Talk:Patience (opera)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gilbert and Sullivan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. WikiProject icon
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Original comments[edit]

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)

Weasel words in the introduction, "many have argued that the central character, Bunthorne, was intended to satirize Oscar Wilde," should be corrected.

Though men of rank may useless seem[edit]

Anyone remember off -hand where this goes? I can't find my Bradley. Adam Cuerden 12:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It goes between "If you want a receipt" and "In a doleful train." Marc Shepherd 13:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I see that Adam is adding cut songs to the lists of musical numbers. I wonder whether we are confusing people, especially where Sullivan's setting of the song doesn't survive, or where the cut material has not been published.

I am starting to think that the list of musical numbers should describe the settled state of the opera, and the Versions section is the place to discuss unpublished material.

In other words, the list of musical numbers should describe what Gilbert and Sullivan chose to put before the public, not drafts of things they chose to suppress. This argument becomes especially compelling where the item in question never even made it into a performance.

The Duke's song falls squarely in this category, and on top of it, Sullivan's vocal line doesn't survive. Some of the recent additions to Pirates strike me similarly. There's no edition you can buy that contains those additions. The discussion is more appropriately placed elsewhere. Marc Shepherd 14:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree (Though I'd argue that the Ruddigore, Iolanthe, and Yeomen cut songs do not fall in this category: They are regularly reinstated, and relatively easy to get) As for the Patience, Pirates and Pinafore ones, I'd leave them in the song list only until we add a Versions section.

There are four levels of cut song: 1. Lost completely: [De Belville trio, first version of Act I of Pirates] - these should definately be nothing more than a historical footnote and not be put in the music list (exception: Utopia's cut song for Zara, which occupies a numbering slot, and therefore brief mention of it clarifies a gap) 2. Exists, but is hard to get almost never performed: there are two levels of this: The original "Is life a boon", which is never, ever performed since the revised version is almost unilaterally dubbed better and similar, and the Pirates Act II finale cut material, which is reinstated by Carl de Rosa and a few rare others, but is otherwise hard to find. The latter was my justification for mentioning the Pirates Act II variants.

3. Exists, but in a somewhat incomplete state: "Reflect, my child", "Though men of rank". These are performed, are reasonably available, but are still rare.

4. Easily readded and are: The two Yeomen solos, Fold your flapping wings.

Certainly, leave out 1. 2 and 3 would be better put in a versions section, but may be worth mentioning in the song list whilst the versions section is being prepared (Though, as a suggestion, maybe only mention them in footnote). I'd always list class 4, since they regularly appear.

Pirates, by the way, has the additional problem of the Papp version having several unofficial additions, including one part in the Act II finale. (The "At last we are provided" reprise of Major General's song, Sorry her lot, and the matter trio, as I recall. These are a whole other can of worms.)

Are we at least agreed on my arguement for the three songs in class 4? Might be wise to make a policy on this.Adam Cuerden 14:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Drat, forgot a fifth category: Alternate songs ("Happy are we in our loving fivolity"), ("Henceforth all the crimes"/"For thirty-five years"). I'd be inclined to do these on a case-by-case basis: "Happy are we" could well be reduced to a footnote, but if, as Ssilvers says, F35Y is regularly produced, we should include it directly in the list. Adam Cuerden 15:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
How about this: If it's published in a standard piano/vocal score, AND it's often done in performance, put it in the list (You could put in Henceforth all the Crimes and drop the footnote re: the appendix). Also, I agree that Jealous Torments and ALB are probably OK to list, since one or the other is done so frequently now, as long as it is clear that they were cut by G&S and are still often omitted. FYFW I would still just put in the version discussion, as it's really pretty rare. It had a brief period of popularity, but I think the consensus of directors over the last 10 or 15 years is that it shouldn't generally be done in perfomance. --Ssilvers 16:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Ssilvers' compromise is pretty reasonable. I could go either way on Jealous Torments and ALB (they're not in any standard score, but have become fairly common in performance).
I have never seen a production of The Sorcerer that restored the 1877 version in full. Although occasional amateur productions have restored "Happy are we" into the 1884 text, there's no established consensus on where it fits, or if it fits. (Savoynet used it as curtain call music, to give but one example.)
The Papp changes are simply a rewrite specific to one production, albeit a very successful one. The Pirates article has a whole section on the Papp production, which goes into some of these changes. "At length we are provided" is authentic from the original American production, but it's not published in any score. The Versions section should discuss it.
No guarantees, but I'm hoping to put in some work on "Versions" for several of the operas over the weekend. Marc Shepherd 16:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. And footnotes for proto-Versions sections? Adam Cuerden 18:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


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)

Must do this tomorrow. Ugh. Hate the current images. Adam Cuerden talk 19:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Saphir in 1965[edit]

