3. An attempt to continue the formula of the magazine – Adolf Chybiński and his collaborators (Zofia Lissa, Tadeusz Ochlewski, Józef M. Chomiński – scope of cooperation and organisation of editorial work) – new organisation of publishing work (PWM, PIS)
3. An attempt to continue the formula of the magazine – Adolf Chybiński and his collaborators (Zofia Lissa, Tadeusz Ochlewski, Józef M. Chomiński – scope of cooperation and organisation of editorial work) – new organisation of publishing work (PWM, PIS)
The war found members of the musicological community in various places, and the fates of the principal dramatis personae of this milieu turned out differently. The founders of SMDM survived in Warsaw – Ochlewski, Zalewski, Rutkowski, Sikorski. Teodor Zalewski gained a position as a legal advisor in the Polskie Elektrownie cooperative (which gave him an Ausweis, necessary for a relatively safe life in the city); the others attempted to work in their profession, such as Sikorski for example, who was director of the Staatliche Musikschule (performing the function of the previously closed Warsaw Konserwatorium). Scattered in all directions after the fall of the Warsaw Uprising, they migrated after the war. Let us recall that Ochlewski and Rutkowski moved to Cracow. After some time, Ochlewski brought to Cracow everything that was left of the assets of TWMP after the Uprising. Sikorski settled in Łódź, whereas Zalewski came back to Warsaw. Łucjan Kamieński, who was born in Poznań, married a German singer. At the beginning of the war, he was imprisoned by Germans and then released thanks to his wife’s intervention. Due to this episode, as well as his alleged cooperation with Germans and the signing of the Volksliste, he was persecuted after the war. Mateusz Gliński left for Rome at the beginning of the war. He stayed there until 1956 and organised, for example the international IFCh. Henryk Opieński, who settled permanently in Switzerland in 1926, died in Morges at the beginning of 1942. Ludwik Bronarski, who also resided permanently in Switzerland, survived the war within the safe borders of that country.214 Michał Kondracki, one of the promising young authors of Kwartalnik ←419 | 420→Muzyczny, was travelling around the Mediterranean when the war broke out. He travelled to South America and after a few years moved to the United States. He never came back to Europe. Seweryn Barbag, who was born in Lviv, lectured in the city conservatoire throughout the Soviet occupation. He had tuberculosis and in 1942 left Lviv and stayed in the sanatorium in Świder near Warsaw, where he died in autumn 1944. Zdzisław Jachimecki survived the whole war in Cracow, except for the tragic months which he spent in Sachsenhausen concentration camp.
When it comes to younger musicologists from Lviv, only Maria Szczepańska stayed in the city until 1946.215 Zofia Lissa, who, together with the Soviet army, left to the depths of the Soviet Union before the advent of German occupation and returned to Warsaw in 1947. Stefania Łobaczewska spent the war years in the estate of Zarzecze in Podkarpacie then she settled in Cracow. Jan Józef Dunicz suffered a dramatic fate; he was arrested for underground activity in 1943 in Warsaw and deported to a concentration camp – he died in the Dora camp in April 1945.216 Józef Chomiński spent the war years in Warsaw and Międzyborów near Warsaw; he was also deported twice to distant areas of the country for forced labour. However, he did not give up his studies – he continued his activities around the work of Szymanowski, prepared a dissertation on the analysis of musical forms and harmonic analysis.217
For the greater part of the military occupation of Poland, Adolf Chybiński lived in Lviv. In the last period of the war, he left for Zakopane and then, from March to September 1945, he lived in Cracow. He deposited his private archive (which included, for example, materials for some issues of WDMP and some proofread texts submitted to Polski Rocznik Muzykologiczny, whose volume III had been typeset in 1939) in Cracow, at the house of Zbigniew Romaniszyn, his friend, a singer, actor and teacher. After the war, he left Cracow and settled permanently in Poznań. Until June 1941, he worked in the Mykola Lysenko National Conservatoire in Lviv. When the Germans seized Lviv, as a former professor at the Conservatoire, he was entitled to an allowance (Unterstützung). Combined ←420 | 421→with his wife’s remuneration for the portraits and miniatures which she painted, it was enough to make ends meet. At first, he hoped that his private library collection, which had been seized by the Russians, would be returned (he even filed the required official forms). He also hoped that a Polish music school would be opened (in Lviv, there was naïve talk that there would be a Polish and Ukrainian university) and that he could lecture there. Finally, he was employed as a translator at a social insurance company.
During the war, Chybiński kept up correspondence with many people with whom he had worked or whom he had taught before the war. Some of them were the authors of papers submitted to Chybiński. These were, among others, Bronarski, Dunicz, Chomiński, Janusz Miketta and Myrosław Antonowycz.218 It also seems that he grew strongly attached to Tadeusz Ochlewski. In 1943 Ochlewski offered to lend the professor a hand if it was necessary to evacuate his private library from Lviv and move it to Warsaw (fortunately, this did not happen). They made use of the pre-war projects of TWMP, which had been frozen, and made plans for the following years: they were thinking about a potential edition of Szymanowski’s correspondence, a monograph on Szymanowski and an analysis of Chopin’s works, hoping that the first three volumes could appear before the centenary of the composer’s death. Chybiński was asked to take care of the editorial side of the series. At the same time, he was working on his earlier projects. He wrote about it to Switzerland: ‘I’ve finished volume II of “Karłowicz” (it’s thicker by half – and better – than volume I). A large part of volume III (works) is ready. The Dictionary of Polish musicians (to 1800) is also ready, and it has 2500 entries. I’m reworking a large tome entitled “Muzyka Podhala” [The Music of Podhale], as well as several smaller but not shorter works.’219
In 1943 he began preparing analyses of Chopin’s Nocturnes, Scherzi and Impromptus. Soon, he offered Bronarski to analyse the Sonatas, Ballads, Études, Preludes and/or Fantasies (‘something like Leichtentritt’s analysis, but more extensive, deeper, better, more precise, paying attention to scientific views and taking a stance on these views. Mainly an analysis of the form, of course, but rather to serve as the basis to discuss other factors and their synergy’220).←421 | 422→
The ‘underground,’ war projects of TWMP also included a return to editing magazines. Bronisław Rutkowski added to one of the letters from Ochlewski to Lviv: ‘We are constantly working, believing that this work may be useful in the future. We have many projects; all of them seem to be important and real. Among others – we are also thinking of MP. We’re already starting to collect materials. We are also counting on you, Mr Professor.’221 At other times, Ochlewski himself asked: ‘How are matters getting on with the third volume of PRM? When will the proof be ready? Will the new content of the number be supplemented, increased? Can the material be prepared for printing in order to start it immediately after the war? […] In a nutshell, I am asking you for information necessary to orient SMDM in this matter,’222 to which the professor suggested that the run should be printed ‘simply and cheaply,’ i.e. prepare zinc plates to print photographs of rescued materials.
None of these ideas was implemented as planned. Shortly after the war, Muzyka Polska was replaced by Ruch Muzyczny, which was initiated by Polish Musicians’ Trade Union, whereas Rocznik was transformed (for a mere three years) into Kwartalnik. The first signals of the revival of the journal could be heard in December 1946, when State Music Publishing Council prepared plans for PWM. Nevertheless, many months before that, Chybiński had written to Switzerland: ‘We are going to publish Kwartalnik Muzyczny this year and revive Polski Rocznik Muzykologiczny. … My earnest request is that you submit articles on any reader-friendly topic (perhaps something about musical life in Switzerland, taking into account the participation of Poles in this life).’223
Chybiński assumed that he would be able to realise Rocznik ‘with content identical to that which was placed in the third volume destroyed in 1939.’224 He obtained permission to use pre-war texts from Bronarski, and in the same matter he contacted Józef Chomiński. Chomiński, although he wanted to make a few amendments to the article he had written only a few years earlier, found this was, however, not possible due to his stay of almost one year in the sanatorium in ←422 | 423→Leysin, Switzerland. He finally agreed to publish the pre-war version, at the same time asking for annotation under the text ‘Lviv 1937.’
