ROBERT BUCHANAN AND OSCAR WILDE

“What is most important is that although private opinion seems to have been divided as to whether Wilde was courageous or foolhardy to have pursued the case against Queensberry, and then to have refused to flee the country after the failure of his prosecution, public support for Wilde was virtually non-existent. The sad fact of the matter was that at this most crucial moment of his life, Wilde had been abandoned by virtually all his friends. The social stigma attached to the alleged crime was so severe that it would have been unthinkable for anyone to defend Wilde’s lifestyle. To do so would have been to invite the panoptic eye of society to examine one’s own life. Efforts to differentiate between the man and his work seemed equally fruitless, which made it virtually impossible for anybody to speak out publicly on his behalf. Any defense of Wilde would necessarily have been construed as implying a defense of Wilde’s lifestyle.
     One of the very few who dared speak out publicly on his behalf was Robert Buchanan, a well-known gadfly, progressive thinker, poet, playwright, novelist, and ‘frequent contributor to the Daily Telegraph’. Courageously, Buchanan became Wilde’s foremost public champion between the end of the libel trial and the beginning of the first criminal trial. However, even Buchanan’s support was limited and qualified. His public defense of Wilde arose out of a deeply felt respect for the democratic principles of equality before the law, and from an admiration for Wilde’s literary contributions to society. Buchanan in no way defended Wilde’s alleged behaviour. Nevertheless, as the lone voice in Wilde’s corner, Buchanan is significant for sparking a spirited debate in the correspondence columns of the Star, an exchange of ideas whose main subject was the issue of Wilde’s pre-trial conviction by the Press.”

(From The Trials of Oscar Wilde by Michael S. Foldy, Yale University Press 1997, page 59.)

_____

Robert Buchanan wrote four letters to The Star. The first letter appeared in the edition of 16th April 1895 and the subsequent three tend to deal with points raised by the other correspondents. At the moment I don’t have the full text of Buchanan’s letters, but using the extracts printed in Michael S. Foldy’s “The Trials of Oscar Wilde” and Jonathan Goodman’s “The Oscar Wilde File” (Allison & Busby 1988 pp. 95-99), I have tried to reconstruct the full debate.

The Star, 16 April 1895

Letter from Robert Buchanan (extract):

Is it not high time that a little charity, Christian or anti-Christian, were imported into this land of Christian shibboleths and formulas? Most sane men listen on in silence while Press and public condemn to eternal punishment and obloquy a supposed criminal who is not yet tried or proved guilty....I for one wish to put on record my protest against the cowardice and cruelty of Englishmen towards one who was, until recently, recognised as a legitimate contributor to our amusement, and who is, when all is said and done, a scholar and a man of letters. He may be all that public opinion avers him to be; indeed, he stands convicted already, out of his own mouth, of the utmost recklessness and folly; but let us bear in mind that his case still remains sub judice, that he is not yet legally condemned. Meanwhile, we are asked by the advocates of orthodox sensualism not merely to trample an untried man in the mire, but to expunge from the records of our literature all the writings, which, only yesterday, tickled our humor and beguiled our leisure....

(“Buchanan closed his letter with these words, “let us ask ourselves, moreover, who are casting these stones, and whether they are those ‘without sin amongst us,’ or those who are themselves notoriously corrupt.” Interestingly, Buchanan’s closing remarks struck a nerve with Lord Queensberry.” — From The Trials of Oscar Wilde by Michael S. Foldy, p. 60)

The Star, 19 April 1895

Letter from Lord Queensberry (extract):

... I have not the pleasure of Mr. Buchanan’s acquaintance, but he seems to address a question to myself in this letter to your paper of 16 April when he says, ‘Who are casting these stones?’ and are they without sin...Is Mr. Buchanan himself without sin? I certainly don’t claim to be so myself, though I am compelled to throw the first stone. Whether or not I am justly notoriously corrupt I am willing patiently to wait for the future to decide. ...