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)

Oops! It turned out to be just a formatting problem. -- Ssilvers 18:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Hippie clothing[edit]

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)

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)

Paddington Pollaky[edit]

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)

See Major General's Song. If you wished to, you could do a similar article on the Colonel's song. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

That's a good idea! Thanks, I'll look into it. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
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)

Yes. That's an issue. I can't say I have a great answer for it. Here's a resource page on it: Of Course Bradley's book annotates it: as does Harry Benford's excellent G&S Lexicon. But I agree that if you are going to do it, you need to find some references that would indicate that it is notable. Perhaps this is just one thing that really shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Perhaps the G&S Archive would like an annotated version of the song? But, again, of course, Bradley and Benford have already done a good job of it in their books. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Colonel's song wikilinked[edit]

As it turns out someone has already done work along these lines on Wikisource. Take a look at this. So it looks like I just had to link the new article on Pollaky there. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Someone has added a wikilinked text of the song. Does it belong here? -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Not here. Though we could spin it off to its own page, or use it on Wikisource. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Shoe. As Derek points out above, it already exists at Wikisource here. SamueltheGhost: perhaps you could compare your version with the version at Wikisource, and see if you wish to improve the Wikisource version? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. The version on wiksource is, reassuringly, pretty similar to what I did. One recurrent difference is that I used only links to wikipedia articles, whereas the wikisource version also uses references to wiktionary and to wikisource itself. There are a few cases where I've just done better and I'll probably put those in soon. The one big deficiency in existing articles that I encountered was the non-existence of Richardson's show, which I am sure is worth writing.
I'd like to point out that there is nothing in the article, currently, to tell the reader that the linked wikisource version exists, and I didn't realise that it did. If I had, I wouldn't have bothered to re-do it. At the very least, some clear information to that effect should be included. In fact I think the idea of a separate article on the song is the best solution. I could easily produce a list of dozen less notable, less useful, less interesting existing articles. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 19:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. The Wikisource box is at the bottom of the article. As for a separate article, while we fans would like to see one, the question is whether it would be WP:NOTE-able. I did a google search, and there are very few links to the Colonel's song, other than G&S sources that simply list it as part of the show. Unlike The Major General's song is does not seem to have made much of an impact on popular culture or have other indicia of notability. I would love to be shown that I am wrong! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You miss my point about wikisource. There's nothing in the box to indicate that the source contains links. I have my own copy of the vocal score and libretto (of course), and assumed that wikisource would merely give me the same again. As for notability, I reiterate my view that there are dozens, indeed hundreds of articles that are less notable, but somebody has just put them in and got away with it. In practice, the only articles which get deleted are those which are outrageously un-notable or those that somebody positively dislikes. You say "we fans would like to see one". That's justification enough. That's many thousands of people, sustained until the end of time. Isn't that evidence of more notablity than articles about single television programs (of which there are lots) or articles on every single professional footballer or Olympic Games contestant, which is more or less what we have? Why not just create the article and see if anyone does an WP:AfD? I don't believe anyone would. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
If you think the Colonel's song on its own isn't sufficiently notable as such, another idea might be to have an article on "Topical references in Patience". But that would bring us back to the possibility of incorporating that material into the main article, which is what I thought in the first place (and still don't see why not; to me it's much more interesting than all those cast lists). SamuelTheGhost (talk) 20:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
[Revised] You're making some very sensible points there, Samuel. I think I'm convinced that creating a Wikipedia article for the Colonel's song would be a reasonable thing to do. -- Derek Ross | Talk 07:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think such a long recital of the text of a song is used in any opera article on Wikipedia. That's why the Major General's song is not included in the Pirates article, for example. I am sure there is some good solution here, and I have no problem trying to point people to this excellent annotated version, but I don't think that sticking the full text in the Patience article is it. In any case Shoemaker's Holiday deleted the text once, and I'd like to hear his input. I'd also like to hear from Marc Shepherd on this, who has, I think, a very good global understanding of what sort of content should be included in this project. Shoemaker and Marc have been two of the most active participants in this project over the past three years. Samuel, I would suggest that you leave a message on their talk pages to try to solicit their participation in this conversation. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Following Derek's revision of his message above, I should point out that I have no problem with Samuel's creating the article. Whether it could survive an AfD, I don't know, but you certainly can try. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Further to a remark I made above, Richardson's show is now there. Comments welcome. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 20:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, this is just a bit of trivia related to the song but Believe It Or Not... In 1868 Dion Boucicault co-wrote a novel, Foul Play, which included a detective character called Ignatius Paul Pollaky Wolonski! -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


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)

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)

