2. Ideologisation of learning about music – conferences, conventions, congresses – Marxist musicology – Państwowy Instytut Sztuki – gradual radicalisation in academia
The communist regime which was in power at the end of the 1940s and the beginning of the 1950s expected the work of all citizens to bear fruit for the benefit of the new ideological order, regardless of the occupation of a given person. The authorities of that time also demanded loyal admiration for the doctrine, which quickly became ‘New Faith,’ as Władysław Malinowski called it years later, in the first decade of the 21th century, in his widely discussed speech delivered at one of the conferences organised by De Musica Association.103 The activity of the whole nation was submitted to central planning managed by various committees, boards and advisory bodies. At the Ministry of Culture and Art, there was the Programme Committee which set the direction not only for the special and individual education of artists (the music education system) but also for the commonly understood music culture (musical institutions). The State Music Publishing Board was established at PWM, whereas in July 1946, the Polish Science Revival Committee was set up at the Central Planning Office. This organisational unit dealt, for example, with awarding research grants.104 All kinds of conventions, meetings and conferences became extremely common. Their aim was either to set the direction of progress in the country which was being rebuilt or to encourage people to adopt declarations of loyalty to the new government.
When it comes to music output in the times of socialist realism, the characteristics which were essential and determined its correctness were related to the role and place of music works, not their form and sonic substance. We should ←385 | 386→agree with Michał Bristiger, the musicologist who expressed his opinion during a discussion in De Musica periodical.105 He claimed that composers had not created a new sound system which would make the works of socialist realism stand out from those created earlier and that the affiliation of such works with the new, ideologically weighted music was determined by lyrics or the programme of compositions, which go beyond the work itself. Some features which had a bearing on whether a work of art was deemed correct were listed by Władysław Malinowski and included the reflection of reality and the ideological nature of the creative output. When it came to the music itself, authorities had for many years criticised not only the fossilised sound system present in the output of ‘bourgeois’ composers but also the experiments and pursuits of the European avant-garde. It quickly began to be generally believed that the kind of music which was convenient for the regime and which fulfilled various tasks of propaganda was the legacy and tradition of Romanticism, spiced up by ‘folklore’ or ‘nationalism.’ In literature, it was the literary output of Mickiewicz and Słowacki, whereas in music this concerned the works of Chopin and Moniuszko. The task of popularising culture and science, which was supposed to become one of the characteristics of the new society, was entrusted to the intelligentsia that had been decimated during the war (however, on condition that this social group accepted the transformations which were going on under the supervision of the new occupier). At the same time, it was assumed that it was necessary to educate the next generation of the intelligentsia, which would live up to the expectations of the new authorities. Maybe it goes without saying that musicology (and most probably every other academic discipline as well) had representatives who had distanced themselves from traditional methodologies back before the war and undermined the value of scientific achievements up to date. Therefore, Zofia Lissa was no exception.
A few publications by Ewa Rzanna-Szczepaniak106 presented a wide range of reflections on the formation of socialist humanities and the activity of the most important cultural and scientific institutions involved with music life in the first years after the war. What is important in her works is that in order to comprehensively present the situation of the music and musicological community in the first decade after the war, she did not limit herself solely to analysing the minutes from the conventions of the Związek Kompozytorów Polskich [the ←386 | 387→Polish Composers’ Union, further ZKP] and official speeches, even though they are frequently cited in studies on the history of music in the difficult Stalinist period. Such popular texts include, for example, the keynote address of Bolesław Bierut, delivered at the opening of the radio station in Wroclaw in November 1947,107 as well as texts written by Włodzimierz Sokorski, deputy minister of culture and art, who was keenly interested in music culture108 and almost always present at the conventions of the ZKP, including the conference for composers and musicologists that took place in September 1949 in Łagów Lubuski which was crucial for assessing and setting the direction of music creativity. Rzanna-Szczepaniak started from a concise presentation of the assumptions of Marx’s historical materialism and Lenin’s continuation of these ideas. She consulted documents which prove what tasks the most important representatives of the party apparatus of that time had assigned to the community of intellectuals, creators and scientists. She included the speeches of Jakub Berman and Władysław Gomółka, minutes of the meetings of the PZPR [the Polish United Workers’ Party] and certificates from Russian archives.109 Finally, these official opinions were supplemented by journalistic texts of that time, which supported the government and were written as if on its request.
When we look at the titles of the most important social and literary or social and cultural periodicals of that time, it is worth noting that musicologists, musicians and music critics took part in the discussions that were published in them. Regular columnists in periodicals such as Odrodzenie110, ←387 | 388→Nowiny Literackie111, Nowe Drogi112, Kuźnica113, Nowa Kultura114 and Myśl ←388 | 389→Współczesna115 were Zofia Lissa, Stefania Łobaczewska, Witold Rudziński, Zygmunt Mycielski and Stefan Jarociński. Polemics against the official stance of the government were published in Catholic social and cultural monthlies Znak and Tygodnik Powszechny, whose frequent contributor was Stefan Kisielewski. Tygodnik often published texts written by Witold Rudziński116 or even Zdzisław Jachimecki,117 whose name rarely appeared in the press after the war.
The foundations for organising cultural and scientific life in the new order were provided by committees formed at State National Council, a new governmental body. In this case, it was the Committee of Culture, Science and Education, which started working in October 1944. Among the new structures which emerged in the following months, there was the Department of Music established at the Ministry of Culture and Art. The Department was initially headed by Mieczysław Drobner, whose deputy was Stanisław Golachowski. After some time, as the result of personnel changes, Witold Rudziński was appointed director, whereas Zofia Lissa became associate director. Further changes at the Ministry did lead to the closure of ‘thematic’ departments, but some more developed central artistic and cultural organisations and institutions, including PWM, survived and remained part of the Ministry. From the point of view of current needs of the musicology of that time, one division of the Department was of particular importance, namely the Department for Supporting Creativity. It had at its disposal music collections, libraries and museums (which were gradually brought under state control). It also had contact with ZKP, which musicologists later joined as a separate Section. It soon turned out that the aim of this sort of state patronage was not to support, but rather to centrally manage and control all subordinate institutions (such as publishing houses and societies) by granting financial subsidies depending on whether the activities of a given ←389 | 390→institution were in line with current ideology, rather than whether it answered actual substantial needs.
At the same time, the academic field witnessed a gradual dominance shift at universities and in scientific societies. It was a move from humanities towards social sciences, which throughout the years led to reversing the ratio of the share which humanistic faculties and sections had in the newly-established scientific units, as compared to those which had existed up to that time. In the first period of functioning of the new state, pre-war structures were spontaneously revived, and nobody even suspected how quickly this process would be stopped. The first signals which indicated that priorities had changed, that the whole potential of Polish science would be directed mainly to build economic power and that Polish humanities would be almost completely disregarded appeared, for example, in official speeches of the leading apparatchiks.118 Therefore, due to the fact that at PAU two out of four sections were humanistic, whereas at the Warsaw TN two out of five sections were humanistic, it was decided that the PAN, established in 1951, would have only one (out of four) section with a similar profile, namely the social sciences section (and there was no humanistic section).119
Following the example from other domains of social life, a visible indication of the gradual centralisation of groups of creators and scientists were all sorts of conventions for artistic circles. They had been organised ever since the first months after the war. In the beginning, they were spontaneous, like for example, the first meeting of the members of the reactivated IFCh, which took place in May 1945, the meeting of the WTM in September of the same year, and most importantly the National Convention of Composers, which was held in Cracow from 29 August to 2 September 1945. However, as time went by, conventions ←390 | 391→were organised under pressure from state authorities and became saturated with the prevailing ideology. A series of ‘ministerial’ meetings for writers, visual artists, actors, and architects, whose aim was to adopt the bases of the new aesthetics in art and the new methodology in art research, were organised over several months in 1949. Włodzimierz Sokorski, deputy minister at the Ministry of Culture and Art, was present at these meetings and reminded their participants about the basic requirements of socialist realism which applied to everybody, including creators and academics, for example, theoreticians dealing with art science. When it comes to musicologists, their interpretation of the new reality was supposed to follow, or perhaps actually followed, the words of the leading mentor of cultural life which he had uttered at the opening of the third convention of the ZKP on 20 November 1947. His speech determined the principles which were supposed to guide not only the creative process but also research on creative output: ‘the so-called formalism in music should be understood as a creative method which has become infertile nowadays and which regards content solely as a function of the form. This approach stands in opposition to socialist realism, which sees the form and creative crafts as a structural expression of its content, mood, and artistic passion. Therefore, it is based on the unity of content and form, which make for a uniform creative act, conditioned by the epoch itself and by present musical means.’120
After these words, there were a few more specific suggestions. During his speech, Sokorski pointed out contemporary composers, both experienced ones and those from the youngest generation, who had taken the right path so as not to sound ‘deadly in a working-class hall’121: these were Panufnik, Lutosławski, and Woytowicz, who perhaps had not yet discovered the musical language of the new epoch, but were at least going in this direction.122 However, this was not about resolving the dilemma of whether it was ‘easy or difficult music’ that was more correct. After such phrases as the necessity of ‘overcoming the imitative music of declining capitalism, which has already had the characteristics of formalistic ←391 | 392→degeneration,’123 it became difficult for researchers who studied Polish contemporary music to evaluate Karol Szymanowski and his legacy. Starting with the convention in Łagów Lubuski in 1949, the legacy of the composer of Harnasie had been criticised and classified by state authorities as a manifestation of formalism and cosmopolitism. A few months earlier, this assessment had not yet been critical because the inspiration with folk music was still remembered, along with Szymanowski’s exemplary conduct as a pedagogue and his understanding for the need to widely promote music culture.124 On the one hand ‘the past period of breaking the sacred rules of classical tonality and harmony seemed useful from the point of view of the development of musical creativity,’ as exemplified by the works of Szymanowski, while on the other hand, unfortunately the trend in which he had been creating ‘did not thrive … during a historical revolution, but on the contrary, it ran along the downhill slope of economic, political, moral, and aesthetic systems,’125 which of course gave proof to the downfall of both the direction in music as well as its representatives.
