out for amusement. They are an
excellent company, and go well through their tricks, and if they are a
little unreal I am not the one to object to unreality in art. The jest
is really a good one. The only thing that I cannot understand is why you
gave the marionettes such extraordinary and improbable names.

I remain, Sir, your obedient servant,

OSCAR WILDE.

The correspondence continued for three weeks longer, but Oscar Wilde
took no further part in it.

[17] August 16th.

* * * * *

_If a man's work is easy to understand an explanation is unnecessary,
and if his work is incomprehensible an explanation is wicked._

* * * * *

PROFUSE AND PERFERVID.

The review in _The Speaker_[18] which Oscar Wilde referred to in his
letter to _The Scots Observer_ (see par. above starting with: 'And so
in the case of "Dorian Gray,"'), was as follows:--

By a stroke of good fortune, singular at this season the two stories[19]
which we have taken up to review this week turn out to be--each in its
way--of no slight interest. Of Mr. Wilde's work, this was to be
expected. Let it be granted, to begin with, that the conception of the
story is exceedingly strong.

A young man of remarkable beauty, perfect in body, but undeveloped,--or
rather, lacking altogether,--in soul, becomes the dear friend of a
painter of genius. The artist under the spell of this friendship, is
painting the youth's portrait. Enter to them the spirit of evil, in the
shape of Lord Henry Wotton, an extremely "fin de siecle" gentleman, who,
by a few inspiring words, supplies, or calls into life, the boy's
missing soul, and it is an evil one. Henceforward, the tale develops the
growth of this evil soul, side by side with this mystery--that while
vice and debauchery write no wrinkle on the boy's face, but pass from it
as a breath off a pane, every vile action scores its mark upon the
portrait, which keeps accurate record of a loathsome life.

It has been insinuated that this story should be suppressed in the
interest of morality. Mr. Wilde has answered that art and ethics have
nothing to do with each other. His boldness in resting his defence on
the general proposition is the more exemplary, as he might fairly have
insisted on the particular proposition--that the teaching of the book is
conspicuously right in morality. If we have correctly interpreted the
book's moti