Edition with comment of the correspondence between Heinrich Besseler and Jacques Handschin (1925-1954)

海因里希·贝塞勒和雅克·汉德辛在1925年至1954年（汉德辛去世的前一年）之间的通信是音乐史和科学史的独特文献。直到现在，这两位音乐史家的持续效力在这一学科中是独一无二的。它反映了a)两位研究者在解释中世纪音乐来源方面的持续努力，b)历史建构的不同方法论，以及c) 1933年和1945年前后当代史中不同的思想和文化政治定位。贝塞勒遵循了他在哥廷根的老师弗里德里希·路德维希和汉钦的严格的语言学道路，受到埃里希·冯·霍恩博特尔和罗伯特·拉赫曼的影响，追求音乐民族学概念的包容。随着纳粹掌权（即所谓的macht<e:1> bernahme），科学与世界政治的融合日益发生(也是在两位研究者的个人环境中：霍恩博特尔和拉赫曼被驱逐，贝塞勒将他的学生曼弗雷德·布科夫泽（Manfred Bukofzer）安置在巴塞尔的Handschin，但当Handschin要求贝塞勒为奥托·贡博西（Otto Gombosi）写一封专家意见信时，他出于政治原因拒绝了。这些通信也说明了科学传播的一些重要问题，例如1930年阿道夫·桑德伯格在慕尼黑教授职位的更换，或1936年在巴塞罗那召开的IGMW大会。最后，这种交流清晰而生动地反映了战后初期德语音乐学的状况。通信是音乐史和当代史的中心来源；这两个方面都得到了密切关注，但到目前为止只是摘录。

The correspondence between Heinrich Besseler and Jacques Handschin from 1925 to 1954 (the year before Handschin's death) represents a unique documentation of the history of musicology and the history of science. The continuous effectiveness of these two historians of music up to the present time is unique within the discipline. It reflects a) the constant efforts of both researchers to interpret the sources of mediecal music, b) different methodological approaches in the construction of history, and c) different ideological and culturalpolitical positioning in the Contemporary History before and after 1933 and 1945. Besseler has followed the strict philological path of his teacher in Goettingen, Friedrich Ludwig, and Handschin, influenced by Erich von Hornbostel and Robert Lachmann, has pursued the inclusion of musicethnological concepts. With the Nazi's seizure of power (so called Machtübernahme), the integration of science into the world politics is increasingly taking place (also in the personal environment of both researchers: Hornbostel and Lachmann were expelled, Besseler placed his student Manfred Bukofzer to Handschin in Basel, but when Handschin asked Besseler to write an expert opinion letter for Otto Gombosi he refused for political reasons. The correspondence illuminates also some important points of science communication, e.g. the replacement of professorship of Adolf Sandberger in Munich in 1930 or the congress of the IGMW in Barcelona in 1936. Finally, the exchange is a clear and lively reflection of the situation of the German-speaking musicology in the early post-war period. The correspondence is a central source of the history of musicology and the Contemporary History; it was closely attended to terms of both aspects but up to now only in excerpts.