Show Less
Open access

The Beginnings of Polish Musicology

Series:

Małgorzata Sieradz

The book presents the history of the only strictly scientific Polish musicological periodical Kwartalnik Muzyczny. It shows how the editorial board of the periodi-cal met with true approval and harsh criticism. The subject allows the author to present the beginnings of Polish musicology and its evolution through three epochs: the late partitioning period, the interwar period of Poland’s independ-ence, and the early years after the Second World War
Show Summary Details
Open access

4. Authors and subjects as well as concepts, problems and work methods – continuation of the pre-war work – around the current issues of musical socialist realism – thematic projects

4. Authors and subjects as well as concepts, problems and work methods – continuation of the pre-war work – around the current issues of musical socialist realism – thematic projects

In the editorial which inaugurated the post-war edition of Kwartalnik Muzyczny, Adolf Chybiński briefly described the history of the journal, which started in 1928. He reminded the readers of evolutionary changes which took place after 1933, when two new titles, namely Muzyka Polska and Polski Rocznik Muzykologiczny, emerged. He regarded the establishment of a journal which would continue the mission of Muzyka Polska as an ‘urgent need.’ This mission focused on making readers familiar with notions related to broadly defined music culture, which included both current events in the music and musicological community and the promotion of knowledge about music. At the same time, he emphasised the importance of the fact for propagating musical culture and learning about music, that Ruch Muzyczny was brought into being as an ‘organ of the Polish musical world’ and ‘gave and continues to give its pages to publish works, which in fact go beyond its proper scope, and works which are sometimes very extensive, not mentioning their academic nature.’300 Finally, he determined programme assumptions which the new/old editorial team was supposed to follow: ‘all sections of music literature will be represented in the new Kwartalnik, just like they used to be represented in the old one. From the very beginning, the Editorial Board will also strive to expand their scope …. It will not stand in the way of adopting a favourable attitude towards all the factors of the new music thought, regardless of its origin, given that it has productive value for our music needs. That’s why, depending on current needs, we will also take up issues related to music sociology. It seems self-explanatory to me that the good of Polish music culture will be of utmost importance in our editorial programme.’301

The programme so formulated by Chybiński resulted from previous arrangements that were made in the editorial team during preparations for the ←445 | 446→first post-war edition of Kwartalnik. At the beginning of December 1947, Józef Chomiński had a ‘conference’ with Zofia Lissa; he related the meeting thusly:

Ms Lissa has presented a general overview of her plan to me, stressing the topicality of contents. Because of that, I was told to make contact with Slavic music centres (in the USSR, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, and Bulgaria) to ensure cooperation with foreign musicologists and musicians, only Slavs for the time being. … Each issue should contain a paper on Polish music written by some Slavic musicologist or musician (someone from abroad) or a paper written by a Pole about Slavic music (the section can be chosen freely) or finally a paper written on Slavic music (but not Polish music) by a Slav from abroad. … I was also told to ensure that no issue is dominated by historical papers, especially those about distant epochs.’302

Chybiński, who agreed with Lissa’s programme ‘in terms of the general direction’ of the new magazine as a very ambitious publication had doubts as to whether there would be any space in the magazine for historical articles which had traditionally taken up the majority of space in the pre-war Kwartalnik. He had an alternative idea about which he wrote: ‘It seems to me that historical papers will have to come out mostly in publications issued by the PAU or other scientific societies. (The society from Poznań is at my disposal, and the PAU more or less). My paper on Jacek Różycki (who died ca. 1700) will be published by the WTM at the request of this society.’303 Fortunately, there was no such separation and, as it soon turned out, the editorial office, based mainly on the work of the authors hailing from schools built on assumptions of Adler-type musicology, was able to successfully defend itself for a time against the ‘novelties’ and publications based on the dialectical materialism applicable in historical and social sciences at that time.

Finally, the first edition was to include the pre-war texts by Ludwik Bronarski304 and the study by Józef Chomiński,305 for which Chybiński gained the agreement of the authors, as well as the dissertation by Father Hieronim Feicht.306 In addition, ←446 | 447→he also turned to other trusted pupils and colleagues for new works: this time to Stefania Łobaczewska,307 Bronisław Romaniszyn308 and Janusz Miketta;309 Zofia Lissa310 also joined the group of authors; however, Marian Sobieski did not send the expected article about mazurkas. What we know is that the professor had one more paper, which he referred to as posthumous. It was most probably ‘Zagadnienia i zadania historii muzyki’ (Issues and tasks of the history of music) written by the late Julian Pulikowski, a musicologist whose behaviour towards the occupier during the war was regarded very critically. There were also many controversial opinions on Pulikowski which were echoed in Poland at that time. Under these circumstances, Chybiński decided not to use the text which he had kept for many years. Instead, he decided to open his journal to new authors. The above-mentioned group of authors who cooperated with post-war Kwartalnik was joined by Konstanty Régamey311 and permanently resident in Switzerland, Zygmunt Estreicher312 (who on several occasions proved helpful in collecting materials for the bibliography of European musical literature included in the post-war editions), and also the promising (also in the eyes of the Lviv professor) students of Cracow musicology, Włodzimierz Poźniak313 and – as authors of the report – Stanisław Golachowski, Krystyna Wilkowska and Stefan Szuman. Chybiński, as editor-in-chief, considered it appropriate to start the new edition of the journal not only with an editorial prepared by himself but also with his own article.314 However, did not gain the editorial’s acceptance of the article on the music to Goethe’s poem Mignon (‘Kennst du das Land,’ and the translation of Mickiewicz’s Do H***) sent by Zdzisław Jachimecki.

←447 | 448→

Just like all his earlier works, Chybiński’s paper on Wacław of Szamotuły was based on the classic German methodology of historical research on music. The author started from an overview of musical life in sixteenth-century Cracow, as well as the presence and activity of other musicians who belonged to the royal band. The life and art of Wacław were presented from the perspective of his relationship with this band. Then Chybiński moved on to briefly present the works of the composer, starting from the first known music publication from Cracow, Lamentationes…, which was published by the printing house of Łazarz Andrysowicz in 1553. Then he discussed further achievements of the brilliant musician from Cracow. Upon preparing a detailed sketch of the character and work of Szamotulczyk, Chybiński referred to the earlier works about him and the music of his circle, including the only monograph published in 1935 by Henryk Przybylski, a tireless researcher of the history of Szamotuły. In the course of writing the article (in the section ‘Sprostowania i uzupełnienia’ [Rectification and additions] to his article), the author could refer to information given to him at the time by Przybylski. This concerned correction of Wacław’s dates of birth and death: the presumed birth year of 1529 given earlier by Przybylski was changed to four years later, and as for the moment of death, Chybiński agreed to the turn of the year 1567–1568. He regarded these new arrangements as revelations which he forecasted in his letter to Chomiński.315 A complete novelty in the arrangements made by Przybylski, who was not a music historian and most probably was not sensitive to the issue of compositional output, was the fact that the professor supplemented the list of compositions with the motet entitled Nunc scio vere.

Materials collected for Wacław’s monograph and the jubilee occasion of the 400th anniversary of birth of the poet and musician allowed Chybiński to write a few more contributions of a popularising character, while the quarterly text can be treated as the last original thesis of such calibre to come from under his pen: published in 1949 by PWM, the extensive monograph Mieczysław Karłowicz (1876–1909). Kronika życia artysty i taternika [Mieczysław Karłowicz (1876–1909). Chronicle of the life of the artist and mountaineer] had a long history, the hardships of collecting the documentation and the writing itself were repeatedly reported by the professor in letters to friends back in the 1930s, but he had no time to prepare it for publication before the war. He did not manage to finish the second part of his work, devoted to the composer’s legacy, before the ←448 | 449→end of his life. At the beginning of 1951, when the fate of Kwartalnik had already been sealed, Chybiński prepared one more text, ‘Murky,’ but it was just a small introductory article which was finally published in the monthly Muzyka.316

However, for the first edition of the studies the professor did not make use of materials he had from his earlier reserves; he extended the deadline for the typed copy of Maria Szczepańska’s dissertation about Mikołaj z Radomia by several months in order to give her time to put the final touches to the text and arguments. This work had a long history: due to its large size it was not accepted by Chybiński at the moment of inception, at the time when the professor was head of the second Kwartalnik, and then had to wait a few years to be printed. The situation changed with the opening of PRM317 when the first part of the monograph – ‘Introduction’ – was prepared for release. The next part was planned for the third volume of the annual,318 the circulation of which, as it is known, was not printed because of the dramatic events of the first days of the war. After the break caused by the war, Szczepańska apparently needed some more time to prepare her paper, and in late spring 1948 she was still busy ‘finishing Mikołaj.’319 Finally, ‘Studia o utworach Mikołaja Radomskiego (Wiek XV)’ [Studies on the works of Mikołaj Radomski (15th century)] was published in parts – at the end of 1948 together with the edition closing the history of Kwartalnik,320 and was characterised, like all the earlier publications by this author, by the extraordinary academic detail, diligence and logic of the discussion presented learned in the Lviv musicological school. Apart from Chybiński’s studies on Wacław of Szamotuły, these were the only examples of publications in the field of early Polish music in the pages of the post-war edition of the magazine.321

This time, Old Polish materials were completely dominated by publications on different topics. Three contributions devoted to Chopin which came out in the first issue of the new edition confirmed Chybiński’s belief, which he had ←449 | 450→voiced many years before, that Kwartalnik should first and foremost promote the cult of Chopin. The Chopin Year was drawing near. Private talks on celebrating it had already been held during the war, yet the Professor did not want to delay the publication of papers on Chopin which he had at his disposal. He believed that they were the most valuable materials, especially because two of these texts were signed by Bronarski, an outstanding Chopinologist who had supported the editorial team for many years by submitting his articles for publication, whereas the third text presented the result of research conducted by Father Hieronim Feicht, mostly in the 1940s. Although, as he said in a statement on a Polish Radio programme, he dedicated (only) two dissertations to Chopin,322 and indeed it is one of them, published in three subsequent editions of Kwartalnik ‘Ronda Fryderyka Chopina’ [Frederic Chopin’s rondos],323 which two years earlier had been the foundation for his habilitation thesis.324 First and foremost, however, his speciality was ‘early pre-Chopin Polish music.’325 He proved this many times in the following years of his academic work, dealing almost exclusively with the music of the Polish musical Middle Ages, Renaissance and Baroque. However, for Kwartalnik he had already prepared two reviews – of Włodzimierz Poźniak’s326 Pasja chorałowa w Polsce [Chorale passions in Poland] and Études sur Chopin by Ludwik Bronarski.327 In addition, he was also the author of one the papers published in Kwartalnik which had been presented at the first Congress of Polish Musicologists, which took place in Warsaw on 18 and 19 November 1948.328

Themes related to Chopin were the essence of Ludwik Bronarski’s research. Before the war, the author from Fribourg gave Chybiński over ten articles and introductory articles, as well as numerous reviews of literature on Chopin. As has already been said, during the war, two of these texts were stored in the ←450 | 451→Professor’s home archive. When reading them,329 particularly the first one about Chopin’s two unknown works, we can clearly see that after years the editors did not interfere to the slightest extent in the corrected versions of texts that have survived from the pre-war third volume of PRM. The first sentence from this text is as follows: ‘The Library of the Conservatoire … in Paris has a collection of Chopin’s manuscripts which include two compositions that were unknown until today and which are published here for the first time.’330 In the meantime, the Nocturne c-minor and Largo E flat-major were published by TWMP in 1938. As can be seen, neither the editorial team nor the author considered it appropriate to correct this misleading information and add an explanatory footnote to the title. Irrespective of that fact, Bronarski remained the one who discovered these small compositions by Chopin. The announcement in Kwartalnik includes their detailed description. The second article voiced an opinion in the discussion about another ‘trifle’ left by Chopin, the Mazurka in a minor, which used to be called ‘posthumous’ and which was numbered Op. 42A. In his short introductory article, Bronarski endeavoured to reconstruct the chronology of its composition and edition, elevate this work and find the right place for it in the whole musical output of the master.

