the Lviv musicological institute represented by a group of Chybiński’s students, extremely prolific from an academic point of view. In the interwar period, most of them showed an above-average activity, compared to the musicological youth from Cracow or Poznań, in the field of publishing, both journalistic and popularising, and research. As can be seen from the previously outlined preview of the beginnings of the academic careers of local graduates, they wrote a lot and looked for every opportunity to print their works, yet they usually left their main theses for Kwartalnik Muzyczny. It should be noted, however, that Chybiński consistently restricted his selection to a few names associated with the department, even if he sometimes planned to expand this list.420 Statistics show that (if we also take into account articles written a few years later and submitted to PRM) while there were over seventy papers written by ‘outsiders,’ another sixty were signed by Chybiński and several of his pupils: Feicht, Lissa, Chomiński, Dunicz, Freiheiter, Szczepańska, Wójcik-Keuprulian, Łobaczewska. At the same time, the professor was trying to show the full spectrum of research topics taken up by his pupils, even though privately he did not approve of all their choices.421 However, he could be sure of the reliable scientific skills of the graduates of the Lviv department, thanks to whom the magazine enjoyed a steady supply of studies and theses that met the high standards.
Out of this group, Chybiński invited his two assistants (Hieronim Feicht422 and Maria Szczepańska423) to contribute to the first issue of Kwartalnik Muzyczny, ←271 | 272→which was being prepared at that time. He also invited authors whom he had known before and of whose professionalism he could be sure: Feliks Starczewski,424 an experienced publicist and a music critic, and Henryk Opieński,425 his old friend. It was an opportunity for Chybiński to return a favour to Opieński, who made it possible for Chybiński to make his debut in the first edition of Kwartalnik Muzyczny and then continue his fruitful cooperation with this journal for the next few years when Opieński was its editor-in-chief. On the recommendation of the Warsaw part of the editorial team (or rather by its choice), the group of authors contributing to ‘number one’ was joined by Paul Brunold,426 Gabriel Tołwiński427 and Stanisław Furmanik.428 Another author who often appeared in Kwartalnik throughout its pre-war history was Ludwik Bronarski.429 Chybiński, as the host of the journal, also joined the group of authors. He submitted a paper on vocal and instrumental concertos of Marcin Mielczewski430 and a short text ‘on the history of musicology in Poland.’431
Due to the interest of the editor-in-chief, one of the main thematic areas which focused a large group of authors and a large part of their articles in the interwar Kwartalnik was musical ‘Old Poland’ and ‘antiquity’ (‘There is such an abomination of traditional Old Polish music that you have to maintain works in this regard almost tendentiously,’432 wrote Chybiński), and the professor’s favourite author in this field was his student and assistant, Maria Szczepańska. ←272 | 273→I have already mentioned her activity in the field of academic writing and contribution to Kwartalnik when I presented the achievements of musicology in Lviv in its heyday, in the 1920s and 1930s. I will just emphasise here that it was the name of this young scholar which appeared on the first page of the new Polish musicological journal. In the case of analytical theses, Szczepańska’s works were characterised by a ‘classical’ narrative, detailed analysis which aimed to confirm the arguments set forth by the researcher, yet sometimes misguided – as in the aforementioned case of the contribution on, as Chybiński put it, ‘a certain Polish political hymn from the fifteenth century.’’433 Without a doubt, her mentor favoured her as an author. Nevertheless, it turns out that not all papers submitted by her were accepted for printing straight away. This was the case with her extensive study entitled ‘O utworach Mikołaja Radomskiego (z Radomia) (wiek XV)’ [On the compositions of Mikołaj Radomski (Mikołaj of Radom) (15th Century)],434 which had already had its own story: due to the above-mentioned rule adopted by the editorial team, which limited the practice of printing continuations in several issues, the professor decided that this paper should be published as an independent publication. Nevertheless, it remained stuck in the editorial office and was not sent for printing. Its first part, ‘Introduction,’ was published a few years later in PRM, whose editor was also Adolf Chybiński (see chapter II-5).435
Besides Szczepańska another eulogist of ‘Old Poland’ appearing on the pages of the magazine run by Chybiński was Father Hieronim Feicht who, although sometimes directed his interest toward music from the twentieth century – the works of Karol Szymanowski – during the years of his cooperation with Kwartalnik dealt mainly with the Polish legacy of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. As often happened, in his case, the publications resulted from work on a doctoral dissertation. The ‘Contributions’ published in the first editions constituted material that Feicht gathered by the way, during his archival queries aimed at finding sources for Pękiel’s biography. Referring to the existing literature – of Poliński, Jachimecki, Chybiński, and Max Seiffert or the lexicon by Eitner – and citing records from the Warsaw collections, the priest verified or documented an abundance of facts from the life of Marco Scacchi and other musicians of the Chapel ←273 | 274→Royal, including those previously unknown.436 He directly referred his dissertation to the essay about Audite mortales by Bartłomiej Pękiel.437 In this case, the starting point for the scholarly discussion was the only more substantial material previously devoted to this composition – the chapter on Pękiel in the book by Zdzisław Jachimecki Wpływy włoskie w muzyce polskiej [Italian influences in polish music]438. However, when it comes to reading, he did not stop there and went on to analyse all musical elements of the work in detail. He moved freely between papers which had already been regarded as classics as that time (written by Guido Adler, Arnold Schering and Hugo Leichtentritt) and the most recent ones (written by Hugo Riemann, Albert Smijers and Hans Schnoor). (On a side note, this ease in discussing European scholastic literature and the discipline that governed how he presented his argument was characteristic of all students of Chybiński, who often accused representatives of other musicological centres of inadequacies in this respect).
Already in the following year, Feicht again presented his monographic dissertation in the pages of Kwartalnik, this time dedicated to Leopolita’s Missa paschalis.439 Despite the lack of sources and the need to rely on Fr. Surzyński’s often erroneous edition (Feicht preceded the analysis by a discussion on the differences between that edition and the preserved, incomplete copies of the mass preserved in Wawel), on several dozen pages, the author conducted an almost bar-for-bar analysis. This analysis included the text and music and justified the title as well. When it comes to the announcement concerning Gorczycki’s biography, which has already been mentioned in a footnote, Feicht, who was involved with Congregation of the Mission in Cracow, relied on a little-known work by Father Stanisław Wysocki devoted to this congregation440 and completed the ←274 | 275→unknown episodes from the musician’s life. He also referred to the discoveries that had been made up to that time, for example, those of Adolf Chybiński, his mentor. The next two reports were a ‘Baroque’ essay entitled ‘Do biografii G.G. Gorczyckiego’ [On the biography of G.G. Gorczycki] and a ‘nineteenth century’ essay ‘Pamiętnik do nauki harmonii Stanisława Moniuszki’ [A guide to learning harmony by Stanisław Moniuszko]. These two were written after some time and were published in the second volume of PRM.441
The third person from the university department who closely cooperated with the professor was Bronisława Wójcikówna. Despite the aforementioned disagreements, which at the end of the 1920s led to her falling out with the professor, she was also among the regular contributors to Kwartalnik Muzyczny. She published four texts on Chopin, who dominated her research interests in the 1930s,442 as well as a two-part article on the music of ‘the Nearer East.’443 As the first, she submitted the article ‘O polifonii Chopina’ [On Chopin’s polyphony] for printing which, although sent in the first months of the editorial office’s work, had to wait a while to be published.444 Moving to the subject of Chopin’s works, almost untouched in Polish literature, she launched – like the earlier mentioned Feicht and Szczepańska – a discussion with European researchers: from Germany, France, and Great Britain. In subsequent years, remaining on the topic of Chopin, she met the editor-in-chief’s expectations. In her article ‘O literaturze chopinowskiej w Polsce odrodzonej’ [About Chopin literature in revivalist Poland].445 she referred to the most recent, post-war studies on Chopin, published both in Poland and abroad, and criticised the excessively literary style which characterised many of them. He emphasises that monumental works are not free of this, such as Ferdynand Hoesick’s Chopin. Życie i twórczość [Chopin. Life and works], Fryderyk Chopin by Henryk Opieński, not to mention the publications of Witold Chrzanowski, Helena Windakiewicz or Zdzisław Jachimecki, as well as foreign authors – Hugo Leichtentritt or James Huneker. Next, entering into ←275 | 276→the scope of methodological considerations, she analysed the current literature on Chopin in terms of various musicological methods used by the authors. Thus, Wójcik’s article is not a mere report on the publishing movement, but an example of the scientific discussion on the directions of research on the history of music represented by contemporary musicologists (indicating a higher value in cognitive terms of works of a purely analytical character).
When Chybiński was planning the ethnographic issue,446 he once again approached Wójcikówna and invited her to contribute to it because he had been aware of the second area of her research interests. As has already been mentioned, due to family connections with Polish Armenians, the researcher had for some time been promoting the history of this nation’s music (she published numerous articles, for example, in Posłaniec św. Grzegorza, a magazine of Polish Armenians). This is why she submitted an extensive essay on this topic to Kwartalnik. She profiled Father Gomidas, an Armenian priest and a musicologist educated in Berlin, whose activities contributed to the revival of both the music of the national church and folk music.447 She supplemented this material with the second part of her study on the music of the ‘Nearer’ East. It was an essay on the theoretical foundations of Arabic and Turkish-Persian music.448 As noted by Bożena Muszkalska, further plans regarding other cultures from the Middle East were not pursued by the researcher, and her health problems as well as the ‘barriers she encountered trying to stand out as an academic in the world of competing men, did not allow for full implementation of her [other] ambitious plans.’449
Chybiński’s two ‘favourite’ pupils, Józef Michał Chomiński and Jan Józef Dunicz, were slightly younger than the three first assistant lecturers at the Lviv department. They did not make their debut in the professor’s journals until the second half of the 1930s. Dunicz submitted his debut article to PRM, whereas Chomiński made it in time to publish an extensive paper on the history of medieval music450 in the last issue of Kwartalnik. The next two articles were published ←276 | 277→in PRM. The first article submitted by Chomiński was a summary of his master’s thesis from 1931. It was an extensive synthesis presenting a two-century history of the imitative technique ‘from the times of Pérotin to the times of Ciconia.’451 Its construction and narrative, as well as the range of literature used, deserve recognition as a model example of an academic treatise, which is a result of research firmly embedded in the German-type musicology, taught by Chybiński to his students in Lviv. As such, he stood in one line with Feicht’s detailed studies on the Easter Mass by Leopolita, or Szczepańska’s studies on Marian hymns. And although, as mentioned earlier, there is no correspondence between the student and his master from that time, the professor’s impression from reading Chomiński’s study did survive, however, in a letter to Bronarski: ‘Master Chomiński, … wrote an excellent work on the technique of imitation in the thirteenth and fourteenth century, beating the previous literature on this subject.’452
However, the article written by Jerzy Freiheiter, Chomiński’s friend, did not deserve such an enthusiastic reception. His professional activity has already been mentioned when the university department was being discussed (Chapter II-2). However, it needs to be noted that despite Chybiński’s aforementioned favourable opinion on Freiheiter’s knowledge of harmony and theory, as well as his dissertation, its summary published in Kwartalnik453 was judged rather harshly. The text is filled with a series of detailed harmonic analyses, confirming the young musicologist’s excellent proficiency in this area. However, it constitutes difficult reading even for someone who is well-prepared in this respect. In addition, due to pragmatic reasons, the number of musical examples illustrating the argument was significantly reduced, hence large fragments were merely descriptive, while typographical constraints also prevented the introduction of Riemann’s symbols to the text, adopted by the author in the analyses conducted within the dissertation. It would be difficult to determine whether this unpleasant experience, associated with his first attempt as a contributing author of Kwartalnik, had a bearing on the fact that in the next years, Freiheiter wrote only a few reviews for Chybiński. In the 1930s, he published articles in Muzyka Polska,454 ←277 | 278→Muzyka455 and most often in LWML. After reading the texts published in these journals, it is visible that Freiheiter’s interests focused on theory and contemporary music.456 Most importantly, he was active as a musician, an educator and an organiser of music life.457
In a way, at the opposite pole to the achievements of the afore-mentioned students of Chybiński, already present on the pages of Kwartalnik, there also remained two other graduates of the department in Lviv – Stefania Łobaczewska and Zofia Lissa. They were linked (or rather divided) with the professor through frequent disputes, both methodological and ideological. Let us recall that it was the controversy with Łobaczewska, which afterwards moved from Lviv to the nationwide field through publications and newsletters, among others, in the monthly Muzyka, which nearly launched a community ‘peer court’ that was to decide which side is right in the dispute over the value of research on early music. The dispute flared up in 1933 and, as I wrote earlier, by the war it had already significantly reduced contacts between the teacher and his pupil. She, however, had previously made an important contribution to the content of Kwartalnik for the professor was able to appreciate the passion for research of his graduates as well as their academic workshop. Despite the differences of interests, he had repeatedly invited them to cooperate with Kwartalnik, relying on their scientific integrity no less than in the case of other students.
Even though Łobaczewska and Lissa rarely dealt with historical issues on a daily basis, each of them submitted historical studies to Kwartalnik Muzyczny. Łobaczewska was the author of two articles whose content was ‘classical’ (according to categories preferred by Chybiński), including a paper on the output of Sebastian of Felsztyn. Following the example of her colleagues from the same department, she analysed the works of this musician and was trying to determine their style against the background of his epoch.458 She showcased in-depth knowledge of the best examples of similar analyses and referred to rich European source literature devoted to this subject. An additional nod towards Chybiński ←278 | 279→was the point of departure for her reflections, that is ‘Biografia Sebastiana z Felsztyna’ [Biography of Sebastian of Felsztyn],459 published by the professor.
Before Łobaczewska turned to sociology and aesthetics, which was visible in the next volumes, she submitted for print a summary of her doctoral dissertation entitled ‘O harmonice Klaudiusza Achillesa Debussy’ego w pierwszym okresie jego twórczości’ [On the Achille-Claude Debussy’s harmony in the first period of his artistic work].460 Despite the significant limitations of the original form of the dissertation (reduced number of musical examples from one hundred and twenty-three to just eleven, and reliance on only a few bibliographical entries from amongst more than a hundred), the work constitutes an exemplary, scientific analysis of contemporary music, using the newest, but also the classical at that time, European literature.461 These two historical publications by Łobaczewska were followed by a series of texts on psychology and the aesthetics of music, for example, ‘O założeniach estetycznych i psychologicznych muzyki programowej’ [On aesthetic and psychological assumptions of programme music]462 and ‘Z najnowszych badań nad psychologią i estetyką muzyczną’ [From the most recent studies on psychology and the aesthetics of music],463 written with Zofia Lissa.
Lissa, unlike her older colleague, did not debut in Kwartalnik with a historical dissertation, but with a theoretical study on ‘the changes taking place in its [music’s] individual elements and the relationship between one another.’464 From ←279 | 280→today’s perspective what may seem interesting is the attitude towards the history of music and the elements defining its periodisation, which is different to the ‘materialist’ (from which Lissa is primarily known). The criteria to which she adhered at that time had a strictly musical character. For example, she wrote that ‘the transformation of the division of music history into periods is … a transformation of one, less frequently a whole group, musical style factors’465 and ‘in the development of European music after Christ two main eras can be indicated …: the era based on pure diatonic church modes … [and] the era of major and minor tonality’466 – and there is no mention of any stages in the development of societies, which Lissa assumed as a sine qua non of the progress in the history of music in the future. The complementation, as she asserts, of these two eras in the history of universal music is the growing (at the time of writing) atonality, and to be able to sufficiently describe the issue of atonality one must define in advance the concept of key and tonality. Lissa takes on the task and presents the latest results of research in this area conducted by the leading theorists in Europe. Her article is extremely erudite in this respect, built on reading dissertations by Kurth, Riemann, Capellen, Erpf, Grabner, Schönberg, Schenker, Schreyer, Lenormand, Deroux, Milhaud, Mersmann… – these are still not all the characters with whom the author took up discussion in her article.
Shortly afterwards, following the example of other Lvivians, she submitted a summary of her dissertation for print. It was an analytical monograph on contemporary European music,467 a subject which rarely appeared in Chybiński’s journal. After that, she devoted herself completely to subjects which were the closest to her: music pedagogy and psychology,468 as well as research on the role of the radio, which at that time was a new medium.469←280 | 281→
Chybiński himself was a master of contributions. His achievements in the field of small forms of academic literature amount to hundreds of positions. Amongst the fourteen titles that appeared on the pages of the ‘second’ Kwartalnik, almost all consisted of contributions and sketches – mostly profiles of old Polish musicians enriched with information that Chybiński gathered over the years primarily in the archives in Cracow.470 He dealt mostly with subjects which were the closest to him, namely those related to ‘Old Polish’ music from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, sometimes moving on to more recent history, that is the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth century.471 The professor submitted papers to most of the fourteen volumes which he was preparing at the turn of the 1930s. One of these texts was broken down into as many as five volumes – his extensive monograph on vocal and instrumental concertos of Marcin Mielczewski,472 which confirmed the popular opinion that prevails until today and presents Chybiński as one of the most important pioneers of in-depth and detailed research on the artistic output of this early Baroque composer.
