n Gray" was poisonous, and I thought that, on
alliterative grounds, it would be kind to remind them that, however that
may be, it is at any rate perfect. That was all. Of the other two
hundred and thirteen criticisms I have taken no notice. Indeed, I have
not read more than half of them. It is a sad thing, but one wearies even
of praise.

As regards Mr. Brown's letter, it is interesting only in so far as it
exemplifies the truth of what I have said above on the question of the
two obvious schools of critics. Mr. Brown says frankly that he considers
morality to be the "strong point" of my story. Mr. Brown means well, and
has got hold of a half truth, but when he proceeds to deal with the book
from the artistic stand-point, he, of course, goes sadly astray. To
class "Dorian Gray" with M. Zola's _La Terre_ is as silly as if one were
to class Masset's _Fortunio_ with one of the Adelphi melodramas. Mr.
Brown should be content with ethical appreciations. There he is
impregnable.

Mr. Cobbam opens badly by describing my letter setting Mr. Whibley right
on a matter of fact as an "impudent paradox." The term "impudent" is
meaningless, and the word "paradox" is misplaced. I am afraid that
writing to newspapers has a deteriorating influence on style. People get
violent and abusive and lose all sense of proportion when they enter
that curious journalistic arena in which the race is always to the
noisiest. "Impudent paradox" is neither violent not abusive, but it is
not an expression that should have been used about my letter.

However, Mr. Cobbam makes full atonement afterwards for what was, no
doubt, a mere error of manner, by adopting the impudent paradox in
question as his own, and pointing out that, as I had previously said,
the artist will always look at the work of art from the stand-point of
beauty of style and beauty of treatment, and that those who have not got
the sense of beauty--or whose sense of beauty is dominated by ethical
considerations--will always turn their attention to the subject-matter
and make its moral import the test and touchstone of the poem or novel
or picture that is presented to them, while the newspaper critic will
sometimes take one side and sometimes the other, according as he is
cultured or uncultured. In fact, Mr. Cobbam converts the impudent
paradox into a tedious truism, and, I dare say, in doing so does good
service.

The English public likes tediousness, and likes things to be explained