Recent decades have seen an increased scholarly interest in musicology as a discipline. Contributions to the history of musicology encompass an area that stretches from early-modern discourses or 18th-century debates among the first music historians to recent attempts of introducing post-colonial critique into the discipline. As far as the 20th century is concerned, a central topic has been the history of musicology in political contexts like National Socialist Germany. However, most studies have focused on major players from different nationalist backgrounds, and only scarce attention is usually paid to protagonists and the history of the discipline on the peripheries.
The purpose of this contribution is to investigate one of the central concepts in the music historiography of the Bulgarian musicologist Ivan Hlebarov between the 1960s and 1980s: “Bogomilism”. It might seem odd that a musicologist like Hlebarov, who focused on 19th and 20th-century music employs a term that refers to a heretical religious movement in medieval South Eastern Europe. However, as this contribution shows, it is precisely the use of “Bogomilism” that shows central aspects of Hlebarov’s historiographic method in Communist Bulgaria. Although a historical examination of Bulgarian musicology from the standpoint of a sociology of knowledge was already demanded in the 1970s by the intellectual Leon Moskona, no further attempts have been made into this direction. Given the significance of Ivan Hlebarov in Bulgarian musicology during State Socialism and after as well as the role his concept of “Bogomilism” takes in his published research from that time, this contribution sheds light on central methodological and theoretical aspects of Bulgarian music historiography in general. The trends in Hlebarov’s research as they are outlined here, are a part of broader discourses on nationalism and Marxism in Bulgarian society that started during the Second World War and continued throughout the existence of the People’s Republic of Bulgaria. Therefore, this contribution examines a case example of how music historians in Bulgaria produced knowledge and created methodological means to study their domestic music history.
Since the history of musicology as a discipline has already accumulated a considerable amount of literature, a short literature review highlights central directions of this research concerning nationalist and Marxist concepts (section II.) Then, an examination of Ivan Hlebarov’s writings during State Socialism shows, how the use of the concept of “Bogomilism” informs Hlebarov’s historiographic work (section III.I.). By establishing connections between “Bogomilism” and other historiographic notions that Hlebarov used as blueprints for his approach to Bulgarian art music, the significance of “Bogomilism” and its eventual demise during the 1980s becomes clear. In Late Socialism, “Bogomilism” lost its appeal to Hlebarov although he never officially denounced it as a historiographic concept. Instead, it is precisely the history of this term in Hlebarov’s texts that illustrates his shift from music historiography to a cultural studies approach that became his personal mission after the end of Communism in Bulgaria (section III.II.).
- Marxism and Nationalism? Two Perspectives on the History of Music Historiography
Already in 1977, the Bulgarian musicologist and intellectual Leon Moskona called for analysis and historical revision of the theoretical and methodological background of musicology. In his two-part article “Current Methodological Problems in the Development of Contemporary Musicology” that was published in the bulletin Musical Horizons, Moskona departed from the assumption that “as a whole, musicology has not entered organically into the concrete musical practice of today and does not fully solve its new problems and tasks.”  Through an analysis of existing musicological studies, Moskona hoped to answer a series of questions that would reveal “the geometry of the full space” of musicology – by which he meant the full space of possibilities offered by a self-reflective discipline:
[W]hat is the content of the acquired knowledges (objective-ontological aspect); how are they derived (logico-epistemological aspect); for whom are they intended (functional-active aspect); for what purpose, in what situation do they operate (socio-cultural aspect) etc.
Out of these aspects, Moskona can formulate the more specific tasks of his approach to a categorial-methodological analysis of musicology:
More specific, the tasks of the categorial-methodological analysis of musicology consist in the following: To reveal the peculiarities and the construction of the different “theoretical networks”, structuring musical reality, to identify new categorial-constructive possibilities in the ways of understanding the musical art, to reveal the primary sphere of typologically possible scientific operations and procedures, to ensure the formation and development of musicological concepts, etc.
Through the analysis of categories and methodologies, Moskona hopes to solve problems “of music theory, analysis, philosophy, and history as well as questions of music pedagogy and education.”
Although Leon Moskona’s call for an analysis of the ways of understanding the musical art is more than 40 years old, there are no further attempts within Bulgarian musicology to self-analyze. Nevertheless, internationally, research into musicology as a discipline has gained momentum for about the last two decades and created a considerable amount of studies ranging from early-modern discourses to the discipline in the contemporary age and from Anglo-American or Austro-German approaches to peripheral or marginalized debates e. g. in Spain, Finland, or China. Since this study examines “Bogomilism” as a model in Ivan Hlebarov’s music historiography during Communist Bulgaria, the remaining literature review focusses on contributions that stand in direct relation to this examination.
In German musicological debates on the history of the discipline, Frank Hentschel’s monography Bourgeoisie, Ideology, and Music. Politics of Music Historiography in Germany 1776–1871 has received particular attention since its first publication in 2006. Although the majority of Hentschel’s source material stems from the 18th and 19th century, the author stresses that “analyses of sources from the 19th century are […] under the surface always analyses of modern music historiography, too.” In his attempt to show the connections between music historiography and bourgeois politics and ideology during the 18th and 19th century, Hentschel fundamentally departs from three different aspects:
First, it is possible to examine the personal political opinions of different authors. But in this way, no direct relation between both aspects is shown: For this approach, the musicological profession of authors is arbitrary. Second, one can search for single political utterances and suggestions within a music historical text; but the gained results do not constitute a genre. For an examination of the influence of political contexts on “the” music historiography, on music historical and aesthetic thinking, a third approach had to be chosen: It maps out characteristics that transcend the single work. The focus lies on political undercurrents of the German music historical “master narrative”. One could talk about a “super text” that results from a set of similarities and constants in music historical texts by different authors. The central question is how cultural and political contexts shaped “the” music historical thought. The key […] will not be to show that everyday politics now and then entered musical literature, but rather that special structures, which just abstracted from short-term changes, although they were dependent on cultural, political, and social contexts, substantially determined music historiography.
Among the multitude of methodological and theoretical impulses that Hentschel gave with his publication, for present purposes his remarks on ethnocentrism and nationalism are of interest. Ethnocentric thinking – as is evident in texts by German music historians from the 18th and 19th century – led to the creation of a “civilizational continuum of culture” that could be applied both to one’s history and to the music of peoples on the margins of Europe and beyond. Ethnocentrism did not only examine other cultures by its standards but developed a cultural history that was directed towards Europe as a centre:
Music history ran in a spiral pattern: On the one hand, it chronologically steered towards contemporary music, on the other hand, the radius of those phenomena that were deemed historiographically relevant was reduced time and again. Thus, music history eventually ended in Europe, in Italy, France, and Germany […]. The spatiality of the development of correct music behaved inversely to the scope of its norms: While the “correct” music developed gradually from the prehistoric music of all peoples, it later materialized in a little place of Christian and enlightened land; but in reverse, the norms contained in it were supposed to be applicable onto the whole world.
