167
Prejeto / received: 7. 6. 2021. Odobreno / accepted: 12. 7. 2021.
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, DOI: 10.3986/DmD18.1-2.04
MUSICAL PERFORMANCE ACTIVITIES OF JOSEF 
ZÖHRER AT THE LJUBLJANA PHILHARMONIC 
SOCIETY
JERNEJ WEISS
Univerza v Ljubljani, Univerza v Mariboru
Izvleček: Prispevek proučuje glasbeno poust-
varjalno delovanje pianista, učitelja, dirigenta in 
glasbenega direktorja ljubljanske Filharmonične 
družbe Josefa Zöhrerja (1841–1916), ene osredn-
jih osebnosti ljubljanskega glasbenega življenja 
druge polovice 19. in začetka 20. stoletja. V 
domala pol stoletja svojega poustvarjalnega in 
pedagoškega delovanja je Zöhrer kar najmočneje 
zaznamoval glasbeno kulturo na Slovenskem.
Ključne besede: Josef Zöhrer, Filharmonična 
družba, pianist, dirigent, glasbeni direktor
Abstract: The article examines the musical 
performance activities of the pianist, teacher, 
conductor and music director Josef Zöhrer 
(1841–1916), one of the central figures of Lju-
bljana’s musical life in the second half of the nine-
teenth century and the early twentieth century, 
at the Ljubljana Philharmonic Society. Over the 
course of almost half a century of performing 
and teaching Zöhrer had an enormous impact 
on musical culture in present-day Slovenia.
Keywords: Josef Zöhrer, Ljubljana Philharmonic 
Society, pianist, conductor, music director
The dilemmas of contemporary music historiography in Slovenia are frequently the con-
sequence of differences between two fundamental concepts: on the one hand the concept 
of a nationally conditioned musical culture, and on the other the bourgeois and therefore 
essentially transnational musical reality that characterized the long nineteenth century 
in the Slovenian lands. The original sin is probably to be found in certain interpretations 
of musical history in the recent past that during the period in question aimed to create a 
purely Slovenian musical culture, following the model of the great nations.
The period between the two world wars saw concerted efforts to establish a total 
sovereignty for Slovenian music, particularly on the part of the circle of composers around 
the journal Novi akordi (Gojmir Krek, Emil Adamič, Anton Lajovic, Janko Ravnik, 
etc.), who were seeking a place under what was already a predominantly Slavonic sky. 
It is by taking this kind of increasingly evident national polarization into account that 
it becomes possible to understand the reference by one of the protagonists of the young 
wave of composers in the Novi akordi orbit, Anton Lajovic, to “eternal splendours and the 
poison of the works of Beethoven, Bach and Wagner”.1 In the new cultural and political 
reality of the common state of the South Slavs established in the immediate aftermath 
1 Lajovic, “O večnih krasotah in o strupu Beethovnovih, Bachovih in Wagnerjevih del”, Slovenec, 
6 April 1924, http://www.dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:doc-9B4V58BE.
DMD_18_1&2_2022 - Vsebina P9.indd   167 30/05/2022   16:48:27
De musica disserenda XVIII/1–2 • 2022
168
of the First World War it seemed necessary to form, as quickly as possible, a genuinely 
Slovenian musical consciousness from the transnational musical culture that existed in 
the Slovenian lands, and thus at least partially to adapt music-historical memory. There 
was therefore a pressing need to break with the past and rely exclusively on Slovenian 
achievements. Yet praiseworthy though this endeavour may have been in a period during 
which efforts were underway to achieve a Slovenian national identity, it had quite a number 
of ramifications that appear to have had a baleful effect on the music-historiographical 
narrative of the recent past.
After the Second World War the concept of a nationally conditioned musical culture 
was also adopted more or less uncritically by Slovenian music historiography. The con-
sequence of this was not only the appearance of numerous “forgotten” names, but also 
the fact that musicians were judged not so much in terms of their importance to musical 
culture as for their loyalty to the national idea. Bearing in mind the predominance of 
this concept, it is no surprise that the treatment of musical immigrants working in the 
Slovenian lands was to a large extent subordinated to a nationally conditioned view of 
music history. Among these immigrants, the more successful musicians who, through 
their activities, fitted into the concept of a nationally determined musical culture were 
for the most part tacitly “naturalized” and treated as “Slovenes”. Meanwhile, their less 
successful or nationally less than impeccable colleagues were frequently the target of 
chauvinistic attacks in the media during their lifetime and have posthumously suffered 
a form of damnatio memoriae at the hands of music historians.
The latter group includes the Vienna-born pianist, teacher and conductor Josef 
Zöhrer (1841–1916), who was also one of the most important music directors of what 
was then the principal concert-giving institution in the Slovenian lands, the Ljubljana 
Philharmonic Society (Philharmonische Gesellschaft in Laibach). It was not, in fact, 
until a symposium held at the Slovenian Philharmonic Hall on 6 December 2016 to mark 
the centenary of the musician’s death that a comprehensive light was thrown on various 
areas of Zöhrer’s work over more than half a century of musical activity in Ljubljana by 
some of the papers presented.2
Outline of Zöhrer’s Activities as Composer and Teacher
Information on Zöhrer’s musical training in Vienna is incomplete because the relevant 
material is missing. Zöhrer appears on the list of students of the Conservatory of the 
Society of the Friends of Music (Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde) in Vienna for the aca-
demic year 1856/1857 as a second-level piano student of Eduard Maximilian Pirkhert. 
This is the only official record of his training as a pianist, since he is not listed among the 
Conservatory’s piano students either before or after this date. He is, however, listed in the 
same academic year as a cello student of Carl Schlesinger (replaced by Josef Hartinger), 
and in the following year as well. He is believed to have studied composition with Simon 
2 Program sheet of the scientific symposium, Josef Zöhrer (1841–1916) ob 100. obletnici smrti, 
Slovenska filharmonija, 6 December 2016.
DMD_18_1&2_2022 - Vsebina P9.indd   168 30/05/2022   16:48:27
169
Jernej Weiss: Musical Performance Activities of Josef Zöhrer at the Ljubljana Philharmonic Society
Sechter during the same period.3 He nevertheless appears not to have sat the final cello 
examination.4 It is therefore likely that Zöhrer also had piano lessons with private teachers. 
Although he first made his mark in Ljubljana as a cellist, the greater part of his activity 
from the mid-1860s until the eve of the First World War was as a pianist and conductor, 
and it is these areas to which the central part of the present paper will be dedicated. It 
is, however, also worth mentioning Zöhrer’s teaching work at the Philharmonic Society 
school, where he was one of the few members of staff to teach the cello. He first appears 
on the list of members of the Philharmonic Society in 18635 and was appointed one of the 
Society’s piano teachers on 3 October 1865.6 His teaching activities were not limited to the 
cello and piano, however, and Philharmonic Society reports mention him also as a teacher 
of singing and harmony. In due course he also took over as director of the choir. Zöhrer 
later established himself as an excellent music teacher and took his place alongside Hans 
Gerstner and Gustav Moravec as the “third pillar”7 of the triumvirate of teachers who 
worked at the Philharmonic Society school for over forty years and created favourable 
conditions for its development. It was with these three teachers that the music school of 
the Ljubljana Philharmonic Society truly began to flourish.
Zöhrer is also known to have been active as a composer, but the fate of his composi-
tional legacy is not entirely clear. On the basis of an entry in the Philharmonic Society’s 
annual report, we are able to conclude that Zöhrer’s widow bequeathed her late husband’s 
musical manuscripts to the Society following his death, but not all of them are preserved 
among the material of the Philharmonic Society held at the National and University Library 
(Narodna in univerzitetna knjižnica) in Ljubljana.8 This library’s collection includes the 
manuscripts (autographs or copies) of a total of eighteen choral compositions, a Romanze for 
cello and piano and five printed volumes of piano pieces.9 These musical sources, combined 
with other available historical material (concert programmes, newspaper reviews, annual 
reports of the Philharmonic Society) in which performances of other lost or destroyed 
compositions are documented, lead to a conclusion that Zöhrer’s compositional oeuvre 
was modest in terms of quantity. Most of his compositions were of an occasional nature 
and closely connected to his activities as a performer. For this reason, researchers have not 
before now devoted much attention to Zöhrer’s compositional legacy. The sole scholarly 
analysis of Zöhrer’s achievements as a composer is an article by Nataša Cigoj Krstulović 
published in this journal in 2018.10 Nevertheless, it is worth emphasizing that Zöhrer was 
one of the few composers working in Ljubljana whose works can be found with reasonable 
frequency in the concert programmes of the Ljubljana Philharmonic Society.11
3 Kuret, Ljubljanska Filharmonična družba, 235.
4 Conservatorium der Musik in Wien, Verzeichniß und Classification der Schüler, nos. 6, 10.
5 Philharmonische Gesellschaft in Laibach, Erster Jahres-Bericht, 36.
6 Philharmonische Gesellschaft in Laibach, Dritter Jahres-Bericht, 20.
7 Budkovič, Razvoj glasbenega šolstva na Slovenskem, 1:67.
8 Philharmonische Gesellschaft in Laibach, Bericht der philharmonischen Gesellschaft, 7.
9 Ljubljana, Narodna in univerzitetna knjižnica (NUK), Glasbena zbirka (SI-Lng), fasc. Josef 
Zöhrer.
10 Cigoj Krstulović, “Aus vergangenen Tagen”.
11 Kuret, Ljubljanska Filharmonična družba, 239, 330, 375, 377–379, 393, 424, 431. See also Weiss, 
DMD_18_1&2_2022 - Vsebina P9.indd   169 30/05/2022   16:48:27
De musica disserenda XVIII/1–2 • 2022
170
Evidence that his creative output did not pass as unobserved as might be assumed 
today is provided by Herbert Westerby in his book The History of Pianoforte Music 
(1924),12 where, in a special chapter devoted to the works of Schumann’s successors, the 
author mentions the piano compositions of Josef Zöhrer, whose name thus appears among 
those of some largely forgotten German composers (Albert Gorter, Hubert-Ferdinand 
Kufferath, Rudolph Niemann) who, like him, composed piano miniatures in the Romantic 
manner then popular.
Zöhrer’s Beginnings as a Performer: Cellist and Chamber Musician
A far more exhaustive description of Zöhrer’s life and work can be found in the diary of 
Hans Gerstner13 – a unique document of the period and a priceless resource for research-
ers of musical culture in Slovenia. In his diary, Gerstner describes some of Zöhrer’s early 
performances in detail. His first public performance in Ljubljana took place on 21 March 
1862, when he appeared as a substitute cellist at one of the Philharmonic Society’s chamber 
concerts. An unsigned review of the concert that appeared in the newspaper the next day 
noted that the cello was played “by the very capable cellist Herr Zöhrer”.14 Other success-
ful performances proved that Zöhrer was worthy of the role, and he was soon invited to 
become the cellist of the Philharmonic Society’s string quartet.
Over the seasons that followed Zöhrer performed as cellist, pianist or piano accompa-
nist in numerous chamber ensembles at concerts of the Philharmonic Society. As Gerstner 
notes in his diary: “In the 1873/74 season Zöhrer, Gerstner and Peer formed a chamber trio 
and on three evenings we performed Schumann’s piano quintet as a one-off collaboration 
with Nedvěd (viola) and Moravec (second violin).”15 In this period young musicians in 
Ljubljana, particularly those employed as teachers at the Philharmonic Society school, 
such as Hans Gerstner, Gustav Moravec, Anton Nedvěd and Josef Zöhrer, put on regular 
chamber concerts featuring the works of the great Viennese composers, something that 
demonstrates the close connection between some of the teachers at the Philharmonic 
Society school and the Society’s concert activities. Although the composition of the 
ensembles changed frequently as a result of changes of staff at the music school, Zöhrer 
and Gerstner remained a constant of these chamber concerts. They enjoyed a notable 
success on 22 April 1880 with an evening of Wagner’s music in an almost sold-out hall. 