Bronarski who, due to his artistic, professional and scientific duties, was unable to provide the editorial office with as many materials as in previous years, was absolutely taken by the professor’s words: ‘I am utterly grateful for the honourable invitation [to] participate as an “articulist” in the Chopin booklet of Kwartalnik. I dare not refuse, especially to you, Sir Professor; but I do not dare to make any promises. If I am able, I will send a contribution with the greatest pleasure.’331 For the requirements of the jubilee number, he assigned two articles – appropriate for the title of the edition: one ‘from life’ and one ‘from creative work.’332 The first one was quite literally related to the 100th anniversary of the composer’s death. The aim was to solve issues related not so much to the worldly life, but rather circumstances related to procedures undertaken after Chopin’s death, including the legends and myths related to opening the composer’s body ←451 | 452→and sprinkling Polish soil over his grave. The second text, with the title resembling Bronisław Wójcik-Keuprulian’s contribution O trioli w mazurkach Chopina [On triplets in Chopin’s Mazurkas] published in the first memorial book for Chybiński,333 was not intended to be a continuation of the topic undertaken by the her, but an original consideration of potential ways of interpretation of this figure by the composer supported by various examples.

Moreover, after Chybiński’s death, Ludwik Bronarski kept in touch with Polish musicologists and sent results of his Chopinological research, for example, to the editors of Rocznik Chopinowski founded by the TiFC, several times.334

The fruit of many years of work, which had started in the first half of the 1940s, was the essay on the history of contemporary music prepared by Konstanty Régamey. The author wanted to publish its first part, entitled ‘Próba analizy ewolucji w sztuce’ (An attempt to analyze the evolution in art), in Kwartalnik. Régamey, who was a composer and a music publicist, but also (mostly after the war) an Indologist and a linguist, wrote most of his Polish language articles, polemics, introductory articles and critical reviews before the war.335 First and foremost he published in the pages of Muzyka Polska (of which, we should remember he was editor-in-chief in the years 1937–39), but also in the magazine focused around the philosophical thought of Józef Hoene-Wroński and the Polish messianism periodical Zet, whose collaborators included amongst others Karol Irzykowski, Bolesław Miciński, Stanisław Ignacy Witkiewicz, and with the ideologically aligned with ONR artistic-literary weekly Prosto z mostu. Apart from critical reviews of current music events, he also wrote aesthetic and theoretical texts, as well as articles on the notions of content and form in music.

After the war, Chomiński stayed in a sanatorium in Switzerland. He contacted Régamey (whom he had met at a meeting of a Warsaw group centred around the TWMP, who regularly provided him with the books he needed and even visited ←452 | 453→him in Leysin. The invitation to join the group of authors of new Kwartalnik was a natural consequence of these contacts.

Taking the statement that the ‘history of art is not the same as aesthetics,’336 as a starting point for his considerations, Régamey favoured the opinion that it is impossible to abandon ‘aestheticisation’ completely in reflections on art (particularly modern art), because this will allow us ‘to adopt a better position that opens broader perspectives than conventionalism and allow us to explain more facts.’337 Unfortunately, there is a risk that if we look at ‘unattainable exemplars’ from earlier epochs, we will always assess contemporary art critically as moving away from the ideal, even though the ideal was understood differently in different epochs.

Important paragraphs of the thesis concerned Régamey’s topic of ‘creative potentiality’ which provokes the artist to start a new work upon completion of the previous creative process. The most important observations relate to the problem of creative freedom and social role of creativity: ‘Artistic creation is not constrained by either external conditions … or utilitarian purposes.’338 Closing his reasoning and writing about the controversy between the two concepts (speaking on the one hand about the development of the autonomy of art, and on the other about the treatment of the history of art in close connection with the culture and the ‘world view’ of the era), he asserts:

When the artist cannot find a means of expression which could become the material for both personal and collective experiences, he either gives up all social impact and confines himself within ‘art for art’s sake,’ reducing his art to a private experiment, or tries to appeal to the general public by intentionally lowering his sights and gives up trying to reach deeper personal motivations. It is then that his art turns into propaganda, agitation and didactics or becomes a mere tool for entertainment, such as popular literature, the so-called light music, etc. In all these cases, art loses its grandeur, it ceases to be creation.339

Régamey’s reflections on the evolution of form and formal measures that had been started earlier but were published only in 1948 failed to spark a discussion on a strictly academic level. The same goes for the second text sent by him – ‘Źródła i tło kryzysu sztuki współczesnej’ [The source and background to the crisis in contemporary art],340 in which he tried to prove that, even though it is ←453 | 454→necessary to adopt a distance towards the critical evaluation of everything that was avant-garde, innovative and different from works embedded in the style concerned, this does not refer to contemporary music. When it comes to the assessment of relations between art (including music) and social policy, he did not take as decisive a stance as soon became obligatory in academia and which was represented, for example, by Zofia Lissa. Nevertheless, he partially agreed with it. He emphasised that ‘the extent of the impact that art had on society in various historical epochs was very varied. We know of periods in which whole societies lived and breathed art, even innovative art; all we need to do is point to the frequently quoted example of Greek theatre …. We also know of epochs in which art used to belong only to some social classes …. It was the demands of the French Revolution, which wanted to make all classes equal, and universalist demands of the Romanticism which changed this situation, also in the field of music.’341

Régamey seeks reasons for the ‘dissonance between art and society’ mainly in the shock caused to the modern listener (even those who feel the ‘living need for art’) by contemporary works that ‘irrespective of their level and artist’s talent generates … an almost panicked need to oppose this art.’ The lack of organisation of measures used by contemporary artists and the ‘internal conflict’ of their art result in their isolation from society. In the end, it was stipulated that the image of crisis which he had presented should not be understood as criticism of everything that was happening at that time. The aim was rather to acknowledge that ‘uncritical admiration of blasé snobs for everything that’s new and unconventional, as well as the suggestions of those who oppose such art and just as uncritically reject everything bearing at least some hallmarks of innovation …, and finally the so-called objectivism of reliable critics and theoreticians, who “learnedly” put all manifestations of modern art on the same level … , all that blurs the simple yet natural fact that in the present epoch, apart from the crowd of artistic bluffers there is also an active group of truly creative individuals, which is smaller and yet quite numerous.’342

Lissa’s article ‘Czy muzyka jest sztuką asemantyczną?’ [Is music an asemantic artform?],343 along with which other opinions concerning modern musicology were to be published, was submitted to the issue no. 25 in 1949, but it was ←454 | 455→ultimately accompanied only by Stefania Łobaczewska’s work.344 The author of the question asked here prepared reflections discussing the sociological aspect in modern Polish music for the editors. As she confessed in a letter to the professor, she wanted ‘through showing examples of historical relationships of musical style with an economic and social base, to draw some conclusions for the creativity of our era.’345 As a pioneer of this type of research, she had, however, many concerns: ‘even though the sociological method is almost terra intacta et incognita in our field, I am taking the first steps in it without any support. Soviet musicological literature generally does not take up such issues, and the ways of executing this method in their history textbooks often seem quite primitive to me…. When it comes to Western European literature, I only know of two books of this type.’346

In spite of her fears, she undertook the task of making an objective evaluation of the state of music culture at the time of the ‘breakthrough and rapid changes,’ commencing from the analysis of phenomena, through ‘arguments of a normative type’ and ending with ‘arguments of a postulative type.’347 She justified the need for adopting a sociological approach towards the study of music by pointing to the fact that this approach was hardly present in historical research conducted up to that time. Explanations related to the methodological foundation of such research were an introduction to the next part of the article, in which she reflected on specific historical periods. Then she explained the sources and figures of ‘the crisis in which contemporary music has been for years.’ According to the author, the currently existing new group of listeners with new needs and ‘desire for cultural advancement’ present to artists a new kind of ‘demand arising from political, economic and social change.’348 Sławomir Wieczorek pointed out that in her article published in Kwartalnik, Lissa for the first time ‘demanded [from composers] much more than just writing mass songs. Most importantly, … she no longer addressed them in the same way. It was not an appeal; she did not point out current social needs, but rather made demands, justifying them by new social conditions. She acted as an authority who possesses and transmits the knowledge of the right direction for the development of contemporary musical creativity. This was the moment when a hierarchical system started ←455 | 456→to function’;349 the researcher also backs up his observations with an example of the expression of exemplary importance for the author: ‘New life does not require artistic withdrawal from the Polish composer, but it claims – which is in line with composers’ needs – their inclusion in the progressive social trend of our culture.’350

The narration illustrated by the above-mentioned statements accompanied Lissa and the main current of her research for a few years. Lissa had taken up the issue of semanticism/asemanticism of music back in the 1930s when she started preparing a speech on this topic at the request of the Polish Philosophical Association. A decade later, she used the thoughts she had formulated earlier and only tried to ‘update them, especially in view of those questions of musical creativity that are currently emerging.’351 Lissa’s second article appeared in the pages of the ‘third’ Kwartalnik and opened with words of the crisis in European music in the interwar period. First and foremost, the author considered that ‘previous reflections concerning both the study of musical styles and the psychology of musical creativity did not give credit to the influence which the composer’s general worldview had on that composer’s creative process and its direction,’352 and this opinion concerned not just historical-musical issues in the terms defined by Adler or Riemann, but also research about music history against a background of general spiritual cultural development (Ambros, Schering), or Kurth’s psychological theory, and finally Hanslick’s theory ‘identifying content of a musical work with its form.’353

Lissa’s conclusion, assuming that ‘there is, therefore, no pure programme music and no pure absolute music…. Hence, it is difficult to talk about music as a clearly asemantic field of art’ was not controversial, in fact, yet in the author’s assumption arguments which constitute ‘a psychological test of the established theory of “content in music”‘,354 would spark a debate on the problem of meaning carried by both music aestheticians and psychologists. When the editorial team decided to reprint Lissa’s article which had been published in Myśl Współczesna, it meant that they agreed with this opinion to some extent. In an extensive footnote added by the editorial team we can read that ‘in relation to the ongoing discussion on ideological topics, the problem of content in music has reappeared … ←456 | 457→the paper written by Associate Professor Dr Z. Lissa is a new attempt at showing this issue from the point of view of the most recent findings of psychology and musicology. … due to the limited length of the paper, the author could not analyse in detail all the themes which she brought up; nevertheless, the fact that she took up this topic should encourage other researchers to keep working in this field.’355 On the pages of Kwartalnik, however, this invitation did not meet with a response, even though (as mentioned earlier) (a)semanticity was one of the main topics of scholarly discourse expected by ‘mentors’ and ‘setters’ in those times.

Stefania Łobaczewska also submitted her earlier methodological reflections for the first post-war issue of Kwartalnik to the editors; the treatise ‘O zadaniach i metodzie monografii muzycznej’ [On the tasks and method of a musical monograph]356 served as an introduction to the recently completed monograph on Szymanowski. In the reality where academic discourse based on dialectal materialism was gaining more and more popularity, it became easy to criticise both ‘traditional’ methodology, which the author had used in her long-term studies on Szymanowski, and the narration of the book, which stemmed from the fact that Łobaczewska’s musicological education was based on the German tradition. Nevertheless, her opinion emphasising that strictly musical elements of the musical work are the most important (‘as the starting point for reflections on the image of the artistic era … we always assume musical form understood in the broadest sense, i.e. as the weave and interaction of all elements of music – rhythm, melody, timbre, dynamics, texture, formal pattern – and in its function in relation to the sound material’357) was softened by the researcher underlining the importance of both social and psychological conditions for the creation and functioning of a musical work.