In this respect, nationalism turned into an important concept for German musicologists of that time:
On the one hand, nationalist ideology helped to describe and standardize music according to those national characteristics that she supposedly expressed. On the other hand, nations served as seemingly objective entities that had existed all along; they participated in creating a material order and description of the course of history in their capacity as imaginary historical factors. A recognizable symptom for nationalism was national pride that had an impact on music histories, too. Even direct political statements that denied aristocrats the feature of nationality in favour of the people and the bourgeoisie can be found from time to time.
Thus, although musicological texts from the 18th and 19th century do not always make that explicit, Hentschel finds two separate ideas of a national classification – national character and national style:
The distinction between national style and national character is […] theoretical, and, indeed, nationalist thought did not manifest either in a clearly defined nor in a theoretically well-founded manner. […] Where no unambiguous confession to the one or the other concept is available, there two feature can determine which opinion was preferred by the authors: First, national style is historically changeable, as are the cultural constellations in which it grows. Therefore, national style is essentially a historical phenomenon and thus does not have a dimension of profoundness. National character, on the other hand, is understood as some invariable, that resembles anthropological constants. However, it is only valid for people from a particular group and not for everyone. […] The stronger authors stressed the deep roots and historical consistency of national features, the more leaned towards the ideology of national characteristics. If the individuals of a nation are stylized to become its prototypes and one stops reading about just any Italian but instead reads about the Italian as a representative of inconvertible national features, then this is a symptom for the adoption of national characteristics. It implies the essentialization of national traits.
Given the prominent position of Marxist scholarship in Bulgarian musicology after the Second World War in general and in Ivan Hlebarov’s works during Bulgarian State Socialism, this begs the question as to what function nationalist concepts played for a scholarly approach that – at least nominally – campaigned for internationality. Here, Olga Panteleeva’s research on musicology in late Imperial and early Soviet Russia gives important impulses. Panteleeva makes it clear in her dissertation that she offers ground-breaking research, since “[n]o study has yet untangled the conflicting viewpoints of the fin-de-siècle Russian debates on music and traced them back to their many sources.” This gap of knowledge forbids a full understanding of “what the brave new Soviet musicology built upon, and against what it reacted.” Therefore, the state-of-the-art situation is quite similar to the present case of Marxist musicology in post-war Bulgaria.
In her recent article “How Soviet Musicology became Marxist”, Panteleeva examines how the popular Russian notion of “musical metaphysics” changed after the 1917 revolution:
Barely a decade after the October Revolution, a solidly materialistic approach supplanted this discourse, awash in idealist and religious philosophies. The newly institutionalized Russian musicology boasted a fully-fledged research paradigm that approached music like any other phenomenon of the social and natural world which could and ought to be comprehended rationally. By the end of the Cultural Revolution […], this academic paradigm had become decidedly Marxist.
Nevertheless, Panteleeva stresses the fact that “the channels through which ideas travelled from the pre-revolutionary to the early Soviet periods were more heterogeneous than has previously been discussed”. It “was the convergence between the positivist imperative to find laws of music and Soviet Marxist determinism”, that “made Marxist frameworks appealing to Soviet musicologists”. Following those remarks, this present contribution on Bulgarian post-war Marxist musicology in the case of Ivan Hlebarov shares with Panteleeva the assumptions that an examination “of how Russian musicology became Marxist […] shows the institutional and interpersonal processes through which humanities knowledge was produced in the increasingly repressive Soviet state.” Besides, the transformation of musicology to a Marxist science was equally “disastrous for Soviet music scholarship and could be felt for decades after that, indeed, until the present day”, as they were for Bulgarian musicology. One of the essential symptoms in this respect were the “severed ties with the international academic community”, which, in the Bulgarian case, have never been re-established to the niveau before Communism.
Although several parallels exist between the processes of how Russian and Bulgarian musicology became Marxist, this contribution does not present a fully-fledged examination of these processes in Bulgaria by challenging the historical frontier of the 9th of September, 1944 – the day of the Communist coup d’état –, in the way Panteleeva does. Such an attempt has never been made concerning Bulgarian historiography and even scholars from general, social, and political history have so far only considered the possibility of “historical niches” about the date 1944.
Nevertheless, while research on nationalism has become a well-established field within musicology over the last two decades, examinations of Marxist musicology are only now emerging. Thus, Hentschel’s and Panteleeva’s studies could be read as if they seem to suggest an irreconcilable rift between nationalist and Marxist concepts of musicology. Here, the significance of Ivan Hlebarov’s writings in the context of more general debates on Marxism and nationalism in post-war Communist Bulgaria becomes clear. As the researcher Yannis Sygkelos shows in his study Nationalism from the Left, the question regarding the connection of nationalism and Marxism was of special importance in Bulgaria, since:
[T]he Party’s prominent and historic leader Georgi Dimitrov, a major Stalinist himself, was the architect of the popular front and the main developer of the so-called “national line” of the Comintern; his speech at the Seventh Congress of the Comintern could be considered as a fundamental text of the theoretical syncretism of Marxism and nationalism.
As the Bulgarian Communist Party became “an ideal domain, where ‘Marxist nationalism’ as introduced by the popular front tactics could be articulated and pursued”, “the nationalist discourse” of the Party formed “a necessary constituent element of its hegemonic strategy”, which “became completely overt and dominant, as limits set by the Soviet bloc substantially widened” in the late 1950s. However, while Sygkelos examines how “commemorations and anniversaries reinterpreted the national identity, reshaped collective memory, and propagandised communist achievements”, or “[n]ational symbols […] encapsulated national identity and national values”, this contribution entirely focusses on the Ivan Hlebarov’s music historiography with a close-reading of a series of his publications.
III. “Bogomilism” in Ivan Hlebarov’s Music Historiography
III.I. A Search for Traces
The notion of “Bogomilism” first appears in Ivan Hlebarov’s publications around the second half of the 1960s – during a time when he actively engaged with questions of music historiography. The Russian musicologist Mihail S. Druskin became a central point of reference for Hlebarov during that time, and several academic exchanges strengthened their personal and professional contacts throughout the 1960s and 1970s. Ivan Hlebarov first explicitly mentions “Bogomilism” in his monograph The Symphonism of Bulgarian Composers from the Second Generation that he wrote between 1966 and 1970, but which only appeared in print “with a series of additions and changes” in 1977. In this publication, Hlebarov traces the developments of Bulgarian symphonic music from the end of the First World War to the 1960s, focusing on the so-called second generation composers; those protagonists that were born around 1890 to 1910 and first appeared on the public scene in inter-war Bulgaria. Today, second-generation composers like Pancho Vladigerov, Lubomir Pipkov, Filip Kutev, Dimitar Nenov and others are credited with being classics of Bulgarian music.