The authorities did not give straightforward guidelines to researchers interested in Szymanowski and his artistic output. On account of this fact, it was necessary to demonstrate a certain kind of scientific cunning. It should be remembered that even before 1939, the legacy of this artist, who was the most important composer of the interwar period, was the subject of inquiries and analyses of a large group of musicologists, theoreticians and music critics. Adolf Chybiński also contributed to the widespread fascination with Szymanowski’s ←392 | 393→music, as he devoted a series of articles to the composer.126 Zdzisław Jachimecki did the same.127 Among the graduates from the Lviv department, Józef Chomiński was the one who conducted in-depth studies devoted to Szymanowski’s songs. He announced the results of his research work in papers published in or prepared to be published in PRM.128 An impressive archive with music and literary manuscripts left by Szymanowski was gathered and stored during the war by Stanisław Golachowski, a musicology graduate from Cracow. Finally, Stefania Łobaczewska summed up many years of her research on Szymanowski with a monograph.129 Right before its publication, it got the author in real trouble when it turned out that some geographical data in the text had not been corrected and were out-dated due to geopolitical changes that had been introduced after the Yalta Conference.
However, it was first and foremost Frederic Chopin who was anointed as the composer who complied with the model image of an artist accepted by the authorities of the socialist realism regime. It was believed that Chopin was a genius not only on account of excellence of form and composing techniques, which are characteristic of his works but also because he ‘had sensed the future and greatness of Polish music, related to the folk foundation of his own nation. He had sensed the revelatory value of his songs and folk melodies, which grew out of the daily toil of anonymous creators and their age-old work, which had been going on for centuries.’130 The opportunity to celebrate the living memory of the composer appeared very soon. It was the 100th anniversary of his death, and the whole community of Polish musicologists was involved in commemorating ←393 | 394→it, for example, by accepting the invitation to send papers and reviews devoted to Chopin to the editorial office of Kwartalnik Muzyczny.
Just like before the war, musicologists wanted to be united in a collective body to intensify the voice of the community, which was needed all the more at the time when goods were distributed, and positions were filled based on top-down decisions by state authorities. Discussions in small groups had begun many months before the next, this time the third, Convention of Composers. Chybiński, Łobaczewska and Lissa also discussed amongst themselves. For Lissa, it was important that ‘the union of Polish musicologists will be capable of starting group work. … when it comes to its form, we’ll have to think about it.’131
The representatives of science, in this case musicologists and music theorists, were supposed to support composers. The community which had been forming in Poland ever since the turn of the twentieth century had never been put under such ideological pressure (of which its representatives were not fully aware in the beginning) as in post-war reality. It is assumed that the first two years of freedom did not foreshadow future rigour. Everything changed at the opening of the radio station in Wroclaw in November 1947, when Bolesław Bierut gave a keynote speech on plans concerning cultural policy (which included music culture). Ewa Rzanna-Szczepaniak quotes Władysław Włodarczyk, who talked about the acceptance of the enforced state care (or in fact control) exercised over the activity of artistic and research communities132 and universal access to values which used to be reserved for the elites. His point of view fits in with the tone of opinions voiced even some time later by certain musicologists, not only those who unequivocally stood for the new order, such as Zofia Lissa. In this context, we can, for example, take into consideration the words of Zdzisław Jachimecki, who talked about the mass quality of science in his speech at the first convention of the Division of Musicologists, ‘I have always put forward the idea that even the musicology which is strictly academically understood cannot be aimed at just a handful of people, but rather at a crowd of many thousands, at people who crave for culture. … Polish musicology should … not serve narrow esoteric circles, … it cannot escape the world and hide in stifling nooks and crannies of infertile speculations, which often turns into a certain kind of cultural parasitism.’133 Paradoxically, this rhetoric fit in perfectly with the policy which consisted of ←394 | 395→popularising all areas of social life, including culture and science. Joseph Stalin, the principal author of this doctrine, repeatedly talked about the necessity of class struggle, which was obviously aimed at enforcing the foundations of socialist realism and the duty to use dialectical materialism as the fundamental doctrine in humanistic and social sciences.
Repressions deepened year by year, especially those directed against intellectuals, creators and artists. The rule of total planning and centralisation led to the elimination of all manifestations of individualism and activity in small communities, which could potentially get out of state control. At the same time, criticising this state of affairs was entirely out of the question. (Ruch Muzyczny was, for example, a victim of this offensive).
The history of the beginnings of the ZKP, as well as subsequent years of its activity, was presented in detail in reports and memoirs included in a commemorative book published for the 50th anniversary of the Union,134 and also in publications by Ewa Rzanna-Szczepaniak and J. Katarzyna Dadak-Kozicka.135 Let us just remember that the first board was made up of: Piotr Perkowski (president), Roman Palester (I vice-president), Stanisław Wiechowicz (II vice-president), Witold Lutosławski (secretary, treasurer) and members – Jan Ekier, Tadeusz Kassern, Bolesław Woytowicz – and alternate members – Tadeusz Szeligowski, Kazimierz Wiłkomirski. As Warsaw was in ruins, which brought problems with finding enough rooms, it was proposed that the Union could have its seat in Cracow. However, tradition prevailed, and it was decided that the Union needs to operate in the capital city. Former pre-war members were automatically entered into the list. New members were accepted on the basis of a declaration that had been printed, for example, in the first issue of Ruch Muzyczny. Eventually, it was the Qualification Committee that decided to accept new members. The Committee evaluated the actual artistic output of candidates, whereas statements saturated with the new ideology, talking about ‘the mission of reviving Polish culture’ or ‘the issue of music for the masses’ were written down in the charter. However, their function was mainly propagandist, and they served as a smokescreen which was supposed to prevent state authorities from meddling with internal affairs of the musicological community.
It was as early as in the summer months of 1947 that the group of ‘Lvivians’ and people associated with the Department of Music at the Ministry of Culture and Art started thinking about establishing a Section of Musicologists, which ←395 | 396→would be an individual body but would at the same time function under the umbrella of the ZKP. Without a doubt, Zofia Lissa wanted to take this opportunity to fulfil her own ambitions. At the same time (also due to the connections between the highest-ranking officials of the regime of that time136), she was becoming the leader of the music and musicological community. Having the necessary contacts, she made the first attempts to organise musicology in Warsaw. When she initiated the activity of musicologists within such a significant group as the union of creators, she strengthened her own position in the community. The intention of ministerial decision-makers was for musicologists to have an impact on the shape of contemporary music by evaluating it. On the one hand, this evaluation was supposed to be backed by academic knowledge, and on the other by the only correct worldview, held by the leading representatives of this branch of science.
