Talk:Good King Wenceslas/Archive 1

Link on pine
I like the links in the body of the poem (I added league and only moved page to its first reference), but I'm puzzled by the link on pine. I can imagine someone thinking, "What's a league? What's a page?" But who would say, "What's a pine?", or more to the point, who would say that before they'd say, "What's a monarch or dinted or thither?" This is nit-picky, I admit, but it struck me as odd. --KSnortum 8 July 2005 07:07 (UTC)

Original Lyrics
I have gone to the trouble to retrieve, from the library of the Harvard Music Society, the original lyrics of the third verse as printed in the book "Carols for Christmas-tide. Set to ancient melodies and harmonized for voices and pianoforte." by Thomas Helmore and J. M. Neale, published in 1853 by J. Alfred Novello, London & New York. This is the only publication of the lyrics during the author's lifetime. It is the definitive version of the lyrics. This book has the lyrics as I have posted them in the article.

I am checking the penultimate word of the second verse. As soon as I know I will post that too. Nick Beeson (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have finished correcting the lyrics. Those now shown in the article are exactly as the author first published them in 1853.
 * Nick Beeson (talk) 16:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Urtext
I have added a new section to this discussion page, which speaks to the issue of the Urtext. Nick Beeson (talk) 16:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It is gratifying to see such a high level of interest in the integrity of this article.

While it is true that the lyrics of the carol are in the public domain, they have a known authorship that is reasonably well defined in space and time. Incorporating lyrics into the article is apparently an invitation to drive-by whacking into some half-remembered personally familiar form, especially seasonally. More often than not, such changes do violence to the meter, the lexicon, the syntax, or the semantics of Neale's creation. The fact that the Victorian poesy is challenging cannot be a justification for tweaking it to taste. An authoritative reference text is called for.

Insofar as the lyrics of a carol are appropriately included in any article, and do not require a better home in WikiSource, the proper musicological approach would be to take an image of the 1853 edition as the Urtext. Documenting variants that can be shown to be due to the author's expressed intentions or emendations in later editions, or to honest printing errors, would be allowed. Any variants cited must be verifiable, not personal observations, and mentioned only if found truly necessary or enlightening. A critical apparatus such as footnotes must leave the text readable. It is neither necessary nor desirable to attempt to collect every possible variant, printed or oral, occurring in the last 150 years.