The very beginning of his first chapter “Socio-Cultural Circumstances for the Development of the Symphonism by Composers from the Second Generation” sees the argument laid out that leads to the first mention of “Bogomilism”. Based on the assumption that the Bulgarian September Uprising from 1923 led to the creation of “two antagonistic camps” and a “polarization” of Bulgarian society, Hlebarov places composers from the second generation as members of the intelligentsia on the progressive – ergo: winning – side of history. For Hlebarov, the bourgeoisie of his home country was characterized by “dehumanization”, and was not able to “forge the ideas of the national Renaissance” period during the 18th and 19th century that helped to create the Bulgarian state in 1878. The bourgeoisie’s “chauvinist propaganda was only a conjunctural ‘adaptation’ of Nazi ‘ideology’ – a caricature of the caricature of ideas from bourgeois Elitism.” Thus, since its propaganda was a caricature of its fascist model and the bourgeoisie did not have the power to develop actions based on their beliefs, for Hlebarov, the Bulgarian intelligentsia remained untouched from this ideology. It is this alleged innocence and anti-bourgeois sentiment that allowed Bulgarian intellectuals and – by extension – composers to pursue their anti-fascist ideal: “the people”. For Hlebarov, anti-fascism and commitment against the ruling bourgeoisie on the one hand, and a nationalist ideal on the other are not two mutually exclusive possibilities. Instead, Hlebarov saves the Bulgarian intelligentsia of the inter-war period, by declaring it a part of the anti-fascist camp, whose struggle against the ruling class later ended in “the Socialist Revolution in Bulgaria in September 1944” – of course, Hlebarov leaves out the Red Army’s involvement in these events.
Having saved Bulgarian composers from the suspicion of collaboration with the ruling class, Hlebarov argues that Bulgarian intellectuals became guardians of the Bulgarian national tradition and vessels of its anti-authoritarian character. This ideal, in Hlebarov’s eyes, shows similarities to other popular movements of belated nations and peoples from the 18th and 19th century; but it is a quote by the famous leftist literary critic Ivan Mešekov from his 1934 text “On our National Character” that introduces “Bogomilism” as the term to summarize Hlebarov’s argument:
The Bulgarian national spirit is Bogomilist or Hajduk. If our folk poetry contains our national character, we must know that the Bulgarian people did not glorify Czarist or Boyarist absolutism, the glamour and darkness of feudalism. Events and heroes who captured its [scil. the people’s] imagination of exaltation and praise, because they saw themselves in their people, only appeared later with the collapse of the feudal system, throughout whose existence it [scil. the people] was a centuries-old, rightless slave.
On the one hand, Hlebarov uses these remarks to stress the unity of the Bulgarian people, on the other, he sees the Bogomilist national character as a guarantor that “the representatives of progressive social classes have always seen and realized themselves in their merger with the people”:
It is the identity between the social and the national that gives the underlying meaning of the ideal of the people in Bulgaria’s history. That is why the people never feasts its eyes on the past and always – to a different extent and in various forms – represents a unique sense for the course of history.
To sum up Hlebarov’s argument in his monograph on symphonic music, it is the ideal of the people as the amalgamation of the social and the national that describes the alleged Bogomilist nature of Bulgarian music. While Hlebarov recognizes that nationalism per se was a widespread phenomenon, the “sense for the course of history whose main feature is its origin in a struggle – that is a specific Bulgarian phenomenon.”
A few years later, in his History of Bulgarian Music Culture. An Introduction from 1985, Hlebarov returned to the question of Bogomilism in the section “Basic Principles of Realism in Bulgarian Music” from the second chapter on “Artistic-Methodological Principles of Bulgarian Music”. Here, the significance of “Bogomilism” as a national character of Bulgarian music seems to have been weakened in comparison to Hlebarov’s 1977 study on symphonic music. Furthermore, “Bogomilism” now appears to have been subordinated to other, more important tasks: Now, Hlebarov first explains that “the creation of national art means the creation of contemporary art and through that – international art.” Only then does Hlebarov clarify that “the fight for a national art means the creation of a socially aggressive art.” Although the following argumentation is principally a repetition of Hlebarov’s remark in his 1977 book, he rewrites some parts of it. Now, the “Bogomilism” of the Bulgarian people and their art is mainly the result of the five-century-long occupation of the country by the Ottoman Empire:
The five century-long Ottoman yoke shaped the psychology of the Bulgarian people with all its positive and negative traits. That is why later when the Bulgarian nation was born, the national and the social merged into an indivisible unity in the consciousness of the Bulgarian people.
To fully understand, how unusual Hlebarov’s approach is from the viewpoint of classical Marxism, it is possible to compare his idea of an amalgamation of the national and the social in the Bogomilist ideal of the people with Lenin’s perspective on the role of the proletariat in opposition to the ruling class. Yannis Sygkelos highlights this perspective in his aforementioned examination of nationalist discourse in the Bulgarian Communist Party:
Lenin argued that it is the proletariat and its dictatorship which imposed restrictions on the former oppressing class, whereas the Bulgarian communists, going beyond the Leninist tradition, had implied that it is the narod [highlighted by PBN, scil. the people] which imposed a series of restrictions on the oppressors and the parasite capitalists. Whereas, then, the proletariat exists independently in Lenin’s view, proletariat, people, and nation are completely merged in the discourse of the BCP. The proletariat was no longer seen as a class within a stratified society; it had become in essence the people and notably included the Party, which, at the same time, was the soul of the state. The Party-state then merged with the body as a whole, at the same time as being its head. The Party was, therefore, at once the whole and the detached part that instituted the whole. In that way, the BCP was seen as the head of the people (that is, the Bulgarian people or, in other words, the Bulgarian nation). Not only did the Party institute the whole, but it also was the whole: it identified itself with the Bulgarian people or the Bulgarian nation.