Like Lissa, Łobaczewska only sent one original text to the editor-in-chief – ‘Problem wartościowania i wartości w muzyce’ [The problem of evaluating and values in music].358 In this extensive dissertation, she assumed that ‘[a];ssessment is a judgement which can normally take two forms in any aesthetic experience, namely the subconscious and the conscious form. In its subconscious form, a judgement accompanies something … which in the initial stage of this process makes the listener give in to the aesthetic object more and more intensely, more ←457 | 458→and more eagerly. When it comes to the conscious form, this judgement appears in the next stages of the aesthetic experience.’359 According to the author, a sense of beauty can be determined both by a sound knowledge of the style of the work under evaluation and by the general opinion on the work, which ‘supported’ the evaluator’s judgement in a certain way. The ordered arrangement and course of the structure of ‘frictionless’ works (as Łobaczewska put it several times360), on which the output of the classical period is based, produces the feeling of listening pleasure in audiences, even those less educated ones. When it comes to contemporary music, habits stemming from listening to compositions based on the minor and major structures make it impossible to evaluate it positively. What could be helpful here are such means of expression as ‘intensified dynamics, the lack of sentimentalism …, radical harmonic sounds …, violent instrumentation effects, their lively rhythmical realisation, which strengthens the feeling of vitality.’361 Finally, the value of a musical work is based on the adequacy of stylistic criteria different for the realisation of a particular musical genre, which results in works that ‘for various external purposes, are, even if just on account of size, incomparable to each other.’362

In the future, Łobaczewska did not continue her reflections on the problem of value in music. Even though the aesthetics of music must have always been present among her main research interests, the papers she wrote on this topic were significantly less numerous than in the pre-war period. The only text within this scope – although a significant one – in which she made settlements with the past epoch was ‘Próba zbadania realizmu socjalistycznego w muzyce na podstawie polskiej twórczości 10-lecia’ [An attempt to explore socialist realism in music on the basis of the Polish output of 10 years].363

The last text created before the war that fit into the ‘new opening’ of Kwartalnik was Józef Chomiński’s study on Karol Szymanowski’s output.364 Chomiński started working on Szymanowski’s piano music in the first half of the 1930s, preparing, among others, an article on that subject for the Muzyka Polska monthly, and studies for PRM (the essay ‘Problem tonalny w Słopiewniach’ [The problem of tonality in Słopiewnie], see more about this in chapter II-5). It was also at that time, in the summer of 1937, that he delivered another part of his reflections ←458 | 459→on the works of the author of Hagith for publication in the third volume of the periodical that was never printed before the outbreak of the war – I have already referred to the history of publication of this volume a few times.365

The studies on Szymanowski, which were printed in Kwartalnik, in particular, their second part related to structural issues in piano sonatas, was the foundation for Chomiński’s habilitation. At the same time, he was working on a monograph about Chopin’s preludes and wrote about it to Chybiński multiple times. However, as he wanted to bring the habilitation procedure to an end as soon as possible, he focused on his studies devoted to Szymanowski and gave himself one more year to finish the monograph about the preludes. Thanks to his correspondence with the professor, we know quite a lot about the creative process and methodological dilemmas which accompanied Chomiński when he was writing his dissertation. In his letters from 1946 and 1947, we can read, among other issues, about the beginnings of the analyses.366 A detailed analysis of the subject area described there would take too much space here – disproportionately much in relation to presentations of other publications in Kwartalnik. I will only quote a fragment that is an explicit declaration of the starting point determined by the author of article ‘Problem formy w Preludiach Chopina’ [Problems of form in Chopin’s preludes] for his works:

I treat form as the resultant of interaction between all elements, thanks to which no detail can be omitted. One other thing is that depending on a given case, I take into account the elements which shape the form – [illegible] tectonic and the auxiliary ones. In this way, it is possible to graphically present the richness of various formal approaches in Chopin’s Preludes. The analysis aims to show the uniformity of Op. 28. Even preliminary studies on this topic yielded surprising results. The problem of the analytical method will be the analysis of value. Even though we all know what the value of Chopin’s works is, science demands objective evidence, which can be checked not only psychologically, but also in other ways. In this case, the technical side of the work will be an auxiliary measure in the analytical method. The technical discipline will be studied once again, this time with a view to the conscious and subconscious (innate creative predispositions) creative processes. The relation between the technique and emotional factors will be presented in the right perspective by demonstrating the significance of Chopin in his epoch and for the future. All that will, of course, be based on the same resources that Chopin used in his Preludes, yet in many cases, it will also be necessary to take into account other works of Chopin and other composers.367

←459 | 460→

Apart from the basic chapters (in agreement with the methodology assumed at the beginning of the work) into which the author divided the monograph (form-creating actions 1) melody, 2) harmony, 3) agogics and dynamics, 4) piano texture, 5) integration of formal development 6) its cyclical nature), in the summary he referred to the genesis of the Chopin preludes, starting from indicating sources in the tablatures of Adam Ileborgh, through Corelli, Bach, Beethoven, Hummel and others.368 Both due to the size (260 pages of both parts combined) and the entire spectrum of issues covered by Chomiński’s considerations, this study was an unprecedented example in the pages of Kwartalnik Muzyczny.

It seems that the only problem which the author had to face (and I do not have in mind any creative issues, because science was his passion and the only trouble here could be the multitude of new concepts and how to handle them) was how to reconcile the chosen topic (which had been taken up back in the days of academic freedom) with the interpretation imposed on academia by the new regime. At the time when state authorities imposed the ideological fight against formalism in art, Chomiński was dealing with the problem of form in a musical composition and had to look for arguments which would defend his research. This is what he wrote in the ‘Introduction’: ‘It could seem that a work devoted to the issue of form has become outdated these days …. Fortunately, this outdated understanding of form is a thing of the past. Today, form is not only the resultant of interaction between all the elements of a musical work but at the same time becomes the evidence of its expression, its emotional content. … a modern analysis of a musical work cannot do without considering its technique and form simply because both technique and form are the carriers of the emotional content of a given work.’369

Chomiński, who focused primarily on his own projects, also prepared a number of reviews for the editors, including the one closing the last issue of Kwartalnik, no. 29/30, in which the author returned to his earliest research passions – medieval music; incidentally, he became one of the participants in the long-year dispute that was pursued by Adolf Chybiński and Maria Szczepańska on one side and by Zdzisław Jachimecki on the other side370 about Mikołaj of Radom and his compositions.

←460 | 461→

Returning to the contents of the first post-war issue of Kwartalnik, we must recall Adolf Chybiński’s friend, Bronisław Romaniszyn. Romaniszyn published many articles, including (alongside those referring to his beloved mountains) texts about vocal training and music pedagogy; before the war, he wrote for such periodicals as Śląskie Wiadomości Muzyczne,371 Muzyka Polska372 or the Śpiew w szkole373 monthly. Already at that time (see Chapter II-4) he accepted (twice) invitations to co-operate from his Lviv friend; the same happened after the war. This time, in response to an urgent request for ‘some work’ received from Poznań at the end of 1947, he prepared ‘Technika wokalna wobec środków muzyki mechanicznej’ [Vocal technique in relation to mechanical musical means] in only one month. He presented his arguments in favour of using any inventions in vocal pedagogy which could help teach vocalists, both in recording and reproduction. At the same time, he was aware of the fact that ‘not every voice which sounds good in a concert or opera hall will retain its beautiful sound when it is converted by a microphone or recorded on tape,’374 but it is the ability to adjust the vocal technique to a different space than the one the vocalist is used to that forces him or her to master new skills related to voice emission, breathing, diction, etc.

At the beginning of his second co-operation with Kwartalnik, another pre-war author, Janusz Miketta, presented a report on the condition of music education in Poland in the first three years of existence of the new state. Thus, he referred to his publication from the 1930s. It was attached to the ‘pedagogical’ issue (1931/10–11) and informed readers about statistic results concerning the educational section of that time. This time, he moved away from dry facts presented in numbers and tables and focused on a descriptive analysis of the phenomena he observed in the school system and on presenting the current state, as well as legislation which was in force at that time.

Soon, the author became known not only as an experienced departmental bureaucrat but also as a researcher of the works of Frederic Chopin, a matter which ←461 | 462→had its roots in his works for years. Chybiński had known Miketta for a long time. As early as in 1920, he got a letter in which Miketta introduced himself as the president of the Music Society in Lublin (he had already held this position for a year) and a teacher in the music school in this city. It turns out that at that time, he had already been interested in the works of Chopin and was also trying to instil this interest in his students. He wrote: ‘at the beginning of the school year, I would like to start a historical and aesthetic seminar in the school. First and foremost, I would like to write an aesthetic and historical paper on Chopin.’375 In the 1920s, when he participated, for example, in works of the committee for the reform of the education system on behalf of the MWRiOP, he adhered to the SMDM, but had a critical attitude to the contemporary plans of establishing an institution promoting the cult of Chopin. Already in the spring of 1928, he hoped that ‘something will finally happen which is neither a Music Society nor “in the name of Fr. Chopin.”’376

In the 1930s Miketta had already developed material on mazurkas. Unfortunately, the prepared monograph was destroyed,377 but the author’s many years of experience in studying Chopin’s work proved fruitful after the war. Firstly, he was one of only two musicologists whose volume in the series Analizy ←462 | 463→i objaśnienia dzieł wszystkich Fryderyka Chopina [Analysis and explanation of Frederic Chopin’s complete works] was published.378 Secondly, he was amongst the authors invited by the editors of Kwartalnik for the jubilee booklets in 1949. On this occasion, he prepared a two-part monographic dissertation entitled ‘Ze studiów nad melodyką Fryderyka Chopina (szkice chopinologiczne)’ [From studies on Frederic Chopin’s melodics (Chopinological sketches)],379 which he dedicated to Chybiński ‘with expressions of the highest respect.’ The starting point for the author’s arguments were two basic Chopinological positions by Polish authors, which appeared in the interwar period – Harmonika Chopina [Chopin’s harmony] by Ludwik Bronarski and Melodyka Chopina [Chopin’s melodics] by Bronisława Wójcik-Keuprulian (supplemented with her article ‘O typowych postaciach melodii Chopina’ [About typical melodic forms in Chopin] printed in the pages of LWMiL in 1926). As compared with standards applied to papers published in the periodical, the article written by Miketta is quite extensive and contains numerous sheet music examples. Still, the author concludes that ‘the length and nature of this study do not allow me to exhaust the material nor to form definitive conclusions about its role,’380 and earlier, in reference to the ‘Chopin motif,’ which he undertook to abstract from all the master’s works, he stipulated that the theses he proposed were purely hypothetical and not ‘generalising.’ Miketta’s second Chopin material – ‘O nieautentyczności Mazurka Fis-dur uchodzącego za utwór Fryderyka Chopina’ [About the inauthenticity of the Mazurka in F sharp Major assumed to be a work of Frederic Chopin]381 – fit in the type of publications which made it possible to correct knowledge about the composer’s resource heritage, sometimes increasing it, and sometimes (as in this case) decreasing it.

These were not all the texts that Miketta prepared for Kwartalnik. He also announced further developments in the form of sketches on ‘inversion embellishments’ and ‘Chopin accompaniment,’382 yet he did not have time to ←463 | 464→prepare them before the closure of the editorial’s activity. However, for the second ‘Chopin’ volume, he submitted a comprehensive analytical review from the third and fourth volumes of the edition Chopin’s Dzieła Wszystkie [Chopin’s complete works] (Ballady and Impromptus).383 When it comes to the value of Miketta’s writing, Zofia Chechlińska, who shortly reviewed the methodology adopted by the researcher, described it as characteristic of the studies on Chopin conducted in the inter-war period: the author only described ‘numerous details concerning harmonics, melodics, and the formal pattern of individual compositions, but did not form general conclusions.’384 It seems that Miketta, who completed music studies, simply did not have sufficient musicological preparation to formulate binding scholarly opinions, although he tried to ensure that his searches for the ‘Chopin motif’ would be as important as the emergence of the ‘Chopin chord’ by Ludwik Bronarski.

The last two authors who appeared in the table of contents of the first post-war issue of Kwartalnik came from Cracow and belonged to the second generation of Polish musicologists. For the musicological community, it could serve as a clear sign of the fact that the editorial team was going to move beyond its pre-war group of authors from Lviv.

