Arthur Sullivan has eminently succeeded alike in the expression of refined sentiment and comic humour. In the former respect, the charm of graceful melody prevails; while, in the latter, the music of the most grotesque situations is redolent of fun." On 1 February 1887, The Theatre wrote, "There can be no doubt that by its admirable production of Messrs. Gilbert and Sullivan's latest work the Savoy management has scored another of those shining and remunerative successes that its enterprise, intelligence, and good taste have repeatedly achieved – and merited." A week later, The Academy reckoned that Ruddygore (as it was still called in the review) was probably not so good as Patience or The Mikado, nor as "fresh" as H.M.S. Pinafore, but "it is better than ... Princess Ida, the Pirates, and Iolanthe". The Musical Times called the work "one of the most brilliant examples which the associated art of Messrs. Gilbert and Sullivan has brought into existence," and said that Sullivan had "written some of his freshest and most delightful melodies." However, in the view of The Manchester Guardian, reviewing the Manchester premiere in March 1887, "The weakness of his central idea has led Mr Gilbert into extravagance without wit and parody without point." On 5 February 1887, The New York Times reported the change of name to Ruddigore. "In consequence of the criticisms on the piece, the second act has been changed. The pictures, with the exception of one, no longer come down from their frames. The houses are packed, as they always are in London, but the opinion is universal that the thing will be a worse failure in the provinces and America than Iolanthe." In a letter cabled to The New York Times and printed on 18 February, Richard D'Oyly Carte denied that the piece was a failure, stating that box office receipts were running ahead of the same time period for The Mikado, despite the absence of the ailing Grossmith, who was by then recovering. He acknowledged that there had been "isolated hisses" on the first night because some audience members did not like the reappearance of the ghosts or a reference to the "Supreme Court" (according to D'Oyly Carte, misunderstood as "Supreme Being") but asserted that both objections had been addressed by the removal of the offending material, and that audience reaction had been otherwise enthusiastic. He added, "The theatre is crammed nightly." The