Читать книгу The Priest and the Acolyte - John Francis Bloxam - Страница 3

Introductory Protest

Table of Contents

SO [5] many copies of “The Priest and the Acolyte” have been sold by unscrupulous publishers and booksellers under the implication that it is the work of Oscar Wilde that it has been thought good to issue this edition with the object of putting an end, once and for all, to the possibility of purchasers being misled as to the authorship.

The story was originally published in The Chameleon, the [6] first and only number of which appeared in December, 1894. The author of the story was an undergraduate at Oxford, “an insufficiently birched schoolboy,” as he has recently been described, and he alone was responsible for the contents of the magazine which he edited. At the time of the trial of Lord Queensberry for libel a few months later it was attempted to show that Oscar Wilde not only approved of the theme of the story, but that he was actually a party to the publication of it, on the grounds that he sent to the editor a number of aphorisms under the title of “Phrases and Philosophies for the Use of the Young.”

The simplest way of showing [7] what Oscar Wilde really thought of the story is to quote what he said when examined in Court on the subject.

John Sholto Douglas, Eighth Marquis of Queensberry, was arrested on a warrant on March 1, 1895, on a charge of uttering a criminal libel against Oscar Wilde. On the following morning he was brought up before Mr. Newton at Marlborough Street Police Court, and after some formal evidence had been taken was remanded on bail for a week, and on the second hearing was formally committed to take his trial at the Central Criminal Court a few weeks later.

The trial began at the Old Bailey on Wednesday, April 3, [8] before Mr. Justice Henn Collins. Sir Edward Clarke, Q.C., M.P., Mr. Charles Mathews and Mr. Travers Humphreys appeared for the prosecution; Mr. Carson, Q.C., M.P., Mr. C. F. Gill and Mr. A. Gill being for the defence.

The court was crowded. The Marquis was the first to arrive. He came in alone, and stood, hat in hand, in front of the dock. He spoke to no one, and no one spoke to him. There was little that was aristocratic in the Marquis’s appearance. He was of short stature, with a round face, and clean shaven except for a streak of red whisker. His lower lip drooped considerably. A few minutes before half-past ten, Mr. Oscar Wilde entered the [9] court and took a seat immediately in front of his Counsel, with whom he at once joined in an animated conversation.

The Judge was ten minutes late, but (the Marquis having entered the dock) the preliminary proceedings were soon got through, and at a quarter to eleven, Sir Edward Clarke began his speech for the prosecution. Everybody listened attentively to the story, as set forth by Counsel, of the prosecutor’s achievements at college, his subsequent success as a littérateur, and the circumstances under which he became acquainted with the defendant’s family. “Phrases and Philosophies for the Use of the Young,” which Oscar Wilde contributed [10] to The Chameleon, was mentioned in the plea of the defence as “immoral and obscene,” and Sir Edward Clarke occupied some time in an endeavour to prove the contrary. With regard to The Chameleon, Counsel admitted that it contained a story entitled “The Priest and the Acolyte,” which could not be justified, but he declared his client could not be held responsible for the publication as a whole, he being but a contributor to its pages. As a matter of fact, Mr. Wilde urged upon the editor that the book should be withdrawn.

Soon after Mr. Carson began his cross-examination, it became apparent that the line he was adopting would result in a [11] conflict between Counsel. Mr. Wilde was being questioned as to his opinion on certain extracts from “The Priest and the Acolyte,” when Sir Edward Clarke jumped to his feet and appealed to the Judge whether the questions were relevant, inasmuch as Mr. Wilde was not responsible for the story. The Judge ruled in favour of Mr. Carson. Sir Edward, a few minutes later, raised another objection, but he was again overruled.

The interval for luncheon came as a pleasant relief to all, and, on the application of Mr. Carson, the Judge consented to the defendant being allowed his freedom till the court resumed its sitting.

[12] Sir Edward Clarke, in the course of his speech for the prosecution, said that there were two extremely curious counts at the end of the plea. One was that in December, 1894, was “published a certain immoral work in the form of The Chameleon, relating to practices and passions of an unnatural kind,” and that his client had “joined in procuring the publication of The Chameleon, with his name upon it as the principal contributor.” That was a very gross allegation. Directly Mr. Wilde saw the magazine, he noticed there was a story in it called “The Priest and the Acolyte,” which was a disgrace to literature, which it was amazing any body wrote, and still more amazing that any body [13] allowed to be published under his name.[Footnote 1] Directly Mr. Wilde saw that story he communicated with the editor, and upon his insistence the magazine was withdrawn. He had no knowledge that that story was about to be published. It was strange indeed, then, to find that publication put upon the particulars as justifying the charge against Mr. Wilde.

In his examination in chief, Sir Edward Clarke said: It is suggested that you are responsible for the publication of The Chameleon on the front page of which some aphorisms of yours [14] appear. Beyond sending that contribution had you any thing to do with the preparation or ownership, editorship or publication of that magazine?

Witness—No; nothing whatever.

Until you saw this number of The Chameleon did you know any thing about the story, “The Priest and the Acolyte”?

Nothing at all.

Upon seeing the story in print, did you communicate with the editor?

The editor came to see me at the Café Royal to speak to me about it.

Did you approve of the story of “The Priest and the Acolyte”?

I thought it bad and indecent, [15] and I strongly disapproved of it.

Was that disapproval expressed to the editor?

Yes.

Oscar Wilde was then cross-examined by Mr. Carson for the defence.

You read “The Priest and the Acolyte”?

Yes.

You have no doubt that that was an improper story?

From the literary point of view it was highly improper. It is impossible for a man of literature to judge it otherwise, by literature meaning treatment, selection of subject, and the like. I thought the treatment rotten and the subject rotten.

You are of opinion, I believe, [16] that there is no such thing as an immoral book?

Yes.

May I take it that you think “The Priest and the Acolyte” was not immoral?

It was worse; it was badly written.

Was not the story that of a priest who fell in love with a boy who served him at the altar, and the boy was discovered in the priest’s room, and a scandal arose?

I have read it only once, in November last, and nothing will induce me to read it again.

Did you think the story blasphemous?

I think it violated every artistic canon of beauty.

[17] That is not an answer.

It is the only one I can give.

I want you to see the position you pose in.

I do not think you should say that.

I have said nothing out of the way. I wish to know whether you thought the story blasphemous.

The story filled me with disgust.

Answer the question, sir. Did you, or did you not, consider the story blasphemous?

I did not consider the story blasphemous.

I am satisfied with that. You know that when the priest in the story administers poison to the boy he uses the words of the [18] Sacrament of the Church of England?

That I entirely forgot.

Do you consider that blasphemous?

I think it is horrible. “Blasphemous” is not the word.

Mr. Carson then read the words describing the administration of the poison in the Sacrament, and asked Mr. Wilde whether he approved of them.

The witness replied that he thought them disgusting, perfect twaddle.

I think you will admit that any one who would approve of such an article would pose as guilty of improper practices?

I do not think so in the person of another contributor to the [19] magazine. It would show very bad literary taste. I strongly objected to the whole story. I took no steps to express public disapproval of The Chameleon, because I think it would have been beneath my dignity as a man of letters to associate myself with an Oxford undergraduate’s productions. I am aware that the magazine might have been circulated among the undergraduates of Oxford, but I do not believe that any book or work of art ever had any effect whatever on morality.

Am I right in saying that you do not consider the effect in creating morality or immorality?

Certainly, I do not.

So far as your own works are [20] concerned you pose as not being concerned about morality or immorality?

I do not know whether you use the word “pose” in any particular sense.