Page 240 - Weiss, Jernej, ur./ed. 2023. Glasbena društva v dolgem 19. stoletju: med ljubiteljsko in profesionalno kulturo ▪︎ Music societies in the long 19th century: Between amateur and professional culture. Koper/Ljubljana: Založba Univerze na Primorskem in Festival Ljubljana. Studia musicologica Labacensia, 6
P. 240
glasbena društva v dolgem 19. stoletju: med ljubiteljsko in profesionalno kulturo
de facto and which only pro forma, i. e. ultimately wanting to bring the so-
called cadastre of associations61 up to speed. However, the interesting detail
was, that in 1913, the association as such was not formally dissolved togeth-
er with the orchestra by chance, but on purpose! The words of its president
Vladimir Ravnihar himself, evoking the financial and other difficulties as
the reasons for the orchestra’s dissolution in 1913, to this effect were:
The association as such should exist on, firstly, so that the old debts
could be paid off and secondly, so that it will be there when the time
is right and the conditions given for a new orchestra.62
To my mind, the advice of Milčinski as well that of Ravnihar are the
examples of the creative legal minds of both prominent jurists, members of
Glasbena matica, who were aspiring to accommodate the needs of the mu-
sicians and their corpora by interpreting the paragraphs of the law rather
loosely. They were trying to find solutions to various aims and interests of
the main protagonists, such as Matej Hubad, in sui generis forms of ‘inte-
grated’ models of association not envisaged by the letter of the law.
I dare say that a similar, if not even a direct conceptual derivative from
the latter case (the operative idea of ‘loose connection’) came to the fore in
the case of Orkestralno društvo six years later, only with at least one impor-
tant difference. In comparison to 1908/1913, in 1919 many of the strong per-
sonalities from the same music circle were still around, however in the new
state, its main protagonists such as Vladimir Ravnihar, Matej Hubad and
Anton Lajovic now holding the positions much closer to the political pow-
er. In many ways, they themselves came to personalize that power.63
The fate of the Orkestralno društvo is so inextricably linked to the per-
sonality of Karel Jeraj that I chose not only my fourth out of my five ini-
tial quotations but also the very last one with him in mind. To the research
and literature on the Orkestralno društvo,64 I would first like to contrib-
ute a rather differently nuanced view from my research predecessors, firm-
ly rooted in the archival material on the associations proper – or better in
61 On the rather complicated issue of the cadastre and other related archival sources on
the associations in Carniola and post-1918 in Ljubljana, infra in Bibliography, f. 81.
62 Kuret, 100 let Slovenske filharmonije, 46, quoted in Novi akordi XII, no. 5–6 (1913):
54.
63 For an opposite example par excellence, cf. Jernej Weiss, Hans Gerstner (1851–1939).
Življenje za glasbo (Maribor: Litera, Pedagoška fakulteta, 2010).
64 Andreja Pernuš, Ustanovitev in delovanje Orkestralnega društva Glasbene matice v
Ljubljani od leta 1919 do 1945 (dipl., Univerza v Ljubljani, 2009).
238
de facto and which only pro forma, i. e. ultimately wanting to bring the so-
called cadastre of associations61 up to speed. However, the interesting detail
was, that in 1913, the association as such was not formally dissolved togeth-
er with the orchestra by chance, but on purpose! The words of its president
Vladimir Ravnihar himself, evoking the financial and other difficulties as
the reasons for the orchestra’s dissolution in 1913, to this effect were:
The association as such should exist on, firstly, so that the old debts
could be paid off and secondly, so that it will be there when the time
is right and the conditions given for a new orchestra.62
To my mind, the advice of Milčinski as well that of Ravnihar are the
examples of the creative legal minds of both prominent jurists, members of
Glasbena matica, who were aspiring to accommodate the needs of the mu-
sicians and their corpora by interpreting the paragraphs of the law rather
loosely. They were trying to find solutions to various aims and interests of
the main protagonists, such as Matej Hubad, in sui generis forms of ‘inte-
grated’ models of association not envisaged by the letter of the law.
I dare say that a similar, if not even a direct conceptual derivative from
the latter case (the operative idea of ‘loose connection’) came to the fore in
the case of Orkestralno društvo six years later, only with at least one impor-
tant difference. In comparison to 1908/1913, in 1919 many of the strong per-
sonalities from the same music circle were still around, however in the new
state, its main protagonists such as Vladimir Ravnihar, Matej Hubad and
Anton Lajovic now holding the positions much closer to the political pow-
er. In many ways, they themselves came to personalize that power.63
The fate of the Orkestralno društvo is so inextricably linked to the per-
sonality of Karel Jeraj that I chose not only my fourth out of my five ini-
tial quotations but also the very last one with him in mind. To the research
and literature on the Orkestralno društvo,64 I would first like to contrib-
ute a rather differently nuanced view from my research predecessors, firm-
ly rooted in the archival material on the associations proper – or better in
61 On the rather complicated issue of the cadastre and other related archival sources on
the associations in Carniola and post-1918 in Ljubljana, infra in Bibliography, f. 81.
62 Kuret, 100 let Slovenske filharmonije, 46, quoted in Novi akordi XII, no. 5–6 (1913):
54.
63 For an opposite example par excellence, cf. Jernej Weiss, Hans Gerstner (1851–1939).
Življenje za glasbo (Maribor: Litera, Pedagoška fakulteta, 2010).
64 Andreja Pernuš, Ustanovitev in delovanje Orkestralnega društva Glasbene matice v
Ljubljani od leta 1919 do 1945 (dipl., Univerza v Ljubljani, 2009).
238
