The cover of Oscar Wilde’s First Tragedy: The Composition, Production, and Reception of Vera; or, The Nihilists.
The Cover of Vera; or, The Nihilists: A Critical Edition of Wilde’s First Play.
In April 2026 Oscar Wilde’s First Tragedy, my biography focusing on the writing and production of Wilde’s first play, Vera; or, The Nihilists, was published alongside a new critical edition of the play.
Shortly before the books were published I was asked by a fellow Wildean to what extent they added to the story told by Josephine Guy in her 2021 edition of the play for the Oxford University Press. The question was fair. Guy has previously edited Wilde’s criticism for the OUP and co-authored with Ian Small what is in my opinion one of the best books ever written about Wilde: Oscar Wilde’s Profession (2000).
When Guy’s edition of Vera was published I reviewed it for The Wildean, the journal of the Oscar Wilde Society. You can read that review here. Although I found some positives in the edition, such as the deciphering of Wilde’s intentions in the hastily scribbled Beinecke manuscript, the marshalling of information about Russia and Nihilism, and what I saw as the correct dismissal of the prevalent theory that Wilde’s Russia is an allegory for Ireland, I criticised the omission of a number of textual witnesses to the play’s composition and several other errors of fact and interpretation.
I did not want my books to become a catalogue of corrections to Guy’s edition. Instead I chose to present my research and allow readers to come to their own conclusions, keeping criticism of previous research to a minimum. But I am also aware that, all things being equal, most scholars will be more likely to turn to an edition of the play edited by a long-respected scholar and published by the OUP than my independently published books. Therefore, if I want my work to have an impact, I will have to make the case that, in many respects, it supersedes Guy’s.
My critical edition of the play is the first to take account of all known textual witnesses. It also corrects many transcription errors in the only two previous critical editions: Guy’s edition for the OUP and Frances Miriam Reed’s for Edwin Mellen Press (1985). Guy’s edition contains a long Introduction that describes the history of the play; the Introduction to my own edition is a relatively brief summary of Oscar Wilde’s First Tragedy, a 275,000 word book that tells the complete story of the play from compositon to reception. That book is based on a close reading of 50+ reviews of the first production, an in-depth survey of the contemporary press, and newly discovered interviews, letters, and other documents. Much of this material had never before been seen by scholars.
Below I correct what I see as errors in Guy’s edition for the benefit of those who possess copies of that edition. Readers who possess copies of Oscar Wilde’s First Tragedy and my own critical edition of Vera need not read any further, as all of these points are addressed there (often silently). I do not list here any of Guy’s errors in transcribing manuscript materials. Suffice to say that such errors are corrected in my own edition.
Corrections to Josephine Guy’s edition of ‘Vera; or, The Nihilists’
p 7: ‘Why did American audiences appear to find it difficult to judge the tone of the piece, apparently laughing in the wrong places, as seems to have been anticipated by Wilde in an emendation, “no laugh”[?]’
My reading of the reviews suggests that the audiences understood the tone of the piece but were bored by it. Wilde’s annotation in a prompt copy of the script probably refers to the laughter of a member of the cast rather than the audience. [OWFT, 433]
p 7: ‘In 1888 Wilde sent an inscribed copy of Vera to the American actress Eleanor Calhoun’.
Calhoun’s copy is undated so we cannot know when Wilde presented it. I suspect – but cannot prove – that Wilde presented it in the summer of 1883, prior to the New York production of the play. [OWFT, 395]
p 9: ‘[…] Turgenev’s Fathers and Sons (1862) and Virgin Soil (1877)—the last work often cited as coining the term Nihilism’.
The term ‘Nihilism’ appears in Fathers and Sons and it is that novel that is frequently cited as the term’s source. [OWFT, 79]
p 13: ‘Wilde was also acquainted with the Russian émigré writer, and energetic Nihilist propagandist, Sergey Stepnyak-Kravchinsky’.
Many authors have claimed that Wilde knew Stepnyak but there is no evidence that the men ever met. [OWFT, 583]
pp 13–14: ‘[Wilde] cannot have been unaware of the on-going currency of Nihilism. So why did he never return to Vera?’
Guy’s explanations for Wilde’s never returning to Vera after the 1883 production are plausible. Another possibility is that Wilde could not deny to himself or others that the play was a complete failure. Contrast The Duchess of Padua, which was rejected by Mary Anderson but not by audiences, meaning that Wilde was able to maintain faith in it in a way he could not with Vera.
p 21: ‘[…] the successful assassination of Alexander II in 1881. The shooting was overseen by a woman […]’.
Alexander II was not shot – he was killed by a bomb.
p 24: ‘Whether Wilde knew Chernyshevsky’s novel [What Is to Be Done?] at first hand […] is not known, and seems unlikely.’
Wilde claimed after his release from prison to have read the novel, though whether he read it before writing Vera is unknown. [OWFT, 86]
p 39: ‘The first mention of Vera in Wilde’s correspondence occurs in a letter dated c. September 1880 to the actress Ellen Terry’.
