Talk:King René's Daughter

Iolanthe

Neither "King René's Daughter" nor any version called "Iolanthe" popularized the name Iolanthe in England. Only one birth of a child named Iolanthe is recorded at FreeBMD through 1882, and only 34 between 1883 and 1935 in England and Wales. Therefore I removed that statement. Also, to say that Gilbert and Sullivan "took" the name for their opera Iolanthe from this play is not supported by the Bradley anthology. Bradley, who may be mistaken about Wills (Henry Irving used the Martin translation in 1876, not the Wills translation), does not say that the idea for the name of their opera came from this play, only that Gilbert was concerned about using the name, since Irving had used the name for his recent revival of "King René's Daughter". I recommend changing it to say only that G&S were aware that the name was used by Irving when they chose it for their own work. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The phrase 'popularising the name' was not intended to mean that babies were called that. It meant that the name "Iolanthe" (with that spelling) became well known. It was not known before that, at least not in that form. The play was very popular and the name became well known because of that. I have no idea why you are so resistant to this rather uncontroversial assertion. Here is another source, which directly asserts that the name came from the play [1] You say that Irving used the Martin translation, but several sources state that he used an adaptation by Wills. There's not necessarily any contradiction. The adaptation may have been based on the Martin translation. I have not read it, so I could not say. I'm not even sure if it was published. The fact remains that the name would have been well known to audiences at the time because of the play (and the fairly well-known cantata) and that the connection would have been present in their minds. The fact that this work is rather forgotten today doesn't alter that. That's what historical research is for! Paul B (talk) 22:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem is if you merely repeat sloppy research by Penguin. The Penguin anthology is not a useful source for G&S research. It is just repeating the same assumptions that you are. Ainger, Stedman, Jacobs, Crowther and Allen are the main G&S reference books. Plus Carolyn Williams, Hughes, Tony Joseph, Wolfson, Rees and Bradley for some things. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

What "sloppy research"? This exists entirely in your imagination. Not long ago you were saying you had never heard of any connection to the play, even though it is well documented. So any sloppiness is not coming from me. Again, I have to say, that you seem to have some emotional resistance which I simply cannot fathom. The play made the name famous. There were many adaptations of the play. Gilbert uses the name from the play. If he'd chosen to call the heroine Ophelia, it would be derived from Hamlet. Big deal. It does not affect Gilbert's creativity in any way. It's just a choice of a name that has particular connotations at the time. Paul B (talk) 12:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedians should be skeptical about unreferenced assertions. That's why WP:V and WP:OR are two of our three most important policies. You have not shown that the play made the name "famous" or "popular". The film Coraline was a successful film, recently, but I would not say that it made the name Coraline "famous" or "popular". You have also not established that Gilbert used the name because Irving used it (see above re: the Penguin guide). Indeed, I doubt that is the case, since the character of Iolanthe in the G&S opera is not supposed to make the audience think of the character in "King René's Daughter". It is just as reasonable to suppose that Gilbert used the name 'despite the fact that Irving had used it. So, if you can find good evidence that Gilbert chose the name to make this connection for his audience, please show it. All the best. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I spoke with Andrew Crowther (recently the author of Gilbert of Gilbert and Sullivan), who has not found any evidence of "why" Gilbert chose the name "Iolanthe", although he devotes an extremely detailed chapter to the genesis of the opera in his new book. Certainly Gilbert was aware that Irving had used it. He believes that Carte never actually secured a right to use the name from Irving, but that G&S and Carte went ahead and used the name anyhow - Gilbert's plot book used the name Iolanthe from the very beginning of his sketches concerning the proposed story of the work. Crowther also confirmed to me that Penguin is "shoddy" and Glinert "untrustworthy" on G&S. As editors, it is our job to choose the best sources for the information that we repeat here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I have deliberately avoided this talk page I was finding your responses increasingly difficult to engage with. The name "Iolanthe" comes from the play. I cannot find any evidence whatever that it was ever used before the play or in any other context. In Walter Scott's novel, for example, the same person is called "Yolande", not "Iolanthe". I don't see how any reasonable person can imagine that Gilbert just somehow heard the name somewhere and was unaware of this very famous play which is the only source for the name. Of course the play made the name well-known, because there is no other source for it. You consistently miss the point that was being made about "popularity". It is not that everyone was naming their kids Iolanthe, or that people were saying how much they loved the name. It's that the play made the version "Iolanthe" familiar rather than "Yolande". It's the play that's popular and puts that version of the name in circulation. Your repeated insistance that I find a "source" asserting that the play was popular is an example of this evident resistance, since the article provides ample evidence of its popularity. When editors demand high-quality sources for something obvious or for exact words, it's usually a sign that something more than exacting standards are the issue (WP:COMMONSENSE). For these reasons, I'm afraid the claim about Penguin's shoddiness does not stand up in this instance, though of course it may in other cases. You say that "the character of Iolanthe in the G&S opera is not supposed to make the audience think of the character in "King René's Daughter"." I would suggest that that's untrue - not because the character is in any sense based on Iolanthe of the play, but because the name was suggestive of a certain kind of quasi-mystical femininity involving magic and romance among poetic aristocrats which was appropriate to the particular satire that Gilbert had in mind. Of course that's my view. I put it here, not on the main page. But it is consistent with the evidence. As for your assertion that "It is just as reasonable to suppose that Gilbert used the name 'despite the fact that Irving had used it." Well, no, it isn't. That supposes that Gilbert somehow came up with the name Iolanthe from some unspecified source and that by sheer coincidence it was also used in another play shortly before: a version of a very well known drama that his audience would be expected to be aware of. That's not a reasonable position at all. To my mind, it's a remarkable example of special pleading. To repeat my earlier comparison, if he had chosen the name Ophelia, your argument is exactly the equivalent of saying that Gilbert chose to call the operetta and its heroine Ophelia "despite" the fact that it had been used in another well known play before. Paul B (talk) 22:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

[Left] Ainger's book, at p. 212, quotes Gilbert's letter to Carte of October 13, 1882, asking Carte to write to Irving for permission to use the name. As noted above, there is no evidence that that Irving responded, but G&S and D'Oyly Carte went ahead and used the name anyhow. I've made the corrections. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Popularity

Popularity is always controversial on Wikipedia. Any assertions concerning the popularity of Hertz's play need to be specifically referenced. There is currently no discussion, in the article, of the early productions of the play. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not ast all sure what point you are making, or rather I can't grasp the connection between the first and second sentences. Paul B (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

To establish the popularity of the play (which you say was "immense"), you need to describe original production and other early productions and give references that say that its popularity was immense. And, in any event, the article should contain a good discussion of the original production of the play and any other early productions and Danish revivals. For example, it should say who directed, who starred, how long the production ran, what theatre it was in (anything else famous about it), and what the critics said about it. This should be described for the original and any other major productions. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)