When it comes to his own papers which Chybiński published in Kwartalnik, he departed from historical research only two times. The second issue included his speech on teaching the history of music in conservatoires and music schools, which he had given at the II Conference of the Consultative Committee of the MWRiOP, devoted to the music education system in Poland.473 In 1933, he ←281 | 282→published an article titled ‘O źródłach i rozpowszechnieniu dwudziestu melodii ludowych na skalnym Podhalu’ [On the sources and dissemination of twenty folk melodies in Skalne Podhale].474 The latter article was quite controversial due to the author’s thesis which stated that melodies from Podhale were not just a part of the legacy of this geographical area, but constituted a joint achievement of many ethnic groups.
The academic creativity, thanks to which Chybiński and his Lviv students went down in the history of the ‘second’ Kwartalnik, greatly influenced the quality and the level of the magazine. However, let us remember that it was not an organ of the department; given the frequency of this periodical, the residents of Lviv would not be able to fill its pages themselves. Hence the need to cooperate with other centres, which was often indicated (was it sincere?) by the editor-in-chief.
The only contributing author of Kwartalnik Muzyczny who was at that time involved with the musicological centre in Cracow was Stanisław Golachowski, a young assistant lecturer.475 During the Second World War and after its end, he became known as a devoted collector of Karol Szymanowski memorabilia and archives. His determination earned him the recognition of the whole music community, including Adolf Chybiński. It was then, at the end of the 1940s, that he published a series of articles devoted to the author of Harnasie.476 He also followed his interest in music acoustics, which he supplemented by continuing studies in mathematics and physics that he had taken up during the war. When it comes to music acoustics, he was one of the few researchers in this field.477 His musicological passion must have been noticed by the professor back before ←282 | 283→the war, when despite his highly critical attitude towards the achievements of the whole Cracow environment, he decided to accept an essay entitled ‘Missa pro defunctis Józefa Kozłowskiego (1757–1831)’ [Missa pro defunctis by Józef Kozłowski (1757–1831)]478 for print. In fact, the work constitutes a somewhat schematic analysis of the piece, yet it meets the requirements of this type of dissertation set forth by Chybiński. It is also worth mentioning that while writing, Golachowski also used European literature, both archival and newest, and avoided colourful, literary rhetoric. The Professor soon had another chance encounter – certainly as a reader, perhaps also at the stage of editorial works – with Golachowski’s scholastic achievements, upon the publication in Muzyka Polska of a biographical sketch on Antoni Stolpe,479 whose creative work was the subject of a thesis written by the young musicologist, whereas the young resident of Cracow returned for cooperation with the editors of Kwartalnik only once to prepare a review of the latest szymanowskian piece for the first post-war booklet.480
Golachowski was one of the few members of the youngest generation of musicologists and representatives of university departments from outside Lviv who managed to meet the demands of the editorial team.481 Thanks to his first publication, he joined the group of authors specialising in the history of music, which was the dominant field of musicology in Kwartalnik. This group, which was the closest to Chybiński, was based on the Lviv centre and earlier ‘press’ contacts of the professor. One of the first authors that were fundamental for the functioning of this kind of magazine was Henryk Opieński; he belonged to the group of people closest to Chybiński throughout his career as a ‘writing’ musicologist. First of all, it should be noted that as a loyal, good companion for many years, he had sincerely seconded the professor from the first moment he learned about the new publishing initiative. He himself had huge experience in this field – he launched the first Kwartalnik Muzyczny, and in the mid-1920s he had run the Poznań-based Przegląd Muzyczny. From 1926, he had been living permanently in Switzerland, yet he maintained close and frequent contacts with the Polish music community, treating any new editorial challenges with ←283 | 284→fond sentiment.482 He had already published his own texts with success and had written numerous press publications, syntheses and monographs. When it comes to non-serial publications, he focused on three figures: Chopin, Moniuszko and most importantly, Paderewski.483 However, when it comes to articles, he did not limit his research interests. This is also the case regarding texts which he sent to Chybiński.
In total, six texts appeared in Kwartalnik signed by Opieński (he submitted three more to Chybiński for use in the upcoming PRM). At the beginning, he provided a major study on the evolution in the assessment of Frederic Chopin’s sonatas by critics and scholars, starting from the literary review by Robert Schumann, through Franz Liszt’s reflection and the comprehensive analyses by Frederick Niecks, all the way to the scholarly discourse by Vincent d’Indy and Hugo Leichtentritt, and he decorated the review with selected fragments of source texts. Continuing this historical overview in the second booklet, he focused on the problem of confronting sonatas by Beethoven and Chopin by historiographers and musicologists, recalling facts confirming Frederic’s fascination with the legacy of the great Viennese composer.
The Chopin topic, so close to Opieński, did not appear in his ‘quarterly’ texts any longer – on the basis of a casual glance at the subjects the author seems to be a ‘restless spirit’ starting with penetration of the history of music from ancient centuries all the way to current tasks of music ‘pedagogy.’ He returned, amongst others, to the hero of his dissertation – the sixteenth-century lutenist and composer Valentin Greff Bakfark, whose correspondence with Prince Albert of Prussia (with comments) was prepared for publication;484 still clinging to the ←284 | 285→sixteenth century, he recalled the then common compositional practice of using all kinds of realistic ‘imitations’ – the sounds of battles, ‘bird tales’ – and the growing expressionist mannerisms accompanying the expansion of such naturalistic effects in music, which eventually went in two directions: ‘church music began to take on the theatrical accents of a baroque flavour, whereas opera music entered a phase of pompousness.’485 In this article, Opieński reached beyond the scheme of a mere historical work and provided a narrative with elements of aestheticism reminding of the theoretical and aesthetic ideas of Glarean, Ronsard, Zarlin accompanying the contemporary authors.
‘Przyczynek do dziejów poloneza w XVIII wieku’ [Contribution to the history of the Polonaise in the Eighteenth century]486 turned out to be interesting material not so much as a reminder of one of the episodes in the ‘history of the polonaise,’ but primarily for the source, which was presented by Opieński, which had been passed to him in 1914 by Aleksander Poliński, a manuscript, which in 1820 was sent by an anonymous subscriber to Karol Kurpiński for use in the weekly Tygodnik Muzyczny. In this way, the nineteenth-century monument addressed to ‘the first Polish professional magazine of its kind’487 finally found its place on the pages of the first Polish musicological magazine (moreover, Opieński limited himself mainly to a brief analysis of these simple compositions). A little earlier, the second of the ‘eighteenth century’ articles was published – ‘description and analysis’ of a few instrumental pieces from the collection of the Order of Cistercians in Obra, at this point kept in the library Archives of the Archdiocese of Poznań, among them the compositions of the little-known composer Wojciech Dankowski488 (whose name, recorded in sources in its historical form ‘A,’ ‘Ad.’ or ‘Adal,’ was deciphered by Opieński); the author became interested in the figure of this old Polish musician mainly after reading the letters of Józef Elsner to the publishing house Breitkopf & Hartel, to which he had access due to courtesy of ←285 | 286→the management of the publishing house’s archive.489 The presentation of a project about changes in the system of teaching music theory contained completely different topics.490 Opieński, being fully aware of the need for introducing such changes in view of the rapid evolution in compositional techniques and the use of sound materials, stressed that ‘pedagogy, in principle, should be a conservative factor based on traditions; but the basis of these traditions can only be the essential, invariable truths about various senses utilised in relation to the needs of the era.’491
Feliks Starczewski, a writer and a music critic, but most importantly a teacher and a chamber musician, had also known Chybiński since their youth when they were both writing reviews and music reports for the Warsaw press. As a publicist, Starczewski contributed to Echo Muzyczne, Teatralne i Artystyczne, Nowości Muzyczne, Kurier Teatralny, Lutnista, Epoka, Młoda Muzyka, Teatr Ludowy, Wiadomości Muzyczne, Muzyka, Śpiewak, Chór, Chopin and other less known magazines. He published a few books;492 he was trying to tackle the problem of popularising music and documented the activity of Warsaw music institutions, such as the Music Society and the Music Conservatoire.493 As early as in 1910, his bibliographical note appeared in a series entitled ‘Współcześni kompozytorzy polscy’ [Contemporary Polish composers],494 which was being prepared by the editorial team of Przegląd Muzyczny. The note says, for example, that Feliks Starczewski was a thoroughly educated musician (a composer and a pianist). In Warsaw, he was a student of Antoni Sygietyński and Zygmunt Noskowski, among others, in Berlin his teacher was Engelbert Humperdinck, and in Paris he had classes with Vincent d’Indy. Years later, he became a teacher in the State Music Conservatoire in Warsaw. In Berlin, apart from music studies, he also started musicological studies. His teachers were Oskar Fleischer and Max ←286 | 287→Friedländer. In Paris, he broadened his knowledge of aesthetics by attending classes conducted by Lionel Dauriac.
He was an activist in the Warsaw musical environment and the co-founder of the WTM Chopin Section and, as mentioned before, a publicist in many of the capital’s magazines. He belonged to the inner circle of the founders of SMDM, hence there is no doubt to his presence in the first issue, as well as several others – in total, he published six historical articles, mainly of a material character. This was the case of the first text on a nineteenth-century report from Pamiętnik Muzyczny Warszawski about teaching music according to the modern method of St. André.495 Soon afterwards, he presented a two-part article which was a ‘report on a report’ devoted to the music life of Warsaw. It was based on music news from the capital city published in the 1930s in Pamiętnik Muzyczny Warszawski, a periodical run by Józef Cichocki.496 Starczewski used Pamiętnik once again when he reminded readers of a translated review by François-David-Christophe Stoepel which had appeared in this magazine. Stoepel had reviewed a variation on La ci darem la mano and Chopin’s Piano Concerto in E minor. Starczewski also devoted a long paragraph to this reviewer.497 Two years later, he once again based his paper on archival press, this time German Allgemeine Musikalische Zeitung from 19 December 1810. He presented an essay entitled ‘O organizacji konserwatoriów muzycznych w Niemczech ok. r. 1810’ [On the organisation of music conservatoires in Germany c. 1810].498 The culmination of his cooperation with the interwar Kwartalnik was a biographical sketch of the little-known composer Henryk Szopowicz, erroneously described by some nineteenth- century historiographers (Kazimierz Łada) as a pupil of Chopin.499 Starczewski in his article confronts the available encyclopaedia sources and press releases of the era in order to underline a full and credible figure of the doctor-composer, also briefly discussing his artistic works (minor piano pieces). As can be seen, this and other articles were closed in terms of time in the nineteenth century and did not go beyond the form of contributions, valuable due to the approximation ←287 | 288→of unpopular and often difficult to access sources, and not because of the original interpretations.
Readers were also made familiar with historical subjects thanks to the publications of a few other contributing authors of Kwartalnik, who used short introductory articles and materials to address historical issues in the easiest way possible, simply by describing and reporting certain subjects. This was the case for Stanisław Zetowski, a publicist, a music critic and a literary researcher, whose stance on the authorship of Pieśni Legionów Polskich we Włoszech [Song of the Polish legions in Italy] (also known as Jeszcze Polska nie zginęła [Poland is not yet lost] mazurka) has until today remained one of the most widely discussed opinions on this matter. Zetowski submitted two texts to Chybiński. One was an article which talked not so much about the relation between music and words, but rather about the effect which music has on words (he wondered how Weber’s music influenced the artistic attitude of Zygmunt Krasiński).500 The other was a short introductory article on Karol Kurpiński’s Dziennik podróży [Travel journal] and press reports on this journey (which was written based on the composer’s correspondence).501 (It is interesting that the article about music by Weber also contained references to Kurpiński’s report from a trip to Paris, including his Dresden meetings with the German composer; one can see that this source opened different directions worth investigating for the author). The ‘Weberian’ article did not boil down to a schematic analysis of works of one of the trinity of poets, but pointed to the gradual growth of the young Krasiński against a broad cultural background into the omnipresent, even in the musical life of the European provinces – the Polish borderlands – and the poetics of Freischütz. This resulted in a number of works – the novels Grób rodziny Reichstalów, Sen Elżbiety Pileckiej, Władysław Herman i dwór jego, Zamek Wilczki, as well as the excellent dramas – Nie-Boska komedia and Irydion. In the interwar history of Kwartalnik, Zetowski’s text was probably the only example addressing the subject of relations between literature and music, and thus relations which seem to occur less frequently: the impact of musical works on literary works instead of imposing the literary programme to a musical composition. Upon analysing the numerous examples from Krasiński’s artistic legacy, the author confirmed his ←288 | 289→thesis that ‘Weber’s music was then a major creative wake-up call for the poet … and it made him [Krasiński] a poet above all poets.’502
Chybiński did not know Zetowski in person and mainly had a ‘second-hand’ opinion about his works, but he was clearly pleased with his article submitted for Kwartalnik: ‘I do not know [Mr] Zetowski in person, but his local colleagues told me this and that about him, but nothing neither important nor serious. I read some of his popular works here and there, and I was not moved with his tendency towards fantastic ideas or self-confident literary-musical syntheses. Works sent to me to Kwartalnik are good, yet in a sense more literary.’503
A small contributory text was sent to Kwartalnik by the young Lviv historian Józef Skoczek.504 In his short text, he presented two documents referring to the musical life of Lviv in former times.505 Another author from Lviv – Seweryn Barbag – wrote a number of works on the history of music (including a dissertation on Cesar Franck’s works, Studium o pieśniach Chopinach [A study on Chopin’s songs] issued in Lviv in 1927, and a large number of published articles, such as ‘Polska pieśń artystyczna’ [The Polish artistic song]506 or ‘Semper idem (problem ewolucji twórczości muzycznej na przestrzeni wieków)’ [Semper idem (the evolution of musical creativity over the centuries)],507 but he devoted the bulk ←289 | 290→of his research to the issues of pedagogy, psychology, the popularisation of music, the organisation of musical life and education.508 Barbag submitted such texts to Kwartalnik Muzyczny. This extremely well-educated musicologist (studied in Vienna under Guido Adler) and composer (disciple of Ludomir Różycki and Henryk Melcer) as well as a pianist and a graduate of law at the University of Lviv, was one of the most active ‘writing’ figures of the interwar period. I already had the opportunity to discuss his Systematyka muzykologii more broadly as well as his bold words on the condition of Polish musicology in terms of organisation of departments and the (lack of) cooperation between members of the environment. On the pages of magazines he frequently commented on the current problems – education of the recipients of musical culture, music education and artistic education, the presence and importance of new media (radio and cinema) for contemporary music. For the needs of Kwartalnik Muzyczny, he also took up the matter of organisation of science and curricula (concerning theory) in higher music education. For this purpose, he prepared an article (dedicated to Janusz Miketta, who performed various official functions in the interwar period, including ministerial councillor and chairman of the music and singing committee at MWRiOP) entitled ‘Propedeutyka teorii muzyki jako zagadnienie dydaktyczne’ [Propedeutics of music theory as a didactic issue].509 An interesting matter – from today’s perspective – found in this article is not so much the issue of agreeing, as Barbag wrote, to the ‘traditionally divergent aspirations of theory and practice … in connection with overvaluation of contemporary music education in Poland,’510 as placing a sign of equality between government solutions and the state educational policy in contemporary Germany and Russia in the field of ‘social development of musical culture.’ He does not elaborate on this topic further, yet focuses mainly on identifying defects in the education system, including the poor preparation of young people at a basic level. In fact, Barbag’s article is a compact, regular sketch of a model lecture on propaedeutics – in his words: ‘the foundation,’ which should begin the education of music theory (with an explanation of all the elements of a musical work – sound material, diatonics, diatonic scale, transposition, intervals, dynamics, agogics – these are just a few ←290 | 291→of the many concepts necessary to explain the basis for study of music). He also goes back to the solutions presented a few years earlier in the said Systematyka. In the same edition, Chybiński decided to use another, earlier, text by Barbag – his speech from the meeting of the Opinion Committee of the MWRiOP delivered in March 1929 on the system of music education. In this text, the author confirmed his organisational skills and his ability to take a ‘visionary’ view of the future of music education.