The programme consisted of just two pieces: to begin with, violinist Hans Gerstner and 
pianist Josef Zöhrer played Wagner’s Albumblatt. Then came a performance of the first 
Hans Gerstner, 155, 159, 160, 163.
12 Westerby, History of Pianoforte Music, 143.
13 Weiss, Hans Gerstner (translation of the diary); Hans Gerstner, “Ein Leben für die Musik”, 
typescript, Sudetendeutsches Musikinstitut, Regensburg.
14 “Gestern Abend hatten wir endlich wieder Gelegenheit, einer Quartett-Produktion beizuwohnen 
[…] das Cello an Herrn Zöhrer vom Theaterorchester abgetreten. Die Zusammensetzung ist 
keine schlechtere, indem Herr Zöhrer ein sehr tüchtiger Cellist ist.” “Laibacher Plaudereien”, 
Laibacher Zeitung, 22 March 1862, http://www.dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:doc-PZJUP30F.
15 Weiss, Hans Gerstner, 110.
DMD_18_1&2_2022 - Vsebina P9.indd   170 30/05/2022   16:48:27
171
Jernej Weiss: Musical Performance Activities of Josef Zöhrer at the Ljubljana Philharmonic Society
act of Wagner’s opera Die Walküre. The critic reviewing the concert felt that it was risky 
to perform Wagner’s music drama with piano alone. Yet if smaller cities also wished to 
acquaint themselves with Wagner’s music, this was almost inevitable. For Ljubljana, the 
encounter with Wagner’s music was a first-rate event at which the singers shone, as did 
the pianist Josef Zöhrer, who provided an excellent accompaniment.16
As concertmaster at the symphonic concerts of the Philharmonic Society and an 
indispensable soloist, Gerstner took over the direction of the Society’s chamber concerts 
in the 1882/83 season. It was in this season, in other words immediately after Zöhrer had 
taken up the post of music director, that the management of the Philharmonic Society 
took the important decision that the Society would begin organizing four regular chamber 
concerts each season. The nucleus of these concerts was represented by the Society’s string 
quartet, which was almost always joined by Josef Zöhrer as pianist. The latter acquitted 
himself extremely creditably even in performances of some of the more difficult piano 
parts. At a chamber concert on 4 December 1897, where the programme consisted mainly 
of works by Haydn and Beethoven, the Ljubljana audience had the opportunity to hear 
for the first time “a creation by a representative of the ultra-radical trend in music, one 
of the most gifted German composers of the younger generation”.17 The reference is to 
Richard Strauss, and the work was his Piano Quartet in C minor. Reviewing the concert, 
Julius Ohm Januschowsky,18 one of the most competent critics of Ljubljana concert life, 
wrote the following: “Some time ago we talked in detail about the extremely interesting 
quartet by Richard Strauss. Thanks to a magnificent rendition which admirably overcame 
the great technical and rhythmic difficulties of the piece, with Herr Musikdirector Zöhrer 
deserving particular praise for his brilliant performance of the extraordinarily difficult 
piano part, it met with an enthusiastic reception.”19
Josef Zöhrer as Piano Soloist
Zöhrer first appeared as a pianist at a concert of the Philharmonic Society on 26 April 
1862, when he played a polonaise by Hummel.20 On 14 November of the same year he 
16 “Wagner-Abend”, Laibacher Zeitung, 24 April 24 1880, http://www.dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI: 
doc-VC2TT7DE.771.
17 “Dem abgeklärten, classischen Werke folgte eine Schöpfung eines Vertreters der ultraradicalen 
Richtung in der Musik, eines der begabtesten Componisten des musikalischen Jungdeutschland.” 
J. [Julius Ohm-Januschowsky], “Philharmonische Gesellschaft. III”, Laibacher Zeitung, 17 
December 1897, http://www.dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:DOC-RG56FN25.
18 Lah, “Julius Ohm-Januschowsky”.
19 “Wir haben seinerzeit das hochfesselnde Quartett von Richard Strauß eingehender gewürdigt. Es 
fand dank der ausgezeichneten Wiedergabe, welche die großen Schwierigkeiten in technischer 
und rhythmischer Beziehung bewundernswert überwand, wobei Herrn Musicdirector Zöhrer in 
der geistvollen Ausführung des ungemein schweren Clavierpartes ein Hauptverdienst zukommt, 
die beifälligste Aufnahme.” J. [Julius Ohm-Januschowsky], “Philharmonische Gesellschaft. III”, 
Laibacher Zeitung, 17 December 1897, http://www.dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:DOC-RG56FN25.
20 The anonymous reviewer once again mentions that the performer is otherwise known as a 
capable cellist, from which it may be concluded that the same reviewer was the author of the 
DMD_18_1&2_2022 - Vsebina P9.indd   171 30/05/2022   16:48:27
De musica disserenda XVIII/1–2 • 2022
172
apparently gave an excellent performance of the solo part in the first movement of Mozart’s 
Piano Concerto No. 20 in D minor.21 In the years that followed the young pianist played 
an increasingly important role as a performer in Ljubljana.
On 8 January 1864 he gave a successful performance of Weber’s Piano Concerto No. 
2 in E-flat major. The review by an anonymous critic in the Laibacher Zeitung particularly 
highlighted Zöhrer’s progress as a pianist: “The remarkably brilliant composition was 
played with such precision, such confidence and such expressiveness as to exceed all our 
expectations. The progress that Herr Zöhrer has made since his last concert appearance 
is unmistakable and justifies the assumption that he is capable of achieving a high degree 
of virtuosity. The audience rewarded him with tumultuous applause.”22
One of the most important events that the Ljubljana Philharmonic Society dedicated 
to Beethoven’s memory was the celebration of the centenary of the great composer’s birth 
in 1870. The Ljubljana Philharmonic Society celebrated the memory of its most important 
honorary member with two concerts, on 12 and 13 November 1870.23 The Society spent a 
long time on preparations for the event and engaged all its best performers. These included 
Zöhrer, who appeared as the piano soloist in a performance of Beethoven’s Fantasy for 
Piano, Choir and Orchestra in C minor (also known as the Choral Fantasy). With this 
two-day Beethoven celebration the Ljubljana Philharmonic Society proved that it was 
also capable of organizing large-scale musical events, with the result that Beethoven’s 
centenary represented a turning point for Ljubljana (in a musical sense) that would reso-
nate for a long time.
Zöhrer continued to shine as a pianist in the season that followed (1871/72). The 
principal item on the programme of the second concert of the season, on 3 December 1871, 
was Mendelssohn’s Piano Concerto No. 1 in G minor, performed by the Society’s own 
virtuoso pianist Josef Zöhrer and extremely well received by both audience and critics.24 
Zöhrer gave a “masterful”25 second performance of this concerto on 14 March 1875 in the 
unsigned review that appeared on 22 March 1862. See footnote 13. The review of 29 April 1862 
states that “Herr Zöhrer, den wir als tüchtigen Cellisten kennen gelernt haben, zeigte sich auch 
als sehr gewandter Pianofortespieler. Sein Vortrag der Hummel’schen ‘Polonaise’ war im jeder 
Beziehung korrekt. In den Läufen entwickelte Herr Zöhrer eine große Fertigkeit.” “Konzert”, 
Laibacher Zeitung, 29 April 1862, http://www.dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:DOC-J6U62QC9.
21 “Herr Zöhrer bewährte sich dabei wieder als der wackere Pianist, als welcher hier schon 
bekannt ist […].” “Konzert”, Laibacher Zeitung, 15 November 1862, http://www.dlib.
si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:DOC-KY5JILOG.
22 “Das äußerst brillante Tonstück wurde von dem Vortragenden so exakt, so sicher, so aus-
drucksvoll gespielt, wie wir es kaum erwartet hatten. Die Fortschritte, die Herr Zöhrer seit 
seinem lezten Concertiren gemacht hat, sind unverkennbar und berechtigen zu der Annahme, 
daß er es noch zu einem hohen Grad von Virtuosität bringen kann. Das Publikum spendete 
ihm rauschenden Beifall.” “Concert”, Laibacher Zeitung, 9 January 1864, http://www.dlib.
si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:doc-Q963WWX2.
23 Weiss, “Symphony no. 6 in F major”, 305–308. The article is also available in Slovenian on pages 
243–257.
24 Kuret, Ljubljanska Filharmonična družba, 174.
25 “Das Programm des gestrigen Concertes der philharmonischen Gesellschaft entwickelte eine 
derartig günstig wirkende magnetische Kraft, daß der Concertsaal in allen Räumen überfüllt war. 
DMD_18_1&2_2022 - Vsebina P9.indd   172 30/05/2022   16:48:27
173
Jernej Weiss: Musical Performance Activities of Josef Zöhrer at the Ljubljana Philharmonic Society
course of the 1874/75 season. As a performer, Zöhrer had his own band of followers, so 
his piano performances were generally well attended. Thus the rooms of the concert hall 
were reported to be “overcrowded”26 when he performed the aforementioned Mendelssohn 
piano concerto “with remarkable technique and gracefulness”.27
On several occasions Zöhrer was called upon to perform when a substitute needed 
to be found at short notice. In March 1876 the virtuoso pianist Rafael Joseffy, who had 
studied with Franz Liszt and was at that time a star pianist of Europe-wide fame, was 
engaged to perform at a gala concert organized to mark the seventieth birthday of the 
poet Anastasius Grün (Count Anton Alexander von Auersperg), following the latter’s 
nomination as an honorary member of the Philharmonic Society. On 11 April 1876 – the 
day of the concert – Joseffy cancelled his appearance at the last moment, so Josef Zöhrer 
was required to step in, which he did very successfully. According to the review that 
appeared in the newspaper the next day, “with the help of some local willing artists who 
took it upon themselves to fill the gaps left by Joseffy’s pieces, it proved possible to hold 
the concert without any significant disruption.”28 Hans Gerstner recorded the incident in 
his diary as follows: “Since the famous pianist Joseffy, who was scheduled to perform at 
the concert, failed to arrive from Vienna, Zöhrer and I had to replace the missing numbers 
with sonatas and solo pieces.”29
Herr J. Zöhrer spielte das Klavierconcert aus G-moll von Mendelssohn-Bartholdy meisterhaft. 
Der heimatliche Klaviervirtuose entfaltete immense Technik, namentlich gegen Schluß des ersten 
Satzes, ein so feines, graziöses, gefühlvolles Spiel, daß im Zuhörerraum nur ein Ruf, jener der 
Begeisterung und Bewunderung zum Ausdruck kam. Auch in kleinen Salonpiecen […] zeigte 
sich Herr Zöhrer als eminenter Klavierspieler.” “Locales”, Laibacher Zeitung, 15 March 1875, 
http://www.dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:DOC-GXMQIZ4O.
