Talk:Patience (opera)

message: I added the voice categories under "roles", but I don't know how to do the html, or whatever this is, so if someone wants to conform it to the other G&S opera pages' style, be my guest.  Ssilvers, 20 April 2006
FYI, Gilbert and Sullivan themselves referred to their works as "comic operas" or "operas," never as "operettas." I have therefore restored that term. Marc Shepherd 04:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original comments

message: I hate to just list this, but I don't have time to do it myself:
Go here. Put in a search for "Patience". A great number of out-of-copyright, beautiful images are available (check bibliographical details on the individual pages for information, and I'd suggest including any details from the LOC catalogue in the image information summary when uploading). Any or all of these would be beautiful illustrations to this. Adam Cuerden talk 20:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Must do this tomorrow. Ugh. Hate the current images. Adam Cuerden talk 19:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: Not Patricia Leonard, I think. It looks as though Miss Leonard has slipped sideways from 1975. Alas the old programmes on my shelves do not include a Patience for 1965. Pauline Wales for the 1965 Lady Saphir, I think, but I have no solid evidence to that effect. - Tim riley 18:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops!  It turned out to be just a formatting problem.  -- Ssilvers 18:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saphir in 1965 

message: The D'Oyly Carte Opera Company never staged a production using hippie costumes, although they did a few special "last night" performances in hippie costume.  Previously in the article, we already discuss amateur hippie productions.  As far as I know, there was never a major professional production of any kind using hippie costumes.  -- Ssilvers 03:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In any case Hippies aren't a good fit. Goths would  be far more appropriate replacements for Aesthetes than Hippies, both for the costuming and for the attitude. I think that a professional company would be mad to go down the Hippy route now.  -- Derek Ross | Talk 07:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Hippie clothing

message: We've got articles on most of the people referenced in the Heavy Dragoon song. This chap is one of the few who is not mentioned at all on Wikipedia and is barely mentioned on the Internet. I will do a stub for him and link it to Private detective but it would nice to mention him in this article somehow. Unfortunately this article is so good now that I hesitate to mess with it myself...  -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good idea! Thanks, I'll look into it. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Hmmm, only problem that I can see is that the M-G's song is much more notable than the Colonel's song. While I can work on the references in the lyrics, there is not much I can say about the cultural significance. Still... -- Derek Ross | Talk 08:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Paddington Pollaky

message: Gilbert makes a lot of Aesthetic references in this show (obviously) and one which had escaped me until today is the opening of the Act I finale. The clue is in the word "daphnephoric" which on the one hand refers to an ancient Greek festival, the Daphnephoria, and on the other hand refers to an Aesthetic painting by Frederic Leighton, 1st Baron Leighton, of that festival. This shows a procession led by a youth, dressed as Apollo, god of Art, carrying laurel branches, and followed by maidens (and a few young men). It seems likely to me that Gilbert would have staged the opening to resemble the painting, particularly given the Dragoons' remarks when they come upon the scene. Victorian London audiences would quite likely have been familiar with Leighton and the painting, even though modern audiences are almost certainly not. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The painting itself is now in the Lady Lever Art Gallery in the Wirral. I've seen detail from it used for a Christmas card. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Well it was on show at the 1876 Royal Academy summer exhibition (of which this is a contemporary review) and in the days before TV that was quite a popular day out among the class of Londoners who might also attend the theatre. And the artist was quite popular. In fact he was knighted and became president of the Royal Academy within two years of exhibiting the painting, so I would imagine that contemporary critics would not have ignored him nor ignored the picture. At least one web page says that "his paintings were the talk of London" during the 1870s. I have found other references from the 1880s and 1890s on Google Books which seem to indicate that the picture was quite well known. On your other points, "Bound" probably refers to the imagined leaping/dancing of the women in these sorts of procession. I have no idea whether the boy would bound or not. Of course Gilbert could well be punning as well. But it's a singular coincidence that there is such a painting; that it is Aesthetic; that it was, at the time, well known; that Gilbert stages a group of maidens following a (would-be) youth "arrayed" in pseudo-sacrificial fashion; and that he uses the word "daphnephoric", so I thought it worth commenting on. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

text: I'd love to, Ssilvers. Trouble is that it really comes under the heading of the dreaded Original Research in that I haven't seen anyone else make the connection. So I can't reference it. That's why I'm content to leave it at this short discussion. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daphnephoria 

