Talk:The Importance of Being Earnest/Archive 1

Misc
I've removed the following:


 * It is perhaps also worth pointing out that in the late Victorian Era the word "earnest" was sometimes used as a euphemism for "homosexual" (in a similar way to the use of the word "gay" today). Given Wilde's sexual orientation, it is quite possible that he intended this triple meaning to be considered. While we're on the subject of euphemisms, "bunburying" was Victorian slang for anal sex.

although I don't know for sure that it's false, on the grounds that publishing misinformation is worse than omitting useful information.

Do we have contemporary references for either of these? They both sound like urban myths to me. See also http://www.albemarle-london.com/importance.html. Matthew Woodcraft


 * You are right, MW. I shouldn't have repeated the conjecture about Bunburying without evidence, which I can't find (and I've looked quite extensively on the Web).  The OED2 lists Wilde's play as the first instance (1899) of the word  Bunbury in this sense.  Someone else wrote the bit about earnest, for which I can find no justification either, except a reference (without quotation) on a web page (http://www.geocities.com/mere_hud/homo3.html) to Prince Eddy and the Homosexual Underworld (1994) by Theo Aronson (ISBN 0-7195-5278-8).  As I don't have this book and it's out of print, I can't say on what evidence that claim was based.  Perhaps someone out there knows. -- Heron


 * There appears to be some evidence for "earnest" as Victorian slang for "homosexual". As Belford states (Belford, B. 2000. "Oscar Wilde: A Certain Genius". Bloomsbury:London. p.237) a volume of homoerotic sonnets by John Gambril Nicholson entitled "Love in Earnest" ("Earnest" referring to a 14yo boy as love interest) coined the phrase "Is he earnest?" in intellectual Victorian circles (see also http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2242/is_1606_275/ai_58055883). She also mentions "Bunburying" as "an alibi indicating the double life necessary for seeking forbidden pleasure" (ibid.). Another mention she makes is the name "Cecily" for rent boys (ibid.). For a contrary view, consult http://www.rainbownetwork.com/Culture/detail.asp?iData=10983&iCat=87&iChannel=15&nChannel=Culture.
 * --ScarredHawk


 * We did a bit of researching in my English 2100 class here at The University of Missouri, and apparently there is actually quite a bit of speculation upon the whole "bunburying" subject. There are numerous essays written on the subject. One is included in the back of my written copy, published by W.W. Norton & Company.

Horaz (talk) 02:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I was about to reverse the change of spelling of Gwendolen, after a quick look on IMDB showed that both the 1952 and 2002 film list the character name as Gwendolyn, however I thought I'd best go to source and had a quick look at Wilde: Complete Works and indeed it is listed as Gwendolen. Mintguy

Category:LGBT literature?
Can someone please explain the sense in which this belongs in Category:LGBT literature. Yes, the author was gay (or bi, depending on one's construction of these words), but that clearly doesn't suffice to put the work in that category any more than a random Patricia Highsmith novel. Some have read "hidden" gay themes into the play, but some have done the same with Shakespeare. At a quick look, the other works in the category have explicitly gay themes (though I'm not so sure about Mrs. Dalloway, which I haven't read, and I believe may be a similar case, inclusion being a comment on the author, not the work.

Is this category well-defined? And if so what are the criteria for including this play? -- Jmabel | Talk 20:58, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

I concur. I just came on to this talk page to say the same thing. Seeing as there has been no reply to Jmabel supporting this categorisation I am removing it now. Oska 02:20, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Witty. Charming.
I agree with the opinions expressed in the recent edits that describe the play, and Algernon, as "witty" and "charming" but this is an encyclopedia article, not a review. We should either find someone authoritative who said that, and cite what they said, or get it out of the article. -- Jmabel | Talk July 8, 2005 05:03 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. This looks like it's a gushing review, not an encyclopedia article.  It needs to be rewritten.  66.168.50.185 21:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Four-act version
I've added in what I believe to be the case about the four-act version of the play. I'm not entirely sure about the accuracy of this, but the basic facts are definately correct. If anyone can expand/correct it I'd be very greatful. Donald Ian Rankin 22:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