26 Ibid.
27 Ibid.
28 “Das […] Festconcert wurde dennoch abgehallten, obgleich der wesentliche Factor desselben, der 
Pianist Rudolf [sic] Joseffy sein Erscheinen in letzten Stunde, und zwar auch dies erst über eine 
infolge seines Nichteintreffens in Laibach gerstern vormittags an ihn gerichtete telegraphische 
Anfrage, unter dem Vorwande eines von ihm selbst als bereits tagsvorher eingetreten zugegebenen 
Unwohlseins absagte. Wir überlassen es dem Publikum selbst, dieses unverantwortliche und 
rücksichtlose Benehmen eines Künstlers dem Concertpublikum einer ganzen Stadt und einem 
Vereine gegenüber, dem er sich – wie wir zur besseren Beurtheilung dieses Falles hinzufügen 
zu müßen glauben – selbst angeboten hatte, seinem wahren Verdienste nach zu würdigen. – Mit 
Hilfe einiger hiesiger gefälliger Kunstkräfte, die die Ausfüllung der entfallenen Joseffy’schen 
Nummern aus Gefälligkeit übernommen hatten, war es gelungen, das Concert ohne wesentliche 
Störung abzuhalten.” “Vom Festbanket”, Laibacher Zeitung, 12 April 1876, http://www.dlib.
si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:DOC-SGGHV5M8.
29 Weiss, Hans Gerstner, 113.
DMD_18_1&2_2022 - Vsebina P9.indd   173 30/05/2022   16:48:27
De musica disserenda XVIII/1–2 • 2022
174
Figure 1
On 10 December 1876 Zöhrer played Chopin’s Piano Concerto No. 1 in E minor in the 
Redoutensaal (Digitalna knjižnica Slovenije – dLib.si).
DMD_18_1&2_2022 - Vsebina P9.indd   174 30/05/2022   16:48:27
175
Jernej Weiss: Musical Performance Activities of Josef Zöhrer at the Ljubljana Philharmonic Society
It should be noted that as a pianist Zöhrer enjoyed tackling the most modern piano 
literature of the day. On 10 December 1876, at the third concert of the 1876/77 season, he 
played Chopin’s Piano Concerto No. 1 in E minor, which prompted the reviewer to write 
a lengthy reflection on Chopin and performances of his music in Ljubljana: “Chopin has 
never felt completely at home in our concert programmes; since 1867 he has appeared in 
the Society’s programmes only seven times, with the exception of those occasions when 
he has been performed by visiting artists (such as Treiber, Breitner, Phrym).” The reviewer 
goes on to say: “Chopin is, incidentally, a rare guest not only in our concert hall but also 
elsewhere: a fact that is perhaps due to the strangeness of his musical individuality and 
the overpowering of sentiment by his musical imagination.”30 The New Year’s concert on 
13 January 1884 was another “wonderful pleasure”, where the reviewer particularly high-
lighted the performance of Zöhrer, who “once again showed himself to be an artistically 
mature, virtuosic master of the piano. The manner in which he played Chopin revealed 
him as not only a skilled pianist but also a man of musical education, artistic taste and 
refined understanding.”31 It seems obvious that Zöhrer, as one of the principal interpreters 
of Chopin in this country during the nineteenth century, deserves much of the credit for 
popularizing the composer’s music in Ljubljana.
Zöhrer continued to seek out new works for the piano in the seasons that followed. A 
notable feature of the 1880/81 season was the inclusion of Saint-Saëns’s Piano Concerto 
No. 2 in G minor, composed in 1868, in the programme of the concert on 27 March 1881, 
since with the exception of his tone poem Danse macabre, the French composer was 
an entirely unknown quantity to the Ljubljana audience. The reviewer was enthusiastic 
about the concert and even more enthusiastic about the performer, the local pianist Josef 
Zöhrer, who in his opinion appeared too infrequently on the concert platform as a solo-
ist: “When a city has an artist of Zöhrer’s calibre within its walls, it ought to give him 
more opportunities to perform.”32 Zöhrer played the concerto, like almost all the works 
he performed, from memory.
30 “Chopin konnte in unseren Concertprogrammen nie recht heimisch werden; seit dem Jahre 
1867 erscheint er mit Ausnahme jener Fälle, in denen ihn durchreisende Künstler auf ihre 
Concertprogramme setzen (wie Trieber, Breitner, Phrym) nur siebenmal in dem Programme der 
Gesellschaft vor: 2 Nocturnes, 2 Polonaisen (die in Cis-mol von Herrn Zöhrer gespielt), 1 Rondo, 
die Valses brillantes op. 34, Nr. 1 (von Herrn Zöhrer gespielt) und der erste Satz des gestern 
zur Aufführung gelangten E-moll-Concertes, welchen im Jahre 1869 Frl. Kathinka Phryme in 
einem Gesellschaftsconcerte spielte. Chopin ist übrigens nicht blos in unserem Concertsaale 
ein seltener Gast, er ist dies auch in allen übrigen Concertsälen, was wo[h]l in der Fremdartigeit 
seiner musikalischen Individualität, in der Ueberwucherung der Phantasie über das Gemüthsleben 
seinen Grund haben dürfte.” “Concert”, Laibacher Zeitung, 11 December 1876, http://www.dlib.
si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:DOC-8XZKJVKN.
31 “Musikdirector Zöhrer hatte in diesem Koncerte Gelegenheit, seine musikalische Vielseitigkeit in 
glänzendstem Lichte zu zeigen. […] Zöhrer zeigte sich diesmal auch wieder als künstlerisch gereifter, 
virtuos durchgebildeter Meister auf dem Fortepiano, und die Art, wie er Chopin zu Gehör brachte 
(Ballade, Notturno, Scherzo) manifestierte nicht bloß den Klaviertechniker, sondern auch den 
Mann von musikalischer Bildung, künstlerischem Geschmack und feinem Verständnis.” “Locales”, 
Laibacher Zeitung, 15 January 1884, http://www.dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:DOC-9TN4YASH.
32 “Wenn man einen Künstler von der Bedeutung Zöhrers innerhalb der Mauern der Stadt besitzt, 
DMD_18_1&2_2022 - Vsebina P9.indd   175 30/05/2022   16:48:27
De musica disserenda XVIII/1–2 • 2022
176
Although he primarily appeared as pianist or accompanist at chamber concerts, Zöhrer 
was nevertheless perfectly capable of performing the solo parts of the most demanding 
works in the piano concerto repertoire, something he demonstrated on many occasions, 
including one notable performance in the 1896/97 season. On 29 November 1896 he 
gave the first performance in Ljubljana of Beethoven’s Piano Concerto No. 3 in C minor. 
Reviewing the concert, Januschowsky once again praised his piano performance in glow-
ing terms.33 Zöhrer continued to distinguish himself in later years both as a pianist (for 
example at a Beethoven memorial concert, where he once again played the piano part in 
the Choral Fantasy) and as an accompanist.34 His compelling performances also attracted 
notice outside Ljubljana, and he appeared with great success at a concert of the Radnitzky 
Quartet (Franz Radnitzky, August Siebert, Anton Stecher and Theobald Kretschmann) 
in the Bösendorfer Hall in Vienna.35
The repertoire he played and the reviews of his solo and chamber performances 
reveal Zöhrer to have been an ambitious and technically accomplished pianist who was 
not afraid to tackle the most difficult pages of contemporary piano literature. As a soloist 
he particularly distinguished himself in performances of demanding piano concertos by 
many great composers (Weber, Schumann, Mendelssohn, Beethoven, Chopin, Weber, 
Saint-Saëns, Rubinstein), while he also frequently performed with chamber ensembles or 
in accompaniment to the violinist Hans Gerstner and, occasionally, visiting singers. That 
his powers as a pianist were not diminished by the passage of the years is demonstrated by 
an account of the first performance of his own Piano Quintet in D minor in 1913, when he 
was already over seventy years old, at which he himself took the piano part.36 It should be 
noted, however, that Zöhrer only rarely performed as a soloist without an orchestra – and 
always in concerts with a mixed programme, never in solo recitals.
Josef Zöhrer as Conductor
Piano playing was not the only area of musical performance in which Zöhrer was active. 
Since he was a musician of the broadest training and one of the better qualified perform-
ers in Ljubljana, it was not long after he settled permanently in Ljubljana that he began 
so sollte demselben, so dächten wir, öfter Gelegenheit geboten werden, als Solist vor das 
Publikum zu treten […].” “Locales”, Laibacher Zeitung, 29 March 29 1881, http://www.dlib.
si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:DOC-CQ8EHTBP.
33 “Das gestrige zweite Mitglieder-Koncert der philharmonischen Gesellschaft war vom 
schönsten Erfolge begleitet. Insbesondere erfreute sich Herr Musikdirector Zöhrer, der das 
herrliche Klavierconcert in C-moll von Beethoven kunstvollendet vortrug, der schmeichel-
haftesten Gunstbezeugungen seitens des Publicums.” J. [Julius Ohm-Januschowsky], “Local- 
und Provinzial-Nachrichten”, Laibacher Zeitung, 30 November 1896, http://www.dlib.
si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:DOC-FGNXBYA1.
34 Kuret, Ljubljanska Filharmonična družba, 358, 376, 418.
35 Ibid., 207.
36 J. [Julius Ohm-Januschowsky], “Theater, Kunst und Literatur: Philharmonische Gesellschaft”, 
Laibacher Zeitung, 26 November 1913, http://www.dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:DOC-38OFQQN9.
DMD_18_1&2_2022 - Vsebina P9.indd   176 30/05/2022   16:48:27
177
Jernej Weiss: Musical Performance Activities of Josef Zöhrer at the Ljubljana Philharmonic Society
conducting. His work as a conductor really began in earnest when he took over the position 
of deputy music director of the Philharmonic Society in the 1882/83 season. In September 
1882 the Society’s then music director, Nedvěd, asked to go on sick leave and was replaced 
by Zöhrer, who had already stood in for him on a number of occasions. He had gained his 
first conducting experience as a twenty-seven-year-old young man, when he conducted 
three symphonic concerts for the first time during the 1868/69 season.37
As a conductor, he had a particular affinity for the music of Wagner. His concert 
performance of the first act of Die Walküre on 22 April 1880 paved the way for a rich 
series of Wagner interpretations at subsequent concerts of the Philharmonic Society.38 
At a concert on 5 March 1883, a mere three weeks after the death of the “master of 
Bayreuth”, the Society paid homage to the “great musical genius, the greatest musician 
of the present age” with a performance of the overture to his opera Tannhäuser. The 
brilliant performance, prepared by Zöhrer, made a powerful impression on the audience: 
“A real storm of applause roared through the hall, and only subsided when the conduc-
tor, Herr Zöhrer, appeared on the podium for the third time!”39 Although, as the critic 
Januschowsky noted in his review, Ljubljana was still “very much behind other cities 
in terms of the cultivation of great master’s [Wagner’s] monumental music dramas”,40 it 
was certainly partly thanks to Zöhrer that Wagner found his place on concert platforms 
in Ljubljana in the second half of the nineteenth century. Januschowsky also noted that 
concert life in the city had progressed under Zöhrer to an extent that earlier generations 
could not even have imagined.41
Zöhrer also worked hard to modernize concert programmes, as noted with satisfaction 
by an anonymous critic in the Laibacher Zeitung on 17 March 1883,42 with reference to 
the chamber concert scheduled for the following day, which featured a programme that 
included, less than two years after its composition, Saint-Saëns’s Septet in E-flat major: 
“a brand-new work only recently performed for the first time in Vienna, in which the 
trumpet plays an important role.” It seems, then, that with Zöhrer’s new focus on pro-
gressively introducing recently composed works into the Philharmonic Society’s concert 
37 Kuret, Ljubljanska Filharmonična družba, 618–620.
38 Weiss, “Wagner on Ljubljana’s Concert and Opera Stages”.
39 “Ein wahrer Beifallssturm brauste durch den Saal, der sich erst legte, als der Dirigent Herr Zöhrer 
zum drittenmale dankend auf dem Podium erschienen war.” “Locales”, Laibacher Zeitung, 5 
March 1883, http://www.dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:DOC-AUV8VRL8.
