The 4th - the 'Taking Stock' Symphony?

[Rod]

Originally posted by Peter:

According to Barry Cooper, both the 4th and 5th were commisioned by Opersdorff.

You don't just have to take Cooper's word for it. It's a long established fact.

------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

[Peter]

Originally posted by Rod:
You don't just have to take Cooper's word for it. It's a long established fact.

Yes, but when did he commision them? B started work on the 5th in 1805, way before the encounter with O in the autumn of 1806. He also began the 4th before this encounter with O. O can't have commisioned 2 Symphonies from B - Cooper's point must be that B first decided to use the 5th to fulfil the commision and then changed his mind and used the 4th.

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 06-24-2001).]

[Rod]

Originally posted by Peter:
Yes, but when did he commision them? B started work on the 5th in 1805, way before the encounter with O in the autumn of 1806. He also began the 4th before this encounter with O. O can't have commisioned 2 Symphonies from B - Cooper's point must be that B first decided to use the 5th to fulfil the commision and then changed his mind and used the 4th.

You should check out your own site! I discuss the whole issue in the Symphonies page (see no5). My principal source here was Thayer/Forbes. There were sketches of what was to be the 5th in existence before the Counts commision, however I was unaware that the 4th was also being sketched at this time - Thayer puts its composition as occuring in the Summer of 1806 - are you sure about this? Surely such sketches must have been at a very primitive level? I would thus assume the commision first occured in early 1806. The sketches for the 5th were layed aside in favour of the fourth and then subsequently resurrected and completed with the Count in mind. B certainly was in discussion with the Count about the final nature of the 5th as there is at least one letter to prove it.


------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

[Peter]

Originally posted by Rod:


There were sketches of what was to be the 5th in existence before the Counts commision, however I was unaware that the 4th was also being sketched at this time - Thayer puts its composition as occuring in the Summer of 1806 - are you sure about this? Surely such sketches must have been at a very primitive level? I would thus assume the commision first occured in early 1806.
The sketches for the 5th were layed aside in favour of the fourth and then subsequently resurrected and completed with the Count in mind. B certainly was in discussion with the Count about the final nature of the 5th as there is at least one letter to prove it.

It all hinges on when the Count commisioned the symphonies - I was under the impression that he did so in the autumn of 1806 when he met B at Lichnowsky's in Hungary. By that date the first 2 movements of the 5th were fairly advanced and much of the 4th must also have been complete.

Is your theory that O commisioned the 4th earlier that year and when B showed him the near complete work in the autumn, he then comissioned another symphony which B intended to fulfil with the 5th?


------------------
'Man know thyself'

[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 06-25-2001).]

[Rod]

Originally posted by Peter:
It all hinges on when the Count commisioned the symphonies - I was under the impression that he did so in the autumn of 1806 when he met B at Lichnowsky's in Hungary. By that date the first 2 movements of the 5th were fairly advanced and much of the 4th must also have been complete.

Is your theory that O commisioned the 4th earlier that year and when B showed him the near complete work in the autumn, he then comissioned another symphony which B intended to fulfil with the 5th?

Well, the 4th was definitely composed in the summer of 1806 and performed at the Count's residence later that year. Your comment is the first I have ever read that has the 4th virtually complete before B had even met Oppersdorff! I'll check my book of B Letters, this may shed some light on the matter, but I was under the impression that regarding the 4th, the commision came before the composition. My assumption is that B composed the 4th after receiving the commission, and resurrected the 5th for the Count when he requested a further symphony. Thus B would have had to have met the Count in spring 1806 at the latest. From which source did you get your 'impression'? I'll do some reading on the matter.

------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

[This message has been edited by Rod (edited 06-25-2001).]

[Peter]

Originally posted by Rod:
Well, the 4th was definitely composed in the summer of 1806 and performed at the Count's residence later that year. Your comment is the first I have ever read that has the 4th virtually complete before B had even met Oppersdorff! I'll check my book of B Letters, this may shed some light on the matter, but I was under the impression that regarding the 4th, the commision came before the composition. My assumption is that B composed the 4th after receiving the commission, and resurrected the 5th for the Count when he requested a further symphony. Thus B would have had to have met the Count in spring 1806 at the latest. From which source did you get your 'impression'? I'll do some reading on the matter.

From than infamous Antony Hopkins again! - "...at the time B had already made substantial progress with the C minor symphony; spurred by the incentive of some real money, he decided to meet the commission with the nearly completed work."