John or Jack?
I see someone has recently changed all references to Algernon's friend from "Jack" to "John". A quick Google search seems to go about 50-50 on this. Certainly the article should mention that he is referred to as both. Weirdly, the version of the script we link from the article calls him John Worthing, J.P. in the list of personae, but "Jack" throughout the script. And, of course, names figure prominently in the play, including this one: "Jack?... No, there is very little music in the name Jack, if any at all, indeed. It does not thrill. It produces absolutely no vibrations... I have known several Jacks, and they all, without exception, were more than usually plain. Besides, Jack is a notorious domesticity for John! And I pity any woman who is married to a man called John. She would probably never be allowed to know the entrancing pleasure of a single moments solitude. The only really safe name is Ernest." -- Jmabel | Talk 22:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It's easily explained. "Jack" was originally a pet name for "John" in the same way someone whose name is "Nicholas" might be called "Nick"; the difference with Jack and John is that today they've lost the connection and are seen as different names. Perhaps this could be mentioned in the article, since, as you say, the question of names is very important in the play. 144.178.184.86 21:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course, I thought that went without explicit saying and is exactly what the quote I give alludes to. My point is that different editions of the script don't seem to concur on which form to use, and the one I cited doesn't even manage to agree with itself. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Eek, sorry. Shouldn't have leapt to the conclusion that you didn't know that. In that case, I don't know..... unless you can find out which it was in the original script? 84.66.103.192 21:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Well I think this should help clear a few things up:

"Jack. Well, really, Gwendolen, I must say that I think there are lots of other much nicer names. I think Jack, for instance, a charming name.

Gwendolen. Jack?... No, there is very little music in the name Jack, if any at all, indeed. It does not thrill. It produces absolutely no vibrations... I have known several Jacks, and they all, without exception, were more than usually plain. Besides, Jack is a notorious domesticity for John! And I pity any woman who is married to a man called John. She would probably never be allowed to know the entrancing pleasure of a single moment’s solitude. The only really safe name is Ernest"

"Besides, Jack is a notorious domesticity for John!" -Tim-THobern 09:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Earnest/Ernest
The title of the article says Earnest and redirects from Ernest, but the article itself states Ernest. Shouldn't this be changed? 22:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I follow that, but I suspect you are confused. The title of the play is The Importance of Being Earnest: earnest, an adjective meaning serious, sincere. In the play, it is a running pun on the man's name Ernest. In case you don't know the play (and I'm trying to put this in a non-spoiler way) the play turns on this pun. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Miss Prism
Someone had created a separate article on Miss Prism, which seems to me excessive; I've turned it back into a redirect to this article. I did not add back the following sentence, though it should be there if we expand to having remarks on each character, which we probably should: "Before becoming a governess, she was a lowly nursemaid and part-time novelist. She represents education within Victorian society, and harbours romantic feelings for Rev. Canon Chausable, D. D. Originally played by the actress Mrs George Cunnings." - Jmabel | Talk 06:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I just want to know how many different ways Earnest made a mochary of the courtship and engagement processes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.135.106.226 (talk • contribs) 7 June 2006.

Jack's real name
From the point of view of having only seen the recent dramatised version, I thought that, at the end, Jack's real name is not discovered to be Ernest. In this version he reads the book on his lineage and proclaims that his name is Ernest. Their Aunt however reads the book and it states another name, Robert to my recollection, but she keeps quiet about it. Possibly this is only int he modern version.

81.132.37.76 21:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That's not in the script. Robin Johnson (talk) 09:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, in Wilde's text, Lady Bracknell comments "Yes, I remember now that the General was called Ernest, I knew I had some particular reason for disliking the name." As such I have removed the suggestion in the article that she casts doubt on the name. Nandt1 01:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

"Erroneously"
In the first comment on this page, Mathew Woodcraft says that he has removed a comment claiming that TIOBE had a definite gay subtext. It appears that he (or someone else) has gone further than this, by informing us that "it has been erroneously claimed", etc. Whilst I personally couldnt agree more, this seems like a pretty bold statement, especially as in the BA course I am doing atm, (English at Manchester Metropolitan University - one of the top 100 in the country), it is taught as almost factual. This is part of an annoying trend I am seeing in all of academic literary criticism. In assignments, etc, it is impossible to get top marks without claiming some sexual subtext in even the most innocent text. ANZ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.28.116 (talk • contribs) 26 Dec 2005