Zygmunt Estreicher, who was Jachimecki’s student in the years 1937–39, may have received a recommendation from Ludwik Bronarski, whom he had met and even consulted about his works during his permanent stay in Switzerland, at the time of getting in touch with the editors of Kwartalnik. He also kept in touch with Józef Chomiński during his stay in the sanatorium in Leysin.385 He could have been close to Chybiński’s heart also due to the fact that he specialised in ethnomusicology, even though the main subject of his research (the music of Inuits) could make the honourable senior of Polish musicology a little uncomfortable since he had traditionally focused on Polish musical folklore.386 However, because Estreicher was also very willing to co-operate in providing a bibliography of foreign musicological literature starting in 1939, the editors decided to ←464 | 465→add the article ‘Teoria dwutonowych melodii’ [Theory of two-tone melodies]387 to the issue no. 21/22. The article written by Estreicher, even though it was devoted to a theme that was distant for Polish (ethno)musicologists (mainly in geographical terms), deserves attention for two reasons. First of all, it seems to be exemplary when it comes to the construction of the study. The researcher started with describing the Inuit music style and then presented the theory of two-tone melodies, which in his view were not as primitive as it might seem, especially when we take into account the uncomplicated structure of the scale used to compose them. His erudite reasoning was backed by extensive European literature. Secondly, ‘Teoria dwutonowych melodii’ was the only paper on ethnomusicology which came out in the post-war edition of Kwartalnik. Other attempts to make authors who studied music folklore (especially Sobieski and his wife, as well as the youth from their circle) interested in publishing in the journal came to nought, even though the editorial office worked on it for three years.

The second representative of the Cracow school was Włodzimierz Późniak. The musicologist was one of Zdzisław Jachimecki’s first students – he studied at the Seminar of History and Theory of Music at the Jagiellonian University in the years 1927–30, after which he went to Wroclaw and Berlin to supplement his musicological knowledge (e.g., in classes ran by Franz Arnold Schmitz, Arnold Schering and Ernst Pepping). He became an assistant lecturer at the Cracow Seminar of Musicology as early as 1930; he took this position again after the war, in 1946, and a year later he earned a habilitation degree in Cracow on the basis of his monograph on the choral Passion.388 At the same time, he also got in touch with Adolf Chybiński, to whom he sent a copy of his dissertation on the Passion ‘with a polite request to graciously accept it.’389 In addition, he attached an off-print of his work ‘about our national anthem,’ which, as he wrote, he had received shortly before the war and, therefore, could not send earlier.390 Respectful contacts, the fact that Poźniak was interested in Early Polish music (which was close to Chybiński’s heart) and the professionalism of materials which ←465 | 466→he sent to the professor must have endeared him to Chybiński, who decided that he would print the article on Stanisław Moniuszko’s unrealised opera projects, which Poźniak had sent him, in the very first issue of Kwartalnik.

Completed at the end of 1947, the text was a result of research conducted by Późniak after the war and referred to this part of the collections of the WTM that luckily survived the conflagration of war. The author presented the information about Moniuszko’s planned operas (Budnik, Wanda, Aleksota) that he had found by himself – and the previously unknown sources, as he rightly noticed ‘were used to reach some interesting conclusions, shedding light on the composer’s social and literary views as well as the technique of his work in the area of creating dramatic pieces.’391

In 1947, Poźniak said that he was ready to send another text, this time devoted to Polish oratorios, cantatas and ballads from the nineteenth-century, but for unknown reasons, this paper was never published in Kwartalnik.

Apart from that, a few more previously absent authors co-operated with the editors of the post-war Kwartalnik (mainly in connection with Chopin-related projects). Such was, for example, the case of another Cracow author, Władysław Hordyński – a musicologist who graduated from studies under Jachimecki’s guidance shortly before the war, but also an experienced employee (or as Chybiński put it, ‘a bureaucrat’)392 of BJ. Already before the war, thanks to a query performed in his home library, he had an occasion to announce information about Chopin souvenirs kept by it that had never been included anywhere else: he presented Chopin’s four letters and two tickets to Zofia Rosengardt.393 After the war, he returned to further queries, which resulted in finding further letters – this time they survived among souvenirs of Adolf Cichowski kept in the collection of the National Museum.394 This publication put the author among explorers–discoverers of Chopin’s new memorabilia who announced their findings via Kwartalnik Muzyczny, which incidentally improved the position of the magazine: Ludwik Bronarski (the aforementioned information about two unknown works – Largo in E flat-major and Nocturne c-minor), Bronisław Sydow (the history of the portrait of Chopin and Sand) and the presentation of a juvenile letter of ←466 | 467→the composer’s father Mikołaj which had not been known before and was shown at the Chopin exhibition in Paris),395 Ignace Blochman (a contributory text on souvenirs of Chopin in the Mariemont Royal Museum – see also below)396 and František Zagiba (a message – along with photocopies – about the autograph of Variation op. 2 from the collection of the Vienna Staatsbibliothek, see below).397

A catalogue of Chopin souvenirs kept in Cracow libraries, museums and archives that was prepared by Hordyński served as a sort of pendant to information about Chopin’s previously unknown memorabilia in the National Museum in Warsaw (manuscripts, prints, iconographic souvenirs of various kinds).398 At the time when the very first plans were made to study the material legacy left by Chopin, it was still important to sort out the assets of institutions from Cracow and to draft not a catalogue, but rather a list of their belongings. It would create the foundation for undertaking further work in all similar institutions in the country (which was of particular importance on account of wartime losses which had been hard to assess at that time).

At the turn of 1947 and 1948, the editorial office remained in contact with Jan Prosnak, who before the war took courses with Julian Pulikowski at the University of Warsaw. After the war, Prosnak continued his studies in Wroclaw under Fr. Feicht, and also studied composition under Kazimierz Sikorski. All these connections undoubtedly helped the young musicologist find himself amongst the trusted authors of Kwartalnik, while his close contacts with Lviv musicologists are confirmed by the numerous letters found in Chybiński’s archive in Poznań and the correspondence with the periodical’s secretary’s office kept in Chomiński’s private archive. Prosnak’s research interests focused mainly on the history of music culture of the eighteenth and nineteenth century, whereas ‘the foundation of [his] research work … were source queries in libraries in Poland and abroad,’399 which must have been appreciated by the Professor, who loved archive queries.

←467 | 468→

At the end of 1947, Prosnak closed his work on material about the history of music education.400 The article ‘Z dziejów szkolnictwa muzycznego w Polsce’ [From the history of musical education in Poland] appeared in two parts: 1. ‘Nauczanie muzyki w okresie Komisji i Izby Edukacyjnej’ [The teaching of music during the period of the commission and chamber of education’ and 2. ‘Prywatne nauczanie muzyki oraz prywatne szkolnictwo muzyczne w latach 1773–1830’[The private teaching of music and private music education in the years 1773–1830]401 and was a precursor to the book Dzieje szkolnictwa muzycznego w Polsce [History of musical education in Poland].402

At the beginning of 1948, Prosnak offered the editors a ‘short thing about a few carol melodies from the XVII century’;403 a few months later, he repeated his proposal, which apparently did not meet with interest and remained unanswered.404 The editorial office accepted for publication a contribution on Karol Kurpiński’s405 activities as a theorist, in which the author presented the creator’s three handbooks by the writer of Zamek na Czorsztynie [Czorsztyn Castle] (Wykład systematyczny zasad muzyki na klawikord [Systematic learning of the principles of music on the clavichord], Zasady harmonii tonów z dołączeniem jenerałbasu praktycznego [Principles of harmony of pitches with a practical guide to general bass] and Zasady harmonii wykładane w sposobie lekcji dla lubowników muzyki [Principles of harmony explained in the form of a lesson for music enthusiasts]), giving more attention to the third. What is important from a cognitive point of view is not so much the presentation of the ‘treaties,’ but rather Prosnak’s evaluation of them (including references to the corresponding items available in Kurpiński’s times) and appreciation of the importance of his attempts in the field of music theory, even if they only had local coverage.

He learned about the organisation of the Chopin edition directly from the editors of Kwartalnik, with whom (both Chybiński and Chomiński) he remained in frequent contact by mail. His comprehensive treatise on the musical culture of ←468 | 469→Warsaw from 1810 to 1830 was directed to the second ‘Chopin’ booklet.406 This article, which talked about the music community in Warsaw in Chopin’s lifetime, similarly to the other two articles published in Kwartalnik (about education and Kurpiński as a theoretician), belonged to Jan Prosnak’s main line of interest. He focused on the history of Polish music culture from the 1770s. He paid particular attention to the area of Warsaw, focusing mainly on source queries supported by an in-depth study of nineteenth-century literature devoted to these issues.407

Prosnak himself was an editor of Radio i Świat – a weekly issued by the Polish Radio. Thanks to his efforts, the magazine published articles by experienced publicists and musicians, such as Piotr Rytel, Karol Stromenger or Stefan Jarociński, and the editors tried to establish co-operation with Adolf Chybiński408 or Józef Chomiński.409

Another author with whom talks were undertaken during the initial period of editorial works was Alicja Simon – a Kwartalnik veteran. She had debuted already in the first issue of the periodical: she published an article ‘Stosunek Sperontesa Singende Muse an der Pleisse… do muzyki ludowej polskiej’ [The relationship of Sperontes’ Singende Muse an der Pleisse… to Polish folk music] edited by Henryk Opieński.410 She belonged to the same generation as the founding fathers of the musicological departments. She was widely educated, both when it came to music (she studied piano, violin and the theory of music at the conservatoire in Warsaw) and humanities (she had musicology classes with Hermann Kretzschmar and Johannes Wolf; in Berlin, she also attended lectures on philosophy, psychology and the history of art). Reading her biogram in basic lexicons,411 we can consider her to have lived a globetrotter’s life. She was professionally ←469 | 470→connected with Zurich, Berlin, Geneva and Washington, where she worked as Head of the Music Department of the Library of Congress; having returned to Warsaw, she was Head of the Music Department of the State Collection of Art. She was one of the initiators of establishing an association bearing Karol Szymanowski’s name, which was set up during the composer’s lifetime.

Upon settling in Łódź after the war, it seemed that Alicja Simon had a good chance to develop one of the musicological centres at the local university: for a few years she was the head of the Musicological Department run at the Faculty of Humanities; after its liquidation, up to 1957, the researcher gave classes on the history and theory of music amongst the changing structures of Łódź University.

Already in the first decade of the twentieth century, Alicja Simon co-operated with Roman Chojnacki (Młoda Muzyka and Przegląd Muzyczny) and Kwartalnik Muzyczny by Henryk Opieński, and in the 1920s she co-operated with Mateusz Gliński (Muzyka). As we remember, she prepared a contributory text ‘Życie muzyczne w świetle Pamiętnika Józefa hr. Krasińskiego’ [Musical life in the light of A Memoir by Józef Count Krasiński] for Chybiński at that time.412 Primarily, however, she had a rich output413 abroad. After the war, Chybiński felt obliged to invite the Nestor of Polish musicology to co-operate with the new version of Kwartalnik.414 As a consequence of this invitation to the ‘Chopin’ issue, the author prepared ‘Przyczynek genetyczny do Grande Valse Brillante op. 34 nr 1 Fryderyka Chopina’ [A genetic contribution to Grande Valse Brillante Op. 34 no. 1 by Frederic Chopin]415 (earlier, from her texts from the Convention of Polish Musicologists, a reprint her co-paper on ‘Rejestracja i zabezpieczenie zabytków muzyki polskiej’ [The registration and protection of monuments of Polish music416). With this article, she returned to pre-war research on Chopin’s Tempo di Valse As-dur, a facsimile of which she received from the Thun family from Jílové in Czechoslovakia (in Chopin’s times, they ruled the castle in Děčín). The author lost both her work and copies during the Warsaw Uprising – fortunately, not irretrievably.417 The materials discovered after the war served Simon both to prepare the manuscript anew from the Thun family archive and compare it with the Paris edition of Chopin’s Grande Valse Brillante op. 34 no. 1. The ←470 | 471→author completed her material with a transcription of the Děčín version and the copy of the Paris version printed in extenso, and she also added images of places and figures associated with the birth of the ‘first inspiration’ for later compositions – the Děčín castle and two portraits of Thun-Hohenstein sisters. Compilation of a detailed list of differences found between the Děčín version and the release from 1838 took Simon more than twenty pages which testifies to the researcher’s extraordinary meticulousness and, at the same time, constitutes the only example of a source and critical edition found on the pages of Kwartalnik Muzyczny.

