Whibley that no moral apotheosis to which he
has added the most modest contribution could possibly be a source of
unhappiness to an artist.

I remain, Sir, your obedient servant,

OSCAR WILDE

[14] August 2nd.
[15] See ch. PROFUSE AND PERFERVID.
[16] See ch. "THE PICTURE OF DORIAN GRAY" - A Spiritualistic Review.

* * * * *

_When it (the public) says a work of art is grossly unintelligible, it
means that the artist has said or made a beautiful thing that is new;
when it describes a work as grossly immoral, it means that the artist
has said or made a beautiful thing that is true. The former expression
has reference to style; the latter to subject-matter._

* * * * *

This again led to further correspondence, and after an interval of two
weeks Oscar Wilde returned to the charges levelled against his book and
replied for the third and last time.[17] His letter dated from 16, Tite
Street, Chelsea, 13th August, 1890, was as follows:--

"Sir,--I am afraid I cannot enter into any newspaper discussion on the
subject of art with Mr. Whibley, partly because the writing of letters
is always a trouble to me, and partly because I regret to say that I do
not know what qualifications Mr. Whibley possesses for the discussion of
so important a topic. I merely noticed his letter because (I am sure
without in any way intending it) he made a suggestion about myself
personally that was quite inaccurate. His suggestion was that it must
have been painful to me to find that a certain section of the public, as
represented by himself and the critics of some religious publications,
had insisted on finding what he calls "lots of morality" in my story of
"The Picture of Dorian Gray."

Being naturally desirous of setting your readers right on a question of
such vital interest to the historian, I took the opportunity of pointing
out in your columns that I regarded all such criticisms as a very
gratifying tribute to the ethical beauty of the story, and I added that
I was quite ready to recognise that it was not really fair to ask of any
ordinary critic that he should be able to appreciate a work of art from
every point of view.

I still hold this opinion. If a man sees the artistic beauty of a thing
he will probably care very little for its ethical import. If his
temperament is more susceptible to ethical than to aesthetic influences
he will