5. Muzyka Polska (1934–39) – Polski Rocznik Muzykologiczny (1935, 1936)
Conceived as a quarterly devoted to the issues of musical life in Poland, Muzyka Polska began to appear at the beginning of 1934. In the autumn of 1933, the question of the future of Kwartalnik Muzyczny was settled, and Bronisław Rutkowski and Kazimierz Sikorski wanted to inform Chybiński personally and exhaustively about the results of one of the meetings of the SMDM Board, holding a ‘conference’ with him in Lviv. The meeting, which took place on November 18, 1933, lasted six hours, and the conclusions from its course were briefly summarised in a letter to Ludwik Bronarski: ‘The quarterly whose life has been hanging by a thread in the last few weeks will continue to appear, but in an “updated” form [Muzyka Polska], edited by Sikorski surrounded by the “editorial committee” (along with my humble self). On the other hand, the “luxus” will disappear, i.e. the scientific, strictly musicological part, which since 1934 has been transferred to the POLSKI ROCZNIK MUZYKOLOGICZNY [PRM] remaining under the editorship of the undersigned.’636
Chybiński counted on the fact that ‘this new Kwartalnik is not too different from the previous one’637 and should merit the support of regular, proven authors. In reality, however, the nature of the periodicals from the very beginning was cut off from its predecessor, because the published materials mainly concerned Polish music, chiefly Polish contemporary musicians and Polish musical life, the current concert movement, and were complemented by reviews and evaluation of new musical works. Texts concerning music theory, ethnography, aesthetics and psychology, historical materials and commentaries on musicological literature were published in the new journal only occasionally, even though the editors asserted that they would not ‘be confined to matters related solely to our art and music culture. The musical life of the West and the East will be of equal interest [to them] and informing the readers about it will be regarded as their duty.’638 Emphasis was also placed on news related to musical life.←325 | 326→
We should not lose sight of the fact that from the very beginning it was practising musicians who made up the core of the group of authors directly or indirectly linked with Kwartalnik Muzyczny. These musicians were also involved in publishing activities. In the first years they had been interested in early music which they had been performing, but at that particular moment they focused mostly on establishing professional relations with contemporary composers. They believed that the most important materials which could be published were related to the current life of the music community. In any case, the editors explained the reasons for the decision to change the profile of the periodical in their first editorial:
As before, we believe that there should be a scholarly music journal in Poland which could serve as a footing for the research work of our theoreticians and musicologists. Polish musical life poses many serious questions and notions which need to be publicly disclosed and discussed. These notions are not directly related neither to history nor music theory, and they often give rise to passionate disputes. That is why they cannot be addressed in a scholarly journal, even though they are of major importance to our musical life. However, since we did not want to disregard these vital matters, we decided to move all historical and theoretical texts to a new journal entitled Polski Rocznik Muzykologiczny, whereas Kwartalnik Muzyczny will be transformed into a journal devoted to current issues related to Polish musical life. We also decided to give it a new name – Muzyka Polska./The name chosen by us illustrates the objectives of the new journal and what it will be concerned with./Contemporary history of Polish music clearly indicates that it has entered a period of intensive growth and despite unfavourable conditions it is paving its own path, slowly gaining artistic individuality. We are aware of this important fact and want to express it in our journal.639
Already in the summary of the first year of activity, the editors were pleased to note that ‘contrary to the pessimists’ warnings, the journal called up a resounding response among musicians and music lovers’ and that ‘one of the basic … intentions was realised: the magazine gathered around musicians of the Polish younger generations, drew them into a concerted effort and active cooperation to solve numerous … problems of musical life.’640
It soon turned out that to achieve one of the primary objectives set out by publishers, that is keeping up to date with music news, the journal had to appear more often. This is why a change was announced in the last issue from 1935: long, ←326 | 327→quarterly intervals would be reduced, and the journal would be turned into a bimonthly and finally into a monthly. Throughout the analysed year 1936, there was only a brief mention of the transformation of Muzyka Polska from a quarterly to a biweekly and then into a weekly (which ‘became possible thanks to hard work of the editorial team and contributors as well as the keen interest of readers’) that was included in TWMP Management Report in the year 19361 in point II ‘Journals’; it was also announced that TWMP would publish a new magazine, that is Gazetka Muzyczna, aimed mostly at school age youths.
In the middle of the next year, the function of the Editorial Committee of Muzyka Polska (consisting of Chybiński, Sikorski, Zalewski) was taken over by the Board of TWMP, which meant changing the people involved and moving the burden of responsibility for the content of the monthly to journalists and practising musicians – Zalewski, Ochlewski, Rutkowski, moving the decision about the profile of the magazine slightly away from theoreticians and musicologists – Sikorski and Chybiński, who was in fact marginalised from the beginning. Due to work overload at TWMP, Rutkowski quickly replaced Zalewski (who ‘organised the journal with great buoyancy’641) and took over the position of chief editor of Muzyka Polska. Rutkowski was still supported by Kazimierz Sikorski and from the following year, also by Julian Pulikowski. When Rutkowski assumed the new position, he immediately asked the professor for editing support. Chybiński’s opinion was still being taken into account at the beginning of 1936 when it had already been decided that the publication frequency of the journal needed to be changed.
In the next years, Julian Pulikowski, Konstanty Régamey (who became the chief editor in 1937) and Michał Kondracki joined the closely-knit editorial team of Muzyka Polska. The secretary’s office was run by Jadwiga Pietruszyńska (later Sobieska). After her, this function was taken over by Stefan Kisielewski, followed by Feliks Kęcki, author of, among others biographical sketch about Mieczysław Karłowicz (Warsaw 1934), incidentally a few years earlier, very positively, though succinctly assessed by Chybiński.642
Among regular collaborators, the editorial office of the quarterly (or with the time of the bimonthly and monthly) listed: Ludwik Bronarski, Adolf Chybiński, Zbigniew Drzewiecki, Zbigniew Dymmek, Jerzy Freiheiter, Feliks Kęcki, Michał Kondracki, Faustyn Kulczycki, Feliks Łabuński, Jan Maklakiewicz, Zygmunt Mycielski, Tadeusz Ochlewski, Henryk Opieński, Roman Palester, Julian ←327 | 328→Pulikowski, Bronisław Rutkowski, Kazimierz Sikorski, Tadeusz Szeligowski, Stefan Śledziński, Stanisław Węsławski, Stanisław Wiechowicz, Teodor Zalewski. The majority of the people from this group belonged to the Warsaw music community; from the Silesian Music Conservatoire in Katowice there was Kulczycki and Dymmek, permanently living in Cracow, Węsławski was a highly regarded animator of musical life in Vilnius, Bronarski lived in Switzerland, as did Opieński, who settled in Morges in 1926; Chybiński only rarely came from Lviv to Warsaw.
