Contributed to the Archive by Arthur Robinson

1. WSG to the The Graphic, March 19, 1870.

RHYME

To the Editor of The Graphic.

SIR, – I think I can suggest to your correspondent "Isabel" a more legitimate rhyme to "month" than "twenty-oneth."  What does she say to "millionth" – pronounced, of course, as a trisyllable?

The word "dismal" has long been held by Notes and Queries to be without rhyme.  But "paroxysmal" seems to me to answer all necessary conditions.

2. WSG to The Graphic, April 2, 1870, issue 18, p. 427

RHYME

To the Editor of The Graphic.

SIR, – I accept Mr. Burnand’s challenge to find a rhyme to "silver," if he will allow me the license that he himself takes in finding a rhyme to "month."

If Mr. Burnand is in earnest when he suggests "runn’th" as a legitimate rhyme to "month," and really believes that when he is at a loss for a rhyme he is at liberty to dispense with any letter that may stand between himself and the fulfilment of his wishes, he will perhaps admit that I am liberty to say —

But allowing, for the sake of argument, that Mr. Burnand is at liberty to rob "runneth" of its only e whenever it pleases him to do so, the fact remains that the u in "runn’th" is, in strictness, no rhyme to the o in "month."  To a careless ear there is, no doubt, a strong analogy between the two sounds, and in ordinary versification they might pass muster as fairly good rhyme; but in seriously discussing a question of nicety in rhyme, we are bound to look at it from a purist’s point of view, and form this point of view "runn’th" is no rhyme to "month."

I still adhere to "millionth" as the best rhyme to "month," and I have the authority of the greatest poets in the English language for treating it as a tri-syllable, if I feel disposed to do so.  The termination "ion" in such words as "million," "contagion," "rapscallion," "morion," "pillion," "vermilion," has been used indifferently as one or two syllables by every poet in the English language from Chaucer to Tennyson:

Here are some analogous cases:

Would not Mr. Burnand consider himself justified in writing,

Inventors often give arbitrary and wholly irrational names to their inventions, in order to bring them more immediately into notice.  Now these ingenious gentlemen would take rank as public benefactors if, in selecting these arbitrary names, they would be so good as to enrich the English language with rhymes to words that are at present rhymeless, or nearly rhymeless.  If the inventor of the Rantoone had called it a "Ronth" (explaining in his specification that the o was to have the exact value of the o in "month"), this controversy would have been avoided, and the instrument, whatever it is, extensively advertised, for, as the only unimpeachable rhyme to "month" (except my "millionth") it would be perpetually lugged into doggerel.  I myself am engaged in perfecting an ingenious apparatus for the purpose of extracting sunbeams from the cucumber of commerce (cucumis communis of Linnaeus), and when it is completed I shall call it a "Chilver."  Perhaps my unconditional acceptance of Mr. Burnand’s challenge to find a disyllabic rhyme to "silver," without the aid of a context, had better stand over until this instrument is completed.

3. WSG to The Orchestra December 2, 1870.

"THE ASSERTING OF DIGNITY"

To the Editor of The Orchestra

SIR, – In an article in the Orchestra of the 25th November, you assume that on the occasion of the first performance of the "Palace of Truth," I presented myself on the stage before the artists engaged in the piece had had an opportunity of doing so, in order to assert "the dignity of authorship."  Will you allow me to assure you that that assumption is altogether gratuitous?

The curtain fell on the last act of the piece, and it was immediately raised in compliment to the ladies and gentlemen engaged in the performance.  The applause still continued, and as it was mingled with the usual call for the Author, and as the company appeared to be waiting until I had answered to that call, I stepped on to the stage – partly because I thought I was wanted – partly because I was pushed from behind – and wholly because it did not appear to me to be a matter of the smallest importance to any person before or behind the curtain, whether the actors appeared before the author or the author before the actors.  Certainly my "reception" (to use a theatrical term) gave no indication that I appeared before I was wanted.

It appears to me that an author who proposes to "assert his dignity" would best do so by declining to appear before the curtain at all.  Unfortunately it has become the invariable custom to call the author after the first performance of a new piece, whatever the merits of the piece may be, and a refusal to answer such a summons would probably involve a counter-expression of disapprobation.  It would be attributed to a churlish indifference to the wishes of the audience.

[Unenlightened by Mr. Gilbert’s letter, we assumed that unless the author made his appearance with his piece to assert his dignity, he had no reason to appear at all.  But we admit the force of his triad of reason why an author should appear: – a belief that he may be wanted, a push from behind, and the unimportance of the matter.  We are glad to know that Mr. Gilbert considers his appearance at all as a waiving of dignity. – ED.]