Is Algernon wealthy?
I have changed the article's description of Algernon as wealthy. In Lady Bracknell's words to the (truly wealthy) Cecily: "Dear child, of course you know that Algernon has nothing but his debts to depend upon" and as she later says of Algernon to Jack: "He has nothing, but he looks everything." Nandt1 10:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Article assessment is off
There's no way an article of this much length and detail can still qualify as a stub. Could someone from a WikiProject this article's part of please reassess it as at least start-class, perhaps even B-class? Either that, or redefine "stub" to include articles with 10+ sections... Pyrospirit ( talk  ·  contribs ) 20:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Misprison or Misprision?
Looks like a spelling mistake to me. Is it? Alpheus (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've jumped in and changed it, as Alpheus suggests—well spotted. However, now the pun is less obvious with the spelling change, I've tagged it with a request. --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Miss Prism's name
Her name was probably actually based on the "prunes and prism" of the chaperon character (Mrs. General) in Dickens' Little Dorrit (this would have been a fairly well-known reference in 1895)... AnonMoos (talk) 09:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * ''"Father is rather vulgar, my dear. The word Papa, besides, gives a pretty form to the lips. Papa, potatoes, poultry, prunes and prism are all very good words for the lips: especially prunes and prism.  You will find it serviceable, in the formation of a demeanour, if you sometimes say to yourself in company--on entering a room, for instance--Papa, potatoes, poultry, prunes and prism, prunes and prism."

Who was Miss Prism's Former Employer?
Other contributors continue to amend this article to suggest that, at the time of losing the baby, Miss Prism worked within Lord Bracknell's household. This seems unlikely. The connection between the two that we have in the text is merely that she left Lord Bracknell's house with the baby. But the baby belonged to Lady Bracknell's sister, not to Lord (or Lady) Bracknell. Does it not seem more likely, then, that baby Ernest would have been entrusted to a nurse-maid employed by his parents than to one working for Lord Bracknell? Would Lord Bracknell have employed a nurse-maid at all at this time? Gwendolen (Lord and Lady Bracknell's daughter) is clearly several years younger than her suitor Jack. She does speak of a brother, Gerald, who is given to proposing to her friends "for practice," which may or may not imply an older brother, so it might just be possible that the Bracknells at the time of Ernest's loss employed a nurse-maid to look after Gerald, and that this nurse-maid then happened to take Ernest out for a walk by himself and without Gerald. Note, though, that Prism makes it clear that in taking Ernest out for a walk she was following her normal routine...

A further complication is raised by the fact that Lady Bracknell refers to Prism and the baby leaving "Lord Bracknell's house", rather than "our house", raising the question of whether she and Lord Bracknell were even married at the time Ernest was lost. If they were not married, then what was the nephew of (the future) Lady Bracknell doing in Lord Bracknell's house at all? Perhaps the couple were courting or engaged? Overall, it seems more likely that Miss Prism worked for General Moncrieff and his wife (Lady Bracknell's sister) than for the Bracknells, in which case she may merely have passed by Lord Bracknell's house on that fateful morning, perhaps to show the baby off to his aunt and her fiance. Why the future Lady Bracknell would have been at Lord Bracknell's house in the morning (and Prism expecting to find her there), is a question that delicacy forbids us to pursue further.... Nandt1 (talk) 11:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The Importance of Being Ernest
Where is the article about the Jim Varney movie? That page just redirects here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.153.117.118 (talk) 23:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * A quick check of the links for the films shows that none of them redirects here. MarnetteD | Talk 23:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Metaphysical and a little too preachy for his target audience.--24.24.142.225 (talk) 17:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The plot
I don't know why, but whenever I try to understand the plot, my brain begins to addle. To this day, I don't know who's doing what to whom, and why. I wish someone could explain the plot in ways easier to follow. JohnClarknew (talk) 01:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Merger of Lady Lancing and The Importance of Being Earnest
Hi all,

I've proposed the stub Lady Lancing be merged into this article. It contains only one interesting fact, i.e., the play's working title. This clearly belongs in a composition section, which normally exist in articles on literary works where there is interesting information to relate. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 13:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

This has now been done. --Ktlynch (talk) 23:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The Brighton Line
The following has been part of a longstanding trivia section which I have slowly destroyed by attrition. I'm going to dump the final piece here in case anyone can find a citation, validate the story or work it into the article.

"* At the time the play was written Victoria Station in London was actually two adjacent terminal stations sharing the same name. To the east was the terminal of the decidedly ramshackle London, Chatham and Dover Railway and to the west, the much more fashionable London, Brighton and South Coast Railway—the Brighton Line. Although the two stations shared a dividing wall, there was no interconnection: it was necessary to walk out into the street to pass from one station to the other. Jack explains that he was found in a handbag in the cloakroom at Victoria Station and tries to mitigate the circumstance by assuring Lady Bracknell that it was the more socially acceptable "Brighton line"."