40 “Wir sind in Laibach zwar im Vergleiche zu anderen Städten inbezug auf die Pflege der gewaltigen 
Musikdramen des großen Meisters noch sehr im Rückstande, das Concertleben hat jedoch im 
letzten Jahrzehnte Forschritte aufzuweisen, wie sie frühere Generationen nie erhofft hätten.” J. 
[Julius Ohm-Januschowsky], “Philharmonische Gesellschaft”, Laibacher Zeitung, 30 January 
1901, http://www.dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:DOC-YEYKH2YA.
41 Ibid.
42 “Wir machen mit besonderem Vergnügen darauf aufmerksam, dass der morgen, Sonntag, statt-
findende letzte Kammermusikabend sich durch ein ganz besonders interessantes Programm aus-
zeichnet. Haydn und Beethoven in hier ganz neuen Quartetten, echten Perlen der Kammermusik, 
und Saint-Saëns’ ganz neues, erst vor kurzem in Wien das erstemal aufgeführtes Septuor, in 
welchem bekanntlich auch die Trompete obligat ist […].” “Locales”, Laibacher Zeitung, 17 March 
1883, http://www.dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:DOC-PFRDZ6LQ.
DMD_18_1&2_2022 - Vsebina P9.indd   177 30/05/2022   16:48:28
De musica disserenda XVIII/1–2 • 2022
178
programmes, Ljubljana did not actually lag so far behind other much bigger and wealthier 
musical centres in the Empire, at least in terms of first performances of new repertoire.
The 1896/97 season began on 18 October 1896 with the first Ljubljana performance 
of Bruckner’s Symphony No. 4 in E-flat major (“Romantic”). The reviewer described the 
performance as “a milestone in musical development, since to date the work has been 
performed only in Vienna, Hamburg, Berlin and Linz”.43 Although Zöhrer essentially 
adhered to the Classical and Romantic tradition when choosing repertoire, the Philharmonic 
Society’s concert programmes give constant evidence of his efforts to familiarize the 
Ljubljana audience with the recent creative achievements of some of the most important 
contemporary composers. Critics praised Zöhrer’s skill at designing programmes and 
engaging soloists, while at the same time emphasizing that “orchestral music must remain 
the priority: the Philharmonic Society is therefore on the right path, and any reformer 
attempting to disrupt its course would not prove to be its friend.”44 The latter warning was 
aimed at the directors of the Society’s choir, who were attempting to increase the share 
of choral concerts to the detriment of orchestral concerts.
Zöhrer also frequently included works by Slav composers in the Society’s concert 
programmes. Thus at the second concert of the 1898/99 season, which took place on 27 
November 1898, Zöhrer conducted the first performance in Ljubljana of Tchaikovsky’s 
Symphony No. 6 in B minor (“Pathétique”). The reviewer wrote that the conductor’s artistic 
abilities and the orchestra’s eminent qualities were once again revealed in their purest 
form.45 Another particularly noteworthy occasion was the performance of Beethoven’s Ninth 
Symphony on 19 May 1902 to mark the bicentenary of the foundation of the Academia 
philharmonicorum. This was the first complete performance of the symphony in Ljubljana.
Zöhrer’s great successes as a conductor did not pass unnoticed abroad. In January 
1896 he received an invitation to take over the position of music director at the Music 
Society (Musikverein) in Bruckner’s own Linz, at a higher salary than offered by his 
current position in Ljubljana. Zöhrer was faced with a dilemma. In the end, his loyalty to 
the Ljubljana Philharmonic Society appears to have prevailed, although is probable that 
his choice was made at least a little easier by the decision of the management immediately 
to raise Zöhrer’s salary – to the level being offered him in Linz – which shows that the 
43 “Die Erstaufführung erfuhr diese Symphonie in Wien im Februar 1883 unter Richters Leitung 
mit großartigem Erfolge. Die Aufführung in Laibach bedeutet zugleich eine würdige Feier, den 
Manen des dahingegangenen Meisters, von der ältesten Musikgesellschaft Österreichs gewid-
met.” J. [Julius Ohm-Januschowsky], “Local- und Provinzial-Nachrichten”, Laibacher Zeitung, 
17 October 1896, http://www.dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:DOC-5FJ2K888.
44 “Dem Verlangen des liederfrohen Publicums nach Gesang wurde Rechnung getragen, und interes-
sante Instrumentalvirtuosen erfreuten uns durch ihr Können. Vielleicht wird auch dem vielseitigen 
Wunsche, in die Concerte hie und da gemischte chorische Ausführungen kleineren Umfanges 
einzuschalten, ohne dass dadurch die Hauptsache, und die bilden Orchesterwerke, geschmälert 
wird, zu entsprechen möglich sein.” J. [Julius Ohm-Januschowsky], “Philharmonische Gesellschaft”, 
Laibacher Zeitung, 22 March 1900, http://www.dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:DOC-8EE4PUHB.
45 “Philharmonische Gesellschaft”, Laibacher Zeitung, 30 November 1898, http://www.dlib.
si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:DOC-15U1CBZM.
DMD_18_1&2_2022 - Vsebina P9.indd   178 30/05/2022   16:48:28
179
Jernej Weiss: Musical Performance Activities of Josef Zöhrer at the Ljubljana Philharmonic Society
Figure 2
On 18 October 1896 Zöhrer conducted the first performance in Ljubljana of Bruckner’s 
Symphony No. 4 in E-flat major (“Romantic”) in the Tonhalle (Digitalna knjižnica Slovenije – 
dLib.si).
DMD_18_1&2_2022 - Vsebina P9.indd   179 30/05/2022   16:48:28
De musica disserenda XVIII/1–2 • 2022
180
Society was well aware of the great difficulty of replacing an all-round performer and 
teacher of his calibre.
Zöhrer also successfully conducted a number of large-scale vocal-instrumental works. 
One of his more prominent achievements in this field was a performance of Liszt’s oratorio 
Die Legende von der heiligen Elisabeth on 2 May 1897. The critic Januschowsky’s review 
in the Laibacher Zeitung of the following day noted that
Master Zöhrer had dedicated himself to the rehearsal of the immensely difficult work 
with genuine artistic enthusiasm; the large mixed choir, which performed excellently, 
and also the orchestra had dedicated themselves to their high tasks with enthusiastic 
perseverance. [...] The audience was most warmly receptive to the beauties of the tone 
poem; when Mr. Zöhrer was presented with a magnificent silver wreath, bestowed by 
the singers in grateful admiration, the listeners joyfully seized the opportunity to offer 
an enthusiastic ovation to the master, who deserves so much for his art.46
Another concert that wrote itself into the Society’s annals, a season later, was the 
performance of Haydn’s oratorio The Seasons on 24 April 1898. The Laibacher Zeitung 
dedicated a special supplement to the event, and we read in the review that “yesterday’s 
performance of Haydn’s Die Jahreszeiten will be written in golden letters in the annals of 
the Philharmonic Society, since under Zöhrer’s direction the choir, soloists and orchestra 
joined in a magnificent rendition of this immortal and beautiful work, leaving the audi-
ence utterly charmed.”47 Zöhrer was the recipient of more standing ovations than ever 
before. Both of Haydn’s two great oratorios had in fact already been programmed several 
times by the Philharmonic Society. Contributing to this, along with the magnificence of 
the works themselves, was the fact that Haydn was one of the most important honorary 
members of the Ljubljana Philharmonic Society. A performance of Die Schöpfung on 3 
May 1909 – to mark the centenary of Haydn’s death – was likewise prepared by Zöhrer, 
who, the reviewer noted, was able “to bring to the work that life-enhancing, invigorating 
joy that gives Die Jahreszeiten its immortal freshness and grace.”48
46 “Mit echter kunstfreudiger Begeisterung hatte sich Meister Zöhrer dem Einstudieren des unge-
mein schwierigen Werkes, mit begeisterter Ausdauer hatten sich der große gemischte Chor, der 
Ausgezeichnetes leistete, und auch das Orchester ihren hohen Aufgaben gewidmet. […] Die 
Concertbesucher brachten den Schönheiten der Tondichtung das wärmste Empfängnis entgegen; 
als Herrn Musikdirector Zöhrer ein von den Sängern und Sängerinnen in dankbarer Verehrung 
gewidmeter prächtiger Silberkranz überreicht wurde, ergriff das Publicum mit Freuden die 
Gelegenheit, um dem um die Kunst hochverdienten Meister begeisterte Ovationen darzubringen.” 
J. [Julius Ohm-Januschowsky], “Local- und Provinzial-Nachrichten”, Laibacher Zeitung, 3 May 
1897, http://www.dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:DOC-VLPZH6M8.
47 “Die gestrige Aufführung der ‘Jahreszeiten’ von Haydn wird mit goldenen Lettern im Ehrenbuche 
der philharmonischen Gesellschaft verzeichnet sein, denn es vereinigten sich Chor, Solisten und 
Orchester unter der Leitung des Musikdirectors Herrn Zöhrer zu der glänzendsten Vermittlung 
des unvergänglich schönen Werkes, das einen außerordentlichen Reiz auf die Zuhörer ausübte.” 
“Local- und Provinzial-Nachrichten”, Laibacher Zeitung, 25 April 1898, http://www.dlib.
si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:DOC-7DY1Z8HG.
48 “Herr Musikdirektor Zöhrer wußte jenen lebensfrohen, sinnigfreudigen Zug in das Werk zu 
bringen, welcher der ‘Schöpfung’ den Stempel unvergänglicher Frische und Anmut aufprägt.” J. 
DMD_18_1&2_2022 - Vsebina P9.indd   180 30/05/2022   16:48:28
181
Jernej Weiss: Musical Performance Activities of Josef Zöhrer at the Ljubljana Philharmonic Society
It should be mentioned at this point that two names predominated at the gala concerts 
dedicated to honorary members of the Philharmonic Society: Beethoven and Brahms. 
The popularization of the latter in Ljubljana was largely due to the efforts of Zöhrer, who 
in 1903 obtained authorization from the Brahms Committee in Vienna to raise money 
in Ljubljana for the purchase of some of Brahms’s effects and manuscripts.49 Events of 
particular note included the first performance in Ljubljana, on 22 April 1900, of Brahms’s 
Ein deutsches Requiem with more than 120 singers drawn from different choirs: a perfor-
mance into which Zöhrer poured all his “skill, effort and enthusiasm”.50 No less memorable 
was the performance of Brahms’s Symphony No. 4 in E minor, which Zöhrer conducted 
on 7 December 1902, thereby rounding off the cycle of first performances of the great 
composer’s symphonies in Ljubljana. Zöhrer continued to make regular appearances as 
a conductor at Philharmonic Society concerts in later years, although he increasingly 
suffered from poor health, with the result that on several occasions other conductors had 
to take his place.
Problems Faced by Zöhrer as Conductor
Zöhrer’s almost half-century of activity as the conductor of the Philharmonic Society 
orchestra was not without its difficulties. A particularly serious problem was that of ensur-
ing that the orchestra possessed the personnel necessary to perform the difficult repertoire 
and meet the conductor’s high performance standards. For the most part, the orchestra 
was made up of transient military musicians and the teaching staff of the Philharmonic 
Society school in Ljubljana. For oratorios, these were supplemented by deputies. Disputes 
often broke out between the military band and the Philharmonic Society. On 6 October 
1901, for example, the military Kapellmeister, Theodor Christoph, mentioned to Zöhrer 
the possibility that the commanding officers of the 27th Infantry Regiment might ban 
military musicians from playing at the Philharmonic Society’s concerts. The Philharmonic 
Society’s management drew the attention of the regimental commanding officers to the 
War Ministry Permit No. 6008 of 28 December 1886, authorizing military musicians to 
perform at all Philharmonic concerts.51 The argument was subsequently accepted by the 
infantry regiment’s music captain, Schmidt, who allowed the military band to continue 
to collaborate with the Philharmonic Society.52
[Julius Ohm-Januschowsky], “Local- und Provinzial-Nachrichten: Philharmonische Gesellschaft. 