Unfortunately, attempts to resurrect the journal turned out to be futile. Chybiński could not bring himself to accept this decision because he had always believed that a journal published annually best reflected the scientific aspirations of the musicological community. We need to bear in mind that from the beginning of his academic career, Chybiński had been thinking about publishing a journal modelled after German ‘Jahrbuch,’ which would be a kind of chronicle of current achievements of the academic musicological community, as well as a seedbed for serious academic discussion within this community. Other youthful representatives of Polish musicology were of the same opinion. For example, Henryk Opieński wrote in one of his letters to Lviv: ‘When it comes to cooperation, I’d be glad to submit a short paper to an annual journal.’225
Meanwhile, in autumn 1947, the post-war fate of Kwartalnik Muzyczny was resolved. The final decision concerning the resumption of the magazine based on the formula developed before the war was taken two years after Chybiński took the Chair of Musicology at the UP. It took place in Warsaw, at the meeting of the Editorial Committee, which happened on October 22, 1947, in the Department of Music of the MKiS, in which Zofia Lissa, a graduate of Lviv musicology, was then director. Already over a month earlier, Lissa had reported to the professor: ‘we have money to resurrect Kwartalnik Muzyczny. I talked about financial issues with Ochlewski. … We can provide a potential editorial committee and a regular secretary. I propose Dr Chomiński for secretary. He’s just come back from Switzerland.’226
It was agreed that the magazine would be published by PWM, which was already fully functioning, and the organisation of the publishing calendar was taken over by director Ochlewski in November of that year, designating February 1948 as the deadline for submitting the set of materials for printing. All articles were to be given in the form of typescript, ‘and musical examples clearly, though not calligraphically.’227
After the war, ten issues of Kwartalnik Muzyczny were published in seven volumes. The first and the last volume (21/22, 29/30) and the special Chopin edition (26/27) had double numbering. When Maria Kielanowska-Bronowicz was preparing a list of sources for all editions of Kwartalnik (including two volumes ←423 | 424→of PRM), she concluded that in the years 1948–50 the total number of pages was 1956 (which was more than in the interwar period, when twenty issues had been published). Apart from numerous reports, there were fifty-six articles, texts and introductions, which was about half of the analogous publications from the late 1920s and early 1930s. One of the reasons behind this disproportion was the fact that even though Chybiński often claimed that authors would move away from writing long texts and splitting articles to publish them in several issues, this is precisely what was happening throughout the whole history of Kwartalnik.228
Similarly to the pre-war period, each issue had a table of contents in both Polish and French. At some point, around the time when the issues devoted to Chopin came out, Chybiński suggested that abstracts could be translated into French as well, but this idea never came to fruition.229
The journal was not illustrated, unless there were articles in which illustrations played a vital role or served as the starting point in the discussion. Some examples are an article on manuscripts of two works by Chopin from the library of Paris Conservatoire,230 an article on the history of the portrait of Chopin and George Sand painted by Eugène Delacroix,231 and a text about autographs on Chopin’s letters232 (in this case, we know that the cost of photocopies of the said autographs was PLN 1000, whereas the price of one copy of Kwartalnik was PLN 250). Generally, Maria Szczepańska233 was the calligrapher for the musical examples. Already at the stage of sending materials for production, the number of overprints (in practice, only selected articles) was also established, ←424 | 425→the number of which usually boiled down to fifty pieces – completely sufficient for the popularisation of texts in a still small environment. A dissertation234 by Zofia Lissa on the sociological aspect in Polish contemporary music was subjected to exceptional treatment – at the author’s request and due to the timing of the problem: the article, printed twice with differing pagination was also published separately from Kwartalnik, in a print run of 1000 copies, from which 900 copies were to be directed for sale.235 (It was planned that in the case of articles divided between several editions, the bound work was to be in the form of a supplement only after the appearance of all anticipated parts.)
What we also need to remember is that throughout its short history, post-war Kwartalnik was published along with excerpts from Słownik muzyków dawnej Polski [A Dictionary of Early Polish musicians], a work written by Chybiński before the war on the basis of materials which he had gathered throughout the years. Fragments of the dictionary were regularly added to subsequent volumes of the journal. This idea was brought up by the author himself. He had a feeling that it was the quickest and safest way to publish his lexicon. At first, he tried to check whether it was possible at all and consulted Zofia Lissa about his idea (which was ‘modelled after older musicological journals’236). On the one hand, he had no hopes of publishing the dictionary in a different form, but on the other, he saw it as an opportunity to help Kwartalnik in case there were not enough texts to publish. The length of one ‘attachment’ was supposed to be one sheet, so that it would only slightly increase the length of the journal, which was expected to be about 9–10 sheets. It was found that in terms of typography, the publication would have a layout characteristic of this type of study, two-column, although Chybiński, paying attention to the cost of typesetting and printing, suggested breaking the text in the continuous single column; titles of entries (names of musicians) were to be printed in plain print with spaces, not in bold (block ←425 | 426→capitals were finally agreed), with the font “borrowed” in terms of cut from the pages of Ruch Muzyczny (heading ‘Correspondence’)237. The possibility of combining the subsequent parts of the dictionary was assumed thanks to the cover printed at the end of the publication process. Other articles, as already mentioned, were additionally printed in fifty copies238.
As we get back to the chronology of events related to the publication of the old/new journal, let us recall that there were three official letters in Chybiński’s archive which Lissa had sent to the professor between 23 and 31 October. In the first one, she informed him that ‘Department of Music at Ministry of Culture and Art (MKiS) has begun preliminary work on the revival of Kwartalnik Muzyczny.’ She added that ‘The ministry invites you to cooperate and asks for a written notification on the types of strictly musicological papers which the editorial office may demand from you.’239 The contents were vague; perhaps the note was sent to all active musicologists of the time. However, a few days later, Chybiński received an official invitation from Department of Music at MKiS, in which he was asked to ‘accept the position of Chief Editor of Kwartalnik Muzyczny.’240 On 14 September, Lissa privately informed Chybiński that some decisions favourable to the musicological community were made: ‘You’ll certainly be happy when you hear that we have money to resurrect Kwartalnik Muzyczny. … will you agree to look after Kwartalnik redivivus?’241 She also insisted that personnel decisions and plans related to the contents of the first volumes be made as quickly as possible, so that a concrete plan, which only needed approval, could be presented on the incoming meeting of ZKP and the congress of musicologists.