In his two ‘quarterly’ appearances, Barbag did not support himself with literature on the theory and methodology of music pedagogy – in this sense, his comments are not of an academic nature, as would be expected from publications in Chybiński’s magazine. However, it was important that the draft came from under the pen of an outstanding active musicologist, which gave hope that the results would meet the expectations not only in terms of professional education of future musicians but also as to their learning in the field of the broadly and deeply recognised knowledge of music. In this sense – we can guess – Barbag had support for his ideas and the editor-in-chief (who, after all, next to academic duties at the Jan Kazimierz University, had been for many years associated with Lviv music teaching), and these young students of Chybiński (Łobaczewska and – especially – Lissa), for whom psychology and education were some of the main fields of research interests.
Another notable historian was Paul Brunold – a Parisian musicologist, an excellent organist and harpsichordist and also a conservator of these instruments (the future co-author of an anthology of French harpsichord virtuosos of the seventeenth century), who sent a few articles on the study of instruments and organology to Kwartalnik. The first of these articles – ‘Fortepiany Chopina’ [Chopin’s pianos]511 – sketched the history of two instruments that were owned by the Pleyel company and the National Museum in Warsaw at that time. The remaining articles were intended as a cycle devoted to the history of keyboard instruments commissioned by the editors.512 From among other planned sketches (on the spinet, harpsichord, pianoforte or – exceptionally – on the lyre, whose sound is generated by scratching the strings, although admittedly it is not a ‘keyboard’ instrument), the last two were accomplished.513←291 | 292→
A separate group in the personal index of Kwartalnik included authors who were associated with music practice on a day-to-day basis, and who treated writing as an opportunity to share their experience supported by knowledge of the theoretical foundations of the profession, sometimes ranging with their statements from history towards musical aesthetics. At the top of this list was Karol Szymanowski, whose musical writings constitute a fascinating subject of analysis for researchers to this day. All his legacy comprises two thick volumes of writings – both musical and literary.514 The composer’s name appeared on the pages of leading dailies and magazines particularly in the third decade of the twentieth century, when he fully developed his activity as a publicist, in which Zofia Helman, an excellent expert in Szymanowski’s works and the author of an encyclopaedic entry about him,515 identified four motifs of his considerations, including the following topics: ‘1. the national style in Chopin’s music and tradition, 2. contemporary trends in music, 3. the tradition of Romanticism and 4. the role of music in society.’516 In Przegląd Muzyczny, Kwartalnik Muzyczny and the Muzyka monthly appearing at the same time we can only find a few titles signed by him, but in general, they were not texts written ‘exclusively,’ and it seems that every editorial would have been happy with the possibility of duplicating such texts. Such was, for example, the case of ‘Wychowawcza rola kultury muzycznej w społeczeństwie’ [The educational role of music culture in society] – a dissertation circulating between various press titles that was originally published in the literary monthly Pamiętnik Warszawski (1930/8) and subsequently used as a whole by Adolf Chybiński517 and in fragments a few years later by Wieńczysław Brzostowski, an editor of the Poznań monthly Życie Muzyczne i Teatralne.518 Szymanowski wrote another essay – ‘O romantyzmie w muzyce’ [On romanticism in music] – for the needs of Droga – a Lviv social and literary monthly run by an outstanding theatrical critic and stage designer Wilam Horzyca;519 in the same year, Chybiński included the text in one of his first issues of Kwartalnik520 ←292 | 293→and a year later the fragments of the essay were included in Muzyka by Mateusz Gliński.521
The only trace of contacts between Chybiński and Szymanowski on the publication of ‘Romantyzm w muzyce’ [Romanticism in music] can be found in an undated letter written by the composer, which refers to an unpaid fee. Teresa Chylińska had without a doubt accurately addressed this question to the Kwartalnik edition of an essay, which allowed her to hypothetically date the writing to April/May 1929.522 In the correspondence between Chybiński and Bronarski that has survived, where we can usually find frequent and systematic reports on editorial plans and works, there is no mention of Romantyzm by Szymanowski, and the content of the issue no. 3 (apart from continuations of articles from the previous issues) was to be ‘connected with the Convention of Slavic Associations of Singers’ to a large extent. The plans included: ‘7. An article by Dr [Josef] Hutter from Prague on Czech musicology and the cult of early music in Czechoslovakia, 8. An article by Dr [Dragan] Plamenac and Dr [Kosta P.] Manojlović on musicology and the cult of early music in Croatia and Serbia.’523
As it turns out, this time the selection of Szymanowski’s essay was inspired (or even imposed) – in the absence of the aforementioned ‘Slavic’ texts – by the Warsaw part of the editorial office. This fact can be inferred from a letter by Kazimierz Sikorski to the professor: ‘The Board of SMDM proposes to print Szymanowski’s article “Romantyzm w muzyce,” which appeared in booklet I and II of Droga monthly. Szymanowski agrees, if you, Sir Professor do not mind…. The article is very interesting and could bring something new and more contemporary.’524 It proved interesting and valuable mainly due to the attitude declared by the composer, who alienated himself from ‘less or more vague psychological considerations [and] … failure to consider the issue of Romanticism profoundly.’525 Like other texts by Szymanowski published in Kwartalnik, the essay on Romanticism526 was written in a beautiful literary style full of ‘symbolic ←293 | 294→releases,’ ‘vicious circles,’ ‘creative self-will’ and ‘magical lanterns illuminating the gloomy interiors of the human soul permeated with emotions with their amazing glow.’527 Among the authors of the magazine, nobody was a match for him in terms of style, because even if other materials went beyond the rhetoric expected by the editor-in-chief, typical for a scientific dissertation (or contribution), they did not come from the pens of so universally talented and outstanding artists with broad horizons and interests, day-to-day companions of the greatest artists of their age, including writers.
The group of authors from Kwartalnik Muzyczny, who were writers-composers just like Szymanowski, included Henryk Opieński, Feliks Starczewski, Michał Kondracki, Józef Koffler, Roman Palester and Czesław Marek. The last three authors also represented ‘young blood’ that Chybiński really wanted to work with since there were no experienced authors from the older generation. The most prolific author turned out to be Michał Kondracki, a promising composer and an excellent pianist. After his music studies in Warsaw and then in Paris, where he was a student of Paul Dukas, Paul Vidal and Nadia Boulanger, he came back to Warsaw in 1932. He devoted himself not only to music but also to organisational and journalistic activity (he was, for example, the co-founder of the PTMW). As Teodor Zalewski put it, he ‘clung’ to a group of members of the SMDM, who invited him to the meetings of the Management Board of the TWMP ‘in an advisory capacity.’528 Furthermore, he was an avid collector of folklore, which (also with other advantages) quickly won him the sympathy of Adolf Chybiński, who vividly described meeting with him: ‘I met there [in Zakopane] … a charming man, a young composer, whom your colleague may have had the opportunity to meet at Master Paderewski’s house in Morges. That was Mr Michał Kondracki, a student of Vidal and Dukas. He explores Podhale by kilometres on a daily basis and is ecstatic about the region (also musically), and he has to be a good diplomat since so far no one has hit him with a Kulik at any wedding, party, or revelry.’529
As regards Kondracki’s composing achievements, Adam Mrygoń, the author of his entry in Encyklopedia muzyczna PWM [The music encyclopaedia of PWM] stressed that ‘because of the strength of his talent, he was not an epigon ←294 | 295→of Karol Szymanowski or an imitator of the French school that had helped him master contemporary composing techniques.’530 As an author, Kondracki collaborated with many periodicals, which may be suggested by the few hundred articles and reviews that Mrygoń ascribes to him. For periodicals such as Muzyka, Muzyka Polska and, primarily, Kwartalnik Muzyczny, he wrote texts that were results of his works in his two main interest areas: contemporary music and folklore.531 In his debut in Kwartalnik, he presented himself as a glorifier of the genius of Igor Stravinsky, whom he called ‘one of the greatest reforming minds, the creator of a new direction and a new music generation, … who is the personification of music in the broadest sense.’532 Kondracki regarded the path that Stravinsky had chosen to make use of folk themes in his compositions as a model of artistic adaptation. He recognised similar tendencies in works of some other European composers: Ravel, Poulenc, de Falla, Granados, Prokofiev, Bloch and in Szymanowski’s work. He also joined their attitudes with a common idea of modernism, which, as he asserted, is not everything ‘that is new or simply fashionable,’ nor is it ‘music of dissonances.’ ‘The essential feature of modernism is its polytonality (and the resulting atonality), both in terms of harmony and counterpoint.’533 Kondracki’s fascination with Stravinsky and the stylisation of folk themes (on the examples of works of the great Russian composer, also Bela Bartók and Maurice Ravel) was confirmed also by another article ‘Muzyka ludowa jako materiał dla twórczości muzycznej’ [Folk music as material for musical creation],534 and (in a different context: the evaluation of early music and ←295 | 296→its comparison to contemporary music) in the sketch ‘Muzyka dawna i dzisiejsza’ [Early and modern music].535 He took up the subject of folk music as such – a description and analysis of the practice of musicians from mountainous regions – in the article ‘Współczesna muzyka góralska na Podhalu i Żywiecczyźnie’ [Contemporary Polish highlanders’ music in Podhale and the Żywiec Region].536
From the very beginning of his career, Roman Palester divided his creative potential between composing and writing. Like many representatives of the artistic community, he had a university and artistic education. After an initial period of studying in Cracow and Lviv, he studied music at the Music Conservatoire in Warsaw and took up art history at the University of Warsaw. For a short period of time, he received instruction in theory from Piotr Rytel, but then he moved on the class of Kazimierz Sikorski. Thanks to his contacts with this musician, he soon got close to activists from the TWMP and authors who regularly published in Muzyka Polska. In the contemporary music press, he expressed his opinions only on contemporary works, but it needs to be noted that his texts were based on in-depth knowledge of both theory and the history of theory. They referred to notions related to the aesthetics of music. This was also the case with a publication whose aim was to make the Polish music community familiar with the first volume of Hindemith’s theoretical work Unterweisung im Tonsatz (1937), in which the composer provided an interpretation of his theoretical system. Palester, just like Kondracki, admired the works of Stravinsky and Hindemith.537 Being active in the Polish section of the ISCM (also as its deputy president shortly before the war), he spoke ‘in defence of new music’ several times, presenting it as a natural consequence of systematic development of a few centuries of functional harmony until Scriabin put the ‘dot above the “I”‘ in the entire process538.
The article entitled ‘Kryzys modernizmu muzycznego’ [The crisis of music modernism], which Palester submitted to Kwartalnik Muzyczny539 preceded the above-mentioned works and was a reaction to Michał Kondracki’s appeal. Even though the author accused Kondracki of using naive phrases and of some shortcomings in addressing theoretical issues, he fully sympathised with his opinion on the responsibility of musicians for the presence of contemporary ←296 | 297→music in social life, except that he believed that naive appeals to draw inspiration from folk music were just ‘turning a blind eye to the problem and only scratching its surface.’540 Palester mostly polemicised in his article with Kondracki, starting from the extension of the scope of the term ‘modernism,’ through the author of ‘Modernism and modernists’ coming solely, as we remember, to a trend, the essential feature of which is polytonality. This, moreover, according to Palester, should be extended with an understanding in a strictly harmonic sense, even if only ‘colouristic,’ referring to the ‘spots’ of the sound of the entire orchestra. He also deemed Kondracki’s omission of Schönberg in the circle of modernists a mistake, though he had after all ‘drawn only the very last of the great consequences from the exceptional development of functional harmony, … he was the first to directly … begin looking for new means of expression, … the term atonality was applied for the first time to his music.’541 To sum up, regardless of the private evaluation of the work of the creator of the Viennese school, ‘the presentation of the state and achievements of German music [in Kondracki’s article] looked almost comical’ because of the omission of this name.542
Another subject taken up by Palester referred to making music reach those social classes which were consumed by ‘harmful and aimless work’ and could not afford ‘the luxury of aesthetic interests.’543 These reflections were not concerned solely with the aesthetics of music but also contributed to the slowly growing movement which advocated discussion on music sociology.
Another Polish pianist and composer, Czesław Józef Marek, who lived and worked in Switzerland from 1916, focused only on reflections on his own works.544 As he stated himself, part of his compositions grew ‘on Polish soil’ (in terms of rhythm and melody – for example, Suita [Suite] and Symfonia [Symphony]), but they do not contain any ‘presupposed ideology’545 apart from that. The composer admitted that questions about his output had always embarrassed him, but it did not stop him from summing up the previous years by saying that in the first half of the 1920s he had not yielded to the ideologies of that time, on the contrary, he had anticipated neoclassicism, a trend which became visible in European music only a few years later. Marek’s statement ←297 | 298→ended with ‘Postscriptum’ added by the editorial team, which profiled the musician and his achievements. His music was performed in Prague, Zürich, Frankfurt, Leipzig, Rome and Budapest, but apparently, he was not well-known in Poland, even though his compositions were sometimes played, for example, by orchestras directed by Grzegorz Fitelberg. This opinion may be somewhat surprising, as it constitutes a rarity on the pages of Kwartalnik. We remember questionnaires held among composers of various generations and nations that were printed on the pages of the Muzyka monthly (e.g., in the aforementioned special issue no. 7–9/1928 entitled Romantyzm w muzyce [Romanticism in music], where questions were asked about the interpretation of this concept by musicians and the presence of elements of the Romantic current in their works), but even there opinions were not so extensive and did not focus only on the respondent’s own work. The fact that the composer’s analysis of his own works is present in Kwartalnik in a form diverging from the convention of a scholarly periodical is explained by Chybiński’s already quoted words from his letter of 14 March 1931 (see above footnote 534).
Among the authors of the younger generation, in whom Chybiński saw scholarly potential and who had the makings of valuable colleagues, there was Julian Pulikowski, who joined the ‘second’ Kwartalnik in the final period. I have already written about the controversy he caused, especially in Warsaw. I think that as years went by, the professor had a chance to see for himself what a difficult and neurotic personality this educated and ambitious ‘immigrant’ had. He came from Vienna, where he had studied, and Hamburg, where he obtained his doctoral degree. He was introduced to the SMDM thanks to the backing of Stanisław Michalski. In the beginning, due to his matter-of-fact attitude, which gave away a certain ‘German drill’ that had shaped his personality, he won over the members of the editorial office in Warsaw.546 Similarly, Chybiński – who was delighted with Pulikowski’s achievements from the very beginning – wrote about the crowning of his education in Vienna as follows: ‘Pulikowski obtained his doctor’s degree in Vienna under Lach and Haas. Lach rated his work as “one of the best in the last few, and perhaps a few dozen, years.” I consider Pulikowski a great star in our future musicology.’547 Besides, Pulikowski had already made contact with Kwartalnik and its editor-in-chief outside Poland – he submitted his first review in 1929 (from Karl Nef’s publication Die neun Sinfonien Beethovens). ←298 | 299→He waited a few years to submit his own text – his monographic article on six Silesian songs from 1810 was published only in the last but one issue of the magazine (no. 17/18, 1933), although he made arrangements concerning the elaboration of the topic of ‘folk song and musicology’548 shortly after his first review.
Józef Koffler had every reason to join the group of regular contributing authors of Kwartalnik Muzyczny. Koffler was an experienced columnist, the author of numerous papers published in music periodicals which he run (he was the editor of Muzyk Wojskowy, Okriestra and a monthly entitled Echo), a composer and a theoretician, and on top of that, he came from Lviv and maintained professional contacts with the professor (as an editor and an activist of the local branch of TMW). Despite all that, Chybiński asked him to contribute a paper just once, when an issue devoted to pedagogy and psychology was being prepared. The main title of his article could suggest an academic or even school lecture on diatonic modulation, but what he actually did was present his own teaching method. He proposed to solve modulations using Riemann’s system, which was not commonly known at that time. In reality, his paper showed how to use this simplified method in practice.549
Similarly surprising can be the minor presence of Łucjan Kamieński – the head of Poznań musicology and Chybiński’s long-time friend and follower in environmental discussions and disputes – on the pages of Kwartalnik; and the research problem ultimately undertaken by him is slightly astonishing, too. What Kamieński – an avid ethnomusicologist and the creator of the first Polish phonographic collections – submitted for publication, was not the result of current works of his department, but a text that was categorised in the ‘pedagogy, musical reproduction’ section by Maria Kielanowska-Bronowicz in the bibliography of Kwartalnik being prepared by her, but its context would be more adequate to the borderland of musicology, medicine and psychophysiology.550 The author regarded the increase in the level of psychophysiological research ←299 | 300→on musical practice as one of the priority tasks that musicology should undertake in order to bring about the ‘scientific reinforcement of musical pedagogy.’551 In his view, if this were not the case, musicology would still mean very little in music practice, whereas musicological (historical) knowledge would be nothing more than an unnecessary episode for potential music students. He referred to researchers dealing with performance practice, most importantly Kurt Johnen (a historian who represented the school of Kretzschmar and Wolf and the Stumpf school of psychology, as well as a student of physiology and physics), who in his paper Neue Wege Zur Energetik Des Klavierspiels used his comprehensive education to present a new approach towards ‘energetic playing,’ which Kamieński regarded as exemplary. The Poznań musicologist’s text is actually a review of the above-mentioned paper by Johnen, yet the importance of problems which he took up and their critical presentation most probably induced the editorial team (just like in several other cases) to label it an article (even though they used Brevier type, typical for the section of materials and reports). In the next years, despite his earlier assurances that he had some texts ready, Kamieński failed as an author and did not publish in Kwartalnik.552
A separate group was formed by authors who collaborated with the magazine only sporadically, such as the singer and pedagogue Bronisław Romaniszyn – Adolf Chybiński’s long-time close friend and a distinguished activist of Tatra associations,553 the pianist and folklore researcher Helena Windakiewicz, Janusz Miketta (a ministerial clerk in the 1930s and Chybiński’s future dedicated and humble companion), the acoustician Gabriel Tołwiński, Father Władysław Skierkowski – an excellent researcher and promoter of Kurpie culture, or the musical publicist Karol Stromenger.