Muzyka Polska was supposed to publish shorter scholarly texts concerned with contemporary music, whereas historical themes would be reduced to ‘synthetic and popular’ papers. Wanda Bogdany analysed the contents of Muzyka Polska and identified thirteen thematic groups which then served as the basis to systematise the reference list of the periodical. She stresses the fact that the essence of the journal was shaped by articles on contemporary Polish music and the Polish music community (such as biographies of composers and performers, as well as reviews of both current cultural events and music publications).643 She also notes that texts related to general music history and those concerned with the past or with ‘other fields (aesthetics, psychology, music theory, folklore, music critique) were also published, but they were not the ones that breathed life into the journal.’644
The new journal published by TWMP had its tested authors. The Lviv group of musicologists strongly supported its editorial team. Chybiński dealt with his own particular themes – the person and works of Mieczysław Karłowicz (in the aforementioned article that opens the first edition of the new quarterly and in the reflections around the theme of inspiration in the composer’s output645) and Karol Szymanowski (apart from the one-off texts commemorating the artist after his death (see below), it is also worth recalling the sketch published a year earlier, showing the beginnings of the Harnasie creator’s fascination with highlander folklore, which – as we know – was mainly inspired and witnessed by Chybiński.646 The professor was also the author of several ‘jubilee’ articles: about Grzegorz Gerwazy Gorczycki (in the two hundredth anniversary of his death),647 ←328 | 329→about Haendel and Bach (in the two hundredth and fiftieth anniversary of their birth),648 Giovanni Battista Pergolesi (in the two hundredth anniversary of his death)649 and Franz Liszt (in the fiftieth anniversary of his death).650 He also wrote many reviews.
Zofia Lissa published only two texts in Muzyka Polska, and they were both published in the first year’s issue of the journal. In the first article, she was pondering on the misery of Polish music critique and reminded the readers what roles (informative and educational) it should fulfil. Lissa was also trying to pinpoint the reason behind the fact that Polish critics lacked essential qualifications and were not credible.651 The second article was the result of her interest in music pedagogy which she had a chance to explore in the Institute of Psychology in Lviv, where she started examining the musicality of children and youth in 1934.652 One could imagine that the new journal would be an appropriate medium for Lissa to popularise her research results, especially as Lwowskie Wiadomości Muzyczne i Literackie (LWML) which was so dear to her, stopped coming out at that time. However, this was not the case. Rather than send her texts to the editorial office at SMDM, she decided to publish in social journals: Przegląd Społeczny, Przegląd Socjologiczny, Wiedza i Życie.
Her Lviv friend, Stefania Łobaczewska, sharing her interests in the field of music psychology, published a comprehensive (as per norms of the then monthly) article on this subject ‘Z psychologii słuchacza muzyki współczesnej’653 [On the psychology of the listener of contemporary music] in Muzyka Polska. In it, she analysed how radically the imaginations and habits of the ‘conservative listener’ brought up on the music of Mozart and Beethoven, had to change in relation to impressionist music, and how they must continue to evolve in the face of the latest trends in European creativity. After a few years, she again referred to current culture, this time raising the question of the role of criticism in contemporary music creation.654←329 | 330→
Papers written by Father Hieronim Feicht were published in Muzyka Polska only twice: in the issue commemorating Szymanowski (Feicht was one of the authors reminiscing about the composer), and when he presented the profile of Adolf Chybiński, his mentor.655 The extended sketch laid out the professor’s academic career in great detail. In order to complement the paper, the professor was interviewed by Jan Józef Dunicz.656 Dunicz himself wrote a few reviews for the Warsaw journal, starting from 1936. Most importantly, he submitted an article on the national element in Polish carols, the incorporation of Polish motifs into specific elements of the Bethlehem story and the transformation of a lyrical and religious song into an epic tale.657
Józef Chomiński, a friend of Dunicz, published one of his works on Stravinsky658 in Muzyka Polska as early as in 1936. It needs to be noted that at that time he was working intensively on Szymanowski. The result was a series of extensive analytical articles for PRM, which will be discussed in the next pages of this chapter. A year later659 he presented his view on the distinctness of Szymanowski’s works as compared with composers who were his contemporaries and yet were so distant from the Polish musician in terms of style. He mentioned Stravinski and Schönberg, the representatives of the European avant-garde. In a sketch filled with scholastic argumentation, he argued how Szymanowski passed through a much more difficult a way to achieve his own style, not having a home base for a modernist formation of, as Chomiński writes, a ‘musical worldview.’ These two articles complete the theoretical deliberations on the question of the Atma artist’s melodics in the light of tonal transformations, which can be reduced to Szymanowski treating harmony in three different phases: ‘functionality, absolute sound qualities and new energy dependencies.’660 Chomiński devoted several more articles to theoretical issues, including considerations about form661 and instrumentation.662←330 | 331→
Jerzy Freiheiter, another graduate of the Lviv centre, was interested in the radio, which was a very important medium of the time. Let us recall that the role of the radio was also brought up by Zofia Lissa. Freiheiter submitted two texts to Muzyka Polska related to this issue: the former was about radio opera regarded as a new field of composing activity,663 whereas the latter talked about sociological aspects related to the radio and the role of this medium, which served its listeners as the primary source of access to art in general, including music art.664 Freiheiter was also the author of numerous reviews. Most importantly, he served as a permanent correspondent in Lviv, at least until the editorial team established a very promising relationship with Jan Józef Dunicz and decided to hand this task over to him.665
Among other authors of the magazine, it is worth distinguishing several names, most frequently linked formally with the editors in a personal manner. Excluding the first years of his writing practice, when he was dealing with music criticism in the bi-weekly Echo Tygodnia, it was indeed in Muzyka Polska that Stefan Kisielewski published his first musical texts addressing contemporary music issues, even entering into considerations in the field of sociology;666 he also wrote a few reviews of new pieces by contemporary composers and entered into discussion with Konstanty Régamey in a review of his study Treść i forma w muzyce [Content and form in music].667 Frequent guests in the pages of Muzyka Polska were writers well known for years from other musical magazines, such as Henryk Opieński, Stanisław Wiechowicz and Feliks Starczewski. Traditionally, they wrote short historical works, biographic sketches (often commemorative and written at the request of the editorial office) or comments on vital current issues related to music culture. New names also appeared: Tadeusz Szeligowski,668 ←331 | 332→a multi-talented critic and publicist, a pianist and composer, and Michał Kondracki, a pianist and a folklore collector valued by Chybiński. Surprisingly, Zdzisław Jachimecki did not join this group of authors until 1939 when he submitted an article related to the emergence of the libretto for King Roger by Szymanowski.669
Since 1937, that is from the beginning of the term of office of the editor-in-chief of Muzyka Polska, a clear quantitative domination has been noted – and it could also be said that to a certain extent qualitative – in the works of Konstanty Régamey, the author, first and foremost, of articles about key issues of Polish and European contemporary music. He commented upon the achievements and place of Polish creativity in the past twenty years, amongst others in the article ‘Muzyka polska na tle współczesnych prądów’ [Polish music against a background of contemporary trends],670 he presented the characters of his peers in occasional articles,671 shared relaxed comments with readers about the hottest new trends in European creativity in those years,672 and frequently wrote reviews and criticism.