Grove - "In the autumn of 1806, Count Oppersdorf paid a visit to Prince Lichnowsky, where he encountered Beethoven, and heard his Symphony in D performed. On this occasion, or shortly after, Beethoven was requested to compose a symphony for him."

Now if this was a 2nd commission (B supposedly already having fulfilled the first with the 4th symphony) why did B's letter of 1808 to O state that he was unable to offer him the 5th as intended, but would let him have the 4th instead?

Incidentally, 5th March 1807 at the Lobkowitz Palace is the date I have for the first performance.
------------------
'Man know thyself'

[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 06-25-2001).]

[Rod]

Originally posted by Peter:
From than infamous Antony Hopkins again! - "...at the time B had already made substantial progress with the C minor symphony; spurred by the incentive of some real money, he decided to meet the commission with the nearly completed work."

I presume the 'nearly completed work' is the 5th? Dates are what is required here - I have a letter at home where B is discussing the instrumentation for the 5th with the Count but I can't recall the date at the moment.

Originally posted by Peter:

Grove - "In the autumn of 1806, Count Oppersdorf paid a visit to Prince Lichnowsky, where he encountered Beethoven, and heard his Symphony in D performed. On this occasion, or shortly after, Beethoven was requested to compose a symphony for him."

I know that no2 was played at the Count's Castle in 1806. If B was requested to provide a symphony in the autumn of 1806 then indeed no4 would have already been composed, and thus the incentive to put aside the 5th would have had nothing to do with the Count.

Originally posted by Peter:

Now if this was a 2nd commission (B supposedly already having fulfilled the first with the 4th symphony) why did B's letter of 1808 to O state that he was unable to offer him the 5th as intended, but would let him have the 4th instead?

If this is so then no4 was not at all the product of a commission from the Count, contrary to the typical impression given, instead B took took the opportunity to offer him it when the opportunity arose. I will have to check the dates of the other letters to the count.

Originally posted by Peter:

Incidentally, 5th March 1807 at the Lobkowitz Palace is the date I have for the first performance.

If this was B's benefit concert then you are correct. I was getting 2 and 4 confused. I rely on feeble memory, having no library here to refer to. I don't know when the Count performed the 4th, he had it for his own use for 6 months before publication.

------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

[Peter]

I presume the 'nearly completed work' is the 5th? Dates are what is required here - I have a letter at home where B is discussing the instrumentation for the 5th with the Count but I can't recall the date at the moment.

Yes, Hopkins is referring to the 5th and says it was after hearing the performance of the 2nd (presumably autumn 1806) that the commission was made.


If this is so then no4 was not at all the product of a commission from the Count, contrary to the typical impression given, instead B took took the opportunity to offer him it when the opportunity arose. I will have to check the dates of the other letters to the count.

Yes, this is my point. There is a lot of confusion over this because less is known about the origins of the 4th than any other of the symphonies - the pausity of sketches is no help. With the 5th - if O commissioned it, he must have done so in 1805 when serious work was begun - I don't think this was the case. I think B met O for the first time in the autumn of 1806 and decided to fulfil the commission by completing the 5th symphony for him. He then changed his mind and offered him the already completed 4th instead. In other words only one symphony was ever commissioned.

If this was B's benefit concert then you are correct. I was getting 2 and 4 confused. I rely on feeble memory, having no library here to refer to. I don't know when the Count performed the 4th, he had it for his own use for 6 months before publication.

It was the concert when the first 4 symphonies, Coriolan, and the 4th concerto were performed (check the Important concerts page on this site!). I think your 'feeble memory' is pretty damn good!

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 06-25-2001).]

[Rod]

Well, I've checked my stuff and, all in all, there's nothing that contradicts my original assertion. I think you have made some mistake with your letter of 1808 where B cannot give the count the 5th and offers the 4th instead, for B wrote a letter of November 1806 claiming to have already given the Count the 4th that would be his sole property for 6 months. By 1808 the count is in discussion with B concerning the 5th alone. Also there is the receipt written by B in Feb 1807 on payment by the Count of 500 Thalers (whatever the currency was) for the 4th. B writes explicitly in this receipt that the symphony was composed for the count. I doubt the Count would pay 500 big ones for an off-the-shelf symphony. Since no-one can say for sure why B began composing the 4th, laying the 5th aside, there is nothing to contradict the idea that B met the Count before the concert at his palace, for the count was a big socialite in Vienna, and thus the commission could have been made before the summer of 1806. On the other hand I'm not sure how accurate the timing of summer for the composition is, perhaps it would have been a little later? Your quote from the Grove is too seems to be guesswork on their part, unless they can give me letters and dates. It would be too much of a coincidence in my mind that B could have received a commision just after he had conveniently finished the 4th. All things considered I;m still on the side of the status quo, unless you can provide more letters and dates.

