1. New context of the functioning of the academic milieu and their publications – ‘bourgeoisie musicology’
Despite immense destruction across the country, the post-war chaos did not last long. Day by day, Poland was trying to restore the order abandoned in 1939, also when it came to scientific and cultural life. However, the new political system quickly got down to extending the biological debilitation of the nation by degrading the most opinion-forming and culture-forming social group, namely pre-war intelligentsia. Despite all that, humanistic, technical and artistic universities in the main Polish cities shortly began to resume their activity. Similarly, various associations and institutions were either established or resumed their previous activity. This is shown, for example, by the actions undertaken by Mieczysław Drobner, a composer, pedagogue, musicologist and pupil of Zdzisław Jachimecki. In autumn 1944 in Lublin, which was already free at that time, Drobner and some other musicians established the Polish Composers’ Union (ZKP). Soon, the pre-war Association of Polish Composers (SKP) was reactivated under the direction of Adam Wieniawski.1 The Ministry of Culture and Arts operating within the structures of the new government, in which the aforementioned Mieczysław Drobner was appointed as the head of the Department of Music (February 1945), quite quickly took over control over the entire artistic community, including the music environment. By the end of summer 1945, there were already plans for launching the First National Congress of Composers, during which the new Association was founded and its statute was passed, and immediately after the meeting, the Festival of Polish Contemporary Music was held. Stefan Kisielewski wrote the following about this in Ruch Muzyczny, the newly founded journal reporting on current musical life: ‘The Festival of Polish Contemporary Music in Cracow was an event that none of the other European nations could be able to organise following such a terrible occupation.’2←349 | 350→
Events which took place in the last period of the Second World War resulted in the forced migration of Poles. These events included the total destruction of Warsaw during and after the Warsaw Uprising, considerable losses in Poznań as the front line moved west in January and February 1945, losses in Wroclaw, which in the last weeks of the war became a stronghold doomed to almost total annihilation, destruction of many other cities, and the establishment of new borders at the Yalta Conference. It shortly turned out that the geography of Polish science shifted as well and this affected a large group of representatives of the musicologist community. Before the war, there were four academic centres in which musicology developed: Jan Kazimierz University in Lviv, the Jagiellonian University in Cracow, the University in Poznań, and Warsaw. When it comes to the latter city, it attracted a large group of active musicologists, and in the years 1938–39 there were first attempts to introduce regular musicology courses at the University of Warsaw. After the war, the academic centre in Lviv was irretrievably lost. Instead, Poland gained the foundation of a new scientific centre, the University in Wroclaw, which had a long tradition as a German scientific institution.
Among the pre-war departments, the least damage when it comes to both finances and personnel was suffered by the department in Cracow, whereas Warsaw was still awaiting its years of glory, while in Poznań the collections of the phonographic archive were irretrievably lost. However, the most significant losses affected Lviv, which – besides the plundering suffered during the German and Soviet occupations – found itself within the boundaries of the Soviet Union after the end of the war. Part of the city’s Polish community decided to resettle the areas remaining within the new borders of the country, often in areas known as the Recovered Territories; the issue of goods left was dramatic – both private and public collections of art, property of universities and cultural institutions, offices; sometimes it was possible to evacuate these resources before closing of the borders3 or recover them as a result of international agreements, but in a small quantity.4←350 | 351→
The first years of working in new conditions were conducive to summarising the history of the discipline in Poland and to establishing a starting point for a ‘new opening’ in musicology. Around the same time, a few publications which presented the situation of the musicological community came out. On one occasion PAU commissioned Zdzisław Jachimecki to work on Muzykologia i piśmiennictwo muzyczne w Polsce5 [Musicology and musical writing in Poland], another time the concise information was printed in the pages of Ruch Muzyczny, ‘Uwagi o muzykologii’ [Comments about musicology], in which Włodzimierz Poźniak indicated the most important tasks that musicologists should address as a response, on the one hand, to war losses, on the other – to earlier neglect, for example, in the area of establishing a single unified musical/musicological terminology, the absence of which made precise analysis of musical works significantly more difficult.6 Another demand put forward by Poźniak was the necessity of compiling a dictionary of Polish musicians7 and devising a classification of musicology. The foundation for it was supposed to be a monograph written by Seweryn Barbag8 before the war.←351 | 352→
Zofia Lissa, briefly outlining the situation of musicology from a distance of only a few years,9 recalled the names of musicologists and theorists that were missing in the new post-war reality, including Father Wacław Gieburowski (d. 1943). Seweryn Barbag (died in autumn 1944 due to tuberculosis in a tuberculosis sanatorium in Świder near Warsaw), Józef Koffler (Maciej Gołąb10 described the confusing history of Koffler’s family and his not fully-explained wartime fate), Jerzy Freiheiter, Jan Józef Dunicz, Emilia Elsner, Irena Hüssowa, Erazm Łańcucki, Helena Dorabialska – for the most part members of the Lviv musicological community.11 It was hard to make up for such losses. One should also add names omitted by Lissa at that time – Henryk Opieński who died in 1942 in Morges, Julian Pulikowski, who died in 1944 in Warsaw, and Łucjan Kamieński who survived the war but was accused of collaborating with the occupiers and sentenced to prison. After leaving prison, he was removed entirely from all academic research.
As an additional difficulty in developing post-war Polish musicology Lissa indicated divergent methodological attitudes that polarised the community: historically and factually marked research by seniors of Polish musicology – Adolf Chybiński, Zdzisław Jachimecki and Józef Reiss as well as several of their followers – Hieronim Feicht, Maria Szczepańska, Włodzimierz Poźniak, Jan Prosnak or Marian Sobieski and Jadwiga Sobieska, against whom she opposed the philosophical and sociological approach – also arising from theoretical and historical research – taken by a group of pre-war graduates of the Lviv-based department (Stefania Łobaczewska, Józef Chomiński, Zofia Lissa) and representatives of the youngest generation, commencing its operations following 1945, including Witold Rudziński and Stefan Jarociński, amongst others.12 According ←352 | 353→to Lissa, such a split caused the weakening of the whole discipline, which in turn, over time worked against the unification of the programme of musicological studies.13 The lack of personnel was also an argument that for only a few years the activity of academic-didactic centres should be limited to two locations – Warsaw and Cracow.
In May 1945, ethnomusicologist Marian Sobieski and acoustician Marek Kwiek, two pre-war employees of the former Musicology Department at the University of Poznań, resumed classes in this institution. Łucjan Kamieński, who was the founder of the department and its head before 1939, was not involved in these actions. Suspected of collaboration with Germans, he was put under arrest and remained on the margin of academic life even after his exoneration. However, it was obligatory for a university department to be headed by a faculty member with a postdoctoral degree, so in spring 1945, the Humanistic Faculty Board asked Adolf Chybiński to take up this position. Since he could not hope for a return to Lviv, he accepted the offer from Poznań, and at the beginning of the new academic year, he gladly began organising the Department.
(Let us remember that by the end of 1939 musicology in Lviv ceased to function in the form in which it had been operating since 1912. At that time the Department – its staff, students, and the entire property – was incorporated into the structures of the Lviv National Conservatoire named after Mykola Lysenko. In 1940, Zofia Lissa was appointed dean of the faculty of music theory, but we know that she still regarded herself as a pupil of Chybiński and participated in seminars organised by him, during which she heralded the results of her research, a matter she gave information about after the war during her efforts to obtain habilitation.)
The financial (and material) situation of musicology in Poznań was very difficult. The pre-war property was almost completely destroyed, and this fact had to set future research plans: ‘after the withdrawal of the invaders the Department is highly impoverished, plundered. After handling such a Department as I had in Lviv, now I am merely a pauper. There, I could undertake works in every respect. Here – in truth, not even one’ – wrote the professor.14 The majority of materials from the phonographic archive were irretrievably damaged, and only remnants of the former library collection survived. However, after the war, there were many actions aimed at retrieving library collections and acquiring new titles. ←353 | 354→They quickly yielded results. Thanks to the generosity of Zofia Lissa, gifts from the Ministry of Culture and Art were also added to the collection. Lissa was a ministerial official and could decide, at least to a certain degree, how the gains stored in ministerial warehouses were distributed. Four years after Chybiński had become the head of the Department, he wrote: ‘In 1945, there was a handful of music materials and 80 books… This week, we’ll exceed 1000 books and about 2500 documents on music. It’s not much! But it’s still a lot for such a short time.’15 In terms of artefacts of Old Polish music, the situation was saved by the professor’s private collections – an abundance of compositions from as far as the eighteenth century gathered before the war by Chybiński himself and his students, which often constituted the material basis of master theses and editing of the renewed WDMP.
Knowing the enormity of work associated with running the Department, the professor from the early days sought support from his younger colleagues – classes were still conducted by Marian Sobieski and Marek Kwiek, except that Kwiek had quite quickly (in 1946) received his habilitation in the field of acoustics and science on musical instruments, which indicated his future scientific path.16 On account of devoting himself to the technical aspects of acoustic research, he had temporarily withdrawn from his interest in musicology. Already in the initial period, in addition to senior colleagues, Kornel Michałowski – a young student – volunteered to help with the library collections. Edmund Duliński and Zygmunt M. Szweykowski – the professor’s pupil – soon appeared in the role of assistants. However, the most important figure in the professor’s group was Maria Szczepańska – his most faithful assistant who remained in Lviv even in the first months after the liberation. Nonetheless, she was soon relocated to Poznań as a result of the newly-established border arrangement. Szczepańska, despite her many notable academic achievements and publications, and her persistent teaching activities, did not advance within the academic structures. Although she served as the pillar of the department after Chybiński’s death, her career did not flourish, also in connection with the marginalisation plans already launched at that time in Warsaw and (eventually) the closure of the Poznań-based academic centre.