In August 1947, Stefania Łobaczewska, in consultation with Lissa and Chybiński, was working on correcting the Charter of the ZKP, which would make it possible to establish the Musicologists’ Section. Musicologists participated in the Third Convention, which took place in autumn. They wanted to take the steps which would make it possible to establish the Section (and before that, to adopt necessary amendments in the charter of the Union). However, they were not welcomed as a group of guests. It was also the first time that Lissa spoke at the Convention. She persuaded the musicologists who were reluctant to changes that the project she was pushing was valid (it cannot be ruled out that for the gathered creators, the main argument in favour of the project was the more significant financial support from the ministry that they expected Lissa to gain).137 A year later, several months before the scheduled meeting, the themes of the scheduled papers were approved. They were to be prepared for the first conference of the Section; at that time, it was also decided to accept non-musicologists as members. ‘The Musicology Section wishes to invite for cooperation excellent composers and tutors, who write textbooks or are often interested in theoretical matters. These are the foreseen persons: … Prof. [Kazimierz] Sikorski, ←396 | 397→[Konstanty] Régamey, [Tadeusz] Szeligowski, [Bolesław] Woytowicz, [Witold] Rudziński; therefore, the Section will adhere to a completely different principle for selecting its members compared to the PAU Section. In the ZKP Section, it is not the scientific title that decides, but rather the skills and artistic achievements.’138 Apart from the musicians who had been honourably counted among men of science, the following were also invited to the meeting of the Section: Adolf Chybiński, Stefania Łobaczewska, Zdzisław Jachimecki, Włodzimierz Poźniak, Józef Reiss, Alicja Simon, Hieronim Feicht, Józef Chomiński, Stanisław Golachowski, Jadwiga Sobieska, Marian Sobieski, Maria Szczepańska and Zofia Lissa. The list of potential full members that was presented to the Management Board of the ZKP did not include Reiss (by mistake?), but someone added the names of Helena Windakiewicz and two researchers residing permanently outside Poland, that is Ludwik Bronarski and Zygmunt Estreicher. The next six persons, that is Stefan Śledziński, Aleksander Frączkiewicz, Leon Witkowski, Adam Rieger, Władysław Hordyński and Mieczysław Drobner, were put forward as associate members, and four others as candidates (Stefan Jarociński, who did not make his debut in the local musicologist community until he came back from Paris, Alina Nowak-Romanowicz, a young graduate from Cracow musicology who worked in Katowice, Jan Prosnak, the editor of the weekly Radio i Świat and Zbigniew Liebhart, an academic who worked at the department of musicology in Wroclaw).139
The first convention of the Division of Musicologists took place on 18–19 November 1948 and preceded the Fourth Convention of the ZKP (held on 20–21 November). An extensive report from the November Convention and the text of all significant speeches were soon published in Kwartalnik Muzyczny,140 whereas selected texts also came out in Ruch Muzyczny. Ruch Muzyczny, which was a monthly and could therefore keep the readers updated on events from music and musicological life, published the text of three speeches delivered at the convention. These were the ideological opening speech by Włodzimierz Sokorski,141 the speech by Zygmunt Mycielski142 and the lecture given by Zdzisław Jachimecki.143 The monthly also published an extensive report on ←397 | 398→the proceedings of the convention, written by Stefania Łobaczewska.144 In her opinion, the most significant advantage of the meeting was that it united two communities that were professionally involved with music, namely artists and researchers, which was possible thanks to the establishment of the Division of Musicologists (with its own Management Board and Qualification Committee) at the ZKP. When it comes to the introductory speech by Sokorski, she believed that the most important thing was how he regarded the mission of contemporary musicology: ‘to meet new creative problems and new research methods. … to stand in line with composers in order to support them in gaining new artistic forms and to mediate the process of making these forms available to the recipient, especially the new recipient,’ as well as to diagnose ‘what the crisis in contemporary music really consists of and provide a scientific explanation for it, which will make it easier to overcome this crisis.’145
When it comes to musicologists, it was emphasised that contrary to the convention which had taken place ten years earlier in Poznań (during Polish Music Days organised in this city), this time the meeting was joined by the representatives of all communities and centres, regardless of previous animosities. This breakthrough was presented as a result of planned actions taken by the Ministry of Culture and Art. Indeed, Zdzisław Jachimecki also joined the Praesidium of the Convention, which was dominated by the representatives of the pre-war Lviv school (Chybiński as the chairman, accompanied by Feicht and Łobaczewska). Apart from speeches given by the aforementioned praesidium members,146 the sessions were filled with speeches by Alicja Simon,147 Marian Sobieski,148 Józef Chomiński,149 Zofia Lissa,150 Witold Rudziński.151
According to the reporter, the discussion ‘indicated a high academic level, marked by concern for the welfare of … scholarship and its comprehensive development in line with the needs of the moment and hence emerging tasks.’152 ←398 | 399→Speeches were at times saturated with all-pervasive socialist realism rhetoric and focused on reminding the listeners about the most important issues which had been present in the activities of musicologists ever since its first representatives started the discipline. For example, one of the most important resolutions adopted by the Convention was the decision to establish a committee which would deal with coordinating the registration of the artefacts of Polish music. It was supposed to be composed of: Adolf Chybiński, Alicja Simon, Włodzimierz Poźniak, Władysław Hordyński (and in this context, a reference could be made to the actions initiated back in the nineteenth century by Father Józef Surzyński or the research activity of Chybiński himself) and, analogically, the second one, established to register and collect Polish folk music, with a recommendation to form the Central Phonographic Archive at the prospective Institute of Art (which would refer to the Poznań collection gathered by Łucjan Kamieński with a group of musicology students and staff, as well as to the Central Phonographic Archive which had been run before the war at the National Library by Julian Pulikowski). The pre-war tradition of reviving early music was continued and included adding this kind of repertoire to concert programmes, starting to promote it as early as in primary schools, and extending the curricula of institutions of higher education so that they included early music classes. All these actions were reminiscent of the operating plans adopted by such organisations as the SMDM or ORMuz.
When it comes to musicology at the university level, the two most important topics brought up during the session was the problem of organising musicology studies (this topic was taken up in a paper delivered by Zdzisław Jachimecki, which provoked a broader discussion and even inspired a supplementary paper co-presented with Józef Chomiński), as well as the organisational and ideological foundation of musicological research, discussed in the keynote address by Zofia Lissa.
In his speech, Jachimecki started from summing up the pre-war structure, which had been based on the foundations laid by Adler, and the organisation of musicological studies in Poland, pointing out some imperfections and inconveniences of that system (for example the lack of specialist Polish literature). Recalling the authority of the British musicologist Edward Dent, a representative of such a significant centre as Cambridge University, he wondered ‘what type of musicologist should nowadays leave the premises of university institutes and go into the field of cultural life’153: the type that, being a specialist himself, does ←399 | 400→not forget about the layman-readers. ‘A modern musicologist must maintain, in his works for the public, a clearly defined direction, from which he cannot deviate in favour of the ostensible and extremely dubious academicism’ (and here he pointed to model examples in the activity of foreign musicologists, such as the Czech author Zdeněk Nejedlý or the group of authors who wrote History of Russian Music, published in 1940).154 Unfortunately, just like before the war, he kept presenting those researchers dealing with the history and theory of music who believed that ‘Musicologists too often make their methods appear scientific by mechanically putting together the most ordinary combinations of chords, the most commonly used rhythmic formulas, steps, leaps in melody, etc.’155 When it comes to the course of studies, he proposed to end them with exams, such as: 1) erudite criticism of music works (here the theory and history of harmony and counterpoint, theory and history of musical forms, musical palaeography, systematics of musicology), 2) a combination of acoustics, organology, the study of instruments and a ‘vocal instrumentation technique,’ which sounds rather enigmatic, 3) a combination of music ethnology with psychology and aesthetics with elements of sociology, 4) the history of general music with particular focus on Polish music. He also assumed that university education would have two stages, leading to a master’s or doctoral degree (the latter supported by the state thanks to a scholarship system).
Presenting these as well as other plans for the new organisation of musicology, he was open towards discussion, which was immediately taken up by his co-reporter, Józef Chomiński. Chomiński agreed with the preceding speaker about the principled question that was retaining the studies of music within the structures of humanist universities instead of transferring it to artistic institutions; as well as to the exaggeration ‘regarding the speculative treatment of technical and formal matters, which are based on the optical image of a musical work, and often fail to match with the real action of the measures applied’;156 he also supported the need to increase the number of teaching staff, but concerning other issues he held a quite different approach. He stressed that ‘the main task of musicology is … to produce researchers, future researchers’ and further that ‘scientific research, always requiring great professional preparation, cannot be simplified without prejudice to its level and results.’157 As for the establishment ←400 | 401→of the curriculum and examination plan, he proposed appointment of a special commission. Moreover, he considered it necessary to create a theoretical and methodological department and ‘modernise research methods’ in view of the reigning ‘modern’ outlook with ‘the use of achievements of the dialectical materialist methodology.’158
In general, reviewers managed to evade ‘the only right’ rhetoric by sticking to a factual description of the current situation, various activities taken by the community and the current and anticipated achievements of musicology. An ideological style, which was expected by party officials, was followed to a lesser degree by Stefania Łobaczewska and Józef Chomiński and sometimes by Jachimecki (which is visible in some excerpts quoted here) and to a greater degree by Zofia Lissa, who had experience in writing official speeches. Her text was divided into two parts – the first was devoted to the organisation of musicology, the second part was about implementation of a new methodology of scholarship (and thinking) based on Marxist assumptions. Overall, the speaker’s words included many valuable remarks. Lissa was certainly characterised by outstanding intellect and even though we could assume that she adopted the Marxist ideology and followed it with deep belief in its rightness, she was still aware of the true values of academic science in the spirit of Adler (and yet extended to observe music phenomena from the point of view of social development) and it made her fight for maintaining the ties between musicology and academic centres, rather than try to tie it in with higher music schools (in accordance with the Soviet fashion). For Lissa, the basis for successful research were collective actions, cooperation between all academic centres and planning joint projects ‘for the long run.’159 The aim of the new union of musicologists and the first Convention, which had already been underway, was to specify these tasks and provide guidelines which could be used to organise future cooperation.
By combining in his speech the ‘musicological’ and ‘composer’ part of the 1948 Meeting, the chairman Zygmunt Mycielski regarded the merger of these two communities – artistic and academic – as the most important event. However, he saw the greatest benefits in cooperation between these two groups differently than Sokorski. Not in centralisation, which would aim at ‘working out issues of contemporary art’ and coordinating in accordance with the scientifically-developed guidelines of artistic activity,160 but rather traditionally – as focus on ←401 | 402→discovering new materials, ‘that might become [for composers] an inexhaustible source of creative ideas. [Though] in the compositional technique of the former masters, in anthologies, and ethnographic sources, we can find the thing that any honest artist is looking for, either consciously or unconsciously: the precision of one’s own style, own language, awareness of what Polish music actually is.’161
Musicologists were obliged to use historical materialism, which had officially become the methodology of the new era, in order to prepare research foundations that would support composers in creating works conforming to the assumptions of real socialism. Such interventions were opposed by (the majority of) composers, treating the fact of extending the Union to the Musicologists’ Section as an attempt to break the unity of the environment. A united stance adopted by members of the ZKP was directed against superior authorities (the Ministry of Culture and Art) and visible for example, in the universal standpoint on the election of union authorities (which for example, resulted in a gentlemanly agreement that a representative of composers should always chair the union). However, I do not think (as Dadak-Kozicka suggests) that the crux of the struggle between the Management Board and the government lay in existential and financial matters.162 They were rather used as a safe subject for the most important discussions held at the convention, thereby distracting the officials’ attention from the problem of contemporary artistic output and its assessment.