II”, Laibacher Zeitung, 6 May 1909, http://www.dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:DOC-X7RJKZQ4.
49 Kuret, Ljubljanska Filharmonična družba, 317.
50 “Die Gesammtprobe, der wir angewohnt, hat uns überzeugt, dass Musikdirector Herr Zöhrer 
sein ganzes Können, seinen aufopfernden Fleiß und seine Kunstbegeisterung in die Wagschale 
geworfen hat, um der Aufführung einen glänzenden Erfolg zu sichern.” J. [Julius Ohm-
Januschowsky], “Philharmonische Gesellschaft”, Laibacher Zeitung, 20 April 1900, http://www.
dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:DOC-YHR9MZJP.
51 Kuret, Ljubljanska Filharmonična družba, 247.
52 Kuret, “Kronika Ljubljanske filharmonične družbe 1899/1907”, 123–124.
DMD_18_1&2_2022 - Vsebina P9.indd   181 30/05/2022   16:48:28
De musica disserenda XVIII/1–2 • 2022
182
A second problem was the periodic lack of interest in Philharmonic Society concerts 
on the part of audiences. As already mentioned, Zöhrer had begun introducing less well 
known works to concert programmes, such as Niels Gade’s The Elf-King’s Daughter 
(Elverskud, Erlkönigs Tochter) and Massenet’s orchestral suite Scènes pittoresques. 
Judging from the report in the Laibacher Zeitung, the audience was somewhat muted in its 
appreciation of these and similar novelties. One reviewer noted that while the programme 
was interestingly put together and well performed by soloists, choir and orchestra, the 
audience’s reaction to these new works was nevertheless rather cool.53
The third problem, perhaps the most pressing of all, was poor attendance at rehears-
als. The diary of the Philharmonic Society’s director, Josef Hauffen, which is held in the 
archives of the Society of the Friends of Music in Vienna and which Primož Kuret published 
in the journal Muzikološki zbornik in 2015,54 recounts the problems that Zöhrer had with 
poor attendance at rehearsals of Liszt’s Eine Sinfonie nach Dantes Divina Commedia. As 
Hauffen explains in his entry for 8 October 1903:
Before this, we personally invited all 23 gentlemen participating as members and 
performers of our String Society through Zöhrer to participate and asked them to attend 
the rehearsals regularly by distributing the orchestral parts. Only about one fifth of 
the gentlemen came to the various rehearsals, and even they were not prepared to play 
their difficult parts. As the repeated invitations before each rehearsal did not bear fruit, 
nor were the members of the military brass band sufficiently prepared, Zöhrer found it 
necessary to cancel further rehearsals. This meant cancelling the concert altogether. 55
Zöhrer detailed all these difficulties in a letter to Hauffen, where he gave a precise 
account of the problems he was facing in trying to prepare the season. It is not clear exactly 
how the matter was resolved, but the concert took place on 22 November 1903, and the 
Laibacher Zeitung review that appeared a few days later described the performance of 
Liszt’s Dante Symphony as “an important musical feat” and “an outstanding cultural 
achievement”.56 Thus despite the numerous difficulties, Zöhrer proved to be successful 
at resolving those problems that were a constant of musical life in Ljubljana.
53 “Das Hauptverdienst gebürt Herrn Zöhrer, welcher Chor und Orchester so tüchtig einübte. Trotz 
dieser vorzüglichen Aufführung des musikalisch durchwegs interessanten Werkes hielt sich das 
Publicum demselben gegenüber ziemlich kühl.” “Locales”, Laibacher Zeitung, 13 November 
1883, http://www.dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:DOC-PEGYTK8T.
54 Kuret, “Kronika Ljubljanske filharmonične družbe 1899/1907”.
55 Ibid., 125.
56 “Die hohe Bedeutung der Philharmonischen Gesellschaft für unser öffentliches Musikleben, 
ihr künstlerischer Einfluß auf die musikalische Erziehung und Geschmacksbildung. […] Die 
Ausführung des großen, schwierigen Werkes durch das philharmonische Orchester unter 
Leitung Zöhrers kann als bedeutende musikalische Tat gerühmt werden und zählt jedenfalls zu 
den hervorragendsten künstlerischen Ereignissen im Konzertsaale. Musikdirektor Zöhrer holte 
das Geheimste aus den mystischen Tiefen der Symphonie hervor, bewies im Herausarbeiten 
der grandiosen Steigerungen des ersten, den Zartheiten des zweiten und der Erhabenheit des 
letzten Satzes Geist und Empfindung.” J. [Julius Ohm-Januschowsky], “Local- und Provinzial-
Nachrichten: Philharmonische Gesellschaft”, Laibacher Zeitung, 26 November 1903, http://
www.dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:DOC-XW8KGUVC.
DMD_18_1&2_2022 - Vsebina P9.indd   182 30/05/2022   16:48:28
183
Jernej Weiss: Musical Performance Activities of Josef Zöhrer at the Ljubljana Philharmonic Society
Reviews of Zöhrer’s Appearances as Conductor
The vast majority of the reviews that Zöhrer received over the course of his career as con-
ductor and performer were favourable. Competent critics such as Julius Ohm Januschowsky 
acknowledged that the musicians of the Ljubljana Philharmonic Society met all the condi-
tions necessary to win over indifferent and uninterested listeners with their achievements, 
and also to increase the number of subscription concerts: “with Zöhrer as conductor and 
with a concertmaster like Gerstner, with the finest musicians in Ljubljana reinforced by 
the military orchestra, and with numerous artistically disposed listeners, the way is open 
for the achievement of the Society’s goals, and I firmly believe that the need for art will 
itself contribute to increasing the number of concerts.”57
Clearly, then, it was mainly on Zöhrer as conductor and Gerstner as concertmaster that 
Januschowsky’s optimism was founded. Yet if the accounts in the press of Zöhrer’s conduct-
ing and other activities with the Philharmonic Society are almost exclusively favourable, 
tensions nevertheless appeared within the society from time to time, although for the most 
part these were skilfully concealed. The entry in Hauffen’s diary for 30 November 1900 
mentions complaints that Zöhrer’s gruff manner was off-putting to singers and potential 
students, who were consequently choosing to enrol at the Music Society (Glasbena matica) 
music school rather than at that of the Philharmonic Society.58 Zöhrer defended himself 
saying that he had to be strict if he wished to achieve success, since with the material he 
had available to him in the choir an energetic approach was urgently needed.
Zöhrer always placed the highest demands on the performers working under him. 
A telling anecdote in this regard relates to the engagement of the eminent local violinist 
Baroness Maria Concha Codelli. We learn from Hauffen’s diary entry on 2 February 
1901 that Friedrich Keesbacher, Josef Zöhrer and the Philharmonic Society’s new direc-
tor Josef Hauffen had gone in person to invite the Baroness to appear as a soloist at one 
of the Society’s concerts. She was supposed to perform Mendelssohn’s Violin Concerto 
in E minor in Ljubljana, but quit after just two rehearsals with Zöhrer, announcing that 
she was pregnant and that playing was too tiring for her. Hauffen noted: “Yet she had no 
reservations when we invited her, neither did her husband.”59 It appears that Zöhrer may 
have been the problem. The precise circumstances are not known, but it seems that Zöhrer 
had high expectations of her, just as he did with every other performer, only that the famous 
Baroness was unwilling to adapt to his demands. That some kind of disagreement was 
involved is also shown by the fact that the Baroness did later appear in Ljubljana, albeit 
not under Zöhrer’s direction.
57 “Mit einem Zöhrer als Dirigenten, mit einem Konzertmeister von der Bedeutung eines Gerstner, 
mit dem durch die besten Musiker Laibachs verstärkten Militärorchester und mit zahlreichen 
kunstsinnigen Zuhörern ist der Weg zum Ziele offen[,] und wir sind überzeugt, dass das 
Kunstbedürfnis selbst unserem Vorschlage nach Vermehrung der Mitglieder-Koncerte zum Siege 
verhelfen wird.” J. [Julius Ohm-Januschowsky], “Philharmonische Gesellschaft”, Laibacher 
Zeitung, 12 March 1898, http://www.dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:DOC-70MLLE90.
58 Kuret, “Kronika Ljubljanske filharmonične družbe 1899/1907”, 120.
59 Ibid., 121.
DMD_18_1&2_2022 - Vsebina P9.indd   183 30/05/2022   16:48:28
De musica disserenda XVIII/1–2 • 2022
184
As an interpreter, Zöhrer frequently made decisive interventions in the scores he 
conducted, which occasionally led to disapproval from critics. The centrepiece of the 
last Philharmonic concert of the 1909/10 season, on 20 March 1910, was Chopin’s Piano 
Concerto No. 2 in F minor. Zöhrer reworked the concerto, shortening the tutti passages, 
lightening the brass and transposing the high trumpet notes. The reviewer of this concert 
judged the intervention to be justified on the grounds that the work’s conventional, some-
times noisy and overloaded orchestral accompaniment was seriously disproportionate 
to the delightful charms of the solo instrument.60 Less understanding for actions of this 
kind was shown by Januschowsky, who became embroiled in a rare public dispute with 
Zöhrer. The date was 21 October 1906, and the trigger was a performance of Bruckner’s 
Symphony No. 2 in C minor that the orchestra of the Philharmonic Society had given 
in the composer’s memory. The critic reproached the conductor for disregarding the fer-
mata when the theme is repeated in the Scherzo movement, pointing out that Bruckner 
particularly loved caesuras and employed them judiciously, and for “the execution of the 
triplets marked ‘Breit’ (Largo) at the start of the Finale, a passage that is later repeated, at 
far too rapid a tempo.”61 Zöhrer disagreed with this, arguing that the fermata was already 
conditioned by the preceding ritardando and also that “because some of the strings have 
to turn the page at this point and I have to give them enough time.”62 The critic stuck to 
his guns and appealed to the practice of the long-standing conductor and director of the 
Vienna Court Opera, Franz Schalk. He also rejected Zöhrer’s comments: “We know that 
the director of the Philharmonic Society’s concerts is particularly fond of Bruckner; this 
is something that the critics have always been happy to recognize. But that the warm 
appreciation which Herr Zöhrer is accustomed to receiving for his work should descend 
60 “Leider steht die konventionelle, zum Teil lärmende und überladene Orchesterbegleitung in argem 
Mißverhältnis zu dem entzückenden Reitze des Soloinstruments. Wir sind daher Musikdirektor 
Herrn Zöhrer zu Dank verpflichtet, daß er die Tuttistellen entsprechend kürzte und das Bleche 
entlastete, besonders die hohen Töne der Trompeten umsetzte.” J. [Julius Ohm-Januschowsky], 
“Philharmonische Gesellschaft”, Laibacher Zeitung, 23 March 1910.
61 “Dazu gehört die Nichtbeachtung der Fermate bei Wiederkehr des Themas im Scherzo, wobei 
betont werden soll, daß Bruckner Zäsuren besonders liebte und sie mit weisem Vorbedacht ange-
bracht hat, ferner die Ausführung der mit ‘Breit’ überschriebenen Triole im Eingange des Finale, 
eine Stelle, die später wiederkehrt, in viel zu raschem Zeitmaße.” J. [Julius Ohm-Januschowsky], 
“Local- und Provinzial-Nachrichten: Philharmonische Gesellschaft”, Laibacher Zeitung, 24 
October 1906, http://www.dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:doc-3WSP57CU.