The editorial team of Muzyka Polska risked publishing two articles on the condition of music culture and its organisation in two neighbouring countries ruled by authoritarian regimes: Marian Neuteich673 wrote about the communist Soviet Union, whereas Otto Graf674 wrote about the Third Reich ruled by the Nazi Party. Each of these texts, especially Neuteich’s article, could be successfully transferred to a later epoch, namely to the reality of fascist and socrealistic dictatorships, in which ideology was more important than art itself, and perfect organisation made it possible to fully control the artistic and academic community. The editorial team, being aware of the controversial nature of the rhetoric (independently adopted by both authors) and content of the articles, declared that these articles did not embody its views and that they are only ←332 | 333→informative and open to debate.675 Words such as ‘the dialectical and materialistic analysis’ which clearly set the path of Soviet musicology, as well as references to Reichsmusikkammer, an office which became ‘one of the bodies of collective national culture which raises the German society’ must have been equally frightening. Even though Reichsmusikkammer was not supposed to create a new music culture, it did ‘set its new ideological direction.’676 In order to familiarise readers with issues discussed in his article, Graf pointed to the words of Joseph Goebbels, the Minister of Propaganda, and Richard Strauss, the president of Reichsmusikkammer. Regardless, both publications must have been a surprising experience for readers, even though they did not trigger any discussion.
The editors of Muzyka Polska did not give titles to monographic editions, but in some of them focused on a predetermined circle of issues. The first issue already had a clear centre of gravity, marking the twenty-fifth anniversary of the death of Mieczysław Karłowicz. This circumstance allowed the editorial office to inaugurate the new magazine – speaking colloquially – ‘from high C,’ that is with an extensive and wide-ranging dissertation by Adolf Chybiński, bringing both the composer’s character and his work closer to readers in a colourful way (‘Mieczysław Karłowicz,’ pp. 3–21).677 An interesting and valuable supplement to this monographic text was Henryk Opieński’s edition of several letters from the composer held in his private archive (‘Z korespondencji Mieczysława Karłowicza’ [From the correspondence of Mieczysław Karłowicz], pp. 22–28) and Karłowicz’s letters to Felicjan Szopski prepared for publication by the editors (pp. 29–30). The body of these materials was closed by memoirs penned by musician Apolinary Szeluto (pp. 31–32).
The 7/8 edition from 1937 was also designed as a monograph, in which texts of both theoreticians and young composers on current trends in music were included. It was then that Józef Chomiński published one of his first analyses of contemporary functional harmony (‘Ewolucja harmoniki współczesnej’ [The evolution of contemporary functional harmony], pp. 327–340). It was a theme which would set the main path of his research after the war. This theoretical introduction to new composing solutions was then developed by representatives of the modern current in Polish music, who often wrote articles or even devoted ←333 | 334→their whole lives to writing, critique and journalism. These were Konstanty Régamey, the only representative of the older generation who belonged to this group (‘Muzyka polska na tle współczesnych prądów’ [Polish music as compared to contemporary currents], pp. 341–352), Stefan Kisielewski (‘Oblicza duchowe muzyki współczesnej’ [Spiritual facets of contemporary music], pp. 357–365), Andrzej Panufnik (‘Abstrakcje w muzyce współczesnej’ [Abstraction in contemporary music], pp. 365–369), Zygmunt Mycielski (‘Chodzi o muzykę’ [It’s all about music], pp. 369–371) and Jerzy Waldorff (‘Problemy słuchacza muzyki współczesnej’ [The problems of a contemporary music listener], pp. 352–357).678 On the one hand, their texts constituted an analysis as well as an evaluation of the sources of the newest art, and on the other hand, they were a polemic on the place that this art occupied in journalism, in the cultural policy of the country, and in the concert life of that time. It is not the scholarly and musicological basis for these reflections that is important, but rather the sensitive attempt to reach listeners and present to them the authors’ arguments related to the following issues: why do we create like that, and should we fear contemporaneity (in art), even though we know that when twenty years pass, contemporary art (and who knows today whether it is good or bad) will no longer be contemporary? Nevertheless, texts published in Muzyka Polska were not scholarly papers since they were not aimed (solely) at the academic community, but at the broadly defined music community.
Earlier still, when it comes to the thematic selection of publications, an edition devoted to the organisation of musical life and the condition of musical culture was prepared (Muzyka Polska 1935 no. 2), for which materials were contributed by, amongst others, Zbigniew Drzewiecki (‘Frontem do muzyki’ [Facing the music], pp. 99–103, an article which constituted a collection of reflections concerning the fall of musical culture in Poland and neglect in this area) and Teodor Zalewski (‘Problem organizacji zawodu muzycznego’ [The problem of organisation in the music profession], pp. 104–112).
The issue of Muzyka Polska which came out in April 1937 was unplanned and created ad hoc due to the death of Karol Szymanowski. The issue was created jointly by all the authors who could make a significant contribution to the knowledge of the life and oeuvre of Szymanowski, either due to their friendship with the composer or their professional fascination with his work, starting from ←334 | 335→Adolf Chybiński, who presented the musician in a very personal way (‘Karol Szymanowski (1883–1937),’ pp. 147–150), through Konstanty Régamey, who wrote an aesthetic sketch on the musical writings of the composer and the aesthetic qualities which guided him (‘Ideologia artystyczna Szymanowskiego’ [Artistic ideology of Szymanowski], pp. 160–169) and young composers, such as Witold Lutosławski (‘Tchnienie wielkości’ [A breath of greatness], pp. 169–170), Kazimierz Wiłkomirski (‘Jeszcze o dziele Karola Szymanowskiego’ [A few more words on the works of Karol Szymanowski], pp. 180–181), Michał Kondracki (‘O kult dzieła Szymanowskiego’ [On the cult of the works of Szymanowski], pp. 183–184), ending with numerous memoirs and a list of the composer’s works. The next issue included a reprint of the speech which Józef Ujejski, a deputy minister, made at the funeral (pp. 150–155), which was supplemented by the eulogy mentioned above written by Father Hieronim Feicht after ceremonies which had taken place at the end of April 1937 in Cracow Skalka.679 The eulogy came out in the next issue.
Muzyka Polska deserved very positive appraisal among the milieu. Ludwik Bronarski shared his impressions from reading: ‘The magazine was edited with youthful verve and was even “catchy,” with very topical themes.’680 Henryk Opieński wrote: ‘I am in a hurry to express my true delight from looking at Muzyka Polska – the volume itself, simple and pleasing on the outside, is in good taste, and the tone is serious, but not overloaded with science, and it is suitable for the wider reading layers. I ask myself whether this fashionable and necessary campaign against “statism” in music, against the involvement of the state in matters related to music (= political protectionism), which is brought up by some articles in Muzyka Polska, won’t stand in opposition to the “kingpins” of our journal? Won’t journals fall victim to “repressions” because of this approach?’681 A very favourable review of the journal appeared in Ateneum. It was signed by ‘k.b.’ After a few paragraphs criticising Muzyka, which was already burning out, the journal published by TWMP was presented as a publication which boldly engaged in discussions on difficult issues that were of importance to the music community and, contrary to the monthly published by Gliński, ‘apart from articles on practical issues, [published] also theoretical considerations and ambitious works, whereas it was almost impossible to encounter such texts in Muzyka.’682 The reviewer was impressed with the extensive informative section, ←335 | 336→the highlights of musical life and systematic correspondence with the main cities in Poland and abroad, as well as the ‘balance between practical and theoretical matters.’ In such a formula Muzyka Polska was genuinely – as k.b. wrote – a magazine ‘about music for musicians.’ The only complaint made by the editorial team is that the selection among the not so numerous group of meritorically well-prepared authors of the periodical and the exclusion from cooperation of some outstanding ‘pens’ writing about music was not clear.
Anyway, Muzyka published by Mateusz Gliński, which once entered the cultural market with a go–ahead attitude, was losing momentum year by year, whereas Muzyka Polska began to appear more often, thanks to which it became a topical journal in which a group of young Polish composers were interested, and which they trusted. The journal was consequently developing and appeared regularly up to and including the summer of 1939. It is also worth remembering that (from the point of view of post–war history of Polish music journals) Ruch Muzyczny, which was launched in autumn 1945, was influenced by Muzyka Polska and its interest in current affairs. A few years later, Muzyka was also trying to continue this tradition. It was a monthly following the doctrine of socialist realism which was published in years 1950–56 by PIS. However, when it comes to the scholarly quarterly under the same title, also published by PIS from the second quarter of 1956, the only thing it had in common with Muzyka Polska was the same graphic element on the cover: the font used on the title page.
The second title which was supposed to be published by TWMP was PRM, whose nature was academic by definition. It was the result of a compromise reached with Adolf Chybiński, the chief editor of Kwartalnik Muzyczny (a journal which was being closed down), as well as with the most devoted and the best-educated readers of Kwartalnik. Now we need to go back to 1921 to examine how the idea to establish an annal for Polish musicologists evolved. It was then that Łucjan Kamieński first thought that he would like to take over editing a journal, preferably an annal, aimed at the musicological community. He was full of youthful enthusiasm and got involved in several projects at once, for example, drawing up an inventory of music relics and editing the ‘monuments’ of Polish music as well as the history of European music which was being written by a group of authors and comprised of a few volumes. He wanted to base an annal for Polish musicologists on the existing monthly Muzyka i Śpiew. However, not everything went as planned, and the journal kept coming out in its original, unchanged form until 1935. Even in later years, Kamieński did not manage to bring any of his subsequent ‘press’ projects into effect.
The idea for the yearbook was still waiting on favourable circumstances to see its actual realisation. At some point, it became apparent that a scholarly journal ←336 | 337→with a relatively high frequency of publication probably has no place in the realities of a still small environment and these changes were inevitable. Let us see how it came to them.683
Already in January 1930, a board meeting was held at the headquarters of SMDM in Warsaw. It was devoted to different perspectives on the form which Kwartalnik Muzyczny, which was published by SMDM, should take. For Chybiński, it was a periodical aimed at a particular community which contained strictly scholarly papers, most importantly those written by certified musicologists. However, publishers from Warsaw were instead thinking about publications aimed at educated musicians and enlightened laymen which would contain music news. Nevertheless, everybody agreed that they should keep the status quo and decided ‘not to change.’684 But in late autumn 1933, Adolf Chybiński received a letter from Warsaw signed by Bronisław Rutkowski, the president of SMDM. He asked Chybiński to come up with a date on which he and Kazimierz Sikorski, his fellow worker, could visit the professor in Lviv. The reason behind this visit was related to the future of Kwartalnik Muzyczny. The university journal run by the professor was modelled after the most important European musicological periodicals, but when it came to its popularity and readership, it did not meet the expectations of Warsaw publishers. For this reason they proposed to create a quarterly journal with much lighter content whose aim would be to popularise music. Chybiński was supposed to become one of the members of the Editorial Board. Starting from 1934, the scholarly, strictly musicological part was supposed to be moved to a new journal, that is PRM. The professor referred to this part as ‘luxury.’ At first sight, the whole situation seemed to be quite comfortable, but Chybiński quickly began having second thoughts:
It is only now, when I’m processing the situation with the journals, that I’m beginning to admire the Warsaw cunning. Kwartalnik will be updated, the scientific part will be removed and exiled to Rocznik. Indeed, I was given a sovereign state and a castle on a rock, surrounded by chasms and a deep lake. I can’t see anyone and nobody can see me… The residence of a master who has no impact on anything around him… Luxury… And when it comes to the updated Kwartalnik, I’ll have no say, no influence over any opinions! … Luxury and comfort surrounded by a wall and a moat with a draw bridge. … In fact, nothing will change, we will just feel better ‘in each other’s company’ and won’t feel uncomfortable about any potential ‘miscomprehensions.’685←337 | 338→
By the end of the year, Chybiński was unsure about the new journal’s future. No agreement was signed, no budget was set. Finally, the first volume of Rocznik was granted 3000 zlotys by FNP: ‘The Management Board of SMDM decided to give 250 zlotys to the Professor to reimburse him for the costs related to editing Rocznik, whereas the rest of the sum (2750 zlotys) was entrusted to the Professor who will spend it on printing and potential author’s fees.’686
The announcement of the new magazine was published in the first issue of Muzyka Polska in 1934. Using the hospitality of the friendly pages, the editorial staff of the Yearbook, apart from presenting the expected profile of the publication, asked potential authors with an appeal that sounded like an incentive to give up the feud among musicologists in the name of the good of the discipline. It was claimed that the journal ‘will include not only research on earlier and newer music but also on contemporary Polish music and will be open to research on pure music theory and all its subfields. … we will only publish papers of significant scholarly value, which bring positive scholarly results and further knowledge …, research materials and critical papers.’687
Even though it was uncertain whether the journal would be financed, shortly after the publication of volume I of Rocznik dated 1935, the editorial team continued their work and volume II appeared in due time (in 1936). The chief editor, even though he repeated the statement which had already been made in previous years, i.e. that Rocznik should have nationwide range, still preferred articles written by tested authors. The inner circle of trusted contributors of the former Kwartalnik Muzyczny warmly welcomed a journal which was even more ambitious: ‘Dear Professor, if you still wish to have my papers published in Rocznik, I am very flattered, and I will try to fulfil your wishes as best I can and as far as I can. So far, I am sending a review of Chopin in Dresden; I guess it can be published with the papers I sent earlier. I will just look through the reporting article on the Oxford edition of Chopin’s works, which has long been ready, and then I will send it to you,’688 to which Chybiński replied as enthusiastically as always: ‘Eine allgemeine Regel, zurückgeführt auf jeden besonderen Fall: everything that you will be kind enough to send for Polski Rocznik Muzykologiczny will be printed. The same applies to Ganche, who will be as precious and valuable to me as all the works and papers that I have received from you so far.’689←338 | 339→
To the second volume, like the first, Bronarski did not prepare any article, but – as before – he addressed current Chopin literature. This time he reported on Édouard Ganche’s Souffrances de Frédéric Chopin. Essai de médecine et de psychologie (Paris 1935) and Chopin. His Life by William Murdoch (London 1934) and the essay „Hexameron,” Bellini i Chopin by Maria Szczepańska (Lviv 1935). We also know that he edited concise materials for the third volume about two unknown pieces by Chopin from the collections of the Library of the Paris Conservatoire – Nocturne c-minor (WN 62) and Largo E flat-major (WN 61), and about Chopin’s mazurka dedicated to Emil Gaillard.690
Upon hearing about the new Lviv publication, Henryk Opieński, the creator of the first Kwartalnik (which was the voice of WTM in years 1911–14) wrote from Morges, where he settled after leaving Poznań: ‘Rocznik – we finally have some sort of a musicological collection! Finally! But with what a great effort and personal sacrifice on your part! … You know that this Rocznik of yours will make me feel like getting down to some work.’691 And indeed, he did not fail as an author. For the first volume, he prepared a paper on unknown letters from Elsner to Breitkopf and Härtel,692 at the same time announcing a paper on parts of an unknown organ tablature from the end of seventeenth or the beginning of eighteenth century693 and an edition of a few letters from Karłowicz from his private archive.694 These were some of the last publications of this ←339 | 340→musicologist, who resided in Switzerland and died there in 1942. He left no other materials which could be published by Chybiński.
Józef Chomiński, a young graduate of Lviv musicology, presented his texts in both volumes of Rocznik. The first volume opened with an extensive analysis of organum quadruplum in Sedereunt by Pérotin (pp. 1–27), which was a continuation of his earlier research interest in medieval music; for the second volume, he prepared his first study on the works of Karol Szymanowski695 and a report on Stilwende der Musik by Ernst Pepping. He informed the editorial team about it in September 1935 and promised to submit the texts within a month.696 Soon he also submitted a rather short, but extremely probing review of Harmonika Chopina [Chopin’s harmonica] by Ludwik Bronarski which had just been published by TWMP.
Maria Szczepańska, who was probably Chybiński’s most trusted assistant, published the results of her studies in Kwartalnik many a time. She also submitted subsequent papers to Rocznik: ‘O dwunastogłosowym Magnificat Mikołaja Zieleńskiego z r. 1611. Do historii stylu weneckiego w Polsce’ [On the 12-part Magnificat by Mikołaj Zieleński (1611). Contribution to the history of the Venetian style in Poland] (1935/1, 28–54) and the aforementioned paper, ‘as thick as a book,’ ‘O utworach Mikołaja Radomskiego (z Radomia) (wiek XV)’ [On the compositions of Mikołaj Radomski (Mikołaj of Radom) (15th century)] (1936/2, 87–94). Concerning the quantity of material about Mikołaj Radomski, and due to its special value, then the editor still wrote: ‘I will enter the path of editorial inflation, i.e. “further consequences.” And so I will halve a work which is very good, but as thick as a book, by Dr Szczepańska about Mikołaj Radomski (XV century). It would be a pity for her, but if it were not for the Rocznik, she would not be able to show herself so quickly, and it is necessary to hurry, let the people know once who this master really was, about whom Ludwig wrote with such admiration in his letter to me.’697←340 | 341→
The authors centred around Kwartalnik Muzyczny (Chomiński, Szczepańska, Opieński, Kamieński698) were for the first time joined by Alicja Simon, who had already been an experienced author699 and Jan Józef Dunicz, the favourite pupil of Chybiński.700 At the time, Dunicz was also working on his doctoral dissertation Adam Jarzębski i jego „Canzoni e concerti” (1627) [Adam Jarzębski and his ‘Canzoni e concerti’ (1627)], which he defended in 1937 and which Chybiński used the following year to inaugurate a new series Lwowskie Rozprawy Muzykologiczne. Even though he was preoccupied with this text, he managed to submit two texts for publication in volume II: ‘Z badań nad muzyką polską XVIII wieku: Jacek Szczurowski (ur. 1718)’ [Studies in Polish music of the eighteenth century: Jacek Szczurowski (born on 1718)]701 and a short notice ‘Do biografii Mikołaja Zieleńskiego’ [On the biography of Mikołaj Zieleński]702 which was a commentary and a sort of complement to the article written by Maria Szczepańska for volume I of Rocznik. The editor-in-chief in this volume did not publish any of his own text, but for the needs of volume II he prepared the aforementioned treatise on the Warsaw organ tablature (see above footnote 693) and an edition of two letters from Sebastian Sierakowski to Karol Kurpiński and two letters from Kazimierz Kratzer to Józef Sikorski.703
The list of the most trusted authors was topped up with a few more names – Father Hieronim Feicht, one of the best graduates of Lviv musicology, Helena Windakiewiczowa, the author of works on music ethnography, Father Władysław Skierkowski, who was devoted to the Kurpie Region, Łucjan Kamieński,704 the leader of musicology in Poznań, Marek Kwiek, an acoustician, as well as Julian Pulikowski, Aleksander Patkowski and Kazimierz Tyszkowski who were supposed to publish in volume III.←341 | 342→
The reception of the first volume of PRM was no different from what had been expected. Musicologists from Cracow did not want to comment. Kamieński from Poznań, grateful for the careful preparation of his article, wrote enthusiastically: ‘Rocznik looks great…. In terms of sheet music, it represents steady progress compared to Kwartalnik…. It is a pity, of course, that unfortunate material reasons have restricted the whole to a relatively modest size, but it is quite an accomplishment that we have, at last, a purely scholarly publication, and from a to z …. There is perhaps too much Pulikowski in the reviews…. Perhaps in the next yearbook he won’t need to observe such radical reserves as from a certain A.Ch.?’705
In general, Warsaw responded favourably: ‘I allow myself to add my personal opinion: the overall impression is great! Absolutely on the same level as Revue de musicologie, Acta musicologica and Zeitschrift für Musikwissenschaft. Strictly scholarly, serious, no pretence, no clichés’706 – wrote Pulikowski. However, he then moved on to substantive criticism of almost all the papers published in Rocznik. The only texts he praised without any objections were ‘great’ reviews written by Bronarski. For Chybiński, this critical review was all the more heart-wrenching because he had been waiting for it for a few months707 and expected ←342 | 343→(quite reasonably) only words of praise for the journal. The consequence of the unfortunate paper was putting a halt to texts which had already been submitted to Muzyka Polska by unknown authors working for PRM.