Bronisław Edward Sydow’s activity in musicological circles, particularly the Chopinological one, began around 1945, when he became a member of the Management Board of the restored IFCh. He was an economist by education, but his fascination with Chopin’s work and life allowed him to publish his first texts on that subject already in the second decade of the twentieth century, when he stayed in Chile.418 He won recognition thanks to the efforts that he made during the war in order to obtain and secure Chopin’s letters and other historical materials that eventually helped him prepare, among others, Bibliografia F.F. Chopina [F.F. Chopin’s bibliography] (Warsaw 1949), Almanach Chopinowski [Chopin almanac] (along with Karol Stromenger. Warsaw 1949), and two volumes of Korespondencja F. Chopina [F. Chopin’s correspondence] (Warsaw 1955).

Sydow, who would be connected with Chybiński not only due to co-operation with Kwartalnik,419 willingly took part in the editors’ Chopin-related projects. He intended to write ‘about Delacroix as Chopin’s painter. … a bibliographic contribution concerning Chopin’s portrait that … was cut apart and experienced different fates.’420 He was also the author of the unsigned bibliography of Chopinological and Chopinographic literature for the period 1939–49, which was attached to the first ‘Chopin’ issue.421

←471 | 472→

There was also another author hailing from outside the musicologist community. Doctor-psychologist Stefan Szuman was an already known authority. He had been associated with the Jagiellonian University since the 1920s, and in 1946–48 he served as the first rector of the Higher School of Pedagogy in Cracow. From the beginning of his scientific career, he was particularly involved in child psychology, developmental psychology and research on developing artistic talents and education through art. Chybiński considered it an honour to work with Szuman, thus probably the idea to invite him in connection with the subject of Chopin. Although the author did not prepare the text in time, the article ‘Wyobrażenia taneczne sugerowane przez Walce Chopina’ [Dance ideas suggested by Chopin’s waltzes] was interesting because of the different view of a work that is a dance that – when played – should not only be listened to but it also, as the author puts it: ‘actuates the listener in a kinetic manner.’ It was included afterwards in the second ‘Chopin’ volume.422 Szuman, who was not a musicologist, discussed his conclusions both with already classic European literature (Leichtentritt, Bourguès, Denéréaz, Niecks et al.) and the latest Polish publications (Lissa, Łobaczewska, Ingarden). Besides, as he mentioned, he had consulted Łobaczewska about his article to the musicological extent and was preparing a book Jak słuchać muzyki [How to listen to music] together with Lissa at that time, so the circle of musicologists was not unfamiliar to him. As a practising doctor and psychologist, he provided the only example of a publication on the borderland of music and psychology in the post-war edition of the magazine423 that brought a completely different perspective on the issue of the composer’s heritage.

Another author who joined the pages of Kwartalnik in its third edition was Krystyna Wilkowska (after marriage Wilkowska-Chomińska). She published two monographic articles on Chopin: ‘Impromptus Chopina’ [Chopin’s Impromptus] and ‘Środki wyrazu emocjonalnego w Balladach Chopina’ [Means of emotional expression in Chopin’s Ballads].424 They both represent a methodology and narrative very similar to those that characterise Chomiński’s academic papers. Wilkowska, who received musical education (piano at the conservatoire in Bydgoszcz and Poznań) and also studied (although interrupted by war) humanities at the University of Poznań (Polish philology and musicology), ←472 | 473→had the foundation to prepare such insightful analyses of Chopin’s Ballad and Impromptus. She was aided in her works with consultations and cooperation with Józef Chomiński, which she had not forgotten and placed her thanks in the introduction to the first of her articles.

Among the authors, there was also a small group of foreign musicologists, whom Chybiński did not approach with enthusiasm whatsoever. Perhaps this is why foreign texts were published only in connection with the publications of the jubilee Chopin year. Never-the-less, Franz (František) Zagiba, a Slovak musicologist educated and connected with Vienna, soon the initiator of the founding of the Austrian Chopin-Gesellschaft and the author of a monograph Chopin und Wien (Vienna 1951), followed the advice of Zdzisław Jachimecki and approached Józef Chomiński with a proposal to develop an article on the rediscovered by himself, previously unknown, variation on the theme Là ci darem la mano.425 The editors also commissioned the French version of the text from the author, proposing its publication in two versions, but this never materialised.426 Lajos Hernádi was a renowned Hungarian pianist; unfortunately, I did not manage to find out how he got in touch with the editors of Kwartalnik. His article on Chopin’s piano style ‘in a historical light’427 brings interesting arguments that confirm the uniqueness and individualism of the composer’s piano style and its impact on similar compositions by other nineteenth-century and twentieth-century artists. Finally, the pianist Ignace Blochman, though with Polish roots, bound his professional artistic life with foreign countries from his youth. He arrived from Warsaw to Brussels to study piano playing in the 1920s and already became highly popular there before the war. As has been mentioned, he sent information to Kwartalnik428 about Chopin’s previously unknown autographs from Belgian collections; in the course of time, he received a proposal to write an article about Chopin’s piano playing technique.429

←473 | 474→

Among those less desired, there were names associated with the overwhelming trend in art scholarship – socialist realism – which was imposed or enforced by factors from above.

In the last months of their work, the editors received, through Zofia Lissa, an opinion article on the aesthetics of music, which presents the tasks that Soviet music aesthetics undertakes in order to determine ‘dialectic-materialistic’ fundamentals of the essence of music. Julij Kremlew’s text ‘Zagadnienia radzieckiej estetyki muzycznej’ [The issues of Soviet music aesthetics]430 was intended to express opposition to the ‘persistent orientation of the formalistic trend’ of Soviet music, which ‘put idealism in place of materialism and metaphysics in place of dialectics,’ which pushed aesthetic reflections towards decadence. Because of new aesthetics based on the theory of reflection, music would no longer be perceived as an isolated and incomprehensible field, but it would be ‘one of the fields of human artistic activity.’431 Kremlew stresses that the theory of reflection is different from the ‘naive materialistic’ theories of imitation that have already emerged in aesthetics and lose ‘the subject in the object.’ A work of art cannot be reduced to a simple imitation of reality, whereas a work of art derives its whole content from the real world. All elements making up a work of art draw upon reality, but the work itself ‘is a product of human consciousness, instead of a passive, mirror copy of the external world.’432

Kremlew’s article belonged to a group of texts from the content bibliography of Kwartalnik which formed part of a trend of socialist realism literature. We cannot forget that in the ‘Reports’ column appearing from the very first issue of the magazine, the editors found a separate section outlining the current ‘significant’ events from musicological and musical life of both the Polish and international communities. Edition number 3 from 1948 refers to the All-Union Congress of Soviet Composers in Moscow (April 1948) and the Second International Congress of Composers and Music Critics in Prague (May 1948)433 as well as the most important theses spoken by Boris Asafyev (in Moscow) and Antonín Sychra, and Zofia Lissa (in Prague).

←474 | 475→

Lissa, well educated in music theory and musicology, made efforts to explain why it is not always worth excluding other representatives of the musical tradition, not so fitting to the rhetoric of socialist realism. Her Prague speech was intended, among others, to assume that the ‘selection [of music productions] carried out using the non-homogeneous criteria, as it takes place in environments with an elitist attitude’ may be imperfect, and ‘may lead … to exclusion of not only creations of a significantly decayed character but also those that are just difficult to apprehend,’ therefore ‘the burning issue becomes … this specific kind of music that can meet the educational functions for the new music consumer without lowering its flight.’434

The analysis of these two texts, and even a third one, published in the Kuźnica weekly (which, moreover, was a reprint from Kwartalnik), as well as the context in which they were located in the framework of the socialist realist discourse was provided by Sławomir Wieczorek in one of the subsections of his dissertation entitled ‘można dziś wymagać od naszych kompozytorów’ [today one can demand from our composers],435 in which he noted that they differed only slightly, mainly in terms of differently distributed accents.436 ‘Lissa’s texts established a new situation of communication, building a specific hierarchy of expressions. It was the first time when a leader’s statement was heard, who, when putting forth the guidelines formulated by the mentor, submitted a request put forward in relation to the creators of music. … Lissa expanded the whole argumentation with a historiosophical aspect, noting the historical correctness, to which creators are subject.’437 This historiosophical aspect could not, however, suffice to give Lissa’s highly-involved arguments the academic nature which should characterise publications found on the pages of a scientific periodical. The researcher directed her appeals to the composers, and to theorists and critics, she assigned as little (or perhaps so much) as the obligation to ensure that creators do not deviate from the correct creative path. The place of musicology was verbally indicated in the summary of the three mentioned speeches printed from the ‘Appeal’ adopted at the end of the meeting of the convention in Prague, which referred to the need to ‘exchange experiences and thoughts between progressive composers and musicologists from all over the world [so that their] selfless and ←475 | 476→one-purpose work defeats the lingering contemporary crisis and provides music with its important and noble role within society.’438

Excerpts from Prague speeches were continued in the subsequent issue of Kwartalnik Muzyczny (no. 24), which contained Alan Bush’s text ‘Struktura i wyraz muzyki współczesnej’ [Structure and expression of contemporary music], and Hans Eisler’s ‘Podłoże społeczne muzyki współczesnej’ [Social foundations of contemporary music].439 Just like the previous texts, both discussed the social context of the existence of music, from which – as might be presumed – directives can be derived for contemporary artists.

In the course of completion of materials for Kwartalnik, the editors held talks with some other authors – among others, with Mieczysław Drobner (about the publication of fragments of his master’s thesis written before the war under Jachimecki’s direction in Cracow, and some other topic was being considered for the Chopin issue440), with Zbigniew Drzewiecki about a work ‘in the field of pianism, e.g., the problems of pianism in Chopin’s music,’441 with Marian Sobieski,442 with Roman Palester ‘about folk themes in music,’443 with Józef Swatoń about the article ‘New forms of organisation of music education in Poland – plans and programmes,’444 with Jerzy Pogonowski about a work ‘from the borderland of music and literature,’445 with Andrzej Ryszkiewicz about the organisation of music libraries and the most recent methods of cataloguing music and musicological works,446 or with Helena Windakiewicz about her work ‘Stosunek ←476 | 477→systemów tonalnych greckich do polskiej muzyki ludowej i artystycznej’ [The relationship of Greek tonal systems to Polish folk and artistic music],447 with Feliks Wrobel an article on the subject of ‘Barwa i dźwięk’ [Sound and colour]448 and nearly unspecified representatives of the Musicological Section of the Soviet Composers’ Union.449 The short life of post-war Kwartalnik made it impossible to realise these plans.

In addition to substantive and ideological publications, the pages of Kwartalnik contained various kinds of materials filling news sections, such as questionnaires, reports or bibliographies; the latter were particularly important after years of being cut off from international information on the market of musical and musicological publications. In one case, it was ‘Bibliografia radzieckiej literatury teoretyczno-muzycznej za okres 1935–1948’ [Bibliography of Soviet Tteoretical-music literature for the period 1935–1948]450 completed by Zofia Lissa (who had made use of her ‘Eastern’ contacts), Zygmunt Estreicher from Switzerland delivered three times: ‘Bibliografia za rok 1939–1941’ [Bibliography for the year 1939–1940], ‘Bibliografia za rok 1942–1943’ [Bibliography for the year 1942–1943] and ‘Bibliografia za rok 1944–1945’ [Bibliography for the year 1944–1945] (all three covering world literature)451, and by Bronisław Edward Sydow, ‘Bibliografia literatury chopinologicznej i chopinograficznej za okres 1939–1949’ [Bibliography of Chopinological and Chopinographic literature for the period 1939–1949],452 and also in the last edition, Krystyna Wilkowska and Andrzej Ryszkiewicz’s ‘Bibliografia polskiego piśmiennictwa muzycznego za okres 1945–1949’ [Bibliography of Polish music literature for the period 1945–1949].453 Reviews and reports from the latest publications played an even more important role. Usually, following the practice that had proved effective for years, the editors acquired charge-free copies from the publishing houses that they co-operated with or via their private contacts; however, in view of the uncertain future of the magazine, even the home publisher – PWM – was willing to454 only ←477 | 478→submit those items that had a real chance of being reviewed. In addition, Director Ochlewski made attempts to submit works of Polish composers being currently published for review (starting from Moniuszko and finishing with Maklakiewicz or Sikorski), but Kwartalnik, being a strictly scientific and musicological rather than critical and journalistic magazine, never reviewed publications of this kind.

