Читать книгу Complete Works of Oscar Wilde - Оскар Уайльд, F. H. Cornish, Lord Alfred Douglas - Страница 8

THE Lake District of England may not suggest Oscar Wilde (although, with pleasing irony, his is the literary name most obviously prompted by Lake Windermere) but it doesn’t really matter where I witnessed it. It could have been anywhere. The date was about 25 July 1993. The people were adults and children, mostly Roman Catholics, of the Dominican Peace Action Group. The weather was an incessant downpour. The speaker was Sue Dowell, an Anglican Rector’s wife, talking about literary failure to think of children from the child’s standpoint, and then, for an example of a storyteller who saw things from a child’s interest (in all senses) rather than an adult’s, she offered to read the little ones a story. The room was split with infant yells of ‘The Selfish Giant’. She read it well, and her audience was the most silent and attentive it ever proved itself in the entire week. At the close there was one united sigh of rapture. It was perfect ecumenicism, transcending cultures, ethnicities, nationalities, religions, genders – and ages. To my generation and the next, Wilde is an old friend – but to those-children, some half-a-century my junior, he was evidently a (fairly) old friend, less by his own name than as the man who wrote ‘The Selfish Giant’. His sensational biography, dazzling theatre, fin-de-siècle, fireworks of epigram, were all irrelevant. His future in the next century is secure in the hands of these truest of all lovers of Art for Art’s sake. It neatly disposes of the superstition that his literary survival is a spin-off of scandal.

‘I’m glad they didn’t ask for ‘The Happy Prince’,’ said Ms Dowell afterwards. ‘It always makes me cry.’ It was ‘The Selfish Giant’ which made Wilde himself cry when he told it, recalled his son Vyvyan in Son of Oscar Wilde (1954). His recollection is most valuable. Wilde’s success arose primarily from thinking of stories as things to tell.

It is hardly surprising. His mother was an Irish folklorist, his father was an Irish topographer. He himself graduated in classical scholarship whose earliest texts were the oral narratives of a probably illiterate Homer. It gave him a much more immediate sense of audience than most writers. This is not to say that the stories were first told to his two sons, though simple versions of them may have been: Cyril was almost three when the five stories in The Happy Prince and Other Tales were published in May 1888, Vyvyan one and a half. But they were written with the intention of telling them to his sons. They are stories from an unselfconscious father who knows how to move the storyteller in and out of the narrative with mild self-mockery, as opposed to some assertive male chauvinist brute thundering his own dignity and morality for the edification of his wretched offspring. Wilde is on the child’s side: but he knows the child will only be truly happy if it hates cruelty, treachery and poverty, if it loves loyalty, laughter – and love. These are stories by someone in love with love. As Tolstoy would say, it is where God is.

His sons were a projected audience for the stories, but not an imaginary one. He was already singing them to sleep with lullabies in the Irish language. We have therefore to think of Wilde’s rebellion against Victorian materialism being partially grounded in the older cultures that materialism claimed to supersede. He could play games with the English language because he stood on its frontier; however limited his Irish he was profoundly aware of it. It is noteworthy that the two most successful adaptations of Wilde’s work into another language are Patrick Pearse’s into Irish: Iosagán and Eoghainín na nÉan from ‘The Selfish Giant’ and ‘The Happy Prince’. Pearse was borrowing from a source Puritan Ireland forbad his acknowledging, but he was also taking the spirit of the stories back to the tongue whence it came.

Wilde in London society or in Paris Bohemia might seem far from Irish roots, but his impact was still that of the story-teller even when the story might be compressed into a sentence. And however clothed in raiment acceptable to fashionable London, the stories in almost all cases travel back to a Celtic folk-world dominated by ghosts and God: the Man Predestined to be a Murderer, the Murderer whose only Salvation can come from the Selfsacrifice of an Innocent, the Salvation of Body by Damnation of Soul – strange but undeniable descriptions of ‘Lord Arthur Savile’s Crime’, of ‘The Canterville Ghost’, and of The Picture of Dorian Gray. They sparkle with comedy and epigrams; they toy with philosophy and lightly flick off profound social comment; they martial incidental figures with the precision of point visible in the pencils of his reluctant disciple Beardsley and his rebellious disciple Beerbohm. But go to the hearts of the stories and they play with ideas as old as time and as deep as hell, and yet may hope from time to time for heaven.