On the matter of personnel, it was decided that ‘Apart from Citizen [Chybiński] the editorial committee will consist of: Prof. Dr Zdzisław Jachimecki, Father Dr Hieronim Feicht, Dr Zofia Lissa, Dr Stefania Łobaczewska, Rector Kazimierz Sikorski, Dr Józef M. Chomiński, ed. Zygmunt Mycielski and Master Marian Sobieski,’242 but it quickly tuned out, however, that the de facto grey eminence ←426 | 427→of Kwartalnik was Lissa herself, who – at times – acted officially on behalf of the editor-in-chief.243 Correspondence stored at the University Library of Warsaw (BUW) and in the private archive of the Chomiński family tells us that she was the person whom Józef Chomiński consulted about every ‘sensitive’ matter related to Kwartalnik and its chief editor. Above all, however, in the first weeks following the decision to revive the journal, it was Lissa who took steps to appoint the editorial committee and carry out work necessary to prepare the first volume. She also quickly hired a new secretary. Moreover, even though it might seem that most materials had to be accepted by the nominal chief editor, he was not necessarily the one to have the final say on the contents of volumes. For example, it turned out that ‘The contents of volume 1 have already been determined by Mr Chomiński,’ as Lissa wrote.244
Lissa began thinking about appointing Józef Chomiński as secretary of the editorial office quite early on. She wrote about it in the above-mentioned letter from September: ‘I propose Dr Chomiński for secretary. He came back to Poland from Switzerland. … I have already talked to him (tentatively, since I’m waiting for your proposal) about it and this job would really suit him.’245 At that time she also asked the professor about possible editorial portfolio resources, combining further editorial procedures with the official calendar of the milieu: ‘The Professor reminded me in his time that he has manuscripts of various musicological works that could fill two Rocznik Muzykologiczny. Do not you think, Mr Professor, that at least some of them could be printed in Kwartalnik? b) which of your works would you like to print there, Mr Professor? … These are all matters that we should resolve before the composers’ meeting so that we just pass the final resolution there.’246
Adolf Chybiński, even though he believed that the pre-war PRM would be resurrected, finally welcomed the decision of the ministry. He responded to Lissa’s invitation by sending her a letter from Zakopane, where he used to spend a few weeks each holiday: ‘So Kwartalnik Muzyczny will come back to life! One more achievement to your credit! It will be the “third” Kwartalnik Muzyczny. As things stand, I accept every proposal formulated in your letter. I accept the editorship, Chomiński, the editorial committee.’247 In order for the committee not ←427 | 428→to be appointed pro forma et honore but rather in accordance with substantive criteria, the professor came up with an idea how to distribute editorial duties among members, depending on their qualifications: Lissa (psychology and theory), Łobaczewska (aesthetics), Father Feicht (history and theory), Bronarski (history), the professor himself (ethnography), perhaps two practising musicians (theoreticians, composers), Sikorski (to make a reference to the tradition of ‘the second’ Kwartalnik) and Witold Rudziński, whom the professor valued for his ‘academic education.’ It cannot be ruled out that Chybiński was also taking into account the ministerial function held by Rudziński (at that time he was the Director of the Department of Music at MKiS).
The future showed that from the group proposed by the Ministry and also those suggested by the professor, only Chybiński, Lissa and Chomiński associated themselves with the daily work of Kwartalnik.248 The first weeks of joint work on the planning and collection of materials were filled with doubts about the success of the project: ‘or that Rocznik, more extensive than before, would not be more appropriate. For it seems to me that our musicological production will not keep up with the quarterly pace. How much can people work, or seriously work?! May it be that later from necessity that actual news does not outweigh theory, history and musical ethnology.’249 Chybiński wanted the post-war edition to be a continuation of the series from 1928–33, assigning the new issue the next number in turn, hence 21 (in the end, the double edition appeared as the first 21/22). Warsaw and Cracow were given as the place of publication, although the editorial work was divided between three centres. The professor, who was the chief editor, lived in Poznań, so the address of the Institute of Musicology in Poznań, namely Wały Wazów 26, appeared in the masthead next to the address of the secretary’s office of the journal, which was located in Warsaw at Rakowiecka Street 4 (the seat of Department of Music of MKiS, the place in which Zofia Lissa worked and from which Józef Chomiński collected materials for his articles) and the Cracow address of the administration (the executive editorial office) of Kwartalnik, which was located in the offices of PWM at Basztowa 23 Street.250 The director of the publishing company was Tadeusz Ochlewski, a ←428 | 429→long-term co-worker of Adolf Chybiński. They had been cooperating since the establishment of SMDM (and his relationship with the professor became even closer during the war, as has already been mentioned). The secretary of the executive editorial office in Cracow was Helena Dunicz,251 a violinist, the sister of Jan Józef Dunicz, one of Chybiński’s favourite pupils, who died tragically in the last weeks of the war.
The office occupied by the periodical’s administration was located in Cracow, which was partially due to the necessity to coordinate its production. In a sense, it brought together Kwartalnik and Ruch Muzyczny, another monthly published by PWM, especially when it came to logistics. The same publishing company252 was not the only thing that the two journals had in common. The relationships between their authors and editors were close as well. Let us remember that the creator of Ruch was Stefan Kisielewski, who gained professional experience in the editorial office of Muzyka Polska, where he worked as a secretary before the war. Another member of the editorial team of Ruch was Bronisław Rutkowski, thanks to whom Adolf Chybiński had become involved with Kwartalnik years before. Moreover, in different periods, the editorial committee also included Stefania Łobaczewska and Zygmunt Mycielski (before 1939 he was a member of the editorial team of the aforementioned ‘sister’ journal, Muzyka Polska). They were both appointed, at least in the beginning, as members of the Kwartalnik team. A strong reference to the pre-war edition of the journal was its unchanged cover (with an illustration by Edward Manteuffel). However, PWM proposed to add a dust jacket to the special Chopin edition. Its design was completely different ←429 | 430→from the traditional image of the journal: ‘Due to “commercial” reasons, this idea is good and even necessary.’253
Tadeusz Ochlewski coordinated both the organisational and production work related to Kwartalnik as a whole. As the director of PWM, he felt responsible for all publications of the publishing house and treated Kwartalnik Muzyczny as one of the ‘flagship’ products; hence he spontaneously joined in the editorial work of the magazine. Although he had no de facto formal basis for this, he moderated – albeit reluctantly – work between Warsaw and Poznań. Comparing the mentioned correspondence with other source corpora (Chybiński’s letters to Bronarski from the Poznań collection, Zofia Lissa’s correspondence with Chybiński from the archives in the Gabinet Zbiorów Muzycznych BUW [BUW Music Department], Chomiński’s archive kept there, and above all the private Chomiński archive), it is possible to see how the situation inside the editorial office was essentially untamed and full of insinuations and how the procedures related to the editorial work were ambiguous.