The second volume (no. 23) of Kwartalnik contained a questionnaire for composers prepared by the editors; many active artists received personal invitations to join this survey (amongst others to Kazimierz Sikorski, Tadeusz Szeligowski, Witold Lutosławski, Stefan Kisielewski, Zygmunt Mycielski, Roman Palester, Piotr Rytel, Tadeusz Szeligowski, Bolesław Woytowicz, Antoni Szałowski, Michał Spisak, Andrzej Panufnik…). However, the survey met with limited response, mainly from the artists who co-operated with Kwartalnik and the narrow editorial circle also in other fields: Bolesław Woytowicz, Konstanty Régamey455 and Zygmunt Mycielski.456

Normal operation of the editorial and ad hoc ideas, such as the survey as mentioned above, from which it was (wrongly) expected to witness wide participation from composers and, therefore, a steady inflow of texts, were not able to guarantee the full scope of materials for publication. Themed booklets are a natural solution in such a situation, but success is guaranteed only if the project draws in a sufficiently large group of interested authors. The authorities’ use of the figure and works of Chopin for propagandist academic projects resulted in the creation of something of the character of a patriotic mission and expectations of the results seemed to be challenging to meet. The Chopin booklet, planned not only by the editorial staff but also at the level of ministries, ‘should, according to “higher directives,” consist of 500 pages. I have a feeling that this is too much’ – Chybiński wrote.457 The act of collecting materials with such a narrow circle of musicologists and experts in Chopin’s works seemed to be a difficult challenge. Already in the summer of 1948, the professor had considered obtaining materials, although with some reservations.458 An official invitation ←478 | 479→letter addressed to people dealing with Chopin issues on a regular basis or at least in the past – Bronarski, Feicht, Łobaczewska, Miketta, Jachimecki, Liebhart, Simon, Reiss, Szczepańska, Frączkiewicz and Poźniak – was sent from the editors in the first days of January 1949. When an issue with an enlarged volume was announced, authors were asked to submit works not longer than 40 typed pages and reports on most recent Chopinological literature by 30 April.

The first project of the issue was not fulfilled. The editorial file contained forthcoming dissertations: by Chomiński (‘about preludes’), by Krystyna Wilkowska (‘about impromptus by Schubert vs. Chopin’), by Janusz Miketta (‘about Chopin’s motif’), by Alicja Simon (‘about 2 versions of some work by Chopin, maybe a waltz – for the time being, the matter is being kept secret’) and two articles by Bronarski. However, the following planned texts were not submitted: by Lissa (‘about development in Chopin’s sonatas’),459 by Prosnak (‘about musical relations in the Warsaw Conservatoire in Chopin’s times along with excursions towards Hummel and Kalkbrenner’),460 ‘something by Łobaczewska.’461 The ‘essay about Chopin’s “motif”‘ by Chybiński (the professor prepared a short sketch on reminiscences in Chopin’s works for the second Chopin volume of Kwartalnik)462 and other texts in the possession of the editors, such as a pre-war work by Zofia Lissa ‘Chopin w świetle badań antropologicznych’ [Chopin in the light of anthropological research]463 or ‘a short article by prof. Jan Bartók about publication of ←479 | 480→Chopin’s Waltzes by Bela Bartók,’464 and unspecified material from Aleksander Frączkiewicz were not published, either.

Alas, it was impossible to print the monograph volume by the end of the Chopin Competition, held from 15 September to 15 October in Warsaw. Contrary to the fear that had been expressed on numerous occasions during the editorial work, the content of edition number 26–27 was, however – in scientific terms – extremely satisfactory and the materials on Chopin still flowed in quantities that allowed the editors to prepare the second part of the special issue Z życia i twórczości Fryderyka Chopina [From the life and creative work of Frederic Chopin]. The editor-in-chief also planned to release an anniversary issue in 1950, although it was eventually published as a closing edition in 1949.465 According to an earlier plan, issue no. 28 had been supposed to gather vaguely specified speeches from the composers’ conference in Łagów,466 but in the situation when the PIS had already decided to close down Kwartalnik, it became necessary to publish all Chopin’s memorabilia as quickly as possible.

Also in 1949, in connection with the approaching Bach Year and the resulting expectations of the Ministry, the editors made very reluctant attempts to compile an issue devoted to the Leipzig cantor. Chybiński approached this idea very sceptically at once, and so did Lissa, but there were also authors ready to contribute something to the Bach issue. Łobaczewska ‘would definitely like to give something about the problem of form in Wohltemperiertes Klavier,’467 in connection with the same Chomiński planned ‘to make a pendant for this problem and write something about fugues,’468 Jan Prosnak ‘would be happy to work up a less-known issue related to Bach.’469 In addition, the content of the edition was to ←480 | 481→be complemented with papers presented in Leipzig during the Bach conference by the deputy head of the PIS, Aleksander Jackowski.470

In turn, at the beginning of 1950, the plans laid out by the Music Section of PIS, the then-publisher of Kwartalnik Muzyczny, included ‘selection of works that should be realised … taking into account the need to link their topics with the issues faced by the Section in connection with the Science Congress (issue of a special number of Kwartalnik Muzyczny).’471 This project of a methodological issue ‘due to the Science Congress’ was valid for a few successive months,472 but the planning of a ‘Marxist’473 issue began already in the middle of the year. Łobaczewska responded to plans for such a monograph with full enthusiasm and readiness;474 there were also plans to include ‘congress’ ” papers (or maybe those presented at the Conference on Research on Art) in the content. Much earlier, in 1948, there was an idea of dedicating number 25 to the issues of content in music and the then heated ‘formalism,’ which ‘had to create a sound basis for the ongoing … discussion.’475 The editors invited, among others, Zygmunt Estreicher, Konstanty Régamey, Stefan Szuman, Roman Ingarden and Stefania Łobaczewska to participate in this issue. Consequently, the only texts concerning this problem were Zofia Lissa’s dissertation ‘Czy muzyka jest sztuką asemantyczną?’ [Is music an asemantic artform?] and Stefania Łobaczewska’s ←481 | 482→essay on the aesthetics of music ‘Problem wartościowania i wartości w muzyce’ [The problem of evaluation and value in music].476

An overview of publications in the post-war edition of Kwartalnik Muzyczny allows us to divide them into two groups: ‘traditional’ and ‘modern’ texts. Despite top-level guidelines and expectations of government officials, most texts were still dissertations based on German-type musicology being cultivated by a majority of then-active researchers – analyses of compositions using proven theoretical systems, historical materials based on source materials, or contributions presenting the results of queries. Interdisciplinary and at least partly musicological matters were brought up only occasionally. The articles belonging to this group were always original material that was published for the first time on the pages of Kwartalnik.477 On the other hand, some materials were either created due to the influence from the prevailing ideology or served as recordings of the current events from the area of science and politics, addressed to the editorial staff with a top-down instruction to have them published. Examples of socialist realist literature, few in Kwartalnik, also fit into their climate. Zofia Lissa primarily prepared these, but not Józef Chomiński (nor articles by Krystyna Wilkowska), whom Stefania Łobaczewska, with all due respect and recognition for the academic advantages of his analyses, however, accused of being burdened with the former formalist method. Although the analytical method adopted in the three dissertations constitutes, according to Łobaczewska, a ‘very serious effort to go beyond the limitations of traditional formalist methods [but] its only innovative feature is the assumption that the form of a piece of music results from cooperation between all the musical elements.’ Still, however ‘the aspect of form remains dominant, the aspect of content – secondary.’478

When reading the review of Chopin-related issues of Kwartalnik Muzyczny quoted above, which was written in 1951/52 – that is, at the moment of the strongest ideological pressure on various spheres of national life, including the spheres of culture and science – we feel the stigma of the ‘discourse of social realism’ marking Łobaczewska’s evaluation. The pressure that the ‘setters’ and ‘mentors’ exerted on researchers weakened over time. For the first post-war decade, many scientists stuck to research in the traditional sense of the word, and the rhetoric ←482 | 483→of social realism was present only in publications by some musicologists. We can perceive the extent to which Marxist theories determined the direction of historical research in post-war science, including musicology, and how the leading researchers strayed in their own thoughts not just in official speeches. Their actual commitment to the ideas they proclaimed is reflected even in their private correspondence – for example, Zofia Lissa’s very interesting reflections on her Chopin-related plans for Kwartalnik, which were also quoted by Maciej Gołąb:

it has been ‘my heart’s’ desire to write ‘On Chopin’s era’ for a long time now. It has been written (and I have done this as well) that violins were playing underneath the windows at the time when Chopin was born. And who knows that at the time when Chopin was born the first strikes in the world were sparked in England, machines were demolished as a means of the proletariat’s first response against capitalist exploitation. Who knows what took place in Germany and France when Chopin was playing in the salons of the Rothschild family? It is extremely tempting to put these distant phenomena next to each other and try to detect a thread that led from one to the other. … I want to write this article for Kwartalnik, absolutely.479

The academic character of the magazine run by Adolf Chybiński, devoid of accessible content and current news that would encourage broad masses, influenced the fact that it was ultimately considered too elitist, niche and unnecessary in the reborn, socialist state, while the aspirations of the editorial staff were deemed uncomfortable for the publisher. Given this situation, the management of PIS, to which Kwartalnik had already been subject at that time, decided to suspend further financing and shut down the title. In a short time, it turned out that in a rerun of the situation from the 1930s, the existing academic journal turned into two new magazines – the popular monthly Muzyka, packed with ideological concepts and (later on) Studia Muzykologiczne, which continued the traditions of the strictly academic Polish musicological literature.

←483 | 484→←484 | 485→

300 Adolf Chybiński, ‘Od Redakcji’ [Editorial] (KM 1948/21–22, 7).

301 Ibid., 9–10.

302 Chybiński/Chomiński 2016, 37–38.

303 Chybiński/Chomiński 2016, 40.

304 Chybiński used two contributions from Bronarski from before 1939: ‘Dwa nieznane utwory Chopina’ [Two unknown works by Chopin] (KM 1948/21–22, 60–66) and ‘Mazurek Chopina poświęcony E. Gaillard’ [Chopin’s Mazurkas dedicated to E. Gaillard] (KM 1948/21–22, 67–74).

305 ‘Studia nad twórczością K. Szymanowskiego’[Studies on K. Szymanowskis creative work] part II: ‘Zagadnienia konstrukcyjne w sonatach fortepianowych’ [Structural issues in the piano sonatas] (KM 1948/21–22, 170–207, 1948/23, 102–157).

306 ‘Ronda Fryderyka Chopina’ [Frederic Chopin’s Rondos] (KM 1948/21–22, 35–59, 1948/23, 23–62, 1948/24, 7–54).

307 ‘O zadaniach i metodzie monografii muzycznej’ [About the tasks and methods of musical monographs] (KM 1948/21–22, 144–169).

308 ‘Technika wokalna wobec środków muzyki mechanicznej’ [‘Vocal Technique in Relation to Mechanical Musical Means’] (KM 1948/21–22, 252–268).

309 Report on the subject of ‘Szkolnictwo muzyczne w Polsce (1945–1948)’ [Musical education in Poland (1945–1948)’] (KM 1948/21–22, 269–275).