One of the most important tasks which Chybiński undertook in Poznań was to confer more postdoctoral degrees in order to make it possible to open new ←354 | 355→departments of musicology or to strengthen the existing ones. In the second year of his work as the head of the department in the Humanistic Faculty, he conferred the first postdoctoral degree on one of his pupils from Lviv. In total, four of his Lviv pupils obtained such degrees. Father Hieronim Feicht, who in March 1946 settled in a parish in Oporów near Wroclaw, also taught classes at the newly formed Department of Musicology in the Humanistic Faculty at the University in Wroclaw (see below) and started forming a music academy in this city. The necessity of obtaining authorisations regarding the conduct of didactic and academic activities prompted him to quickly apply for the opening of the postdoctoral habilitation procedure based on the dissertation Ronda Fryderyka Chopina [Frederic Chopin’s Rondos], and the successful completion of the procedures related to obtaining the degree took place in the first days of July 194617. Still, during autumn of the same year, Zofia Lissa’s habilitation application was submitted from Moscow to the address at the University of Poznań. Her case was to be referred in the first place by the rector of the University of Poznań, the professor of psychology Stefan Błachowski, who was also from Lviv and was ‘a musically-gifted man who knows the issues psychology of music.’18 In the beginning, Chybiński thought it impossible to confer a degree in musicology on Lissa due to insufficient documentation of her historical research.19 However, things turned out differently. All in all, it was beneficial to the discipline in the hard years when the musicological community was being rebuilt, and a new musicological centre was being formed at the University of Warsaw.
For another ‘Lviv’ habilitation it was necessary to wait some more months until Stefania Łobaczewska completed her monograph on the life and works of K. Szymanowski. According to the original plans, after obtaining her qualification, Łobaczewska was to take a position in Łódź. However, at the Faculty of Humanities of the local university, classes on the history of music were already led by Alicja Simon. Furthermore, Łobaczewska did not find Łódź interesting and, anyhow, from 1944, the researcher had taken up permanent residence in Cracow, where after the war she participated in the organisation of PWSM, and where she gave lectures from 1946 almost to her death. She was strongly associated with the city and wanted to connect with the local musicology community, ←355 | 356→knowing full well that the department would remain in the hands of its creator, Zdzisław Jachimecki. Despite the circumstances, after obtaining her qualification in the first days of June 1949 in Poznań and after conducting appropriate procedures related to the transfer of her tenure, and with the support from Eugenia Krassowska who had been serving as Deputy Minister at the Ministry of Education, Science and Higher Education for years, in 1951 she was employed at the Department of History and Theory of Music of the Jagiellonian University. Following the death of Zdzisław Jachimecki in 1953, she was appointed as the head of the unit.
The last habilitation, that of Józef Michał Chomiński, took place at a moment when it was not entirely clear whether the habilitation procedure must be preceded by the publication of the dissertation or not. Taking advantage of this gap in the regulations, Chomiński chose his pre-war, but still unpublished, dissertation written in 1937, Zagadnienia konstrukcyjne w sonatach fortepianowych Karola Szymanowskiego [Structural issues in Karol Szymanowski’s piano sonatas],20 despite the fact that at some point Chybiński had proposed submitting the work on Chopin’s preludes that was being prepared at that time.21 The term of habilitation was set for 1 July 1949, and although after the event the candidate had many doubts about the quality of his lecture, the professor was able to note the success of the Lviv school with satisfaction.
In the context of these four habilitations, the professor’s observation seems interesting. He wrote to Ludwik Bronarski: ‘Have you noticed that all of my existing habilitation candidates work in areas from which I have not published a single work?! Strange, isn’t it? But it seems to be the result of my “Lviv” teaching assumptions [that] my students work, as far as possible, in various departments ←356 | 357→and directions missing in our musicological inventory. However, new and newest music prevails. Ha, oh well!’22
Conferring postdoctoral degrees on his pupils was a priority to Chybiński, but it was not his primary occupation. The most important task was to educate a new generation of musicologists who would fill war losses and make up for the years in which no new diplomas were obtained. At the end of the 1940s and the beginning of the 1950s, about 100 candidates took up musicological studies. Prior to Chybiński’s death, thirty-eight students were awarded master’s degrees.23 The second generation of the professors’ alumni were such prominent musicologists as Zygmunt M. Szweykowski, Tadeusz Strumiłło, Mirosław Perz, Anna Czekanowska, Jan Stęszewski, Ludwik Bielawski, the earlier mentioned Kornel Michałowski, Danuta Idaszak, Father Tadeusz Miazga and many others – some of whom were forced to migrate to Warsaw to complete their studies after closing the Poznań department.
Just as before the war in Lviv, Chybiński’s lecture topics covered a very broad range – from the music of the Ars Antiqua period, through the history of instrumental and vocal music of the Renaissance and Baroque, symphonic music of the Classicism period and the period following Beethoven, romantic solo songs. Chybiński was particularly close to Polish themes within three periods: Early Polish music, Chopinology and Karłowicziana, but he did not even try to get closer to the new research methodology desired by the state authorities. As it soon turned out, this led to the weakening of the Poznań Department’s position and exploitation of its potential, both material and human, to build a new musicology in Warsaw. The centrally planned syllabus, in which the professor got confused, did not help at all. The introduced obligation to prepare a detailed plan of lectures contradicted the principle of independence of the university and its academic staff, and researchers educated before the war found this principle difficult to accept.
Intensive didactic and research work (just in October 1950, the professor had to ‘review’ ten more master’s theses24) did not protect the musicology department ←357 | 358→against constant controversies about its place in the university’s structure. The attitude of some representatives of university authorities was adverse towards musicology. At the same time, Zofia Lissa made the first attempts to concentrate musicological ‘forces and measures’ in the new department which was being developed at the University of Warsaw. It soon led to scientific migration, this time in the direction of the Polish capital. Thanks to her connections with communist authorities, when Lissa came back to Warsaw, she was initially appointed associate director of the Department of Music at the Ministry of Culture and Art. This position enabled her to think about engaging in her own research activity and organising music and musicological life in Poland. She became one of the most important figures in post-war music and musicological life. As Sławomir Wieczorek put it in his dissertation, she was also the boss of this community.25 Lissa encouraged attempts to create an atmosphere of friendly cooperation, to devise uniform plans, and to come up with collective and coordinated actions. It was her answer to ‘the fragmentation of research, typical for the pre-war period (which was conditioned by the isolationism of individual musicologists and the hostility expressed by other communities).’26 The priority for her was to build a new musicological centre at the University of Warsaw, for which she quickly obtained bureaucratic consent (and above all she managed to get the promise of maintaining musicology as a field within university structures), which did not, however, indicate, immediate realisation of this project. Despite certain manoeuvres (which were also undertaken by Chybiński who followed in the footsteps of old contacts from Lviv), Lissa did not receive the promised facility, the allocation of which she expected throughout 1948. Transfer of her habilitation from the UP was also problematic because at some point some even dared to question submitting a dissertation at the Greater Poland-based university.
A quarter of a century later, in the anniversary book on Warsaw musicology, Lissa wrote about the beginnings of her lonely efforts to create a new unit at the Warsaw University as well as her struggle with MKiS, which wanted to mimic the system adopted by the ‘fraternal Soviet state’ and form historical and theoretical ←358 | 359→divisions within conservatoires (then already higher music schools) and ‘support conservatoire professors with the few musicologists who have already gained a certain academic renown.’27 This aspiration contributed to the fairly common (also known from history) misunderstanding of musicology as an academic field of study amongst a large part of the academic university staff.
To meet her goal, Lissa had to strengthen (or rather build) the academic community in Warsaw at the expense of other centres of learning and, most importantly, move away from the pre-war model of university departments headed by one professor acting as the master: ‘The fight for musicology in Warsaw was also the fight for a new essence and direction of Polish musicology. These tasks could not be fulfilled in single-person musicological centres…. The Warsaw centre aimed to attract several experts who could work together to implement a curriculum with a wide array of specialisations.’28 Her own ambitions, as well as war losses and the deaths of further musicologists after the war, had a bearing on the fact that in the end, musicology was concentrated in two main centres.
She mentioned that she had undertaken didactic activity (without her own place to run classes, but with twelve students) on 1 October 1948. Classes were held in the lecture hall of the University of Warsaw. However, it is worth mentioning that on the basis of surviving correspondence, we can say that the meeting with Minister Krassowska, to whom Lissa presented the proposed activities of the future Department of Musicology at the University of Warsaw, actually took place in the first days of 1949. She was planning to open a historical, theoretical and ‘folk’ division:
The first unit, due to the need of our methodological, Marxist approach – would be led by me for the time being, although I feel that you Sir should be the one giving lectures on medieval music. In general, it seems to me that theory and history would intermix between the two of us. For example, I would teach psychology and aesthetics of music. Theory of history – you. We could also bring Fr. Feicht, Krassowska feels like it – but he would have to give up lectures focused on religious forms. I have a feeling that he would consent to this. The folklore unit is the most difficult. Krassowska does not want to move the Sobieskis from Poznań to Warsaw due to the co-operation of the Archive and its devices with the departments of dialectology and linguistics. And so – has Witold Kandulski already become such a refined folklorist to be able to cover lectures and classes on ethnology? I doubt it.29 Since the plan for the development of the department ←359 | 360→of musicology in Warsaw is long-term, we could develop this unit only after a year or two.30
Stanisław Golachowski’s name was also included in the letter. He contributed greatly to the preservation of Karol Szymanowski’s legacy. At that moment in time he was professor at the PWSM in Łódź and from the previous year had been a member of the PAU and was able to take the acoustics classes.31
Chomiński enthusiastically responded to the invitation to participate in the construction of a new research and teaching facility. Let us quote here a larger part of an extensive letter which he sent to Lissa, immediately accepting the ideological interpretation of the new syllabus as obligatory:
I prepared a detailed study programme which basically overlaps with your project…. Since this plan will be read out at the meeting of the Humanistic Faculty Council, I was trying to formulate it in such a way that it does not frighten old ‘Mohicans’ and at the same time contains everything that is needed. What I mean is that the new methodological (Marxist) approach is there, yet I did not expressly call it that. That is why the first division, the theoretical and methodological one, will have such a great importance. I also included in it the methodology of historical research and aesthetics, because from our point of view all these elements will be interrelated and will complement each other. I left the methods of gathering and sorting musical ethnographic materials in the third, ethnology division. It is because these methods are purely technical and different than the methodology of research on music theory and the history of music. Moreover, music theory cannot keep following the old path, but should rather be based on dialectical thinking. These are the most difficult matters. This is why it is very important for me to hold a conference with experts on Marxist dialectics in the near future (most importantly with Prof. A. Shaff32)…. You will surely be surprised by the fact that the theory of harmony, counterpoint and forms were separated from general music theory. Well, on the one hand, I would like the subject called ‘general music theory’ to be the foundation of a thorough discussion and examination of matters related to the modern way of thinking, and on the other hand to cover issues which will not be explained in detail for now, e.g. the theory of rhythmical realisation, melodics and instrumentation. The history division looks formalistic only at first sight. I did not specify individual ←360 | 361→branches of the history of music culture because it depends on the needs and will of the lecturer. Anyway, it should be about the presentation of a cultural, sociological and economic ground, which should be as broad as possible. The same applies to the history of musical forms and instruments (the sociological and economic factor!)…. The third division is self-explanatory. In the fourth division, an important and a new issue will be the correlation between acoustics and music theory…. And one more thing, …, namely the issue of classical counterpoint. To date, the importance of this subject used to be greatly exaggerated.33
The conclusion of this long reasoning seems interesting: Namely, Chomiński considered it necessary to open a new journal that would ‘forge [this] modern methodological approach,’ a journal that would legitimise the work of the new centre – ‘Warszawski Rocznik Muzykologiczny’ [Warsaw musicological annual] with a subtitle ‘Rozprawy Warszawskiego Instytutu Muzykologicznego’ [Reports of Warsaw institute of musicology]. This idea evolved in connection with new tasks, which Chomiński soon undertook outside of UW: work in the newly created PIS resulted in the opening of a new title – Studia Muzykologiczne (see chapter III-2).