An image of a score has been provided in the article, but its provenance is unspecified, making it impossible to assess its evidentiary bearing. Douglas D. Anderson's site Hymns and Carols of Christmas has made a good start at a critical treatment, but the job is incomplete, mainly due to the absence of adequate images of the very earliest editions. (Transcriptions introduce more errors.) We can do better.
 * --Ziusudra (talk) 02:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * First off -- Ziusudra, I feel it would benefit you to learn to be succinct. You don't need to try to make yourself sound smart/well-informed by using big words and excess text. Just get your point across in the fastest, simplest way possible -- (a) this will usually get more people to actually listen to what you have to say, and/because (b) it speeds things up. Wikipedia is a workplace, not a collegiate stream-of-consciousness repository. Thanks. Secondly -- if you have access to an exact copy of the author's original wording (a "urtext"), then by all means please edit the article to reflect that. And if there's something in there which is not commonly seen in modern printings of the text, please make note of that. But until/unless that info is added to the article, the scan of a 1950s-era copy of the score (which is what's currently in the article) would -- in my opinion -- suffice plenty well as a text for the lyrics. Mr. P. S. Phillips (talk) 10:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * With respect to you first comment, it would behoove you to temper your anti-intellectual and ad hominem remarks. Your own credibility is at stake.  Second, if you are so satisfied with the image you inserted, please document its exact provenance, so that other editors can evaluate it place in the scheme of things.  Lastly, the text still needs to be cleaned up.  It can be conformed to the score in your image, until a better source is available. --Ziusudra (talk) 18:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you're requesting with regards to "provenance". It's just a copy of the music for a simple old Christmas carol. What more do you need to know? Why are you attempting to complicate this? Mr. P. S. Phillips (talk) 20:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it "complicating" things to want to know where you got the score, who edited it, when and by whom it was printed? What the title looked like before it was cropped?  Providing provenance is standard scholarly practice and Wikipedia official verifiability policy.  I plainly stated the reason for my request above, "..so that other editors can evaluate its place in the scheme of things."  For example, where would it be placed in the sequence of scores shown on  Anderson's site?  Do we have something to hide?  --Ziusudra (talk) 22:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, sir/ma'am, I'm not attempting to hide anything. I just don't see how knowing stuff like "where I got the score, who edited it, when and by whom it was printed? What the title looked like before it was cropped?" changes anything? How does that change how you (or anyone else) would edit this article? It's just a simple copy of a simple song, and I feel pretty strongly that this doesn't need to be complicated any further. The booklet from which it came is buried under stacks of music at the back of my music storage closet, and I'm not willing/able to take the time to go hunting for it just so you can know trivial stuff such as "where I got the score, who edited it, when and by whom it was printed? and What the title looked like before it was cropped?" I don't see how that information is relevant to this article. Do you dispute that the image is of a score of the song Good King Wenceslas? You truly feel that that needs to be verified? Do you think it's a score of some other song? Do you think that trivia such as when it was published changes that? I think this is all trivial, and I'm sorry if I've offended you or threatened your pride somehow, but I think this is all energy and time which could be put into the article. Mr. P. S. Phillips (talk) 03:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It is obvious that you "...feel pretty strongly...", but I think dispassionate readers of this dialog will agree that my request is a reasonable one. If you are "...not willing/able to take the time..." to contribute at an encyclopedic level, perhaps you have found the wrong venue.  Otherwise, take your own advice and invest "...energy and time which could be put into the article..." into improving it in the manner suggested. --Ziusudra (talk) 12:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Good article
Hey, Wenceslas editors. I am pretty new to editing Wikipedia, and I came here to say that I like the article and to congratulate the people that wrote it. But, jeez - WHAT a lot of crabby fussing! My dears, are we here to make something new in the world, a fabulous resource created through an unprecedented and amazing collaborative process, or are we here to assert our intellectual superiority? Anyway - it's a nice article. Thanks. I won't be back but you can always hunt me down if you want to tear me to ribbons. Sylvia A (talk) 07:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

"Second" day of Christmas?
I suspect that the claim in the introduction, that St. Stephen's Day (aka Boxing Day) is the "second" day of Christmas, is in error. What I was always taught was that until fairly recently (late 1950s or early 1960s, if not later) Britain was as deeply religious as many countries still are today, and Christmas Day was thus one of the holiest days of the year (the other of course being Easter) — far too holy for anything as profane as festivities. The traditional "first day of Christmas" (that is, of the celebrations) was thus Boxing Day, which is how Boxing Day got its name, and is why "Twelfth Night" works out to January 6 instead of January 5. — 92.40.188.170 (talk) 03:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Christmas was a day of "making merry", the reason why Bob Cratchit was late for work the next day in A Christmas Carol (1843). The day after Christmas was when the leftovers would get put in boxes to go to the poor, hence Boxing Day.  Although often a bank holiday, for many Boxing Day was and still is a work day.  Kid Bugs (talk) 14:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The "Twelve Days of Christmas" are originally liturgical. The liturgical Feast of Christmas begins on the 25th, it's Octave Day is January 1 (these are counted inclusively) and 12th night is in fact January 5th. Epiphany, January 6, is not the 12th day of Christmas Twelfth Night (holiday). The conjecture about piety precluding celebration is specious at best, perhaps a common misconception, or worse absurd, but nevertheless factually incorrect.

Wenceslas last?
This corruption keeps creeping back in to the text. The erroneous interpolation of the word last (stressed or not) is disqualified by at least three considerations:

(1) The meter of the line would be broken thereby:
 * GOOD King | WEN-ces- | LAS last looked | OUT || ON the | FEAST of | STEPH- en,
 * Instead of the correct scansion:
 * GOOD King | WEN-ces- | LAS looked | OUT || ON the | FEAST of | STEPH- en,


 * See the article section on the Poetic structure of the lyrics of GKW.

(2) The adverb "last" would be semantically anomalous at this point of the narrative;

(3) Conclusively, it does not appear in the oldest version of the text.