The next Conventions of the Musicologists’ Section were organised at the same time as the gatherings of the whole ZKP. One of its guests was usually deputy minister Włodzimierz Sokorski and sometimes also minister Stefan Dybowski. This shows how important it was for the ministry to follow the life of the broadly defined music community. This was, for example, the case at the opening of the fifth Convention, which took place after a longer break, in June 1950. However, this break did not result from some kind of sluggishness demonstrated by the Management Board of the ZKP. During the break, one of the most important events of that time was held, that is the conference of composers and music critics in Łagów Lubuski, which took place on 5–8 August 1949. These two meetings were both culmination points for introducing and enforcing the assumptions of dialectical materialism, as well as for the discussion on realism and formalism in music, both in terms of composing practice and music research. Indeed it was in Łagów that ‘the final formation and announcement of the party’s position on the ←402 | 403→issue of musical creation’163 took place. As the conference’s rapporteur asserted on the pages of Ruch Muzyczny, the first task that Sokorski set for creators upon opening the debate was ‘to attempt to establish the terms and definitions concerning the overall issues of today’s music, and afterwards – to attempt to apply these definitions in practice’164 (the second was to undertake preparations for the organisation of the Festival of Polish Contemporary Music). The stormy sessions, which led to a split caused by a different understanding of formalism by ‘official factors’ (Sokorski) and musicologists (Lissa, Chomiński), were described several times in the last few years, for example, by the authors who have already been mentioned here. An in-depth analysis of these events, including the behaviour and direct reactions of those who had participated in these discussions, as well as efforts and attempts to take a safe position ‘on the ideological battlefront’ will surely become the subject of many more monographs. Subsequent generations of researchers are more distanced and more open to judge the attitude and decisions made at that time. On the other hand, there is a real danger that since the authors who take up such subjects did not experience living at the turn of the 1950s, their judgement will unnecessarily become too harsh or that they will fail to take into consideration the human factor, which has many a time proved to be extremely susceptible to the operations of omnipresent regimes.
In any case, the fifth ZKP meeting, held several months following the Łagów conference, was marked with a plethora of criticism and self-criticism from musicologists. Upon opening the session alongside Zygmunt Mycielski, Lissa addressed her speech – concerning the lack of ideological preparation for the creation of a new style that would be consistent with the assumptions of the new socialist realism ideology – to the composers; as for critics, however, she accused them of a kind of over-zealous use of unnecessary expressions in their evaluations of musical creations, leading to the exclusion of part of the repertoire from the general circulation. Józef Chomiński in turn, apart from comments directed to composers concerning the lower possibility of impacting the audience through instrumental music in comparison with vocal music, also ‘criticised… the previous works of musicologists, who could neither strictly nor professionally determine the conditions to be met by realistic symphonic music.’165 Discussions ←403 | 404→which accompanied these and some other speeches (such as the keynote address by Sokorski) were some of the most heated ones in the history of meetings organised by the ZKP. It is also generally believed that some of the composers and musicologists used the dominant ideology to settle accounts or secure their own position.
A year later, in December 1951, at the sixth Convention of the ZKP, the first symptoms of softening the stance on twentieth-century output166 appeared. Even though Sokorski still referred to Jakub Berman’s speech on artistic output and the role of socialist art (Sokorski referred here to musical creativity) and kept emphasising the role of critique and self-critique in the pursuit of one’s goals (which included artistic goals), the next speakers talked about unnecessary omissions in certain aspects of artistic output (for example, in the case of small forms for extended vocal-instrumental compositions), whereas Zofia Lissa appreciated the fact that contemporary composers were using technical measures developed in the previous epoch (whilst rejecting decadent content). The sixth Convention was also the right place for summing up the Festival of Polish Music, which lasted from April to December of that year.
Newspeak, filling both official and spontaneous speeches in the period of socialist realism, often gained applause, as one can see upon reviewing protocols from conventions and meetings, and in the case of the musical community – the ZKP and Musicologists’ Section, or interdisciplinary bodies, as in the case of activities of PIS: ‘involvement of many creators of art and culture in political activities, as well as adherence to the assumptions of the socialist realism methodology, resulted from a deliberate ideological choice arising from a naive faith in the validity of the assumptions and principles of cultural policy pursued following 1948.’167 I believe that such attitudes sometimes expressed the fear of unsure professional future or repression, and sometimes resulted from conformism, hidden under the pretence of acting ‘for a good cause.’ Yet it needs to be emphasised that such attitudes were not typical of the first community meetings. We need to remember that in the beginning, what prevailed was widespread enthusiasm and an authentic desire to build and rebuild.
For Katarzyna Dadak-Kozicka, documents from General Conventions of the ZKP (texts of speeches, minutes, etc.) served as the foundation to delineate the ‘dramatic outline’ of the battle for music waged against the government of ←404 | 405→that time by the community of artists. This author’s works are valuable especially because she not only draws attention to the fact that discussions held at the conventions included an analysis and assessment of music language (and she assesses these discussions), but she also analyses (and evaluates) the language which artists used to make comments about music.168 The politically correct rhetoric, full of calls to composers to fight for a better tomorrow, undertake creative work on behalf of the nation and fulfil socialist duties, was growing year by year. On a side note, it can be added that Polish readers had already had an opportunity to encounter the rhetoric of the new order in music press back before the war. Let us recall an article written by Marian Neuteich, a composer, a cellist and a conductor, ‘Muzyka w ZSRR’ [Music in the USSR].169 This included phrasings such as: ‘the Middle Ages, with its feudal system based on an extreme oppression of the masses … created … scholastic music forms almost unavailable to the public due to their complicated structure’ (p. 294), ‘While the works of Bach were created during the stabilisation of absolutism, Beethoven … became a preacher of the democratic ideals of the victorious middle class’ (p. 295), ‘the new system of the USSR is built by the masses, thus Soviet artistic creativity sets a goal: to cooperate actively in social reconstruction, reflect the psychology of the collective effort of the masses, and address their “artistic needs.”… Hence the slogan “socialist realism,” that would become the basis of the musical style in the USSR’ (p. 297).
It is hard to say how seriously this text was taken by its contemporaries. It seems that it provoked either laughter or terror, but it did not spark a wider discussion on socialist realism, which was not generally known at that time. Perhaps it was difficult to imagine such an understanding of history and art in real life. However, we know that the direction which Neuteich had set in his article was not totally unfamiliar to a particular group of young critics and musicologists, including the leading enthusiasts of this trend, that is Lissa and Łobaczewska. As early as in the 1930s, the latter of these researchers talked about the two ‘aesthetics’ which, in her opinion, were the only ones adopted at that time. On the one hand, there was artistic output ‘with remarkably individualist assumptions’ and on the other popular art. She suggested that each of these attitudes was poor and emphasised that none fulfilled actual social expectations.170←405 | 406→
For as long as Zofia Lissa was an official of the regime, the Lviv fraction of the musicologist community could feel relatively safe. It was Lissa whom her friends from the University of Lviv approached to plan any potential personnel reshuffling, which she could effect on the ministry level. And vice versa, Lissa was the main provider of reports on music life for the system, ordered by the government. After returning in 1947 to Warsaw from Moscow, where she had fulfilled the function of cultural attaché, in addition to making efforts related to an academic career – opening and finalising procedures related to habilitation in the shortest possible time – she assumed the office of deputy director in the department of music of MKiS. Thanks to her contacts among the officials of the regime, she was one of the few people who could often travel abroad. She kept in touch not only with academic centres in the Eastern Bloc (in Moscow, Prague and Berlin) but also with scientific circles in Western Europe (she visited France and Switzerland). In 1952, she was a member of an official cultural delegation sent to Beijing. However, even such a strong attachment to the political structures of that time did not fully protect her against the attacks of people ill-disposed towards her, be it the group of composers who opposed the enforced direction of ‘the only right’ artistic path, or some critics and publicists who openly opted for creative freedom of all musicians. The group of organisers of cultural and scientific life was also growing, and they were willing to take over the most lucrative positions in the structures of operating institutions. In addition, the system of dependence, control and repression in all aspects of society was growing more and more every year.
A sharpening of activities towards culture and science took place in the years 1950 and 1951. Then, within a few months, there were at least three important events that set a course of action for both artists and academics across all areas of art. In February 1950, a resolution on the organisation of the First Congress of Polish Science was adopted. In the end, it took place from 29 June to 2 July 1951. In September 1950, there was a meeting of art historians which was part of ongoing preparations to this event. At this meeting, the tasks of Polish art and study of art were outlined by Juliusz Starzyński, who had just become the leader of the newly established State Institute of Art in Warsaw. He was clearly in favour of adopting dialectical and historical materialism as the only right research method to be used in the study of history and art.171 What was supposed ←406 | 407→to serve musicologists as an introduction to the Congress were articles written by the leading representatives of the community which concerned the condition of this discipline and its tasks in the near future. These articles were prepared at the request of Muzyka, a monthly which had been operating since 1950 as a body subordinate to the PIS. As a result, in the September issue, only Stefania Łobaczewska’s172 text was published, in which (as it was written) she made the ‘first assessment’ of the state of musicology.