62 “Was die ‘Nichtbeachtung der Fermate’ anlangt, die ich mir in Scherzo der Sinfonie angeblich 
Zuschulden kommen ließ, so können es sämtliche Mitwirkende im Orchester bestätigen, daß sie 
sogar sehr lange gehalten wurde, da dies, abgesehen von der Vorschrift Bruckners, einerseits 
schon durch das vorhergehende Ritardando bedingt ist, anderseits aber auch aus dem Grunde, 
weil ein Teil der Streicher nach jener Stelle umzuwenden hatte, wozu ich ihnen doch genügend 
Zeit gönnen mußte. Daß ich ferner das Tempo im Finale der Sinfonie unverändert festhielt, dazu 
war ich vollauf berechtigt, und ich würde es bei einer etwaigen Wiederholung des Werkes wieder 
tun, da sich weder in der gestochenen Orchesterpartitur – die doch den zweifellosen Willen des 
Meisters kundgibt – noch in einer der zahlreichen Orchesterstimmen die Bezeichnung ‘breit’ 
vorfindet.” Josef Zöhrer, “Theater, Kunst und Literatur”, Laibacher Zeitung, 25 October 1906, 
http://www.dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:doc-XUKTMWTX.
DMD_18_1&2_2022 - Vsebina P9.indd   184 30/05/2022   16:48:28
185
Jernej Weiss: Musical Performance Activities of Josef Zöhrer at the Ljubljana Philharmonic Society
to the level of unconditional praise: this is surely the last thing the Herr Musikdirektor 
would want. And that is also my last word on the matter.”63
Josef Zöhrer as Music Director
As has already been mentioned, Zöhrer frequently stood in as conductor for music direc-
tor Anton Nedvěd when the latter was sick or absent for another reason. It is therefore 
interesting to read, in Kuret’s monograph on the Philharmonic Society, that Zöhrer actu-
ally assumed the joint artistic direction of the Society with Nedvěd in as early as 1871, 
following a meeting of the Society’s board on 10 March 1871 and pursuant to the new 
Instruktion für das Orchester der Philharmonischen Gesellschaft in Laibach.64 Which 
would mean that for more than a decade before his official appointment as music director 
of the Ljubljana Philharmonic Society, he was already jointly responsible for the reper-
toire of what at that time was the most important concert-giving institution in Ljubljana.
Like Zöhrer and Gerstner, the Czech musician Anton Nedvěd was a central figure in 
the concert life of Ljubljana. He was an experienced musician who also acted as a kind 
of meeting point between Germans and Slovenes in musical matters in Ljubljana. As a 
musical authority and first-rate choir director and conductor, he enjoyed a good reputation 
with both factions, both of which endeavoured to get him on their side. It is particularly 
significant that he was also always actively involved with Slovenian musical organiza-
tions. In 1883, as Hans Gerstner notes in his diary, Nedvěd was compelled to step down 
because of ill health, and the Philharmonic Society director Friedrich Keesbacher’s long-
held desire to see his good friend Zöhrer occupy the position of music director was at last 
realized.65 Given Nedvěd’s subsequent relationship with the Philharmonic Society, it is 
more or less evident that the reason for the termination of his employment was not only 
health-related: it also had a political background. Although the Germans made every effort 
to get Nedvěd to join their circle, to which end they constantly praised his erudition and 
artistic achievements and awarded him important accolades, they never fully succeeded 
in winning him over to their camp. As a music teacher and composer, he always remained 
favourably disposed to the Slovenes. Thus even Gerstner noted in his diary: “What is 
less commonly known is that Zöhrer was said to be in dispute with Nedvěd, the music 
director.”66 Keesbacher was apparently keen to remove Nedvěd in as early as 1875 and 
promote Zöhrer to music director and conductor in his place. The Society was split into 
63 “Jeder Kunstfreund in Laibach weiß ja, daß der Leiter der Philharmonischen Konzerte gerade 
Bruckner innig zugetan ist: dies wird auch von der Kritik stets freudig anerkannt. Daß jedoch die 
warme Anerkennung, die Herrn Direktor Zöhrer hiefür wie überhaupt für sein ganzes Wirken 
gebührt, zu einer bedinungslosen Lobhudelei herabsinke, wird Herr Musikdirektor Zöhrer wohl 
selbst am allerwenigsten wollen. Hiemit ist die Sache auch für mich vollständig erledigt.” Julius 
Ritter Ohm- Januschowsky, “Theater, Kunst und Literatur”, Laibacher Zeitung, 27 October 1906, 
http://www.dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:doc-CDEVI5X9.
64 Kuret, Ljubljanska Filharmonična družba, 173.
65 Weiss, Hans Gerstner, 126.
66 Ibid., 112.
DMD_18_1&2_2022 - Vsebina P9.indd   185 30/05/2022   16:48:28
De musica disserenda XVIII/1–2 • 2022
186
two camps, with tensions running high between them for months. There were even three 
extraordinary congresses in the assembly room of what was then the Provincial Diet, after 
which Nedvěd and his allies prevailed.67
Be that as it may, with Zöhrer’s promotion to the position of music director, as 
Gerstner puts it, “a new era began and a new spirit settled in the Philharmonic Society.”68 
Throughout the years of his activity Zöhrer proved himself to be a worthy successor to 
Nedvěd. It was largely due to his efforts that a succession of remarkably high-quality 
soloists and orchestras visited Ljubljana at around the turn of the century. These included 
the Berlin Philharmonic (Berliner Philharmoniker), which on 28 April 1900 performed a 
concert under the famous conductor Hans Richter in Ljubljana’s new philharmonic hall, 
the Tonhalle, completed in late 1891 (which represented an enormous advance both for 
the orchestra and for audiences, since in contrast to the previous cramped concert hall it 
had a capacity of around 600). Another first-class event in the extremely rich history of 
philharmonic concerts by visiting orchestras was a performance by the Berliner Tonkünstler 
Orchester on 8 March 1903, conducted by Richard Strauss. This was a historic musical 
event for Ljubljana, and the concert was, of course, sold out. Gerstner and Zöhrer apparently 
spent more than an hour in conversation with Strauss in the Tonhalle after the concert.69
Figure 3
Zöhrer was for almost three decades (1883–1913) music director of the Philharmonic Society 
in Ljubljana. Bock, Die philharmonische Gesellschaft in Laibach, 21 (Digitalna knjižnica 
Slovenije – dLib.si).
67 Ibid., 33.
68 Ibid., 126–127.
69 Gerstner, “Ein Leben für die Musik”, 75.
DMD_18_1&2_2022 - Vsebina P9.indd   186 30/05/2022   16:48:29
187
Jernej Weiss: Musical Performance Activities of Josef Zöhrer at the Ljubljana Philharmonic Society
Both the management and the members of the Philharmonic Society were well 
aware of Zöhrer’s importance to the Society’s activities and on several occasions showed 
him due attention at concerts with lavish thanks and a variety of accolades. The 1889/90 
season was a particularly notable one. Even the dress rehearsal for the first concert on 
12 December in the hall of the old shooting range attracted a large number of listeners. 
Word had got out that something special was being prepared for the music director Zöhrer 
and concertmaster Gerstner. Following the overture, the Society’s director Keesbacher 
took the stage and gave a long speech praising Zöhrer for helping the Society flourish. 
He mentioned the great difficulties the music director had to face in return for a modest 
salary. These included problems with the choir, with the orchestra, with rehearsals and 
with an inadequate concert hall. Anyone occupying the position of music director in 
Ljubljana therefore needed a will of iron, hand of steel, invincible toughness and, above 
all, a genuine and true love of art that overcomes all obstacles. Keesbacher ended his 
speech by presenting Zöhrer with a conductor’s baton as a mark of gratitude and an 
emblem of his artistic position, and at the same time as the symbolic baton with which he, 
as the commander of a musical army, leads his troops to victory and success. The baton 
was made of ebony and richly decorated with a silver emblem of the arts and an inscrip-
tion reading: “In memory of 29 May 1889, to the respected music director Josef Zöhrer, 
from the Philharmonic Society in Ljubljana”.70 The orchestra then sounded a fanfare and 
applause filled the hall. Zöhrer offered his sincere thanks. Also particularly notable was 
Zöhrer’s jubilee season of 1905/06, when he celebrated forty years of employment in the 
company of a circle of close friends. Evidence that his achievements were also recognized 
outside Ljubljana came with the flood of congratulations that arrived from Vienna, Graz, 
Leipzig, Trieste and elsewhere.
Despite the numerous difficulties he faced, Zöhrer largely achieved his ambitions at 
the Philharmonic Society. Available figures show that over the course of just under half a 
century he participated creatively in around 350 concerts of the Philharmonic Society in 
Ljubljana (around 160 as performer and around 190 as conductor).71 These concerts included 
performances of twenty-one of his own compositions. He received the recognition both of 
Ljubljana’s music critics and of audiences, which almost always filled the Philharmonic 
Hall for symphonic and chamber concerts. As befitted a conductor, he was decisive and 
uncompromising. As such, he was one of the principal authorities responsible for half a 
century of performance-related activity by the Philharmonic Society and, consequently, 
musical culture in Ljubljana.
On 25 January 1912 he applied for retirement. An extraordinary concert on 4 May 
1912 was dedicated to a solemn celebration of his golden jubilee (the fiftieth anniversary 
of his first appearance before a Ljubljana audience). The reviewer described it as an 
“epoch-making event”,72 but Zöhrer had actually already been synonymous with the 
70 Philharmonische Gesellschaft in Laibach, Jahres-Bericht der philharmonischen Gesellschaft, 
13–14.
71 The data collected by Maruša Zupančič were retrieved from the MUSDAT database.
72 “Das am Samstag stattgehabte Gesellschaftskonzert gestaltete sich, um mit Worten des 
Gesellschaftsdirektors zu reden, ‘zu einem epochalen Ereignis’.” [Otmar Hagemann], “Theater, 
DMD_18_1&2_2022 - Vsebina P9.indd   187 30/05/2022   16:48:29
De musica disserenda XVIII/1–2 • 2022
188
Philharmonic Society for many years. The celebration began on the evening before the 
concert, at the dress rehearsal, when the maestro took his leave of the choir. The concert 
hall was festively decorated and Zöhrer was greeted by waves of applause that refused 
to abate. Gathered around the music director once again were the orchestra and choir 
that for three decades he had led to artistic successes. Zöhrer’s almost half-century of 
activity was also remembered by the critics.73 Januschowky, who had followed Zöhrer’s 
achievements for decades, wrote the following in the Laibacher Zeitung when the latter’s 
application for retirement was made public:
[...] With the departure of this distinguished man and artist from public activity, not 
only the Philharmonic Society, but the entire musical life of our city suffers a heavy, 
indeed irreplaceable loss. [...] We will abstain from a detailed description of the devoted 
activity of this highly deserving man, who enjoys common respect and veneration, and 
we cherish the heartfelt wish that after half a century of selfless work in the service 
of the noblest of the arts, he will be allowed to devote himself for a long time to well-
deserved rest and relaxation.74
Responsibility for orchestral concerts was temporarily assumed by the military 
Kapellmeister Theodor Christoph, while Gerstner was appointed provisional head of 
the music school in the wake of Zöhrer’s retirement.75 Zöhrer, however, expressed his 
Kunst und Literatur: außerordentliches Konzert der Philharmonischen Gesellschaft”, Laibacher 
Zeitung, 7 May 1912, http://www.dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:doc-84T5SZM2.