Warsaw musicology was allocated a flat in the tenement house at Hoża street 74 in August 1949. Soon, Chomiński34 started his teaching there; earlier, he had also been proposed lectures on the subject of music reviews for the Journalism Studies course at the Academy of Political Science35. The formalities related to the transfer of his tenure from Poznań were completed in the spring of 1951; Krystyna Wilkowska, Chomiński’s wife, also undertook classes with students alongside her husband; Father Feicht moved to Warsaw, soon afterwards also Marian Sobieski, and the first graduates of Warsaw also worked with the next years – Michał Bristiger and (in time) Andrzej Chodkowski, Anna Czekanowska, Józef Patkowski, Elżbieta Dziębowska. In the academic year 1952/53, the Department moved to a new address to the university building at Krakowskie Przedmieście, and in the new political reality, in 1957 musicology received rooms in the Warsaw Palace of Culture and Science.
Before moving to Warsaw, in the spring of 1946, Father Hieronim Feicht arrived in Wroclaw, assuming the duties of a parish priest in Oporów near Wroclaw. He quickly gained a position of renown amongst the main figures of the local music environment: he was one of the founders (together with Kazimierz Wiłkomirski, ←361 | 362→Ryszard Bakst, Ryszard Bukowski and Zbigniew Liebhart, also a lvivian) of the Lower Silesian Music Society.36 He also contributed to the opening of the PWSM, and became the first rector.
It should be noted that the pioneer of musicology in the Wroclaw-based Alma Mater was another student of Adolf Chybiński, namely Zbigniew Liebhart, who along with a group of repatriates, associated before the war with the Lviv University, began the construction of a new Polish academic centre, which in the autumn of 1945 became the University of Wroclaw. He personally decluttered the rooms, where in November 1945 he began giving classes for the first students. His great merit was the preservation of a large part of the pre-war library sources belonging to the Institut für Kirchen und Schulmusik. Due to lack of habilitation, he could not apply for running the institution; however, he was entrusted with the position of assistant professor.
The newly created course in Wroclaw had a solid foundation in the form of two units before the war at Universität Breslau – the earlier mentioned Institut für Kirchen und Schulmusik and Musikwissenschaftliches Seminar.37 Almost immediately after the war ended, pianist Stefania Allinówna made the first attempts to create conditions which would be sufficient to conduct musicology classes. She acted on behalf of the Ministry of Education. However, in August ‘Liebhart submitted a request for considering his candidacy for the position of an employee of the future department of musicology in the Humanistic Faculty for the attention of Prof. Stanisław Kulczyński, Rector of the University.’38 In the first days of October, he became the first and at that time the only employee of the newly established Department. At the end of November, he started didactic activity by opening a seminar on music palaeography, which most probably resulted from his personal interest in the music of the earliest times. Let us recall that in Lviv (in 1932), Liebhart earned his doctorate on the basis of his dissertation Rozwój progresji w muzyce wczesnego średniowiecza [The development of progression in music of the Early Middle Ages].39
The atmosphere at the university in Wroclaw was favourable to musicology, which gave hope for expanding the academic staff and establishing a new musicology department in the future. The only problem was the requirement for a ←362 | 363→department to be headed by a faculty member with a postdoctoral degree, which Liebhart did not have. Zdzisław Jachimecki did not intend to leave Cracow, whereas Chybiński was already employed at the University of Poznań. However, they both put forward their own candidates. Jachimecki named Józef Reiss, a pre-war associate professor (docent). His rival, named by Chybiński, was Father Feicht. The procedure of granting a postdoctoral degree to Feicht had already been underway at the University of Poznań and was finalised (as stated above) in the first days of July 1946. Reiss’s youthful age worked against him. However, already in summer 1945 Feicht was ready to seek a position in Wroclaw.40 Even though according to procedures the nomination should have taken some more time, in early spring 1946 he became a deputy professor pursuant to the decision of the Rector of the University of Wroclaw.
In Wroclaw, classes were devoted mostly to historical matters (the history of music, palaeography, counterpoint). Aesthetic reflections and problems related to music sociology were disregarded. At the same time, apart from lectures and classes, intensive organisational work was still ongoing. The collection of books, musical instruments and phonographic resources gathered by employees of the Department and volunteers grew surprisingly quickly. There was also some equipment needed for recording and playing music. According to Ugrewicz, these resources ‘significantly surpassed the collections of departments from Cracow and Poznań.’41 Still, despite fulfilment of the formal conditions and strenuous efforts by the Council of the Humanities Faculty, there was no professorial nomination for Feicht, which would have given the opportunity to create an independent department. On the contrary, even though he did get a position at university, he was employed only as an assistant professor at the Department of Art History, which was superior to the Institute of Musicology. The future of the Institute at the University of Wroclaw remained uncertain in the following academic years. Despite all that, recruitment continued until the academic year 1949/50. In the meantime, the academic staff was extended. Józef Majchrzak, who was still studying musicology at that time, was employed as an unofficial assistant lecturer. In the future, he became a folklore researcher, meritorious for Lower Silesia.
The Wroclaw centre, despite the efforts of Feicht, Liebhart and a small group of listeners, was unable to develop without the central support of Warsaw. In autumn of 1947 Zofia Lissa wrote: ‘We managed to resolve the case of Father ←363 | 364→Feicht favourably, which means that the department of musicology at the University of Wroclaw was saved. The case will be presented to the Ministry of Education Council in the second half of September, and there is a 90 % chance that it will be settled in our favour,’42 she herself had plans to organise musicology at the University of Warsaw at the time, even at the expense of others – indeed of Wroclaw and (remaining in the sphere of the desires of Alicja Simon) of Łódź, and in the future – as it turned out – also in Poznań. The fate of the Institute in the west was sealed at the beginning of the 1950s. Its liquidation started in spring 1951. The legacy of the Institute was claimed by the University Library (which took the manuscripts and old prints), the State Higher Music School in Wroclaw (the book collection and instruments) and the Association of Linguistic Departments (the recording and playing equipment). However, these attempts were blocked by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education. Phonographic equipment and a large part of the library collection were transferred to the Institute of Musicology at the University of Warsaw, which had already been operating for three years and was headed by Zofia Lissa. Lissa convinced Father Feicht to go to Warsaw. In 1956, he officially opened the Institute of Musicology at the Catholic University of Lublin. According to an agreement between the Episcopate and the government (concluded in 1950), this university preserved at least some of its autonomy and could follow its own curriculum.
In effect, the Wroclaw Department of Musicology was closed at the end of the academic year 1951/52, which was a consequence of the policy of centralising academic work, and according to which research was concentrated only and exclusively in selected centres. In the case of musicology, among the five planned after the war – Warsaw, Cracow, Poznań, Wroclaw and Łódź – only the first three remained, and with time it turned out that the position of the third, Poznań, was significantly weakened.