The author indicated three topics within her statement: 1) the need to ‘shift research on history and aesthetics onto the path of Marxist methodology and thus … overthrow of the old, erroneous scientific methods …, 2) to establish a new relation towards musical traditions, 3) develop new ideological assumptions for contemporary practice.’173 She took the first of them for granted well in advance. She devoted the next part of the dissertation to the incorrect assumptions in the former understanding of musical tradition: without regard to its class character on the one hand, and ‘the strive to purify music from the hypertrophy of the literary, philosophical or mystical factor, which was imposed by the ideological superstructure, applicable to German art from the second half of the nineteenth century’ (which resulted in focus on form, technique and intellect).174 To change this, new analytical works were needed, which would take into account not only the study on the form but also content that each and every piece of music carries (ought to carry). Łobaczewska emphasised that changes in the methodology cannot result from measures imposed top-down but must be developed together with the necessary (and appropriate) change in ideology amongst academics. In this respect – the correct, ‘modern’ assessment of older as well as newer works – would be supported by music criticism. Meanwhile, it did not meet contemporary expectations: ‘It mainly sees music that is either “good” or “bad” in terms of craftsmanship and form, not asking for the emotional and social qualities…. If a contemporary Polish critic often sins against the basic postulates of the present … [,] then the main barrier here is the inability to overcome these emotional burdens, leading to false valuations.’175 Once again the need to organise research in ←407 | 408→historical fields around group projects was indicated, which is enforced by the ‘multilateralism of scientific horizons … opened by the Marxist methodology.’ According to Łobaczewska, ‘[a] single author ought to be replaced by a team specialised in various historical periods, particularly national environments.’176
In the next part of the report, the author provided a comprehensive statement on the cooperation between musicologists and composers, based on underlining the moments in history from which contemporary composers should draw, namely romanticism. But not fully, because ‘a romantic put himself and his feelings in the first place,’ whereas a contemporary composer must ‘blend in with the surrounding new life, with the world of people who make up this new life.’177 A contemporary composer, just like a romantic one (with the necessary provision that a representative of the early Romantic period) must move the listeners with his music, but in the modern sense, taking into account the needs of a musically uneducated listener. Hence the need to simplify the work, which should not be confused with primitivising it. In conclusion, Łobaczewska expressed the belief that thanks to the new methodology musicology would ‘lose … its current position of a field of purely theoretical, exact science, insulated from the practice of life, and obtain the significance of scientific discipline, closely associated with life.’178
Other leading musicologists were preparing to participate in another meeting with the same intent, that is to ‘determine the key assumptions of Marxist music aesthetics in its aspect which could become a guideline for our music life, that is both research and practice.’179 In the middle of December (11–16) 1950 in Cracow, the First Polish Nationwide Conference on Art Research took place (known as the Wawel Conference due to its location). At its opening, Juliusz Starzyński reminded participants of the assumptions which he had already presented at the conference of art historians in September. Discussions were then held in thematic sections. It seems that participation in the conference was certainly obligatory in the case of people to whom named invitations were issued, and in practice it boiled down to all musicologists who were active at ←408 | 409→the time. Already at the preparation stage, specific programme papers were requested, as in the case of Józef Chomiński, who was entrusted with the topic ‘Rola tradycji w muzyce współczesnej’ [The role of tradition on contemporary music].180 Adolf Chybiński, who reluctantly accepted the invitation, also had to talk about tradition.
When the discussions ended, Łobaczewska immediately published a report on the meeting of the Music Section in the monthly Muzyka.181 According to her discussions were to be planned around the issue of Leninist theory of reflection in music182 presented by Zofia Lissa and the problem of perception of tradition in the context of Polish contemporary music. It was about defining the characteristics of the Polish national style that had not been captured even in the works of Frederic Chopin (excluding the obvious ‘folk’ elements). The study should aim at abstracting, as it were, these ingredients in the works of composers of different eras, which could be regarded as ‘progressive,’ ‘tendencies representing an ideological and social avant-garde of their epoch’ (Drobner),183 and one should apply a ‘class aspect in historical research’ (Lissa).184 The debaters could not agree on the evaluation of works from the first decades of the twentieth century. Łobaczewska noted that Chomiński criticised her highly unilaterally, while ‘as well as the reverse tendency there was also a second direction, a more progressive current …. It constituted a minority; nonetheless, one should not forget about it if only because of the requirements of historical truth.’185
Lissa’s paper and the postulates in it about the indissolubility of content and form in musical works were discussed in a wide group – Józef Chomiński, Mieczysław Drobner, Jan Ekier, Stefania Łobaczewska, Janusz Miketta, Witold Rudziński, Jerzy Sokorski, Stefan Szuman, Janusz Urbański, Bolesław Woytowicz took the floor on this subject, and Lissa’s final position reporting the debate was expressed by the statement that ‘the process of reflecting reality in music is not ←409 | 410→straightforward as in either literary works or paintings, but it is rather indirect. Music primarily reflects reality through its emotional content, the feelings of a man posed in a certain historical and class surrounding.’186 After these ideological talks, statements focused more on pragmatic issues – Marian Sobieski discussed the tasks faced by folklore researchers, Stefania Łobaczewska – issues of documentation, organisation of research and publishing postulates.
The arrangements made in Cracow concerned various activities taken by artistic circles, including the musical and musicological community. From then on, research and publishing work was planned in accordance with guidelines adopted at the Wawel Conference. As was written in conference reports, ‘appreciating the value of achievements from the history of Polish music, mainly in the field of factual materials collected, it was decided to put the main emphasis on the extraction of a national and progressive trend of Polish music and examine hitherto neglected areas, such as the Polish dissident music in the sixteenth century, etc.’187 It might have seemed that such declarations opened the way to many subsequent publications. However, it turned out, that the activity in this field, even in the case of such a safe and non-semantic art as music, could also be full of reefs and shoals. Ideologisation imposed on the sole musical publishing house, namely PWM, reached a level of absurdity even to the extent that works by Chopin which were highly propagated by the system were affected. In connection with the edition of Dzieła Wszystkie Fryderyka Chopina [Complete works of Frederic Chopin] edited by Paderewski, Bronarski and Turczyński (work which was started before the war), Tadeusz Ochlewski once wrote to Chybiński: ‘I have an order to remove the name of Paderewski from the cover page and cut off the “From the Publishers” page in Chopin. Do you have any way to explain to Grosicki that this is a wrong decision?’188 Chybiński himself experienced serious problems and financial losses connected with the publication. In his monograph about Karłowicz, when writing about the family estate in Wiszniew, the professor described it as being situated near Lake Narocz, which he said was the largest lake in Poland, not taking into account the change of the borders. In addition, ‘the whole book, “your” point of view, gentry, involuntary delight about ←410 | 411→the past’ threatened serious consequences both for the author and the management of the publishing house, hence Ochlewski’s decision (consulted with Zofia Lissa189) on the withdrawal of the printed publication from circulation (including author’s copies) in order to replace pages from the volumes with new pages, with politically correct text.190 More serious consequences (including removal from the party, which at that time strongly condemned the ‘victim’) affected Stefania Łobaczewska in 1950 in connection with the author’s assessment of history and content not entirely corresponding to the assumptions of the Marxist methodology191 in Tablice,192 and still earlier in connection with the publication of her monograph about Szymanowski.
Strong mottos given during the Congress of Polish Science also entailed determined actions in terms of both the current methodology and organisation of science. Much focus was placed on the centralisation of research and the preference for teamwork – organisation of large projects of a lexicographical, handbook, monographic and source character, launching works on different kinds of directories, dictionaries, publication series, which would bring together larger research teams that would be, at the same time, also easier to control. Individual achievements were to be of a lesser value, and Soviet science became the role model for Poland. During this time, on the agenda were statements saying for instance that ‘the organisational model … was organically shaped between 1950 and 1951 based on changes and practices of our lives. Getting acquainted with the experiences and patterns of similar institutions in the Soviet Union was of utmost help.’193 Finally, the meeting and findings of the Congress resulted directly in the establishment of PAN, a central institution, the launch of which ←411 | 412→was associated with the liquidation of the existing major scientific societies – PAU and Warsaw’s TN and diminishing of the importance or significant reduction of autonomy of others, such as PTPN.
In view of the ‘gentle revolution’ making progress in science and aimed at deconstructing the existing foundations of the Polish academic establishment, pompous disputes within the environment of local musicologists (including the cultivation of the long-standing Lviv–Cracow controversy) were in fact merely peripheral, based on personal disputes, and did not significantly alter the fate of the discipline, which was determined by completely different bodies. On 7 February 1948, a meeting was held during which it was decided to establish PIS as one of the ‘centres of “new science” located outside the structure of the university’194 and the de facto facility given the task of controlling all aspects of research within the disciplines associated with the history of art, understood in an interdisciplinary manner.
