Page 407 - 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. 407
the mer it of czech musicians for the r evival of the musical her itage of jacobus ...
to me: But there was a ground where unity was possible; the diffe
rent elements sat together, conversed amicably and were enthusia
stic about one sublime thing – music.30
Sattner’s report indicates in an undertone the different views that could
be discerned between the basic ideological orientations of the two leading
musical societies in Slovenia at the time, apart from the Philharmonic So-
ciety of Ljubljana: Glasbena matica and the Cecilian Society of Ljubljana.
At least in part, such divisions seem to be the result of an increasingly pro-
nounced separation of minds in this country: in 1890, the Clerical Party
was founded here, and a year later the Liberal Party. However, the close
mutual cooperation in the preparation of the aforementioned events clear-
ly shows that the ideological differences mentioned by Dragotin Cvetko, for
example,31 were by no means decisive, at least for the concert events. Thus,
in the now fundamental music history literature, Cvetko cites the found-
ing of the Cecilian Society in 1877 as the reason for the decline in member-
ship at Glasbena matica, a claim already refuted by Nataša Cigoj Krstulović
in the most thorough treatise to date on the workings of Glasbena matica.32
It is true that the controversy over Cecilianism was at its height in this
country in the 1880s and early 1890s, but among the key members of Glas-
bena matica we find almost all core members of the Cecilian Society. The
founders of Glasbena matica include Anton Foerster, the musical director
of the Cecilian Society, and the outstanding composer of vocal and instru-
mental music, Father Hugolin Sattner, who blessed the premises of Glasbe-
na matica when it moved into the Society’s house, and later Stanko Premrl,
France Kimovec and others. The membership lists of Glasbena matica inci-
dentally also include the then Bishop of Gorizia, Jakob Missia, who joined
the Society in 1886 to settle some earlier disputes. It is also a fact that the
compositions by Foerster, Sattner and Premrl were frequently performed
by the Glasbena matica Choir and published by the Glasbena matica pub-
lishing house.
The numerous examples of diverse mutual cooperation on a purely
practical level, including the common struggle for Gallus, thus challenge
another rather persistent concept of somewhat recent Slovenian music his-
30 Hugolin Sattner, “Gallusov koncert,” Cerkveni glasbenik 15, no. 6 (1892): 46, http://
www.dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:doc-7TDQQA9Y.
31 Dragotin Cvetko, “Ljubljanska Glasbena Matica in njen pomen,” Kronika: časopis za
slovensko krajevno zgodovino 2, no. 1 (1954): 37–8, http://www.dlib.si/?URN=UR-
N:NBN:SI:doc-ET5MQAP5.
32 Cigoj Krstulović, Zgodovina, spomin, dediščina, 40–1.
405
to me: But there was a ground where unity was possible; the diffe
rent elements sat together, conversed amicably and were enthusia
stic about one sublime thing – music.30
Sattner’s report indicates in an undertone the different views that could
be discerned between the basic ideological orientations of the two leading
musical societies in Slovenia at the time, apart from the Philharmonic So-
ciety of Ljubljana: Glasbena matica and the Cecilian Society of Ljubljana.
At least in part, such divisions seem to be the result of an increasingly pro-
nounced separation of minds in this country: in 1890, the Clerical Party
was founded here, and a year later the Liberal Party. However, the close
mutual cooperation in the preparation of the aforementioned events clear-
ly shows that the ideological differences mentioned by Dragotin Cvetko, for
example,31 were by no means decisive, at least for the concert events. Thus,
in the now fundamental music history literature, Cvetko cites the found-
ing of the Cecilian Society in 1877 as the reason for the decline in member-
ship at Glasbena matica, a claim already refuted by Nataša Cigoj Krstulović
in the most thorough treatise to date on the workings of Glasbena matica.32
It is true that the controversy over Cecilianism was at its height in this
country in the 1880s and early 1890s, but among the key members of Glas-
bena matica we find almost all core members of the Cecilian Society. The
founders of Glasbena matica include Anton Foerster, the musical director
of the Cecilian Society, and the outstanding composer of vocal and instru-
mental music, Father Hugolin Sattner, who blessed the premises of Glasbe-
na matica when it moved into the Society’s house, and later Stanko Premrl,
France Kimovec and others. The membership lists of Glasbena matica inci-
dentally also include the then Bishop of Gorizia, Jakob Missia, who joined
the Society in 1886 to settle some earlier disputes. It is also a fact that the
compositions by Foerster, Sattner and Premrl were frequently performed
by the Glasbena matica Choir and published by the Glasbena matica pub-
lishing house.
The numerous examples of diverse mutual cooperation on a purely
practical level, including the common struggle for Gallus, thus challenge
another rather persistent concept of somewhat recent Slovenian music his-
30 Hugolin Sattner, “Gallusov koncert,” Cerkveni glasbenik 15, no. 6 (1892): 46, http://
www.dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:doc-7TDQQA9Y.
31 Dragotin Cvetko, “Ljubljanska Glasbena Matica in njen pomen,” Kronika: časopis za
slovensko krajevno zgodovino 2, no. 1 (1954): 37–8, http://www.dlib.si/?URN=UR-
N:NBN:SI:doc-ET5MQAP5.
32 Cigoj Krstulović, Zgodovina, spomin, dediščina, 40–1.
405
