be blind to questions of style, treatment and the like. It takes
a Goethe to see a work of art fully, completely and perfectly, and I
thoroughly agree with Mr. Whibley when he says that it is a pity that
Goethe never had an opportunity of reading "Dorian Gray." I feel quite
certain that he would have been delighted by it, and I only hope that
some ghostly publisher is even now distributing shadowy copies in the
Elysian fields, and that the cover of Goethe's copy is powdered with
gilt asphodels.

You may ask me, Sir, why I should care to have the ethical beauty of my
story recognised. I answer--simply because it exists, because the thing
is there.

The chief merit of _Madame Bovary_ is not the moral lesson that can be
found in it, any more than the chief merit of _Salammbo_ is its
archaeology; but Flaubert was perfectly right in exposing the ignorance
of those who called the one immoral and the other inaccurate; and not
merely was he right in the ordinary sense of the word, but he was
artistically right, which is everything. The critic has to educate the
public; the artist has to educate the critic.

Allow me to make one more correction, Sir, and I will have done with Mr.
Whibley. He ends his letter with the statement that I have been
indefatigable in my public appreciation of my own work. I have no doubt
that in saying this he means to pay me a compliment, but he really
over-rates my capacity, as well as my inclination for work. I must
frankly confess that, by nature and by choice, I am extremely indolent.

Cultivated idleness seems to me to be the proper occupation for men. I
dislike newspaper controversies of any kind, and of the two hundred and
sixteen criticisms of "Dorian Gray," that have passed from my library
table into the waste-paper basket I have taken public notice of only
three. One was that which appeared in the _Scots Observer_. I noticed it
because it made a suggestion, about the intention of the author in
writing the book, which needed correction. The second was an article in
the _St. James's Gazette_. It was offensively and vulgarly written, and
seemed to me to require immediate and caustic censure. The tone of the
article was an impertinence to any man of letters.

The third was a meek attack in a paper called the _Daily Chronicle_. I
think my writing to the _Daily Chronicle_ was an act of pure wilfulness.
In fact, I feel sure it was. I quite forget what they said. I believe
they said that "Doria