The Priest and the Acolyte. John Francis Bloxam

Wilde was then cross-examined by Mr. Carson for the defence.

      You read “The Priest and the Acolyte”?

      Yes.

      You have no doubt that that was an improper story?

      From the literary point of view it was highly improper. It is impossible for a man of literature to judge it otherwise, by literature meaning treatment, selection of subject, and the like. I thought the treatment rotten and the subject rotten.

You are of opinion, I believe, [16] that there is no such thing as an immoral book?

      Yes.

      May I take it that you think “The Priest and the Acolyte” was not immoral?

      It was worse; it was badly written.

      Was not the story that of a priest who fell in love with a boy who served him at the altar, and the boy was discovered in the priest’s room, and a scandal arose?

      I have read it only once, in November last, and nothing will induce me to read it again.

      Did you think the story blasphemous?

      I think it violated every artistic canon of beauty.

[17] That is not an answer.

      It is the only one I can give.

      I want you to see the position you pose in.

      I do not think you should say that.

      I have said nothing out of the way. I wish to know whether you thought the story blasphemous.

      The story filled me with disgust.

      Answer the question, sir. Did you, or did you not, consider the story blasphemous?

      I did not consider the story blasphemous.

I am satisfied with that. You know that when the priest in the story administers poison to the boy he uses the words of the [18] Sacrament of the Church of England?

      That I entirely forgot.

      Do you consider that blasphemous?

      I think it is horrible. “Blasphemous” is not the word.

      Mr. Carson then read the words describing the administration of the poison in the Sacrament, and asked Mr. Wilde whether he approved of them.

      The witness replied that he thought them disgusting, perfect twaddle.

      I think you will admit that any one who would approve of such an article would pose as guilty of improper practices?

I do not think so in the person of another contributor to the [19] magazine. It would show very bad literary taste. I strongly objected to the whole story. I took no steps to express public disapproval of The Chameleon, because I think it would have been beneath my dignity as a man of letters to associate myself with an Oxford undergraduate’s productions. I am aware that the magazine might have been circulated among the undergraduates of Oxford, but I do not believe that any book or work of art ever had any effect whatever on morality.

      Am I right in saying that you do not consider the effect in creating morality or immorality?

      Certainly, I do not.

So far as your own works are [20] concerned you pose as not being concerned about morality or immorality?

      I do not know whether you use the word “pose” in any particular sense.