From the very beginning of cooperation between the three centres which were involved in the making of Kwartalnik, there was significant tension resulting from time pressure. Chybiński, as the intermediary between the secretary’s office and the publisher, could not keep up with sending proofread texts and promised materials, whereas PWM wanted to submit the first volume for print as soon as possible. It was supposed to contain both pre-war materials and a few quite original, new texts. These texts had to come a long way and they usually landed on the desks of Lissa, Chybiński and Chomiński before they finally arrived in Cracow. Due to the large volume of texts which the professor wanted to submit for ‘number one’ and in order to ‘speed up printing,’ Ochlewski suggested to move some texts (e.g. ‘Niezrealizowane projekty operowe Moniuszki’ [Moniuszko’s unrealised opera projects] by Włodzimierz Poźniak and ‘Teoria dwutonowych melodii’ [The theory of two-tone melodies] by Zygmunt Estreicher) to the next issue.254 At the beginning of May 1948 the situation seemed serious: not only that the printing of the new issue was drawn out, PWM had still not received any materials for the next issue. At this point, the censor helpfully stepped in and did not allow the publication to exceed the volume reported earlier (two hundred pages), and this fixed the determination of the volume by the double numbering 21/22.255←430 | 431→
When finally, at the end of June 1948, the first post-war issue of Kwartalnik was published, Chomiński wrote to the professor using moderately enthusiastic words: ‘Kwartalnik Muzyczny was finally published. … its content, I think, is satisfactory – and quite good. I hope it will remain so in the future.’256 The editor-in-chief was less distanced: ‘It seems to me,’ he wrote, ‘that we can congratulate ourselves on the double issue I/II,’ and his further words were as if taken from one of his letters written years ago: ‘ “Lviv” still places much pressure in terms of quantity and weight of the works, yet I would like that it was not only Lviv.’257
Opening the new edition of Kwartalnik Muzyczny, for Adolf Chybiński, it was not enough that he reached for pre-war editorial reserves and, to a large extent, used materials prepared for the third volume of PMR, he again reminded everyone and summarised the history of the magazine in the editorial of the first/twenty-first number – the content of those twenty editions which consisted of ‘nearly 110 works and around 300 critical papers by 40 Polish and foreign authors,’258 and briefly recalled two directions, in which Kwartalnik evolved after closing its activities in 1933: informational in the character of the formula of Muzyka Polska and the scholarly, hermetic Rocznik. He did not refer directly to the tragic circumstances in which the printed copies of volume III of Rocznik were destroyed (but we know what had happened from his letters to Ludwik Bronarski),259 he only mentioned that almost all proofread materials which had been submitted to this volume survived by a stroke of luck. He added that since the condition and number of these texts could be determined, he had arguments which he could present in the discussion on the revival of the journal which he would lead with the representatives of Department of Music at MKiS. Chybiński stressed the fact that the direct link to the earlier periodical would be emphasised thanks to the decision made by the Department. It was supposed to be achieved ←431 | 432→by appointing him as the chief editor, continuing the numbering, and keeping the same graphic design. The reference to the tradition of the earlier Kwartalnik was also supposed to be to maintain its scholarly character, additionally, however, taking into account current artistic issues (whatever that was supposed to mean) and giving the sociology of music a special place among the considerations.260 This, however, seems not to have resulted from the actual preferences of the editor-in-chief, but was only a necessary declaration in the then political realities.261
The section ‘From the Editors’ from the first post-war issue of Kwartalnik was the only editorial that Chybiński selected in those years. ‘The editors’ signed only under the text ‘Ankieta’ [Questionnaire], which was addressed to contemporary creators and related to their compositional techniques. And although soon, at the turn of the year 1949 and 1950, the professor led stormy correspondence about the future of the magazine, both with Józef Chomiński, and also with Tadeusz Ochlewski, he was not tempted – as had happened in the year 1933 – to make any comment to readers about the suspension of the title. He was too embittered by the situation and felt that he would close the editorial chapter of his professional life forever.
Kwartalnik was typeset in the Cracow printers – PKZG and Graphic Works “Styl.” In general, this cooperation was seen as positive, even though there were some technical problems, such as an inadequate number of Brevier fonts, which had a bearing on the layout of individual parts of Kwartalnik and the assignment of texts to these parts. On the other hand, the patience of the printing house was overstretched by the editorial office’s sluggishness and authors who were late in sending materials and corrections, sometimes resulting in additional costs and ←432 | 433→uncomfortable tensions on the Cracow–Warsaw line and warnings addressed to content editors.
On a day-to-day basis, Kwartalnik was subject to the sovereignty of the Press Control Office, the officials of which passed decisions about the allocation of paper or gave permission (or not) to increase the volume in advance (200 pages).262 However, the budget of Kwartalnik Muzyczny was the responsibility of MKiS and was granted as ‘an allowance’ from the Department of Music (and since mid-1948 – the Department of Artistic Creativity); later on, the money was directed to PWM, which dealt with the distribution of fees and other financial issues. The annual subsidy that Kwartalnik received from the Ministry amounted to about three million zloties. In the case of the special ‘Chopin’ issues, the staff applied for subsidy to the Executive Committee of the Chopin Year,263 which was not, however, granted, while the Director of the Executive Committee Office, Edmund Rudnicki (pre-war Music Director at Polish Radio) suggested to apply for a bank loan for this purpose.264 The fees were set at 1,500 PLN per one printed page in the size of the so-called ‘small eight’ (paper size 17x24 cm); on special occasions, such as the preparation of Chopin issues, the editor-in-chief received additional remuneration.
Written to the Ministry, or directly to the Presidium of the Council of Ministers, efforts to procure material resources were imbued with the rhetoric typical of those times, which Zofia Lissa used freely. At the end of the first year of the new edition of the magazine, being able to support the first editions, a request for continued subsidy was made, arguing:
Kwartalnik is the only scholarly journal in Poland devoted to the issues of music. It not only fulfils an important outward propaganda mission, but at the same time it spreads progressive ideological slogans, based on assumptions of Marxist ideas. In view of the outdated research methods based on the prevailing Polish musicology, the editorial staff of Kwartalnik wants to extend its activities in terms of research methodology in order to contribute to the change in attitude amongst senior musicologists and indicate an appropriate development path for music studies for younger scholarly workers. Our ←433 | 434→editorial staff, attaching itself to the general ideological mainstream, is convinced that it performs important and useful work.265
An edition with 180 pages was planned for the inauguration. The programme of the ‘revived’ Kwartalnik Muzyczny assumed that – apart from the reference to the magazine’s tradition of the pre-war period, at least in the scope of the presented divisions of music writing – it would seek to expand the scope already outlined: ‘there … will be special focus on the current issues of artistic and scholarly musical knowledge’266 – all in the name of good Polish musical culture.
Soon it turned out that due to several reasons – besides approaching deadlines and the excess of texts in the editorial files and desire for their immediate publication, which led to the expansion of the volume to three hundred pages – the editors had to decide to double the numbering of the first issue of the new edition.267 In total, the issue comprised twelve essays and six extensive reports. And, as it turned out, this did not exhaust the editorial resources, contrary to Chybiński’s fear that the community would not keep up with delivering new, original material for publication.268
Despite a full portfolio, the first shipment to the publishing house in Cracow was delayed and included material that was incomplete. Furthermore, the final arrangement of content was modified during production. Practice showed that this almost always happened, which was very uncomfortable for the production stage (more on the contents of the first and subsequent Kwartalnik issues below) and resulted in a series of tensions between Poznań and Cracow. Even the editorial introduction, although works on the issue started early enough, was revised and supplemented by Chybiński in January 1948.←434 | 435→
At the request of Lissa and Chybiński, printed copies of the first post-war Kwartalnik were sent to a number of official addresses: to the President of the Republic, Vice Minister for Education Eugenia Krasowska, Włodzimierz Michajłow, acting Director of the Department of Science and Higher Education of the Ministry of Education, and to the most important representatives of the academic milieu, including Dean of the Faculty of Humanities of UW Prof. Dr Bogdan Nawroczyński, Prof. Dr Kazimierz Nitsch, President of PAU, Prof. Dr Adam Skałkowski, Dean of the Faculty of Humanities of UP, Prof. Dr Stefan Błachowski, Rector of UP, and also to Zdzisław Jachimecki ‘for a gracious insight … with a polite request to express his valuable opinion about it [about the first edition]’269 (we must remember that Jachimecki was formally among the members of the editorial office of the magazine, although like a few other people he did not take an active part in the editorial works). However, when the first issue came out, the journal was not really evaluated by the general public, either due to a low level of activity of the musicological community or to a relatively small press market. It is difficult to find reviews of the new journal and opinions in archived letters are scarce as well. Traditionally, Bronarski did not forget to send his congratulations,270 whereas when it comes to other opinions, Chybiński wrote: ‘Kwartalnik is generally regarded as impressive, I received a few messages about it. I share these congratulations with you and with Zofia [Lissa]. May we continue to hold such standards.’271
It seems that all materials, at least those from the first period of works of the editorial staff, passed through the hands and desk of Zofia Lissa, who either accepted them or reviewed them as the person best oriented in the expectations of the state officials – both the Ministry and censorship. At the time, she was one of those persons who were a true bedrock for the professor in the difficult years of the communist regime. Perhaps Lissa, thinking of her scientific career and about developing a new musicological centre in Warsaw, threw the career of some of her colleagues and the functioning of some centres on the scales (one can find little on this matter in the surviving correspondence between members of the then society – and this was one of the main sources of knowledge about facts and events for me), but many of her actions (as leading to the revival of the scholarly journal, or – especially – efforts to maintain musicology at universities) supported post-war Polish musicology. Let us remember that she was not always ←435 | 436→protected by the system and yet she could share the privileges resulting from being one of its links with others. After the war, as a mature and independent scholar, in her creative prime and with a strong position within the office and institutional structures, she could ignore her former teacher and even hamper his activities (and she had the instruments to do so) – she had to, after all, know and remember his unfriendly attitude towards the directions and methodologies to which she devoted herself in musicological research from the very beginning of her academic path. In the years occupied with re-building the entire discipline, strained due to wartime damages, along with other pupils of Chybiński she formed the second generation of Polish musicology, which soon began to replace the departing seniors and gave the shape to the university studies of music for the decades to come. Throughout the final periods of the professor’s life, just like other students, she confirmed his belief of his indisputable authority and the leading role within the community, and she exercised absolute necessity to consult with him on all – both important and less important – issues as well as both professional and – often – private matters. This was also the case when it comes to the works of the editorial staff of Kwartalnik – nominally remaining a mere ‘foot soldier,’ one of the members of the journal’s Editorial Board, she in fact served as the ‘power behind the throne’ and played a crucial role in the daily work of the editors, as well as in key and behind-the-scenes activities in the most important moments, such as efforts to obtain funding, acquiring ‘politically correct’ texts, negotiating with departmental ‘factors’ on the terms and conditions for the editorial’s existence.