During the few short years of its post-war activity, the Institute of Musicology in Wrocław actively contributed to rebuilding musical culture in Lower Silesia. However, its contribution to the creation of a Polish nationwide musicological community and its academic output were much smaller. Works written by Zbigniew Liebhart resembled journalistic writing and a critique of contemporary music life rather than academic papers. In the bibliographies of musical writing, the author has only one position – a review of the monograph by Paul Egert, ←364 | 365→Chopin, published in Kwartalnik Muzyczny.43 Feicht wrote significantly more, although in large part for the needs of regional magazines, such as for example, Zeszyty Wrocławskie.44 He was sporadically an author for Ruch Muzyczny, at the beginning, at least till 1948, the only forum for the milieu.45 As far as his academic achievements are concerned, in the first (double) edition of the newly created Kwartalnik Muzyczny the first of the three parts of his habilitation thesis (‘Ronda Fryderyka Chopina’ [Frederic Chopin’s rondos]) was printed.46
Three new musicological centres were built on ruins, both literally and metaphorically. The only institute whose structure did not change after the war and which was still headed by the same person was the one at the Jagiellonian University. Both Zdzisław Jachimecki and Józef Reiss survived the war in Cracow. However, the professor (who had left for Lviv in the first weeks of the war together with his wife, but came back in the first days of November due to meetings scheduled at the Jagiellonian University) spent a few weeks as a German captive and was then kept for some time in Sachsenhausen-Oranienburg concentration camp near Berlin.47 He survived the rest of the war by giving music lessons. After the war, musicology in Cracow functioned at the university as the Seminar (and later as the Department) of Music History and Theory, which officially started its activity in the academic year 1947/48. It soon turned out that even though the city did not suffer wartime damage, the only thing left from the pre-war property ←365 | 366→of this institution was the book collection stored in the Jagiellonian Library. The good news was that it was possible to find a new teaching location. Musicologists of the younger generation soon supported the two principal lecturers: ‘In 1947 the habilitation studies of Dr Włodzimierz Poźniak took place, and in the following year the Department received a second full-time assistant, namely Dr Aleksander Frączkiewicz, whereas Dr Józef Reiss was appointed as full-time assistant professor. In 1949, the latter obtained the title of professor and retired two years later. In 1951, Stefania Łobaczewska, habilitated in 1949 in Poznań, received veniam legendi at the Jagiellonian University. In 1950 came a new assistant, Stanisław Haraschin, MA…. In 1953 Stanisław Lachowicz, MA, was hired as an assistant along with the promising Tadeusz Strumiłło, MA, who died tragically in the Tatra Mountains, Zygmunt Szweykowski, MA and for of two years Bogusław Schäffer, MA, received a contract to run classes.’48
Post-war Cracow musicologists signed up as the creators of several important monographs and syntheses. Reiss published a popular history of Polish music Najpiękniejsza ze wszystkich jest muzyka polska [The most beautiful of all is Polish music] (Cracow 1946), Jachimecki, amongst others, a study Muzyka polska w rozwoju historycznym [Polish music in historical development] (Cracow 1948 and 1951) and a monograph Chopin. Rys życia i twórczości [Chopin. An overview of his life and work] (Warsaw 1949), Łobaczewska – the basis for her habilitation, the monograph Karol Szymanowski: życie i twórczość, 1882–1937 [Karol Szymanowski: Life and work, 1882–1937] (Cracow 1950) and Zarys historii form muzycznych [An overview of the history of musical forms] (Cracow 1953). Tadeusz Strumiłło was very promising, who at the age of twenty-five had already published Szkice z polskiego życia muzycznego w XIX w. [Sketches from Polish musical life in the nineteenth century] (Cracow 1954) and the monograph Źródła i początki romantyzmu w muzyce polskiej [Sources and beginnings of Romanticism in Polish music] (Cracow 1956). Just like before the war, Cracow musicologists had more difficult access to the columns of the academic press – the only author of the reactivated, post-war Kwartalnik Muzyczny was Włodzimierz Poźniak, whose article about Moniuszko’s unrealised operatic projects was already accepted for the first, double issue of the magazine (pp. 234–251). On the other hand, all of them wrote for the Warsaw Muzyka, which from 1950 took over the role of Kwartalnik, although its profile was far from the standards of academic journalism.←366 | 367→
As soon as military operations stopped, Polish universities did everything in their power to resume their activities and restore the old order. However, it soon turned out that the new government was going to introduce a new order, which would not spare the structure of academic institutions, universities and scientific societies. All schools of higher education were supposed to be managed by the state, which meant losing their autonomy. The official process of imposing these norms started as early as in 1946. In the next few years, all actions undertaken by state officials delegated to manage science and higher education focused on preparing the First Congress of Polish Science, which took place at the end of June and at the beginning of July 1951. In just a few years (1945–51), authorities issued multiple decrees which organised this sphere of life in the country, e.g. the decree on censorship, libraries and the protection of library collections signed in 1946, or the decree on the organisation of science and higher education adopted at the end of October 1947, which ensured state protection of research. According to Degen and Hübner, ‘In the field of humanities, institutional conditions, in particular those related to science policy, have … a special meaning because they are directly related to the idea of freedom of science and the rule of autonomy of scientific institutions,’ ‘[humanist scholars] did not have … huge expectations related to institutionalised science: it was not hope that prevailed, but rather the fear of institutionalisation or other tools of science policy, as well as the policy itself.’49
The development of free humanistic thought was limited by restrictions leading gradually, amongst others, to liquidation of the traditional structures of the humanities departments at the resurging universities and suspend the activities of scientific societies – PAU and the Warsaw TN – which was to be replaced by the centrally conceived PAN. However, before this happened, immediately after the war, the pre-war scientific societies resumed their work in major cities, or new groups undertook initiatives. It could no longer function in its earlier TN form, dating back to the beginning of the century, founded by Oswald Balcer in Lviv (initially under the name Society for Supporting Polish Science), of which Adolf Chybiński was also a member before the war. Scientists who had emigrated from Lviv constituted a substantial part of the academic teaching staff at the new Polish university in Wroclaw and chose this academic centre to revive their organisation. The first attempts to formalise their meetings started as early as in autumn 1945. After a few months, in June 1946, there was an official opening session. Out of twenty-two founding members, seventeen came from ←367 | 368→Lviv. The first president was Stanisław Kulczyński, botanist, rector of the UJK in the thirties, also a political activist (an active member of SD); the board additionally included: law professor Kamil Stefko, economist Wincenty Styś and the outstanding mathematician Hugo Steinhaus.50
The Warsaw TN, which had been established before the war by graduates of the Szkoła Główna, members of the Kasa im. Józefa Mianowskiego and the capital’s circle of PAU, after the war, faced considerable losses, both personal and material, resulting from the dramatic fate of Warsaw itself (amongst other matters the home of the TN was destroyed – Staszic Palace – which, although rebuilt in 1950, was passed on to the Society, but soon, along with all other assets, it became part of the estate of the newly established PAN). In the post-war period, in the field of musical publications, the Warsaw TN agreed two titles – Korespondencją Fryderyka Chopina [Correspondence of Frederic Chopin] (1947) and Bibliografia F.F. Chopina [Bibliography of F.F. Chopin] (1949) (both positions prepared by Bronisław E. Sydow).
The oldest science forum active after the Second World War operated in Poznań. The history of the Poznań Society for the Advancement of Arts and Sciences (Poznańskie Towarzystwo Przyjaciół Nauk) dates back to the middle of the nineteenth century. It resumed its activity in the middle of May 1945. The first president of the Society was Zygmunt Wojciechowski, a historian of state and law. Chybiński had high hopes for the Society and believed that its establishment would benefit the whole academic community. This is where, at the Committee of History of Art, he intended to try and create the Musicological Section, and also here he thought to resume work on the continuation of the pre-war Rocznik Muzykologiczny.51
The pre-war history of PAU and musicologists’ associations with the Academy before 1939 were briefly described in chapter II-2. Here, it should be remembered that Chybiński, Jachimecki and Józef Reiss, as well as Stefan Śledziński and Zofia Lissa, were invited to present the results of their research during the meetings of the congregation and in the publishing houses of the society before 1939. After the war, in the first months of the reactivated Academy’s activity, Jachimecki gave papers at the Commission’s academic meetings (‘80 utworów lirycznych skomponowanych do słów pieśni Mignon’ [80 lyrical works composed to the words of Mignon], ‘Czy znasz ten kraj?’ [Do You know this country?]) as did ←368 | 369→Reiss (‘O materiałach do polskiej kultury muzycznej’ [About materials for Polish musical culture], and a year later a paper ‘Plutarcha z Cheronei dialog o muzyce’ [Plutarch of Chaeronea’s dialogue about music]). Both heads of the musicological departments were appointed in 1929 and 1930 as correspondent members, and just after the war, Chybiński became an active member,52 and at the twilight of its existence, in 1951 – an honorary member.53
In 1947, the Musicological Committee came into being. It was one of the very few new committees and the only one at Faculty I. Unfortunately, grudges between Chybiński and Jachimecki once again led to organisational problems. The polarisation between the two cradles of Polish musicology (the Lviv and Cracow schools), which had been going on for many years, reached not only the ears of Professor Tadeusz Lehr-Spławiński, secretary of the Faculty of Philology, but also the ears of Kazimierz Nitsch. At that time Nitsch was the President of PAU, as well as a linguist, an expert in Slavic studies, a historian of the Polish language and a dialectologist. In theory, when the PAU authorities were planning to open a musicology section, they did not have to take easily foreseeable misunderstandings into account. However, Nitsch, who knew that the situation was volatile, asked the professors to put forward candidates for new members of PAU. Chybiński gave the names of Chomiński, Łobaczewska, Lissa, Szczepańska, Sobieski and Sobieska; Jachimecki – Włodzimierz Poźniak, Władysław Hordyński (musicologist and librarian, who at that time was the head of the music department in BJ), and the pianist and composer, lecturer at the Cracow Conservatoire, Adam Rieger and ‘a few other unknown names (mostly his master’s students, who had not presented anything).’54 No candidate emerged from among the group, but further negotiations finally allowed the inclusion of Stanisław Golachowski into the correspondent-member group ←369 | 370→in 1948 and (despite some formal problems related to his permanent residence in Switzerland) of Ludwik Bronarski, while in the middle of the year 1948 Józef Chomiński informed the professor: ‘Yesterday, I received a decree appointing me an associate of the Musicology Committee of the PAU. Due to this honour, I would like to give my sincere thanks to you and assure you that I will continue my work on expanding the Polish cultural output as far as my abilities and strengths allow me to do this. I can only hope that the results of my work will be better than up to date; I feel truly embarrassed that I have not achieved anything so far.’55
As for the structure of the ‘authorities’ in the Section, Chybiński accepted the likely choice of Jachimecki as the chairman of the Section, but he was surprised by the name of Roman Ingarden ‘promoted’ by Cracow to the position of deputy.56 He hesitated and did not know how he should react to this situation, especially as the group from Lviv did not manage to attend the first voting session because invitations had been sent too late (which according to Chybiński, was an intentional act). This situation only reinforced the conflict between the two centres which had been going on for many years. In the end, Chybiński did not become discouraged by the turbulent passage of the works underway at the Committee. He had already conferred habilitation on four of his students from Lviv, who were now ready to head any department of musicology and was able to plan further: ‘After the holidays, I intend for us to take over the PAU Musicological Commission,’57 and he also wanted to talk to about a similar Commission with ←370 | 371→the general secretary of the Warsaw TN, Julian Krzyżanowski. However, when in 1950 a project of establishing a disposition towards the then officials of the PAN was created, the fate of both PAU and the Warsaw TN, with all their assets, intellectual property and personal status was decided.
The militant attitude of the group of musicologists from Lviv must have resulted in events that only deepened the Lviv–Cracow conflict which had existed for years. ‘The clique,’ as the professors’ supporters were willing to say about themselves,58 prepared a letter of protest about the treatment of the non-Cracow group, which they planned to send to Tadeusz Lehr-Spławiński, who was also a lecturer of the Lviv Alma Mater before the war. Chomiński, Lissa and Łobaczewska were ready to sign them, and they also counted on Father Feicht. Chybiński, who wanted to protect his co-workers from Poznań against being ostracised by a part of the community, was most probably trying to talk Maria Szczepańska and Marian Sobieski out of participating in the protest. Today, we know that these operations could have been effective only for a very short period, because all this happened at a time when all local scientific communities were losing their basis of existence in favour of the central Academy of Sciences, and PAU, intended by the then authorities as a kind of unique ‘trust of brains’ or ‘parliament of Polish science’ as described by Julian Dybiec after Jan Mydlarski and the trade union of science workers,59 for several consecutive years struggled with financial and organisational difficulties resulting from the authorities’ reaction to the lack of acceptance of the Cracow institution for the science policy of the times.