Although Hlebarov does not use the Bulgarian Communist Party as an important protagonist in his music historiography of Bulgarian music during the 20th century, the convergences between his writings and the authoritarian discourse on nationalism that existed in the BCP before and after the Second World War are immediately evident. There is no proletarian class in Hlebarov’s concept of music history, but only a people, the Bulgarian people that represent a unity born in the struggle against their oppressors during Feudalism. For Hlebarov, the faculty of perceiving history in a way that does not antiquate it, but to productively use it, is founded on the “Bogomilist” origin of the Bulgarian nation. The progressive identity of the Bulgarian people has always allowed them to overcome their enemies and it is this national character in Frank Hentschel’s sense as an “invariable”, which for Hlebarov constitutes the universalism of Bulgarian culture:
This identity […] determines the universalization of the national specifics of the Bulgarian one in the ‘common-world social problems’. Thus, in the relationship between the national and the international, that is characteristic for every culture, in Bulgarian culture, particularities are introduced that can only be understood in the light of the idea of its universality.
To summarize this search for traces in Hlebarov’s writings, the specific historical situation in inter-war Bulgaria led the historian to declare second generation composers to be a part of the anti-fascist movement in the country. As part of the intelligentsia, they were opposed to their bourgeois oppressors and therefore welcomed in the arms of the people. For Hlebarov, “Bogomilism” formed the first reconstructable instance in history that the Bulgarian people raised against their oppressors. This fighting spirit had since been ineradicable and as new members of the people, composers of the second generation could now build on it, participating in the preparation of the Socialist Revolution of 1944 and committing themselves to the Socialist cause after it, too.
III.II. From Music Historiography to Cultural Studies
Notwithstanding the evident convergences between Hlebarov’s use of “Bogomilism” in his texts from before 1990 and the authoritative discourse on nationalism in the Bulgarian Communist Party, it would be hasty to jump to any conclusions. Hlebarov participated in the official discourse and furthered it in Bulgarian musicology by advocating a theoretical and methodological agenda of music historiography that combined nationalist and Marxist thought. However, to show what Hlebarov meant by “Bogomilism” and how it was connected to more general debates in Bulgarian society during State Socialism is not enough – Leon Moskona would maybe call these the objective-ontological and socio-cultural aspects of analyzing musicology as a discipline. Moskona’s idea of analyzing how musicological knowledge is derived, the logico-epistemological aspect, goes beyond the previous analysis and points in the direction of an economy of music historiography rather than its politics and ideology.
Here, a number of shorter texts and published lectures by Ivan Hlebarov show that “Bogomilism” as the amalgamation of nationalist and Marxist approaches to musicology might have been convergent with hegemonic strategies by the Bulgarian Communist Party. However, this methodological and theoretical syncretism – one could also speak about symbiosis or undecidability depending on how to evaluate Hlebarov’s ideas – did allow for flexible interpretations of contemporary phenomena. Thus, the contemporary music of living Bulgarian composers could be legitimized or delegitimized with reference to their proximity to the people: As soon as they depicted a relationship to the Bulgarian people, they could be considered a part of them and therefore beyond any doubt. On the other hand, if a composer was not a faithful son of the people as a famous Party slogan said around 1980, he was not a part of the people; he would have been outside the people, ergo the Party, ergo the nation.
Since Hlebarov himself became an increasingly important figure in Bulgarian musicology from about 1970, he was able to argue for a variety of modernist composers and works that frequently started to appear in Bulgaria, simultaneously. This popularization of modernist music began in the 1960s, first with Dimităr Hristov and then with the New Folklore Wave that started after the premiere of Konstantin Iliev’s Fragments for Symphony Orchestra in 1968. Suddenly, a series of works was composed and performed that made heavy use of modernist techniques like dodecaphony, aleatorics, or sonoristics, while combining them with elements from Bulgarian folk music. For Hlebarov, it was not difficult to legitimize his arguments on this music while remaining firmly on Marxist positions, or at least on a position that he considered to be Marxist. An exemplary text in this respect is a review he wrote about the Festival New Bulgarian Music 1976, that is entitled “Music of the Pugnacious World View”. In it, Hlebarov talks rather positively about the use of modern compositional techniques:
Nowadays, the problem of musical means is stepping back into the background. Technical problems do not move Bulgarian composers; not even by aesthetical problems – because the principle of Socialist Realism for faithfulness to modernity has long been in their blood. Nowadays, social problems become more and more important: what social position will you take in modernity, what is your place in the rapidly changing world of our time. Either you slip on the grey stream of the vulgar state of affairs, sometimes garnished with ideological slogans, but without [real] ideological positions, without a spine. Or you will look for a pugnacious position to defend socialist humanism, unfailing honesty, and adherence to principle. Today, Bulgarian composers solve this dilemma, and the majority and the best of them give it a second solution.
As they are essentially Bulgarian composers, Hlebarov can subsume them under the umbrella term of Socialist Realism and can, therefore, shift away from a mere discussion of the alleged formalism or modernism of compositional techniques. For Hlebarov, all technical problems are solved, and there are no more aesthetic uncertainties. By the year 1976, he argues that composers had arrived at a post-ideological situation that suggests a fraying of music. After all technicalities have been discussed, composers are supposed to deal with the actual issues of their age: social problems. In Hlebarov’s writings during that time, the ideological tutelage of composers, how they ought to compose, is replaced by the demand to engage with pressing questions that go far beyond music. The evaluation of compositional technique is abandoned for the strengthening of composers’ commitment to the society and culture in which they live. Thus, Hlebarov’s History of Bulgarian Music Culture from 1985 is an important step towards the establishment of a new research paradigm that is based on the phenomenon of culture rather than the notion of music history.
The subtle change in Ivan Hlebarov’s use of the term “Bogomilism” as a concept for his music historiography that happened between his monograph on symphonic music by Bulgarian composers and his introduction to the history of Bulgarian music culture, suggests an abandonment of the concept “Bogomilism”. This impression is even strengthened if Hlebarov’s publications after the end of Communism in 1989/1990 are taken into account.
For example in a feature for the Bulgarian National Radio programme Orpheus from the 4th of November, 1991, Hlebarov critically engages the concept of music for the people during Communism. In his contribution with the title “Music from the People, Music for the People – Reality and Demagogy”, he sees the Communist use of the notion of the Bulgarian people as a continuation of older traditions that led to their dogmatization during State Socialism:
Thus, the people, as a crucial concept in the new times, acquired a unique duality – music “came” from the people and “went” back to people. Therefore, the idea of democratization of culture and the arts closed between these two concepts of the people, and it turned out that in it there was no room for the composer – he only “arranged” the music of the people. […] Then, any art that went beyond that scheme was considered to be alien to the people.