The unfamiliarity of the word Wenceslas (to English ears) apparently gives rise to the metanalysis Wences last, which then is over-corrected to "Wenceslas last".


 * --Ziusudra (talk) 19:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Just for the sake of discussion, the write-up under "Lyrics" above does address the meter problem you bring forward. As it says, the meter depends on how you pronounce "Wenceslas" -- with two syllables or three! I only understand it because I originally learned it the same way: GOOD King | WENCE-slas- | LAST looked | OUT || ON the | FEAST of | STEPH- en, That being said, I believe your rendering is the correct one, pronouncing all three syllables of Wenceslas. Lyn (talk) 02:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * First off -- I don't see what you're talking about. "Good King Wenceslas last looked out" does not appear in the lyrics of the article. It also isn't in any of the 20-odd hymnals and Christmas songbooks I've dug up. And I've never heard it before. But to quash any ideas of it being correct, I've added a scan of the score, with the lyrics synced up to the notes, to the article. Pierce Phillips (talk) 18:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Pierce: You'll see what I'm talking about if you read the first line at the top of this section and/or the section above titled "Lyrics". Interesting that you've never heard of the "Wenceslas last" error, but it isn't all that uncommon. I just thought I'd try to share some possible explanation into why the "corruption keeps creeping back." If you mispronounce "Wenceslas," it makes "last" sound correct. We didn't all learn the song from a book! Lyn (talk) 02:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Neither did I :-). I actually learned this from a 1958 vinyl LP called "The Great Songs of Christmas", put out by Goodyear -- I want to say it was sung by the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. I'm still left wondering how you'd have to pronounce "Wenceslas" to turn it into two syllables...I imagine it involving quite the profound amount of spitting. I'm always highly interested in/amused by misunderstandings of lyrics, especially when it comes to pop songs. The ones that are the best are like this Wenceslas one -- they make absolutely zero sense whatsoever within the context of the song and/or surrounding lyrics. I swear, if most people would turn 1/5 of their brain on for just a few seconds, they'd figure it out. Alas, et supposito nil ponit in esse. Mr. P. S. Phillips (talk) 03:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

No need to wonder any longer about how to pronounce it in two syllables without spitting: see above Lyn (talk) 12:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC). Well, it's a feature of the English language. It is the weak syllable, technically referred to as the 'Schwa.' For example you don't pronounce every syllable of 'Tottenham' unless of course you are Ossie Ardilles! I'm surprised you are 'wondering' when it is precisely this point that causes English speakers to put in the 'last' - our desire not to pronounce every syllable (I still have problems speaking Spanish because of it.) Whether 'last' is used or not in the song is another matter.
 * Who knew that these lyrics would be such an issue of contention? Or, that people would continue to change the lyrics to what they THINK they should be, without citation?  Perhaps Wikipedia needs a big Citation Stick...


 * Anyway, I copied and proofed the lyrics as they are in the scan of the score.  They follow here, with capitalization and punctuation consistent with the score.


 * I will leave it to the folks who have been looking after this article to change if they wish. I seem to have picked up a Revert Stalker, and don't really care to play the game of having things that I have gone through the trouble to research reverted moments after I have placed them in the article.

Good King Wenceslas

Good King Wenceslas look'd out, On the Feast of Stephen, When the snow lay round about, Deep and crisp and even; Brightly shone the moon that night, Though the frost was cruel, When a poor man came in sight, Gath'ring winter fuel. "Hither, page, and stand by me, If thou know'st it, telling, Yonder peasant, who is he? Where and what his dwelling?" "Sire, he lives a good league hence, Underneath the mountain, Right against the forest fence, By Saint Agnes' fountain." "Bring me flesh, and bring me wine, Bring me pine logs hither: Thou and I will shall see him dine, When we bear them thither." Page and monarch, forth they went, Forth they went together; Through the rude wind's wild lament And the bitter weather. "Sire, the night is darker now, And the wind blows stronger; Fails my heart I know not how; I can go no longer." "Mark my footsteps, my good page, Tread thou in them boldly; Thou shalt find the winter's rage Freeze thy blood less coldly." In his master's steps he trod, Where the snow lay dinted; Heat was in the very sod Which the Saint had printed. Therefore, Christian men, be sure, Wealth or rank possessing, Ye who now will bless the poor, Shall yourselves find blessing. Kid Bugs (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Recordings
The list should include Bing Crosby's version of the song recorded in the Album "White Christmas" released on CD in 1992. This is different from an older album of the same title. I believe this is the same recording released on the album "Ac-cent-tchu-ate The Positive" released in 2008?