The letter is so dated by the editors of Wilde’s correspondence. Although it is likely to have been written in September, and can only have been written between September and mid-November, other letters on the subject of Vera printed in the Complete Letters may precede it chronologically. [OWFT, 119]
p 39: ‘Inside [the copy of Vera Wilde presented to Ellen Terry] Wilde had written: “From her sincere friend and admirer the author”, followed by the date: “Sept. 1880”’.
The inscription on Terry’s copy reads ‘To Miss Ellen Terry from her sincere admirer The author’. There is no date (view image). Guy is instead quoting the inscription on Genevieve Ward’s copy [OWFT, 118]. She probably transcribed from the facsimile of the Ward copy in Stuart Mason’s Bibliography of Oscar Wilde (p. 250), in which Ward’s name is deleted. She repeats the error on p 91.
p 44: ‘The names Olga and Vera [used for sisters in manuscript CMS1] were likely inspired by the real life Liubatovitch sisters’.
As far as I can tell, the Lyubatovich sisters were not mentioned in the British press before or during the period in which Wilde wrote Vera. Wilde’s choice of names is therefore likely to have been coincidental.
p 44: ‘The question begged [by Wilde’s references to the action of his play taking place in Moscow and St Petersburg] is whether Wilde initially thought of setting his play in one city (St Petersburg) and then changed it to another (Moscow); or whether he had conflated the two locations from the outset, either deliberately, or perhaps through a lack of familiarity with their differing geographies.’
Evidence from the manuscript suggests that Guy’s first hypothesis is correct. Wilde appears to have begun by setting the play in St Petersburg. He later changed the setting to Moscow but neglected to remove references to St Petersburg landmarks. [OWFT, 32]
p 46: ‘In the case of the first, 1880 printing of Vera, we do not know exactly the number of copies Wilde had ordered, only that in the autumn of that year he sent out at least seven volumes of his “new and original drama” with the aim of securing a staging of it.’
Some of these copies may not have been sent as early as autumn 1880. The editors of Wilde’s correspondence speculatively date the covering letters to Clara Morris and an unidentified correspondent (likely an American manager) to September 1880, presumably because that is the date on Genevieve Ward’s copy of the script. But these letters may have been sent later, perhaps in early or mid-1881, after Wilde had failed to interest British actors or managers in his play. [OWFT, 128–129]
p 47: ‘A copy [of the 1880 script] was also sent to Wilde’s friend, Forbes Robertson, and another had been forwarded to [Dion] Boucicault himself.’
By ‘Forbes Robertson’ Guy presumably means Norman Forbes Robertson, whom she has mentioned earlier, rather than his brother Johnston Forbes Robertson. Both received copies [OWFT, 122]. As for Boucicault, there is no evidence that he received a copy at this time. We know that Boucicault sent an undated letter to Wilde critiquing the script, but this letter could have been written earlier than the autumn of 1880 if Wilde had lent Boucicault a fair copy manuscript rather than a copy of the 1880 script. [OWFT, 112]
p 48: ‘[I]t is worth stressing that Boucicault made no reference at all in this letter to any disguised Irish agenda in the play, whether explicitly intended by Wilde, or as a sub-text that might have been called forth by Wilde’s own Irish identity [….] Had this Irish reading of the play been readily available, one might have expected Boucicault to have picked up on it, certainly had he thought it likely to cause offense.’
I quote my review for The Wildean: ‘In the autumn of 1880 Boucicault presented The O’Dowd, a play so explicit in its support for Irish Home rule that it provoked howls of “We don’t want politics!” from its London audience. He declined to cut the offending scenes because they were “essential to the design and intent of the work.” In short, if Boucicault had detected any references to Irish politics in Vera he would have advised Wilde to make them more rather than less prominent.’
p 48: ‘The suggestion [by Wilde in his letter to Clara Morris] that a performance license had been refused was definitely false; it was rather the case that Wilde had not, at that time, received an answer from [the censor E. F. S.] Pigott.’
There is no way to know whether Wilde had been refused a licence by the censor, as plays refused a licence were not routinely kept at this time. That being said, Wilde or his representatives are unlikely to have sought or been refused a licence, as the performance was cancelled before we might have expected a licence to be sought.
p 50: ‘Ellmann also notes in passing that the director of the December production was to have been Boucicault senior, but gives no source for this latter piece of information which, given Boucicault’s clear articulation of the play’s limitations, seems unlikely.’
The contemporary sources are clear: Boucicault’s son Dion Jr (‘Dot’) would have directed the London performance. [OWFT, 162]
p 49–50: Guy discusses the possible reasons for the cancellation of the London performance, which include sensitivities over the assassinations of Alexander II and President James Garfield, the play’s supposed covert allusions to Irish politics, the choice of Fanny Bernard Beere as leading actress, and lack of finance.