310 ‘Aspekt socjologiczny w polskiej muzyce współczesnej’ [The sociological aspect in contemporary Polish music] (KM 1948/21–22, 104–143).

311 ‘Próba analizy ewolucji w sztuce’ [An attempt at analysis of evolution in art] (KM 1948/21–22, 75–103).

312 ‘Teoria dwutonowych melodii’ [Theory of two-tone melodies] (KM 1948/21–22, 208–233).

313 ‘Niezrealizowane projekty operowe Moniuszki’ [Moniuszko’s unrealised opera projects] (KM 1948/21–22, 234–256).

314 ‘Wacław z Szamotuł (XVI w.)’ [Wacław of Szamotuły (XVI century)] (KM 1948/21–22, 11–34, and the continuation: 1948/23, 7–22, 1948/24, 100–131).

315 Chybiński/Chomiński 2016, 84–86. This information is no longer current. For the dates of Wacław of Szamotuły’s life generally accepted are circa 1524–circa 1560.

316 1951/8, 26–27.

317 For this subject see for example, Sieradz 2011, Sieradz 2012/2.

318 Chybiński to Bronarski from Lviv 22 I 1938, AACh-BUAM, Bronarski’s archive, p. 167.

319 Chybiński/Chomiński 2016, 76–77.

320 KM 1949/25 7–54, 1950/29–30, 64–83. The first part, in addition to chapter I, II and III, also contained an introduction, almost exactly reprinted from the pre-war publication. The second part contained the fourth and last chapter.

321 As mentioned in chapter III-2 and III-3, the editorial office were advised to take care that ‘there was no excess of historical works – especially from distant ages,’ Chybiński/Chomiński 2016, 37–38.

322 Quotation after: Kałamarz 2012, 13, see footnote 1.

323 KM 1948/21–22, 35–59, 1948/23, 23–62, 1948/24, 7–54.

324 The second of these dissertations was published more than a decade later ‘Dwa cykle wariacyjne na temat “Der Schweizerbuba” F. Chopina i J.F. Marcksa’ [Two variation cycles on the subject ‘Der Schweizerbub’ by F. Chopin and J.F. Marcks] (in: F.F. Chopin, edited by Zofia Lissa, Warsaw 1960, 56–78). Feicht was also the author of several articles popularising the figure and work of Chopin, including in the pages of Zwierciadło (a supplement to Wroclaw’s Słowo Polskie) and RM.

325 Kałamarz 2012, 15.

326 KM 1948/21–22, 282–285.

327 KM 1948/23, 177–182.

328 Hieronim Feicht, ‘Wznowienie koncertów poświęconych muzyce dawnej’ [Resumption of concerts dedicated to Early music] (KM 1949/25, 232–236).

329 See above footnote 304.

330 Ludwik Bronarski, ‘Dwa nieznane…,’ op. cit., 60.

331 Bronarski to Chybiński from Fribourg 6 IX 1948, AACh-BUAM, fol. A-C, p. 129.

332 ‘Z ostatnich dni ziemskiej pielgrzymki Chopina’ [From the last days of Chopin’s earthly pilgrimage] (KM 1949/26–27, 7–14), and ‘Sekstola w muzyce Chopina’ [Sextuplets in Chopin’s Music] (KM 1949/26–27, 95–101). Both Chopin volumes of Kwartalnik had the subtitle ‘Z życia i twórczości Fryderyka Chopina’ [From the life and creativity of Frederic Chopin].

333 Księga pamiątkowa ku czci Profesora Dr. Adolfa Chybińskiego ofiarowana przez uczniów i przyjaciół [Memorial book dedicated to Professor Adolf Chybiński, PhD, offered by students and friends], Cracow 1930, 107–114.

334 Ludwik Bronarski, ‘Chopin, Cherubini et le contrepoint’ (Annales Chopin 1958/2, 238–242); also ‘Les éleves de Chopin’ (Annales Chopin 1961–64/6, 7–12).

335 Konstanty Régamey (1907–82) was a pianist and composer, as well as a music critic. He studied classical and Hindu philology as well as Oriental studies and linguistics (in Warsaw and Paris), as well as composition (with Kazimierz Sikorski). During the war (after surviving the Warsaw Uprising and a short stay in the Stutthof camp) as a Swiss citizen he got to Switzerland, where from the end of 1944 he lectured in oriental and Slavic philology at the universities of Fribourg and Lausanne.

336 Konstanty Régamey, ‘Próba analizy,’ op. cit., 75.

337 Ibid., 76.

338 Ibid., 78.

339 Ibid., 102.

340 KM 1948/23, 75–103.

341 Ibid., 66, 67.

342 Ibid., 73, 97.

343 KM 1949/25, 120–137.

344 ‘Problem wartościowania i wartości w muzyce’ [The problem of evaluation and value in music] (KM 1949/25, 55–119).

345 Lissa to Chybiński from Warsaw 10 I 1948, AACh-BUAM, fol. K-L, p. 153.

346 Lissa to Chybiński from Warsaw 29 VI 1948, AACh-BUAM, fol. K-L, p. 160.

347 Zofia Lissa, ‘Aspekt socjologiczny…,’ op. cit., 104.

348 Ibid., 133.

349 Wieczorek 2014, 42.

350 Zofia Lissa, ‘Aspekt socjologiczny…’ op. cit., 142.

351 Zofia Lissa, ‘Czy muzyka jest sztuką…,’ op. cit., 125.

352 Ibid., 123.

353 Ibid.,122–123.

354 Ibid.

355 Ibid., 120.

356 See above footnote 307.

357 Stefania Łobaczewska, ‘O zadaniach i metodzie…,’ op. cit., 144.

358 KM 1949/25, 55–119.

359 Stefania Łobaczewska, ‘Problem wartościowania…,’ op. cit., 55.

360 Ibid., 62, 63.

361 Ibid., 77.

362 Ibid., 119.

363 Studia Muzykologiczne 1956/5, 7–195.

364 See above footnote 305.

365 See also chapter III-3 and Sieradz 2011, Sieradz 2012/2.

366 See for example, Chybiński/Chomiński 2016, 23–24, 32–33, 33–34.

367 Chybiński/Chomiński 2016, 33–34.

368 Chomiński’s study ‘Problem formy w preludiach Chopina’ was published in KM 1949/26–27, 183–288 (part I), 1949/28, 240–395 (part II).

369 Ibid., part I p. 183.

370 See KM 1950/29–30, 118–124. The review of ‘Zagadnienia beztekstowej kompozycji Mikołaja z Radomia z rękopisu nr 52 Biblioteki Krasińskich w Warszawie’ [The issue of Mikołaj of Radom’s textless composition from the manuscript no. 52 of the Krasiński Library in Warsaw] by Zdzisław Jachimecki (Sprawozdania z czynności i posiedzeń PAU 1949/7, 380–386) was actually the opinion that the author formulated and wanted to deliver during one of the heated sessions of the Musicological Commission of the Polish Academy of Sciences (PAU); however, he was prevented from doing so.

371 See, for example, a memory about Jan Reszke in 1939 summer issues of the monthly.

372 ‘O roli i znaczeniu dykcji w nauczaniu śpiewu’ [On the role and importance of diction in singing instructions], MP 1935/8, 55–279.

373 ‘Głos dziecka i jego kształcenie’ [The child’s voice and its education] (Śpiew w szkole 1933–34/4, 70–71).

374 Bronisław Romaniszyn, op. cit., 259.

375 Miketta to Chybiński from Lublin 2 III 1920, AACh-BJ, box 6, M-19/1.

376 Miketta to Chybiński from Warsaw 9 IV 1928, AACh-BJ, box 6, M-19/10.

377 ‘Everything on this matter that I gathered, collected and compiled in my own way … was lost in 1940! Just taken away… and lost, and no intervention helped. But … I started anew from scratch…,’ Miketta to Chybiński from Żaby 10 IX 1943, AACh-BJ, box 6, M-19/41.

On this occasion, it is worth quoting a further passage of this letter, which, together with another letter complements a number of details about Chopin-themed publishing plans which were set during the war by Chybiński and the members of TWMP (on this subject, among others, also in chap. III-3): ‘In 1949, on the Chopin anniversary it would be good to ornament this great music anniversary with a full set of Polish studies on Chopin. This is how I understand it, and please tell whether it is correct. Such a full set of studies ought to provide us with 1) an ultimate, definitive critical edition of the entire Chopin volume, 2) monographs of all phases of his artistic work, 3) a book in a yet unrecorded type: “Chopin – artwork!” (not life! I think this abundant, multilingual garland from Hoesick to … Binental would be enough!?). I find two positions for this book that I might assess as such. I think that after Dr Wójcikówna-Keuprulian we can still work on melodies; I can hardly imagine how could we complete Bronarski. But it seems to me that in view of these basic works, rhythm remains almost untouched, and with it the form, as well as agogics and dynamics (maybe together, maybe separately). I find an abundance of intact, almost or a little (a la Leichtentritt) rhythm problems! … I was told that you Sir Professor are working on Scherzos, Impromptus and Nocturnes? May we live to see the monograph’s template!! How much easier it will be for others to work! …,’ see ibid.

378 Vol. I. Mazurki (Cracow 1949). Preludia, prepared by Józef M. Chomiński, was published in print a year later. Miketta did not complete the works on the analysis of polonaises, planned as vol. II of the series.

379 KM 1949/26–27, 289–359.

380 Ibid., 359.

381 KM 1949/28, 149–166.

382 See Miketta to Chybiński from Cracow 7 VII 1949, fol. M-N, p. 143.

383 KM 1949/28, 396–406.

384 Chechlińska 2000/2.

385 Thanks to Estreicher, Chomiński could then use the Library of the Department of Musicology at the University of Fribourg, see Chybiński/Chomiński 2016, 20–22.

386 Estreicher was a top-class specialist in this field. Already from 1948, he became the head of the department of musical ethnography at the Musée d’Ethnographie in Neuchâtel, and was also the author of many professional publications, including the entry Eskimo-Musik in MGG.

387 See above footnote 312.

388 Pasja chorałowa w Polsce [The Choral Passion in Poland]. “Nasza Przeszłość” III (1947) pp. 37–91.

389 Poźniak to Chybiński from Cracow 14 IX 1947, AACh-BUAM, fol. O-P, p. 232.

390 Ibid. Włodzimierz Poźniak published at least two texts about Dąbrowski’s Mazurka: on the pages of Kalendarz Ilustrowany Kuriera Codziennego in 1938 and in the Śpiewak monthly a year later. In this way, he took part in a broader discussion about the authorship of the hymn that continued in the interwar period, with opinions expressed, among others, by Łucjan Kamieński and Stanisław Zetowski.

391 Włodzimierz Poźniak, ‘Niezrealizowane projekty operowe…,’ op. cit., 251.

392 Chybiński to Bronarski from Zakopane 9 VIII 1949, AACh-BUAM, Bronarski’s archive, p. 204.

393 Władysław Hordyński, ‘Nieznane listy Chopina’ [Chopin’s unknown letters] (Kalendarz IKC 1937, 217).

394 Władysław Hordyński, ‘Nieznane listy Chopina do Adolfa Cichowskiego’ [Chopin’s unknown letters to Adolf Cichowski] (KM 1949/26–27, 27–37).

395 Bronisław Edward Sydow, ‘Chopin i Delacroix. (Historia jednego portretu)’ [Chopin and Delacroix. (The history of one portrait)] (KM 1949/26–27, 15–26); also ‘Nieznany list Mikołaja Chopina’ [Unknown letter by Mikołaj Chopin] (KM 1949/28, 131–141).

396 Ignace Blochman, ‘Dwa autografy listów Chopina w Belgii’ [Two autograph letters by Chopin in Belgium] (KM 1949/26–27, 38–47).

397 František Zagiba, ‘Nieznana wariacja Fryderyka Chopina na temat Mozarta’ [Unknown variations by Frederic Chopin on a theme by Mozart] (KM 1949/26–27, 127–130).

