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

News of the intention of the Cecilia Society to perform Beethoven’s incidental music was published by the Czech-language periodical Lumír on 6/2/1851. This reported that ‘Our Cecilian Society [Cecilianský spolek] prepares for its next concert „Zříceniný Athen“ [Der Ruinen von Athen] by Beethoven. Oh, if only it was not with Kotzebue’s confounded libretto! [Jen kdyby při tom toho zpropadeného Kotzebuova textu nebylo!].’

Advance information of this event was published by Bohemia 28/3/1851, which reported that on ‘Wednesday 2nd April the Cecilia Society under the leadership of the Director Mr Apt in the Žofín Hall will perform here for the first time Mendelssohn’s newest Symphony in A major, opus 90, and the complete music to Beethoven’s Ruinen von Athen.’ The declamations in the latter would be given by Miss Frey [Freyová] and Mr Fischer, with the permission of the [Estates] Theatre Director Hoffmann, and the solo vocal parts by Miss Wáwra [Vávová], Mr Brzorád and Mr Nedwěd [Nedvěd].

The Tagesanzeiger text of Bohemia 1/4/1851 reported that on Wednesday 2nd April: ‘5pm in the Hall of Žofín Island: Academy of the Cecilia Society’. No further details were given by this source.

Bohemia 4/4/1851 published an extended review, signed ‘V.’, of this concert. The correspondent reported how the director [Apt] of the society had chosen ‘an extremely interesting’ programme for the body’s fourth and final concert of the season, that there was much excitement in the hall given that the two numbers were unknown to most of the audience, and that Apt deserved the thanks of all friends of music for introducing [to the city] three pieces of ‘the wonderful Felix in two seasons (Athalia, Antigone, and today’s novelty), since these works would otherwise have been withheld from them for a long time.’

Beethoven’s incidental music, noted as being performed [in Prague] for the first time in its entirety, the Bohemia correspondent considered did ‘not seem to inhabit a level worthy of the master. Judging the master by the highest criteria, somebody other than Beethoven could have composed certain details in this composition.’ Points of specific criticism were the operatic style of the duo of the Greek couple and of the aria of the high priest, a perceived want of ‘noble feeling’ in the nationally-coloured final chorus, and a disappointing Allegro following the ‘wonderful theme of the march of priests’ in the overture. These numbers were outclassed by other parts of the work, including the ‘great and sublime’ triumphal procession and chorus of the sixth number that successfully develops the march theme from the overture. The performance of the work was considered a testament to the diligent rehearsals, with only the wind instruments drawing criticism for poor tuning and mistakes, particularly in the horn parts. The audience responded with lively applause, and the chorus of Dervishes had to be encored.

Of Mendelssohn’s Symphony in A major the corresondent remarked that if he had not been told beforehand that the work had been written while the composer was staying in Rome and subjected to many impressions of this great city, he would have been surprised by the unusual ideas and character of the individual movements. Attention was drawn to the extreme variations of style between the movements and the unusual tonal progression of the piece from major to minor. In the light of these traits Mendelssohn’s ‘drawing back of the piece from the public [presumably referring to its only posthumous publication] is easy to explain.’ Of the performance, the work was felt to demand ‘exact precision and particular moderation of nuance between più forte, piano and pianissimo’ and criticized aspects of the playing by the orchestra, in particular the lack of balance between the first and second violins. The solo performers were listed in the review text.

A review of this concert, signed ‘Q’, was also published by Lumír 10/4/1851. The correspondent remarked that the event was well attended, that the audience was for the greater part enthusiastic and attentive, and that the performance in general was ‘respectable [slušný]... especially if we take into consideration that the Cecilia Society is not an organization founded of permanent members and musicians, but only of amateurs and lovers of music’. The importace of the Society was stressed in its presenting the most modern works ‘by Felician David, Robert Schumann, Mendelssohn and others pre-eminent in the newest paths of musical art.’ Its productions were notable for their assiduous rehearsal and for the works being presented with ‘enthusiasm and liberated joy’. This contributed to the high standard of musical life in the city, the critic noting as an example the praise of Berlioz ‘that gigantic comet in the sphere of musical art’ in remarking that his works were ‘most perfectly performed’ there. The review then focussed more specifically upon this concert. A brief summary of the background and plot of Kotzebue’s play was provided, and individual numbers of the incidental music described. Of these, the ‘most interesting and tremendously inspired number of the whole work is here in Prague already known and appreciated chorus of Dervishes and the immediately following Marcia a la turca.’ Concerning the performance of Beethoven’s music, the ‘execution - especially as concerns the chorus, was very respectable. Miss Vávrová, Messrs Brzorád and Nedvěd sang the soli, Miss Freiová declaimed Minerva, Mr Fischer Merkura and the Greek Patriarch.’ The wind instruments however were criticized for lagging behind the rest of the ensemble.

The Lumír review then continued with a detailed commentary about the symphony given in the second part of the concert. The correspondent noted that more pedantic musicians might hold an unfavourable opinion of the piece, primarily because they consider ‘that it lacks the precise musical logic and thoughtfulness in which both other Mendelssohn works can pride themselves [presumably referring to the A minor and Lobgesang symphonies].’ It should be recognized rather as a ‘work of real genius [and]... artistic individuality’. The performance ‘was also very fiery and successful’, except for the trumpets who played too many wrong notes.

Bohemia 24/4/1851 published news that recently monies had been fraudulently obtained from people on the pretext of benefit concerts being supposedly arranged for good causes; these entertainments not actually taking place. Notices were issued for such events with fake approvals and seals of the city official administration, an example being a would-be benefit concert in aid of the Karlsbad [Karlový Vary] Kinderhospital supposedly being given by the Cecilia Society on 28th April in the Žofín Hall. No such concert took place or included the society. The article outlined this problem in greater depth.