73 “Es erübrigt uns nur namens der Musikkritik, die in dieser Stelle durch fast fünf Jahrzehnte 
Zöhrers Kunst zu besprechen hatte, dem Scheidenden einen herzlichen Gruß mit dem Wusche zu 
entbieten, daß seinem regen Geiste durch die, will’s Gott, lange ausgiebige Maße des Ruhestandes 
erst recht die Entfaltung weiteren ehrenvollen Kunstschaffens gesichert werde, so daß es auch 
hier, zum mindesten bei der Besprechung alter und kommender Zöhrerschen Werfe heißen darf: 
Auf Wiederseh’n!” O. H. [Otmar Hagemann], “Theater, Kunst und Literatur: außerordentliches 
Konzert der Philharmonischen Gesellschaft”, Laibacher Zeitung, 8 May 1912, http://www.dlib.
si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:doc-Y5DWPI8N.
74 “Wie uns mitgeteilt wird, hat Musikdirektor Herr Josef Zöhrer seines vorgeschrittenen Alters 
halben um Versetzung in den dauernden Ruhestand ersucht. Durch das Scheiden dieses ausgezeich-
neten Menschen und Künstlers aus öffentlicher Tätigkeit erleidet nicht nur die Philharmonische 
Gesellschaft, sondern das ganze Musikleben unserer Stadt einen schweren, ja unersetzlichen 
Verlust. Herr Musikdirektor Zöhrer wirkt seit 1869 – also durch 43 Jahre – segensreich als Lehrer, 
Künstler und Dirigent im Dienste der Philharmonischen Gesellschaft, die ihm die Hebung ihres 
Ansehens, die Mehrung ihres künstlerischen Rufes dankt. In den letzten Jahren trat Herr Zührer 
auch als Komponist mit mehreren geistvollen Werken erfolgreich hervor. Wir behalten uns eine 
eingehende, Schilderung der hingebungsvollen Tätigkeit des hochverdienten Mannes vor, der 
allgemeine Achtung und Verehrung genießt und hegen den herzlichen Wunsch, es möge ihm 
nach einem halben Jahrhundert aufopfernden Wirkens im Dienste der edelsten der Künste noch 
lange gegönnt sein, sich der wohlverdienten Erholung und Ruhe zu widmen.” J. [Julius Ohm-
Januschowsky], “Local- und Provinzial-Nachrichten: Philharmonische Gesellschaft”, Laibacher 
Zeitung, 7 February 1912, http://www.dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:doc-BQDN4GDH.
75 The management had already asked Gerstner to assume responsibility for philharmonic concerts 
in a typed letter dated 20 October 1910. Die Philharmonische Gesellschaft in Laibach to Hans 
Gerstner, 20 October 1910, fasc. Hans Gerstner, Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde in Wien.
DMD_18_1&2_2022 - Vsebina P9.indd   188 30/05/2022   16:48:29
189
Jernej Weiss: Musical Performance Activities of Josef Zöhrer at the Ljubljana Philharmonic Society
willingness to remain in his post until 31 December 1912, which demonstrates his great 
spirit of self-sacrifice. Gerstner was happy to leave him in the position of head of the 
music school until the beginning of 1913. Thus it was only in January 1913 that Zöhrer’s 
duties were assumed by Gerstner and Rudolf von Weis-Ostborn. Zöhrer’s retirement 
actually brought to an end a long period of tireless and conscientiously planned work 
of a kind that the Philharmonic Society had never previously achieved – and never did 
again. It was during Josef Zöhrer’s tenure at the head of the Philharmonic Society that 
Ljubljana’s reputation as a musical centre spread beyond its borders. Decades of tireless 
work gave rise to an important musical tradition in Ljubljana, with first performances of 
works by the great masters, appearances by outstanding soloists, and a general increase 
in the quality of Ljubljana’s musical life.
Then on 21 November 1916 the Emperor Franz Joseph died. The death of the Habsburg 
ruler pushed into the background the news that the Philharmonic Society’s former artistic 
director Josef Zöhrer had died in his eighty-sixth year (on 20 November 1916). Zöhrer was 
buried at Ljubljana’s Sveti Križ cemetery on 22 November. With space in the newspapers 
largely given over to coverage of the death of the great emperor, a commemorative article 
about Zöhrer did not appear until 29 November.76 The Philharmonic Society’s annual reports 
for the 1916/17 and 1917/18 seasons dedicated special articles to Zöhrer, in which they 
remembered his achievements, successes and concerts. An official mourning ceremony 
took place in the appropriately decorated small hall of the Tonhalle on 17 December. 
Half a century of Philharmonic Society history went to the grave with Zöhrer, who had 
embodied the institution in Ljubljana almost as much as the “Iron Emperor” Franz Joseph 
had embodied the Habsburg monarchy.
Josef Zöhrer’s Role in Musical Culture in Slovenia
We know that as music director Zöhrer did not get involved in national disputes or other 
rivalries, and this is confirmed by many of his decisions and actions. As the chroniclers 
report, he was always interested above all in his work, in which he was conscientious 
and precise. Not only did he frequently include works by Slav composers in his concert 
programmes, as already mentioned, but he also supported joint appearances by otherwise 
rival institutions. Thus, for example, at the beginning of his tenure as music director, when 
the Philharmonic Society was organizing a concert to take place on 12 July 1883 at the 
Provincial Theatre to mark the six-hundredth anniversary of the absorption of Carniola 
into the Habsburg dominions, he invited the Music Society to participate. Accordingly, 
when Emperor Franz Joseph visited the city in July 1883, performers from the two insti-
tutions appeared together, with the Slovenian contingent strongly in evidence. Later, too, 
Zöhrer was in favour of collaboration with the Music Society. The 1897/98 season was 
marked by the celebration of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Music Society, on which 
occasion the Philharmonic Society sent its congratulations. A series of articles in the 
76 “Local- und Provinzial-Nachrichten”, Laibacher Zeitung, 29 November 1916, http://www.dlib.
si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:doc-LAXGFKFZ.
DMD_18_1&2_2022 - Vsebina P9.indd   189 30/05/2022   16:48:29
De musica disserenda XVIII/1–2 • 2022
190
Laibacher Zeitung was dedicated to the work and achievements of this central Slovenian 
creative institution, which, like the Philharmonic Society, characterized one of the poles 
of “German-Slovenian” musical life in the Slovenian lands.
Nevertheless, on a number of occasions the Music Society accused the Philharmonic 
Society of neglecting works by Slovenian and other Slav composers. An anonymous indi-
vidual writing in the journal Ljubljanski zvon accused the Society of failing to include 
even a single Slovenian work in its programmes, while paradoxically drawing attention 
to Gallus and Nedvěd,77 who cannot, of course, be placed unambiguously in the Slovenian 
camp. Although there could be said to be some truth to the accusation regarding the failure 
to perform Slovenian works, it has to be acknowledged that there were hardly any suitable 
Slovenian symphonic compositions available at the time. Meanwhile, the accusation does 
not hold water at all when it comes to performances of works by other Slav composers, 
since under Zöhrer’s leadership the Philharmonic Society performed both Dvořák’s major 
symphonies and those of Tchaikovsky. In this connection, it should be emphasized that 
Zöhrer never expressed his national sympathies or views in an explicit fashion.
On the other hand, it was not until the last decade of the nineteenth century and the 
early years of the twentieth, when Slovenian musical production began to advance in 
terms of quality in the circle around Novi akordi and in terms of performance with the 
establishment of Hubad’s choir and, later, Talich’s Slovenska filharmonija, that a rivalry 
began to make itself more strongly felt, eventually resulting in a greater polarization 
between “Slovenian” and “German” musical institutions. This shift coincided with political 
developments that saw the Slovenian party gain power in the city of Ljubljana. It should, 
however, be emphasized at the same time that this period, as the nineteenth century gave 
way to the twentieth, saw a significant rise in quality both at the Philharmonic Society 
and at the Music Society, which did not wish to lag behind. It appears, then, that musical 
culture reached a peak in this period precisely because of the increasing rivalry between 
what were the two principal musical institutions in the country. Thus the two institutions 
partly complemented, partly competed with, each other. Sometimes, they even collaborated. 
Above all, however, they afforded a great diversity of musical pleasures to the people of 
Ljubljana (and thus not only to German citizens or only to Slovenian citizens).
As often happens in Slovenia when someone stands out as being above average, Zöhrer 
was the victim of frequent harassment both from the Slovenian side and, even more often, 
from his own “colleagues”. As we know, from 1884 onwards he taught choral singing 
at the Philharmonic Society school. The choir of the Philharmonic Society frequently 
performed together with the choir of the German Turnverein (gymnastics association). 
Despite repeated suggestions that the two choirs should merge, the Philharmonic Society 
management decided on 26 November 1889 that they would remain separate but continue to 
work together, particularly on large-scale vocal-instrumental works. The Turnverein choir 
was directed by Viktor Ranth, who was of a markedly German orientation. Zöhrer, as on 
other occasions, refused to be drawn into disputes between Germans and Slovenians or to 
side with one camp or the other. The singers of the Turnverein, in particular, made several 
attempts to enlist him in their ranks and then accused him of being gruff at rehearsals, 
77 Slovenski glasbenik, “Filharmonična družba v Ljubljani”, 485–486.
DMD_18_1&2_2022 - Vsebina P9.indd   190 30/05/2022   16:48:29
191
Jernej Weiss: Musical Performance Activities of Josef Zöhrer at the Ljubljana Philharmonic Society
of being too interested in “higher” music and of snubbing their company. Zöhrer rejected 
all these accusations and said that he would not allow the Turnverein members to impose 
obligations on him to accompany them on their revels – and even less so since he had 
recently observed among them a kind of “pan-Germanic current” in which he had no 
intention of participating, because he was the head of the Philharmonic Society, to which 
all national aspirations were alien, and which received financial aid from the state, the 
province and the municipality. This statement of Zöhrer’s was recorded in the minutes 
of a meeting of the Philharmonic Society.78
At this point it is necessary to highlight one more important dividing line between 
Slovenian and German music societies. It is important to be aware that in the second 
half of the nineteenth century, Slovenian music societies were more a complement to 
the musical life of the country than its centre. At the same time, as Aleš Nagode notes, 
musical culture imbued with a national element was, right up till the end of the nineteenth 
century, something almost unimaginable for the majority of members of the German – and 
Slovenian – bourgeoisie, all of whom had been raised in a spirit of bilingualism. While 
the latter was aware of the need for performances of works of musical theatre and vocal 
music with Slovenian librettos or lyrics, it was difficult for them to accept the idea that 
the Slovenian side should compete in every way with the old-established Philharmonic 
Society even in the performance of other genres of music, and thereby strive constantly 
to demonstrate the equal value of Slovenian composers.79 In particular, instrumental 
music from the German-speaking world represented a musical “ideal” with which the 
bourgeoisie identified.80 Significantly, the music mentioned above was received even 
outside Europe (for instance, in America) in exactly the same way as on the territory of 
present-day Slovenia, likewise representing a universal status symbol of the bourgeoisie.81
In that spirit the members of Ljubljana’s bourgeoisie continued to enrol their children 
in the music school of the Philharmonic Society and attend the evening concerts of that 
institution and the performances of the Provincial Theatre with their spouses, and despite 
occasional signs of enthusiasm for the national awakening tended to view the first attempts 
at organizing new – Slovenian – music societies at the beginning of the second half of the 
nineteenth century with considerable scepticism. Not because of their Slovenian character 
per se, but simply because it seemed unreasonable to them to have to give up their settled 
way of life and compete in every way with what were then central musical institutions 
such as the Provincial Theatre and the Philharmonic Society. As a result, the Slovenian 
societies for the most part lacked permanent and adequate financial support on the part of 
the bourgeoisie, the consequence of which was an inevitable truncation of their activities.