Nevertheless, his article “Historical Musicology in a Changing World” from 1992 suggests that he was not willing to entirely let go of materialist musicology:
An attempt to find a new philosophical fundament of historiography is to strive for the materialist view of the sphere of social life as a logical continuation of materialism in the treatment of the universe in general. Marxism carried out this attempt with the formation of historical materialism. Thus, we come to one of the most pressing questions of our time […]: is historical materialism alive?
This insistence on historical materialism seems unusual from today’s perspective and seems to point to a missing re-evaluation of Communism from the side of Hlebarov. However, similar attempts to re-establish Marxism as a credible paradigm for musicology happened in other countries during that time, too.
If Hlebarov’s scholarly development is considered as a transition from music historiography towards cultural studies the way his publications from the 1970s and 1980s suggest, the notion of “Bogomilism” seems to be a remnant of Hlebarov’s early contributions to music historiography. Eventually, “Bogomilism” loses its appeal to Hlebarov. But this is not fully explainable by referring to the end of Communism as an ideological environment that made such historiographic concepts necessary. Even after 1990, Hlebarov did not entirely abandon materialism, although he did not any longer employ the notion of “Bogomilism”.
This contribution examined the notion of “Bogomilism” in Ivan Hlebarov’s writings between the 1960s and 1990s. This notion first appeared in Hlebarov’s work around the second half of the 1960s, when the musicologist actively engaged with questions of music historiography and the work of his Soviet colleague Mihail S. Druskin. In his monograph on Bulgarian symphonic music that he wrote during that time and the later study on the history of Bulgarian music culture, the concept of “Bogomilism” figures most prominently.
In these publications, Hlebarov uses “Bogomilism” to unite Bulgarian composers with their people to create a homogenous community. Based on his reading of classical Bulgarian writers like Hristo Botev and Nikola Vapcarov, Hlebarov turned “Bogomilism” into a national trait. However, Hlebarov’s music historiography is not only nationalist: “Bogomilism” allowed Hlebarov to situate Bulgarian composers at the progressive forefront of their people since the beginning of Bulgarian music culture in the middle ages. Therefore, Hlebarov’s approach is a convincing example of the more general authoritative discourse of the Bulgarian Communist Party that allowed for an amalgamation of nationalism and Marxism. Notwithstanding these convergences, Hlebarov was able to build on the ambiguity of his approach to evaluate contemporary Bulgarian music according to aesthetic standards that are neither explained by nationalism nor by Marxism. This economics of music historiography has yet to be examined. However, exemplary texts from around 1980 suggest that Hlebarov arrived at a post-ideological situation that abandoned debates on musical formalism or modernism in favour of an approach that focused on the composer’s stance towards socio-culture issues.
After the events of 1989 and 1990 that led to the end of the People’s Republic of Bulgaria, Hlebarov critically engaged with the dogmatic Communist notion of the people. The notion of “Bogomilism” never appeared in his publications, again. Nevertheless, Hlebarov did not wholly abandon a materialist conception of musicology and continued his research on Bulgarian music from the perspective of an examination of music culture.
Considering Hlebarov’s huge trend towards self-theorizing that even strengthened after in the 1990s and 2000s until his death – a methodological self-awareness that far exceeds typical musicological behaviour –, the remnants of Hlebarov’s notion of “Bogomilism” in his historiography remain unexamined so far. However, Hlebarov continued to be preoccupied with concepts like “generations of composers” as methodological tools for music historiography. This suggests his ongoing interest into the question of how to transcend from singular phenomena like individual works or composers to gain a more collective and abstract picture that could be used to compare developments in Bulgaria with simultaneous processes abroad. Thus, Hlebarov’s work oscillates between nationalism and Marxism in its approach, while it moved from music historiography to cultural studies of music.
Literature and primary sources cited
Danuser, Hermann. Generationswechsel und Epochenzäsur – ein Problem der Musikgeschichtsschreibung des 20. Jahrhunderts [Generational Change and Epochal Change – a Problem for the Music Historiography of the 20th Century (1986)]. – In: Gesammelte Vorträge und Aufsätze [Collected Talks and Articles]. Ed. by Hans-Joachim Hinrichsen, Christian Schaper and Laure Spaltenstein, vol. 3: Historiographie [Historiography], Schliengen: Argus, p. 49 – 56.
Hentschel, Frank (2007). Bürgerliche Ideologie und Musik. Politik der Musikgeschichtsschreibung in Deutschland 1776 – 1871. Frankfurt am Main and New York: Campus.
Hlebarov, Ivan (1997a). Istoričeskoto muzikoznanie v promenjaštija se svjat [Historical Musicology in a Changing World, (1992)]. – In: Izbrano [Selected Writings]. Vol. 1: Monographs, Journalism. Sofia: Izdatelski centăr “Artkoop”, p. 128 – 143.
Hlebarov, Ivan (1997b). Muzika na borčeskoto svetouseštane (Misli po povod simfoničnite tvorbi, predstaveni na “Nova bălgarska muzika” ’76) [Music of the Pugnacious World View (Thoughts Concerning the Symphonic Music performed at “New Bulgarian Music” ’76)]. – In: Izbrano [Selected Writings]. Vol. 1: Monographs, Journalism. Sofia: Izdatelski centăr “Artkoop”, p. 240 – 244.
Hlebarov, Ivan (1997c). Muzika ot naroda, muzika za naroda – realnost i demagogija [Music from the People, Music for the People – Reality and Demagogy]. – In: Naj-novata bălgarska muzikalna kultura. Mitove i realnost 1944 – 1989 [The Latest Bulgarian Music Culture. Myths and Reality 1944 – 1989]. Sofia: Izdatelski centăr “Artkoop”, p. 35 – 44.
Hlebarov, Ivan (1985). Istorija na bălgarskata muzikalna kultura. Uvod. Sofia: Izdatelstvo Muzika.
Hlebarov, Ivan (1977). Simfonizmăt na bălgarskite kompozitori ot vtoroto pokolenie [The Symphonism of Bulgarian Composers from the Second Generation]. Sofia: Dăržavno izdatelstvo Muzika.
Katedra po istorija i estetika na muzikata pri BDK [Department for History and Aesthetics of Music at the BSC], “Protokol № 2” [Minutes No. 2 ]. – In: BDK, Protokoli ot zasedanija na katedra po istorija na muzikata i muzikalna estetika [Minutes from meetings of the Department for Music History and Music Aesthetics]. State Archive Sofia, 1786/2/68, fol. 6r/6v, p. 1/2.
Mešekov, Ivan (1965). Bogomilskijat ni harakter [Our Bogomilist Character (1934)]. – In: Očerci, statii i recenzii [Essays, Articles and Reviews]. Sofia: Balgarski pisatel, p. 115.
