London Star - Wednesday, April 24, 1895

OSCAR WILDE.
MR. BUCHANAN REPLIES TO AN
"ANONYMOUS COWARD."
And Says That He "Heard From the
Marquess of Queensberry's Own Lips
That he Would Gladly Set the Public
an Example of Sympathy and Mag-
nanimity."

TO THE EDITOR OF "THE STAR."

SIR,--Pray do not let this discussion close with a lying perversion of the truth on the part of an anonymous correspondent. If "Dike" had signed his name we should know what kind of individual it is that snaps and gnaws at a fallen man, thinks that to demand fair play is to utter "puerile nonsense," and clamors for the destruction not only of an untried prisoner, but of everything he has ever written.

Since even utterances like these, which bear the same relation to public opinion as unsigned and scurrilous postcards do to signed letters, may have their weight with those who only read as they run, let me briefly traverse the only serious statement in "Dike's" letter, vis., the statement that "Wilde tacitly admitted, with the ablest counsel on his side," that he acknowledged "another man's right to address him in the terms of the grossest condemnation."

All that Mr. Wilde did, through his counsel, in the face of quite unexpected evidence, was to withdraw from the prosecution against Lord Queensberry. It could have served no purpose then, it would indeed have been the height of madness to proceed any further. Before evidence of the sort threatened could be dealt with at all, it had to be thoroughly understood and sifted, and inquiry instituted into the sources from which it was gathered. Charges so sudden and so terrible could not be met offhand, if they were to be met at all; and in my opinion Sir Edward Clarke adopted

THE ONLY COURSE POSSIBLE

under the circumstances.

Let me repeat again, with emphasis, that this case has not been tried, and that all we have heard as yet is a summary of the evidence for the prosecution. In the face of this, your correspondent, assuming Mr. Wilde's guilt, talks about "pagan viciousness," and goes further even than Mr. Wilde's legal accusers in his complaint that the prisoner is only to be tried for "the minor penalty," "Virtue," he says, "is something in itself, and is older than Christianity." To the pagan mind, virtue was virtus, and synonymous with manly "courage," and so the word is out of place on the lips of an anonymous coward.

Has even a writer like this no sense of humour? Does he seriously contend that the paradoxes and absurdities with which Mr. Wilde once amused us were meant as serious attacks on public morality? Two thirds of all Mr. Wilde has written is purely ironical, and it is only because they are now told that the writer is a wicked man that people begin to consider his writings wicked. I think I am as well acquainted as most people with Mr. Wilde's works, and I fearlessly assert that they are, for the most part, as innocent as a naked baby. As for the much misunderstood "Dorian Grey," it would be easy to show that it is a

WORK OF THE HIGHEST MORALITY,

since its whole purpose is to point out the effect of selfish indulgence and sensuality in destroying the character of a beautiful human soul. But it is useless to discuss these questions with people who are color-blind. I cordially echo the cry that, failing a little knowledge of literature, a little Christian charity is sorely wanted. While we have a whole mob of savages clamoring with "Dike" for lynch-law and retribution, we have not one Christian clergyman to utter a sound. Be the victim either Jean Valjean or Oscar Wilde, "Bill Sikes" or the Marquess of Queensberry, no Bishop Miguel appears (save in romantic fiction), to preach and to practice forgiveness. That, I may add, is left to the "agnostic," who has most right to feel revengeful. I heard from the Marquess of Queensberry's own lips that he would gladly, were it possible, set the public an example of sympathy and magnaminity.--Yours, &c.,

ROBERT BUCHANAN.
23 April.