Chomiński’s and Chybiński’s roles in the daily works of Kwartalnik were obvious and clear. They shared among themselves the content and linguistic editing of incoming materials, sometimes only asking someone from the members of the editorial board for additional opinions. In the beginning, their publications were, traditionally, of a twofold character: scholarly articles and reports (or, as it was called back then, papers) – from books and current events, both scholarly and propaganda. Already, however in the first year – in editions 23, 24 – and in 25 from the following year, the practice was established of adding presentations by Polish and foreign musicologists, which had taken place during national and international meetings and conventions of musical-musicological environments, to the contents of the edition; a matter dictated by pure opportunism. In addition, a bibliography of Polish and European music literature was systematically presented, supplementing current information on missing years, starting from 1939. In February 1948, so during the work on the first post-war edition, Chybiński wrote that he had the thought of ‘the necessity of creating a separate section “Materials to the history of music in Poland” ←436 | 437→(sporadic and petite!) in Kwartalnik Muzyczny. This can always be useful. Even trifles are sometimes useful after some time. …’272 This, however, was not a new idea. Already in the first number of Kwartalnik, in the year 1928, a section was chosen ‘Materiały historyczne’ [Historical materials], in which the editor-in-chief himself published a series of extracts from Józef Sikorski’s notebooks on the Polish musical baroque, and Feliks Starczewski brought closer a publication from the pages of Pamiętnik Muzyczny Warszawski from 1836 in which there had been talk of ‘the first beginnings of methods of musicalisation.’273
Despite the efforts to adjust to the expectations of the department in terms of both form and content, the fate of Kwartalnik was still uncertain. The system’s main decision-makers questioned the legitimacy of the existence of a scholarly journal in a pre-war formula (‘A few days ago minister Sokorski asked a question whether Kwartalnik Muzyczny is indeed necessary. But he was persuaded that it in fact is. For now, we have peace of mind’ – wrote Chomiński274). The professor had only one answer to this: ‘for the next year I expect the renewal of… Rocznik Muzykologiczny because we need to have our own organ, even despite the possible collapse of Kwartalnik Muzyczny.’275 A special issue, dedicated to Chopin, named for the Chopin Year and prepared in connection with the celebration of the centenary of the composer’s death, was supposed to be a lifeline for the editorial staff. But the success of those works, namely the issue 26/27, which was doubled due to the abundance of collected materials, and another – 28 – in which other texts were included, did not help. Working in an atmosphere of constant threat of closure of the magazine increasingly frustrated the professor, who wrote: ‘I have some data that before obtaining grants for Kwartalnik Muzyczny in 1950 we will be requested to develop an ideological article, such as the one from the upcoming Ruch! Thus, we will include it in edition I 1950. Who will write it? For a second I had a thought of resigning from serving as the editor-in-chief.’276
In the early autumn of 1949, it was already known that from January of the following year the title would go under the care of the newly appointed PIS,277 ←437 | 438→while the predictions regarding the status of the current editorial office were unclear. Chomiński proposed ‘either write when they invite and earn, and do not get involved in editing, or do not write, but this must be a “strike” by the whole group, so that nobody would violate it. Only Krzysia [Wilkowska-Chomińska] is afraid that then, for sabotage, they can shove everyone away from everything they have a great desire for.’278 At that time, amongst members of the editorial staff in Warsaw there was an idea to resurrect the annals: ‘Ms Zofia Lissa will in those days address the Ministry of Education with the aim of resuming Polski Rocznik Muzykologiczny or even creating Kwartalnik Muzykologiczny. The editorial staff would, of course, remain the same as in the current Kwartalnik. Thus, we would change only the company,279 preparing for a more scholarly journal.’280 Chybiński was positively inclined towards the idea of reactivating the yearbook, though he definitely refused taking over the ‘editorship.’
Meanwhile, however, the new PIS authorities were planning to take over the editorial portfolio ‘in order to verify and assess’281 it. Chybiński wanted to protect all the texts that he regarded valuable (completion of studies on the works of Mikołaj Radomski by Maria Szczepańska and Chopinological articles by Krystyna Wilkowska-Chomińska, Józef Chomiński and Jan Prosnak – with some reservations – František Zagiba) from an uncertain fate by attaching them to editions prepared at that time – the second Chopin edition and another one, scheduled for 1950. The few remaining works (for example, Jurij Kremlew on Soviet musical aesthetic issues), he was determined to give ‘to the new Kwartalnik.’
Soon, there were also rumours about the plans of the future Vice-Director of PIS, ethnographer and art historian Aleksander Jackowski regarding the publication of the musicological yearbook. At that moment, however, they did not have a firm basis, because it soon turned out that, despite the necessity of directing all ‘quarterly’ texts to Cracow via PIS282 which caused great difficulties for the ←438 | 439→fluency of the editorial work, but there were still certain perspectives for the magazine in the formula it had had to date. For example, after the conference of music composers and critics in Łagów Lubuski, MKiS awaited the publication of the ‘Łagów’ edition, but this was abandoned in late autumn. However, the year 1950 gave another, after Chopin, anniversary opportunity, but this time, with the thinness of the Polish musicological milieu, it was much more difficult to implement: the Ministry of Culture and Art and its minister, Włodzimierz Sokorski, awaited a special ‘Bach’ publication on the bicentenary of the death of Leipzig cantor. Furthermore, it was agreed with the management of PIS to make a double issue – the second and third in a year. Chybiński’s comment on this situation was clear: ‘I was dumbfounded, and I fainted etc.’283 ‘Maybe Bronarski would give an article “Bach and Chopin” – that would be something…. “Bach and Poland” maybe? Why not? One can write works such as “Bach and the elephant,” “Bach and the sardine,” “Poland and the Egyptian pyramids” etc. Anything can be done. Who knows, maybe I will take to the topic “Bach’s Polonaise.” But please do not hold on to my words.’284
A few weeks later, the official agents also resigned from the ‘Bach’ issue because there was a new order – in connection with the upcoming Science Congress it was expected from the editorial staff to issue a ‘methodological’ edition (‘from a Marxist point of view’).285 This project was even more risky than the Bach theme. Chybiński admitted that he did not know anyone who could honestly and wisely write about Marxism in music, and in the middle of the year Chomiński openly resigned from further efforts to organise this edition. The actual lack of willingness of PIS to cooperate with the editorial team was confirmed by other experience in this field, when the print-ready materials for the second Chopin sheet were made to wait ‘for stamping’ by director Jackowski for over a month. The Institute also planned to replace the man serving as the editor of Kwartalnik – it wanted to appoint Stefan Jarociński, one of the new employees of PIS engaged in running the Music Section.