Mitchell, Rebecca (2015). Nietzsche’s Orphans: Music, Metaphysics, and the Twilight of the Russian Empire. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Moskona, Leon (1977). Aktualni metodologičeski problemi v razvitieto na săvremennoto muzikoznanie [Recent Methodological Problems in the Development of Contemporary Musicology]. – In: Muzikalni horizonti. Bjuletin [Musical Horizons. Bulletin], No. 7, p. 133 – 149; continuation in: ibid. (1978), no. 2, p. 95 – 105.
Musikwissenschaftlicher Paradigmenwechsel? Zum Stellenwert marxistischer Ansätze in der Musikforschung. Dokumentation einer internationalen Fachtagung vom 5.–7. November 1999 in Oldenburg [Musicological Paradigm Shift? The Significance of Marxist Approaches in Musicology. Documentation of an International Conference in Oldenburg, 5th–7th of November, 1999]. Ed. by Wolfgang Martin Stroh und Günter Mayer. Oldenburg: BIS, 2000.
Nikolchina, Miglena (9th of July, 2016). Art. Heterotopian Homonymy. – In: Glossary of Common Knowledge. URL: http://glossary.mg-lj.si/referential-fields/commons/heterotopian-homonymy (as of 13th of June, 2019).
Panteleeva, Olga (2019). How Soviet Musicology became Marxist. – In: The Slavonic and East European Review, No. 1: 1917 and Beyond: Continuity, Rupture and Memory in Russian Music, p. 73 – 109.
Panteleeva, Olga (2015). Formation of Russian Musicology from Sacchetti to Asafyev, 1885–1931. PhD dissertation. Berkeley: University of California.
Sygkelos, Yannis (2011). Nationalism from the Left. The Bulgarian Communist Party during the Second World War and the Early Post-War Years. Leiden and Boston: Brill (Balkan Studies Library, vol. 2).
Yurchak, Alexei (2006). Everything Was Forever, Until It Was No More. The Last Soviet Generation. Princeton und Oxford: Princeton University Press.
 „[К]ато цяло музикознанието не се е вписало органически в съвременната конкретно-историческа музикална практика и не решава напълно успешно своите нови проблеми и задачи.“ Leon Moskona (1977). Aktualni metodologičeski problemi v razvitieto na săvremennoto muzikoznanie [Recent Methodological Problems in the Development of Contemporary Musicology]. – In: Muzikalni horizonti [Musical Horizons. Bulletin], No. 7, p. 134.
 „[Г]еометрията на съдържателното пространство“. Ibid., p. 135.
 „[К]акво е съдържанието на получените знания (обекитвно-онтологически аспект); по какъв начин те са получени (логико-епистемологически аспект); закого те са предназначени (функционално-дейностен аспект); с каква цел, в каква ситуация те функционират (социо-културен аспект) и пр.“ Ibid., p. 134.
 „По-конкретно, задачите на категориално-методологическия анализ на музикознанието се състоят в следното: да се разкрият особеностите и строежът на различните ‘теоретични мрежи’, структуриращи музикалната реалност, да се набележат нови категориално-конструктивни възможности в начините на осъзнаване на музикалното изкуство, да се разкрие основният кръг от типологични възможни изследователски операции и процедури, да се осигури формирането и развитието на музиковедческите понятия и т. н.“ Ibid., 135/136.
 „Това ще съдействува за още по-убедително решаване както на проблемите на теорията, естетиката, философията и историята на музиката, така и на върпосите на музикалното обучение и възпитание.“ Ibid., p. 136.
 This contribution translates the Bulgarian term osăznavane as understanding. The peculiarities of such a translation and different perspectives on how osăznavane can become a productive concept for dealing with Bulgarian music and music historiography from an epistemological perspective will be the topic of a later publication.
 „Die Analysen von Quellen des 19. Jahrhunderts sind […] untergründig immer auch Analysen der modernen Musikhistoriografie.“ Frank Hentschel (2007). Bürgerliche Ideologie und Musik. Politik der Musikgeschichtsschreibung in Deutschland 1776–1871. Frankfurt am Main and New York: Campus, p. 11.
 „Man kann, erstens, die persönliche politische Auffassung einzelner Autoren untersuchen. Doch auf diese Weise wird kein unmittelbarer Zusammenhang zwischen beiden Aspekten aufgezeigt: Die musikwissenschaftliche Profession der Autoren ist bei diesem Ansatz zufällig. Man kann, zweitens, vereinzelte politische Aussagen und Suggestionen innerhalb des musikgeschichtlichen Textes heraussuchen; aber die so gewonnenen Ergebnisse sind nicht gattungskonstitutiv. Für eine Untersuchung des Einflusses politischer Kontexte auf ‘die’ Musikhistoriografie, auf musikgeschichtliches und ästhetisches Denken war daher ein dritter Ansatz zu wählen: Es werden Merkmale herausgearbeitet, die das Einzelwerk transzendieren. Das Interesse gilt daher den politischen Untertönen der deutschen musikgeschichtlichen ‘Meistererzählung’. Es ließe sich auch von einem ‘Supertext’ sprechen, der sich aus dem Netz von Gemeinsamkeiten und Konstanten der musikhistorischen Texte verschiedener Autoren ergibt. Im Zentrum steht die Frage, wie ‘das’ musikhistorische Denken von den kulturellen und politischen Umständen geprägt wurde. Es kommt […] nicht darauf an zu zeigen, dass tagespolitische Ereignisse hier und da auch in musikalisches Schrifttum eindrangen, sondern vielmehr darauf, dass bestimmte, vielleicht gerade von den kurzzeitigen Wandlungen abstrahierte, aber vom kulturellen, politischen und sozialen Umfeld abhängige Strukturen die Musikgeschichtsschreibung wesentlich determinierten.“ Ibid., p. 15.
 Ibid., p. 217.
 „Musikgeschichte verlief somit spiralenförmig: Einerseits steuerte sie chronologisch auf die Musik der Gegenwart zu, andererseits wurde der Radius dessen, was historiografisch als relevant eingestuft wurde, immer weiter verkleinert, so dass die Musikgeschichte schließlich in Europa, hauptsächlich in Italien, Frankreich und Deutschland endete […] Die Räumlichkeit des Entwicklungsgangs der richtigen Musik verhielt sich dabei spiegelverkehrt zum Geltungsbereich ihrer Normen: Entstand die ‘richtige’ allmählich aus der prähistorischen Musik aller Völker, so verwirklichte sie sich später auf einem kleinen Fleckchen christlicher und aufgeklärter Erde; die in ihr implizit enthaltenen Normen aber sollten umgekehrt auf die ganze Welt übertragbar sein.“ Ibid., pp. 222/223.