The true folk story rejects any genre division between comedy and tragedy just as the miracle play fell on its knees in slapstick and remained on them in worship. Wilde knew – and was ultimately to prove (as one may see from Toulouse-Lautrec’s portrait) – that there is no tragedy greater than that of the weeping clown. Hamlet, Othello, Lear and Macbeth are either conscious or unconscious clowns at various times, and are set in deliberately comic contexts here and there. ‘Lord Arthur Savile’s Crime’ speaks of how ‘Our Guildensterns play Hamlet for us, and our Hamlets have to jest like Prince Hal. The world is a stage, but the play is badly cast.’ But Wilde also acknowledged the philosopher in Falstaff and the buffoon in Hamlet. So his own Canterville Ghost might render his audience defenceless by paralysing it with farce, and then strike with pity; and his ‘Lord Arthur Savile’s Crime’ promenades on the verge of horror before saving its reader in laughter; and Dorian Gray goes to his death as we are still smiling over grace-notes of satire such as ‘young Lord Poole, Bournemouth’s eldest son’.

The last line no doubt inspired Evelyn Waugh’s Lord Tangent, son of Lord Circumference, destined to die so comically, just as Wilde inaugurates the wit of so many other comparable figures in our century from ‘Saki’ to Joe Orton, but unlike most of them it is not a wit which takes any pleasure in suffering and it holds out – far more than does the formally Roman Catholic Waugh – continual if desperate hopes of salvation. In their different ways the four stories of A House of Pomegranates turn on those hopes, even if the young King can only find it by the recognition of suffering, and the Star-Child by himself suffering enough to cut short his life, while the Dwarf and the Fisherman can only be saved by death itself. The satire on predestination in ‘Lord Arthur Savile’s Crime’ is subsequently asserted in explicit language in The Picture of Dorian Gray: Dorian Gray can save himself, enchantment or no, but fails because he will not separate repentance from hypocrisy while it is in his power to do so. Perhaps the most neglected biographical item in Oscar Wilde’s life is that he was the nephew of three clergymen.

The origin of the stories in the art of story-telling accounts for one of their most startling dichotomies – dialogue and description. The exotic catalogues of outré phenomena might seem almost the antithesis of the rippling, quicksilver dialogue: but we must remember the catalogues were conceived of as spoken, as are those in Homer. Persons with access to a film of Micheál Mac Liammóir’s The Importance of Being Oscar can appreciate it from his rolling French rendition of Herod’s jewel speech in Salome. If a story’s pace seems to slow down in the reading of narrative, read it aloud. The dialogue of the stories is story-teller craft in itself, by a story-teller with a great gift for varying voices: in Dorian Gray, among other things, one can see the great modern master of comedy bursting the constraints of prose in his anxiety to realise himself fully in the theatre.

But the underlying question on how far the story is the narrator, and the work of art its performer, reaches its most subtle expression in the enlarged Portrait of Mr W. H. over which Wilde laboured for five years only to have its full version vanish from sight at the time of his trial. Wilde has, idiotically, been called a snob; but when it comes to snobbery, everyone – or almost everyone – was out of step but our Oscar. Scholarship virtually united in crediting Shakespeare with an Earl as the recipient of his sonnets: scholars split one another’s hairs as to which Earl, but agreed that it must be some Earl. Wilde insisted that the obvious place to look was in the poet’s own profession, and the obvious context the performance of his plays. Having found the most likely solution he then charmingly played with the emotional pressures of conviction in a scholarly thesis. Conversion brings loss of the converter’s faith, much as in the old folk stories the granting of a wish bankrupts its recipient. And we are left asking whether Shakespeare must remain in perpetual dependence on the Mr W. H. who interprets him just as Wilde can only be kept alive by his readers. But Mr W. H. was a boy actor, and Wilde’s future is in no doubt when left in the hands of the children. The converse is equally true: unless we be as little children we shall never fully enter the kingdom of Oscar Wilde.