In addition, it seemed that PWM was no longer interested in Kwartalnik, due to constant publishing problems and increasing delays in printing. Although the preliminaries for the 1950 edition were finally approved in July, and in August ←439 | 440→Chomiński began to organise materials for the next edition (31/32),286 it was an unfavourable atmosphere for academia in general (and the threat to musicology through being transferred to PWSM structures in particular), prolonged proofreading of outstanding editions and personal tensions between the centres led to the final decision to close the title and new plans in PIS at the end of 1950: ‘Kwartalnik ended its life properly with the second volume of the Chopin edition. Indeed, there will be another double edition for the current year, but there are, among others, works that fundamentally deviate from the level it has been to date. Instead of Kwartalnik, PIS intends to publish some discussion material. Mrs Zofia Lissa has informed me that they want to draw me into these discussions.’287
The tight circle of people connected with Kwartalnik – Chybiński, Chomiński, Ochlewski – wanted to lead the annal to the end of 1950, that is, the issue of the last, double edition, which did not succeed.
Meanwhile, in Warsaw, there were ongoing works on the announced yearbook which was to be an organ of PIS. This had already sparked controversy between the editor-in-chief and editorial assistant, the details of which will be described in chapter V. It should be emphasised, however, that this was the first misunderstanding between the master and his disciple. Throughout the years, starting from the Lviv period, up to that moment, relations between them were exceptional, which can be found in the surviving correspondence. The first preserved letters from Werchrata, where Chomiński and his family spent a large part of the time following his graduation, come from the year 1933. Nonetheless, it is probable that the new graduate of the Lviv department of musicology had been writing to the professor much earlier. At that time, he sought advice on matters both of academic and private nature – it can be seen that the tutor was a great authority for the aspiring musicologist. From the very first letter to the last ←440 | 441→surviving one from 1951, each began with the words ‘Most Reverend Professor,’ ‘Honourable…,’ ‘Venerable and dear…,’ ‘Dear…’ – the student never passed the barrier, which – as he thought288 – should ‘protect’ him against the temptation to become over-familiar with the professor.
After the outbreak of war, Chybiński remained in touch with Chomiński until the spring of 1940 – the last letter from period comes from 25 March. It was sent from Przemyśl and stored in Chybiński’s archives in BJ. Upon reconstructing Chybiński’s wartime fate based on two biographies written by himself, Maciej Gołąb mentions the particularly dramatic first months of the occupation, filled with forced labour and the loss of his wife who was deported to the Ravensbrück camp.289 He survived the following years in Warsaw, where he married for a second time, and where he re-established contact with Jan Józef Dunicz, Tadeusz Ochlewski and perhaps other members of the former SMDM. Indeed, during the first weeks of post-war freedom, he sent the professor up-to-date news from Międzyborów, where he lived after the war.
Already during Chomiński’s studies at UJK, Chybiński regarded him as a ‘wildly talented man’ and one of his best students, although he regretted that he was not a Pole but ‘Rusyn.’290 Chomiński, at the time, was already extremely devoted to his promoter and mentor. Despite the fact that he was an outstanding graduate, he could not count on employment at the Institute after obtaining a master’s degree in 1931 or a doctorate just five years later (on account of the small allocation of posts for musicology). Shortly before the war, he managed to get a permanent place of work in the National Library thanks to the support and protection of the professor in the group gathered around SMDM.←441 | 442→
After the war, in autumn of 1945, Chybiński proposed to Chomiński to take over as assistant-volunteer at the reactivated Poznań musicology, to which Chomiński probably would have agreed if not for family responsibilities and the need to address normal, everyday needs. The professor, thanks to his prominent position within the artists’ and scholars’ community in Poznań, could recommend his pupil also to the team of educators at the Poznań conservatoire. He also helped establish contact regarding possible employment, this time with the authorities of Poznań Academy of Music.291 In response to this, in October 1945, Józef Chomiński volunteered to work as a professor of theory at the Faculty of Education of this artistic university, despite the distance from Warsaw, in the vicinity of which he had lived at that time. Unfortunately, it soon became apparent that his health reasons prevented him from fulfilling his responsibilities.292 Perhaps, at that time he was not exactly interested in working in artistic education, seeing his future within the musicologist environment, rather than music.
In the first months after the war, Chomiński was also nominated by the professor as a member of the ‘theoretical section,’ which dealt with, among others, developing a curriculum of theoretical subjects in music education and providing a set of textbooks for this purpose under the aegis of MKiS in cooperation with PWM.293 At that time a harmony handbook project was developed with an aim to serve as ‘continuation’ of Sikorski’s handbook and ‘ “dereference” the new gains from the enormous material following 1910,’294 and a music forms handbook, wherein the content was to be distributed for development between Hieronim Feicht (rondo and forms of Church music), Stefania Łobaczewska (variations, sonata and the theoretical part of the book) and Józef Chomiński (solo song, cantata, opera, drama, evolutionary figurative forms).295 Unfortunately, in this case, he could not fulfil all of these commitments adequately due to the above-mentioned health problems. He had been informing the professor about this on an ongoing basis upon discussing the progress of papers submitted to the section meetings and other works ordered.296←442 | 443→
The whole time he worked on several open projects. Nearly one year’s stay at the Swiss sanatorium in Leysin allowed him to continue his work on Metodyka nauczania form muzycznych w średnich szkołach muzycznych [Methodology of teaching musical forms in secondary music schools]297, the idea was to prepare the first volume of Harmonia (‘Podstawy harmoniki funkcyjnej’ [The basics of functional harmony]), Zarys harmonii nowoczesnej [Overview of contemporary harmony], Zarys ogólnej teorii muzyki jako wstępu do teorii harmonii i kontrapunktu oraz do teorii formy muzycznej [Overview of general music theory as an introduction to theory of harmony and counterpoint and theory of musical form], participation in Witold Rudziński’s project for an Historyczny atlas muzyczny (wiek XII–XV) [Historical atlas of music (XII–XV centuries)], Teoria potencjału harmonicznego [Theory of the potential of harmony], he started work on analysing Chopin’s Preludes,298 and wrote systematically to Chybiński299 about all of these projects.
The proposal to take over as Editorial Assistant, which Lissa had for Chomiński in connection with reactivation of Kwartalnik Muzyczny delighted Chybiński for it allowed him to enter the history of Polish music periodical press not only as an author but also as an editor. Chomiński totally engaged himself in his new tasks even though – as mentioned before – he initially had doubts whether he would be able to fulfil the tasks entrusted to him sufficiently. Practice has shown that he coped extremely well with work organisation and proved to be worthy of his scholarly renown. Over time, it turned out that due to adverse rulings of PIS authorities regarding the fate of Kwartalnik, the Warsaw part of the editorial staff (mainly Chomiński, but without Lissa who was busy developing musicology in ←443 | 444→Warsaw at the time) undertook a project related to the plans of PIS – the launch of a scientific journal (alongside the popular monthly), published irregularly.
Chybiński did not accept either the proposed title of the new magazine/series (he deemed both Muzykologia Polska and Studia Muzykologiczne pretentious and imprecise) or the fact that it would be an organ of the Warsaw Institute. He felt that decisions made beyond him and pushing him to the margins of editorial activities were highly unfavourable for him (which can be deduced from his correspondence with both his former pupil and a few trusted people – Ochlewski, Bronarski, Miketta). This situation sealed his plans to conclude the long-term period of editorial work, signalled by the Lviv professor already in the past.←444 | 445→
214 During the war, Chybiński continued to exchange letters with Bronarski, but for obvious reasons, less frequently than before. For some time, the musicologist from Fribourg acted as a contact man between Lviv and Józef, Chybiński’s son who first stayed in Le Bourg-d’Oisans near Grenoble and then in Toulouse.