--Ktlynch (talk) 09:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Too long and in the wrong place—and thanks for the work on that unlamented trivia section—but not immaterial: Wilde is taking advantage of the widely acknowledged difference in status of the two railroad companies to make a joke of Jack's attempt to salvage some crumb of respectability from his situation. See: As the joke needs explaining to the modern reader, a tighter version should remain. Mentally, I tried "Plot synopsis" but there it's too cumbersome and interrupts the flow, which leaves "As a satire of society" as a possibility. --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Good work, interesting source and it might make a nice explanatory fact for the themes section, which should be substantial but has been lacking. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 11:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've tried to weave it in, let me know what you think.
 * "Subtly evoked": that's good. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Too kind Moonraker. You did all the heavy lifting! Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 00:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Broadway Revival
Why is there no mention of the revival on b'way right now? 74.89.58.36 (talk) 22:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Because of WP:RECENT. Any help? --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Now it's got two mentions. The article notes only six revivals altogether in the performance history. Some of those seem to have been selected rather arbitrarily, but each has an explanation as to why it's in. There's no such justification for this one. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is plenty worth a mention considering the favorable reviews it got. Also I was under the impression that all B'way revivals were notable. And even though what I'm about to say means nothing, it is going get nominated for several Tonys. I know that means nothing, but still. 74.89.58.36 (talk) 23:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. As you see I've removed one of the two mentions (the revival of the revival) but suggestions from other editors welcome. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that too. If anyone can add in a paragraph about that revival, here are some sources:. --Bialytock&amp;Bloom (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC).

A revival "will be shown in cinemas in June 2011"
There is no indication of any notability in this insertion and it seems to be an egregious example of recentism. How does it help readers' understanding of the work? Its only purpose seems to be WP:SOAP and I intend an early revert. Views? --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

As a major, critically-acclaimed Broadway revival, it should be included in the article. --Bialytock&amp;Bloom (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

In no way what so ever is SOAP. Like the user above says it's "a major, critically-acclaimed Broadway revival" I see absolutely no reason not to add it. Even without being shown in theaters, it's notable, now with it in theaters it's very notable. JDDJS (talk) 23:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * As the deletion guideline has it: "Notability of one or more members of some group or class of subjects may or may not apply to other possible members of that group". Why does a Broadway revival of a commonly staged work immediately become notable without some claim in its own right? I've seen over thirty West End productions in the last twelve months: only a couple (AFAICR) made it into the encyclopaedia. Why is a Broadway revival exempt from the usual Wikipedia strictures on recentism? I'm hoping for a more defining answer than merely shouting the name, by the way. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with Moonraker that we should be very careful about what to add, especially since this is a good article on a classic play, there have been many revivals in many prestigous theatres, links to schedules, or even reviews in respectable papers are not enough. A book chapter on the theatrical history of the play is needed. --92.103.162.78 (talk) 13:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

