Early information about this concert appeared in the earlier specified Dalibor sources. News was then published in Prager Morgenpost 15/12/1858 announcing the date, time and venue of the soirée, the performers, and noting that among other works the programme would contain the Quintet in G minor by Eduard Tauwitz which had just won first prize in a composition competition in Frankfurt.

Two post-concert reviews of this event, both signed ‘V.’, appeared in the German newspaper Bohemia, on 17/12/1858 and on 19/12/1858. The first contained some general information about the concert and its perceived success. The second included a positive critical opinion of the three compositions that were performed. Notably, the greater part of both texts focussed upon one particular work given in the concert, the new Clarinet Quintet by the then second Kapellmeister of the German Estates Theatre, Eduard Tauwitz. Tauwitz, Bohemia 17/12/1858 noted, had submitted this composition to a competition in Frankfurt judged by ‘the old masters’ Louis Spohr, Vincenz Lachner and Messner. Tauwitz’s work had received the votes of the judges and he had evidently been awarded the [first] prize. Somewhat cryptically the Bohemia text noted that attached to his entry was the motto ‘Laß Dich’s nicht verdrießen, Kannst Du den Preis nicht genießen’ [Let you not be annoyed, you cannot enjoy the Prize]. The connotation of this motto in relation to the composition is not clear, but it may have been attached by Tauwitz in order for the work to be traced to its composer following judging. Whatever the meaning of the comment, the Bohemia critic extolled the success of the work, considering that the piece ‘made a brilliant ending to yesterday’s soirée.’ The quintet was praised for its technique and poetic content, and was reckoned to constitute ‘an astonishing achievement.’ At the end of the performance the piece was received with great commotion, and evident approval for its being voted the prize winner. Of the concert in general this first Bohemia review noted that the ‘large audience evidently was extremely excited by the three numbers [of the programme], and a sound impression upon them was made by Mozart’s masterful Andante cantabile [from the Quartet] and the unsurpassed three last movements of Schumann’s opus.’ The performers, Bennewitz [Benevic], Paulus, Goltermann and Bausch, as well as the clarinetist Pisařowic [Pisařovic] were all curtain-called. Bausch was noted as having particiated in the concert as a replacement for Kindl, who was ill.

The second Bohemia post-concert report described each of the compositions given in the concert in some detail. Concerning the string quartet by Mozart the critic considered how remarkable it was that in such ‘pure music’ the composer could also become the ‘contemplative poet’ writing with such profound feeling. The opening movements of the work were deemed representative of the ‘craftsmanship of the absolute Tonmeister [lit. Master of sounds]’. The Andante Cantabile movement was ‘a composition of touching ... inspirational force.’ Clearly the expression of powerful poetic feeling was a factor which also endeared Schumann’s quartet to the reviewer, who characterized the composer as an artist who in his works ‘gives himself full and complete [and] without secrets’, whose inspirationally and sentimentally driven approach often gave rise to works of idiosyncratic form. Of the work’s four movements, the first was evidently thought to be least successful, giving rise only to the comment that ‘the critic must let the matter of the first movement rest, despite to be sure its expert construction. Yet the [second movement] A-flat major Andante and its praiseworthy variations shows us the great Tone-poet in splendid light. The extraordinary diversity of invention and the depth of the working gives the otherwise so strict variation form poetic life and spirited content.’ In the Scherzo attention was drawn to Schumann’s singular use of contrast, specifically of ‘sweet humour’ offset with poignant brooding. The Finale, notable for its original and interesting use of rhythm was thought to rise to a still higher level.

After commenting upon the Schumann Quartet, the bulk of the Bohemia 19/12/1858 review was devoted to the Quintet by Tauwitz. Initially the text mused upon Tauwitz himself as a composer, noting that he never aspires to overstretch his artistic individuality but is content to create more as an imitator. However, ‘notwithstanding all the conservativeness of the author’ his music was deemed to be very successful. Tauwitz ‘possesses a beautiful fund of natural and other gifts, his creative personality is interesting and as such his Art is interesting ... [it] betrays above all a downright Master.’ This was manifest in ‘assuredness of form, the decisiveness of polyphonic texture, in the always relevant detail and the deft calculation of sound effects in all the parts...’ Of the three movements the first two were particularly praised; the first movement for its ‘poetic content’ as well as its expert elaboration, the ‘warmly tempered’ E-flat major Andante with its ‘obbligato above arresting accompaniment figures ... of beautiful and interesting efficacy’. The quality of the Finale however was thought to some degree to drop away. Therein the chamber style of writing was held to be less successful and the themes less singular in character, although that the texture was still ‘striking goes without saying.’ To conclude the critic considered it would be felicitous if Tauwitz now chose to pursue chamber music with alacrity and ‘as soon as possible’ embarked upon a new work.

In comparison with the Bohemia coverage of this event, the review, signed ‘R.’, that was published in Prager Morgenpost 18/12/1858 was comparatively brief, albeit still extending to a substantial paragraph. The critic noted the success of the event, that the audience was as numerous as it was sympathetic and that the performances were assiduously prepared and merited ‘unbounded acclaim.’ Unlike the Bohemia texts this review then wrote with descriptive detail on the works by Mozart and Schumann but included virtually no specific analytical or descriptive account of Tauwitz’s Quintet. The first movement of Mozart’s String Quartet ‘has a joyous, lively bloom; the Andante Cantabile in F major is a discreetly accompanied song of soft melancholy; of astonishing loveliness are the Menuetto and Allegro Molto in C major. Through the last movement skips [with] mischievous grace a merry dance.’ Of the work as a whole ‘The freshness of idiom, the vigour of the movements and the strong, systematic form as with old works we are always accustomed to find, conferred on this Tone-painting a vertiably inspirational character.’ Of Schumann’s Quartet the critic considered that ‘great praise’ was due to the performers for choosing this ‘magnificent’ work with its ‘broadly elaborated form, bold, and hugely tempestuous’. The opening Allegro received enthusiastic applause from the audience. The Andante quasi Variazioni had a ‘profundity and subtlety ... peculiar to Schumann’, but no comment was made of the last two movements. Finally, the text briefly commented upon Tauwitz’s new work, but made no specific reference to the music itself. Its performance brought ‘particular interest’ to the evening. The work was an ‘accomplishment’ on a ‘high degree’; another performance given at the earliest opportunity the critic noted would be generally appreciated. Out of friendship Professor Pisařowitz [Pisařovic] had taken the clarinet part and had given a ‘noble, expressive’ performance. Finally, the report related that Bausch had played the viola in place of Kindl who was ill.

The Dalibor 23/12/1858 review, signed ‘P.’, provided an oddly erroneous identification of Schumann’s quartet as ‘in F (op.26)’. The critic praised the quintet by Eduard Tauwitz for its variety of ideas, solid development, and an interesting use of instrumental colour which testified to the composer’s knowledge of the clarinet. However, the composition was found to contain no ‘great psychological scenes’ and indulged in no ‘spiritual struggles’ to arrest the listener’s attention. No reference was made to the Frankfurt composition competition into which the work had been entered and which was mentioned by the earlier Bohemia 17/12/1858 review. After praising the performance of Benevic [Bennewitz] and the other artists, the reviewer concluded by expressing hope that the final entertainment in this series would attract a ‘still greater’ audience. Indicative of the national and patriotic partisanship developing within Prague musical journalism at this time, compared with the enthusiastic coverage of this event by the German daily newspapers, the response of the Czech periodical was decidedly muted in its description and opinion. The lack of description or positive reaction to the new work by Tauwitz, conductor of the German Theatre and perceived in Czech circles as a protagonist of German music culture in the city, is particularly notable.