The short-lived activity of the PAU brought only one title in musicology. In 1948, PAU published the paper mentioned above by Zdzisław Jachimecki, Muzykologia i piśmiennictwo muzyczne w Polsce [Musicology and music literature in Poland], which appeared as part of the series Historia Nauki Polskiej w Monografiach (The history of Polish science in Monographs). It was also planned to use other existing societies for publishing purposes. In fact, it was the societies themselves that were trying to bring such plans to fruition, whereas musicologists were considering various options. For instance, when the decision on reviving ←371 | 372→Kwartalnik had already been made, Chybiński wrote to Warsaw: ‘It seems to me that historical papers will have to come out mostly in publications issued by the PAU or other scientific societies. (The society from Poznań is at my disposal, and the PAU more or less). My paper on Jacek Różycki (who died ca. 1700) will be published by the WTM at the request of this society. I told Mrs Lissa about this. So, please do not remove the work about Różycki from the programme of Kwartalnik Muzyczny.’60 However, the political conditions and central offices watching over the entire scientific life quickly verified these plans.
Already in the first months of the new order under the wings of the MKiS, which in the beginning of May 1945 was Władysław Kowalski, changed at the beginning of 1947 by Stefan Dybowski, various commissions and bodies were established, which had to decide the image of creative and artistic environments in a planned and controlled manner. When it comes to the music community, musicologists were frequently invited to join such groups. Adolf Chybiński was very often asked to chair committees, whereas Zdzisław Jachimecki was rarely appointed to such positions. For instance, Chybiński was the chairman of the Programme Committee at the Ministry of Culture and Art. Its main aim was ‘on the one hand to deepen and expand the boundaries of general music education of music specialists of all kinds and on the other hand to adjust this educational system to contemporary music practice and the findings of contemporary science,’61 At the same time, thanks to Tadeusz Ochlewski’s determination, the revival of the music publishing house – continuing the tradition of TWMP, though transferred from Warsaw to Cracow and under the state banner – on 5 November 1949, called up a thirty-nine person (though in time reduced to twenty-three62) State Music Publishing Committee as an organ for advice and opinion forming for the Ministry, also chaired by Chybiński. In addition to the professor, for history and theory of music, the Council of the Committee ←372 | 373→included Mieczysław Drobner, Hieronim Feicht, Stanisław Golachowski, Stefania Łobaczewska, Janusz Miketta, Roman Palester, Piotr Rytel, Kazimierz Sikorski and Bolesław Woytowicz. During the first session of the Council, a publishing plan was established, according to which among publications in the field of theory and pedagogy there would be a textbook on harmony prepared by Kazimierz Sikorski and guidebooks concerning methods of teaching music history (by Łobaczewska and Feicht) and teaching harmony (Sikorski and Chomiński), and from the field of Polish music history – a monograph about Karol Szymanowski by Stefania Łobaczewska and the correspondence of the creator of Harnasie to Stefan Spiess and Jarosław Iwaszkiewicz would be prepared for publication by Stanisław Golachowski. Concerning music magazines, ‘The Council decided to maintain Ruch Muzyczny in its current form, resume issuing Kwartalnik Muzyczny and try to renew Rocznik Muzykologiczny under the editorship of Prof. A. Chybiński.’63
In a short time, PWM monopolised the entire market for music and professional publications, which was the result of the policy of nationalising all private property, in this case, small publishing houses and printers.
In the beginning, the work of editorial teams which prepared academic journals was not controlled by the state. In these new organisational conditions, the desire to go back to the old paths and restore pre-war structures and press titles induced authors to revisit projects which had been abandoned a few years earlier. In any case, this was the situation immediately after Poland regained freedom. In all probability, members of creative associations and editorial teams could only think of financial difficulties but clearly did not imagine that there would be any other obstacles to renewing their cultural and academic activity, which had been suspended during the war. Gradually, the work on some pre-war music journals was renewed. The first of these journals was most probably Śpiewak, which was published in Silesia. It is worth remembering that in the interwar period it was the longest-appearing music magazine, which, especially under the editorial term of Stefan Marian Stoiński, had ambitions to be not only the organ of the Union of Silesian Singing Circles in Katowice, following the choral community,64 but also to open their pages to academic papers. Let us recall that for this purpose a special supplement of Myśl Muzyczna was created, although it is true that this idea was realised very one-sidedly and ←373 | 374→quite briefly (in the years 1928–29) – and almost exclusively authors of these publications were: permanently invited to collaboration were Adolf Chybiński and Stoiński himself while Maria Szczepańska65 incidentally published on the pages of Śpiewak. The monthly itself was published almost until the outbreak of the war; shortly after its end, in February 1946 the first, special issue of the new edition was published, edited by Józef Ligęza and Jan Fojcik, who earlier, in 1922–25, had already been its editor-in-chief.66 Soon, the short history of Śpiewak (January 1947–September 1948) was to see another change of editor with the position being taken by Józef M. Michałowski.67 Among the authors, several names of employees and close associates of the editorial office dominated – Józef Ligęza, Jerzy Pogonowski, Józef Swatoń, Feliks Starczewski; also occasionally appearing in the pages of the post-war period Śpiewak (maybe because of pre-war sentiments) were Adolf Chybiński and (more frequently) Józef Reiss, who popularised the closer and further history of Polish music and musical culture in accessibly written articles.68
More or less around the same time, several industry titles were inaugurated, which, moreover, rarely had ambitions to support themselves with musicological forces. The Poznań Życie Muzyczne was created in 1946 as the organ of the Wielkopolska Singing Union, the Union of Professional Musicians, the Composers’ Union and Union of Church Choirs, and renamed a year later as Życie Śpiewacze (editors Stanisław Kwaśnik, Mieczysław Barwicki), and then, along with the organisational changes covering the whole singing movement in Poland and the centralisation of the environment in 1948, appearing as the organ of the Supreme Council of the Union of Polish Singing Ensembles. Just like in the case of Śpiewak, the principal authors of Życie Śpiewacze were people active in the singing community, such as Stanisław Kwaśnik (the editor), Józef Swatoń, and many others, who have now been forgotten. The contents of the periodical ←374 | 375→were dominated by news concerning the choir movement and reports on music events, which was additionally emphasised in an editorial published in issue 7/8 of 1947 (the first issue that came out under the changed title). In the above-mentioned article, the editorial team wrote: ‘we will be interested solely in the life of our choirs, and we will be devoted mostly to matters related to the choir movement in Poland and abroad.’69
In 1947, in the Ludowy Instytut Muzyczny [People’s Music Institute, further LIM] launched in Łódź, a monthly called Poradnik Muzyczny, devoted to issues of dissemination of musical culture was founded, which with the passage of time was transferred under the auspices of the Union of Polish Singing Unions. The magazine was run by Stanisław Golachowski, who resided in Łódź, and from 1950 by Józef Lasocki, who co-operated with Franciszek Wesołowski. Poradnik, similarly to several other titles, was short-lived: its last three issues came out in 1952. However, it needs to be noted that in 1949, due to administrative changes resulting from the establishment of the Państwowy Instytut Sztuki [State Institute of Art, further PIS] (which absorbed all the functioning social and cultural institutions and associations, including LIM from Łódź), the editorial team became subordinate to the Supervisory Board of the Union of Polish Singing Associations. However, the form of the magazine did not change. It was still aimed at amateur musicians and cultural organisers, whereas its goal was to increase knowledge about music among the general public. Permanent editorial staff and collaborators announced illustrative articles in the fields of: scholarship concerning music (Witold Rudziński), musical instruments (Mieczysław Drobner), musical forms (Henryk Swolkień), instrumentation and issues related to orchestras (Stefan Śledziński), folk music (Jadwiga and Marian Sobieski), organology (Marek Kwiek). Experienced pre-war journalists also wrote – Emma Altberg, Karol Stromenger, Bronisław Rutkowski. Among the other authors, the names known for academic achievements only appeared sporadically, but here they were invited to promote music. First and foremost this was Józef Reiss, who prepared a whole series of ‘silhouettes’ of Polish composers for the editors of Poradnik, including Ignacy Jan Paderewski, Władysław Żeleński, Juliusz Zarębski, Henryk Wieniawski (amongst the foreign composers – Modest Mussorgsky); Włodzimierz Poźniak, starting from 1948 lasting almost to the end of 1950 revealed the secrets of harmony in ‘episodes’; Zofia Lissa wrote about the promotion of music in the USSR70 and about the arrangements of motifs from ←375 | 376→Polish folk songs by Soviet composers in the war years;71 Stefania Łobaczewska was the author of a short biographical sketch about Jan Sebastian Bach,72 Adolf Chybiński finally signed off under a cursory sketch O Wacławie z Szamotuł [About Wacław of Szamotuły].73
At the turn of the 1940s and 1950s there were publications of an incidental nature of the type Kalendarz Muzyczny (one volume for the year 1948/49, published in Cracow; between the years 1950 and 1958 with the title Notatnik Muzyczny),74 and – similarly – the incidental Kalendarz Roku Chopinowskiego projected by Krystyna Kobylańska, and the Poznań monthly Echo Teatralne i Muzyczne which appeared only from October 1948 to the spring of 1949. It is also worth mentioning Radio i Świat, a weekly published by the MKiS and the Polish Radio, whose editor was Jan Prosnak. Shortly before the war, he attended lectures given by Pulikowski at the University of Warsaw, and after the war, he was a student of Hieronim Feicht in Wroclaw. This weekly published texts written by Łobaczewska, Lissa, Rudziński, Rutkowski, Sobieski and others, including Chybiński.
Other titles, previously important for the musical and musicological milieu – Hosanna, Muzyka Kościelna, Muzyka Polska, Orkiestra, Śpiew w Szkole – were not recreated after 1945.
There is a marked difference between the number of active musicologists who wanted to publish articles in the few post-war periodicals and the group of authors who had co-operated with similar journals appearing in the inter-war period. A pre-war journal which used to be the equivalent of the above-mentioned periodicals was Przegląd Muzyczny, published in Poznań by the Union of Polish Singing Associations. It attracted all Polish musicologists of the time, who were keen to co-operate with it. When it comes to the magazines which were shortly described here, one clearly stands out. It is Ruch Muzyczny; a journal started in autumn 1945 by Stefan Kisielewski, which was a continuation of the pre-war Muzyka Polska. Thanks to its editor’s unbridled journalistic ←376 | 377→personality, Ruch soon became the forum for rebellious journalists. Mainly due to Kisielewski’s writing, the magazine boldly commented on the intensifying influence of the state over contemporary musical output and academic life, which degraded art. It was also the forum for ideological discussions, where the enthusiasts and opponents of formalism in music quarrelled with each other.