Another possible reason, and one cited by Wilde upon his arrival in New York in January 1882, is that actors refused to appear in the play. [OWFT, 170–171]
p 51: ‘Trying his play first in America was probably an option Wilde considered from the start’.
Although British playwrights were beginning in the early 1880s to see America as a profitable market for their plays, there is no evidence that Wilde had wanted to premiere his play in America ‘from the start’. All of his early efforts that can be dated with confidence centre on the London theatre.
p 51: ‘Lily Langtree’
Lillie Langtry
p 51: ‘Wilde’s gruelling itinerary began almost as soon as he landed in America, on 2 January 1882.’
Wilde’s steamer arrived at quarantine in New York on 2 January, but it did not dock until the following day. I made the same error in the Introduction to my Oscar Wilde: The Complete Interviews (2022).
p 52: ‘[Wilde] then advised [Richard D’Oyly] Carte to “secure a copyright for England also by some simultaneous performance”—something he assumed Carte could “manage naturally […] without any advice of mine”. This last detail confirms that Pigott never had granted a license for 1880 (although even if he had, that license could not necessarily be presumed to cover the revised text of 1882).’
Wilde’s letter to Carte does not confirm this. Licences were granted to theatre proprietors, not authors. What confirms the lack of a licence is the fact that the script is not preserved among the Lord Chamberlain’s papers at the British Library. In any case, if Carte had wanted to produce the play, he would have had to secure a new licence.
p 52: ‘There was Clara Morris, whom he [Wilde] had already contacted a year before with 1880, but who was proving “difficile”’.
I quote my review for The Wildean: ‘When Wilde wrote to Richard D’Oyly Carte that Clara Morris was “difficile”, he did not mean, as Guy supposes, that she was being difficult with him. Rather, he was acknowledging that he was aware of the open secret that Morris was a morphine addict who was known to walk off stage mid-scene to shoot up in the wings.’
p 52: ‘Wilde made suggestions to Carte for actors to approach [….] Rose Coghlan (1851–1932), an English actress who from the early 1870s had worked mainly in America, and had recently won acclaim for her role as Rosalind in an 1880 production of As You Like It.’
A more relevant production, and one that Wilde may have witnessed, was Lester Wallack’s January 1882 production of The School for Scandal, in which Coghlan played Mrs Teazle. [OWFT, 208]
p 55: ‘Unfortunately, Carte’s side of this correspondence [with Wilde] has not survived’.
One fragment of a letter from Carte to Wilde on the subject of Vera survives, and is now held at the Clark Library in Los Angeles. [OWFT, 205–206]
p 57: Guy states that Clara Morris ‘seems to have been his [Wilde’s] first choice of actress’.
Guy’s claim is apparently based, at least in part, on the assumption that Wilde’s letter to Morris covering a copy of Vera dates to September 1880 rather than later. Helena Modjeska is more likely to be have been Wilde’s first choice for the role, given that Wilde is known to have approached her to appear in a play at this time (Louise Jopling erroneously recalled that the play was Salomé) and that in the Clark Library manuscript Vera, like Modjeska, is Polish. Ellen Terry is another plausible first choice. [OWFT, 7, 109]
p 58: ‘Tomasso Salvini’
Tommaso Salvini
p 58: Guy notes that Morris replaced Marie Prescott in Salvini’s production of The Outlaw. Morris was poorly reviewed, and Prescott gloated about this to Wilde. ‘Prescott's glee was partly because Morris had been preferred over herself for the dual roles of Emelia and Rosalie.’
Rosalie was a role in The Outlaw but ‘Emelia’ was not. Salvini was also staging Othello, in which Prescott had appeared as Iago’s wife Emilia. That part, like Rosalie, was given to Morris.
p 59: ‘[Margaret] Mather would later become known for her Shakespearean roles, but her reputation was less established in 1882.’
I quote my review for The Wildean: ‘Wilde [would] have been less interested in Mather’s “reputation” than her extremely high profile and bankability (there were reports that her much hyped debut in August that year raked in over $21,000 in its first week alone).’ [OWFT, 242–245]
p 59: ‘[Mary] Anderson finally replied encouragingly, if hesitantly— “Vera charms me; it is very mournful. I think I would like to play the part”.’
Anderson’s penmanship is near illegible; scholars have differed in their transcriptions of this letter. For ‘mournful’, I read ‘powerful’. [OWFT, 246, 712 n48]
p 59: ‘It is not known exactly when Wilde first met [Eleanor] Calhoun; [Joseph] Donohue suggests it was not until 1888, and was prompted by her interest in The Duchess [of Padua]. Any earlier approach to her, certainly in 1882, and concerning the possibility of her acting in or staging Vera seems unlikely, given her relative youth at the time (she was then just twenty)’.
