The Boston Globe - Sunday, May 5, 1895
This report was originally published in English. Machine translations may be available in other languages.
Should Oscar's Name be Used?
Mr Sydney Grundy has written to the Daily Telegraph protesting the removal of Oscar Wilde's name from the playbills at the Haymarket and St James’ theaters:
I wonder on what principle of law, or justice, or common sense, or good manners, or Christian charity, an author's name is blotted from his work. If a man is not to be credited with what he has done well, by what right is he punished for what he has done ill?
Mr. Sydney Grundy writes to the Telegraph:—"I wonder on what principle of law, or justice, or common sense, or good manners, or Christian charity, an author's name is blotted from his work. If a man is not to be credited with what he has done well, by what right is he punished for what he has done ill?
"By what principle of justice or charity is the author's name blotted from his work? If a man is not to be credited with what he has done well, by what right is he punished for what he has done ill?"
By what principle of justice or charity is the author's name blotted from his work? If a man is not to be credited with what he has done well, by what right is he punished for what he has done ill?
"By what principle of justice or charity is the author's name blotted fro his work? If a man is not to be credited with what he has done well, by what right is he punished for what he has done ill?"
Respecting the foregoing, Mr Sydney Grundy has delt a coup de grace to the controversy in the following epigrammatic comment:—"I wonder on what principle of law or justice, or Christian charity, an author's name is blotted from his work. If a man is not to be credited with what he has done well, by what right is he punished for what he has done ill?"
Upon which the Westminster Gazette offers the following comment:
There were two courses, and, in justice, only two. One was to withdraw the plays, the other was to proceed and leave the author’s name. The first has, it seems, been taken in America; while here in England a characteristic compromise has been adopted. We go on with the plays, but pretend that they were written - by nobody.
But, after the first indignation, we hope that something like a fair view of this matter will prevail. No one, hitherto, has discovered any taint of corruption in these plays. On the contrary, one of them, at least, has given many hundreds of people a healthy and excellent entertainment.
We cannot see that the sternest morality requires us to deny that the plays are good, or that they can be enjoyed without harm to any human being. Still less does it require us to pass a perpetual ban upon this or any other man, and say that he shall never again do what he can do well, because he has done other things indescribably ill.