The latter’s article on Bach’s Brandenburg Concertos554 appeared on the pages of Kwartalnik at the explicit request of Tadeusz Ochlewski, although it immediately met with the professor’s critical evaluation, about which we can read in Teodor Zalewski’s memoirs: ‘When an article on Karol Stromenger was published in issue no. 5 due to pressure from Ochlewski … for a long time Chybiński could not get over the fact that he allowed publication of a “non-musicological” ←300 | 301→statement.’555 Ochlewski recognised his mistake soon as well, writing to Lviv on ‘the fact of disgracing myself with a dilettante article void of content on Mr Stromenger’s Brandenburg concertos by Bach.’556 Moreover, as we learn from the correspondence with Kazimierz Sikorski, Stromenger himself wanted to withdraw his text at the last moment, feeling that ‘the article is not suitable for the direction assumed by Kwartalnik Muzyczny.’557 In fact, although the reader could expect an analytical monograph of the title concerti grossi of the Leipzig cantor, from the columns of the academic musicological journal he receives only an assessment of the dedication accompanying the cycle, written ‘from the standpoint of the history of customs,’558 preceded by elements of a casual and vague description.
The above-mentioned acoustician invited to publish in Kwartalnik was Gabriel Tołwiński, who represented the Warsaw centre. He was a professor of music acoustics and worked at the conservatoire in Warsaw. In the future, in the middle of the 1930s, he would join the teaching staff of the fourth musicological department in Poland, which was being born at that time. Tołwiński was a physicist and an astronomer by education; he was also fascinated by the history of photography. According to information provided by Magdalena Dziadek, before 1906 he gave lectures at the Imperial University of Warsaw. When the astronomical observatory that he had run was closed, he began teaching physics and promoting the knowledge of exact sciences.559 His texts exploring the ins and outs of mathematics and physics were addressed both to a broad group of recipients and to narrow niche groups, such as readers of music magazines. In Mateusz Gliński’s Muzyka, he published an extensive article on variously interpreted relationships between mathematics and music,560 in which he also referred to the ‘theory of acousticity’ of theatrical and concert halls, stressing that the ‘main goal to be pursued in the construction of these halls is to ensure that sounds are heard well from every place.’561 It seems that this field of research, that is the acoustics of concert halls, was of particular interest to Tołwiński and the first out of two ←301 | 302→articles which he submitted to Kwartalnik was devoted to this subject as well.562 In the second one, entitled ‘O gamie idealnej’ [On the ideal scale],563 he laid out a scale with 53 notes and preceded his argument with a historical overview of the development of musical scales. He started from the simplest ones, made up of two or three sounds and characteristic of songs composed by primitive peoples, then moved on to the Old Greek system, five-note scales, the Pythagorean seven note-scale, the phenomenon of musical temperament, the twelve-note scale, and ended with detailed mathematical calculations describing ‘the ideal scale,’ which was interesting from a theoretical point of view but had no practical applications. Articles written by Tołwiński were the only examples of reflections which bordered on exact sciences that came out in Kwartalnik Muzyczny. They were aimed at a very small group of readers, ready to get through mathematical formulas and calculations which appeared in the text. For the editorial team, accepting articles of this kind could represent an additional risk of being criticised for limiting the ‘target group’ of readers, which was quite small anyway. However, articles signed by an experienced physicist and a long-term university lecturer doubtlessly increased the scientific value of the journal.
Bronisław Romaniszyn was first and foremost a singer and pedagogue; he studied music in Vienna and Paris and law and philosophy at the Jagiellonian University in Cracow. He finished his solo career in the middle of the 1910s; over the years following World War I, he fulfilled various political and social missions and subsequently returned to singing already as a pedagogue. As Anna Woźniakowska writes, ‘Romaniszyn is a pioneer of the theory of vocal studies in Poland and the author of many works in this field.’564 Adolf Chybiński commissioned two of these works for Kwartalnik Muzyczny. The starting point for the first publication – an extensive study ‘Światła i cienie we współczesnej sztuce i pedagogice wokalnej’ [Lights and shadows in contemporary vocal art and pedagogy]565 – was the opinion expressed by Janusz Miketta a few years earlier that ‘there is probably none of the so-called vocational education departments that would suffer from such an abundance of various misunderstandings, as the ←302 | 303→music educational system.’566 Romaniszyn narrowed this theory to the education of singers, and he pursued his discourse, bringing up several topics, in order to confirm the opinion ‘about the difficulty of the profession of a singing teacher.’567 On the one hand, he referred to the specific character of this profession as compared to other music specialisations. It required singers to be sensitive not only to sounds but also to words. Despite the fact that he was accused of keeping away from the history of singing, he did take up a few ‘historical’ themes (bel canto and Mozart’s operas), showing them as the foundation of the educational process. He supported all his theses with the most important ‘classic’ source literature on this topic: papers by Franziska Martienssen, an outstanding pedagogue, Hermann Killer, an expert on the performance of Mozart’s operas, and Przemysław Odrowąż-Pieniążek, the first Polish laryngologist. Romaniszyn concluded his reflections with remarks on the organisation of singing lessons and the help provided by ‘government representatives.’
In the second text, which was in fact a transcript of the speech which Romaniszyn had given at the Convention of Music and Singing Teachers of the Silesia Province in Katowice in 1933 (at that time, he had been a lecturer in the conservatoire in Katowice),568 the author focused entirely on strictly pedagogical issues and teaching methods. He wanted to show a conscious, correct and methodical way of teaching the youngest generation, in order to ensure that its representatives become conscious music performers and connoisseurs. Romaniszyn posed a few questions which could have started a discussion among music teachers, yet it did not happen in Kwartalnik, which was not a journal devoted to education. It most probably contributed to the fact that it was not popular in the singing community (let us recall that singing associations, both nationwide and local, had their own magazines, which satisfied the need for professional literature).
Helena Windakiewicz had no formal musicological education, yet she replaced it with thorough studies on music (in Lviv, Cracow and Paris), and linguistic and literary studies at the Jagiellonian University. Such preparation allowed her to take care of the issues of rhythmics, versification, and tonality of Polish folk songs, among others. She started publishing works in this area even before 1900. ←303 | 304→Furthermore, Piotr Dahlig recalls that ‘she was the first musicologist to tackle the problem of the relationship between music folklore and compositional works of I.J. Paderewski and F. Chopin.’569 She was one of only ten authors who created the first anniversary book for Adolf Chybiński. She submitted an article entitled ‘Ze studiów nad formą muzyczną pieśni ludowych. Okres kolisty’ [From studies on the musical form of folk songs. The circular period].570 Windakiewicz was not often featured on the lists of authors whose texts came out in music magazines popular in the interwar period, such as Przegląd Muzyczny, Muzyka or Muzyka Polska. She worked in Cracow, so she preferred to publish the results of her research in Rozprawy Akademii Umiejętności or ethnographic magazines and series published in that city. We can guess that her papers came out in Chybiński’s journal thanks to the initiative of his friends and pupils who wanted to honour the professor. This opened up the path for her to publish in journals which he ran: the penultimate issue of Kwartalnik included her theoretical reflections on the pentatonic scale,571 whereas her historical essay on three satirical songs from sixteenth-century sources (the tablature from the City Library of Gdańsk and the tablature of Joannis de Lublin) came out in PRM.572
Father Władysław Skierkowski was another person who dealt with music folklore, in the same form that had been taken up a few decades earlier and then followed for years by Oskar Kolberg, the father of Polish ethnographic research. Skierkowski’s magnum opus was the collection of songs from the Kurpie region of Puszcza Zielona, where he worked as a priest. He had been writing down and gathering the songs for twenty-six years. Selected songs from his collection inspired derivative works by Karol Szymanowski, Michał Kondracki and other composers. He also gained the recognition of musicologists interested in folklore. This was evidenced, for example, by the fact that Adolf Chybiński invited him to contribute to Kwartalnik. Skierkowski prepared a short yet exhaustive essay on the music of the Kurpie region,573 which made readers familiar with the culture of the peoples who lived in that area, their typical instruments, dances and performing practice. This highly personal text confirms the passion with ←304 | 305→which Father Skierkowski had been penetrating the land of Łomża for over twenty years, and, on the other hand, it gives an image of the researcher as a man aware of everyday life, conscious of the risks brought to people by ‘bostons, shimmy and various foxtrots performed in a way that a person with a refined taste cannot look at these kinds of “stunts”‘.574
Janusz Miketta, later dedicated to Chopin, performed clerical functions at the turn of the 1930s. Before that, he gained teaching experience in the music education system (he was the headmaster of music schools in Lublin and Warsaw, and in 1924 he became a professor at F. Chopin University of Music in Warsaw). He also published papers in the music press (e.g. in Muzyka). His texts were devoted to pedagogy and education. It was similar in the case of his cooperation with Kwartalnik Muzyczny. He prepared statistical reports with data related to all music schools which operated in Poland at that time (as well as music programmes in other artistic schools, e.g. film or drama schools). These reports included information such as the year of establishment of a given school, the number of teachers, the number of male and female students, their religious denomination, and further issues.575 It should be highlighted that this report had no scientific value, though it was an interesting pendant for other materials in a thematic volume on ‘pedagogy’ in its various aspects (and that was what the 10/11 issue of the Kwartalnik was).
Complementing the information on the names found in the pages of Kwartalnik Muzyczny also requires writing about authors from outside the strictly musicological community. Such people include Stanisław Małachowski-Łempicki, a graduate of the Law School in St. Petersburg, judge of the District Court in Warsaw during the interwar period, who worked as a lawyer later in his life.576 He was a prominent researcher in the history of Polish Freemasonry and began his writing accomplishments on this subject with publications about both the presence of this movement in the musical community and music’s role in the Masonic ritual.577 Chybiński probably knew Małachowski-Łempicki, or at least had heard about him. One should note that the author’s debutant text ←305 | 306→in the pages of Wiadomości Muzyczne (the already mentioned materials on Freemasonry from 1925) was adjacent to the papers by the professor himself578 and by Feliks Starczewski.579
Małachowski prepared two texts for the Kwartalnik: ‘a handful of unknown details’ regarding Henryk Macrott’s reports on musicians active in Warsaw in the first decades of the nineteenth century580 (Maria Szymanowska, Stanisław Serwaczyński, Józef Bielawski) and – earlier – a substantial contribution to the subject of the Freemasonry episode in the life of Józef Elsner581 which briefly presented Elsner’s quick path to promotion in Masonic structures in the Warsaw-based period of his life. Along with the publications from Wiadomości Muzyczne, the texts in the Kwartalnik based on the Masonic archives infiltrated by Małachowski (and hard to reach for others) are still one of the few sources of knowledge about this movement in Poland’s musical community.
In a sense, Małachowski-Łempicki’s text was also connected to the material published in the same volume of the Kwartalnik by the theatre historian and theatre critic Wiktor Brumer: ‘Pierwsze przedstawienie Niemej z Portici Aubera w Warszawie’ [The first performance of The mute girl of Portici by Auber in Warsaw]582 on the difficult preparations for the premiere of this revolutionary opera in the period preceding the outbreak of the November Uprising and its triumphant shows during the months of insurgent successes – both authors were showcasing little-known facts from the life of the musical community in the Congress Warsaw.
Stanisław Furmanik, a literature theoretician and a literary critic from Warsaw, a Russian literature translator and the author of introductions to editions of Polish poetry also came from outside the music circle. As a linguist, he dealt ←306 | 307→with metre and versification.583 His papers came out in pre-war music press only a few times. He published, for example, in Muzyka Polska;584 he wrote two times for Kwartalnik, including his presence in the group of several authors of the first issue. His article ‘O kulturę muzyczną w Polsce’ [On music culture in Poland]585 was a polemic evaluated as ‘excellent’ in Warsaw.586 The author posed the question of why the level of musicality in the nation was so low and made an attempt to find the reasons behind this situation (did it lie in only occasional flashes of genius, manifested by the legacy of Chopin, Moniuszko and Karłowicz? In ‘the horrifying nudity’ of Polish ‘theoretical production,’ that is textbooks written by local authors? In the fact that the society did not develop a need to participate in concert life? Or maybe in the lack of a music ‘industry,’ which he understood as a small number of orchestras which were active in the previous decades?). Furmanik did not blame artists for this situation; he only said that ‘l’art… c’est l’art – et puis… voilà tout.’ He claimed that the audience mainly influences the level of culture (including musical), and the ‘lack of a cultural listener is the key reason for the low level of musical culture in Poland, … acquisition of such a [cultural] listener and his subsequent multiplication becomes the chief task of actions in this regard,’ and the fruits of these activities can bring only ‘an intensification of a fair and creative aesthetic thought.’587
The second text written by Furmanik was leaning towards aesthetics. This time, he was looking for an answer to the fundamental question of what music is and what its subject is.588 The author based his extensive reflections on theses taken from the works of Aleksei Losev, a Russian philosopher and musicologist (Music as a Subject of Logic, Moscow 1927) and Bogdan Suchodolski, a philosopher and a historian of culture (Przebudowa podstaw nauk humanistycznych [The remodelling of the foundations of humanities], Warsaw 1928). The author asks, for example, why music, which ‘has no specified qualities,’ still ‘brings tears ←307 | 308→to our eyes without any apparent reason, triggers courage and valour, awakens longing and love’?589 What might be the answer to the question is élan vital – the creative force that helps ‘substantiate a formless object of a given piece of music … into a subjective complex of psychophysical qualities, if we want it to exist for us as something complete and “understandable,” instead of a loose collection of aural sensations.’590 Furmanik’s dissertation, of course, did not provide comprehensive answers to the questions posed, but at the time it was one of the few attempts to delve into a discussion in the field of musical aesthetics.
The author who clearly dominated Kwartalnik, both when it comes to the number of publications and their scientific level, was Ludwik Bronarski. He was one of those people who inaugurated the interwar history of the journal. Bronarski, who was ten years younger than Adolf Chybiński, started musicological studies and comprehensive music studies in Vienna (one of his teachers was Guido Adler). He then moved to Fribourg to take lessons from Peter Wagner. He was granted a doctoral degree for his dissertation on the song of St. Hildegard of Bingen. Afterwards, he rarely went back to medieval music and completely focused his research work on issues related to Chopin. It is difficult to know how the professor got to know about the young musicologist’s activities and achievements. Chybiński’s memoirs break off during the first years of his stay in Lviv, whereas the first letters they exchanged come from the second half of the 1920s. Nevertheless, even as early as that, Chybiński, and all the more Bronarski treated each other with great esteem and respect, which had its roots in the fact they shared the same intellectual plane.