message: Okay, another interesting (?) set of references. The poems which Gilbert wrote, parodying the Aesthetic poets, surely had models, I thought. So I have been doing some searching. "Hollow, hollow, hollow" appears to be based on Coventry Patmore's style. Read some of the shorter poems in his collection, The Unknown Eros, published in 1878, and you will surely see what I mean. Patmore loves asking "Is it ?" and declaiming in just the way Bunthorne does. The models for Grosvenor's poems took a little longer to discover. However it appears that the best fit is actually Christina Rossetti's collection, Sing-song, of 1872, which consists of poetry for children (on the surface at any rate) and was illustrated by the Pre-Raphaelite, Arthur Hughes to boot. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Right.  Gilbert did his homework and presented images and words that were as funny to his audience as the pop-culture references in today's most successful parodies and satires in comedies like the Simpsons.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

text: I love Jones.  This converts Derek's excellent insights into referenced info that we can refer to.  Would one of you gentlemen like to add a few sentences about this to the article?  Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As I'm already under sentence of death for flirting, everything seems to point to me. - Tim riley (talk) 22:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Good article. The author makes a convincing case for Grosvenor's antecedents. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Please run an eye over and check that it is suitable. — Tim riley (talk) 07:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Yes, many G&S authors have noted this, including Prof. Carolyn Williams in her excellent book, who points out, on pp. 179-180 that the "excremental theme" is extended when the maidens refer to Bunthorne's poetry as "fragrant", and when they appear to writhe with erotic yearning but are, in fact, merely constipated. She also argues that the poem is, specifically, a Swinburne parody. The question is, does any of this fit in the article, and how would it be expressed and footnoted? -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:02, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Poetry

message: I have commented into invisibility the statement that a U.S. senior judge once played Bunthorne's solicitor. If it comes to that, the present Prince of Wales has appeared as the Pirate King, but that's equally unnecessary to mention, me judice. — Tim riley (talk) 07:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The Prince, I believe, played the role as a child, but I wouldn't mind footnoting that info if we have the details.  The long-sitting Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, played the Solicitor during his term of office in a run of the show by a *professional* theatre company.  I really think it ought to be mentioned in the article, although I'd be satified with a footnote, if you insist.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. I suppose we could make it work if we said something like, "The silent role of Bunthorne's solicitor has been filled by eminent guest artists from time to time, including Lord Chief Justice Rehnquist [add details and date] and the retired Royal Opera tenor Robert Tear [details]" (viz in Mackerras's wonderful Prom performance last year). If Ken Clarke guests as the Lord Chancellor, I'll let you know.  Tim riley (talk) 18:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

text: An admirable attempt at compromise, but I don't think it is that surprising that an opera star would perform in a comic opera in a featured cameo.  As a further attempt at compromise, I moved the info to a footnote.  If a royal, prime minister, etc. played a role in Patience, feel free to add them to the footnote.  I know of no one as highly placed as Rehnquist who ever played a role in a G&S production *during his/her term of office*.  Rehnquist also mentioned G&S in opinions and added stripes to his Chief Justice's robe in homage to the Lord Chancellor's robe.   However, I wouldn't mind a similar footnote, in the appropriate articles, about roles that Prince Charles played.  All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amateur appearances 

message: If you look at some early programmes for Patience (both in New York and in London) – two of which can be seen here – you will see that the Colonel's surname is given as Calverly. On the other hand, all the press notices that named him called him Calverley, and all printed libretti known to me do so too. Do we silently assume the "Calverly"'s to be typos, or ought we to mention in a footnote that in early performances the name was sometimes spelled thus? – Tim riley (talk) 10:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Dropping a footnote couldn't hurt.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Colonel's surname 