215 During the Soviet occupation, Adam Sołtys was employed in the Lviv Lysenko Conservatoire and continued working as a conductor. After Lviv was seized by the Nazis, he began teaching at the Economic School, see Sołtys 2008, 150–157.
217 During this time he wrote the two-volume Wstęp do analizy [muzycznej] [Introduction to [musical] analysis], which, like other smaller works, was burned during the Uprising. Many details about Chomiński’s life and academic achievements in Gołąb 2008, part. I ‘Biografia’ [Biography], 21–97.
218 See ‘Listi Adolfa Hybinskogo.’
219 Chybiński to Bronarski from Lviv 24 II 1942, AACh-BUAM, Bronarski’s archive, p. 176.
220 Chybiński to Bronarski from Lviv 6 XII 1943, AACh-BUAM. The invitation to work on the analysis of Chopin’s works was also accepted by Jan Józef Dunicz (Chamber music) and Józef Chomiński (Preludes). It even seemed that this cooperation could ‘transcend divisions’ when Zdzisław Jachimecki agreed to analyse Polonaises and Songs.
221 Ochlewski to Chybiński from Warsaw 22 I 1942, AACh-BJ, box 1, O-1/98.
222 Ochlewski to Chybiński from Warsaw 1 XI 1943, AACh-BJ, box 1, O-1/116.
223 Chybiński to Bronarski from Cracow 22 I 1946, AACh-BUAM, Bronarski’s archive, p. 195.
224 Chybiński to Bronarski from Cracow 22 I 1946, AACh-BUAM, Bronarski’s archive, p. 195.
225 Opieński to Chybiński from Łódź 11 II 1920, AACh-BJ, box 6, O-2/67.
226 Lissa to Chomiński from Warsaw 14 IX 1947, AACh-BUAM, fol. K-Ł, p. 149.
227 Ochlewski to Chomiński from Cracow 24 XI 1947, APCh.
228 An extreme case was a paper submitted by Józef Chomiński, namely ‘Problem formy w preludiach Chopina’ [The question of form in Chopin’s preludes], which was 262 pages long.
229 The first abstracts (initially added only sporadically, over time more regularly) appeared at the beginning of the 1960s in a quarterly entitled Muzyka. They were put together at the end of the part which contained articles and other materials. To continue the tradition of ‘the second’ Kwartalnik, in which tables of contents were provided in French, this time abstracts were also translated into French. Over time, translations into German and English were added as well.
230 Ludwik Bronarski, ‘Dwa nieznane utwory Chopina’ [Two unknown works by Chopin] (KM 1948/21–22, 60–74).
231 Bronisław Edward Sydow, ‘Chopin i Delacroix. (Historia jednego portretu)’ [Chopin and Delacroix. (The history of one portrait)] (KM 1949/26–27, 15–26).
232 Ignace Blochman, ‘Dwa autografy listów Chopina w Belgii’ [Two autographs on Chopin’s letters in Belgium] (KM 1949/26–27, 38–47).
233 Chybiński mentioned this in a letter to Zofia Lissa (from Poznań 30 XII 1948, AZL-BUW).
234 KM 1948/21–22, 104–144 and Cracow 1948.
235 On this occasion, it is worth noting that on the basis of the Chopin editions (perhaps also others – this information was not always specified), we can say that the print run of KM was set to 1500 copies. Published from 1950 by PIS the monthly Muzyka was printed in around 2700–2800 copies. In the sixties, the circulation of the quarterly Muzyka magazine issued by the PAN Institute of Art oscillated between 1150 and 1950 copies, after which it was raised to 2,500, and even 3,135 copies of a single issue in the mid-eighties. These numbers are surprising and have nothing to do with the real demand of the environment. In the final years, the print run of Muzyka was set to the level of 350–400 copies.
236 Chybiński to Lissa from Poznań 7 I 1948, AZL-BUW.
237 This, and other details in the correspondence between Chybiński/Chomiński 2016, 52–54.
238 Chybiński wrote about this in a letter to Ochlewski from Warsaw 10 III 1948, APCh.
239 Lissa [MKiS] to Chybiński from Warsaw 23 October 1947, AACh-BUAM, fol. 3 ‘Materials concerning the cooperation of Adolf Chybiński with publishing houses, scientific institutions, state administration offices,’ p. 43.
240 Lissa [MKiS] to Chybiński from Warsaw 27 X 1947, AACh-BUAM, ibid., p. 44.
241 Lissa to Chybiński from Warsaw 14 IX 1947, AACh-BUAM, fol. K-Ł, p. 149.
242 Lissa [MKiS] to Chybiński from Warsaw 31 X 1947, at AACh-BUAM, fol. 3 ‘Materials concerning the cooperation of Adolf Chybiński with publishing houses, academic institutions, state administration offices,’ p. 45.
243 See for example, Lissa to the Presidium of the Council of Ministers from Warsaw 4 XII 1948 (at APCh), where Lissa had initialled ‘on behalf of the editor in chief’ next to the signature of Józef Chomiński (‘secretary’).
244 Lissa to Chybiński from Warsaw 10 I 1948, AACh-BUAM, fol. K-Ł, p. 153.
245 Lissa to Chybiński from Warsaw 14 IX 1947, AACh-BUAM, fol. K-Ł, p. 149.
247 Chybiński to Lissa from Zakopane 22 IX 1947, AZL-BUW.
248 ‘in the matters of KM we will need to talk at greater length with all three of us, for there are pressing and important matters in abundance,’ see Chybiński/Chomiński 2016, 73.
249 Chybiński/Chomiński 2016, 47.
250 In the beginning, the editorial office of Kwartalnik was located in the Library of Warsaw Philharmonic at Nowogrodzka 49 Street (in the building which houses the ROMA Musical Theatre), but this address never made it to the masthead. Over time, due to purely pragmatic reasons (in order to enable authors and other members of the editorial team to contact him quickly), Chomiński updated the address depending on where he happened to be staying at a given moment: Centralny Instytut Kultury (Central Institute of Culture) in Szklarska Poręba, Kościelna 9 Street (where he resided for a few months at the turn of 1949), Department of Creation at MKiS (but this time at Krakowskie Przedmieście 17 in Warsaw), in Wesoła near Warsaw at 15 Grudnia 11/1 Street (which was Chomiński’s home address). The last double volume which came out in 1950 was published by PIS, whose office was located at Długa 28 Street in Warsaw, which is now the address of the Institute of Art of the Polish Academy of Sciences.
251 Over time, Lidia Kisielewska also started signing letters from the ‘administration’ of Kwartalnik.
252 Moreover, the publishing company offered potential readers a joint subscription of both journals on favourable terms (four volumes of Kwartalnik a year cost PLN 1200, whereas with Ruch the price was PLN 1900).
253 Chybiński to Lissa from Zakopane 29 VIII 1949, AZL-BUW.
254 See Ochlewski to Chybiński from Cracow 23 IV 1948, AACh-BUAM, fol. O-P, p. 48.
255 See Ochlewski to Chybiński from Cracow 13 V 1948, AACh-BUAM,fol. O-P, p. 50.
256 Chomiński to Chybiński from Warsaw 30 VI 1948, at. APCh.
257 Chybiński to Lissa from Poznań 28 VI 1948, AZL-BUW. Almost twenty years earlier, Chybiński wrote to Ludwik Bronarski, words that have already been quoted in this work: ‘ “Lviv” must simply deliver the largest number of works and I would like to see the whole of Poland in Kwartalnik,’ see Chybiński to Bronarski from Lviv 3 XI 1929, AACh-BUAM, Bronarski’s archive, p. 23.