Hmmm. The painting hung in someone's dining room, so I'm not sure how much of the public had seen it. Would contemporary critics have written about it so that it was widely known? What about the "bound" part? In the procession, did the boy bound? Could Gilbert have been making up a word from Daphne and euphoric, to mean "a euphoric bound such as Daphne might make?" Knowing Gilbert, he could have had BOTH meanings in mind, to create a rather high-brow pun. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

Fair enough. Did you want to show the painting in the article? You could add a caption that says that the painting was exhibited and well-known. Unfortunately, the image is so wide.... -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

Where are you going to, my pretty maid[edit]

I've been looking for this picture, supposedly by Sir Luke Fildes, and so far I haven't been able to find it. In fact the only references to it seem to be in our article (and its mirrors) and in Edith Browne's 1907 booklet on W S Gilbert. I've read through a biography of Fildes and couldn't even find it mentioned there, although most of his paintings were reproduced or at least mentioned. Now it may just be that it's difficult to find but there is also the possibility that Browne got the painter right but the name of the painting wrong or vice-versa. Has anybody else seen it or been able to track it down ? -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I have been able to find a picture (or rather a picture book) entitled Where are you going to, My Pretty Maid. It's by Randolph Caldecott but it does show a milkmaid and it is in the right period. This Savoy poster is actually in the same style too. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
The other possibility is Fildes picture, Mrs. Stuart M. Samuel as Phyllida, the Shepherdess, which has the right sort of costume even though she's not a milk maid. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Another very strong contender would be Betty, Fildes 1875 contribution to the Royal Academy exhibition. She definitely is a milkmaid. Unfortunately the only copy I could find is a black-and-white illustration on Google Books. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Apparently there is a colour version of this picture in the Illustrated London News, presumably one of the 1875 issues. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Do they really resemble Braham's original costume (Jay apparently wore the same)? vvvt 23:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, you can see for yourself by clicking on the links but I wouldn't say that it is that close a match. LB's hat certainly resembles Betty's and her skirt is in the same style but the bodice is fairly different. IJ's hat and bodice resemble the relatively plain milkmaid outfit worn by Betty or Caldecott's milkmaid even less. I suppose that it's all part of producing something that looks good on stage. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not home right now, but googlebooks says there's something about it on p. 195 of Ainger. Bradley says it on p. 272, but he probably got it from Brown. This says there is a song called "Where are you going, my pretty maid" (see Here are lyrics to the nursery rhyme by that name). Hey! Look at these three treatments with nearly the same name. Here's another. There are more. It appears to have been a common subject to illustrate the nursery rhyme or refer to it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Ainger, besides claiming that Patience was dressed to resemble Fildes's picture, also claims that "love-sick maidens'" dresses were reminiscent of Burne-Jones's paintings. Does Brown claim the same, or Ainger arrived to this conclusion himself? vvvt 01:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Just Ainger, not Brown. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, we could say, "Brown WROTE that Patience was made up to look like...." It would be Original Research to say that "Brown may have been mistaken, perhaps she meant Caldecott's painting instead, or Fildes painting... Shepherdess...." If we said that in the article, I think it would give us trouble at the GA or FA review, although maybe we could get away with an annotated footnote.... In any case, fascinating research. Probably the article should emphasize the pre-Raphaelite school of painting more.... All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW, note that H.M.S. Pinafore has just been promoted to GA-class, and we intend shortly to get a peer review and go to FAC. Would you please review Pinafore and see if you have any comments or research to add? The "Analysis" section in particular needs work. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm on my way. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


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)

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)

There is an excellent article on this from the publication "Victorian Poetry", 1965, which you can temporarily see here: [1] - Tim riley (talk) 16:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC) (Later: link now disabled.) Tim riley (talk) 08:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

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

Amateur appearances[edit]

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)

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)
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)
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)

The Colonel's surname[edit]

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)

Dropping a footnote couldn't hurt. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

NY cast[edit]