Kisielewski had already had experience in journalistic writing and music criticism. Apart from thorough musical education in theory, composition and piano playing, he also studied for a few semesters at the Faculty of Polish Studies and Philosophy at the University of Warsaw. At the beginning of the 1930s, he worked as a reviewer for a few Warsaw magazines, including the bi-weekly Echo Tygodnia. In 1936, he became a reviewer and a member of the editorial team at Muzyka Polska, and until 1938, he was also the secretary of the editorial office. After the war Kisielewski wet to Cracow (already in March 1945) in connection with the possibility of taking on work in the local PWSM (harmony, counterpoint, instrumentation), and as a side task took on the role as permanent proofreader in the editorial team of the weekly Przekrój; in the summer, at the invitation of Jerzy Turowicz, he began working as a columnist for Tygodnik Powszechny, and having to hand his former boss from TWMP, Tadeusz Ochlewski, who had been in Cracow for some time, and who was also in charge of PWM, he immediately decided to organise the editorial of a new magazine, as an organ of the Union of Professional Musicians of the Republic. In a short time, he also invited a group of prominent writers, critics, essayists and columnists to cooperate, for the most part already known from Warsaw. The beginnings were not easy, and Ochlewski wrote to Adolf Chybiński about this when the inaugural edition was still hot off the press. From his words, it can be concluded that contrary to the common opinion, binding decisions on the form of Ruch Muzyczny were taken by the director of the publishing company, even though Kisielewski’s strong personality definitely had a profound impact on the biweekly: ‘The first issue triggered the power of personal dissatisfaction and the Musicians’ Union is afraid to continue to endorse this magazine. I propose creating an Editorial Committee comprising people such as Wiechowicz, Drzewiecki, Hoffman, Łobaczewska, Rieger, Palester, editorial secretary – Kisielewski. What is your view on the matter? Answer Miketta about all this and ask him what he thinks.’75
The proposed Committee was not mentioned again, and the above-mentioned people were involved in Ruch mainly as authors. Nevertheless, reshuffling in the editorial team of the magazine was very dynamic. The first ‘full-time’ member of ←377 | 378→the editorial team (starting in autumn 1946) was – apart from Stefan Kisielewski – Zygmunt Mycielski, shortly to be joined by Jerzy Broszkiewicz and the next ‘emigrant’ from Warsaw, Bronisław Rutkowski, and then Roman Haubenstock. Kisielewski himself left the editorial group in April 1947, and from number 4/1948 – also Mycielski; in the middle of that year – and only then – Stefania Łobaczewska joined the three-person group (as the only musicologist among the editors), while, at the beginning of 1949, Rutkowski was dismissed from his function and this state of affairs probably lasted until May; in the middle of 1949 Łobaczewska resigned – from that moment until the closure of the editorial office, the editorial footer was signed as ‘The Committee.’76 It is not commonly known that when Bronisław Rutkowski stepped down, Włodzimierz Sokorski offered Zofia Lissa to become a co-editor. However, Lissa was ‘terribly disinclined,’ even though it seems that she had some plans related to the form of the magazine because she mentioned that it was necessary to introduce a new section with ‘an analysis of some work in each issue.’77 Chomiński was also invited to participate in the editorial board. However, he was busy with other projects (and involved in running Kwartalnik) and thus refused.
The magazine, following the example of its forbearer, the nineteenth-century Ruch Muzyczny under the editorial run by Józef Sikorski, was supposed to stand out with its impartiality and open columns for various opinions. However, Michał Bristiger, the author of a monographic article about the four years of operation of the ‘Cracow-based’ Ruch, draws attention to the ‘public understanding of journalistic activities’ common for the two editorials.78 It was supposed to be run under the patronage of the works of two mega-figures – Poles and Europeans – Chopin and Szymanowski.79
When Kisielewski opened the bi-weekly, he wanted to deal with the past and with the war. He mentioned recent losses in the music community but also published a report on the First Convention of Polish Composers which took place at the end of August and at the beginning of September, as well as on the Festival of Contemporary Polish Music, which accompanied the Convention. In this way, he set the direction for the magazine in which Polish music, mostly contemporary music, was supposed to be assessed by professional music critics who ←378 | 379→were up to this task. The guarantee of this could have been the experience in the field of journalism and music criticism of the leader and people joining the editorial office – Bronisław Rutkowski, Zygmunt Mycielski, Roman Haubenstock. However, the group was accused of focusing mainly on Cracow musical life and maintaining a perceptible, local character, which could be explained by the concentration of a large part of the musical environment in Cracow, resulting from the lowest wartime losses in the city compared to other the pre-war Polish cultural centres. To remedy that impression and to recognise what blows were aimed at the musical environment in the entire country throughout the war, the editors addressed readers with request for cooperation in the very first issues: ‘We ask you fervently to send any reports, references, articles, and information about Polish musical life under occupation – to collect these materials, documenting the history of our art in the past six years – this comprises one of the goals of our magazine.’80
Despite the invitation, the editors based their work mainly on materials provided by regular collaborators. Maria Michałowska included in this group – apart from the already mentioned people – Stefan Jarociński, Jerzy Broszkiewicz, Konstaty Régamey, and Józef Swatoń and a few other authors,81 which I would supplement with Janusz Miketta, consequently seeking to include not only ‘musical’ officials, but also active musicologists in the group.82 Among the rapporteurs of the current musical life were Zbigniew Turski, Henryk Swolkień, Waldemar Voisé, Florian Dąbrowski and many other correspondents from the whole country. For us, a significant contribution to the shape of Ruch Muzyczny was made by authors-musicologists, who effectively extended the formula of the journal, is important, going beyond the scope of criticism and music journalism with many articles. It needs to be emphasised that during the post-war rebirth, musicology was publicly discussed in Ruch, not in Kwartalnik. The editors of the monthly posed several questions, for example, related to the relation between musicology and early and contemporary music, or to the differences between ←379 | 380→musicology and music criticism, which they addressed both to musicologists and musicians. The discussion probably did not develop according to the editors’ intentions, but ‘remarks on musicology’ were published by Konstanty Régamey, Stefania Łobaczewska and Włodzimierz Poźniak.
Without a doubt, a significant part of Régamey’s statements fitted to the pre-war confrontation with musicology in the Lviv ‘rite.’ This composer and linguist understood musicology in a very broad sense, ‘simply as the science of music, and thus a broadly conceived discipline concerning all aspects of music that can be studied with academic methods’;83 he did not accept the limitations to the matter of musicological research to ‘music philology’ – only to the study of the history of music and music analysis with the exception of the latest works: ‘Some would like to limit musicology … to the study of old music, the development of its “formal grammar” and musical ethnography.’84 Similarly, he did not agree to exclude matters related to the aesthetics of music from the scope of academic inquiry: ‘If musicology were to rely solely on determining the original text or dating it, aesthetics would obviously be unnecessary. However, if we want to analyse not only the technique but also the output of a given author, it is indispensable to understand this author’s views on aesthetics…. And the history of aesthetic views with utmost care for academic objectivity requires a certain fundamental standpoint, a certain perspective which becomes a scientific worldview in itself.’85 He also stated that a musicologist, who should be thoroughly familiar with the issues of harmony, counterpoint, instrumentation or musical forms, also in their historical development, cannot simultaneously ignore the existence of acoustic, physiological or psychological research.
In comparison to Régamey’s exhaustive statement, the ‘remarks on musicology’ noted by Stefania Łobaczewska seem to be quite schematic. In accordance with the rhetoric of socialist realism, whose popularity kept growing, a large part of this short text is taken up by the information on current tasks of musicology which are related to ‘contemporary practice.’ As she wrote, this sphere ‘has not yet officially become a separate section, especially here. We can ←380 | 381→only see some indications here and there which tell us that this new aspect of musicology will be coming shortly. What I mean is … the interaction of intuitive, artistic and academic elements in contemporary music culture.’86 Remembering Łobaczewska’s main research interests and passions – sociology and aesthetics – it can be observed that she considered research in the field of Polish music history and ethnography to be the most urgent tasks in the field of the scientific work of musicologists: ‘In fact, the history of Polish music, studying its artefacts, historical publications and academic monographs, as well as publishing early music for practical purposes, etc., requires a huge contribution from our historians. So far, only certain periods have been studied in detail. The rest is the music of the future.’87
Stefania Łobaczewska was the most frequent ‘academic’ cooperating with the Cracow editorial office, publishing texts which were both purely analytical,88 as well as profile pieces,89 and also reviews of current publications;90 she was echoed by Józef Chomiński, author of several significant titles in the pages of the Cracow magazine.91 The celebrations of the Chopin Year, which was a significant event, were not really emphasised. It is true that a medallion with the composer’s profile (which was an over-stylised version of the Chopin Year logo designed by ←381 | 382→Konstanty Sopoćko) was added to the layout of the editorial page in all issues that came out in 1949, but the number of articles on Chopin was not increased in comparison with the previous year. Adolf Chybiński did not join the group of authors who took up themes related to ‘the life and art’ of the great Frederic Chopin. At that time, Chybiński was working on projects related to Kwartalnik. It also needs to be emphasised that Chybiński was virtually absent among the authors engaged in Ruch. Despite strong personal connections with the editorial circle of the bi-weekly and despite the warm invitation of the director-publisher of the magazine, Tadeusz Ochlewski, already starting his work,92 the professor signed under a mere six pieces and each time they were occasional, perhaps with the exception of a comprehensive ‘report’ on the wartime fate of Polish musical artefacts, with which together with other authors he opened the magazine’s activity.93 He also voiced his opinion on the importance which should be attached to collections of songs and songbooks for children and youth. According to him, it would help rebuild the country which was damaged not only physically but was also in a state of cultural collapse. He had special motivation to speak up on this matter because at that time he planned and prepared to publish his own songbook – a selection of Polish folk melodies Od Tatr do Bałtyku [From the Tatras to the Baltic].94 He remembered two figures particularly close to him: Karol Szymanowski in connection with the tenth anniversary of his death95 and one of his favourite students, Jan Józef Dunicz.96 He also sent for publication the text of the speech he gave during the academy accompanying the commemoration of the three hundred and seventy-fifth anniversary of the death of Szamotulczyk.97←382 | 383→
After a year of functioning of Ruch Muzyczny, in connection with taking over the co-editor’s chair, a few explanations about this change were directed to ‘Do Czytelników’ [To readers] by Zygmunt Mycielski.98 It was the first time when the plan to revive Kwartalnik Muzyczny was finally voiced. The editor claimed that the form of the monthly would be expanded so that until Kwartalnik was revived, it could fulfil some of its functions. However, he also admitted that it would be hard to find enough space for strictly academic, extensive articles and essays. First and foremost, Ruch was supposed to be a ‘living’ magazine. Maria Michałowska summed up the words of Mycielski who talked about the main aim of Ruch: ‘to represent and promote properly understood culture, which consists of keeping a sense of proportion and good taste, whereas one of the main ambitions should be to discover artists who create real art, which is not affected and which is devoid of sentimentality.’99 In order to realise these intentions, the editors soon had to take up the ‘verbal’ struggle against the ever-stronger expansion of the new ideology encroaching into cultural life, which especially from the spring of 1948, when the Congress of Composers and Critics took place in Prague, when art was allocated new tasks which were ruthlessly enforced by regime officials. Nonconformist texts, which appeared in the pages of Ruch – whether polemics by Stefan Kisielewski in connection to Józef Chomiński’s article about formalism in music,100 or certain editorial articles, which called up criticism of Soviet activists in the pages of the Soviet monthly Sovetskaâ Muzyka101 – were perceived as evidence of the editorial’s overt pro-modernist activity, contrary to the only correct ideology. Critical opinions were clearly political and directed from centres much more geographically distant from Cracow than could be assumed, including from the Polish embassy in Moscow, which in turn undoubtedly took such orders from the employees of the relevant Soviet offices.102 Controversial articles on contemporary music culture were characteristic of post-war Ruch Muzyczny and soon led to dismissing the members of the editorial team and finally to closing the magazine down in 1949. The ministry wanted its function to be taken over by Muzyka, a new monthly established as part of the newly opened State Institute of Art in Warsaw.←383 | 384→←384 | 385→