It was not immediately certain that the cooperation would end up fruitful. Unfortunately, the requests to provide the editorial team, submitted during preliminary editorial works and repeated on several occasions, on behalf of Kwartalnik with either a chapter or paragraph of the forthcoming Chopin monograph (‘Or maybe a special article in the field of harmonic problems in the works of Chopin?’),591 were turned down by the musicologist from Fribourg.592 Pressurised by further invitations, he submitted a text to the first volume. It talked about publishing posthumous works, using the example of Chopin’s Waltz in A-flat major,593 which had been composed in the 1830s but was not published by ←308 | 309→Fontana until a few years after Chopin’s death. From this moment on, his studies and reports were present in almost all pre-war volumes of Kwartalnik. However, his name did not appear in volume 14/15 and 17/18, but in volume 12/13, half of which was devoted to Chopin, he published four texts: ‘Korespondencja w sprawie pośmiertnego wydania pieśni Chopina’ [Correspondence on posthumous publication of Chopin’s songs], ‘Akord “chopinowski”‘ [‘The Chopin’ chord], ‘ “Anonimowe ronda” Chopina’ [Chopin’s ‘Anonymous Rondos’ ”], and a report entitled ‘Nowe Chopiniana’ [New works on Chopin].594 In total, he submitted eleven articles and an abundance of reviews to the pre-war Kwartalnik (in addition to the four dissertations in the post-war editions). Being aware of the high level of Bronarski’s research, the editor-in-chief did not put any barriers or limitations as to the content and form of the expected texts: ‘I cordially ask for your work on Schumann’s evaluations of Chopin, and at the same time let me assure you that the size of your work cannot, and will not, be hampered in any way…. I am of the opinion that all Chopin works, provided that they bring positive results and contribute to the expansion of Chopinology, should be favoured with special respect.’595
The cooperation between Bronarski, Chybiński and the editorial team of Kwartalnik is one of the professor’s best-documented relationships because letters from and to Bronarski was preserved in Chybiński’s archive. As already mentioned, when organisational work on the new project started, Chybiński had already been in touch with Bronarski. Even though they had contact only through letters, they exchanged them regularly, and their relationship was very warm and full of respect. As far as is known, even though the author of Harmonika Chopina [Chopin’s harmonic] occasionally visited Poland, he never met the professor. ←309 | 310→Nevertheless, his personality, revealed in the very first sentences of his letters, had charmed the professor for many years to come. It was Bronarski who became one of the professor’s confidants. Sometimes, Chybiński simply ‘reported’ to him all events related to his university, scientific, musicological, editorial and private life. Bronarski, who was extremely discreet and more reserved when it came to expressing his emotions and views, esteemed the professor and showed recognition for his activities, so he kept the correspondence going. Years later, their letters make it possible to correct certain known facts and reconstruct many unknown ones, as well as private reflections of the father of Lviv musicology.
Bronarski presented as an author at the highest European level, and his works (articles and book) aroused appreciation of the music and musicological milieu in the country. Zofia Chechlińska also notes that ‘Bronarski represented a type of musicologist which is rather rare nowadays, as he combined in-depth theoretical knowledge with music practice.’596 The recognition of this versatility was expressed in inviting him, alongside Paderewski and Turczyński, to join the select group of authors who were working on an edition of Chopin’s works. Chopin’s Harmonic, which was published in 1935, received very favourable reviews, including the one written by Józef Chomiński for the second volume of PRM, which stood out from others due to its professionalism. Chybiński also wrote about Szymanowski’s reaction to his other publications devoted to Chopin: ‘He mentioned the papers [by Bronarski] with real pleasure. Actually, I was surprised that musicology could be so interesting to a musician. He went into raptures over the Chopin-Rossini problem, even though you’d rather expect something else from him.’597
Bronarski submitted diverse papers to Kwartalnik Muzyczny. Some of them were monographs, such as a long paper on the evolution of Robert Schumann’s attitude towards the output of Frederic Chopin, based on critical reviews which the German composer and publicist had published in Allgemeine Musikalische Zeitung, Viennese Musikalische Anzeiger and most importantly Neue Zeitschrift für Musik.598 Schumann’s reviews were widely known, but in the past they had never been the subject of musicological research. Bronarski also submitted an analytical article devoted solely to the melodic phrase which was one of the most characteristic features of Chopin’s music. Bronarski wrote that in this melodic ←310 | 311→phase, ‘the fifth jump of the dominant seventh chord still touches the nearest upper tone before it moves on the octave of the tonic chord.’599 He also submitted his reflections on two ‘lapidary and symbolic’ chords opening the finale of Sonata in B-flat minor.600 These well-thought-out and extensive papers were supplemented with introductory articles, inspired by collections which the musicologist gradually discovered (as was in the case of the antiquarian collection of the Fatio family from Geneva) or by historical lexicons which he read, in this case, Musikalisches Conversations-Lexicon… from 1835, edited by August Gathy. Chopin’s biographical entry in this book was much longer than the entries devoted to his contemporaries (such as Schumann or Liszt). On top of that, there were cross-references to Chopin in the entries on mazurkas and piano études. Bronarski was also a regular Chopin reviewer, and Chybiński assigned one of his ‘reports’ a place among articles. This text referred to two publications which at that time were keenly commented on by representatives of the musicological community. One was an edition of the newly discovered Mazurka in A-flat major (from the collection of Adam Mickiewicz Museum in Paris). It was prepared to be published by pianist Maria Mirska. The second publication was a book by Leopold Binental which commemorated the 120th anniversary of the composer’s birth.601
Monographs and articles written by Bronarski were proof of the highest level of scientific expertise and the great erudition of which this researcher could boast. The editor-in-chief emphasised this fact multiple times. He not only treated Bronarski as a ‘regular contributor,’ but was also ready to trust the renowned author completely in all matters related to Chopin or even give Bronarski a ‘monopoly’ on Chopin in Kwartalnik.602 As he put it himself, he often treated him as ‘Retter in der Not,’ who would undoubtedly support the editorial team, also by fulfilling ‘orders’ when there were no texts to be published.
Apart from Bronarski the ‘Helvetus,’ materials for the second edition of Kwartalnik were sent from abroad by a few other authors. I have already ←311 | 312→mentioned Paul Brunold, who was one of them. Chybiński asked the editorial team from Warsaw for an opinion on cooperating with European musicologists. Bronisław Rutkowski answered: ‘Some time ago you asked whether it was possible to make foreign scientific forces cooperate with Kwartalnik. In our view, it is possible, but not in the historical section, which is exemplarily represented by Polish forces.’603 Perhaps this question was related to the issue planned due to the Pan-Slavic Singing Congress which took place in Poznań in May 1929. It was then that Chybiński was planning to initiate cooperation with Josef Hutter, a Czech publicist and musicologist (who would write about ‘Czech musicology and the worship of early music in Czechoslovakia’), Dragan Plamenac, a Croatian musicologist and composer, and Kosta P. Manojlović, a Serbian composer and ethnomusicologist (who would write about ‘musicology and the worship of early music in Croatia and Serbia’).604 However, this plan did not come to fruition. The only author who responded to the invitation to publish a paper in Kwartalnik was Benedict Szabolsci, a Hungarian ethnomusicologist, who made the Polish music community familiar with over a hundred years of musicological (or rather musicographic) research in Hungary.605 A few years later, Joseph Wihtol from Latvia, the director of the Riga Conservatoire,606 prepared a paper on Latvian folk songs.607
The first issues of Kwartalnik Muzyczny were dominated by historical subjects, such as Old Polish music, sometimes supplemented by materials on Chopin and occasionally by articles on systematic musicology. Close cooperation with Ludwik Bronarski and using his achievements in research on the life and, most importantly, the art of Frederic Chopin allowed Chybiński to develop his idée fixe related to the constant presence of Chopin in his journal. He was not trying to hide this fact since, for example, he wrote: ‘Kwartalnik will be constantly concerned with the output of Chopin so as to give an impetus for the development of our Chopinology.’608 At the same time, he counted on Bronisława ←312 | 313→Wójcik-Keuprulian, whom he had himself promoted much earlier and who had already had experience in studying Chopin, and on Ludwik Bronarski, who at that time was given carte blanche as to the contents and form of his texts.
This desire manifested by Chybiński was a continuation of the tradition of Chopin worship which was present in Polish culture. Throughout decades, reverence and adoration for the composer were expressed in numerous nineteenth-century magazines, as well as in critical and journalistic works published by the leading figures of Polish music literature. This situation continued until Chopin’s death in 1849. This date coincided with the flowering of the literary career of a group of Warsaw publicists, who later became involved in Ruch Muzyczny. First in Biblioteka Warszawska and a year later as a brochure, Józef Sikorski published a text entitled Wspomnienie Szopena [A remembrance of Chopin], whose style was rather exalted but appropriate at that time, shortly after the composer’s death. Despite its ‘Romantic rhetoric’609 – the term coined by Elżbieta Szczepańska-Lange – Sikorski’s text in its analytical part is a worthy predecessor of Karasowski’s and Hoesick’s works. Only a few years later Gazeta Warszawska published a Chopinological essay by Józef Kenig, who remarked that too little time had passed since the composer’s death ‘to show us his importance in general art’;610 in the early 1960s, Biblioteka Warszawska published a sketch ‘Młodość Chopina’ [Chopin’s youth] by Maurycy Karasowski.611
Chybiński, who devoted only short introductory articles to Chopin and his art, believed that it was his duty to maintain this tradition in the journal which he ran. However, his efforts from the interwar period resulted in filling just a part of one of the issues. Both the readers and the editor-in-chief of Kwartalnik had to wait until 1949 for the fulfilment of Chybiński’s plans. It was the anniversary of the composer’s death and the musicological community, which was still recovering from the war, supported by some authors from abroad (such as the unfailing Ludwik Bronarski), prepared a commemorative volume devoted to Chopin (in fact, two special issues were published on this occasion and entitled Z życia i twórczości Fryderyka Chopina [On the life and art of Frederic Chopin] – the double issue 26/27 and issue 28). Nevertheless, he only managed to persuade two authors to cooperate on this topic. These were Bronarski (whose ←313 | 314→writings about Chopin I have already presented) and Feliks Starczewski, who (as always) could only submit short introductory articles based on excerpts from the nineteenth-century press, this time reviews of Chopin’s works from Paris newspapers (see above). The editorial team did not even manage to fill the report section with thematic reviews (even though there were almost thirty papers in this section). The paper on ‘new publications devoted to Chopin,’ which was submitted by Bronarski, was also qualified as an article by the editorial team, due to the scientific discussion started by the author.
The first ideas as to specific topics had already emerged earlier. From numerous private opinions expressed by Chybiński in his letters, we can infer that a large part of the editorial plans referred to monographic projects. Even in the editorial from the inaugural issue, we can read that despite the fact that ‘we are enthusiasts of early music, we do not detach it from the present, we do not contrast it with foreign art,’612 but already two years later, summarising their achievements and presenting plans for the next year, the editorial team wrote: ‘in volume II of the annual, just like in volume III, we are going to expand the sections which so far couldn’t be properly developed in Kwartalnik Muzyczny: … theoretical …, ethnographic … and pedagogical sections [, whereas] the number of contributing authors will rise significantly and will exceed forty names.’ This fragment was followed by the names of authors from all Polish musicological centres and many cities in other countries.613 Privately, Chybiński admitted: ‘I would like to “modernise” the second yearly a little bit, that is direct it mostly towards more recent music, thereby putting earlier music in the second place. This does not mean that it will be “neglected,” which would be unthinkable when I am a co-editor. Unfortunately, my past experience tells me that it will come with some difficulties. I received a few papers on “more recent” music. Apart from our Chopinologists, nobody else deserved to be taken into account.’614 He was aware of the fact that he could not (or rather should not) limit himself: first of all, to the themes which fell within his own research interests (that is early music, Chopin and folklore) and secondly, to the group of authors made up of his pupils:
I’m putting in every effort for the level to be even higher so that we can at least get closer to the maximum height that we can talk about in these conditions, which are still pitiful. … Difficulties consist mainly in the fact that ‘Lviv’ simply has to deliver most papers, ←314 | 315→whereas I would like to see the whole of Poland represented in Kwartalnik. … I would like to modernise Kwartalnik with regard to themes, which I will surely carry out this year, once again thanks to doctoral dissertations written by Lvivians (Miss Łobaczewska’s work on Debussy’s harmony before Pelléas and Dr Lissa’s work on Scriabin’s harmony, then Miss Łobaczewska’s one about Szymanowski’s piano compositions and Miss Lissa’s work on the polytonality and atonality in light of the latest research)…. It’s not possible for Lvivians to jostle even more in ‘their’ Kwartalnik.615
Over time, plans became more specific: ‘Most probably, volume IX will be solely about folklore. Volume X or XI, or the double volume X/XI, will be devoted exclusively to the output of K. Szymanowski; it is already almost entirely organised. It will be a manifestation on behalf of an artist who has suffered more “in the country” than we could assume… I want to devote one issue entirely to younger composers, whereas still another one will be devoted to music culture in Poland, etc.’616 A month and a half later, the professor wrote more specifically: ‘I want to come forward with an “impressive” issue and I am designing a special issue devoted to the output of Karol Szymanowski, which will be created by x Polish forces, possibly coming solely from Lviv, just to spite Warsaw … . It will be a double issue, and it will not come out soon, maybe in 1932.’617 In November of that year, he also thought about an edition which he ‘wanted to fill with works referring exclusively to Chopin’s work.’618
Despite numerous ideas for thematic issues, Chybiński managed to finish only two of them, or rather two and a half: 10/11, which was referred to as pedagogical and 17/18, which was referred to as ethnographic, as well as the above-mentioned issue 12/13, half of which was devoted to Chopin.
The issue which was planned the most uniformly and whose execution was the most consistent was the one devoted to teaching, music pedagogy and psychology. It turned out that among musicologists and musicians, there was a group of authors who actively worked towards the development of teaching methodology, which included both practice and theory of music education, as well as the methodology of research on the problems of educating society, ←315 | 316→starting from common schools and ending with specialist music studies. Luckily for readers, at that time (around 1930), Karol Szymanowski became the rector of the Warsaw Conservatoire. His speech at the inauguration of the academic year was used by several editorial teams, including Kwartalnik Muzyczny. The erudite speech given by Szymanowski, supplemented with statistics on the music education system prepared by Janusz Miketta, served as an introduction to papers devoted to current problems in music education. Henryk Opieński expressed his opinion on the need for changes in the teaching of music theory in light of newly emerging trends in music. Seweryn Barbag referred to a similar problem, but he focused on the teaching of music theory. Zofia Lissa wrote about the necessity of developing research on child psychology which would make it possible to direct human education from an early age in order to reach a high level of aesthetic life (she postulated to gradually limit elements of play, which need to be used at the beginning of the educational process to enable the development of the child). Seweryn Barbag authored another text which appeared in the issue and presented a new project of organising higher music education system, emphasising that it was necessary to treat each student individually in order to discover and fully use his or her talents, regardless of the specialisation which he or she chose. Bronisław Romaniszyn had similar reflections, which he applied to his primary field, which was singing.
Two texts were slightly different from the rest of this issue. One of them had a strictly practical value (Józef Koffler, using his own teaching experiences, proposed a specific method of teaching diatonic modulations), whereas the second one was written by Feliks Starczewski, who introduced the topic of German music schooling at the beginning of the nineteenth century, and was the only strictly historical paper in this issue. This rich project involved many papers and was supplemented by the report section, which spanned over fifty pages. This informed readers about over three hundred publications, which had various ties to the topics taken up in the volume. It needs to be emphasised that the authors of the reports were solely Lvivians and ‘Chybiński’s people,’ most importantly Zofia Lissa and Seweryn Barbag, but also Julian Pulikowski and Jerzy Freiheiter, as well as the authors of single reviews, that is Ludwik Bronarski, Bronisława Wójcik-Keuprulian and Maria Szczepańska. There were also two reports written by Chybiński. The only ‘outsider’ was Father Henryk Nowacki, a proponent of the revival of Gregorian chant, an editor of magazines devoted to church music, the director of the Warsaw Archcathedral choir and an author of religious compositions. After the Second World War, he founded the Church Music School in Niegów in Mazovia. For Kwartalnik, he prepared a review of a book devoted to church singing.←316 | 317→
Not everyone had a high opinion of materials which focused on the new currents in musicological research. Opieński, as a representative of classicallyoriented methodology, wrote:
For a few weeks, I’ve been studying the “psychological” issue of Kwartalnik, but I must admit that I can only swallow such things in very small doses. Besides, regardless of all the arguments of the Schönberg school, I believe that using the adjective atonal in music is devoid of any sense, for composition X may be neither major nor minor, yet it must be tonal, just like butter can’t be abuttery or glassy, it can only be buttery; hypertrophy in the differentiation of functions has reached the stratosphere, in which the natural sense of tonality was lost, and yet everything that makes a sound has its origin in some tonic key and belongs to some tonic key.619
It is hard to say whether others shared this opinion. From today’s perspective, the project itself should be seen as quite cohesive and its implementation as a fair presentation of the then-current problems which were vital for the whole music community.
The realisation of the idea behind the second thematic volume, the ethnographic one, differed from Chybiński’s plans. Today, we can see that as always, this volume was also filled with papers written by trusted contributing authors of Kwartalnik (Szczepańska, Opieński, Chybiński, Wójcik-Keuprulian, and also Helena Windakiewicz, Pulikowski, Skierkowski). Nevertheless, in the beginning, contributions were supposed to be international: ‘Finns and Swedes are going to write about a dance called “polská” and the Romanians about the dances of Romanian highlanders, which are so similar to our highlanders’ dances. I would really like to have something “Lithuanian,” but boćwinki620 are a hard nut to crack. Even the Latvian promised to submit an article (Wichtols, the director of the Riga Conservatoire). In the reports, there will even be something about Estonian runic melodies. There will also be reports on publications issued in Tokyo, etc., etc.’621 However, attempts to create a homogenous volume failed. Since most of the expected materials which were supposed to bring up strictly ethnomusicological themes were lacking, the professor decided to use some historical and theoretical texts. And so before Helena Windakiewicz went on to present her extensive reflections on the pentatonic scale in Polish folk music, she provided a theoretical introduction which concerned the presence of the diatonic ←317 | 318→scale and the anhemitonic pentatonic scale in the music of different cultures (from the historical point of view), at the same time referring to essays written by European theoreticians and historians (Hugo Riemann, August Wilhelm Ambros, François-Auguste Gevaert, Théodore Reinach, Hugo Leichtentritt). The aim of the theoretical background was to prepare readers for the next part of the article, in which, using examples from the collections of Father Skierkowski and Kolberg, the author shortly analysed to what extent and in what way the pentatonic scale survived in Polish folk music.
Following the article by Windakiewicz, three contributions to seventeenth-, eighteenth- and nineteenth-century sources indicating traces of folk art should rather more be considered as belonging to publications presenting ‘old-Polish’ music than musical folklore. In her paper entitled ‘Z folkloru muzycznego w XVII wieku’ [From the music folklore in the seventeenth century],622 Maria Szczepańska brought forward two lute tablatures which were not well known at that time. One tablature was written by Dusiacki (and described a few years earlier by Helmuth Osthoff), whereas the second one was the so-called Gdańsk tablature, which Szczepańska was dealing with herself (she was, for example, preparing transcriptions of compositions included in it), stopping by those compositions whose titles suggested that they could have originated from folk music. Julian Pulikowski prepared a short historical announcement623 about a collection entitled Schlesische Lieder which dated back to 1810 and included a few Polish songs. He had found it in the archive of Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde in Vienna. He also provided incipits of these songs, and as a commentary, he quoted the words of Christian Friedrich Daniel Schubart, who remarked on the majestic and graceful songs of the Polish nation which were imitated by the whole Europe. This ‘historical’ part ended with the above-mentioned ‘Przyczynek do dziejów poloneza w XVIII wieku’ [Contribution to the history of the polonaise in the eighteenth century] by Henryk Opieński.
The second part of the ethnographic volume was made up of publications which referred strictly to folklore research conducted by their authors. These publications included an article written by Chybiński himself. He addressed the issue of indigenousness and originality of the music played by highlanders from Podhale, as well as the borderland nature of Podhale and its cultural and ethnic consequences for the whole region.624 Initial theoretical considerations served as ←318 | 319→an introduction to the second part, in which the author, who mentioned ten-odd popular highlanders’ songs, debunked the myth that they were of local and native origin and made a reference to the musical tradition of Slovaks, Lemkos, Vlachs, Hutsuls and Hungarians. As he argued in the summary of his article, he wanted to ‘show the far reach of melodies from Podhale, which spread to ethnically diverse regions,’ such as Romania and Yugoslavia. At the same time, he admitted that his aim was not to ‘demonstrate some kind of musical unproductivity of Skalne Podhale … and yet it was necessary … to show that just like all other melodies from ethnic borderlands, melodies from Skalne Podhale also bear the characteristics of an exchange of assets of spiritual culture between a few nations which are direct or indirect neighbours.’625
The remaining articles written by Father Skierkowski, Joseph Wihtol and Bronisława Wójcik-Keuprulian (about Turkish music626), which have been mentioned previously, were supplemented with reports on the most recent publications: an edition of folk melodies from Podhale (by Stanisław Mierczyński), Masuria (by Hedwig Borowski), Lemkivshchyna (by Filaret Kołessa), Romanian carols (by Sabin Vasile Drăgoi), as well as the editions of “folk” songs composed at that time by Szymanowski and Maklakiewicz.
Neither Chybiński’s strong interest in ethnographic research nor the subtitle of Kwartalnik, which emphasised that it was a journal devoted to ‘the theory, history and ethnography of music,’ made this research field grow on authors who cooperated with the journal. The monographic issue contained eight out of ten papers devoted to music folklore, which had been published under the pre-war edition of the journal (the remaining two papers were publications written by Michał Kondracki).
The theme of at least two monographic issues dominated the contents of other issues as well. When it comes to materials related to pedagogical matters and performance practice, along with texts on aesthetics, philosophy, sociology and psychology of music, twenty-five such papers were sent, which is quite surprising as compared to nineteen papers on ‘Old Polish’ topics, ten on more contemporary Polish music and twenty devoted to Chopin (supported mainly by the significant contribution made by Bronarski). Given the editor-in-chief’s undisguised aversion towards research on foreign music (he was a fan of Grieg, and yet he believed that young musicologists should direct all their scientific impetus towards reflections on domestic creative output), texts devoted to general music ←319 | 320→could rarely be found in Kwartalnik (in total, there was a little over ten articles and contributions). Systematic musicology was represented by just a few titles. In fact, theoretical reflections were taken up solely by Zofia Lissa and Stefania Łobaczewska. The main acoustician at that time was Gabriel Tołwiński, who a few years later (in PRM) was joined by Marek Kwiek, a young graduate of the Department of Musicology in Poznań. Therefore, it is clear that the polarisation of interests manifested by musicologists who published in Kwartalnik contributed to the emergence of a group of authors who represented social sciences (within the framework of music research) and methodologies which ten-odd years later dominated research on the history of music. Another group involved with Kwartalnik were historians, both Chopinologists and those who studied Early Music.
As already mentioned, the column with reports and reviews related to current music and musicological literature was surprisingly full. Reviewed titles were obtained in a variety of ways. It is known that Chybiński himself obtained many of the most important and the latest publications (he bought, exchanged and collected free copies, also from abroad). Musicologists who cooperated with Kwartalnik and were staying abroad (mainly in Switzerland and France) were also asked to submit their reviews. In the beginning, ‘due to the squeeze which began to make itself felt,’ the editorial team planned to publish only short, one-page reports. The column was expanded over time, whereas the professor’s appetite for reporting the latest musicological publications was constantly growing. He tried to follow the rule of supplementing monographic issues with reviews referring to the same topics: ‘Romanticism! … If you happened to have some new publications concerning this epoch and Romantic or Neoromantic composers, please do not hesitate and do what you will. … You could, for example, review Bory’s book about Liszt and his “scandalous” escape to Switzerland, etc..’627
He did not write much himself, mostly papers on German and French publications, but also English and Italian ones. He was ready to learn Spanish and Scandinavian languages628 ‘for the cause.’ He also kept motivating his pupils and associates to work on their papers. At one point, he was thinking about expanding the report section, and on that account wanted to formalise ←320 | 321→his cooperation with Ludwik Bronarski. He offered Bronarski to ‘write regular papers on Polish piano music, that is new Polish piano compositions … regular papers on the history of piano music … regular papers on works related to the history of piano music … papers on works concerning the Romantic Period.’ Furthermore, the list of publications which he was ready to send to Switzerland straight away was quite impressive.629 Apart from Bronarski, the journal had a few other ‘reviewers on duty,’ that is Stefania Łobaczewska, Zofia Lissa, Jerzy Freiheiter and other Lvivians. The number of announced books and editions of sheet music was impressive, especially when we realise that obtaining these items must have been much more difficult than it is now, not only due to the fact that today’s communication has been greatly facilitated, but mostly because the financial situation of musicology departments, which are niche scholastic centres (as compared to the faculties of law or medicine, which have traditionally been the most popular ones), were pitiful at that time. Therefore, we should appreciate the efforts of the editorial team of Kwartalnik and its editor-in-chief all the more. Thanks to them, each issue provided information about ten-odd new titles (and sometimes even more than that).
Distinct and clear statistics related to the ‘second’ Kwartalnik are included in a short summary, which can be found in the introduction to the bibliography of the periodical written by Maria Kielanowska-Bronowicz: ‘In total, there were published … 14 volumes, including 6 double volumes, with 1868 printed pages overall. Individual volumes had 101–160 pages on average, except for volume 10/11, which had 228 pages. Kwartalnik measured 28x19.5 cm, and its cover design was quite luxurious for its time: the paper was durable, the print exact, the semi-rigid cover colourful and modelled after a stylised drawing by Edward Manteuffel.’630 However, the aesthetic values of the journal did not increase its popularity. Its price (5 zlotys for a single issue) and the academic level of published papers, which were usually refined, only made matters worse. Another thing which did not help was the reluctance of the editorial team to open up to ←321 | 322→‘external’ authors, especially those who were related to or sympathised with the centre in Cracow: ‘Chybiński attached much importance to ensuring that all articles which came out in Kwartalnik were serious, scientific and unlike journalistic texts.’631 During the years when the professor was working as an editor (that is, in fact, throughout all his life, starting from 1928), he often complained about inconveniences related to this activity, which, in his own words, diminished his health capital.632 On the one hand, he was irritated by critical opinions which accused him of restricting the group of authors to those from the Lviv centre. On the other hand, despite his declarations that he was going to widen the group of authors publishing in Kwartalnik to include representatives of different musicological centres, Chybiński felt the most confident when he published works written by Lvivians and some of his ‘favourites’ from outside this circle. When it comes to musicological ‘professionalism,’ he was a very demanding editor. He expected papers whose scientific style did not deviate from the model which he himself preferred. The highest professional level of the journal was his overriding goal, and he believed that the only possibility of carrying out his plan was using Lviv forces. Unfortunately, he usually could not count on cooperation with other centres and complained that ‘Poznań’ did not send him anything ‘because it doesn’t have anything,’ whereas Cracow ‘is turning towards belles-lettres.’633
Chybiński’s own interests influenced the final shape of Kwartalnik Muzyczny. However, the professor was also burdened by the realisation of what mission a scientific journal should undertake: to disseminate knowledge on the highest academic level, regardless of the opinions voiced by groups which were ill-disposed towards musicology as an academic discipline. Almost from the point when the editorial team got down to work, the management board of the SMDM could not agree on the shape of the periodical. After over a year of work, Kazimierz Sikorski, the head of the editorial office of Kwartalnik in Warsaw and Chybiński’s loyal associate, wrote as follows: ‘They [the management board of the SMDM] scolded me for the “musicological” orientation of Kwartalnik. What do they want? Does Kwartalnik necessarily need to be similar to Muzyka or Ekspres Poranny (a Warsaw rag); perhaps we should introduce some topical illustrations. I sat tight and defended the current scope and direction of Kwartalnik. I think ←322 | 323→that at least one journal needs to be scientific and serious (i.e. musicological). We are trying to introduce more recent problems as far as possible, but the main thing is to [illegible] the history of Polish music. Each volume of Kwartalnik is one chapter of this history. But they don’t get it. … It’s because what we are doing now will resonate some 20 years or more!’634
Nevertheless, despite the fact that his relations with both Chybiński and members of the Society were deteriorating, Mateusz Gliński, one of the most opinion-forming figures in the community, expressed his opinion in favour of the academic direction which the editorial team had set for Kwartalnik. In the previously quoted article which appeared in ‘Musical Impressions’ column, he referred to musicology as a branch of science and evaluated the legitimacy of a scientific journal:
If we take into account the fact that despite extreme publishing difficulties and the tiny number of people whose academic work is related to musicology, we still have a musicological journal, such a journal is exactly the place where the specialised work of our musicologists should be unloaded…. Our friend is painfully in the wrong if he believes that this journal should make compromises, seek contacts with professionals who are not musicologists, or aim at popularising knowledge. Today, Poland has about ten music magazines, which encompass all the fields of practical knowledge, without any exceptions…. In this case, the most important thing is a precise, careful division of competences. Slight, almost poor interest in music research will increase in wider music circles if this kind of knowledge ceases to be forced upon them in a crude form, unrelated to anything else and unsynthesised, which not only leaves readers indifferent, but also irritates them.635
For the professor, the possibility of adopting and keeping this form of the periodical, which would have been close to his vision of scientific literature, was a sine qua non condition in his cooperation with the publisher, SMDM. The disputes he had to lead to enforce the rules imposed by him earlier finally led to the decision that the members of the management board and the editorial team (or rather the editor-in-chief) should go their separate ways (and it needs to be noted that this was a mutual decision, fully appreciated by both parties). I have already referred to this situation in chapter I-2, where I briefly outlined the history of the SMDM. As the result of discrepancies between the expectations of the Management Board in Warsaw and the professor’s aspirations, in 1933 it was decided that the competences of the editorial office would be divided. A quarterly (which soon became a bimonthly and finally a monthly) under the new name Muzyka Polska, ←323 | 324→which was headed by Bronisław Rutkowski, was supposed to broadly comment on current musical life and provide musicological materials, but its form was to be much lighter than in the past, for example, through publishing shorter papers. From then on, Chybiński’s cooperation with the editorial team of this journal was rather symbolic. The professor fulfilled his aspirations by running the newly established (also under the auspices of the SMDM), strictly scholarly annal that he had been dreaming about for years. However, due to numerous adversities or perhaps mostly the professor’s lack of organisational skills, which had already thwarted many of his earlier initiatives and would also have an impact on some later ones, only two volumes of PRM appeared before the war.←324 | 325→
415 Chybiński to Bronarski from Lviv 6 II 1928, AACh-BUAM, Bronarski’s archive, p. 8.
416 See various notes ‘Od Redakcji’ [Editorial] closing the editions of Kwartalnik Muzyczny.
417 More extensive dissertations (for example, by Maria Szczepańska or Hieronim Feicht), were published in parts, so – on any single occasion – they still did not exceed the size of the average article.
419 Sometimes Chybiński remained open to the possibility that ‘certain exceptions will be made for important and valuable works which take up problems as significant as for example, “Chopin’s harmony,” ’ see Chybiński to Bronarski from Lviv 20 IX 1928, AACh-BUAM, Bronarski’s archive, p. 9.
420 Thinking at one point about a ‘completely ethnographic’ edition, he also considered original works or abbreviations of his graduates’ diplomas: Dunicz on folk polonaises, Bagar on obereks, and Głodziński on the krakowiak, see Chybiński to Bronarski from Lviv 24 III 1932, AACh-BUAM, Bronarski’s archive, p. 73. Of these three people, only Dunicz became an author for Chybiński.
421 See for example, a fragment of the letter to Ludwik Bronarski, in which he wrote about some of his pupils: ‘They preferred to take an interest in “general” problems rather than Polish music, for example, Debussy [Łobaczewska], etc. I basically do not find any difficulty in choosing such interest, but sometimes I already have too much of this liberalism,’ see Chybiński to Bronarski from Lviv 27 VI 1930, AACh-BUAM, Bronarski’s archive, p. 41.
422 ‘Przyczynki do dziejów kapeli królewskiej w Warszawie za rządów kapelmistrzowskich Marka Scacchiego’ [Contributions to the history of the royal band in Warsaw under the leadership of band Master Marco Scacchi] (KM 1928/1, 20–34, finished in 1929/2, 125–144).
423 ‘Wielogłosowe opracowania hymnów mariańskich w rękopisach polskich XV wieku’ [Polyphonic arrangements of Marian hymns in Polish manuscripts of the XV century] (KM 1928/1, 1–19, and 1929/2, 125–144, 1929/3, 219–227, 1929/4, 339–345.
424 ‘Pierwsze zaczątki metod umuzykalnienia’ [The first beginnings of musicalisation methdology] (KM 1928/1, 85–86).
425 ‘Sonaty Chopina, ich oceny i ich wartość konstrukcyjna’ [Chopin’’s sonatas, their evaluation and structural values] (KM 1928/1, 59–72, 1929/2, 152–162).
426 ‘Fortepiany Chopina’ [Chopin’s pianos] (KM 1928/1, 50–54).
427 ‘Najnowsze badania nad akustyką sal teatralnych i koncertowych’ [The newest research into the acoustics of concert halls and theatres] (KM 1928/1, 72–77).
428 ‘O kulturę muzyczną w Polsce’ [About musical culture in Poland] (KM 1928/1, 77–81).