VV, the ladies roles, according to your new source include: Lady Angela = Jeannette Edmondson; Saphir = Marie Hunter; Lady Ella = Jennie Stone. Can you reconcile these with what is in the table? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure which cast to use. Apparently the table lists the cast of the opening night, and Edmondson replaced Burville later (see this). vvvt 16:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems that it would be better to use the Prestige cites rather than the new source that we added recently. Now when we go to improve the opera to GA, I will not remember to get Marc to supply the better cite. This is why I suggested that we wait and not add a citation yet. It may be better to go back to the (cn) tag instead of using this flawed reference, which we already believe to be wrong in several respects and incomplete in others, as it doesn't list all the roles in some operas. In addition to Patience, the new cite has been added to: Yeomen, Mikado, Ruddigore ‎, and Princess Ida. The Iolanthe cast in the new source was so completely different from what is there from Prestige that I didn't use the cite there. ‎ -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll recheck the source today. It may be useful in some instances. vvvt 04:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I contacted Marc Shepherd and asked him if he might be able to help us at this time. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The source I used was Gänzl, p. 187. He agrees with what is in the article at this moment, except: 1) The Colonel is given as just "W. T. Carleton"; 2) The Duke is "Lyn Cadwaladr"; 3) The Grosvenor is "James Barton", without "Key" on the end.
For several parts, Gänzl shows two or more names separated by slashes. I took the first name given in each case, on the assumption that the others had taken up their roles later in the run. "Janet Edmonson" (note spelling of both first and last name) is the second Angela listed (of two). "Marie Hunter" is the third Ella (of three), and she is not shown as Saphir; "Jenny [sic] Stone" is the second Ella. Marc Shepherd (talk) 01:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I left in the cite to the Brown book here to explain where Brown supplies a fuller name for Carleton, Cadwaladr and Barton. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

1881 Savoy Cast list[edit]

There is no cast list included for the transfer to the Savoy Theatre. It is at this point that Walter Browne shows up in the programs as the Colonel in place of Richard Temple. Curiously, Reginald Allen's The First Night Gilbert and Sullivan incorrectly notes on page 170 that Walter Browne replaced Frank Thornton as the Major. But the facsimile program included with the set, and the program images at the G&S archive show Browne as the Colonel and Thornton as the Major. Temple is not in any of the Patience programs at the Savoy during its original run at the new theatre.

Would it not make sense to list the new cast list as a separate production entry? Or at least make note in the text that all of the original cast members were still in place for the transfer to the Savoy except Mr. Temple, who was replaced by Walter Browne. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsopera (talkcontribs) 06:50, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I like the second option better, but I need a source to cite to. Can you link me to a particular programme that I can reference to verify that this happened at the date of the transfer to the Savoy? -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
I like the second option better too. The Observer (16 October 1881, p. 6) said "MM Goldsmith (sic), Barrington, Lely, Thornton, and Bowly (sic), Mlles Braham, Barnett, Gwynn, Fortescue and Bond filled the roles in which they had for many months won applause at another theatre, and Mr Walter Browne was the best Colonel Calverley we have as yet seen". Browne had taken over from Temple immediately before the transfer from the Opera Comique to the Savoy. The classified ad for Patience in The Times (8 October 1881, p. 6) states that Browne would be making his first appearance in the role that evening (the final perf of the piece at that theatre). Rollins and Witts show Browne as taking the role from September 1881 (which I think, given the Times ad on 8 October, must be incorrect) to the end of the Savoy run, with the exception of an unspecified number of performances in September 1882, when F Ainsworth substituted as the Colonel.
Temple remained at the Opera Comique to play King Portico in Gilbert and Frederic Clay's piece Princess Toto when John Hollingshead took over the management from Carte. (ref "Opera Comique", The Times, 18 October 1881, p. 4). Browne seems to have left the D'Oyly Carte company after Patience. He is mentioned nowhere else in Rollins and Witts. Who Was Who in the D'Oyly Carte Company quotes Browne as claiming to have played Strephon at the Savoy, but if he did, Rollins and Witts didn't know about it. – Tim riley (talk) 10:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Tim. I added a footnote to Patience (opera) and also clarified the footnotes at Temple's article. Please check to see that I've done it correctly. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Spot on, I'd say, in both instances. Tim riley (talk) 17:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Cello or Double Bass[edit]

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)

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)
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)
The Goffin extravaganza can be seen here. String players, brace yourselves. Tim riley (talk) 13:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)

It is not only dubious, but also WP:Original research to say that it is "usually" a bass, unless you can find a reliable source that says so. Also, your deleting the Goffin photo (I will assume good faith) was negligent on your part. Please be more careful when making edits and do not simply revert. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Matron intervening

Now, stop it, you two, or it will be early to bed all round! Tim riley (talk) 16:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC) (and Matron)

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)
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)
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)

I think this rather a lengthy footnote for the point being made and a more succinct version, rather shorter in length, would be more appropriate. Jack1956 (talk) 18:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)
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)

I'm not ignoring the photos. I agree that they show that in some cases, an actual bass was used in lieu of a cello. But I do not agree that this is intended to be a bass; I think it is intended to look like a cello; note that many stage props are larger than the thing that they are intended to portray or have a simplified or fanciful shape. In any case, Bradly states that the company sometimes used a "prop cello", meaning a fake cello-like prop. Also, I am informed that in the 19th century, the cello was often played while standing, rather than in the modern fashion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:46, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)
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.[2]. 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)

anchor template added to list of numbers[edit]

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)

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)
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)