Although I agree that Wilde could not have approached Calhoun in 1882 (he was in North America and she was in the UK), I believe an approach in the summer of 1883 is plausible. Calhoun was young, but had already appeared in London as a star. She was Fanny Bernard-Beere’s understudy in the English adaptation of the Russian themed melodrama Fédora, which would explain how Wilde could have met her and thought her appropriate for the role of Vera. Wilde may have been motivated to approach Calhoun by a desire to stage a copyright performance in the UK prior to the American premiere, and thereby secure his UK copyright. [OWFT, 394–395]
p 60: ‘Prescott had made her professional debut on 22 February 1873 at the Grand Opera House, Cincinnati; by the autumn of 1882, she was nearly thirty years old, with almost a decade of acting experience under her belt, including a New York debut in 1877–8.’
Prescott was born in 1850, so was aged thirty-two in the autumn of 1882 (I note that I erroneously give her age as thirty-three in OWFT, 280). She made her debut at Cincinnati’s Grand Opera House on 21 February 1877, so had only five years’ experience by 1882.
p 60: ‘However, the floral tributes showered on Prescott, for what was a minor role [Emilia in Othello], were probably less to do with her acting prowess than a recent court-victory in which she had successfully sued the American News Company for circulating an article (in their publication The Theatre and Dramatic World) which she considered injurious to her reputation.’
Accounts of the performance of Othello suggest that some audience members were warm and others cold in what was assumed to be a response to the libel case. Reviews of Prescott’s Emilia were, throughout her time with Salvini, generally very strong: the role was considered her best.
p 60: ‘[Prescott] was awarded $12,500 in damages, a sum that was close to the initial $10,000 investment which she would later explain to Wilde would be required for a New York staging of Vera. When Prescott set up the meeting with Wilde, she had cash to spend and a reputation to reestablish, just when her name had come back into the New York spotlight.’
Prescott may have thought she had money to spend, but her victory in the libel case was later overturned and she almost certainly never received any money. Perzel likely paid for the production of Vera with his own savings. This would explain why the eventual decision to withdraw the play was his own and not Prescott’s. [OWFT, 556]
p 60: ‘[Prescott] also seems to have had a prior interest in Nihilism, for the following spring she would open (on 30 May 1883) in a joint production with Lewis Morrison of Alexander Gautier’s Czeka, the Jewess at the Chestnut Street Opera House, Philadelphia. Like Wilde’s Vera, Czeka turns Nihilist and dies a martyr.’
Although Czeka was advertised as authored by ‘Gautier’, the play was almost certainly written by Prescott herself. It opened in Brooklyn on 10 May and in Philadelphia on 28 May. There is no evidence that the production was a ‘joint’ enterprise between Prescott and Morrison: most likely Prescott engaged Morrison along with the rest of Salvini’s supporting company so that she could open her play with a trusted company rather than having to recruit a new one for a limited run. Czeka does not become a Nihilist and die a martyr: instead, Czeka’s husband is a Nihilist and Czeka dies after taking poison as a result of her grief at the sudden death of her son. [OWFT, 308–310, 390–392]
p 61: ‘[Prescott] voiced concerns about the exclusivity of their negotiations, suspecting Wilde of simultaneously approaching other managers. While confirming that she herself had “concealed the play religiously”—crucial, as noted earlier, to protect against potential piracy—she was disturbed to “read the plot in any number of papers”.’
Prescott is highly likely to have been responsible for leaking the plot. She appears to have offered scoops to the Chicago Tribune critic, and the plot was published in his column. Wilde may have complained to Prescott about leaks in a letter that is now lost, as his other actions suggest that he was alive to the danger of the play being pirated if the plot were to be made public. [OWFT, 288–289]
p 61: ‘Though it is possible that Wilde may first have met Lawrence Barrett in England, too, since Lawrence had acted several times in London productions in the early 1880s. It is not clear whether Lawrence Barrett was sent a copy of 1880 or (more likely) 1882, as his comments have not survived.’
As Guy states, Wilde may have met Barrett in London. We also know that the pair met in Washington, DC, in January 1882 and that both attended a dinner at New York’s Lotos Club on 28 October 1882. Barrett’s comments on Wilde’s play have survived: Perzel claimed that Barrett had pronounced Vera ‘a marvel’; on the day of the premiere (which Barrett did not attend) Barrett told an interviewer that he would ‘be surprised if it is not a success’. [OWFT, 201, 249, 286, 487]
p 62, n192: Guy deduces that Prescott’s ‘9th Jan’ letter to Wilde dates to April.
Guy is hampered in her endeavour to date the Wilde–Prescott correspondence because her source for Prescott’s letters is Stuart Mason’s transcriptions in the Bibliography of Oscar Wilde rather than the originals in the Berg Collection, NYPL. Mason’s transcriptions obscure the fact that some letters are fragmentary. I explain more in note 15 to one of my Notes & Queries articles and in Appendix A of OWFT. Briefly, the ‘9th Jan’ letter is a composite document, with the first part dating to 9 January and the second to 22 April.
p 63: ‘Initially, the business end of the proposed Vera production had been handled by Perzel, with a draft contract having been sent to Wilde at some point in February. When he and Wilde had been unable to agree terms, Prescott took over the negotiations herself, declaring to Wilde that she would deal with him directly and “alone”.’