message: According to The Complete Annotated Gilbert and Sullivan, it's not quite that simple. The licence copy and first American libretto have Lady Jane playing a double bass whereas the first British edition has her playing a cello. I have seen this scene done with a double bass but it's much more practical to use a cello, so I imagine that that is what is normally used. -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough re first British edition, though - just to nit-pick - I can't say it's immediately obvious why it's "more practical to use a cello", as the bass can at least be played standing up, whereas a cello implies that a seat is used (either already on the stage, or dragged on and off by somebody), or else Lady Jane would have to hunch over to play it! Anyway, I'll amend the text again. Alfietucker (talk) 22:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to drag a kipper across the track, photographs of old D'Oyly Carte productions show Lady Jane "playing" an instrument too big to be a cello and  too small to be a double bass. (The instruments grew bigger over the years, reaching their largest in Peter Goffin's 1957 production.) She stuck the spike into a tree stump or bench, bringing the bridge of the instrument up to waist level and stood up to play it, à la double bass players. The actual playing was done in the orchestra pit, with Jane miming. The first Jane I saw who actually played her instrument was Anne Collins at the ENO in the mid-1970s. She bowed the cello with a ferocity that was side-achingly funny, and since then many, if not most, Janes have taken to playing rather than miming. The advantage of a cello is that Jane can shoulder arms with it at the end of the song and stomp off – to a gale of applause. Tim riley (talk) 08:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The Goffin extravaganza can be seen here. String players, brace yourselves. Tim riley (talk) 13:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That is certainly intended to look like a cello.  And the bottom photo here is clearly a cello.  I have seen something like 30 productions of Patience.  About 29 of them used a cello.   I think I saw a bass used once.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but it's about as clear-cut what this is meant to look like as a Dr Seuss illustration: in any case, it's certainly not being played like a cello but more like a bass. And your claim that the bottom photo here "is clearly a cello", with due respect, rather casts doubt upon your ability to identify a cello. Compare the shape of that with a cello and a double bass: I submit that that bottom photo looks far closer to the latter beast. :-) Alfietucker (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

text: How can this piece of trivia possibly require the addition of this long footnote?  Please, Alfietucker: you have never done any work on this article before.  Consider why you are coming here to insist on adding this long footnote. Can't you at least return it to the shortest version that gets your point across?  See WP:UNDUE.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:09, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the first time I think I've ever opposed my comrade Ssilvers,  but I really think we are in the region of angels on a pinhead here. Try as I may I cannot see how this affects the article one way or another. I think we can move on in the  knowledge that the article is properly written and referenced. Tim riley (talk) 17:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Must admit I agree with Tim here. I wasn't happy with the original edit changing cello to bass, hence this discussion, but the revised edit saying cello or bass is reasonable, given the commentary in The Complete Annotated Gilbert and Sullivan which takes it out of the realm of OR. Use of the word "usually" may be stretching it a bit but no one can deny that a double bass has been used on occasion. -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

text: As a footnote it's reasonable but I liked ssilvers last version (9:45 Sept 7th) better. -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, enough people have suggested it should be trimmed, and on revisiting the note I see their point. I've cut back, starting from Ssilver's last version, but making clear the apparent licence to make the instrument a double bass (quite apart from its actual appearance(s) in the several photographs Tim Riley kindly unearthed!). Alfietucker (talk) 18:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think it's much too long.  In any case, note that license copies were filed before the libretto was published, not subsequently.  Also, a pre-publication state of the libretto was sent to the U.S. so that the U.S. cast could prepare for production. That's why the first American libretto had not corrected the reference.  Subsequently, it was corrected to "violoncello" in all authorised libretti that I am aware of.  By the way, Bradley calls the prop used by DOC a "prop cello" (The Complete Annotated G&S, p. 318).  -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I'm going to lose sleep over this, but I'm rather astonished by Ssilver claiming that "double bass-like prop" is OR (as he claims in his latest edit of the article). It's one thing to accept an unexamined assumption, but quite another to ignore plain photographic evidence - i.e. the three photographs provided by another editor and now linked in the footnote. Are you seriously saying that we can only accept what is written (in which case I could, if I was so minded, waste time - and more to the point, take up more space - by digging up citations) rather than what is photographed? Clearly the props have the characteristics not of cellos but of double basses, from the size (generally far bigger than a cello) and the double bass-like shape and use (n.b. a greater portion of their bodies are below their C-ribs, and they are all shown being played more or less vertical rather than placed between legs with instrument's neck over shoulder). Well, it's not worth losing sleep over, but ignoring photographic evidence does seem an odd principle, and I do feel rather like the kid who can see "the emperor has no clothes": i.e. quite plainly none of the pictures show Lady Jane with a cello. Never mind - I guess we can put Lady Jane's instrument down to a convenient fiction. Alfietucker (talk) 23:19, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