1 Wieniawski also became vice-president of the reactivated WTM (the president at that time was the actor Henryk Ładosz).
2 Stefan Kisielewski, ‘Pierwsze Boże Narodzenie’ [First Christmas] (RM 1945/6, 3). To supplement this information, it should be added that PTMW was reactivated in April 1946 (Zbigniew Drzewiecki – president, Barbara Podoska-Palester – secretary, and members: Stefania Łobaczewska, Maria Dziewulska, Stanisław Wiechowicz, Zygmunt Mycielski, Artur Malawski, Edmund Rudnicki). In the following years, Tadeusz Ochlewski, Kazimierz Sikorski and Hieronim Feicht were also elected to the Board of PTMW, while Roman Palester was supporting the IMS ranks.
3 This, fortunately, happened to the archive of Adolf Chybiński, who left the city a few months before the end of the war and deposited part of the collection at the home of his friend, Bronislaw Romaniszyn, in Cracow.
4 For example, the collections of the Ossolineum, which after the war were moved from Lviv to Wroclaw, but only in part. For example, the whole collection of journals remained in Lviv.
5 In the series Historia Nauki Polskiej w Monografiach [History of Polish science in monographs], vol. 23, Cracow 1948.
6 See Poźniak 1948. The whole community felt the need to develop such a dictionary. Adolf Chybiński and his students were the quickest to react to this situation (Chomiński, Feicht, Łobaczewska), who, inviting Janusz Miketta, Tadeusz Szeligowski and Bolesław Woytowicz to join their group, set up a Terminological Committee. The first meeting of this committee took place on 2–4 IV 1948 at the headquarters of the Poznań Institute of Musicology. Information on this subject was provided, among others by RM 1948/7, 23.
7 Poźniak was referring to a name card catalogue compiled in Cracow before the war, ‘during the work on Biographical Dictionary of the Polish Academy of Learning.’ Due to the lack of communication between the main musicological centres, he could not have known that these materials (even though at that time they only covered data up to the history of Old Polish music) had already been compiled by Adolf Chybiński and were being prepared for print as a supplement to the third edition of Kwartalnik Muzyczny. It needs to be added that before the war, Tadeusz Ochlewski also gathered data on nineteenth- and twentieth-century musicians, concurrently with the dictionary which was being compiled by Chybiński. Unfortunately, Ochlewski’s work ‘was destroyed in 1944,’ as we can learn from a short note which announced an edition of Słownik muzyków dawnej Polski [Dictionary of early Polish musicians], see KM 1948/21–22, 300.
9 Lissa 1957.
11 The dramatically prolonged period of uncertainty about the fate of the war victims is confirmed by a short note, which can be found in RM: ‘Dr Jan Dunicz, … musicologist, former U.J.K. Assistant, deported in July 1944 from Warsaw to camp in Gross-Rosen, remaining in Linz until May 1945. His sister – Helena Dunicz – asks to send any information about his whereabouts at the address of Ruch Muzyczny,” see RM 1946/7, 28. After the war, Helena Dunicz worked in PWM, including the executive editorial office of KM. See also Niwińska [née Dunicz] 2005.
12 Lissa 1957. Here there are unjust words about, amongst other issues, the ‘dim methodological awareness of the older generation’ (op. cit., p. 267); this charge should, of course, include the failure of the elders to apply the assumptions of historical materialism and Marxist historiosophy in force in these years in learning.
14 Chybiński to Bronarski from Poznań 5 IX 1946, AACh-BUAM, Bronarski’s archive, p. 196.
15 Chybiński to Bronarski from Poznań 14 XI 1949, AACh-BUAM, Bronarski’s archive, p. 208.
16 Harajda 1997.
17 The dissertation was published two years later in three parts in the pages of KM (1948/21–22, 11–34, 1948/23, 23–62, 1948/24, 7–54).
18 Chybiński to Chomiński from Poznań 24 XI 1946, at APCh.
19 ‘There’s no way she could get a postdoctoral degree in musicology because she didn’t write a single paper on the history of music, only works on psychology and theory. Anyway, this matter will be settled by the committee”, ibid.
20 Planned for the third volume of PRM ‘Zagadnienia konstrukcyjne w sonatach fortepianowych Karola Szymanowskiego,’ which was published finally in two parts in KM (1948/21–22, 170–207, 1948/23, 102–157), formed one of the elements of the broadly conceived Studia nad twórczością Karola Szymanowskiego [Studies on Karol Szymanowski’s work], of which the first part – ‘Problem tonalny w Słopiewniach’ [The tonal problem in Słopiewnie] – appeared exactly in PRM (1936/2, 53–86), and the last – ‘Chóralne pieśni kurpiowskie’ [Kurpie choral songs] – closed the cycle (KM 1948/24, 55–83). The Studia were published in full after years by the Cracow based PWM (1969).
21 The essay ‘Problem formy w preludiach Chopina’ [The problem of form in Chopin’s preludes] was published in the ‘Chopin’ editions of KM: 1949/26–27, 183–288, 1949/28, 240–395.
22 Chybiński to Bronarski from Poznań 4 VI 1949, AACh-BUAM, Bronarski’s archive, p. 202. The topics of theses in Poznań were different and corresponded completely with Chybiński’s research passions: ‘from the former Polish music and ethnography. Just one topic on foreign music (“Grieg’s Sonata in E minor”),’ see Chybiński to Bronarski from Poznań 12 XI 1949, AACh-BUAM, Bronarski’s archive, p. 208; works on Chopin also featured in the next year.
24 Chybiński/Chomiński 2016, 293–294.
25 The author made a distinction between mentors (‘the leaders of the ideological front,’ giving as an example Bolesław Bierut and Jakub Berman), bosses (‘the key figures of postulating criticism,’ in literature, these were, for example, Adam Ważyk and Jerzy Putrament) and executors (‘authors of daily reviews providing literary criticism services’). He added that it was, in fact, a four-tier hierarchy, since the lowest position was occupied by the statements made by the creators themselves, that is the ones who were bossed around, see Wieczorek 2014, 28 and Sławiński 1990.
26 Lissa 1957, 276–277.
29 Witold Kandulski, a young musicologist from Poznań, did not join the ranks of teachers in Warsaw, while a year later the Poznań School of Music, in which he served as the first director, was opened thanks to his efforts.
30 Lissa to Chomiński from Warsaw 4 I 1949, APCh.
31 Stanisław Golachowski fell ill towards the end of his life – he died at the beginning of January 1951. The actual lecturer in the field of acoustics, from the academic year 1951/52, was Marek Kwiek, who, as mentioned earlier, for a certain amount of time, still at UP, gave up musicology in favour of physics.
32 Adam Schaff (1913–2006), a Polish philosopher. He initially represented the views of Marxist philosophy and specialised in epistemology. Later, he became an advocate of Eurocommunism, whereas in his twilight years he moved closer to contemporary anti-globalists.
33 Chomiński to Lissa from Szklarska Poręba 7 I 1949, APCh.
35 Chomiński to Academic Board of Study from Warsaw 30 III 1949, APCh.
39 In Lviv, he did not devote himself to an academic career, but conducted pedagogical, conducting and journalistic activities.
41 Ibid., 79.
42 Lissa to Chybiński from Warsaw 14 IX 1947, AACh-BUAM, fol. K-Ł, p. 149.
43 KM 1948/23, 182–184. He also planned a thesis on Chopin’s music realism (‘Chopin’s music = realistic reflection of the socio-cultural characteristics of the epoch’), Liebhart to Chomiński from Wroclaw 5 V 1949, APCh.
44 The quarterly Zeszyty Wrocławskie appeared in the years 1947–52, initially as an organ of the local Circle of Polish Language and Literature Enthusiasts, later Wydawnictwo im. Ossolińskich. Feicht included, amongst others, in the pages of the magazine the articles ‘Dolny Śląsk w pieśni śląskiego ludu’ [Lower Silesia in songs of the Silesian folk] (1948/1–2, 99–106) and ‘Chopin we Wrocławiu’ [Chopin in Wroclaw] (1949/1–2, 13–24).
45 See for example, ‘Wpływ Chopina na muzykę niemiecką i skandynawską’ [Chopin’s influence on German and Scandinavian music] (RM 1949/11–12, 30–33).