At the end of 1936, there was a harbinger of the first serious problems with the annal; as Warsaw reported, ‘FKN has problems with loans and in MWRiOP the sums for music are rubbish.’708 This is contradicted by the professor’s account of his visit in Warsaw which he described in his letter to Bronarski just over a month later: ‘The biggest … advantage of the Warsaw outing is that Rocznik will grow in size. I must admit that I got down to this task mit List und Gewalt and requested as “much” as 5 thousand zlotys for Rocznik and I got what I wanted, that is 4 thousand, which will allow me to increase the number of pages to 250. And when it comes to the next year, they promised me more cash for Rocznik to keep elbowing its way through.’709
Anyway, it can be assumed that the threat of financial instability (but definitely not just that) could have had an influence on the delayed publication of the next, third volume of the journal. In autumn 1936, when the second volume was almost finished, Chybiński was already working on the next volume which he had planned to publish at the end of the year. However, during this time he was preoccupied more than ever with pedagogy and his own works. He was preparing the next volumes of the WDMP series, the first volume of Monumenta Polyphoniae Medii Aevi in Polonia and a monograph on Mieczysław Karłowicz, which, according to Chybiński himself710 was taking a lot of his time due to source and documentary material which was piling up at an alarming rate. (The book – Mieczysław Karłowicz (1876–1909) – progressed slowly and finally saw the light of day in 1939 when it was published by TWMP.)
Following the correspondence with potential authors for the third volume of PRM – Chomiński or Bronarski – it can be noticed that in the second half of 1937, and even in the spring of 1938, the editor of the yearbook was still at the stage of collecting the materials and planning the edition: Chomiński sent a study of structural questions in Szymanowski’s sonatas to Lviv in the summer of ←343 | 344→1937,711 and the fate of Aleksander Sadkowski’s article was in the balance many months later. In 1937 the professor’s sight got worse, which significantly limited his ability to work. The postponement of the printing date was also influenced by the message he received from Switzerland, about Bronarski’s discovery in the Library of the Paris Conservatoire of two unknown works by Chopin – Largo E flat major and Nocturne c-minor. A lively discussion took place between Lviv, Fribourg and Warsaw on this subject.712 Chybiński, moved by the announcement of submitting an edition of this material together with a commentary, to the PRM, wrote: ‘For, no matter what, I wanted the volume of the yearbook being printed to include yours work on the fortunate discovery of two Chopin works, I therefore stopped – of course – the printing of the volume to await the treasure from your friend. I notified TWMP about this pause in printing, giving reasons so as to not to suspect me of laziness or sluggishness.’713
At the same time, TWMP approached the Chopinologist and offered to publish the edited works as separate music sheets. However, it was not so simple because the administration of the Paris Library only gave its consent for publishing these findings in a scholarly journal. Because of that, Chybiński offered Bronarski to publish the article and facsimile of the manuscripts as an article in Rocznik, while their analysis could be published as a supplement to the journal. It would contain the information that it is an integral part of the journal, but in this form it could also function on its own. Unfortunately, TWMP held a different view. In response to the offer to publish Chopin’s works as a supplement to Rocznik, Teodor Zalewski sent a letter to Lviv in January 1938: ‘I think that we will publish these works for practical use in the customary form, i.e. similarly to other piano compositions. In my opinion, it is not advisable to sell copies of Rocznik with these works, which are academically analysed, because it will diminish the effect that they could otherwise have. This is why, in my opinion, our popular edition and the publication of the works in Rocznik must ←344 | 345→be regarded as distinct. Therefore, the concept of an “insert” proposed by the Professor is out of the question.’714
Chybiński, although partly guided by purely pragmatic considerations, first and foremost wanted a set of materials related to the discovered Largo and Nocturne to appear under the banner of the scholarly magazine. Financed by Warsaw, he could not, however, disagree with Zalewski’s suggestion, although this solution caused further misunderstandings between him and the Warsaw community.715 For some consolation in the middle of May 1938, Bronarski sent him, perhaps useful, as the author believed, ‘in view of the delay in the publication of the yearbook,’ a text about Chopin’s mazurka dedicated to E. Gaillard.716 A number of older reviews by other authors, kept from the previous edition, were also to be included in this volume due to the need for savings caused by high costs of clichés for Chomiński’s article about Szymanowski’s Słopiewnie.
In early spring 1939, the professor was asked whether the next issue would be published by July. In May the preoccupied or maybe even irritated members of the Management Board of SMDM wrote an authoritative letter: ‘We assume that once again some serious obstacles are preventing Rocznik from being published. We are concerned with this fact and admit that it is quite problematic for us. FKN requires that we present a financial statement accounting for the subsidy granted to Rocznik. The deadline expired a long time ago…. Dear Professor, please intervene at the printing house so that we can get complete receipts as soon as possible.’717 Before all this, the number of copies of Rocznik had been discussed as well. When we take into account the needs of the small community of musicologists, this number was clearly unreasonable (the print run was reduced from 500 to 300 pieces,718 and even 150 was considered, ‘because … we have no hope for greater demand’719).
At the same time, Julian Pulikowski was trying to take advantage of the fact that the publication of PRM was delayed by two years. Pretending that he was concerned about the journal and the professor’s health, he proposed to expand the editorial teams of both Rocznik and WDMP. In the beginning, he only put up Feicht, but in subsequent letters he also mentioned himself. His idea was ←345 | 346→supposed to be put into practice with the help of PTM, which was reactivated thanks to Łucjan Kamieński. In January 1939 in Poznań and in June in Cracow PTM was going to organise more meetings of delegates from all musicological centres – Poznań, Cracow, Lviv and Warsaw (where musicology, as we can remember, had existed for a few years as part of the Conservatoire, with occasional lectures at the university). However, this idea was just an incident which was not of significant importance to the fate of Rocznik and did not affect the work of its editorial team. Even though Warsaw kept insisting and flooding the authors with questions, they did not manage to publish another issue before September 1939.