text: Many fair points, though I think you've been misled about the cello being "often played while standing" in the 19th century : this seems highly unlikely since although the endpin was apparently invented in around 1845, contemporary pictures of cellists show that even up to the 1870s it was far from widely adopted and it was still general practice to support the cello on the player's calves. See for instance [| this picture] of a performance in London in 1872. On the other hand, it seems that holding the instrument vertically was a technique used by some players in the 17th century. I wonder if Gilbert was thinking of this when he insisted on calling the instrument a violoncello - given the Aesthetics' affectation for the 'medieval' - and perhaps knew that in the early years of the instrument's development there were quite large sized violoncellos, or bass violins, made. Allowing for my scanty knowledge of how much musical history either Gilbert or Sullivan knew, this seems to me fairly plausible. But without a published citation this is very much straying into OR and so probably totally unfit for Wikipedia. ;-) Alfietucker (talk) 01:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Although Gilbert liked authenticity in technical matters, he was not above using a simple sight gag.  By giving the very large Alice Barnett a large instrument to play, he was going for a sight gag.  It is more likely that the "musical" side of the joke (if any) was that it was common for contralto numbers in opera and concert music to be accompanied by a cello or bass soloist.  The critic Louis Engel described Barnett as "the successful violoncello-player of Patience, who measures 5 feet 10½ inches, and is most proportionately built." See Engel, Louis. "The Musical Week: Perola". The World, 25 October 1882.  So, whether it was a cello or a bass was not of much importance to the audiences or critics. This is why this footnote is overblown.  It should simply say that sometimes the character is portrayed as playing a bass rather than a cello.  That is really the only material point here.  The rest is too much detail on this point that was so unimportant to Gilbert that he published the stage direction that she is playing a cello, while giving his Brobdingnagian actress a bass, which Engel nevertheless perceived as a cello.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not doubt what you say about G&S, their audience and critics. But this is a Wikipedia article and so not just aimed at these people but at a wider world (including a good number of modern-day fans of their operettas who aren't party to the Savoyard traditions) who want to be informed. Nor is the point about cellos and double basses gratuitous as I have heard other people say as a matter of course that Lady Jane plays a double bass, and indeed that's what you'll find from several sources if you care to Google. So here is an opportunity to clarify the situation - and better a footnote rather than a separate article, I'd say. Alfietucker (talk) 08:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I agree with your premise that a Wikipedia article is for a wider world, but I disagree with your conclusions.  The fact that we are writing a general encyclopedia is exactly why we should avoid too much technical detail about musical instruments in the article about Patience.  This detail is so unimportant that the reviewer of the show called Barnett's instrument a cello.. The article should focus on presenting the basic encyclopedic facts and concepts about the opera, and should not make more of a minor detail than it deserves in the wider context of an article about the whole opera.  The opera "Patience, or Bunthorne's Bride" stars Patience and Bunthorne and satirizes the aesthetic movement and the "nonsense" of fandom in general.  A minor but interesting detail is that, according to the stage directions, a supporting character "accompanies herself" on a cello (footnote: the instrument is sometimes represented by a double bass [ref]).  That's all the footnote should say.  By the way, you have persuaded me that the footnote is not entirely harmful to the article.  Now it is just the length of it that bothers me, as I think we should keep the focus of our articles on the most important facts and ideas.  If you are unwilling to agree to cut the footnote further, then could we please stop talking about this?  -- Ssilvers (talk) 12:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Cello or Double Bass

message: I am unsure of the purpose of this recent addition. If it is going to serve a useful function perhaps we can be told what that function is, but it doesn't seem to sit well with our policy of welcoming new editors if we confront them with this jumble of code unless it is there to do something that I don't understand. Tim riley talk 20:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I also do not see what useful function it serves; it doesn't seem that there is any difficulty finding the list of musical numbers, which is listed in the TOC. I do not see it in other articles about musicals or operas, and I agree with Tim that we should not be adding code to articles unless there is a good reason to do so.  I have deleted it pending any discussion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It might theoretically be uuseful if someone wanted to link to a song from Patience, and futureproof it against any section name changes. But I'd need to see it being done before I bought it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  anchor template added to list of numbers 

message: More information is in this Carolyn Williams chapter of Rethinking Historical Distance. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional source