398 Władysław Hordyński, ‘Pamiątki po Chopinie w zbiorach krakowskich’ [Chopin souvenirs in the Cracow collections] (KM 1949/26–27, 378–393).

399 Chmara-Żaczkiewicz 2004.

400 Prosnak to Chomiński from Brwinów 18 XII 1947, at APCh.

401 KM 1948/23, 158–168 (part I), 1948/24, 84–99 (part II).

402 See ibid., part I, footnote on page 158. This project found its completion years later when Prosnak published the book Polihymnia ucząca. Wychowanie muzyczne w Polsce od średniowiecza do dni dzisiejszych [Polihymnia learning. Musical education in Poland from the Middle Ages to the present day] (Cracow 1964).

403 Prosnak to Chomiński from Brwinów 3 I 1948, APCh.

404 Prosnak to Chomiński from Brwinów 20 IX 1948, APCh.

405 KM 1949/25, 138–155.

406 Jan Prosnak, ‘Środowisko warszawskie w życiu i twórczości Fryderyka Chopina’ [The Warsaw milieu in the life and work of Frederic Chopin] (KM 1949/28, 7–126).

407 The author rarely stretched beyond the history of music, this time in connection with the person of Adolf Chybiński, preparing a jubilee article for the book, ‘Z zagadnień polskiego folkloru muzycznego’ [From the issues of Polish musical folklore] (in: Księga pamiątkowa 1950, 320–338).

408 For example, a special issue of the weekly was planned in connection with the Festival of Folk Music organised by the PR; on that occasion, authors such as Stefania Łobaczewska, Stanisław Mierczyński, Bronisław Rutkowski and Marian Sobieski were invited to co-operate. Chybiński was asked to submit a ‘short article … for the cycle “Musicologists and composers about folk music”‘, see Prosnak to Chybiński from Warsaw 29 IV 1949, AACh-BUAM, fol. O-P, p. 246.

409 Prosnak to Chomiński from Brwinów 8 II 1949, APCh.

410 KM 1911/1, 48–54. For this subject see also chapter I-1.

411 Andrzejewski 1997; Morawska 2007/2.

412 PRM 1935/1, 91–106.

413 See Morawska 2007/2.

414 See, for example, Chybiński/Chomiński, 2016, 47–50.

415 KM 1949/26–27, 48–94.

416 KM 1949/25, 190–192.

417 She also mentioned the same issue, see Alicja Simon, ‘Przyczynek genetyczny…,’ op. cit., 51.

418 See Idzikowski 1963.

419 ‘Due to the will of certain factors,’ they were supposed to prepare the second issue of the three-volume biography by Ferdynand Hoesick Chopin. Życie i twórczość [Chopin. Life and works] (Warsaw 1910–11). Finally, Hoesick’s monograph was published only in the 1960s (vol. I Cracow 1962, vol. II Cracow 1965, vol. III Cracow 1966) with comments and footnotes by Franciszek German and Jadwiga Ilnicka.

420 Chybiński/Chomiński 2016, 130–131. Sydow’s article ‘Chopin i Delacroix. (Historia jednego portretu)’ [Chopin and Delacroix. (The history of one portrait)] (KM 1949/26–27, 15–26).

421 KM 1949/26–27, 394–401.

422 KM 1950/29–30, 26–63, cit. p. 30.

423 Here I would like to recall that in the ‘pedagogical’ issue of the interwar KM Zofia Lissa published, amongst others, an article ‘Z psychologii muzycznej dziecka’ [From the child’s musical psychology] (1931/10–11, 173–207), which was based, among others, on her own research.

424 Respectively 1949/26–27, 102–182, 1949/28, 167–239.

425 See above footnote 397.

426 The idea of ‘internationalisation’ of KM in the Chopin Year failed. The magazine was provided only with a table of contents in Polish (at the beginning of the issue) and in French (at the end of the issue). Foreign-language summaries were not published, although Chomiński initially considered abstracts with a volume of around ten typed pages.

427 KM 1949/26–27, 360–377.

428 See above footnote 396.

429 Chomiński to Blochman from Warsaw 14 III 1949, APCh.

430 KM 1950/29–30, 7–25.

431 Ibid., 24–25.

432 Ibid., 11.

433 As it was written, ‘one could also mention the Twenty-Second International Festival of Contemporary Music in Amsterdam [June 1948] – but not in order to assign this festival any importance.’ Although the level of works performed there did not ‘raise objections of either technical or … artistic nature,’ but during the festival ‘no lessons from the growing historical changes were taken,’ see KM 1948/23, 194.

434 Zofia Lissa, ‘O społecznych funkcjach muzyki artystycznej i popularnej’ [On the social functions of artistic and popular music], KM 1948/3, 211–222, quotation pp. 217–218.

435 Wieczorek 2014, 42–46.

436 Ibid., footnote 149.

437 Ibid., 43–44.

438 ‘Odezwa uchwalona jednogłośnie na II Międzynarodowym Zjeździe Kompozytorów i Krytyków Muzycznych w Pradze’ [An appeal passed unanimously at the second international congress of composers and music critics in Prague] (KM 1948/23, 223–224).

439 Corresponding pages 180–187 and 187–194.

440 Drobner to Chomiński from Łódź 9 I 1949, APCh; Chomiński to Drobner from Szklarska Poręba 15 I 1949, APCh.

441 Chomiński to Drzewiecki from Warsaw 14 III 1949, APCh.

442 The only text published by Marian Sobieski in KM is a printed version of his speech on the organisation of the Folklore Collection Campaign (delivered during the Convention of Musicologists in November 1948, KM 1949/25, 192–197).

443 Chomiński to Palester from Warsaw 29 VIII 1948, APCh.

444 Chomiński to Swatoń from Szklarska Poręba 27 XII 1948, APCh.

445 Chomiński to Pogonowski from Wesoła 21 X 1949, APCh. Jerzy Pogonowski wrote such books as Liryzm i Słowiańszczyzna [Lyricism and slavdom] (1924) and Bój o Lwów [The Battle of Lviv] (1921).

446 Chomiński to the Editors of RM from Wesoła 12 X 1949, APCh. Andrzej Ryszkiewicz, an art historian and subsequently the long-serving deputy director and director of the State Institute of Art and the Institute of Art of the Polish Academy of Sciences, was in charge of libraries of the Ministry of Culture and Art and PIS in the years 1945–51.

447 Chybiński to Lissa from Zakopane 12 VIII 1948, at AZL-BUW.

448 Ibid.

449 Chomiński to Khrennikov from Warsaw 22 VI 1948, APCh.

450 KM 1949/25, 156–161.

451 KM respectively: 1948/21–22, 276–279, 1948/23, 169–176, 1948/24, 132–139.

452 KM 1949/26–27, 394–401.

453 KM 1950/29–30, 84–113.

454 Also in accordance with the top-level guidelines of the Supreme Audit Office from Łódź, see Ochlewski to Chomiński from Cracow 19 IV 1950, APCh.

455 Their answers in KM 1948/24, 141–165.

456 KM 1949/25, 162–164.

457 Chybiński to Bronarski from Zakopane 2 IV 1949, AACh-BUAM, Bronarski’s archive, p. 200.

458 ‘[E]ven today we should start our efforts [to get materials – MS]. From whom? Not only from Polish musicologists, but – apart from them – only from Slavic ones, and none other! For example, not from French musicologists by any means – for obvious reasons,’ Chybiński to Lissa from Zakopane 11 VII 1948, AZL-BUW (underlining original).

459 The editors rather expected her to submit a work on Chopin’s personality; this text would open the Chopin issue, mainly because ‘Kwartalnik has to stress and document a new methodological approach,’ see Chomiński to Lissa from Szklarska Poręba 14 II 1949, APCh.

460 Modified in respect of its thematic scope, Prosnak’s article ‘Środowisko warszawskie w życiu Fryderyka Chopina’ [The Warsaw milieu in the life and work of Frederic Chopin] was published in the second ‘Chopin’ issue of Kwartalnik.

461 Chybiński to Bronarski from Poznań 25 IV 1949, AACh-BUAM, Bronarski’s archive, p. 201.

462 Adolf Chybiński, ‘Do kwestii reminiscencji w dziełach Chopina’ [On the subject of reminiscence in Chopin’s works] (KM 1949/28, 142–148). The article ‘O pewnym “motywie” w dziełach F. Chopina’ [About a certain ‘motif’ in Frederic Chopin’s works], submitted to the editorial file of Kwartalnik at that time, was used by Józef Chomiński in the first volume of Studia Muzykologiczne (published already after the professor’s death in 1953).

463 ‘My pre-war article, once submitted to the Chopin magazine and not printed, has survived, but I doubt if this topic, which sounded militant in 1939, still makes any sense today. This article … proved that, in spite of all Dinaric (anthropological) characteristics, Chopin’s music and its style resulted from the Slavic environment. I carried out detailed anthropological surveys with one of the assistants of Professor [Jan] Czekanowski . ….’ Before the war, Lissa had dealt with the ‘anthropological’ context in research on Chopin: in the Lviv daily Chwila, she published an article ‘Jakiej “rasy” był Fryderyk Chopin?’ (What was Frederic Chopin’s race?) (issue of 26 II 1938, p. 10).

464 Chybiński/Chomiński 2016, 169–170.

465 The consequence of the unexpected abundance of Chopin materials, which eventually filled up two large volumes of the magazine, was the plan to launch a new periodical, Rocznik Chopinowski [Chopin Yearbook], more in ‘Conclusion.’

466 Tadeusz Ochlewski referred to the ‘Łagów issue’ in one of his letters from Brwinów to Chybiński (AACh-BUAM, fol. O-P, p. 88), but he added a few days later that ‘the Ministry of Culture and Art does not want the Łagów issue of Kwartalnik any more’ (Ochlewski to Chybiński from Cracow 28 XI 1949, AACh-BUAM, File O-P, p. 89).

467 Łobaczewska to Chomiński from Cracow 29 I 1950, APCh.

468 Chomiński do Łobaczewskiej from Wesoła 11 II 1950, APCh.

469 Prosnak to Chomiński from Brwinów 4 II 1950, APCh.

470 Chomiński wrote about these texts: ‘These are papers by a certain Hugow and Mayer. I read both of them, and my hair instantly stood up on end. I understand that you can stretch some facts, speculate etc., but if someone claims that there was no one in Germany before Bach, that it was a desert, that neither Buxtehude, Pachelbel, nor others were born and are legends, it starts to get a little uncomfortable,’ see Chybiński/Chomiński 2016, 289–290.

471 ‘Sprawozdanie z działalności Instytutu 1949–1950’ [Reports of the Institute’s activities 1949–1950], extant in Archive IS PAN, fol. D-0312 (A 32), 25.

472 Wilkowska to Ochlewski from Wesoła 22 IV 1950, APCh.

473 Ochlewski from Chomiński from Cracow 5 VI 1950, APCh. The idea of a Marxist edition was interesting for the editorial staff only for pragmatic and financial reasons: Chomiński expected to strengthen the editorial finance from PIS’s budget.

474 Łobaczewska to Chomiński from Cracow 6 VI 1950, in APCh: ‘With regard to the latter issue – i.e. the work for the Marxist volume of “Kwartalnik”: I will probably write a kind of widely-treated programme article (“Musical Aesthetics in the Light of the Marxist Method” or something like that), I suppose it will be done there on the spot and, at the same time, it would be beneficial to realise the changes in the points of view, selection of problems, etc.’

475 Chomiński to Estreicher from Milanówek 2 XI 1948, APCh.

476 See above footnote 344.

477 Removing the ‘Preface’ that had already been published in PRM (available to a very limited extent in the 1940s) before the war from Maria Szczepańska’s dissertation on Mikołaj Radomski would make it difficult to pursue a logical line of reasoning consistently and clearly, hence the decision to repeat this part of the monograph.

478 Stefania Łobaczewska, [review] (SM 1953/1, 387–393).

479 Lissa to Chomiński from Warsaw 8 II 1949, APCh, see also Gołąb 2008, 46.