Kategorie sacrum i profanum we współczesnej literaturze muzykologicznej

Abstract

The distinction between sacred and secular music has obtained almost uninterruptedly ever since the time when professional music developed. In contemporary muslcologlcal literature there is a lot of ambiguity and many different ideas about it. Many authors use the definition of "sacred" or "profane" to describe a musical work in reference to its function (e. g. Th. Georglades). Others would like to find elements of a sacred or secular character in the very substance of music (e. g. O. Söhngen, B. Pociej). Subscribers to the last thesis often base their convictions on the philosophical analysis of the "musical time" (tempo) (e. g. E. Krenek). The majority of contemporary musicologists – while not denying the existence of a hyperaesthetic category of the sacred – avoid the radical statements of those who advocate the interpretation of this musical element in an exclusively "material" way. Such authors introduce a historical perspective into their research. They affirm that one cannot talk about aesthetical categories if one does not take into consideration the cultural context, the auditory habits, traditions, the spirit of a given epoch etc. A. Orel, W. Arlt, O. Ursprung represent such musicologists. Ch. Albrecht contemplates church music and secular music and draws some conclusions of a general character. According to what he says the sacred and the secular elements are not mutually exclusive. Secular does not mean anti-sacred but a-sacred. This author proposes several negative criteria which make it impossible to classify secular music as sacred music: denaturalized sounds, ludic elements, subjectivism, ecstasy, grotesque elements. The problem indicated in the title has not so far been studied properly and awaits further work.