 „Zum einen half die nationalistische Ideologie, die Musik aufgrund der vermeintlich durch sie vermittelten Nationalcharaktere zu beschreiben und zu typisieren. Zum anderen dienten Nationen als scheinbar schon immer gegebene, objektive Einheiten, die die Ordnung des Materials und die Schilderung des historischen Verlaufs als imaginäre Geschichtsgrößen wesentlich mitbestimmten. Ein deutliches Symptom für den Nationalismus war der Nationalstolz, der sich auch in den Musikgeschichten bemerkbar machte. Sogar direkt gesellschaftspolitische Stellungnahmen, in denen die Nationalität als eine Eigenschaft von Volk und Bürgertum dem Adel abgesprochen wurde, finden sich zuweilen.“ Ibid., pp. 362/363.
 „Die Unterscheidung von Nationalstil und Nationalcharakter ist […] theoretisch, und in der Tat manifestierte sich das nationalistische Denken realiter in weder genau definierter noch theoretisch klar fundierter Weise. […] Wo kein eindeutiges Bekenntnis zu der einen oder anderen Auffassung vorliegt, dort lässt sich mittels zweier Merkmale bestimmen, zu welcher Auffassung die Autoren neigten: Erstens ist der Nationalstil historisch veränderlich, so wie kulturelle Konstellationen veränderlich sind, denen er erwächst. Deshalb ist der Nationalstil eine wesentlich historische Erscheinung, so dass ihm keine zeitliche Tiefendimension eignet, während der Nationalcharakter als eine Art Konstante begriffen wird, die anthropologischen Konstanten gleicht, aber eben nicht für alle, sondern nur für Menschen einer bestimmten Gruppe gilt. […] Je stärker die tiefe Verwurzelung und historische Konstanz von Nationaleigenschaften betont werden, desto mehr neigt ein Text zur Ideologie des Nationalcharakters. Wenn die Individuen einer Nation zu deren Prototypen stilisiert wurden und nicht so sehr von einem Italiener, sondern von dem Italiener als dem Repräsentanten unwandelbarer Nationaleigenschaften die Rede war, kann dies als Symptom für die Annahme des Nationalcharakters betrachtet werden. Denn diese impliziert die Essentialisierung der nationalen Merkmale.“ Ibid., p. 362/363.
 Olga Panteleeva (2015). Formation of Russian Musicology from Sacchetti to Asafyev, 1885–1931. PhD dissertation. Berkeley: University of California, p. 3. I thank Dr Panteleeva for making a copy of her dissertation available to me. Its book version will appear in 2019.
 Cf. Rebecca Mitchell (2015). Nietzsche’s Orphans: Music, Metaphysics, and the Twilight of the Russian Empire. New Haven: Yale University Press.
 Olga Panteleeva (2019). How Soviet Musicology became Marxist. – In: The Slavonic and East European Review, No. 1: 1917 and Beyond: Continuity, Rupture and Memory in Russian Music, p. 73.
 Ibid., p. 74.
 Ibid., p. 75.
 Ibid., p. 77.
 A good example in this regard is the musicologist Stojan Brašovanov, who studied with Hermann Abert in Leipzig and Berlin.
 Cf. e.g. Aleksandăr Vezenkov, 9 septemvri 1944 g.
 Yannis Sygkelos (2011). Nationalism from the Left. The Bulgarian Communist Party during the Second World War and the Early Post-War Years. Leiden and Boston: Brill (Balkan Studies Library, vol. 2), pp. 5/6.
 Ibid., p. 8.
 Ibid., p. 238.
 Mihail S. Druskin’s significance for Bulgarian musicologists has not yet been examined. Nevertheless, archival sources from the collection of the Bulgarian State Conservatory in Sofia suggest that Druskin became a central figure not only for Hlebarov, but for other Bulgarian music historians, too. For example, in a meeting of the Department for Music History and Aesthetics of the Conservatory, the composer Georgi Dimitrov “pointed out the necessity of a contact between the members of the department and an authoritative scholar, a music historian, to guide their work properly. Such an authority the department sees in the person of Prof Dr M[ihail] S. Druskin. The forms of cooperation can be varied – from professional correspondence to personal conversations.” „Той [scil. G. Dimitrov] изтъкна необходимостта от контакта на членовете на Катедрата с авторитетен учен музикален историк, който да насочва правилно тяхната работа. Такъв авторитет Катедрата вижда в лицето на проф. д–р М.С. Друскин. Формите на сътрудничеството могат да бъдат най-разнообразни – от деловата кореспонденция до личното общуване.“ Katedra po istorija i estetika na muzika pri BDK [Department for History and Aesthetics of Music at the BSC], „Protokol № 2“ [Minutes No. 2 ]. – In: BDK, Protokoli ot zasedanija na katedra po istorija na muzikata i muzikalna estetika [Minutes from meetings of the Department for Music History and Music Aesthetics]. State Archive Sofia, 1786/2/68, fol. 6r, p. 1.
 Ivan Hlebarov (1977). Simfonizmăt na bălgarskite kompozitori ot vtoroto pokolenie [The Symphonism of Bulgarian Composers from the Second Generation]. Sofia: Dăržavno izdatelstvo Muzika, p. 14.
 Ibid., p. 39.
 „Нейната шовинистична пропаганда е само конюнктурно ‘приспособяване’ на нацистката ‘идеология’ – карикатура на карикатурата на идеите за буржоазния елитаризъм.“ Ibid.
 Ibid., p. 38.
 „Българският национален дух е богомилски или хайдутски. Ако народното ни поетическо творчество съдържа националния ни характер, трябва да знаем, че българският народ не е възвеличавал в песен царския или болярския абсолютизъм, блясъка и мрака на феодализма. Събития и герои, пленили въображението му за възвеличаване и възпяване, защото е виждал в тях себе си, идват едва с провалянето на феодалната система, в която е бил векове крепостен, безправен роб.“ Ivan Mešekov (1965). „Богомилският ни характер„ [Our Bogomilist Character (1934)]. – In: Očerci, statii i recenzii [Essays, Articles and Reviews]. Sofia: Balgarski pisatel, p. 115.
 „[П]редставителите на прогресивните обществени класи всякога са осъзнавали себе си в сливането с народа […]. Именно тъждеството между социално и национално дава основния смисъл на идеала за народното в историята на България. Ето защо народното никога не е любуване на миналото и всякога в различна степен и в различни форми представлява усещане за хода на историята.“ Ivan Hlebarov (1985). Istorija na bălgarskata muzikalna kultura. Uvod, Sofia: Izdatelstvo Muzika, p. 40.