There are several things that make it notable: it will win a Tony Award (it's obvious), and It's on Broadway. If it doesn't "help readers' understanding of the work", how come any productions are mentioned? Even the section title for this discussion ("A revival will be shown in cinemas in June 2011") shows notability, as a production that is distributed to movie theaters would basically be a "film adaptation", and merits it's own article. So why not only two or three sentences?--Bialytock&amp;Bloom (talk) 13:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Still shouting, I see. Are there any arguments to override the WP policies cited? And one I missed: WP:OTHERSTUFF. Just because some existing entries may not comply doesn't justify adding more. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Again: "as a production that is distributed to movie theaters would basically be a 'film adaptation', and merits it's own article"--Bialytock&amp;Bloom (talk) 15:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Good idea: many movies have their own article. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've started a very crude version here: User:Bialytock&Bloom/The Importance of Being Earnest (2011 film). Any editors are welcome to format and expand it.--Bialytock&amp;Bloom (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Even with the new article being made, there should still be some mention of the new revival on this page. There has been plenty of coverage to warrant at least one sentence about it. JDDJS (talk) 15:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Still don't agree, and the latest addition wasn't just one sentence, but a whole paragraph. Please consider that this article is about the play and any individual production, just one in the long history of this popular work, has to have something exceptional to be singled out for inclusion: "it's obvious it's going to win a Tony" isn't enough. Anything else is WP:RECENTISM, and quite possibly WP:SOAP and WP:SPAM as well. Thanks, though, for not shouting at me this time. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The whole paragraph is clearly advertising and overly recent, their is no way this production is particularly noteworthy. It should be deleted at once. Best, Ktlynch (talk) 11:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * How is it advertising? It only lists facts. It doesn't even mention the positive reviews it received. I just don't understand, what would make it notable? I thought being nominated for three Tony Awards would be more than enough. I mean the page for Hamlet (which is much older and a featured article) contains a paragraph about a revival featuring Jude Law which does not seem to be anymore notable to me. JDDJS (talk) 14:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You should have seen the reaction to Law's portrayal while it was still topical! Have a look at here for a flavor. The Wikipedia version of "two wrongs don't make a right" is here, and I suspect that the policy will catch up on the Hamlet page before long: regular contributors have already noted "this page is beginning to deteriorate" and "there's a tendency towards trivia and recentism". This brings me back to the  Wikipedia policy on this, which complains of "editing without a long-term, historical view, thereby inflating the importance of a topic that has received recent public attention". This seems to describe exactly the position pertaining here. Again, may I ask where's "the long-term, historical view", please? --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for waiting so long to respond. The historic value is in the three Tony nominations. Tony nominations are a very big deal and two of the three were in important categories. There is also historic value in how it was shown in theaters. There is also minor historic value in how a guy played Bracknel in drag and received very positive reviews and a Tony nom for it. If you simply think the section is too long and shorten it thats fine. but there should be some mention of it. JDDJS (talk) 17:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I've posted a message on the WikiProject Theatre talk page about the debate going on here so that a few more editors can weigh in and help end this discussion. If there are clearly more editors opposed to including the revival then in favor, then I promise to give up. JDDJS (talk) 18:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Here via WP:Theatre. IMO, the revival should certainly be mentioned, since it got some Tony nominations, but not the cinema broadcasts. Such broadcasting is becoming increasingly popular (see also: opera), and it isn't necessary to talk about it unless the broadcasts themselves were nominated for some kind of TV or movie award (for example, NYCO won an Emmy for its broadcast of Madama Butterfly). Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me. JDDJS (talk) 18:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that Broadway and West End revivals, especially ones that are nominated for Tony or Olivier awards for best play revival or best musical revival, are certainly notable. And, I think you could briefly survey the critical response, or refer to a survey of the critical response.  This revival is a major production that received critical acclaim, and I think it should certainly be described.  Whether the broadcast should be mentioned depends on how successful it was.  If it was no big deal, make it a footnote.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Form (Wikipedia guidelines) cannot be allowed to dictate content; any play by Wilde is notable, most Broadway (and West End) productions are notable, and any Broadway (or West End) production of Wilde is notable (and there are many other playwrights for which this is true.) — Robert Greer (talk) 16:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Possible push to FAC
As discussed at User talk:Ktlynch, a colleague has kindly sent me some suggestions on how the article might be further improved. These are they:

Some points worth looking at there, I should say. Tim riley (talk) 09:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) The composition section seems readable but a little anemic for a FA. Is there any information about how the cast were selected or how the rehearsals went?  Also, perhaps expand the discussion of how Wilde's personal life affected the original production of the play and forced its closure.
 * 2) The revivals section is missing some major productions. For example, there were 8 Broadway revivals, and there must have been other important American productions.  See
 * 3) With respect to each production, you should name the director, in each case, as well as those principal actors who are blue-linked (and also name Jack and Algy, even if not blue-linked). Also, describe any major changes in the script or any famous incidents with respect to the revival.  You'll need to try to identify all of the major productions.  The descriptions of the films and other adaptations are also too thin.
 * 4) Was there any notable incidental music for any of the productions? Was there anything else notable about any of the productions - Famous set or costume designs?  An onstage army?  Fires, heart attacks, newsworthy marriage proposals during the intervals, etc?
 * 5) More about the characters - Jack's interesting childhood/backstory and hedonism; Algy as the archetype of a witty scoundrel; the men's rebellion against repressive norms; their genuine love for their sweethearts and their efforts to make their lies reality; the interest of the girls in marrying a man named Ernest; how Gwendolen's actions are influenced by her position as a Victorian aristocratic socialite, but her ability to forgive; how Cecily's actions are influenced by her being a hopeless romantic. How does Wilde use these characters to comment on the artistocracy and privilege (vs. the poor and middle-class) and Victorian culture and society in general?
 * 6) References to home rule for Ireland. Fortunately, Jack, though a Liberal, is a Unionist and can dine with Lady Bracknell's set.  Fear of social unrest.  Perhaps in the Triviality section you can specify that Wilde contrasts the characters' trivial and hedonistic concerns with particular weighty matters mentioned in the text.  Also, how marriage is regarded trivially.  I'm sure one of your sources must mention these ideas.
 * 7) You mention that the play is influenced by "Engaged", but if I recall, it also shows the influence of French plays, especially "The Foundling"?
 * 8) Other themes: Duty and respectability, Compassion/lack of compassion, Chasuble and the phoniness of religion.