258 Adolf Chybiński, ‘Od Redakcji’ [Editorial] (KM 1948/21–22, 7).
259 Even during the war, Chybiński sent short letters with the latest news to Switzerland. For instance, in December 1941 he wrote: ‘The Soviet band destroyed volume III of Rocznik Muzyczny in the printing house. There are some proofread sheets left, but not many,’ see Chybiński to Bronarski from Lviv 14 December 1941, AACh-BUAM, Bronarski’s archive, p. 175).
260 Adolf Chybiński, ‘Od Redakcji’ (KM 1948/21–22, 9).
261 In the three-year, post-war history of KM only a few texts from the field of sociology of music were issued, mostly unoriginal, written for the need of the editorial staff, but the papers acquired for the publication (Zofia Lissa, Hans Eisler) had been given at the Second International Congress of Composers and Music Critics, which took place in Prague on 20–29 May 1948.
Lissa also understood her first sociological publication in the new Kwartalnik Muzyczny as a ‘need of the time.’ She summarised the extensive study entitled ‘Sociological Aspect in Polish Contemporary Music’ with the words: ‘These practical, hotly grasped, sociological aspects of our historical day…. Their inclusion in the academic research journal … I deemed purposeful. They are an expression of the fact that modern music studies cannot, and should not, do without the sociological aspect, imposed on us by today’s day’ (see Lissa 1948, 143).
262 The problem with the volume emerged in the first year of the new edition of the magazine when the articles (ten and a half sheets) and other materials printed in small print along with the insert with fragments of Chybiński’s Słownik muzyków [Musicians dictionary] took a total of seventeen sheets.
263 See Chomiński to Rudnicki from Warsaw 11 V 1949, APCh.
264 Rudnicki to Chomiński from Warsaw 25 V 1949, APCh.
265 The editors of Kwartalnik Muzyczny to the Presidium of the Council of Ministers from Warsaw 4 XII , APCh.
266 Adolf Chybiński, ‘Od Redakcji’ (KM 1948/21–22, 9).
267 During winter of the same year, the editorial team was counting on the Ministry’s approval on increasing the size of the quarterly. Chomiński wrote to Cracow: ‘The Ministry of Culture and Arts wishes the first post-war issue to be bigger than the previous one. Therefore, it will cover the costs of exceeding the volume,’ see Chomiński to PWM from Warsaw 28 II , APCh. In May it turned out, however, that ultimately the Press Control Office did not allow them to exceed the expected volume of 200 pages. Therefore Dir. Ochlewski decided that a double issue would be printed. In the following months, the situation was saved by the allocation of paper from MKiS, dependent, however, on the authorisation from Central Press, Publication and Performance Control Office on the volume increase.
268 See Chybiński/Chomiński 2016, 47–50.
269 Chomiński to Jachimecki from Warsaw 30 VI 1948, APCh.
270 Bronarski to Chybiński from Fribourg 6 IX 1948, AACh-BUAM, fol. A-C, p. 130.
271 Chybiński to Chomiński from Zakopane 8 VII 1948, APCh.
272 Chybiński/Chomiński 2016, 68.
273 KM 1928/1, 82–86.
274 Chybiński/Chomiński 2016, 159.
275 Chybiński/Chomiński 2016, 161.
276 Chybiński/Chomiński 2016, 174–175.
277 Although PIS was officially appointed on 30 XI 1949, Chomiński reported on the plans of the future authorities of the Institute concerning Kwartalnik already in September of that year, see Chybiński/Chomiński 2016, 203–205.
278 Chybiński/Chomiński 2016, 217–219.
279 At this juncture we should remember that Kwartalnik Muzyczny was a title belonging to MKiS.
280 Chybiński/Chomiński 2016, 217–219.
281 Chybiński/Chomiński 2016, 222–223.
282 Chomiński informed the professor about the principles established with the director of the Institute: ‘I had a conference with Mr Jackowski with the matter of Kwartalnik at the top of the agenda and planned publications of the Art Institute. And so, without his acceptance, we are not allowed to print any work in Kwartalnik; therefore, all materials will first go to the Art Institute, and then to PWM. However, I reserved the right to jointly discuss work from a professional standpoint, for which Mr Jackowski agreed,’ see Chomiński/Chybiński 2016, 243–244.
283 Chybiński to Ochlewski from Poznań 17 I 1950, AACh-BUAM, Ochlewski’s archive, p. 73.
284 Chybiński/Chomiński 2016, 246–247.
285 Chybiński/Chomiński 2016, 262–263.
286 Łobaczewska was to write a work about the romantic scherzo, Chybiński for some time now had planned to present the systematics of musicology, Stanisław Golachowski prepared material about Szymanowski’s relationship to folk music, Szczepańska’s research about Mikołaj z Radomia was still incomplete, Chybiński’s was working on John Stuart Mill’s views on the music penned by the historian and philosopher, and also the student of Poznań’s musicology, Waldemar Voisé, under pressure from Warsaw, Olga Łada’s text was to be published, both editors considered publishing Chomiński’s dissertation in Kwartalnik, and the professor also saw the possibility of offering some of his students’ dissertations for publication, but only in the future.
287 Chybiński/Chomiński 2016, 295.
288 He wrote about it in one of his letters, perhaps in response to an invitation from the professor to break the rigid conventions: ‘In the first place I want to assure you, Sir Professor, that all titles which I have used so far were not just an ordinary convention, but the sheer need of the heart and an expression of deep reverence and respect which I have for you as a person and an authority. I am very moved by your decision, Sir Professor, but please believe me that I personally could not dare to call you a colleague, being aware that currently neither my knowledge nor my academic achievements, which, to tell the truth, are more than negligible, may not constitute grounds for any comparisons. In any case, I promise to work steadfastly and best to my modest abilities so that the kindness and sympathy, which you have for me, Sir Professor, can still find their justification,’ see Chomiński to Chybińsk from Werchrata 11 VIII 1936, AACh-BJ, box 5, C-10/12.
290 Chybiński to Bronarski from Lviv 3 X 1932, AACh-BUAM, Bronarski’s archive, p. 81.
291 Chybiński/Chomiński 2016, 1.
292 We know that Chomiński, who was commuting from Warsaw, was not able to cope with those obligations due to worsening health problems (developing tuberculosis).
293 Janusz Miketta presented the goals and tasks of this and other ministerial committees in a short report on music education in Poland in the pages of the first post-war edition of KM (1948/21–22, 269–275).
294 Chybiński/Chomiński 2016, 4–5.
295 Chybiński/Chomiński 2016, 9–10.
296 One of the results of cooperation with the said section was a book entitled Metodyka nauczania form muzycznych w średnich szkołach muzycznych [Method for teaching musical form in music secondary schools] (Cracow 1946). As for the objectives which the Theoretical Commission set for itself, Chomiński had substantial doubts (evident to any musicologist) in line with the age-old debate whether the theoretical-musical expertise should be the domain of universities and conservatoires: ‘during the forum there came out this difficult matter of theory as a main subject in [music] university, which was presented not as a problem but as a principle. This approach resulted in almost insurmountable difficulties: for how can you reconcile the objective of a professional art school with the subject of a theory that should be understood literally, not in the sense of normative science, namely musical expertise?,’ see Chybiński/Chomiński 2016, 8–9.
297 Cracow 1946.
298 Analizy i objaśnienia dzieł wszystkich Fryderyka Chopina, vol. 9 Preludia [Analysis and explanation of Frederic Chopin’s complete works, vol. 9 Preludes] ed. Józef Chomiński, Cracow 1950.
299 See for example, Chybiński/Chomiński 2016, 13–15, 22–23.