These events are described in reverse order, due to Guy’s misdating of the entirety of the ‘9th Jan’ letter to early April. The contract is dated (and was probably sent soon after) 7 February 1883. Prescott’s statement that she is taking over negotiations can be found in the part of the ‘9th Jan’ letter that does, in fact, date to 9 January.
p 63: ‘[Prescott] explained that this would guarantee Wilde a “regular weekly royalty”, given seven nights of performances, of $350.”
Prescott guaranteed ‘seven performances a week’, by which she meant performances on six nights a week (Monday to Saturday) and one matinee. Matinees were usually given on Wednesdays and Saturdays. Sunday performances were very rare at this time.
p 64: ‘[Prescott] calculated expenses for a “bare production” as amounting to “at least $5,000”, a sum she then spelled out, so there could be no mistake: “five thousand dollars”. (In another letter she had already informed Wilde she had had to pay an advance of $1,650, to secure the Union Square Theatre for a four-week run, beginning on 20 August.)’
These events are described in reverse order, due to Guy’s misdating of Prescott’s correspondence. The expenses are calculated in the 9 January part of the ‘9th Jan’ letter. Prescott informed Wilde that she had booked the Union Square Theatre in a letter I date to late April or early May. The play was scheduled to run for three weeks in New York, not four. Guy is likely referring to reports that the theatre was booked for four weeks, but this included one week of rehearsals. Guy repeats this error on p 79. [OWFT, 318, 650–651]
p 65: ‘Finally, Prescott reminded Wilde that taking the play on tour—producing it in New York and Chicago—would entail engaging “some other company”, and this would require yet more investment.’
Prescott’s exact words are: ‘you know that to produce this play as it should be in New York or Chicago I would not only have to run the expenses of Vera but no doubt have to take the responsibility of some other company on my shoulders in order to get the right Theatre and then never lose a moment in our efforts for Vera’. I interpret these words differently to Guy. Prescott seems to be suggesting that if she had wanted to perform in her first choice of theatre she would have had to agree to appear alongside that theatre’s stock company. Instead, she preferred to cast and rehearse her own company and tour with that company (a so-called ‘combination’) from city to city.
p 65: ‘And [Prescott] urged Wilde to sign the agreement—which he eventually did—and “end our present unintended dilemma”.’
Although we can assume that Wilde eventually signed a contract given that the play was produced, we do not know for sure that he did because no contract survives that bears his signature. He certainly cannot have signed the 7 February contract, however, because a later contract exists and is dated 25 June. [OWFT, 658–659]
p 66: ‘[Prescott] was confident enough in her offer to ask only for Wilde’s “word” on the matter, in order that she might proceed.’
Guy is unaware that Wilde cabled Prescott at the end of January with his agreement in principle, which allowed her to start booking a theatre and recruiting actors. Negotiations continued into the summer. [OWFT, 310–311, 399–402]
p 66: ‘Mr. Khan’
Julius Kahn
p 67: ‘That Prescott had actively sought out actors known for their comedic roles suggests that she had come to accept the presence of humour in an otherwise tragic play. This aspect of Vera had apparently caused her some consternation, occasioning Wilde to draft a lengthy defence of it[.]’
Modern commentators have generally assumed that it was Prescott who was unhappy with the comedy lines, but Prescott’s correspondence is clear that it was Morrison who wanted the Prime Minister’s humorous interruptions to be struck out. Guy does later acknowledge that Morrison had reservations (p 68) but states that this was ‘like Prescott before him’. [OWFT, 376–377]
p 67: ‘(The minor part of the Marquis de Poivrard was taken by a “Mr Chas Day”, possibly the same “Mr Chas Stanley” with whom Prescott had been negotiating.)’
Chas Day and Chas Stanley were not the same person.
p 67: Guy describes Morrison as an actor ‘who was soon to find fame playing Mephistopheles in his 1885 production of Goethe’s Faust, and with which he later travelled the world with his own troupe. But in 1882, when Prescott approached him, Morrison was less well-known, although Prescott herself was soon to work with him, as he starred with her in the production of Czeka, that she undertook (in May) before that of Vera’ .
Although Guy is correct that Morrison would find his greatest success as Mephistopheles several years after Vera, he was already a successful working actor in 1883. One journalist characterised him as the best actor who was not a star (i.e., capable of headlining a company). That season he had already performed with Prescott in several plays as both were members of Salvini’s touring company. [OWFT, 324–330, 376]
p 68: ‘Either way, it would prove significant for the production itself that the lead male had reservations about his part, which Wilde apparently ignored.’
We cannot know whether Wilde ignored these reservations, as so much of his side of the correspondence with Prescott is lost.
p 69: ‘Mr McViker’
J. H. McVicker, a theatre manager from Chicago
p 70: ‘Prescott’s […] startling red wig’.
Prescott told Wilde that she intended to wear a red wig when playing Vera, but no review of the play mentions such a wig and in photographs of Prescott in character her hair appears to be her own. [OWFT, 355–356]
p 70–71: ‘Prescott specifies that entrances in Acts I and III (to the Nihilist garret) should be “by boat”—only for Vera, in Act I, but by boat and door for the conspirators in Act III. It is not clear how this would have been managed on stage, nor why Prescott was so adamant that it should initially be “[o]nly Vera by water”.’
Wilde does not appear to have originally conceived of the Nihilist den as a garret. Neither were water effects unusual on the American stage in the late nineteenth century. Nevertheless, no review of Vera mentions an entrance by boat. [OWFT, 30, 354–355]
p 71: ‘Either way, becoming “known” for what were viewed at the time as historical anachronisms and geographical inaccuracies would do little to help the play’s faltering run.’
No review of Vera mentions historical anachronisms or geographical inaccuracies. Some do mention inaccuracies in costuming and scenery.
p 71: ‘[Prescott] commented on some additions Wilde had made to [the play], presumably at her request [….] This material is almost certainly that drafted on two extant foolscap sheets held in the Clark Library (see “Extant textual witnesses” below); although this text is not in Wilde’s own hand, it was probably copied out from material which Wilde had forwarded to Prescott under cover of a letter not extant.’
Guy is unaware that one of these manuscripts (F1) bears a key in Prescott’s hand and that the other (F2) is entirely in Prescott’s hand. She is correct that F1 was copied from material written by Wilde: a portion of Wilde’s original manuscript is in the Berg Collection, NYPL. I argue that F2 is Prescott’s own revision of Wilde’s original ending to the Prologue. [OWFT, 342–346]
p 74: ‘Prescott herself had obtained the work on which [Frank Parker] Hulette’s play was presumably to be based, having earlier sent a copy of the title page to Wilde, describing it as a “stupid book no likeness to Vera or our Vera at all”.’
There is no indication in Prescott’s letter that Hulette’s play and the book were related.
p 75: ‘[Prescott] thus promptly wrote to [Librarian of Congress Ainsworth Rand] Spofford on 23 April requesting the copyright number for Wilde’s play, so she could demonstrate to Hulette that the works were different. This Spofford must have supplied, and Prescott, through her lawyer Mr Stafford, had the information communicated back to Hulette. But Hulette would not go away, and Prescott wrote again to Wilde on 1 May explaining that he was proving “annoying”, and that she suspected him of trying to whip up publicity for his own work.’
We cannot know whether Hulette continued to be ‘annoying’ after he was informed of the date on which Wilde had copyrighted Vera because we do not know when he received this information. I hypothesise that Hulette, who had filed his own copyright on 13 April 1883, backed down upon learning that Wilde’s copyright was filed on 2 October 1882. [OWFT, 373]
p 75: ‘Prescott was sufficiently anxious about the matter [of Hulette and his accusations of plagiarism] that she contemplated calling off her planned staging, if Wilde did not accede [to changing the title of his play]. In explaining that she was willing to “send” Vera back to Wilde, even though she trusted “she might keep it”, there was perhaps a veiled threat; certainly, the issue needed resolving as quickly as possible.’
These events are described in reverse order, due to Guy’s misdating of Prescott’s correspondence. She seems to assume that the letter in which Prescott asked Wilde if she must send the script to him belongs with or is a postscript to the letter that precedes it in Mason’s transcriptions, which is dated 1 May 1883. But I have established that the letter must date to mid- to late January 1883. Although the letter might be read as ‘a veiled threat’ regardless of the date we assign to it, the threat is less serious if we assign an earlier rather than a later date. By dating the letter to January we can see that Prescott was considering whether to abandon the apparently stalling negotiations before she and Wilde had reached an agreement. If, like Guy, we date the letter to May, Prescott’s willingness to abandon the production seems more impetuous.
p 75: ‘Given that the term “Nihilists” had been in the subtitle of both 1880 and 1882, it may seem odd that it was not included in the early notices, and which presumably would have forestalled Hulette’s complaint. […] One explanation might be that, at this early stage in the production, Wilde and Prescott had consciously been vague about the title because (ironically as it turned out) they did not want to alert potential competitors that they, too, were putting on a work about Nihilism.’
There is no evidence that Wilde was being coy about the subject matter of his play. In fact, the subject was made clear from late 1881. What is more likely is that Prescott (who was responsible for placing adverts) wanted to focus attention on her own role by referring to the play simply as ‘Vera’. Guy recognises this on p 76.
p 76: ‘[…] the title eventually agreed upon and which appeared in the Official Programme: Vera; Or, The Nihilist—singular.’
There is no evidence that Wilde and Prescott agreed on the change to the title and I hypothesise that the change was made unilaterally by Prescott. [OWFT, 372–373]
p 77: ‘Towards the last week of July 1883 Wilde wrote to William Scawen Blunt (1840–1922) declining an invitation to meet up for a “day of steeds and sonnets” (Blunt was a breeder of Arab horses), with the news that he had been “suddenly telegraphed” to go to America to attend rehearsals of Vera. […] It is not clear if he had been over-dramatic to Blunt, or whether there had indeed been some crisis that required his immediate presence.’
I quote my review for The Wildean: ‘As far back as February Wilde had, according to Perzel, “promised to return to this country and be present at all rehearsals”. Wilde’s “suddenly” was little more than a dramatic flourish in a letter to a friend to whom he wanted to seem important.’
p 78: ‘On setting foot in New York, Wilde immediately gave interviews to the New York Herald and New York Times[.]’
Wilde gave at least eleven separate interviews upon his return to New York. Ten of these are reprinted in my Oscar Wilde: The Complete Interviews.
p 78: ‘In a further piece of publicity for the play, a facsimile of the Russian crown and some of the costumes, including Vera’s peasant dress, her ball dress (from Act I), and silk cloak—but not, it seems, the vermillion dress for Act IV—were put on display in Lord and Taylor’s, a department store catering for a wealthy clientele in New York's opulent “Ladies Mile”.’
The vermilion dress was not displayed in the window of Lord and Taylor’s when Wilde arrived in New York because it had not yet been made (Wilde brought the silk for the dress with him from Europe). Later reports indicate that the vermilion dress was eventually displayed at the store. [The Spirit of the Times (New York, NY), 18 Aug. 1883, 82]
p 79: ‘Emile Waldtuefel’
Émile Waldteufel
p 79: ‘Wilde ordered tickets to be sent to various friends, including to the Boucicaults.’
The letter Guy cites indicates that Wilde himself sent tickets to Mrs Dion Boucicault. Guy’s reference to ‘the Boucicaults’ implies that the tickets were intended for Mrs Boucicault’s family, and perhaps her husband, but there is no evidence of this and, as Guy earlier notes (p 64), Dion and his wife were recently separated.
p 79: ‘Then, finally, on a very hot night of 20 August—temperatures were reported to be over 90ºF—Vera opened to a newly refurbished and packed house.’
Temperatures on Broadway were reported in the daily press. On 20 August the temperature peaked at 93°F (34 °C) at 3.30 pm. At 6 pm it was 85°F (29 °C); at 9 pm, 81°F (27 °C); and, at midnight (quarter of an hour after the play ended), 78°F (26 °C). [OWFT, 456, 467, 472]
p 79: ‘The performance began promisingly, with loud applause reported for the Prologue and Act I; but by the start of Act IV it was obvious that the din was not in appreciation, with the over-boisterous audience now openly booing and jeering’.
The first acts of the play were well received, as Guy states, but even then some of the applause was mixed with calls for Wilde to make himself visible. The interval between the Prologue and Act 1 was marred by heckling. Guy, in common with several other modern commentators, underestimates how much the audience was there to have a good time at Wilde’s expense and to heckle rather than give the play a fair hearing. [OWFT, 464–465]
p 79: ‘[Wilde] eventually stepped out on stage, kitted out in opera hat and tail coat, at the end of Act III, and made a short and nervous speech in which he reportedly commented on his pride that “his first play had been produced in America, by a company of exclusively American actors”.’
Wilde appeared on stage at the end of Act 2 (some reviews referred to the Prologue as Act 1; by this count Guy would be correct, although she later refers to the last Act as Act 4). He did not give a speech but bowed and then exited. The speech to which Guy refers was given after the play had ended. [OWFT, 468, 471–472]
p 80: ‘Later, further reports appeared in the press, again almost certainly orchestrated by Prescott and Perzel, announcing that Wilde had been asked to take on a role in his play (presumably that of Prince Paul), and that he would speak after each performance. Whether Prescott had ever formally put these requests to Wilde (if so, he must have refused); or whether, as seems more likely, the report was a ruse to drum up more ticket sales, is unclear.’
At the time almost everyone assumed that Wilde had been asked to play Alexis rather than Prince Paul. Modern commentators have tended to assume that the part offered was that of Prince Paul, presumably because it is the prototype of the dandies in Wilde’s society comedies that are often interpreted as authorial mouthpieces. In the early 1880s Wilde’s reputation was not that of a dandy but of a ladies’ man, which explains why the role of the young lover would have seemed most apt. The proposal appears to have been Perzel’s rather than Prescott’s. Interviews with Perzel do not give the impression that it was a ruse. [OWFT, 517–518, 523, 525–526]
p 80: ‘Prescott tried to recoup some of her costs by taking a slightly modified version of Vera on tour. [….] The extent and success of this tour is not clear.’
Prescott did not take Vera on tour in the sense that she had originally intended – that is, as a co-producer who could exercise control over her own repertoire. Instead she was first employed by a manager to tour in a Civil War melodrama. This tour was cancelled in November due to poor business. She then embarked on another tour with the same manager, this time with Czeka the chief attraction. Two performances of Vera were given in late December in Detroit. Reviews were mixed. Prescott never appeared in Wilde’s play again. [OWFT, 545, 548–549, 552–556]
p 81: ‘Prescott’s original insistence that Vera open in the summer was to enable her to tour it during the winter. She did not want to have to wait until the following spring, and thus the next season. Yet in settling on this plan, Prescott cannot have anticipated opening as late as the third week in August.’
The theatre season started in the autumn, and Prescott made arrangements too late in the preceding spring to secure a good slot at the Union Square Theatre. She had to start during the so-called preliminary season (August and early September), when many New Yorkers were still on holiday out of town. Therefore it is incorrect to suggest that Prescott did not want to open ‘as late as the third week of August’: she did not want to start this early, but was obliged to because the more appropiate later slots were already booked up. Also, the following spring was not considered the next season but rather the end of the 1883–1884 season. New works could be premiered at any time, but the preferred strategy was to premiere them in the autumn so that they could be toured for the rest of the season uninterrupted if successful.
p 82: ‘Wilde’s name on the billboard undoubtedly was a factor in Vera’s fate. But this was probably not in the sense of predisposing certain members of the press to be negative towards the work[.]’
Guy underestimates the impact of the over-advertising of Wilde on the play’s reception. One reporter noted before the premiere that ‘the reappearance of several millions of lithographs of Oscar Wilde’s most distressing countenance has started ominous mutterings which foretell revolt’. In December Prescott would admit that ‘I starred Mr. Wilde as much as I starred myself, and consequently the press attacked him and left me alone’. [OWFT, 442, 552]
p 86: ‘Other reviews were similarly uncomplimentary about Prescott’s performance’.
Reviews of Prescott’s acting were more mixed than Guy suggests, although negative reviews did outnumber positive. Prescott appears to have been nervous on opening night and to have given a subpar performance. Reviewers also may have been biased against Prescott by her scandalous libel case of the previous autumn.
p 88: ‘In the immediate aftermath of the New York production [Wilde] took himself off to Newport and Saratoga’.
Guy follows Richard Ellmann in making this claim. Ellmann provides no evidence for it and I have not found any myself. In fact, there were reports that Wilde remained in New York and attempted to regain possession of his play from Prescott. He was seen at various places in New York until he left for Liverpool in September. [OWFT, 536–538]
p 88: ‘There is no secure record of [Wilde’s] private feelings about the fate of Vera.’
I quote my review for The Wildean: Guy ‘could have quoted [Wilde’s] publicly expressed feelings. He was defiant the morning after the premiere, telling interviewers that he “consider[ed] that the play was a success”; once Vera was withdrawn he conceded that it had “proved a failure in New York and they [Prescott and Perzel] wisely have taken it off” but was confident that it would fare better in Boston or Chicago; and at a distance of ten months and 4,000 miles he was prepared to admit that the first night had been “the sharpest agony of my life”.’
p 89–90: ‘In addition, there are several other witnesses of less secure authority: (vi) a set of further autograph emendations to 1882 on “28 quarto leaves of handmade paper” (the whereabouts of which is unknown) which are documented by Mason in his Bibliography of Oscar Wilde (274–81) (referred to as MSMason); and (vii) another copy of 1882 also purportedly with emendations in Wilde’s hand that differ from those in both 1882R and MSMason (and referred to as 1882S). The whereabouts of this last volume is likewise unknown; but it apparently formed the basis of Leonard Smithers’s 1902 privately printed, pirated edition of Vera, which included a list of the emendations.’
The two witnesses that Guy describes as lost are not lost. The quarto leaves on which MSMason are based are held in the Berg Collection, NYPL. The copy of 1882 on which Smithers’s pirated copy of the play is based is held at the Morgan Library and Museum, New York (I refer to this witness as 1882M). Guy also overlooks several other textual witnesses. I discuss this in my review for The Wildean, in two papers for Notes & Queries (here and here), in OWFT, and in my critical edition of Vera. Guy repeats her claim that these materials are lost on pp 92 and 94.
p 90: ‘Unfortunately, it is not possible to be certain whether BMS pre- or post-dates CMS1[.]’
I contend that CMS1 (which I refer to as MSClark) pre-dates BMS (which I refer to as MSBeinecke), because some elements of MSBeinecke are closer to 1880 than to MSClark. [OWFT, 26]
p 94: ‘Also unknown is the number or whereabouts of the “other copies” of 1882 to which Ross refers, besides his own and that sold at Sotheby’s’.
One of these other copies may be the copy at the Berg Collection, NYPL, that I refer to as 1882B.