Kanaugle (talk) 23:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The recent Phineas and Ferb Christmas album has a version of this song with the tone intact but none of the verses. One of those verses is an explanation of Wenceslas and why there's a song about him. Does that belong on the list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.73.208 (talk) 12:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The First Line
I've done a little research and studying. The lyrics to the song were written by John M. Neale in 1953, and published as "Good King Wenceslas looked out". The book with his lyrics is still in print and can be found on Amazon. They'll allow you to view a few pages and you can see his lyrics in the opening flap.

http://www.amazon.com/Good-King-Wenceslas-John-Neale/dp/0802852092/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1261153478&sr=8-2

That should be enough to finally put an end to the debate, but plenty of you are probably wondering WHY these lyrics are messed up. There are two reasons:

FIRST, the pronunciation of the good King's name. The song puts a good stress on three separate syllables, and you can see that in most sheet music. They write it out as "Wen -  ces  -  las" covering a total of three notes. However, some people would want to merge the last two syllables "Wen - c'las"

Of note: The word "last" may have come from a misreading of the third syllable "last". At any case, to make a two syllable name work, you need a new word and thus we have "Good King Wen - c'las last looked out"

SECOND, is the notes themselves. The basic notes for the first line go: D.D.D.E.D.D.A

The issue is that if people are just humming the tune after not looking at the notes for quite some time, they would try and end the name of the Good King on an upnote or a downnote. Therefore they'll try their best to make "-las" end on the E. This would lead to a tongue twisting/spitting scenario if you're trying to sing a three syllable name. This may even be the reason why some people pronounce it "wen - c'las" ... so they can end it on an upnote which would make sense to them.

However: The upnote is actually in the MIDDLE of the king's name under the syllable "cas" ... If you follow the notes one by one with a three syllable name, you'd see that there is NO room for an extra word.

This is my reasoning for the confusion in lyrics.

SargeAbernathy (talk) 16:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The dude's name was really Václav anyway...two syllables :-) 69.203.75.223 (talk) 04:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

"Good my Page"
I believe the lyric is "good my page" and not "my good page" for a couple of reasons. The first is that it sounds redundant to say "Mark my footsteps, my good page," and I would expect better of the good Reverend Neale. Secondly I have heard and can find reputable renditions of the former, such as here , as sung by the gifted folks at York Minster. For these reasons, in addition to the unreferenced nature of the current text, I am going to change it, and expect at least a comment if it is changed back. GBMorris 01:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, as to the first reason ("it sounds redundant"), that is not evidence, but rather only your opinion. What is evidence is that: (a) the author, John Mason Neale, was an eminent Oxford-educated (Trinity) antiquarian, and hymnographer, in addition to being an ordained high-church clergyman; and (b) "mark my footsteps, good my page" is obviously a solecism, whereas "mark my footsteps, my good page" is quite normal Victorian literary diction (as in "my dear sir").   The logical conclusion would be that "good my page" is a copyediting error which has persisted.


 * As to the second reason: whatever the musical gifts of the folks at York Minster, their choice of version has little or no evidentiary bearing with respect to Neale's historical lyrics.


 * It is true that the "good my page" variant has existed in print since the combined printing of Carols for Christmas-Tide, First and Second Series in 1871. However, the standalone First Series antedates that printing, and this older edition evinces the "my good page" reading.  Until and unless someone produces a facsimile of the 1853 printing having the former reading, I believe the scholarly choice would be the "my good page" variant.


 * See "Hymns and Carols of Christmas", note 6.:


 * --Ziusudra 16:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not clear to me where this argument has ended up. The last comment here seems to favor "my good page" however the article currently has "good my page".