The pre-war stage of the history of the magazine and the events of the first weeks of the war can be closed with the dramatic words that Chybiński wrote in his short notes to Ludwik Bronarski at the turn of 1941 and 1942: ‘The Bolshevik gang destroyed the third volume of the Rocznik Muzykologiczny in the printing house, there were some proofreading sheets, but little. In general, this band destroyed a lot: they confiscated my whole private library together with music. Up to now, I have no hope of recovery.’720 ‘The third volume of the Yearbook, almost finished, was destroyed by the Bolshevik gang at the printers along with the stereotypes, but the entire proof was retained.’721
The idea of publishing the PRM was undertaken at the beginning of the 1950s, when Józef Chomiński edited, as part of his work in PIS, volume I–II of Studia Muzykologiczne (1953). The PRM returned in 2004, published under the auspices of the Musicologists’ Section of the ZKP and the forces of the Editorial Committee, which included Ludwik Bielawski, J. Katarzyna Dadak-Kozicka, Agnieszka Leszczyńska, Ewa Obniska and Barbara Przybyszewska-Jarmińska. The third volume was dedicated ‘To the creators of Polish musicology’ – Chybiński and Jachimecki – and filled with entirely different content, constituting a testimony of contemporary Polish musicological research.←346 | 347→
636 Chybiński do Bronarski from Lviv 20 XI 1933, AACh-BUAM, Bronarski’s archive, p. 95.
637 Chybiński do Bronarski from Lviv 20 XI 1933, AACh-BUAM, Bronarski’s archive, k. 95.
638 ‘Od Redakcji’ [Editorial] (MP 1934/1, 2).
639 Ibid., 1–2.
640 ‘Od Redakcji’ [Editorial] (MP 1934/4, 257–258).
641 Rutkowski to Chybiński from Warsaw 20 II 1934, AACh-BJ, box 4, R-19/38.
642 See review MP 1934/2, 156–157.
645 ‘Do kwestii “wpływologii” muzycznej (na przykładzie twórczości Karłowicza)’ [To the question of musical ‘influencology’ (on the example of Karłowicz’s Work] (MP 1934/4, 281–288).
646 ‘Do genezy Harnasiów Karola Szymanowskiego’ [To the genesis of Karol Szymanowski’s Harnasie] (MP 1936/3, 196–199).
647 MP 1934/3, 196–200.
648 MP 1935/1, 1–6.
649 MP 1936/2, 116–118.
650 MP 1936/2, 119–120.
651 Zofia Lissa, ‘Dylematy krytyki muzycznej w Polsce’ [Dilemmas of music criticism in Poland] (MP 1934/2, 132–137).
652 Zofia Lissa, ‘Badanie muzykalności a wychowanie muzyczne’[Measuring musicality and music education] (MP 1934/3, 216–221).
653 MP 1938/7–8, 317–327.
654 MP 1939/4, 191–203.
655 MP 1937/1,. 5–10.
656 ‘Wydawnictwo Dawnej Muzyki Polskiej’ [Publisher of early Polish music] (MP 1937/1, 10–12).
657 MP 1937/12, 552–556.
658 ‘Fortepianowa twórczość Karola Szymanowskiego’ [Karol Szymanowski’s piano works] (MP 1936/5, 313–329).
659 MP 1937/5, 224–232.
660 MP 1938/7–8, 327–332, cit. p. 327.
661 ‘Problem formy w okresie wielkich przemian (głównie formy sonatowej w ostatnim pięćdziesięcioleciu)’ [The problem of form in the period of great changes (Mainly sonata form during the last fifty years)] (MP 1938/12, 535–543).
662 ‘Kilka uwag o instrumentacji’ [A few remarks about instrumentation] (MP 1939/4, 203–208).
663 MP 1935/1, 29–32.
664 ‘O drogę do nowego słuchacza’ [About the path to the new listener] (MP 1935/4, 286–289).
665 Rutkowski consulted Chybiński regarding this change, see Rutkowski to Chybiński from Warsaw 12 VI 1936, AACh-BJ, box 4, R-19/51.
666 ‘O “wartościach społecznych” w muzyce’ [About ‘community values’ in music] (MP 1936/3, 199–204).
667 MP 1936/1, 54–56.
668 He participated in the publication of Szymanowski’s edition ‘pro memoriam.’ Inspired by Chybiński’s postulate to stop tying Karłowicz’s work with ‘Tatra legends,’ he also published considerations on the search for sources of this work in the Vilnius region, see ‘Karłowicz, wilnianin redivivus’ (MP 1935/2, 127–129). He also commented on current musical life.
669 MP 1939/3, 111–123.
670 MP 1937/7–8, 341–352.
671 About Bolesław Woytowicz on the occasion of granting him a state prize (MP 1937/3, 116–119), about Antoni Szałowski in a conversation with him (MP 1938/2, 57–60).
672 ‘Czy atonalizm jest naprawdę atonalny’ [Is atonalism really atonal?] (MP 1936/1, 32–39).
673 Marian Neuteich, ‘Muzyka w ZSRR’ [Music in the USSR] (MP 1934/4, 294–300).
674 Otto Graf, ‘Organizacja życia muzycznego w Niemczech’ [Organisation of musical life in Germany] (MP 1935/2, 113–126).
675 Ibid., 113.
676 Ibid., 114.
677 It should be noted that in the future the editors avoided such extensive articles, as they wanted to reach out to the broadest possible group of readers interested in generally understood musical culture.
678 The pendant to these materials was an article of another young composer, Michał Kondracki ‘O kierunkach współczesnej muzyki polskiej’ [On the directions of contemporary Polish music], included in the previous number (MP 1937/6, 267–273)
679 MP 1937/5, 219–224.
680 Bronarski to Chybiński from Geneva 8 VI 1934, AACh-BJ, box 6, B-26/97.
681 Opieński to Chybiński from Morges 5 III 1934, AACh-BJ, box 6, O-2/138.
682 k.b., ‘Muzyka i Muzyka Polska’ (Ateneum 1938/3, 524–526).
684 See Chybiński to Bronarski from Lviv 10 II 1930, AACh-BUAM, Bronarski’s archive, p. 31.
685 Chybiński to Bronarski from Lviv 20 XI 1933, AACh-BUAM, Bronarski’s archive, p. 95
686 Rutkowski to Chybiński from Warsaw 4 IV 1935, AACh-BJ, box 4, R-19/43.
687 MP 1934/1, .
688 Bronarski to Chybiński from Geneva 15 XII 1933, AACh-BJ, box 6, B-26/87.
689 Chybiński to Bronarski from Lviv 12 VI 1934, AACh-BUAM, Bronarski’s archive, p. 114. Ludwik Bronarski’s report ‘Z najnowszej literatury chopinowskiej’ [From the latest Chopin literature] opened the column ‘Referaty krytyczne’ [Critical Reports] and included discussions on five publications: Hans Volkmann’s Chopin in Dresden (Berlin 1933), Frederic Chopin: Lettres edited by Henryk Opieński (Paris 1933), Leopold Binental’s Chopin (Paris 1934), The Oxford Original Edition of Frédéric Chopin (London 1932) and Édouard Ganche’s Voyages avec Frédéric Chopin (Paris 1934).
