Abstract
The statement that Oscar Wilde was one of the direct instruments in freeing Alfred Dreyfus1 has been freely criticised. To the commonplace mind only commonplace things are possible. One critic, in particular, ‘jibbed’ at my remark that Wilde objected to meeting Zola2 on the ground that the latter was the author of immoral books, and concludes with the remark that ‘Wilde is understood to have become a reformed character, but he cannot be believed to have suddenly developed into a Maw-worm.’
Keywords
Solitary Confinement English Writer English People Direct Instrument Great Poet
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
- 3.Max Nordau, ‘Decadence and Aesthetes’, Degeneration (London: Heinemann, 1895) pp. 319–22Google Scholar
- 3.On Wilde and Decadence see also William Aspenwall Bradley, ‘What Is Decadence?“ The Bookman (New York), xxxvii (June 1913) 431–8Google Scholar
- 3.G. K. Chesterton, ‘Writing “Finis” to Decadence’, Independent (Boston), lxxxix (15 Jan 1917) 100Google Scholar
- 3.Russell M. Goldfarb, ‘Late Victorian Decadence’, Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, xx (summer 1962) 369–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3.Shane Leslie, ‘Degeneracy or Decadence?’, National Review (New York), xv (19 Nov 1963) 445–6Google Scholar
- 3.Paul Elmer More, ‘A Naughty Decade: Oscar Wilde and Other Decadents of the Nineties’, The Nation (New York), xcviii (14 May 1914) 566–8 and (21 May 1914), 598–600Google Scholar
- 3.Clyde de L. Ryals, ‘Toward a Definition of “Decadent” As Applied to British Literature of the Nineteenth Century’, Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, XVII (Sep 1958) 85–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3.Hugh E. M. Stutfield, ‘Tommyrotics’, Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine, CLVII (June 1895) 833–45.Google Scholar
Copyright information
© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited 1979