46 In the same year, Feicht gave the editorial office two more reviews and was the author of a talk during the Congress of the Musicologists Section in November 1948 on the need to restore the programme of early music concerts, published later along with other speeches of the congregation in KM 1949/25 (pp. 232–236). In the following years he cooperated with periodicals published by PIS, later IS PAN – the monthly Muzyka, the annual Studia Muzykologiczne, the periodical Materiały do Studiów i Dyskusji z Zakresu Teorii i Historii Sztuki, and finally – the quarterly Muzyka.
49 Degen/Hübner 2006/1, 39, 41.
51 Chybiński/Chomiński 2016, 161.
52 See the report from PAU for the year 1945/46 in: Rocznik Polskiej Akademii Umiejętności 1945/1946, IV. The professor was a member of one of the so-called shared committees – the Ethnographic Commission, together, amongst others, with Zdzisław Jachimecki, Jan St. Bystroń, Adam Chętniki, Jan Czekanowski, Cezaria Jędrzejewiczowa, Stefan Szuman, Helena Windakiewiczowa and Juliusz Zborowski, and a member of the Commission for the History of Education and Schools in Poland.
53 See Rocznik Polskiej Akademii Umiejętności 1946/1047, IV. Jachimecki was a member of the Art History Committee and the Committee of Western European Philology of the Philology Faculty, the Sociological Commission of the Historical-Philosophical Faculty, and the Joint Ethnographic Commission.
54 Chybiński/Chomiński 2016, 95.
55 Ibid., 80. Finally, the Musicological Commission at the Faculty of Philology, which was established in February 1948, consisted of: Ludwik Bronarski, Adolf Chybiński, Józef Michał Chomiński, Zygmunt Estreicher, Aleksander Frączkiewicz, Stanisław Golachowski, Władysław Hordyński, Roman Ingarden, Zdzisław Jachimecki, Adam Kleczkowski, Zygmunt Latoszewski, Zofia Lissa, Stefania Łobaczewska, Tadeusz Mańkowski, Adam Mitscha, Wojsław Mollé, Alina Nowak-Romanowicz, Włodzimierz Poźniak, Konstanty Régamey, Józef Reiss, Adam Rieger, Alicja Simon, Jadwiga Sobieska, Marian Sobieski, Maria Szczepańska, Stefan Szuman, Stefan Śledziński-Lidzki, Władysław Tatarkiewicz, Helena Windakiewiczowa (information on this subject was noted for example, in ‘Kronika’ in RM 1949/16, 44).
56 Roman Ingarden, as a philosopher dealing with issues of aesthetics, was, of course, also close to musicologists; the fruit of his reflections on aesthetics in the context of music was the dissertation Utwór muzyczny i sprawa jego tożsamości [The work of music and the problem of its identity]. In the structures of PAU he was a member of many Commissions: Western European Philology, Polish Literature, Art History, Polish Philosophy, Sociology, and the Committee of Kwartalnik Filozoficzny.
57 Chybiński/Chomiński 2016, 161.
58 Corresponding with Chomiński about the collective declaration, Łobaczewska wrote: ‘That it will look like a “clique” – I am not afraid of this at all. I willingly belong to such “cliques”‘, see Łobaczewska to Chomiński from Cracow 6 I 1950, APCh.
59 Dybiec 1993, 19. The author here cites the voice of anthropologist Jan Mydlarski, professor at the Marie Curie-Skłodowska University, who published in the journal Życie Nauki (1946/7–8, 42–47, the article ‘W sprawie organizacji nauki polskiej’ [In the matter of organising Polish science]).
60 Chybiński/Chomiński 2016, 40. Let us add that this publication was not released. Chybiński was interested in Różycki from almost the beginning of his academic career. In 1911 he submitted a transcript of a text to print, which he had already had the opportunity to deliver at the meeting of the Faculty of Philology of AU ‘Jacek Różycki, nadworny kapelmistrz i kompozytor Jana III’ [Jacek Różycki, court kapellmeister and composer to Jan III Sobieski] (PM 1911/4, 3–4, 1911/5, 3–5), and, also in the pages of PM a dozen years later, the sketch, ‘Jacek (Hyacinthus) Różycki’ (PM 1926/4, 1–4, 1926/5, 1–7).
61 RM 1945/6, 23.
62 See Ochlewski to Chybiński from Cracow 10 III 1948, at AACh-BUAM, folder O-P, k. 47.
63 RM 1946/2, 15.
64 In the 1930s it even gained a nationwide range, which was announced by the subtitle – as the organ of the United Polish Singing and Music Unions in Warsaw
65 For more about the Silesian Śpiewak see chapter I-3.
66 Stefan M. Stoiński, long-time editor-in-chief of the magazine, died in 1945.
67 See Dziadek 2004/2.
68 See for example, the history of the tradition of choral singing from the founding of the rorantists’ chapel to the present day of Józef Reiss (the many-parted text ‘Jak rozwijała się u nas kultura chóru’ [How the cult of the choir is developing for us] published in Śpiewak 1947 in numbers 2–6), Adolf Chybiński’’ reminiscences about Karol Szymanowski in the tenth anniversary of his death (Śpiewak 1947/3, 2–5), and Reiss’s interesting sketch introducing the first reports about Mozart’s operas noted in the eighteenth and nineteenth century Polish press (‘Mozart w świetle pierwszej krytyki polskiej’ [Mozart in the light of the first Polish critics], Śpiewak 1948/6, 5–7).
69 ‘Od Redakcji’ [Editorial], Życie Śpiewacze 1947/7–8, 1.
70 Poradnik Muzyczny 1947/8–9, 1–4, 1947/10, 1–4.
71 ‘Polska pieśń ludowa w Moskwie w latach wojny’ [Polish folk song in Moscow in the war years], Poradnik Muzyczny 1948/10, 3–5.
72 Poradnik Muzyczny 1950/1–2, 2–5.
73 Poradnik Muzyczny 1947/10, 4–7.
74 The content exactly corresponded to the title – a small-format annual calendar was completed, among others about ‘the most important dates from the life and work of Frederic Chopin’ (prepared by Janusz Miketta), ‘Alphabetical list of the works of Frederic Chopin,’ PWM catalogue, current addresses of active musicians and musicologists, data about music education, information about the Chopin Year.
75 Ochlewski to Chybiński from Cracow 9 X 1945, AACh-BUAM, fol. O-P, p. 9.
76 It seems that this was a fairly common practice at the time, because a similarly mysterious ‘Committee’ was leading Muzyka, a magazine of PIS, during the first years, more below.
77 See Lissa to Chomiński from Warsaw 8 II 1949, APCh.
78 Bristiger 1979, 68.
79 RM 1945/1, 2–3.
80 RM 1945/2, 21.
82 Janusz Miketta (1890–1954) was not a qualified musicologist; he studied music in Warsaw and Leipzig. In the inter-war period, he held clerical functions and also worked at the F. Chopin Higher School of Music in Warsaw. After the war, he joined the Cracow PWSM. He was the author of the first volume of the series conceived by Adolf Chybiński together with Tadeusz Ochlewski, Analizy i objaśnienia dzieł wszystkich Fryderyka Chopina (Mazurki) [Analysis and explanation of the complete works of Frederic Chopin (Mazurkas), (Cracow 1949).
84 Ibid., 3. If we interpret Régamey’s words as a reproach of the main achievements of the Lviv school, we must, of course, simplify the scope of interest of the founder of this school. It is commonly known that Chybiński promoted the output of young Polish composers (or rather composers affiliated with Young Poland, whose creations at that time already belonged to a distant epoch) and that in the inter-war period he played an important role in popularising the music of Karol Szymanowski.
86 Łobaczewska 1948/3.
88 See for example, ‘O Słopiewniach Karola Szymanowskiego’ [About Karol Szymanowski’s Słopiewnie], (RM 1948/4, 2–7).
89 Reprint of the paper given at the II Congress of Composers and Critics in Prague (May 1948) ‘O tradycji w muzyce’ [About tradition in music] (RM 1948/13–14, 2–7).
90 Special place is given here for an enthusiastic review on the subject published by Zofia Lissa in KM in the article ‘Aspekt socjologiczny w polskiej muzyce współczesnej’ [The sociological aspect in contemporary Polish music] (KM 1948/21–22, 104–143), a text through which Lissa took her place as one of the ideologues of contemporary musicology (see RM 1948/22, 10–11), or the text of the paper ‘O społecznych funkcjach muzyki artystycznej i popularnej’ [Concerning the social function of art and popular music] presented by the same author at the II International Congress of Composers and Music Critics (KM 1948/23, 211–222, see also Łobaczewska’s report from the Congress in Prague RM 1948/22, 19–26, particularly p. 26).
91 Starting from a strictly academic, theoretical lecture on problems of contemporary harmony (RM 1948/9, 2–5, 1948/10, 2–5) after the controversial, ideologising statement on the subject of ‘Zagadnienia formalizmu i tendencje ideologiczne w polskiej muzyce współczesnej na tle rozwoju muzyki światowej’ [Issues of formalism and ideological tendencies in Polish contemporary music against the background of the development of world music] (RM 1948/20, 2–6).
92 Ochlewski to Chybiński from Cracow 13 X 1945, AACh-BUAM, fol. O-P, p 11.
93 RM 1945/1, 9–11.
94 The songbook did not appear until a few years after his death (Cracow 1958). It was ultimately published based on materials prepared by Tadeusz Strumiłło, one of the professor’s pupils.
95 RM 1947/5, 2–4. Pendant to this sketch was the contribution ‘O nieznanym notatniku muzycznym Szymanowskiego’ [About an unknown musical notebook belonging to Szymanowski] (RM 1947,5, 9–13), which at the same time was a supplement to the sketch published before the war Karol Szymanowski a Podhale [Karol Szymanowski and the Podhale] (Cracow 1938).
96 RM 1948/8, 10.
97 RM 1947/19–20, 9–10. Chybiński mentioned contacts with the city authorities and their plans to commemorate this occasion several times, including in correspondence to Józef Chomiński, see Chybiński/Chomiński 2016, 25–26.
98 RM 1946/19, 2–6.
101 Lew Kułakowski’s review was also published (in Polish translation) in RM (1949/11–12, 42–45), let’s add that after the changes, which took place in the editorial office more or less in the middle of that year. See also Michałowska 1981, XVII–XXII.
102 See Chybiński/Chomiński 2016, 132.