 * While the "sounds redundant" argument makes no sense to me, the Victorian diction argument is not convincing either. The song isn't written in Victorian diction but seems to intentially try to sound archaic. "Hither" was hardly current usage in Neale's time, however the use of archaic words in diction as being "poetic" was not uncommon in Victorian poetry, and was probably deemed appropriate for a Christmas Carol, especially one based on (or even translated from) a medieval legend. "Good my page" might well have been used with the intention of sounding archaic (regardless of whether this ever actually was valid diction).


 * Scansion-wise, "good my page" fits more naturally than "my good page", and given the very inflexible nature with which the author fits these lyrics to the meter, this would have been a likely motivation for a word order inversion.--Ericjs (talk) 07:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

There are various debates on this Talk page about the lyrics. And, as with many carols and folk-songs, the lyrics vary from book to book. I propose that, for the purposes of this article, we choose a well-known version to quote as the 'baseline'. And I would propose that 'Carols for Choirs I' (published by Oxford University Press) would be a candidate for such a source, being exceedingly well-known and established in church circles in the UK, where the lyric translation into English was first done. (Incidentally, in relation to the particular point, that has "good my page".) Feline Hymnic (talk) 21:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "Good my page" is no more a solecism than is "good my lord". With a quick google of "good my lord" you will discover any number of quotes from Shakespeare. Although the usage may have been archaic in Victorian times, that itself means nothing. It is very common for hymns and prayers to employ an archaic register.


 * I also note that the link given above, "Hymns and Carols of Christmas", note 6., includes facsimiles of various printings of the carol, and the earliest facsimile has "good my page". There is no evidence that such a widely used idiom is in our case a printing error.


 * Rwflammang (talk) 02:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Pastiche?

 * In them, Neale seems to have attempted a pastiche of 15-16th-century English, for example by writing "flesh" instead of "meat" (the latter in early English denoted food in general) or constructions such as "good my page" recalling earlier usages such as Shakespeare's "sweet my coz" in As You Like It.

The above quote from the article does not feel encyclopedic ("seems"?). The assertion that he attempted a pastiche would imply that he did not succeed. Also, how sure are we that "flesh" and "good my" were not used in the 19th century? Or the 14th, or the 17th? Unless we have a good source, I purpose to delete this new sentence.

Rwflammang (talk) 20:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, yes it does have the feel of speculation, doesn't it? Please feel free to remove it. Rob (talk) 18:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I note that a search on Google Books for "flesh" turns up plenty of 19th century examples of using that word for meat, and more than a few 20th century examples as well. Since neither source nor argument has been produced, I'm removing it. Rwflammang (talk) 13:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Good King Wenceslas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060529084440/http://catholic-forum.com:80/saints/ce006612.htm to http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/ce006612.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Parody
I'm sure 'good king wenceslas' has been parodied multiple times. I think including a parody section, especially that only refers to one parody, takes away from the seriousness of the article.

→Agreed. It seems like every article on Wikipedia has to have this section where there are 50 references about how it's been discussed on the Simpsons or some other cartoon disguised as "references in modern culture". I don't see what any of that adds to the context or information in the article. It's about a Christmas carol not about (as much as I love SGC2C) some half-baked parody on Space Ghost: Coast to Coast. Who cares? DougieFresh 01:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The remaining External Links are also of somewhat dubious quality. --Ziusudra (talk) 02:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As a pop culture nerd I used to really enjoy those sections. But the more I wrote for Wikipedia the more I came to think that it cheapened things to "have to" include a listing (for instance) of every known instance in recorded media where so much as five seconds of a particular song might be heard. When I did a major revision of the article on the Tree That Owns Itself - which resulted in "Good Article" status - I was tempted to include a "popular culture" section noting that "the Tree that Owns Itself has never even once been referenced on The Simpsons, Family Guy, or South Park." Luckily, I thought better of it. But even now, I'm tempted to insert mention of the fact that the Beatles perform an intentionally dreadful rendition of GKW on their first fan club Christmas record. PurpleChez (talk) 20:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

→Someone with a user account kindly remove the reference to the Hogfather for a similar reason. 98.242.3.71 (talk) 02:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Already done, although actually you can edit most pages on Wikipedia without a user account. Rob (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

"Poor and Commonplace"
Here's what the Oxford Book of Carols has to say about Neale's lyrics:

