John Francis Bloxam
The Priest and the Acolyte
With an Introductory Protest by Stuart Mason
Published by Good Press, 2020
EAN 4057664176585
Table of Contents
THE PRIEST AND THE ACOLYTE [ 27 ]
Introductory Protest
SO [5] many copies of “The Priest and the Acolyte” have been sold by unscrupulous publishers and booksellers under the implication that it is the work of Oscar Wilde that it has been thought good to issue this edition with the object of putting an end, once and for all, to the possibility of purchasers being misled as to the authorship.
The story was originally published in The Chameleon, the [6] first and only number of which appeared in December, 1894. The author of the story was an undergraduate at Oxford, “an insufficiently birched schoolboy,” as he has recently been described, and he alone was responsible for the contents of the magazine which he edited. At the time of the trial of Lord Queensberry for libel a few months later it was attempted to show that Oscar Wilde not only approved of the theme of the story, but that he was actually a party to the publication of it, on the grounds that he sent to the editor a number of aphorisms under the title of “Phrases and Philosophies for the Use of the Young.”
The simplest way of showing [7] what Oscar Wilde really thought of the story is to quote what he said when examined in Court on the subject.
John Sholto Douglas, Eighth Marquis of Queensberry, was arrested on a warrant on March 1, 1895, on a charge of uttering a criminal libel against Oscar Wilde. On the following morning he was brought up before Mr. Newton at Marlborough Street Police Court, and after some formal evidence had been taken was remanded on bail for a week, and on the second hearing was formally committed to take his trial at the Central Criminal Court a few weeks later.
The trial began at the Old Bailey on Wednesday, April 3, [8] before Mr. Justice Henn Collins. Sir Edward Clarke, Q.C., M.P., Mr. Charles Mathews and Mr. Travers Humphreys appeared for the prosecution; Mr. Carson, Q.C., M.P., Mr. C. F. Gill and Mr. A. Gill being for the defence.
The court was crowded. The Marquis was the first to arrive. He came in alone, and stood, hat in hand, in front of the dock. He spoke to no one, and no one spoke to him. There was little that was aristocratic in the Marquis’s appearance. He was of short stature, with a round face, and clean shaven except for a streak of red whisker. His lower lip drooped considerably. A few minutes before half-past ten, Mr. Oscar Wilde entered the [9] court and took a seat immediately in front of his Counsel, with whom he at once joined in an animated conversation.
The Judge was ten minutes late, but (the Marquis having entered the dock) the preliminary proceedings were soon got through, and at a quarter to eleven, Sir Edward Clarke began his speech for the prosecution. Everybody listened attentively to the story, as set forth by Counsel, of the prosecutor’s achievements at college, his subsequent success as a littérateur, and the circumstances under which he became acquainted with the defendant’s family. “Phrases and Philosophies for the Use of the Young,” which Oscar Wilde contributed [10] to The Chameleon, was mentioned in the plea of the defence as “immoral and obscene,” and Sir Edward Clarke occupied some time in an endeavour to prove the contrary. With regard to The Chameleon, Counsel admitted that it contained a story entitled “The Priest and the Acolyte,” which could not be justified, but he declared his client could not be held responsible for the publication as a whole, he being but a contributor to its pages. As a matter of fact, Mr. Wilde urged upon the editor that the book should be withdrawn.
Soon after Mr. Carson began his cross-examination, it became apparent that the line he was adopting would result in a [11] conflict between Counsel. Mr. Wilde was being questioned as to his opinion on certain extracts from “The Priest and the Acolyte,” when Sir Edward Clarke jumped to his feet and appealed to the Judge whether the questions were relevant, inasmuch as Mr. Wilde was not responsible for the story. The Judge ruled in favour of Mr. Carson. Sir Edward, a few minutes later, raised another objection, but he was again overruled.
The interval for luncheon came as a pleasant relief to all, and, on the application of Mr. Carson, the Judge consented to the defendant being allowed his freedom till the court resumed its sitting.
[12] Sir Edward Clarke, in the course of his speech for the prosecution, said that there were two extremely curious counts at the end of the plea. One was that in December, 1894, was “published a certain immoral work in the form of The Chameleon, relating to practices and passions of an unnatural kind,” and that his client had “joined in procuring the publication of The Chameleon, with his name upon it as the principal contributor.” That was a very gross allegation. Directly Mr. Wilde saw the magazine, he noticed there was a story in it called “The Priest and the Acolyte,” which was a disgrace to literature, which it was amazing any body wrote, and still more amazing that any body [13] allowed to be published under his name.[Footnote 1] Directly Mr. Wilde saw that story he communicated with the editor, and upon his insistence the magazine was withdrawn. He had no knowledge that that story was about to be published. It was strange indeed, then, to find that publication put upon the particulars as justifying the charge against Mr. Wilde.
In his examination in chief, Sir Edward Clarke said: It is suggested that you are responsible for the publication of The Chameleon on the front page of which some aphorisms of yours [14] appear. Beyond sending that contribution had you any thing to do with the preparation or ownership, editorship or publication of that magazine?
Witness—No; nothing whatever.
Until you saw this number of The Chameleon did you know any thing about the story, “The Priest and the Acolyte”?
Nothing at all.
Upon seeing the story in print, did you communicate with the editor?
The editor came to see me at the Café Royal to speak to me about it.
Did you approve of the story of “The Priest and the Acolyte”?
I thought