429 In the beginning, he published a polemic article ‘W sprawie wydania pośmiertnych dzieł Fryderyka Chopina’ [On the posthumous publication of Frederic Chopin’s works] (KM 1928,1, 55–59).
430 ‘O koncertach wokalno-instrumentalnych Marcina Mielczewskiego (†1651)’ [On vocal and instrumental concertos of Marcin Mielczewski (d. 1651)] (KM 1928/1, 34–50, 1929/2, 144–152, 1929/3, 246–251, 1929/5, 10–14, 1930/8, 306–313).
431 ‘Do dziejów muzykologii w Polsce’ [On the history of musicology in Poland] (KM 1928/1, 82–85). Moreover, he was the author of three reports, including an extensive review of an edition of Melodies for the Polish Psalter by Mikołaj Gomółka, prepared for publishing by Józef Reiss.
432 Chybiński to Bronarski from Lviv 7 II 1929, AACh-BUAM, Bronarski’s archive, p. 12.
433 Chybiński to Bronarski from Lviv 17 IX 1929, AACh-BUAM, Bronarski’s archive, p. 19.
434 PRM 1936/2, 87–94.
435 Its continuation was planned for the third volume of PRM, which was never printed due to the dramatic events of the first days of the war. Chybiński returned to Szczepańska’s work after the liberation, again taking up the duties of the editor-in-chief of the reactivated KM (see chapter III-4).
436 He made a short contribution to verifying and supplementing information about another example of early Polish music several years later, publishing – this time in PRM (1936/2, 98–99) – the article ‘Do biografii G.G. Gorczyckiego’ [To the biography of G.G. Gorczycki]. These and other texts by Feicht were later edited by Zofia Lissa in two volumes: Studia nad muzyką polskiego średniowiecza [Studies on music of the Polish Middle Ages] (Cracow 1975) and Studia nad muzyką polskiego renesansu i baroku [Studies on the music of the Polish Renaissance and Baroque] (Cracow 1980).
437 ‘Audite mortales Bartłomieja Pękiela’ [Bartłomiej Pękiel’s Audite mortales] (KM 1929/4, 366–396).
438 Cracow 1911.
439 KM 1930/6–7, 109–157.
440 Seminarium zamkowe w Krakowie, jego dzieje i ustrój [Castle seminary in Cracow. Its history and organisation]. Lviv 1910.
441 PRM 1936/2, 42–52.
442 ‘O polifonii Chopina’ [About Chopin’s Polyphony], ‘O literaturze chopinowskiej w Polsce odrodzonej’ [About Chopin literature in revivalist Poland], ‘Wariacje i technika wariacyjna Chopina’ [Variations and Chopin’s variation technique] and the material ‘Chopin w opinii literata francuskiego’ [Chopin as seen by French literati] (accordingly: KM 1929/3, 251–259, 1929/4, 412–428, 1931/12–13, 380–392, 1932/14–15, 598–601).
443 KM 1932/14–15, 573–593, 1933/17–18, 69–78.
444 KM 1929/3, 251–259.
445 KM 1929/4, 412–428.
446 The monographic issue on ethnography finally came out in 1933 as a double issue, numbered 17/18.
447 ‘Muzyka Bliższego Wschodu. I. Muzyka ormiańska’ [The Music of the Nearer East. I. Armenian Music”] (KM 1932/14/15, 573–593).
448 ‘Muzyka Bliższego Wschodu. II. Muzyka turecka’ [The Music of the Nearer East. I. Turkish Music”] (KM 1933/17–18, 69–78).
450 ‘Technika imitacyjna XIII i XIV w.’ [Imitative techniques of the XIII and XIV centuries] (KM 1933/19–20, 113–157).
451 Ibid., 13.
452 Chybiński to Bronarski from Lviv 3 X 1932, AACh-BUAM, Bronarski’s archive, p. 81. The post-war correspondence between Adolf Chybiński and Józef Michał Chomiński was published in 2016, see Sieradz 2016/2.
453 ‘O harmonice Edwarda Griega (1843–1907)’ [About Edward Grieg’s harmony (1843–1907)] (KM 1932/16, 716–744).
454 ‘O umuzykalniającą naukę harmonii’ [On the teaching of harmony which promotes the appreciation of music] (MP 1934/3, 222–229).
455 Amongst others material about Józef Koffler (Muzyka 1936/7–8, 85–86).
456 See for example, ‘Problemu muzyki odtwórczej’ [The problem of imitative music’] (LWML 1928/2, 3); ‘Stylistyczne założenia muzyki współczesnej’ [Stylistic assumptions of contemporary music] (LWML 1933/70, 2–3).
457 He also used these experiences for his publications, as in the case of the article on the reform of the teaching of harmony (LWML 1927/4, 2).
458 Stefania Łobaczewska, ‘O utworach Sebastiana z Felsztyna (XVI wiek)’ [About the works of Sebastian of Felsztyn (XVI century)] (KM 1929/3, 227–245, 1929/4, 346–365).
459 See Myśl Muzyczna 1928/9, 57–59, 1929/2, 1–3.
460 KM 1929/5, 2–62.
461 Chybiński himself was aware that his students’ dissertations (but also some other musicologists from Lviv), especially regarding the newest music, were of a high academic level: ‘Works in the field of modern music, written by Łobaczewska, Lissówna, Koffler etc., which I will include in the current yearbook of Kwartalnik, which will be more and more “modernised,” will be understood only by a few people because our state of musical preparedness is too low, and there are still terrible shortcomings, and these works require becoming accustomed to serious works and there is a lack of such in the area of newer music,’ see Chybiński to Bronarski from Lviv, 24 I 1930, AACh-BUAM, Bronarski’s archive, p. 30.
462 KM 1930/9, 19–34.
463 KM 1932/14–15, 543. In fact, this title concealed reviews of four recently published books (which expressed the most recent research attitudes) written by European authorities on psychology and the aesthetics of music: Henri Delacroix, Ernst Kurth, Julius Bahle and Hans Mersmann.
464 Zofia Lissa, ‘Politonalność i atonalność w świetle najnowszych badań’ [Polytonality and atonality in the light of the latest research’] (KM 1930/6–7, 192–237, quote page 193).
465 Ibid., 193.
466 Ibid., 194.
467 Zofia Lissa, ‘O harmonice Aleksandra Skriabina’ [About Alexander Scriabin’s harmony] (KM 1930/8, 320–355).
468 ‘Z psychologii muzycznej dziecka’ [On music psychology of the child’ (KM 1931/10–11, 173–207); ‘Z zagadnień współczesnej pedagogii muzycznej’ [On the problems of contemporary music pedagogy] (KM 1932/14–15, 504–523). The above-mentioned treatise combined with a review, entitled ‘Z najnowszych badań nad psychologią i estetyką muzyczną’ [‘From the most recent studies on psychology and the aesthetics of music] (op. cit.) and prepared with Stefania Łobaczewska, served as a comment on the most recent publications on this subject.
469 ‘Radio we współczesnej kulturze muzyczne (psychologiczne, artystyczne, społeczne i pedagogiczne problematy radia)’ [Radio in contemporary music culture (psychological, artistic, social and pedagogical problems of the radio)] (KM 1932/16, 643–659).
470 The first of the materials referred to the Warsaw collections and the legacy of Aleksander Poliński (‘Do dziejów muzykologii w Polsce’ [On the history of musicology in Poland], KM 1928/1, 82–85). In addition, see ‘Do historii muzyki we Lwowie’[To the history of music in Lviv] (KM 1928/1, 82–85); ‘Do historii koncertów w Warszawie za Stanisława Augusta’ [On the history of concerts in Warsaw under Stanisław August] (KM 1929/3, 297–302); ‘Do historii włoskich muzyków w Polsce’ [On the history of Italian musicians in Poland] (KM 1930/6–7, 237–238), and also the biograms: ‘Wincenty Maxylewicz (1685–1745)’ (KM 1929/5, 18–25); ‘Jan Fabrycy z Żywca’ [Jan Fabrycy from Żywiec] (KM 1932/16, 665–670), and the sketch ‘Do biografii Wacława z Szamotuł (zm. 1572)’ [To the biography of Wacław of Szamotuły (died 1572)] (KM 1931/12–13, 427–430); ‘Do biografii Sebastiana z Felsztyna’ [To the biography of Sebastian of Felsztyn] (KM 1931/12–13, 427–430); ‘Do życiorysu Walentego Backfarka’ [To Bálint Bakfark’s Resume] (KM 1930/6–7, 158–167).
471 An edition of unknown letters of Stanisław and Aleksandra Moniuszko (KM 1930/6–7, 187–192) and the correspondence of Mieczysław Karłowicz (from letters to Grzegorz Fitelberg) (KM 1929/2, 162–167).
472 KM 1928/1, 34–50, 1929/2, 144–152, 1929/3, 246–251, 1929/5, 10–14, 1930/8, 306–313.
473 ‘Studia z zakresu szkolnictwa muzycznego’ [Studies on the Music Education System”] (KM 1929/2, 167–180).
474 KM 1933/17–18, 48–65.
475 At the initial stage of organisational work, the new initiative was communicated to representatives of all communities. However, for obvious reasons, the Cracow centre did not really respond to the invitation to join the group of authors: ‘we have sensed that [Jachimecki] is not exactly happy with our publishing activity, even though in his letter he wished us luck, development, etc., etc.,’ see Rutkowski to Chybiński from Krzemieniec 18 VII 1928, AACh-BJ, box 4, R-19/3.
476 Amongst others: Karol Szymanowski. Warsaw 1948 (there were also several reprints and translations into German and Russian); ‘Niedokończony koncert fortepianowy Karola Szymanowskiego’ [Unfinished piano concerto by Karol Szymanowski], in: Księga pamiątkowa 1950, 263–274; ‘Tablice chronologiczne do życia i twórczości Karola Szymanowskiego’ [Chronological tables for the life and work of Karol Szymanowski], in: Józef M. Chomiński (ed.), Z życia i twórczości Karola Szymanowskiego [On the life and art of Karol Szymanowski] (Cracow 1960, 217–318).
477 Together with Mieczysław Drobner, he authored an instruction book on musical acoustics (Cracow 1953).
478 KM 1932/16, 671–685.
479 MP 1935/3, 169–185.
480 KM 1948/21–22, 280–282.
481 Another one was Marek Kwiek, who graduated in musicology in Poznań and made his debut in PRM.
482 See for example, the letter quoted above in chapter II (footnote 25) Opieński to Chybiński from Morges 14 III 1929, AACh-BJ, box 6, O-2/103.
483 Amongst others already in 1909 he published the monograph Chopin in Lviv and continued his interest in Frederic’s work, for two years later he published the work Chopin jako twórca. Objaśnienie jego utworów [Chopin as a creator. Explanation of his works] (Warsaw 1911). Together with Stanisław Rossowski, he wrote the monograph I.J. Paderewski. Zarys charakterystyki [I.J. Paderewski. An outline of his characteristics] (Lviv 1911) years later, already in Morges, he completed a few more Paderewski items published both in Poland and in Switzerland. Just before the First World War, the first of his syntheses appeared – Dzieje muzyki powszechnej w zarysie [The history of music in outline] (Warsaw 1912), and just after the war – the second (La musique polonaise. Paris 1918).
484 ‘Sześć listów lutnisty Bekwarka’ [Six letters from the lutenist Bekwark] (KM 1930/6–7, 158–167). It is from this author’s introduction to this edition that we learn that his doctorate, written under the guidance of Hugo Riemann and approved in 1913 by the philosophical faculty of the University of Leipzig, did not live to see a printed version due to unfavourable events and the outbreak of World War I. Failure to meet the condition, which was the publication, resulted in lack of formal approval of the doctorate.
485 Henryk Opieński, ‘Naturalizm i ekspresjonizm w muzyce XVI wieku’ [Naturalism and expressionism in the music of the Sixteenth century] (KM 1931/12–13, 414–242).
486 KM 1933/17–18, 36–43.
487 Ibid., 36.
488 ‘Symfonie M. Dankowskiego i J. Wańskiego. Przyczynek do dziejów polskiej muzyki symfonicznej w drugiej połowie XVIII wieku)’ [Symphonies by M. Dankowski and J. Wański. Contribution to the history of Polish symphonic music in the second half of the eighteenth century)] (KM 1932/16, 685–692).
489 The letters themselves were the subject of the later article ‘Józef Elsner w świetle nieznanych listów’ [Józef Elsner in the light of unknown letters], already published in the pages of PRM 1935/1, 76–90.
490 ‘Zadania pedagogii wobec nowych prądów w muzycznej twórczości’ [The task of pedagogy in the face of new trends in musical creativity] (KM 1931/10–11, 170–173).
491 Ibid., 172.
492 See for example, Działalność muzyczna J. Karłowicza, jej charakterystyka i ocena [Music activity of J. Karłowicz, its characteristics and assessment] (Warsaw 1907).
493 Konserwatorium muzyczne w Warszawie [Music conservatoire in Warsaw] (Warsaw 1937); after the war, he presented the history of the choir of the Warsaw Conservatoire throughout 75 years of its existence (Śpiewak 1948/1–5).
494 PM 1910/2, 7–8.
495 Feliks Starczewski, ‘Pierwsze zaczątki…,’ op. cit.
496 ‘Muzyka w Warszawie w 1834 i 1835 roku’ [Music in Warsaw in the years 1834 and 1835] (KM 1929/3, 302–213); ‘Warszawska muzyka w roku 1835’ [Warsaw music in the year 1935] (KM 1929/4, 428–439).
497 ‘Recenzja dwóch dzieł Fryderyka Chopina przez Franciszka Stoepel z Gazety muzycznej paryskiej’ [A review of two works by Frederic Chopin written by Franciszek Stoepel for Gazeta Muzyczna Paryska] (KM 1931/12–13, 430–434).
498 KM 1931/10–11, 286–290.
499 KM 193319–20, 201–210.
500 ‘Muzyka Webera w twórczości Zygmunta Krasińskiego’ [Weber’s music in the creative work of Zygmunt Krasiński] (KM 1932/16, 692–704).
501 ‘Na marginesie podróży za granicę Karola Kurpińskiego w r. 1823’ [On the margins of Karol Kurpiński’s travel abroad in 1823] (KM 1932/16, 753–754).
502 Stanisław Zetowski, ‘Muzyka Webera…,’ op. cit., 704.
503 Chybiński to Bronarski from Lviv 5 VII 1932, AACh-BUAM, Bronarski’s archive, p. 77.
504 Józef Skoczek (1903–1966) avidly penetrated local archives, and his research resulted in numerous articles and monographs concerning the history of Lviv (and not only) from the Middle Ages till modern times (see for example, Lwowskie inwentarze biblioteczne w epoce renesansu [Lviv library inventories in the Renaissance era’], Lviv 1939, Polskość Śląska w archiwalnych źródłach Lwowa [The Polishness of Silesia in archival sources of Lviv], Katowice 1936), ‘an explorer of the history and culture of Lviv, he devoted a few monographs and articles to the topics of history and education, for example, large studies on the Lviv cathedral school and on upbringing in medieval Poland and in the courts of Jagiellonian and Vasa rulers. After the war, he lectured on the history of Poland and the history of culture and education at the Jagiellonian University, the Pedagogical School in Cracow and the Pedagogical Institute in Katowice. He published a critical work Wybór pism pedagogicznych Polski doby Odrodzenia [A choice of pedagogical works of Poland in the era of the Renaissance] and prepared Rozwój szkolnictwa w Polsce średniowiecznej [The development of the education system in Medieval Poland] for Historia wychowania [History of education] edited by Ł. Kurdybacha,’ see Śródka 1999, 46.
505 ‘Cech muzyczny lwowski w XVI i XVII wieku’ [Characteristics of Lvivian music in the XVI and XVII centuries] (KM 1929/2, 182–185).
506 Muzyka 1927/7–9 special edition with the title Muzyka polska, 91–107.
507 LWML 1925–26/8, 1.
508 See for example, ‘Projekt reformy szkoły muzycznej niższej’ [Project to reform the lower music schools] (Muzyka 1929/2, 110–112, 1929/3, 169–170, 1929/4, 235–236); ‘Publiczność jako problemat kultury muzycznej’ [The audience as a problem of musical culture] (LWML 19125–26/11, 2); ‘Żywa muzyka jako źródło wychowania muzycznego’ [Live music as a source of musical education] (LWML 1931/6, 1–2).
509 KM 1931/10–11, 261–275.
510 Ibid., 261.
511 KM 1928/1, 50–54.
512 Paul Brunold, ‘Dawne instrumenty klawiszowe. [1.] Klawikord. [2.] Klawesyn’ [Early keyboard instruments. [1.] Clavichord. [2.] Harpsichord] (KM 19281, 167–184).