Joanna Sosnowska recalls the arguments provided by Aleksander Jackowski, the deputy director of the newly appointed Institute, aimed at justifying the creation of the facility: ‘In 1950, the hierarchy of tasks was obvious, at first – participation in shaping contemporary culture – and then documentation and research on ancient art…. The Institute was established primarily because it was needed in the then system as an institution that would pave the way for Marxist ideology, acting as a battering ram of the new cultural policy.’195 Whereas Zofia Lissa, when she was stating the reasons why research on art was centralised, wrote that it was necessary to ‘overcome the former isolationism of researchers, the cronyism of individual groups and their antagonisms… and find methods of group work…. Scientific planning made it possible to incorporate musicological disciplines into a wider scope of comprehensive research…. The fact that a group of musicologists participated in the work of the Committee of Art History and Theory at Department I of the Polish Academy of Sciences in 1951 and that the Music Section was established in 1950 at the State Institute of Art … was a sign of the attempts to devise a uniform research plan.’196
Organisational tasks which were entrusted to a delegate of the Ministry of Culture and Art, Juliusz Starzyński, who was an art historian, led to the adoption of Regulation of the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Poland of ←412 | 413→30 November 1949 concerning the establishment of the State Institute of Art.197 A conference ‘concerning tasks facing the Music Section at the Institute and to discuss editorial and music issues’198 was planned to take place on 8 December. Starzyński, previously the director of the international cooperation office at MKiS, was appointed as the Director of the Institute as of 1 January 1950. Aleksander Jackowski, an ethnographer and art historian, was appointed as Deputy Director. The Institute was established through the merger of the National Institute for Research on Folk Art and Theatre Institute, and afterwards the liquidated LIM. As one of the flagship institutions of this kind in the new system, involved in the area of science of arts, MKiS had specific tasks which can be found even in the report on the institute’s activities 1949–50: ‘In case of its scientific-research and organisational activities, the Institute adheres to the assumptions and methodology of dialectical and historical materialism. In evaluating the developments and achievements of art, the Institute relies on the criteria of socialist realism…. The Institute has set itself a goal of breaking the existing system of individualistic thinking in a substantial portion of our scientists, educators and art critics.’199
Like the other newly-appointed academic institutions, PIS was to take care over all forms of research activities – in this case, the science of art. Six sections (including the Music Section) were launched, which ‘as science and research collectives in the field of their specialisation together constitute co-ordination centres that gather a plethora of teams appointed for taking up collective works.’200 As part of the Music Section, several departments were created: e.g. of methodological and historical issues, contemporary music, promotion of music, and the editorial and documentation department. At the beginning of 1950, a comprehensive and ambitious plan for the functioning of the cell was established. It envisaged conducting and coordinating research, documentation, and editorial works not only by the editorial staff of the Institute but – in the context of total centralisation – also by other university centres.←413 | 414→
Unit I, dealing with theoretical and programme works, cooperated with the Subcommittee for Theoretical and Programme Affairs of the Scientific Committee of Academic Music Education – in the hands of this particular department was the formation of the editorial committee for the planned encyclopaedia of music, and there were also proposals for providing institutional support and subsidising the works on Historia muzyki powszechnej [General music history] by Z. Lissa and J. Chomiński, and Chomiński’s Historia form muzycznych [History of musical forms]. There were also plans to translate the work of Boris Asafyev entitled Muzykalnaâ forma kak process. Unit II was responsible for historical studies, both in terms of Polish and mainstream music. Here, in addition to the works on monographs of Polish composers (as well as the history of Polish music), there were plans, amongst others, for subsidising the issue of the second edition of volume I of Zdzisław Jachimecki’s Muzyka polska w rozwoju historycznym od czasów najdawniejszych do doby obecnej [Polish music in historical development from the earliest days to the present day],201 preparing the Moniuszko Almanac202 and leading the works of the Frederic Chopin Institute. Unit III was to deal with works on the encyclopaedia of music. All these ranges were coordinated by Stefan Jarociński, a young musicologist, also educated in law, philosophy and sociology at universities in Warsaw and Paris, employed at PIS as of 1 January 1950. Unit IV – involved in the dissemination of music (both preparing lectures for the State Agency for Artistic Events ‘Artos’ and analysing the demand for musical culture amongst rural and urban communities) – was to be run by Józef Lasocki, employed at the Łódź provincial department of culture and art who, at the same time, served as the head of LIM since 1945 (recall – part of LIM’s activities was to be taken over by PIS). Lasocki was employed in Warsaw only for the first three months of 1950. Unit V – Study of contemporary music – on the one hand was to formulate the principles of Marxist aesthetics and on the other – to organise closed programmes on contemporary music, and explore issues of film music as well as (in cooperation with the Section of Folk Art Research at PIS) the function of folk music in the works of contemporary composers. The head of the department was to be Jerzy Sokorski, Włodzimierz Sokorski’s brother, one of the main eulogists of socialist realism in terms of culture, art and science. However, ←414 | 415→in 1949 Jerzy Sokorski received a UNESCO music scholarship and soon left to study composition with Nadia Boulanger, among others.
The Documentation Unit (VI) was supposed to deal with the accumulation of both sound artefacts (record collection) as well as the preparation of catalogues containing both Polish and foreign musical publications (an archive of articles and reviews). From our point of view, the most important part of this plan was the project for the development of Unit VII – Editorial, conceived as a decision-making centre for the entire country: it was supposed to assemble ‘reviewer teams, the tasks of which would be giving opinions on publishing any music book publications of both the Institute and PWM as well as other publishing companies and, furthermore, provide appropriate comments in order to reformulate the work reviewed by the author or the publishing house.’203 Stanisław Borowy was responsible for the works of the Unit. As we can read from the abundance of correspondence between persons involved in publishing matters and contacts with PWM (Lissa, Chybiński, Chomiński, Ochlewski), and the activities (and often simply lack of any action) undertaken by Borowy (and deputy director Jackowski) often caused all kinds of perturbations in the development of musicological publications: pursuant to those decisions, all materials were placed on his desk (in practice – for an indefinite period), which often resulted in considerable delays in transferring them to Cracow. The slowdown of procedures that had previously relied on acceptance of incoming materials for print only through the appointed, substantial and competent PWM Programme Council, had a significant impact on the course of works of Kwartalnik Muzyczny and marginalised the position of its editorial team.
However, not only scientific tasks were assigned to the Music Section: in the framework of the methodological and historical works, apart from ‘cooperating with the departments of musicology at universities in order to collect and summarise scientific achievements and inspire works related to the scientific needs of the Section,’ the goal was to ‘train musicians, musicology research workers, pupils [sic] of musical schools, etc. in the field of Marxist aesthetics.’ At the same time, the department of contemporary music, whose aim was, amongst other things, to organise discussions on the premieres of works by contemporary composers, and upon presenting the results of these discussions to ‘employees and scientific teams ←415 | 416→working on issues of musical aesthetics.’ They also undertook to maintain ‘international contacts with the Society of Progressive Music and other music centres involved in the progressive contemporary ideas in the USSR and other countries.’204 It was recommended to organise a competition for a monograph written using the assumptions of historical materialism, with an indication of the figures of Polish musicians – Moniuszko, Elsner, Żeleński, Różycki, beginning work on an anthology of musical criticism ‘to include issues of the struggle for realism in aesthetics and music criticism of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.’205
The above-mentioned members of the Music Section were employed as academic staff, which usually had little to do with their actual scientific competencies (except for Stefan Jarociński, who received a degree, as has already been said, from both a Polish university and a foreign university). The actual scientific base of the Section was made up of its external associates (some, like Chomiński, soon to be employed in PIS): Zofia Lissa (‘methodological issues, managing the teams preparing the Moniuszko Encyclopaedia and Monograph, scientific consultations and opinions on publications’), Józef Chomiński (‘methodological and historical issues, managing the general music history team, scientific consultations and opinions on publications’), Roman Haubenstock (‘current affairs of the Section and the journal in Cracow, opinions and reviews’). Moreover, the ‘secretary-general’ of the new body established by the State Institute of Art, that is the monthly Muzyka, was Jerzy Broszkiewicz, a literary man and a musician, who used to work in Cracow in the editorial team of Ruch Muzyczny.206
This initial structure soon changed, as in 1951 the Section was divided into two Departments: Theory and History of Music (with its seat in Warsaw) and Folk Music and Dance (in Poznań). It was then that ‘Given the scarcity of human resources in the field of musicology, one of the main tasks of the Section [at this stage] was to coordinate cooperation with other institutions and centres, in particular with the Departments of Musicology at the Universities of Warsaw, Poznań and Cracow.’207←416 | 417→
There were specific expectations regarding magazines: ‘Publishing during the year 1950 – 9 numbers of Muzyka (there was one Bach edition in this and one festival208) … [and] 4 numbers of Kwartalnik Muzyczny – in this one number dedicated to the Congress of Science.’209 The strength of the impact of these expectations on the environment may be conveyed by Józef Chomiński’s words sent to Tadeusz Ochlewski: ‘PISz … insists that a Marxist-themed booklet of Kwartalnik ought to appear for the Science Congress. This booklet is necessary, for its release will affect not only the fate of Kwartalnik but also the fate of any musicological journal and musicologists in Poland. That is why this booklet will be released in the third quarter of the year so that it appears in November at the very latest.’210
Evaluation of the first years of PIS activities cannot be unambiguous – the facility was established and operated at the expense of at least several research centres in terms of ‘human resources,’ thus disorganising (as any central behemoth) the previous work organisation in the field of science of the arts. Even before the official launch of the facility, plans for its scope (for example, replacing the scientific Kwartalnik Muzyczny with a kind of a monthly ‘collage’ that would combine theoretical material with current and popular news) had been prepared and – as Zofia Lissa indicated – ‘dictators of newly-found Institute of Art sat down to work.’211 However, under the auspices of the Institute, many projects which had been started earlier could finally come into fruition (thanks to the support of the party apparatus), which soon led to tangible effects – in terms of the work of the team of musicologists, this gave, for example, five volumes of Studia Muzykologiczny, the volumes Historia muzyki powszechnej [General music history], Słownik muzyków polskich [Dictionary of Polish musicians], the edition Muzyki polskiego Odrodzenia [The music of Polish Renaissance] and the beginnings of work on the series Monumenta Musicae in Polonia.