 „[У]сещане за хода на историята и чиято основна черта е борческото начало – това е специфично българско явление.“ Ibid. In his following discussion about the function of the national ideal in inter-war Bulgaria, two aspects become obvious: First, the century-old ideal of Bogomilism is now continued by socialism. Second, it is especially through literature and poetry that these new tendencies become evident. Through his readings of texts by the Bulgarian writers Nikola Vapcarov and Hristo Botev, Hlebarov comes to the conclusion that the transformation of Bogomilism into Socialism reveals the beforementioned specific Bulgarian character: the amalgamation of the national and the social.
 „[С]ъздаваането на национално изкуство означава създаване на съвременно, а поради това – интернационално изкуство.“ Ibid., p. 38.
 „[Б]орбата за национално изкуство означава създаването на социално-борческо изкуство.“ Ibid., p. 40.
 „Петвековното османско иго окончателно оформя психологията на българския народ с всичките му положителни и отрицателни черти. Ето защо по-късно, когато се ражда българската нация, в съзнанието на народа националното и социалното се сливат в неделимо единство.“ Ibid., p. 41. Maybe, this strengthening of the role the Ottoman occupation of Bulgaria played for its music history should be read against the background of the beginning of the so-called Revival Process – a forceful assimilation of Bulgaria’s Turkish minority and ethnic cleansing that reached its peak between 1984 and 1989. However, without support from archival sources or other research, this can only be a speculation.
 Yannis Sygkelos (2011). Nationalism from the Left. The Bulgarian Communist Party during the Second World War and the Early Post-War Years, p. 242.
 On this term see Alexei Yurchak (2006). Everything Was Forever, Until It Was No More. The Last Soviet Generation, Princeton und Oxford: Princeton University Press.
 Frank Hentschel (2007). Bürgerliche Ideologie und Musik. Politik der Musikgeschichtsschreibung in Deutschland 1776–1871, pp. 362/363.
 Ivan Hlebarov (1985). Istorija na bălgarskata muzikalna kultura. Uvod, pp. 208/209.
 See the beginning of section II. in this paper.
 „Днес все повече проблемът за музикалните средства отстъпва на заден план. Не технически проблеми занимават българския композитор. Даже не и естетическите проблеми – защото принципът на социалистическия реализъм за вярност към съвременността е отдавна в кръвта им. Днес все повече водещи проблеми стават социалните: каква социална позиция ще заемеш в съвременността, какво е мястото ти в бързо изменящия се свят на нашето време. Дали ще се плъзнеш по сивия поток на вулгарната конюнктура, понякога гарнирана с идейни лозунги, но без идеен стожер, без гръбнак. Или ще потърсиш борческата позиция за отстояване на социалистическия хуманизъм, за непреклонната честност и принципност. Тази дилема днес решават българските композитори и болшинството и най-добрите от тях дават второто решение на проблема.“ Ivan Hlebarov (1997b). Muzika na borčeskoto svetouseštane (Misli po povod simfoničnite tvorbi, predstaveni na „Nova bălgarska muzika“ ’76 [Music of of the Pugnacious World View (Thoughts Concerning the Symphonic Music performed at “New Bulgarian Music” ’76, (1976)]. In: ibid., Izbrano [Selected Writings]. Vol. 1: Monographs, Journalism. Sofia: Izdatelski centăr “Artkoop”, p. 241.
 „Така народът като своеобразно ключово понятие в естетиката на новото време придоби особена двойнственост – музиката ‘идваше’ от народа и ‘отиваше’ към народа. Така идеята за демократизма на художествената култура и изкуство се затвори между тези две разбирания за народа и се оказа, че в нея няма място за композитора – той само ‘аранжираше’ музиката на народа […]. Тогава всяко изкуство, което излизаше извън тази официална схема, се смяташе за чуждо на народа.“ Ivan Hlebarov (1997c). Muzika ot naroda, muzika za naroda – realnost i demagogija [Music from the People, Music for the People – Reality and Demagogy]. – In: ibid., Naj-novata bălgarska muzikalna kultura. Mitove i realnost 1944–1989 [The Latest Bulgarian Music Culture. Myths and Reality 1944–1989]. Sofia: Izdatelski centăr “Artkoop”, p. 35.
 „Опит да се намери нов философски фундамент на историографията е стремежът да се осъществи материалистичният възглед в сферата на обществения живот като логично продължение на материализма в трактовката на мирозданието въобще. Този опит осъществи марксизмът с формирането на историческия материализъм. Така достигаме до един от актуалните въпроси […]: жив ли е историческият материализъм?“ Ibid. (1997a). Istoričeskoto muzikoznanie v promenjaštija se svjat [Historical Musicology in a Changing World, (1992)]. – In: ibid., Izbrano [Selected Writings]. Vol. 1: Monographs, Journalism. Sofia: Izdatelski centăr “Artkoop”, p. 133.
 See the contributions to these conference proceedings: Musikwissenschaftlicher Paradigmenwechsel? Zum Stellenwert marxistischer Ansätze in der Musikforschung. Dokumentation einer internationalen Fachtagung vom 5.–7. November 1999 in Oldenburg [Musicological Paradigm Shift? The Significance of Marxist Approaches in Musicology. Documentation of an International Conference in Oldenburg, 5th–7th of November, 1999]. Ed. by Wolfgang Martin Stroh und Günter Mayer, Oldenburg: BIS, 2000.
 The notion “generations of composers” is especially interesting, because musicologists have campaigned for it elsewhere, too. See for example Hermann Danuser’s ideas on this topic. It is therefore a superb example for a heterotopian homonymy in Miglena Nikolchina’s sense. Cf. Hermann Danuser. Generationswechsel und Epochenzäsur – ein Problem der Musikgeschichtsschreibung des 20. Jahrhunderts [Generational Change and Epochal Change – a Problem for the Music Historiography of the 20th Century (1986)]. – In: ibid., Gesammelte Vorträge und Aufsätze [Collected Talks and Articles]. Ed. by Hans-Joachim Hinrichsen, Christian Schaper and Laure Spaltenstein, vol. 3: Historiographie [Historiography], Schliengen: Argus, pp. 49–56; Miglena Nikolchina (9th of July, 2016). Art. Heterotopian Homonymy. – In: Glossary of Common Knowledge. URL: http://glossary.mg-lj.si/referential-fields/commons/heterotopian-homonymy (as of 13th of June, 2019).