513 Paul Brunold, ‘Pianoforte’ (KM 1930/9, 9–18); ‘O lirze’ [About the lyre] (KM 1932/16, 659–664).
514 Karol Szymanowski: Pisma [Karol Szymanowski: Writings], vol. 1 Pisma muzyczne [Music writings] collected and edited by Kornel Michałowski, introduction by Stefan Kisielewski, Cracow 1984, vol. 2 Pisma literackie [Literary writings], collected and edited by Teresa Chylińska, Cracow 1989.
516 Ibid., 295.
517 KM 1931/10–11, 129–156.
518 Życie Muzyczne i Teatralne 1935/7, 3–4.
519 Droga 1929/1, 72–81, 1929/2, 160–165.
520 ‘O romantyzmie w muzyce’ [About romanticism in music] (KM 1929/3, 284–297).
521 Here with the title ‘Dążenia i ideały nowej muzyki’ [On the path to the new music ideals] (Muzyka 1930,5, 7–10).
522 See Szymanowski III, 141–142.
523 Chybiński to Bronarski from Lviv 21 III 1929, AACh-BUAM, Bronarski’s archive, p. 14. However, the plans concerning the ‘Slavic’ part were never carried out.
524 Sikorski to Chybiński from Warsaw 13 IV 1929, AACh-BJ, box 4, S-10/25.
525 Karol Szymanowski, ‘O romantyzmie…,’ op. cit., pp. 284–285.
526 Szymanowski appeared in Kwartalnik two more times, always in connection with ‘academic’ situations: the magazine published his rector’s speech delivered on the day of opening the School of the State Conservatoire of Music in Warsaw (KM 1930/9, 1–6) and printed from Wiadomości Literackie (1930/48, 2) and a speech entitled Chopin delivered during an academic ceremony held at the University of Warsaw (KM 1931/12–13, 357–362).
527 Karol Szymanowski, ‘O romantyzmie…,’ op. cit., passim.
529 Chybiński to Bronarski from Lviv 3 VI 1930, AACh-BUAM, Bronarski’s archive, p. 39.
531 See for example, ‘Współczesna technika kompozytorska’ [Contemporary composing techniques] (Muzyka 1931/1–2, 19–22); ‘O kierunkach współczesnej muzyki polskiej’ [On trends in contemporary Polish music] (MP 1937/6, 267–273); ‘Muzyka Huculszczyzny’ [The music of Hutsulshchyna] (MP 1935/3, 186–202).
532 Michał Kondracki, ‘Modernizm i moderniści’ [Modernism and modernists] (KM 1930/9, 34).
533 Ibid., 36.
534 KLM 1931/12–13, 406–413. On the occasion of this article Chybiński, who had been a eulogist of contemporary Polish music since youth, betrayed his weakness towards artistic souls, which sometimes led him to accept the non-academic materials delivered to Kwartalnik: ‘I still have an article by Kondracki about folk melodies as material for creators, and there is much talk about Chopin in it. Admittedly, it is a… very artistic article, but can KWARTALNIK ignore the artist’s desire to speak? On the contrary, I address our composers with such proposals, only that I am, unfortunately, in such situations, a lout, and the artist is usually a model… At least generally!,’ see Chybiński to Bronarski from Lviv 14 III 1931, AACh-BUAM, Bronarski’s archive, p. 60.
535 KM 1931/12–13, 424–427.
536 KM 1932/14–15, 565–573.
537 MP 1937/9, 378–391, 1937/10, 535–543.
538 ‘W obronie nowej muzyki’ [In defense of new music] (Muzyka 1934/5, 200–203).
539 KM 1932/14–15, 489–503.
540 Ibid., 503.
541 As above, p. 493.
542 As above, p. 494
543 As above, p. 500.
544 Czesław Marek, ‘Idea, życie i moje “credo”‘ [Idea, life and my ‘credo’] (KM 1930/8, 355–358).
545 As above, p. 358.
547 Chybiński to Bronarski from Lviv 21 XII 1931, AACh-BUAM, Bronarski’s archive, p. 72.
548 Pulikowski to Chybiński from Vienna 12 XII 1929, AACh-BJ, box 3, P-28/7.
549 ‘Modulacja diatoniczna. Nowa droga nauczania’ [Diatonic modulation. A new path of learning] (KM 1931/10–11, 275–286).
550 ‘Z najnowszych badań nad fizjologią gry fortepianowej’ [From the most recent research into the physiology of piano playing] (KM 1929/5, 62–66). Kamieński also had ideas for other publications for Chybiński, but he did not complete them. He wrote, for example, to Lviv: ‘So that you may not have to be constantly angry with my illiteracy, I will tell you that I am writing something on hymnology. It will even be an entire collection of such “somethings”‘, see Kamieński to Chybiński from Poznań 1 III 1930, AACh-BJ, box 6, K-3/62.
551 Ibid., 62.
552 His second pre-war text for Chybiński appeared in the first volume of PRM.
553 It was in his apartment in Cracow that Chybiński’s private archive brought from Lviv survived.
554 Karol Stromenger, ‘O koncertach brandenburskich J.S. Bacha’ [About J.S. Bach’s Brandenburg concertos] (KM 1929/5, 14–18).
556 Ochlewski to Chybiński from Warsaw 21 XI 1930, AACh-BJ, box 1, O-1/46.
557 Sikorski to Chybiński from Warsaw 13 IV 1929, AACh-BJ, box 4, S-10/25.
558 Karol Stromenger, op. cit., 17.
560 ‘Muzyka a matematyka’ [Music and mathematics] (Muzyka 1931/2, 69–73).
561 Ibid., 73.
562 ‘Najnowsze badania nad akustyką sal teatralnych i koncertowych’ [The most recent research on the acoustics of theatre and concert halls”] (KM 1928/1, 72–77).
563 KM 1930/9, 40–49.
564 Woźniakowska 2004/1. Already after the war, he wrote, among others, the work Z zagadnień sztuki i pedagogiki wokalnej [Selected issues of vocal art and pedagogy] (Cracow 1957).
565 KM 1931/10–11, 215–261.
566 Janusz Miketta, ‘O szkolnictwie muzycznym, jego celach i wartości’ [About music education, its goals and values’] (Muzyka 1928/2, 59–62).
567 Bronisław Romaniszyn, op. cit., p. 216.
568 ‘Głos dziecka i jego kształcenie’ [The Childs voice and its education] (KM 1933,19–20, 157–172).
569 Dahlig 2012/3, 204–205.
570 Księga pamiątkowa 1930, 115–123.
571 ‘Pentatonika w muzyce polskiej ludowej’ [The pentatonic scale in Polish folk music] (KM 1933/17–18, 1–26, final part in PRM 1936/2, 162).
572 ‘Z dziejów satyry ludowej’ [From the history of folk satire] (PRM 1936/2, 153–158).
573 ‘Muzykalność ludu kurpiowskiego’ [The musicality of Kurpie folk”] (KM 1933/17–18, 44–47) and ‘O niektórych tańcach kurpiowskich’ [About some Kurpie dances] (PRM 1936/2, 159–161).
574 Ibid., 47.
575 ‘Ze statystyki szkolnictwa muzycznego’ [From statistics about music education] (KM 1931/10–11, 156–169).
576 Information based on Hass [without date].
577 See amongst others: ‘Wolnomularstwo polskie a muzyka. Materiały’ [Polish Freemasonry and music. Materials] (WM 1925/7, 186–192); ‘Wolnomularstwo polskie a muzyka’ [Polish Freemasonry and music] (WM 1926/11, 37–39, 1926/12, 49–51).
578 ‘Przyczynki do historii krakowskiej kultury muzycznej w XVII i XVIII wieku’ [Contributions to the history of Cracow musical culture of the XVII and XVIII centuries] (WM 1925/7, 179–186).
579 ‘W sprawie repertuaru orkiestr wojskowych’ [In the matter of repertoire of military bands] (WM 1925/7, 193–194).
580 ‘Szpieg Henryk Makrott-syn o muzykach’ [Spy Henryk Makrott-son about music] (KM 1931/12–13, 434–435). Let us recall that at the same time he was preparing to publish an edition of these documents: Raporty szpiega Makrotta o wolnomularstwie polskim 1819–1822 [Reports of spy Makrott about Freemasonry in Poland], Warsaw .
581 ‘Józef Elsner jako wolnomularz (na podstawie nieznanych materiałów archiwalnych)’ [Józef Elsner as a freemason (Based on unknown archival materials)] (KM 1929/5, 67–71).
582 KM 1931/12–13, 435–444.
583 After the war, he published a book entitled Podstawy wersyfikacji polskiej: (nauka o wierszu polskim) [The basics of Polish versification: (A study of Polish poems)] (Warsaw 1947). He also wrote the introduction to Forma dźwiękowa prozy polskiej i wiersza polskiego [The sound form of Polish prose and poetry] by Kazimierz Wóycicki (Warsaw 1960).
584 ‘Muzyka w filmie’ [Music in film] (MP 1936/5, 328–336).
585 Op. cit.
586 See Sikorski to Chybiński from Warsaw 18 IX 1928, AACh-BJ, box 4, S-10/7.
587 Stanisław Furmanik, ‘O kulturę muzyczną…,’ op. cit., 81.
588 ‘Próba wyznaczenia przedmiotu muzyki’ [An attempt to determine the subject of music] (KM 1929/3, 272–283).
589 Ibid., 276.
590 Ibid., 277.
591 Chybiński to Bronarski from Lviv 7 II 1929, AACh-BUAM, Bronarski’s archive, p. 12.
592 At that time, he was already planning a monograph on Chopin’s harmony ‘of greater scale,’ see Bronarski to Chybiński from Geneva 26 IX 1928, AACh-BJ, box 6, B-26/4.
593 Ludwik Bronarski: ‘W sprawie wydania pośmiertnych dzieł Fryderyka Chopina’ [On the matter of publishing Chopin’s posthumous works] (KM 1928/1, 55–59).
594 Respectively pp. 362–369, 369–380, 393–401, 401–405. In addition, articles and materials were also published: ‘Stosunek Schumanna do twórczości Chopina’ [Schumann’s attitude to Chopin’s works] (KM 1929/3, 260–271, 1929/4, 396–412); ‘O kilku reminiscencjach u Chopina’ [‘A Few Chopin Reminiscences’] (KM 1929/5, 25–32); ‘Listy Chopina w Genewie’ [Chopin’s letters in Geneva’] (KM 1930/6–7, 184–187); ‘Chopin w Leksykonie Gathy’ego’ [Chopin in Gathy’s lexicon] (KM 1930/6–7, 239–240); ‘Pierwszy akord Sonaty b-moll Chopina’ [The first chord of Chopin’s B minor sonata] (KM 1930/8, 313–320); ‘Kilka uwag o basso ostinato w ogóle, a u Chopina w szczególności’ [A few remarks concerning bass continuo in general and in Chopin in particular] (KM 1932/16, 705–715). Bronarski’s last ‘pre-war’ text for Chybiński’s editorial – a report on publications about Chopin – appeared PRM (more below).
595 Chybiński to Bronarski from Lviv 28 II 1929, AACh-BUAM, Bronarski’s archive, p. 13.
597 Chybiński to Bronarski from Lviv 21 VII 1930, AACh-BUAM, Bronarski’s archive., p. 43.
598 ‘Stosunek Schumanna…,’ op. cit.
599 ‘Akord “chopinowski”‘, op. cit., 369.
600 ‘Pierwszy akord…,’ op. cit.
601 ‘Nowe chopiniana,’ op. cit. Bronarski he was very interested in the new discovery, he heard this Mazurka performed by Mirska herself, a concert pianist, on a French radio programme, see Bronarski to Chybiński from Geneva 11 III 1930, AACh-BJ, box 6, B-26/29. On the contrary, Chybiński, who was skeptical about these sensational messages, Chybiński to Bronarski from Lviv 15 III 1930, AACh-BUAM, Bronarski’s archive, p. 34.
602 Chybiński to Bronarski from Lviv 7 II 1929, AACh-BUAM, Bronarski’s archive, p. 12.
603 Rutkowski to Chybiński from Warsaw 11 I 1930, AACh-BJ, box 4, R-19/12.
604 Chybiński to Bronarski from Lviv 21 III 1929, AACh-BUAM, Bronarski’s archive, p. 14.
605 Benedict Szabolcsi, ‘Główne kierunki badań muzycznych na Węgrzech’ [Main directions of music research in Hungary] (KM 1930/9, 68–73).
606 Properly Jāzeps Vītols, Latvian composer, organiser of the national opera stage, long-time professor and rector of the Latvian Conservatoire.
607 ‘O pieśni ludowej na Łotwie słów kilka’ [A few words about Latvian folk songs] (KM 1933/17–18, 65–69).
608 Chybiński to Bronarski from Lviv 20 IV 1929, AACh-BUAM, Bronarski’s archive, p. 15.
610 Józef Kenig, ‘Z powodu wydania pośmiertnych dzieł Chopina’ [On the occasion of the publication of Chopin’s posthumous works] (Gazeta Warszawska 1856/121).
611 The second part of the work was published there in 1869, and the enlarged monograph Friedrich Chopin, sein Leben, seine Werke und Briefe was issued by Karasowski in Dresden in 1877.
612 [Editorial] (KM 1928/1, II).
613 ‘Od Redakcji’ [Editorial] (KM 1930/9, I).
614 Chybiński to Bronarski from Lviv 20 IV 1929, AACh-BUAM, Bronarski’s archive, k. 15.
615 Chybiński to Bronarski from Lviv 3 XI 1929, AACh-BUAM, Bronarski’s archive, p. 23.
616 Chybiński to Bronarski from Lviv 18 IV 1930, AACh-BUAM, Bronarski’s archive, p. 37. In fact, the double edition 10/11 was devoted entirely to issues in the field of pedagogy, psychology, teaching, and education; the ethnographic edition was not published until 1933 (no. 17/18). A monographic edition devoted to Szymanowski was not created at all.
617 Chybiński to Bronarski from Lviv 3 VI 1930, AACh-BUAM, Bronarski’s archive, p. 39.
618 Chybiński to Bronarski from Lviv 7 XI 1930, AACh-BUAM, Bronarski’s archive, p. 49.
619 Opieński to Chybiński from Morges 16 VII 1932, AACh-BJ, box 6, O-2/ 127.
620 A pejorative term for impoverished Lithuanian gentry and, in a broader meaning, Lithuanians in general.
621 Chybiński to Bronarski from Lviv 25 XI 1930, AACh-BUAM, Bronarski’s archive, p. 52. In the end, as mentioned, only a brief report by Joseph Wihtol was published.
622 KM 1933/17–18, 27–34.
623 ‘Sześć pieśni śląskich z roku 1810’ [Six Silesian songs from 1810] (KM 1933/17–18, 32–35).
624 ‘O źródłach i rozpowszechnieniu dwudziestu melodii ludowych…,’ op. cit.
625 Ibid., 64–65.
626 ‘Muzyka Bliższego Wschodu II’ [The music of the Nearer East II], op. cit.
627 Chybiński to Bronarski from Lviv 14 III 1931, AACh-BUAM, Bronarski’s archive, p. 60. In the letter this is about Robert Bory’s work Une retraite romantique en Suisse: Liszt et la Comtesse d’Agoult (Paris 1930).
628 For more information on Chybiński’s contacts with Norwegian composers, maintained also with the help of diplomatic posts, see Łopatowska-Romsvik 2016.
629 Amongst others: Richard Gress, Die Entwicklung der Klaviervariation von Andrea Gabrieli bis zu Johann Sebastian Bach, [no city] 1929; Cornelia Auerbach, Deutsche Klavichordkunst des 18. Jahrhunderts, Kassel 1930; Oskar Deffner, Über die Entwicklung der Fantasie für Tasteninstrumente bis J.P. Sweelinck, Kiel 1928; Hans Bosch, Entwicklung des romantischen in Schuberts Liedern, Leipzig 1930; Julien Tiersot, La chanson populaire et les écrivains romantiques, Paris 1931 – these are just some of the books proposed to Bronarski, see Chybiński to Bronarski from Lviv 12 III 1931, AACh-BUAM, Bronarski’s archive, p. 59.
632 See Chybiński to Bronarski from Lviv 17 IX 1929, AACh-BUAM, Bronarski’s archive, p. 19.
633 Chybiński to Bronarski from Lviv 27 VI 1930, AACh-BUAM, Bronarski’s archive, p. 41.
634 Sikorski to Chybiński from Warsaw 3 I 1930, AACh-BJ, box 4, S-10/35.