According to news published in both Prager Morgenpost 3/12/1858 and Bohemia 3/12/1858 this first quartet soirée was originally scheduled for 3 December, but had to be postponed until the ‘following Friday’ [10 December]. This Morgenpost announcement related that the change of date was due to the illness of Professor Goltermann. The event, its time and venue (both those details were absent from the Dalibor sources), then appeared in the Tageskalender of Bohemia on 10/12/1858. Prager Morgenpost 10/12/1858 also reported that the soirée was to take place that same day, listing the performers and noting that because of the first-rate artists and the refined programme ‘we could expect a great musical entertainment.’

A review of this event, signed ‘V.’, was published in Bohemia 11/12/1858. This asserted that the soirée was an excellent achievement, both in terms of a large attendance and the excellent execution of the ensemble. The programme was said to have contained ‘two excellent and one highly interesting specimen from the three essential periods of chamber music.’ The Quartet Op.74 nr.2 by ‘the original genius of the genre, Jos. Haydn’ was clearly thought to inhabit the first category, even though specific description of this work was limited to a note of the ‘soulful’ first violin melody of the Andante grazioso. There can be little doubt that Volkmann’s Quartet fell far short of ‘excellent’ and was therefore the part of the programme considered only to be ‘highly interesting’. The reviewer held this work to be ‘exceedingly characteristic’ of the ‘modern era with its High-art aspiration and its unequal craftsmanship’. Essentially, this meant that while the composition contained much of imagination and interest, its working and effect as a whole left much to be desired. Thus, it was thought to exhibit the ‘representative features’ of a modernist composition, namely comprising poetic ideas, brilliant flights of fancy and a saturation of ideas and colour, but only in ‘twinkling moments’ did these achieve ‘specific poetic results.’ Such was the great frequency of ‘rhythmic and acute effects’ that their effectiveness wore off. Such well-conceived themes as the opening of the Adagio were considered to be lacking in development and therefore failed to fulfil their inherent promise. The ‘ghost of Schubert’ was said to haunt the first part of the Presto movement, and the Trio section was criticised for lacking originality. The ‘extremely brilliant’ Finale found Volkmann dispensing ‘without influence’ his own ‘poetic personality’. Of the final item of the concert the Bohemia review noted ‘The extraordinary reverence that the old master Spohr enjoys with us was shown by the extraordinary success of his Double Quartet in D minor, op.65, whose very piquant yet deeply heartfelt scherzo had to be repeated.’ The critic found praise for the work not simply in that ‘this beautiful composition’ stimulated at the highest level ‘the sweet, elegaic youthful reminiscences of an old listener’, but also on account of its consumate art typical of all Spohr’s compositions of that period.

The Prager Morgenpost 11/12/1858 review, signed ‘R.’, shared similar opinions as to the success of the concert and the value of the programme as those expressed by the critic of Bohemia. Interestingly, the Morgenpost text opened with a revealing perspective of such chamber music production within local social musical life. These ‘quartet evenings receive as always the approval of Music-friends.’ Evidently however the productions were not so popular with the public in general, who had less interest in the ‘true, noble, pure artistic form of the Quartet’. Such chamber music soirées were not ‘about excitement and rousing cheer but about a quiet, unhurried enjoyment’, which was obviously perceived to be less appealing. Of the three compositions performed the Morgenpost critic lavished praise on the works by Haydn and Spohr but censured that by Volkmann. Haydn’s Quartet was noted ‘to begin with an Allegro spiritoso in a fugal style, after which follows a wonderful Andante grazioso. Such music is only found in Haydn, and we notice with delight how the public, regardless of varied trends in present taste, fully and with such rare ease indulge their true pleasures of these older pieces. This was not the case with the second item [on the programme]. In Robert Volkmann’s Quartet in A minor op.9, filled with bizarreness, whose nebulous form is equipped with diminished fourth chords and exquisite dissonances, a different Art abounds....’ This Quartet’s best movement was thought to be the Presto, whose ‘spirited briskness’ was thought to bear slightly greater appeal. The final work of the soirée, Spohr’s Double Quartet was regarded by the critic as ‘undisputably the crest of the evening’, not only on account of the considerd merit of the composition itself but also for the quality of its performance. The performers were praised for their assiduous and thorough study of the work, the Scherzo of which had to be repeated. The ‘understanding and virtuosity of the performance was ... excellent.’

The review published by Dalibor 16/12/1858, and signed ‘S.’, noted that the principal quartet in this production comprised vl, Antonín Benevic [Bennewitz]; vl, Jan Kindl; va, Alfred Paulus; vc, Julius Goltermann. In Spohr’s Double Quartet, the second ensemble comprised vl, František Bauš; vl, [?] Meloun; va, Vilém Bauer; vc, Antonín Wiedemann. The performances of all three works were considered by the Dalibor critic to have been excellent. The compositions themselves were well-liked by the reviewer with the exception of the work by Volkmann, which was thought by the critic to be disappointing in comparison with the same composer’s G minor string quartet, performed during the previous year. The Dalibor critic recommended the next quartet production to lovers of music, for these concerts ‘simultaneously combine the greatest artistry with intellectual understanding.’