Compare Paragraphs
This page compares two reports at the paragraph level. The column on the left shows the first report in its entirety, and the column in the middle identifies paragraphs from the second report with significant matching content. The column on the right highlights any differences between the two matching paragraphs: pink shows differences in the first report and purple in the second report. The Match percentage underneath each comparison row in this column shows the percentage of similarity between the two paragraphs.
Original paragraph in
The Standard Union - Saturday, April 6, 1895
The Standard Union - Saturday, April 6, 1895
Most similar paragraph from
London Star - Saturday, April 6, 1895
London Star - Saturday, April 6, 1895
Difference
The decent world has never had a dirtier dose than in the trial of Oscar Wilde, nominally as plaintiff, the Marquis of Queensberry,
defendant. A great deal of the testimony is unprintable, and much more is known in London than has been told elsewhere. There appears to be an agreement
that Wilde is infamous. His plays are dropped, and his imprisonment seems to be the least of the terrible incidents of his downfall. And yet Lord Douglas
of Hawick, son of the Marquis of Queensberry, says:
"Myself and every member of the family, except father, disbelieve absolutely and entirely all the charges. We think them simply part of
the persecution father has carried on against us as long as I can remember, and that Mr. Wilde and his counsel are to blame for not showing, as they could
have done, that that was the fact."
"You may say from me myself," said Lord Douglas of Hawick to an interview yesterday afternoon, "that I and every member of our family,
excepting my father, disbelieve absolutely and entirely the allegations of the defence. It is in my opinion, simply a part of the persecution which my
father has carried on against us ever since I can remember. I think Mr. Wilde and his counsel to blame for not showing as they could have done, that was
the fact."
If Mr. Wilde had any sort of case he ruined it. His letter to the "News," assigning a reason for not calling Lord Alfred Douglas, was
silly.
The "London Chronicle" says:
"It suffices to know, as some return for damming the putrid stream, that our life is forever rid of a pestiferous poseur. Decadence has
received its death blow, and the way is cleared for increased wholesomeness in life."
The "Telegraph" says:
"If the general concern was only with the man himself, his spurious brilliancy, inflated egotism, diseased vanity, cultivated
affectation and shameless disavowal of all morality, it would be best to dismiss him to the penalty of universal condemnation, but there is something
beyond the individual to be considered. Yesterday's just verdict includes with him the tendency of his peculiar career."
The whole hideous story still seems incredible; but the victim is the witness against himself.