------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

[Peter]

The source for the letter which I have not seen in full (help from Claudie on this one is needed)is W.J.Wasielewsky - Beethoven 2vols. He quotes this extract (dated Nov 1st 1808) which concurs with your point that they were discussing the 5th - "Bester Graf,-Don't look on me in a wrong light; the Symphony which I had intended for you I was compelled by want to sell with a second one to someone else. Be assured that you will very soon receive the one which I design you to have."

Now either the letter is a forgery or the date is wrong. However, since the 5th and 6th were not complete before 1808, he could hardly have sold them before this date.
This doesn't explain the 2nd commision either - I thought the status quo order of events was as follows :
1) 1805 B working on 5th
2) Summer 1806 B lays 5th aside to work on 4th at Martonvasar.
3) Autumn 1806 O hears a performance of B's 2nd and commissions a Symphony as a result.

Now these facts simply don't add up.

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Rod]

Originally posted by Peter:
The source for the letter which I have not seen in full (help from Claudie on this one is needed)is W.J.Wasielewsky - Beethoven 2vols. He quotes this extract (dated Nov 1st 1808) which concurs with your point that they were discussing the 5th - "Bester Graf,-Don't look on me in a wrong light; the Symphony which I had intended for you I was compelled by want to sell with a second one to someone else. Be assured that you will very soon receive the one which I design you to have."

I know this letter and I can tell you it has nothing to do with the 4th, it concerns the 5th and the 6th. The one B was by now 'designing' for the Count was to be the 7th(!).

Originally posted by Peter:

Now either the letter is a forgery or the date is wrong. However, since the 5th and 6th were not complete before 1808, he could hardly have sold them before this date.
This doesn't explain the 2nd commision either - I thought the status quo order of events was as follows :
1) 1805 B working on 5th
2) Summer 1806 B lays 5th aside to work on 4th at Martonvasar.
3) Autumn 1806 O hears a performance of B's 2nd and commissions a Symphony as a result.

The issue is why 2) occured. Your point 3) is supposition. The commision could have occured at any time.

Originally posted by Peter:

Now these facts simply don't add up.

They add up better when we get the facts right, and bearing my last post in mind, though nothing is concrete, I tend to stick with the original interpretation of events. I presume Cooper has the same reasoning.


------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

[Peter]

I know the letter was referring to the 5th and 6th, but the symphony that he designed for O to shortly receive cannot possibly be the 7th which wasn't begun until 1811 and anyway was dedicated to Count Fries. Where are the facts to support that? B must have meant the 4th, after all that's the one that ended up being dedicated to O.

Cooper offers no explanation at all. He merely states that the 4th and 5th were commissioned by O - he gives no dates.

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Rod]

Originally posted by Peter:
I know the letter was referring to the 5th and 6th, but the symphony that he designed for O to shortly receive cannot possibly be the 7th which wasn't begun until 1811 and anyway was dedicated to Count Fries. Where are the facts to support that? B must have meant the 4th, after all that's the one that ended up being dedicated to O.

Well I'm sure I recall you using this letter originally to state how B apparently offered O the 4th instead of the 5th! Regardless, there is no doubt that B was considering another (7th) symphony after the 6th with the Count in mind as there are communications to prove it, this project was obviously delayed and yet again the Count was frustrated. My reference the the actual 7th was an oblique on baring this in mind.


------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

[PDG]

As to why Beethoven set aside the 5th when working on the 4th, there may be a big clue in my opening post; namely that he was enjoying his relationship with Josephine Brunsvik so much at this time that perhaps he felt too distracted to continue on the monumental 5th; whereas the lyrical 4th gave him opportunities to pour his inner happiness (at that time) into his work.

[Rod]

Originally posted by PDG:
As to why Beethoven set aside the 5th when working on the 4th, there may be a big clue in my opening post; namely that he was enjoying his relationship with Josephine Brunsvik so much at this time that perhaps he felt too distracted to continue on the monumental 5th; whereas the lyrical 4th gave him opportunities to pour his inner happiness (at that time) into his work.

Have you got a letter to prove it!

I presume by the time B recommenced the 5th he was on bad terms with Josephine!

------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin