Patience. True love must single-hearted be — Bunthorne. Exactly so! Patience. From ev’ry selfish fancy free — Bunthorne. Exactly so! Patience. No idle thought of gain or joy
A maiden’s fancy should employ —
True love must be without alloy,
True love must be without alloy.
Dragoons. Exactly so! Patience. Imposture to contempt must lead — Colonel. Exactly so! Blind vanity’s dissension’s seed — Major. Exactly so! Patience. It follows, then, a maiden who
Devotes herself to loving you
Is prompted by no selfish view,
Is prompted by no selfish view!
Dragoons. Exactly so!
“Patience.” Savoy operas / Gilbert, Sir William Schwenck (1836-1911). – London : Folio Society, 1994 impression.
Due to an upcoming gastric-bypass operation, my thoughts of late have turned rather morbid, which paradoxically has also occasioned thoughts concerning my suitability for matrimony (which, due partly to the above, partly to my bohemian lifestyle (which in some respects resembles that of the above-quoted Reginald Bunthorne) and partly to my various conditions at present appears non-existant, but one might as well forget that for the moment.)
At a cocktail-dinner I attended last night, in some of my conversations I must admit that I made various private assessments as to the potential suitability of certain female conversation-partners for spousal material. Lest one read this blog in search of scandal, I shan’t affront anyone’s dignity by revealing their identities. Nonetheless, a few general remarks might perhaps be made.
It seems that an inverse correlation exists between the fervour of an entertainer who implores the guests at a function to engage in amatory activity and the propensity of said guests to propose a course of action which might (given a ceremony or two) potentially lead to such activity occurring. Paradoxically, it seems that the crooning of “I will always love you” or some such mush tends to divert guests at social functions from finding various areas of mutual agreement or synergetic divergence which, all things being equal, might otherwise lead some of them to become betrothed to one another.
Next, to what extent is it ethical to assess persons at functions in terms of their suitability to become espoused to one? While the propogation of humanity demands that some degree of such assessment occur, it nonetheless seems rather dishonest to suborn a dinner which had other ends in mind to that purpose, especially if done surreptitiously.
I’d better stop writing this entry presently, lest the name of one particularly interesting conversation-partner be divulged.
I remain, as ever,
In Your Humble and Obedient Service:
Michael Thomas Augustine Canaris.