Musicians, too, tended to make decisions more on the basis of practical, existential 
reasons and advantages (according to the principle ubi bene, ibi patria) than as the result 
of the influence of one or other set of national ideas. Thus, for example, Anton Nedvěd, 
the long-serving music director of the Ljubljana Philharmonic Society, had no hesitation 
78 Kuret, Ljubljanska Filharmonična družba, 254.
79 Nagode, “Prvih dvajset let Glasbene matice”, 31.
80 Applegate, “How German Is It?”, 276.
81 Gienow-Hecht, Sound Diplomacy.
DMD_18_1&2_2022 - Vsebina P9.indd   191 30/05/2022   16:48:29
De musica disserenda XVIII/1–2 • 2022
192
in agreeing to serve on the board of the Music Society Ljubljana when it was founded in 
1872. On the one hand, he included his own compositions in the programmes of events 
connected to the Slovenian national awakening, while on the other, as part of his concert 
activities at the Ljubljana Philharmonic Society, he was the first musician in Ljubljana 
to offer extracts from Wagner’s music dramas. In a similar way, it is evident from the 
performance activities of Josef Zöhrer, one of the protagonists of musical life in Ljubljana 
in the second half of the nineteenth century and at the beginning of the twentieth, that 
the application of a nationally conditioned concept of musical culture in the period in 
question is highly questionable, if not downright controversial.
Why, then, is Zöhrer today a forgotten musician whose name we seek in vain in 
the fundamental literature82 of Slovenian music history? The reason probably lies in the 
extremely narrow view of our musical past mentioned in the introduction, the imperative 
of which was a concept of national musical culture. It seems as if in our search for the 
“Slovenian-ness” of music in present-day Slovenia we have all too willingly renounced 
an extremely important part of our musical tradition of which we should rightfully be 
proud. Ultimately, the majority of the musical immigrants who worked in the Slovenian 
lands for any length of time assimilated fully to the local population. They understood 
their mission, and the identity connected to it, above all as a contribution to advancing 
the musical culture of the country in which they found themselves.
Perhaps the time has finally come to shine a brighter light on the activity of all those 
important figures who, through the power of their intellect, were capable of distinguishing 
themselves within the territory of present-day Slovenia, a process that will certainly be 
greatly aided by the findings of the project “Influx of Musicians to the Slovenian Lands 
During the Long Nineteenth Century – Their Impact and Integration”. Today, it is cer-
tainly possible, simply by recognizing tradition rather than renouncing it, to achieve at 
a European level a degree of recognition that will afford a more prominent place on the 
map of European musical heritage to foreign musicians active in Slovenia and their works.
82 Cvetko, Slovenska glasba v evropskem prostoru, 502.
DMD_18_1&2_2022 - Vsebina P9.indd   192 30/05/2022   16:48:29
193
Jernej Weiss: Musical Performance Activities of Josef Zöhrer at the Ljubljana Philharmonic Society
Bibliography
Conservatorium der Musik in Wien. Verzeichniß und Classification der Schüler des 
Conservatoriums der Musik in Wien: Schuljahr 1856/1857. Fascicle Hans Gerstner. 
Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde in Wien.
Gerstner, Hans. “Ein Leben für die Musik: 17. 8. 1851 Luditz–9. 1. 1939 Laibach”. Diary 
of Hans Gerstner. Sudetendeutsches Musikinstitut, Regensburg.
Literature
Applegate, Celia. “How German Is It? Nationalism and the Idea of Serious Music in the 
Early Nineteenth Century”. 19th-Century Music 21, no. 3 (1998): 274–296. https://
doi.org/10.2307/746825.
Bock, Emil. Die philharmonische Gesellschaft in Laibach. Ljubljana, 1902. http://www.
dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:DOC-YTMYSDMS.
Budkovič, Cvetko. Razvoj glasbenega šolstva na Slovenskem. Vol 1, Od začetka 19. stoletja 
do nastanka konservatorija. Ljubljana: Znanstveni inštitut Filozofske fakultete, 1992.
Cigoj Krstulović, Nataša. “Aus vergangenen Tagen: pozabljene klavirske skladbe Josefa 
Zöhrerja”. De musica disserenda 14, no. 1 (2018): 19–37. https://doi.org/10.3986/
dmd14.1.02.
Cvetko, Dragotin. Slovenska glasba v evropskem prostoru. Ljubljana: Slovenska matica, 
1991.
Gienow-Hecht, Jessica C. E. Sound Diplomacy: Music and Emotions in Transatlantic 
Relations, 1850–1920. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2012.
Kuret, Primož. “Kronika Ljubljanske filharmonične družbe 1899/1907”. Muzikološki zbornik 
51, no. 1 (2015): 115–128. https://doi.org/10.4312/mz.51.1.115-128.
———. Ljubljanska Filharmonična družba: 1794–1919. Ljubljana: Nova revija, 2006.
Lah, Špela. “Julius Ohm-Januschowsky in njegovo kritiško delo v Ljubljani”. Muzikološki 
zbornik 43, no. 1 (2007): 127–135. https://doi.org/10.4312/mz.43.1.127-135.
Nagode, Aleš. “Prvih dvajset let Glasbene matice – zgodovinska podoba in resničnost”. 
In 130 let Glasbene Matice: zbornik prispevkov s Strokovnega posveta ob 130-letnici 
Glasbene Matice v Ljubljani, edited by Aleš Nagode, 25–33. Ljubljana: Kulturno 
društvo Glasbena Matica, 2005.
Philharmonische Gesellschaft in Laibach. Bericht der philharmonischen Gesellschaft in Laibach: 
über ihr 215. und 216. Vereinsjahr 1916/17 und 1917/18. Ljubljana: Philharmonische 
Gesellschaft, 1918. http://www.dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:DOC-K2KJMR2O.
———. Dritter Jahres-Bericht der philharmonischen Gesellschaft in Laibach: vom 1. 
Jänner 1865 bis letzten December 1865. Ljubljana: Philharmonische Gesellschaft, 
1865. http://www.dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:DOC-YUUASHYN.
———. Erster Jahres-Bericht der philharmonischen Gesellschaft in Laibach: vom 19. 
Oktober 1862 bis letzten Dezember 1863. Ljubljana: Philharmonische Gesellschaft, 
1863. http://www.dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:DOC-PNPACPVD.
———. Jahres-Bericht der philharmonischen Gesellschaft in Laibach: für die Zeit vom 
1. October 1889 bis 30. September 1890. Ljubljana: Philharmonische Gesellschaft, 
1891. http://www.dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:DOC-R60K3DZX.
DMD_18_1&2_2022 - Vsebina P9.indd   193 30/05/2022   16:48:29
De musica disserenda XVIII/1–2 • 2022
194
Slovenski glasbenik. “Filharmonična družba v Ljubljani pa slovenski narod”. Ljubljanski zvon 
22, no. 8 (1902): 482–489. http://www.dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:DOC-FEYJZUR6.
Weiss, Jernej. Hans Gerstner (1851–1939): življenje za glasbo. Maribor: Litera, Pedagoška 
fakulteta, 2010.
———. “Symphony no. 6 in F major, ‘Pastoral’, by Ludwig van Beethoven, honorary 
member of the Philharmonic Society in Ljubljana”. In Simfonija v F-duru, opus 68: 
“ljubljanski prepis”, edited by Jonatan Vinkler, 293–308. Ljubljana: Akademija za 
glasbo Univerze v Ljubljani, Narodna in univerzitetna knjižnica; Koper: Založba 
Univerze na Primorskem, 2019. https://doi.org/10.26493/978-961-7055-54-2.
———. “Wagner on Ljubljana’s Concert and Opera Stages”. Muzikološki zbornik 49, no. 
2 (2013): 57–74. https://doi.org/10.4312/mz.49.2.57-74.
Westerby, Herbert. The History of Pianoforte Music. London: E.P. Dutton, 1924.
DMD_18_1&2_2022 - Vsebina P9.indd   194 30/05/2022   16:48:29
195
Jernej Weiss: Musical Performance Activities of Josef Zöhrer at the Ljubljana Philharmonic Society
GLASBENO POUSTVARJALNO DELOVANJE JOSEFA ZÖHRERJA V 
FILHARMONIČNI DRUŽBI V LJUBLJANI
Povzetek
Eden osrednjih poustvarjalcev ljubljanskega glasbenega življenja druge polovice 19. in 
začetka 20. stoletja, Josef Zöhrer (1841–1916), je v Ljubljani prvič javno nastopil 21. marca 
1862, ko je na komornem večeru igral violončelo. Posebej pomembno je prispeval kot 
pianist in dirigent filharmoničnih koncertov. Trenutna statistika kaže, da je kot poustvar-
jalec v domala pol stoletja skupaj sodeloval na ok. 350 koncertih Filharmonične družbe v 
Ljubljani (in sicer na ok. 160 kot izvajalec in na ok. 190 kot dirigent). Repertoar in kritike 
Zöhrerjevih solističnih ter komornih pianističnih nastopov razkrivajo ambicioznega in 
tehnično dovršenega pianista, ki je med drugim posegal po najzahtevnejši sodobni klavir-
ski literaturi. Kot solist se je posebej izkazal v izvedbah zahtevnih klavirskih koncertov 
uveljavljenih skladateljev, redno pa je nastopal tudi v komornih zasedbah. Ob tem je treba 
poudariti, da je Zöhrer le izjemoma nastopal kot solist brez orkestra, in sicer kot solist na 
koncertih z mešanim sporedom, ne pa na samostojnih recitalih.
Kot eden bolje izobraženih poustvarjalcev na Slovenskem je že kmalu po svojem 
stalnem prihodu v Ljubljano začel tudi z dirigentskim delovanjem, ki se je posebej raz-
mahnilo po prevzemu funkcije glasbenega direktorja Filharmonične družbe v sezoni 
1882/83. V Filharmonični družbi je Zöhrer kljub številnim težavam v veliki meri uveljavil 
svoje ambicije in družba je znala ceniti njegovo delo in uspehe. Bil je odločen in nepo-
pustljiv dirigent in kot tak ena glavnih avtoritet polstoletnega poustvarjalnega delovanja 
Filharmonične družbe ter posledično glasbene kulture na Slovenskem. Vseskozi sta mu 
priznanje dajala tudi ljubljanska glasbena kritika in občinstvo, ki je po pravilu polnilo 
filharmonično dvorano ob simfoničnih in komornih koncertih. Prav Zöhrerju gre tudi 
največ zaslug, da mu je uspelo v Ljubljano na prelomu stoletja pripeljati vrsto izjemno 
kakovostnih solistov in orkestrskih sestavov. Z novo Zöhrerjevo usmeritvijo, ki je v kon-
certne sporede vse bolj vključevala tudi nekatera najsodobnejša dela, Ljubljana glede na čas 
prvih izvedb v repertoarnem smislu ni veliko zaostajala za veliko večjimi in bogatejšimi 
glasbenimi središči monarhije.
Tako se je s Zöhrerjevim delovanjem dirigenta in glasbenega direktorja dejansko 
začelo dolgo obdobje neutrudnega in zavestno načrtovanega dela, kakršnega Filharmonična 
družba ni dosegla ne prej ne kasneje. Ljubljana je prav v času, ko je Filharmonično družbo 
vodil Josef Zöhrer, postala znano glasbeno mesto tudi zunaj svojih meja. V desetletjih 
neumornega dela je nastajala pomembna glasbena tradicija Ljubljane s prvimi izvedbami 
del svetovnih mojstrov, nastopi izvrstnih solistov in splošnim dvigom ravni ljubljanskega 
glasbenega življenja.
DMD_18_1&2_2022 - Vsebina P9.indd   195 30/05/2022   16:48:29