This rather confused narrative owes its popularity to the delightful tune, which is that of a Spring carol, "Tempus adest floridum," No. 99. Unfortunately Neale in 1853 substituted for the Spring carol this "Good King Wenceslas," one of his less happy pieces, which E. Duncan goes so far as to call "doggerel," and Bullen condemns as "poor and commonplace to the last degree." The time has not yet come for a comprehensive book to discard it; but we reprint the tune in its proper setting ("Spring has now unwrapped the flowers"), not without hope that, with the present wealth of carols for Christmas, "Good King Wenceslas" may gradually pass into disuse, and the tune be restored to spring-time. Neale did the same kind of thing to another Spring carol, "In vernali tempore," (No. 98; cf. No. 102); but this was not popularized by Bramley and Stainer. Oxford Book of Carols, p. 279 Lfralston 14:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I can only endorse the comments above. The words are not only irritatingly mundane but also patently ridiculous. If the "poor man" lived "against the forest fence", why did he need to gather firewood a league away? --MWLittleGuy (talk) 21:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, some forests were off-limits to peasants; perhaps the one near his house was off-limits and this is the only place he can gather firewood. In any event, he had to pick up his firewood here because if he hadn't, the king wouldn't have seen him. [<= attempt at humor] It seems to me that for a "poor and commonplace" song, it's had quite a bit of staying power. If we put all song lyrics to a logic test, very few of them would pass. Perhaps it's the first song that has appropriated a lively tune and thereby become successful despite its artistic merit [or lack thereof], but it certainly wasn't the last. Ileanadu (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Speaking from experience, a central european winter can be really cold, and the forest near your home gets picked clean of deadwood pretty quickly. The open fires which were the norm in the middle ages for cooking and heating put most of their heat up the chimney (although most peasant homes probably didn't have chimneys, the heating was still pretty inefficient compared to modern wood burning stoves), and as Ileanadu says, forests are often off limit, or at least restricted. Medieval societies had a lot of regulations about forest management: who could hunt, cut trees (what variety, how many, how large etc.), glean deadwood etc. Peasants who ignored these rules could lose body parts or their lives. At very least they would make themselves unpopular in the community. The upshot is that firewood would often be in short supplyPignut (talk) 01:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC).

Norman Iles in his book "Who really killed Cock Robin" https://www.amazon.com/Who-Really-Killed-Cock-Robin/dp/0709026307/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1482889918&sr=1-5&keywords=WHO+really+killed+cock+robin discusses this and other carols and suggests that many carols were censored or totally rewritten to remove sexual or pagan lyrics Pignut (talk) 02:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

First carol to mention a white Christmas?
An article in the BBC Classical music magazine a couple years ago claimed "Good King Wenceslas" was the first carol to mention a white Christmas (actually, a white December 26). Many older carols described the cold, but none had specified snow. Is there any substance to this claim? Delmlsfan (talk) 02:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I wonder - 30 years before See, amid the Winter's Snow, isn't it? And as you say, Es ist ein Ros entsprungen only mentions cold. Rob (talk) 16:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Good King Wenceslas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160805201259/http://www.hymntime.com/tch/non/la/tempusade.htm to http://www.hymntime.com/tch/non/la/tempusade.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Good King Wenceslas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131109143819/http://www.mun.ca/mst/heroicage/issues/9/defries.html to https://www.mun.ca/mst/heroicage/issues/9/defries.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Lyrics
For many years I thought the song began 'Good King Wenceslas last looked out on the feast of Stephen ...' and I think it scans better this way. Maybe it depends on how you pronounce 'Wenceslas' or it's simply a case of 'While shepherds washed their socks at night, all hanging on the line...' Pavium 23:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it only scans if you somehow lose a syllable from somewhere else. It goes "Good king wen-ces-las looked out". The las of Wenceslas goes where I imagine you're fitting the "last" in. It's a common mistake and it's what I sang all through primary school. eyeball226 (talk) 06:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * No, the carol is "Good King Wenceslas looked out". I think people get confused if they do not realize that "Wenceslas" has three syllables in it. Vorbee (talk) 10:52, 26 December 2018 (UTC)