At the end of this rather cursory sketch on the ideologisation of the musical/musicological life in the difficult period of the Stalinism era, in which the ‘new opening’ of Polish musicology took place along with the generational shift within of the faculty’s personnel. It can be stated that despite the odium of the ←417 | 418→‘ever-present phantom’ over all spheres of life, a large part of society – including artists and scientists – in these complicated years of communist terror took up an effort to continue works leading not only to the enrichment of the ‘body’ of the country, but also its ‘spirit.’ Attitudes of people towards that system still evoke conflicting opinions and still constitute a very sensitive subject, and so it would be difficult to decide, for example, where to place the boundary between honesty and conformism (caused either by a pragmatic assessment of the situation or rather fear?). Could we consider whether the words Adolf Chybiński addressed to Zofia Lissa as truly spontaneous: ‘congratulations on the Łagów successes …. I have been expecting it already from the announcement of your well-prepared discussion material. … I look forward with great anticipation to the announcement of the Łagów report in Ruch Muzyczny,’212 or another time: ‘I don’t know how to thank you for the unmatched care over this case [Phonographic Archive in Poznań] as I would like to. But at the same time I have to once again assert that cases, be it either scientific or any other, rarely fare well without the personal interest from the “ministerial factors.” You became a “Providential lady” (with a capital “P”) for the Archive, and not only’213 – and we find many examples of such rhetoric from the professor’s pen in his correspondence with students.←418 | 419→
103 Malinowski 2006. Katarzyna Dadak-Kozicka did not agree with Malinowski’s opinion that socialist realism had a quasi-religious character. She claimed that it is difficult to talk about creators being spiritually infatuated with the new ideology because assurances as to the great role of art and the important position of artists in the new society were followed by strictly enforcing the performance of their duties, see Dadak-Kozicka 2011, especially p. 184.
104 Józef Chomiński used such a stipendium when he was preparing his habilitation thesis, see Chybiński/Chomiński 2016, 97.
105 The discussion took place in the Warsaw offices of the editorial group De Musica 22 XI 2001, see ‘Socrealizm’ [Social realism], 2006.
107 Ewa Rzanna-Szczepaniak also notes that a few months later, in summer 1948 during the meeting of the Central Committee of PPR, Bierut unequivocally ‘negatively evaluated the aesthetic values recognised to date, artistic practice, ways of disseminating art…. He also criticised the passive attitude towards burdens and remnants of the former “bourgeois-aristocratic” culture,’ which became an interpretation both for artistic and academic communities involved in the study of past creativity, see Rzanna-Szczepaniak 2009, 37.
108 We may recall here that Włodzimierz Sokorski’s brother, Jerzy (1916–2005), was educated as a pianist and composer. He was briefly associated with the then newly founded PIS.
109 However, it should be remembered that, as Dadak-Kozicka rightfully concluded, ‘the doctrine of Marx (which was original and coherent) was used selectively and instrumentally by the ideologists of the new power, who just wanted to justify their misuse of authority in the process of gaining and consolidating their power,’ see Dadak-Kozicka 2011, 186.
110 A socio-literary weekly run from 1944 by a Lviv journalist and publisher, Karol Kuryluk, and from 1948 by the founder of the magazine, Jerzy Borejsza. The editors, initially taking a centre position, with time came to support socialist realism in culture. In Odrodzenie publishing authors included, amongst others, Zofia Lissa (for example, ‘O polską pieśń masową’[About Polish mass songs], 1947/29, 3), Stefania Łobaczewska (for example, ‘O organizację kultury muzycznej’ [About organisation of musical culture], 1945/28, 2), Witold Rudziński (report from the meeting of the composers in Łagów Lubuski, 1949/35, 2), and Zygmunt Mycielski (see for example, ‘Prostota czy prostactwo. O Kwartalniku Muzycznym’ [Simple or primitive. About Kwartalnik Muzyczny], 1948/30, 7).
111 An independent literary weekly which was published for a little over eighteen months in Warsaw in the years 1947–48, edited, for example, by the writer and poet Jarosław Iwaszkiewicz. Among publications written by contributors with various ideological orientations, such as literary men, researchers and officials serving the political system of that time, in Nowiny Literackie we can find texts by Stefania Łobaczewska (‘Muzyka – sztuka realistyczna czy abstrakcyjna’ [Music – realist or abstract art], 1947/13, 4), Stefan Kisielewski (‘Elementy schyłkowe w sztuce współczesnej’ [Decadent elements in contemporary art], 1947/20, 2) and Zygmunt Mycielski (for example, a report on the situation in PWM, 1947/32, 1).
112 This monthly, which survived several political transformations in post-war Poland, was published in the years 1947–48. Its founder and the first editor-in-chief was Franciszek Fiedler, a historian. As a body of the political party which had been in the lead for years, the periodical presented ideological materials which conformed with the official party line. In this periodical, Zofia Lissa published a few texts which followed ‘the only right’ message, see for example, ‘Ideologiczne oblicze polskiej twórczości muzycznej’ [The ideological face of Polish music output’] (Nowe Drogi 1948/7, 109–117).
113 Perhaps the most ‘engaged’ social and literary periodical (at first a monthly, then a weekly) in the first period after the war. It was run by Stefan Żółkiewski, a literary historian, and then by Paweł Hoffman, a publicist. It was aimed at left-leaning intelligentsia and attracted writers and intellectuals who were faithful to socialist ideas and contested a traditional (conservative) approach towards humanities. Literary men centred around its editorial team relied on Marxist ideology and became involved in promoting socialist realism. Zofia Lissa is also counted among the contributing authors of Kuźnica (for example, ‘O społecznych funkcjach muzyki artystycznej i popularnej’ [On the social functions of artistic and popular music], 1948/30, 9), as well as Stefan Jarociński (‘Na drogach współczesnej nauki polskiej’ [On the routes of contemporary Polish science], 1948/34–35, 25–26).
114 A social and literary weekly which was created in 1950, when the editorial offices of the above mentioned Odrodzenie and Kuźnica were merged. As early as in the first year, Lissa published her text on mass songs in this periodical (‘Krok naprzód’ [A step forward], 1950/26, 4–5) and a year later she submitted an article entitled ‘O wybór właściwych tradycji’ [About the right choice of traditions] (1951/46, 3). In a column entitled ‘Dziesiąta woda po Kisielu’ [Tenth water after Kisiel] (1950/18, 7), Witold Rudziński referred to a statement made by Stefan Kisielewski, who talked about starting a philosophical and aesthetic discussion on new music and new compositional output in the context of the ongoing fight with formalism in art.
115 Myśl Współczesna was initially run by Józef Chałasiński, a sociologist, and from 1948 by Adam Schaff, a philosopher. Even though it did not publish texts written by representatives of the musicological community, other papers which appeared in it are important to the history of humanities of that time. An example of such texts is an article written by Juliusz Starzyński, the newly appointed director of the PIS, entitled ‘Zadania polskiej sztuki i nauki o sztuce’ [The tasks of Polish art and study of art] (1950/10, 12).
116 ‘Na froncie muzycznym’ [On the musical front], Tygodnik Powszechny 1946/47, 6.
117 ‘O muzyce narodowej’ [About national music], Tygodnik Powszechny 1947/3, 7.
118 At the open meeting of PAU (the Polish Academy of Learning) in June 1946, in his speech which opened the session, Bolesław Bierut said that ‘The role of Polish science … should be bigger than it has ever been. The Academy of Learning may be transformed into one of the most important links of progressive scientific thought, regulating our manufacturing industry, setting a healthy direction for the development of our national economy …: devising a plan of extending our waterways, … creating a synthetic fuel industry, a rubber industry and many others which are indispensable to us…. Another urgent problem is the expansion of our coal production,’ see Bierut 1945/46. Even though he did not mention basic academic research in his speech, at that time, it was not assumed that the PAU would be dissolved or that science would be centralised. Moreover, the official commemoration of the 75th anniversary of the PAU and the 130th anniversary of the establishment of the Cracow TN were supposed to be organised under the patronage of President Bierut.
119 Degen/Hübner 2006/2, 16.
121 Ibid., 178.
122 Opinions held by the party apparatus were not stable. Just two years later, at a conference in Łagów Lubuski, Sokorski himself criticised the same composers (apart from Lutosławski and Panufnik, he also disapproved of Turski and Baird) for the formalism of their creative output. At least a part of the musical and musicological community went to Łagów because they wanted to discuss the influence of the doctrine on contemporary art. However, these plans were verified by the course of the conference, which was dominated by the decision-makers who were present there.
124 Take for instance Szymanowski’s text entitled ‘Wychowawcza rola kultury muzycznej w społeczeństwie’ [The educational role of music culture in society] (KM 1931/10–11, 129–156). In this paper, there were statements consistent with the future ideology of socialist realism, for example, ‘in today’s social life, music is a huge, constantly active force; it is something absolutely necessary to a much greater extent than visual arts and literature because it is like a wave which spreads over all social classes, but at the same time it does not require such a high level of individual intellectual culture’ (p. 135). Szymanowski was also convinced that ‘an artist’s individual creation becomes really high-flying when it hits the only certain springboard that exists, namely social artistic culture’ (p. 131). Other statements made by Szymanowski were less suitable for potential use by communist officials. He, for example, admitted that there was an inextricable link between the most important facts in the history of music and ‘the biggest revolution in the world, that is Christianity’ (p. 147).
126 See for example, ‘Mazurki fortepianowe Karola Szymanowskiego’ [Karol Szymanowski’s piano Mazurkas] (Muzyka 1925,1, 12–15, 1925/2, 61–64); ‘Do genezy Harnasiów’ [To the genesis of Harnasie] (MP 1936/3, 184–196).