4. WSG to the Daily News, January 12, 1872.

"THE EXAMINER OF PLAYS."

To the Editor of The Daily News.

SIR, – Mr. Donne has, on three occasions, taken objection to passages in my plays.  As I consider that I am quite as well qualified to judge of what is fit for the ears of a theatrical audience as he can be, I have systematically declined to take the slightest notice of his instructions.  From my experience of the nature of Mr. Donne’s exceptions, I have gathered the following facts:– 1.  An actor may "curse" as freely as he pleases; but he may not "damn" under any provocation.  2.  He may say, "Heaven forbid that I should stand in my Pip’s way," but he may not say "Lord forbid that I should stand in my Pip’s way."  3.  He may not use the German word "sakrament," because it resembles the English word "sacrament."  I may have done Mr. Donne an injustice, but I have always accounted for his objections on the theory that the existence of his office depends on his showing that it is of some practical value, and if he is unable to "return" a satisfactory number of revisions, the Censorship of Plays will run some risk of abolition.  I have no particular desire to bring about this catastrophe, but at the same time I am unwilling that it should be averted at my expense.

[This letter was also printed in The Orchestra where it was preceded by the following comment:  "Mr. Charles Millward has written to the papers in defence of the Censorship.  He has written between thirty and forty pantomimes and never had a line expunged.  He maintains that the Censor only intervenes in cases of extreme offensiveness.  The best commentary on this assertion is Mr. W.S. Gilbert’s experience as follows.  If there is a careful and pure writer on dramatic literature it is certainly Mr. Gilbert.  Yet even he is handled thus: – "]

5. WSG to The Morning Post, Feb. 4, 1876 (issue 32325), p. 3

"THE WESTMINSTER AQUARIUM."

To The Editor of The Morning Post.

SIR, – I think you will be amused by the upshot of a correspondence which has lately passed between the directors of the Westminster Aquarium and myself.  Some 18 months since Mr. Wybrow Robinson explained to me a scheme for the establishment of an aquarium, and requested me to allow my name to be placed on the list of the council of fellows.  After some demur I consented, on the understanding that I should be provided with a life-fellowship on certain modified terms.  Shortly before the opening of the aquarium I wrote to the board of directors calling attention to the terms upon which I consented to join the council of fellows, and I received from their chairman the following reply: –

I will not occupy your space by dilating on the implied compliment to Mr. Wybrow Robertson contained in this letter.  It will be enough to point out that the company was floated mainly through the influence of those well-known gentlemen who were induced by Mr. Robertson to join the council of fellows, and that the directors now decline to recognise the terms upon which their names were obtained on the plea that at the time the contracts were made which had for their object the creation of the company the company had not then been created. – I am, sir, your obedient servant,
                                                                                                                                               

6. WSG to the New York Times, February. 18, 1880.

"CHARITY."

To the Editor of the New York Times:

This play, invented and written by me, is about to be revived at Daly’s Theatre.  It has been reconstructed and rewritten by Mr. Daly, and the part of Mr. Skinner introduced by him without my consent, and in direct opposition to my wishes.  I desire to make it clear, both to the press and to the public, that I hold myself utterly irresponsible for the play in its forthcoming debased condition.  I am advised that, in the present state of the law of copyright, I am powerless to prevent this outrage.

7. WSG to the Daily Telegraph, January 3, 1894.

Sir, – Is your dramatic critic really in earnest when he asserts (à propos of The Country Girl) that the playwrights of today cannot write plays to suit such artists as Miss Ada Rehan and Mr William Farren?  Is he quite sure that (say) Mr. Pinero and Mr. Grundy have been invited to write plays to suit these artists, or that having been invited and having agreed to do so, these gentlemen have despairingly thrown up their contracts, staggered by the intellectual difficulties of the task they have so rashly undertaken?  And does not your dramatic critic know as well as any man in England that if such preposterous rubbish as The Country Girl were put forth as a new play by a modern author, it would be indignantly hissed off the stage before the first act had run its course?

8. WSG to the Sheffield Daily Telegraph, April 21 1894, p. 6

"THE SAVOY THEATRE."

To the Editor of the Sheffield Daily Telegraph.

Sir, – There is no truth in the statement that any difference with Sir A. Sullivan has its origin in a dispute as to how the "Mikado," or any other piece, should be cast.  It is referable entirely to the fact that Sir A. Sullivan insists, as a condition of his composing music to a new libretto, that I shall hand over to Mr. D’Oyly Carte’s unrestricted control, all the London rights of the fourteen pieces which Sir A. Sullivan and I have written in collaboration; and this on terms which appear to me inadequate and unreasonable.

   Page modified 31 July, 2011 Copyright © The Gilbert and Sullivan Archive All Rights Reserved.