Advance news of this concert appeared in Bohemia and Prager Zeitung on 14/4/1850. The latter simply reported that ‘The Cäcilien-Verein [Cecilia Society] will give a performance on 27th April at 4.30 “Christoph Columbus”, a Symphonic Ode in four parts by Felicien David.’ The Bohemia report, signed ‘S.’, was less concise, noting that ‘Towards the end of the month enthusiasts of music can expect a joyous pleasure, in that our busy Cäcilienverein [Cecilia Society] will perform Félicien David’s Symphonie-Ode “Christoph Columbus“.’ This work, chosen by the ‘excellent leadership of the Society... [as] one of the greatest and most brilliant compositions by the celebrated master’, would probably be given the ‘uttermost welcome’ by the Prague public.

Bohemia 26/4/1850 published news that the Cecilia Society would give a concert tomorrow at 4.30pm in the Žofín Hall, and that it would perform ‘Felicien David’s Christoph Columbus“, Symphonie-Ode in four parts with declaimed strophes, songs, choruses and large orchestra.’ Details of the concert, listing the date, time and venue, were also published in the Tagesanzeiger text of Bohemia 26/4/1850.

A review, signed ‘V.’, of this concert was published by Bohemia 30/4/1850. Although specific parts of Christoph Columbus were praised, the critic considered that the work as a whole was disappointing in comparison with David’s first Symphonie-Ode, Le désert, and failed to live up to the earlier promise shown by the composer. ‘When Fel. David returned to Paris after a many-year sojourn under Africa’s hot sun and with his debut of  „Wüste“ [Le désert], the praise and eulogy in the pages of the leading journals was unending, and the musical homo novus was in general greeted as the new Messiah to whom the stand-offish world could not escape paying homage.’ This celebrated work was deemed to be of such ‘great originality, was new and surprising, that we were justified it seems to this author, to pin not inconsiderable hopes [upon his future compositions].’ However, the critic considered that it was often the case that the expectation generated by such signal creations would be unfulfilled, and this was deemed to be applicable to the ‘admired tone-painter of the Sahara world.’ In many elements of its content Columbus was perceived to be very similar to Le désert. Thus the desert and the ocean were two natural phenomena; the caravan trains of the former [depicted in David’s Ode] were paralleled by the ship voyage; the human element of Beduin were mirrored by the Indians. In expressive content there existed similarities too. Both works contained depictions of mysterious quiet and tranquility, storms and gales, and ‘national and ethnographic features’. In Le désert the musical ideas and techniques were new, surprising and effective. However, these same characteristic elements of melody, harmony, rhythm and orchestration recurred in Columbus so that the work seemed not to be fresh or direct in effect. Examples of this, and of the uneven quality of the piece in general were cited by the correspondent in a general outline of the new composition. Thus, the first of the four parts, ‘Abreise’ [Departure], opened with a number ‘of real charm in its rocking rhythm in a 6/8 bar, but of the historic hero [Columbus] the introduction aria is in no way worthy.’ The following F-major chorus begins imposingly, but in characteristic metre and use of caesura was observed to be highly derivative of part of Le désert. The second part ‘Eine Nacht unter tropischem Himmel’ found David’s ‘dreamy muse in its element, in the splendid orchestration, mysterious introductory Andante .. and the song of the ship’s company [at their farewell].’ A new effect was identified in the Chorus of the Oceans with its echo effects, and in the subsequent appearance of the tenor Fernando with a soft 6/8 cantilena accompanied by castanets. The material of the following ‘Trinkgelages’ [Drinking spree] evidently ‘resurfaced’ from the Karavanenmarsch, and the hurricane with its common-rule [bürgerrechtlichen] diminished seventh harmonies and chromatic scales offered absolutely nothing new.’ In the third part depicting impending mutiny and the sighting of land the reviewer drew attention to both the enharmonic modulation employed to arrive at D-flat major from the dominant of D minor, and to the colourful orchestration of tremolo and pizzicato strings and wind entries, producing a ‘magnificent’ effect. The final part ‘The New World’ was noted to contain two significant instrumental numbers, as well as a chorus melody that ‘is surely not original but of charming freshness’ and hightened in effect through a felicitous orchestration for flutes and clarinets. ‘The Cradle song in B-flat major is as charming as the final chorus is imposing, yet... the total effect of the work despite the noted beautiful details remains below the level expected of the famous composer.’

Of the performance itself, the Bohemia critic was positive in summary: ‘For an amateur orchestra the work proffered untold difficulties, and in view of this we can only pay tribute to the efforts [of the Cecilia Society]...’ Of the soloists, Miss Wagner [Wagnerová] sang the soprano part accurately. Mr Vogl performed the part for high baritone, and was noted to have on occasion transposed down an octave. However, he displayed ‘correct understanding of the technical as well as of the spirit of the content [of the work]. For the part of Fernando, Mr Herrmann ‘had sufficient facility, but for so young a tenor voice it was not perfect. The chorus was very numerously populated.’ Although none of the specified sources reported the conductor of the concert, this would certainly have been Antonín Apt, the Cecilia Society founder and director from its inception until its disbanding in 1865.