• Cecilia Society: participating institution, chorus, orch
• APT, Antonín: director of institute, conductor

Prager Morgenpost 29/10/1860 reported that for the concerts of the Cecilia Society to be given during this season, the following vocal works were to be performed: ‘the second part of the B-minor Mass of Bach. - Die Maikönigin by Bennett. - Stabat Mater by Rossini. - Das Glück von Edenhall by Schumann.’ Schumann’s work was given in the concert taking place on 7/12/1860.

Detailed advance information of this specific Cecilia Society concert was published in most Prague German-languages newspapers on 4/12/1860. A text, essentially identical in content between the sources, announced the date, time and venue of the concerts and related full details of the programme in performance order, and of the participating soloists. Prager Zeitung published news of the concert a day later on 5/12/1860. The report also noted the date, time and venue of the event, related that in the second part of the concert would be given Mendelssohn’s Symphony in A major, and in the first part ‘many novelties’ which were to include an overture by Zwonař [Zvonař] and the male-voice chorus Na Prahu by Veit.

The unsigned Dalibor 10/12/1860 review did not relate the date or venue of this event, the first concert of the Cecilia Society’s 21st season. Most of the works performed were praised by the periodical’s critic, and apparently were enthusiastically received by the audience. The opening Overture by J.L. Zvonař was considered to be one of the composer’s ‘greatest’ works. W.H. Veit’s chorus Na Prahu [To Prague], which subsequently became one of the most performed Czech choruses of the 19th century, was ‘most favoured’ by the audience. The ‘Ballada’ for solo, chorus and orchestra was not specifically identified by the Czech source as being Schumann’s Das Glück von Edenhall, which was first published in Leipzig earlier 1860. However, the work was positively identified by German-language periodicals covering this concert, and Schumann’s composition was among the works listed in a notice published by Dalibor 1/11/1860 specifying the large-scale choral items to be given by the Cecilia Society during its 1860-1 season. Unfortunately, the Dalibor critic considered that the piece‘did not obtain such recognition [from the audience] as it merited.’ The standard of performance of the symphony by Mendelssohn was thought to have been best in the second movement. However, the tempo in the Menuetto ‘was very sluggish.’ The review reported that the hall was full.

Reviews of this concert appeared in Prague German-language newspapers in the days immediately following the event. That of Bohemia 10/12/1860, signed ‘V.’, began by noting that the concert was a great disappointment for the many Prague ‘friends and devotees of the magnificently feathered, sweet swan of Pesaro’ [Rossini], who had been expecting a performance of the Italian composer’s Stabat mater. The primary reason for the substitution of this work for a programme of two parts and six different numbers, the Bohemia critic held to be due to the string contingent of the orchestra having gained new members. The result was that the orchestra ‘here and there lacked its otherwise customary strength, fire and, namely in the strings, distinctiveness of performance in ensemble and precision which is so important for the clarity of a performance.’ A summary of the works given and their performances then followed. Of Zvonař’s ‘interesting novelty’ the critic noted that the work shared a common title with that by Bargiel, but that it seemed to be modelled on more specific, subjective content and to be expressing a conflict of great passion and moment. The work ‘is great in form and dimension and is equipped with rich orchestal medium and is the result of thorough musical studies.’ Its musical development was not thought to be compromised by the expressive content and the piece enjoyed a ‘very positive success.’ Following the overture, the ‘chorus by Veit on Picek’s beautiful poem “Na Prahu” was received with delight; Nachbauer was curtain-called for his performance of the third item, a concert aria for tenor and orchestra which it was noted had not previously been given in Prague; the performance of the duet from Faust was ‘very felicitous’. Appé ‘routinely testifies with his pleasing voice to be a gifted singer’. His pupil, Miss Beutel [Beutlová], was ‘equipped with a fine and sonorous voice and it seems to us can become a talented singer. Her debut before the public turned out to be very favourable’, and she was praised for the accuracy of her intonation and execution. Schumann’s characteristic Ballade was thought, despite its possessing such a high opus number, to contain many numbers that in addition to their power of expression were also invested with freshness and clarity. Finally, the ‘numerously attended’ concert closed with Mendelssohn’s Symphony no.4, which it was noted had been first introduced to Prague, ‘as with many works by this and other new masters’, by the Cecilia Society.

Prager Zeitung 9/12/1860 published a substantial review of this concert, signed ‘!!’. The correspondent remarked that ‘The Cecilia Society [Cäcilien-Verein] surprised us once again yesterday in its hundred and first concert with three interesting novelties that for the most part herald from illustrious masters. The most substantial of these, in both content and size, seemed to us to be Das Glück von Edenhall, a ballad freely adapted by R. Hasenclever after L. Uhland, which the profoundly poetic R. Schumann worked into a superb work for male voices, soloists, choir and orchestra in its wondrous original melody. The very specific choice of forces he makes was intended such that sections of musical declamation would alternate with mighty choruses. Imposing, and most revealing of the individuality of the brilliant composer, is the interweaving of the defiant war march of the approaching enemy into the fading cries of pain of the guests carousing at Edenhall. That there should be no lack of musical croquis [‘Croquis’ - unidentifiable translation] and explanatory illustrations in musical figures is well assured by the many epic movements, again appearing in the form of dialogues. The chorus Na Prahu from our compatriot composer Mr Veith [Veit] cannot, despite many foreign stylistic features, renounce its Slavic national type, in the cultivation of which the composer is so successful. The Overture in C minor by J. L. Zwonař [Zvonař] to a tragedy play is powerful in effect. It almost seems as though the composer had had a particular subject in mind, so specific in all generality is the allocation of motifs to individual instruments, so calculated the modulation, yet which is borne by high and rapid flights of fantasy and therefore surprising. The main key, which is so little heeded in the first part, is highly prevalent in the second and also triumphs at the conclusion, when the composer, after venturing into the friendlier realm of the dissonances of the soul that more satisfyingly depict the struggle of the hero with fate, has yielded it once more to a realistic major key. Of the two vocal performances the greater merit goes to the duet from Spohr’s Faust, rendered here stylishly by the young singer Miss Mathilde Beutel with her rich, irreproachable voice, and her teacher Mr Appé. This, as also the performance by Mr Nachbauer of a Mozart concert aria dating from 1783 and heard here for the first time, made the desire for concert singers who are not members of the theatre be felt even more keenly. The concert ended with the excellent Symphony No.4 in A by Felix Mendelssohn-Bartholdy. All of the pieces were performed with almost complete precision under the circumspect conducting of Mr Apt.’