690 Both materials were used in the post-war version of KM, see Chapter III-4.
691 Opieński to Chybiński from Morges 25 IV 1935, AACh-BJ, box 6, O-2/146.
692 ‘Józef Elsner w świetle nieznanych listów’ [Józef Elsner in the light of unknown letters] (PRM 1935/1, 76–90).
693 ‘Kilka kart nieznanej tabulatury’ [A few pages of unknown tablature] (PRM 1936/2, 116–121). Chybiński also planned a second ‘tablature’ material in the same volume – his own text on Warsaw’s organ tablature, supplementing the description of the relic with a history of Polish organ culture in the seventeenth century, see Adolf Chybiński, ‘Warszawska tabulatura organowa z XVII wieku’ [Warsaw organ tablature of the XVII century] (PRM 1936/2, 100–115).
694 ‘Z korespondencji Mieczysława Karłowicza’ [From Mieczysław Karłowicz’s correspondence] (PRM 1936/2, 147–152).
695 In his research plans he intended to make further studies on the creative work of Karol Szymanowski: analysis of the violin sonata and quartets which he ‘conceived’ from the end of summer 1937, see amongst others Chomiński to Chybiński from Werchrata from 2VIII, 17 VIII, 2 IX 1937, 2 XI 1938, 5 I 1939, AACh-BJ, box 5, C-10/ 51, 52, 54, 76, 80.
696 Chomiński to Chybiński from Werchrata 13 IX 1935, at AACh-BJ, box no. 5, sign. C-10/7.
697 Chybiński to Bronarski from Lviv 21 XII 1935 r., at AACh-BUAM, Bronarski’s archive, k. 145.
698 Kamieński also had the material for the second volume of Rocznik, this time about the group of ‘sitting’ songs. However, he had to accept the refusal to publish due to volume size restrictions.
699 ‘Życie muzyczne w świetle “Pamiętników” Józefa hr. Krasińskiego’ [Musical life in the light of the ‘Memoirs’ of count Józef Krasiński] (PRM 1935/1, 91–106).
700 ‘Z badań nad muzyka polską XVIII wieku. 1. Kasper Pyrszyński (1718–1758)’ [From research into Polish music of the XVIII century. 1. Kasper Pyrszyński (1718–1758)’] (PRM 1935/1, 55–75).
701 PRM 1936/2, 122–139.
702 PRM 1936/2, 95–97.
703 PRM 1936/2, 140–142, 142–146.
704 ‘Monografia pieśni zmówinowej z Kaszub południowych’ [Monograph about prenuptial agreement songs from southern Kaszuby] (PRM 1935/1, 107–131).
705 Kamieński to Chybiński 5 V 1935 r., at AACh-BJ, box no. 6, sign. K-3/81.
706 Pulikowski to Chybiński from Warsaw 22 IV 1935, at AACh-BJ, box no. 3, sign. P-28/93. It is worth adding here that a few months earlier Pulikowski, under his monogram T.K., published in Muzyka Polska (1934/4, 329–331) a review of ‘the new musicological journal’ published in Cracow under the editorship of Zdzisław Jachimecki. He wrote: ‘The publication [of Rozprawy i Notatki Muzykologiczne] is a very reassuring event. Even though the publisher did not establish fixed dates on which the journal would appear systematically, we still hope that Rozprawy i Notatki will appear often and that it will successfully carry out its task, which can be summed up thus [as was pointed out in the editorial]: “to serve the growing needs of society with regards to a field of science which is quite young in our country, and to fill in huge gaps apparent in all branches of scarce musicological literature.” … The contents of the first issue is really varied … [articles by B. Wójcik–Keuprulian, W. Poźniak, S. Śledziński, J. Reiss]. The choice of themes deserves praise.’ It is true that in his review of this volume Pulikowski criticised almost all the articles, but his arguments were strictly scientific, substantive and devoid of bias. He voiced his opinions as part of a scholarly discussion. Two authors, Wójcik–Keuprulian and Poźniak responded (see Bronisława Wójcik–Keuprulian and Włodzimierz Poźniak: [response to T.K.’s review of Rozprawy i Notatki Muzykologiczne vol. I (Muzyka Polska 1935/5, 70–74), and also Odpowiedź autora sprawozdania [Reply by the report’s author] (Muzyka Polska 1935/5, 74–76), which I mentioned in chapter II-3.
707 In June 1935 he wrote to Bronarski and expressed his disappointment: ‘I’ve just received the newest issue of Muzyka Polska. I’m stunned! Not a single word, no mention of Polski Rocznik Muzykologiczny! What is that supposed to mean? What’s the reason?,’ Chybiński do Bronarski from Lviv 27 VI 1935, AACh-BUAM, Bronarski’s archive, p. 134.
708 Rutkowski to Chybiński from Warsaw 15 XI 1936, AACh-BJ, box 4, R-19/54.
709 Chybiński to Bronarski from Lviv 29 I 1937, AACh-BUAM, Bronarski’s archive, p. 156.
710 See for example, letters to Bronarski from Lviv 29 III, 3 V, 1 VI 1937, AACh-BUAM, Bronarski’s archive, p. 158, 159, 160.
711 Chomiński to Chybiński from Werchrata from 24 VI and 12 VII 1937, AACh-BJ, box 5, C-10/47 and C-10/48. This study was definitively published in KM 1948/21–22, 170–207.
712 See Chybiński do Bronarski from Lviv 13 and 27 XI 1937 and also 7 I 1938 (AACh-BUAM, Bronarski’s archive, p. 163, 164, 166), and Bronarski to Chybiński from Fribourg 11 XI, 20 XI, 5 XII, 27 XII 1937, 17 I, 5 II 1938 (AACh-BJ, box 6, B-26/156–161).
713 Chybiński to Bronarski from Lviv 13 XI 1937, AACh-BUAM, Bronarski’s archive, p. 163.
714 Zalewski to Chybiński from Warsaw 11 I 1938, AACh-BJ, box 5, T-10/42.
715 Both compositions prepared for publication by Ludwik Bronarski were printed by TWMP in 1938.
716 See Bronarski to Chybiński from Fribourg 16 V 1938, AACh-BJ, box 6, B-26/165.
717 Rutkowski to Chybiński from Warsaw 16 V 1939, AACh-BJ, box 4, R-19/65.
718 Rutkowski to Chybiński from Warsaw 5 V 1939, AACh-BJ, box 4, R-19/63.
719 Ochlewski to Chybiński from Warsaw 18 X 1938, AACh-BJ, box 1, O-1/90.
720 Chybiński to Bronarski from Lviv 19 XII 1941, AACh-BUAM, Bronarski’s archive, p. 175.
721 Chybiński to Bronarski from Lviv 24 II 1942, AACh-BUAM, Bronarski’s archive, p. 176.