message: There are several G&S annotations. These books tend to focus on Gilbert's libretto, with only occasional attention to Sullivan's music (eg, Silvered is the Raven Hair as a mean-spirited parody of sentimental Victorian songs, with decidedly unkind lyrics).
It would be nice to have a detailed study of Sullivan's music, showing what he's doing, and why. For example, Angelina's entry into court is accompanied by music that we would call "British light classical". (I hate that stuff.) As this style is heard nowhere else in Trial by Jury, one might reasonably assume Sullivan used it intentionally.
PS: I've listened to G&S for almost 60 years, but pretty much ignored them for the last 30. I just pulled out several of the first D'Oyly Carte stereo recordings. My ability to understand music has grown, and I am amazed at what a great and subtle composer Sullivan was. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 22:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it would be good to have a detailed modern musical analysis of Sullivan.  The best book about Sullivan's music is probably Hughes, Gervase (1959). The Music of Sir Arthur Sullivan. Macmillan.  However, note that this talk page is to be used for the purpose of discussing the Wikipedia article about Patience, not for discussion of non-Wikipedia matters.  For that, I recommend the Facebook page called Sir Arthur Sullivan Appreciation Group.  I understand your addition to the article "primary-color", but we already said red and yellow, which are primary colors, so your addition was redundant.  All the best!  -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:49, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Annotating Sullivan's Music

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Patience (opera). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090413125856/http://www.lyricoperasandiego.org/resource_library/PeopleCarte.htm to http://www.lyricoperasandiego.org/resource_library/PeopleCarte.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081210014047/http://www.library.rochester.edu/index.cfm?page=4142 to https://web.archive.org/web/20081210014047/http://www.library.rochester.edu/index.cfm?page=4142
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120626161615/http://gsfestivals.org/shop/professional-shows to http://www.gsfestivals.org/shop/professional-shows
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091001080526/https://www.gsarchive.net/museum/patience/250perf/pc250.html to https://www.gsarchive.net/museum/patience/250perf/pc250.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: On 17 January 2022 I removed the reference to Wilde wearing a green carnation during his American tour of 1882. I just noticed that my edit was reverted the following day on the basis that the sources supporting that statement suggest he did wear the carnation. I have checked the sources; one does not mention the carnation and the other is broken. In any case, it is clear from biographies of Wilde that he began wearing a green carnation in 1892. See e.g. Sturgis, Matthew (2018) Oscar: A Life, London: Head of Zeus, pp. 442–443, and Ellmann, Richard (1987) Oscar Wilde, London: Hamish Hamilton, p. 345. In 1882 Wilde was associated with the sunflower and often caricatured wearing one on his lapel, though there is no evidence of which I am aware that he ever did. Presumably this is the reason for the original poster’s error. Tamara Gardens (talk) 01:52, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Tamara Gardens, thank you.  I have updated the Cooper reference and added a reference citing the NYT review of his first American lecture.  I agree that there is no reference to be found in the cited refs, or anywhere, to him wearing a green carnation in 1882.  He did mention sunflowers and lilies in his lecture (a lily is what the poet Bunthorne carries in Patience). There is a well-known 1889 photograph of Wilde wearing a carnation but, as you quite rightly point out, his idea of the green carnation was popularized in 1892.  I am sorry that I did not look more closely into your original edit last year, but your explanation above was sufficiently specific to make me do it now.  Thanks for coming to the Talk page with this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, and not a problem. I should have provided a source last year. Another point I would clarify is that it was Carte alone who sent Wilde to America. The current text suggests that G&S also had a hand in it. Although the pair stood to benefit from Wilde’s promotion of Patience, I have never seen any evidence that they were involved. That is, I don’t recall seeing this claim in any book on Wilde or in Paul Seeley’s biography of Carte. Tamara Gardens (talk) 09:05, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough; I've removed their names from the sentence.  Of course, G&S were Carte's partners (though not, I assume, in his artist management agency) and must have known of Carte's plan even if they didn't participate in the decision to send Wilde.  BTW, if you've got the Seeley biography, please take a look at the Richard D'Oyly Carte article and see if you have any comments.  And, of course, if you're a G&S fan generally, please see if you want to help improve any of the article.  All the best!  -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:46, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, agreed, it’s highly likely they knew of the plan. As far as I can tell, the lecture business was separate. I will take a look at the Carte page, though I’m less able to spot points that might need fixing than I am with Wildean topics. Tamara Gardens (talk) 20:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wilde’s green carnation