127 See for example, ‘Karola Szymanowskiego kompozycje fortepianowe’ [Karol Szymanowski’s Piano compositions] (Młoda Muzyka 1909/22, 6–8); ‘Karol Szymanowski’ (Śpiewak 1926/10, 1–3, 1926/11, 1–3, 1926/12, 5–8, 1927/1, 2–6).
128 Let us remember this is about ‘Studia nad twórczością K. Szymanowskiego’ [Studies on K. Szymanowski’s creative work]: part I: ‘Problem tonalny w Słopiewniach’ [The problem of tonality in Słopiewnie] (PRM 1936/2, 53–86), part II: ‘Zagadnienia konstrukcyjne w sonatach fortepianowych’ [Structural issues in the piano sonatas] (KM 1948/21–22, 170–207, 1948/23, 102–157), part III: ‘Chóralne pieśni kurpiowskie’ [Kurpie choral songs] (KM 1948/24, 55–83).
129 Stefania Łobaczewska, Karol Szymanowski: życie i twórczość (1882–1937) [Karol Szymanowski: Life and art (1882–1937)] (Cracow 1950).
131 Lissa to Chybiński from Warsaw 14 IX 1947, AACh-BUAM, fol. K-Ł, p. 148.
132 Rzanna-Szczepaniak 2012, 11. Rzanna-Szczepaniak refers to the work by Wojciech Włodarczyk Socrealizm. Sztuka polska w latach 1950–1980 [Social-realism. Polish art in the years 1950–1980] (Paris 1986).
133 Jachimecki 1949/2, 201.
136 In the documents left by Zofia Lissa, which are stored at the Archive of Polish Composers at Warsaw University Library, we can find for example, her letters to Jakub Berman (who was one of the most important figures in the structures of the socialist realism regime in Poland). It also seems that she had regular ‘working’ contact with Włodzimierz Sokorski, who was Deputy Minister (and then became the Minister) at the Ministry of Culture and Art.
137 Details showing the next steps preceding the acceptance of musicologists as members of the ZKP, see Dadak-Kozicka 2011, particularly pp. 202–206.
138 Chybiński/Chomiński 2016, 97.
139 For a copy of the documents see Dadak-Kozicka 2011, 206, 207.
140 KM 1949/25, 166 ff.
142 Mycielski 1949/2.
143 Jachimecki 1949/1.
144 Łobaczewska 1948/1.
145 Ibid., 6.
147 Alicja Simon, [co-report with A. Chybiński about Polish musical artefacts] (KM 1949/25, 190–192).
148 Sobieski 1949.
149 Józef Chomiński, [co-report with Zdzisław Jachimecki] (KM 1949/25, 207–212).
150 Lissa 1949/2.
151 Witold Rudziński, [co-report to paper by Stefania Łobaczewska] (KM 1949/25, 230–231).
152 KM 1949/25, 168.
153 Jachimecki 1949/2, 199.
154 Ibid., 200.
155 Ibid., 205.
156 Józef Chomiński, [co-report…], as above, 208.
158 Ibid., 209.
159 Lissa 1949/2–267.
161 Zygmunt Mycielski, ‘Kompozytor polski w obliczu nowych zadań’ [Polish composer in the face of new tasks] (KM 1949/25, 178–183, see p. 178).
162 Dadak-Kozicka 2011, 190.
164 ‘Konferencja kompozytorów’ [Composers’ conference] 1949, full minutes of the meeting on pp. 12–31.
165 ‘Sprawozdanie z obrad V Walnego Zgromadzenia’ [Report on the fifth general meeting].
166 ‘Sprawozdanie z obrad VI Walnego Zgromadzenia’ [Report on the sixth general meeting].
168 Dadak-Kozicka 2011, 189.
169 MP 1934/4, 294–300.
171 Starzyński went even further and turned against the prevailing model of practising science, which promoted elitism and avoided massification. He said ‘Both individual scientists and research centres need to definitively break away from any inclination to elitist isolation and the slogan of “science for science’s sake,” which in the light of its formalist consequences seems to be just as dangerous as “art for art’s sake,” the slogan which had been preached by aestheticism and which we are currently trying to overcome,’ see Starzyński 1950.
172 Łobaczewska 1950/2.
173 Ibid., 6.
174 Ibid., 8.
175 Ibid., 10. Łobaczewska herself, as a musicologist educated based on German models, did not completely cut off the traditional criteria for evaluating musical works: ‘Personally, I am, of course, far from the idea to consider the issues of form, compliance with the rules of sound material, etc. as factors irrelevant to the value of the musical work. It undoubtedly always has its importance, but only as directly related to the content of the work, as dependent on the content’ (ibid.).
176 Ibid., 12.
177 Ibid., 16.
178 Ibid., 17.
179 Łobaczewska 1950/1, 10.
180 See Juliusz Starzyński (Przewodniczący Podsekcji Badań Sztuki [Leader of the undersection for art research]) to Chomiński from Warsaw 26 VII 1950, APCh.
181 Łobaczewska 1950/1.
182 Again, I refer here to work of Wieczorek 2014 in which the author conducted a thorough analysis of the presence of the Leninist theory of reflection and other ideologies that in the 1950s was the basis for the socialist realist discourse on contemporary music as well as the aesthetics, theory and history of music.
183 Łobaczewska 1950/1, 11.
184 Ibid. Here, Lissa gave an example of nineteenth-century Polish patriotic songs, which, according to her, were examples of revolutionary songs, amongst others.
185 Ibid., 11–12.
186 Ibid., 14.
187 See Materiały do Studiów i Dyskusji z Zakresu Teorii i Historii Sztuki, Krytyki Artystycznej oraz Metodologii Badań nad Sztuką [Materials for studies and discussion in the field of art theory and history, art critique and methodology of art research], 1950 [Special edition in connection with the works of the First National Scientific Conference on art research], 329.
188 Ochlewski to Chybiński from Cracow 14 II 1949, AACh-BUAM, fol. O-P, p. 68.
189 See Ochlewski to Lissa from Cracow 14 II 1949, extant AZL-BUW.
190 Ochlewski to Chybiński from Cracow 14 II 1949, AACh-BUAM, fol. O-P, p. 68.
191 ‘Łobaczewska was punished beyond all reason: she was removed from the party as an “enemy of the working class,” removed from the State Higher Music School, removed from any actions whatsoever. “Tablice” [Tables] were confiscated. “Zarys historii form muzycznych” [Outline of the history of musical forms] won’t help at all, because it contains flawed expressions as well. Lissa is also strongly accused, but so far, she has not been degraded nor removed from her post. … When it comes to Łobaczewska’s friends from Cracow, a delegation went to Warsaw to defend her because the die has not been cast yet,’ see Ochlewski to Chybiński from Cracow10 VIII 1950, AACh-BUAM, fol. O-P, p. 121.
192 Stefania Łobaczewska, Tablice do historii muzyki: objaśnienia [Tables for the history of music: Explanations], (Cracow 1949).
193 ‘Sprawozdania z działalności Instytutu [PIS] za 1951 r.” [Reports of the institute’s activities [PIS] for 1951], archives of Instytut Sztuki PAN, box D-0312 (A 33), 320.
194 Degen/Hübner 2006/2, 13.
195 Starzyński 1950/2, 152.
196 Lissa 1957, 266–267.
197 Most information about the first period of activity of the PIS can be found in archive documents stored in the archive of the Institute of Art of the Polish Academy of Sciences in Warsaw and the materials of the Department of Musicology of the said Institute.
198 Starzyński to Chomiński from Warsaw 30 XI 1949, APCh.
199 Sprawozdanie z działalności Instytutu 1949–1950 [Reports of the institute’s activities 1949–50], extant in archives of IS PAN, box D-0312 (A 32), 3–4.
200 Ibid., 4.
201 Jachimecki’s dissertation was issued in the following year, similarly to its first part (published in 1948) by the Cracow-based publishers Księgarnia Stefana Kamińskiego.
202 Almanach Moniuszkowski 1872–1952 [Moniuszko almanac 1872–1952] (the chronicle of life developed by Witold Rudziński, other sections by Jan Prosnak) was ultimately released in 1952 by Czytelnik.
203 Appendix to the Plan pracy Działu naukowo-historycznego Sekcji Muzyki Państwowego Instytutu Sztuki na miesiąc luty 1950 r. [Work plan for the unit for science-history of the music section of the PIS for the month of February 1950], in the archive of the Department for Musicology, unsigned
204 Sprawozdanie z działalności Instytutu 1949–1950 [Reports of the Institute’s Activities 1949–1950], op. cit., 22.
205 Ibid., 26.
206 Just like Bronisław Rutkowski, who was assigned to study the methods of popularising music on behalf of the State Institute of Art, see schedule to Plan pracy Działu naukowo-historycznego Sekcji Muzyki (op. cit.).
207 ‘Sprawozdanie z działalności Państwowego Instytutu Sztuki za rok 1951’ [Reports of the State Institute of Art’s activities for the year 1951], Materiały do Studiów i Dyskusji z Zakresu Teorii i Historii Sztuki, Krytyki Artystycznej oraz Metodologii Badań nad Sztuką 1951/1, 328.
209 Sprawozdanie z działalności Instytutu 1949–1950 (op. cit.), 28.
210 Chomiński to Ochlewski from Wesoła 15 V 1950, APCh.
211 Lissa to Chybiński from Warsaw 11 XI 1949, AACh-BUAM, fol. K-Ł, p. 177.
212 Chybiński to Lissa from Zakopane 21 VIII 1949, AZL-BUW.
213 Chybiński to Lissa from Zakopane 8 VIII 1947, AZL-BUW.