***

Letter from Lord Alfred Douglas (extract):

SIR, — When the great British public has made up its great British mind to crush any particular unfortunate whom it holds in its power, it generally succeeds in gaining its object, and it is not fond of those who dare to question its power, or its right to do as it wishes. I feel, therefore, that I am taking my life in my hands in daring to raise my voice against the chorus of the pack of those who are now hounding Mr. Oscar Wilde to his ruin; the more so as I feel assured that the public has made up its mind to accept me, as it has accepted everybody and everything connected with this case, at Mr. Carson’s valuation. I, of course, am the undutiful son who, in his arrogance and folly, has kicked against his kind and affectionate father, and who has further aggravated his offence by not running away and hiding his face after the discomfiture of his friend. It is

NOT A PLEASANT POSITION

to find oneself in with regard to the public, but the situation is not without an element of grim humour, and it is no part of my intention to try and explain my attitude or defend my position. I am simply the “vox in the solitudine clamantis” raising my feeble protest; not in the expectation of making head against the wave of popular or newspaper clamour, but rather dimly hoping to catch the ear and the sympathy of one or two of those strong and fearless men and women who have before now defied the shrieks of the mob. To such as these I appeal to interfere and to stay the hand of “Judge Lynch.” And I submit that Mr. Oscar Wilde has been tried by the newspapers before he has been tried by a jury, that his case has been almost

HOPELESSLY PREJUDICED

in the eyes of the public from whom the jury who must try his case will be drawn, and that he is practically being delivered over bound to the fury of a cowardly and brutal mob....

ALFRED DOUGLAS.
Chalcott House, Long Ditton, 19 April.

The Star, 20 April 1895

Letter from Robert Buchanan (extract):

I am sure that Lord Queensberry, who has himself suffered cruelly from the injustice of public opinion, is quite as sorry as I am for his fallen foe, and is quite as anxious as I am that he should be dealt with fairly, justly, and even mercifully. Personally, I would not condemn even a dog on the kind of tainted evidence which has been foreshadowed during the recent preliminary inquiry, but the case, as I said, is still only sub judice, and none of us yet know with any certainty whether or not a jury of Englishmen will pronounce Mr. Wilde guilty.
     This being the case, I should like to ask on what conceivable plea of justice or expediency an accused person, not yet tried and convicted, is subjected to the indignities and inconveniences of a common prison, and denied, while a prisoner, the ordinary comforts to which he has been accustomed when at large? Why should his diet be regulated unduly? Why should he be denied the sedative of the harmless cigarette, more than ever necessary to a smoker in times of great mental anxiety? Why should not his friends visit him? Why, in short, should he not enjoy, as far as is practicable, all the privileges of an innocent man? Innocent he presumably is until he is tried and found guilty. If it be argued that the case is a serious one, in so far as the magistrate refuses bail and the evidence is considered strong against the prisoner, the reply is that many a case which looked far blacker has ended in an acquittal; and, at any rate, we have no right whatever to

ASSUME THE GUILT

beforehand. Assume for a moment that the prisoner is acquitted, what amends can be made for treatment which is as unjust as it is abominable? As matters stand, we may shatter a man's health, torture his mind and his body, drive him into madness or imbecility, and then, finally, if it turns out we are mistaken, all we can do is say, “We’re very sorry! — we beg your pardon! — you can go!”
     I commend this system of things to the attention of the Marquess of Queensberry. It is only possible, I think, in a country where Christianity has got the better of justice and common-sense, and where a man may be lynched by a Christian Press and a Christian public long before he is really put on trial. I have too much sympathy with his lordship's creed to think that the man who holds it would approve of such a system. So far from thinking him “notoriously corrupt,” I think him notoriously brave and honest, anxious that all men should have, under Queensberry and all rules, a fair trial and fair play; and I would certainly be the last man in the world to offer him disrespect. — Yours, &c.,

     19 April                                                                              ROBERT BUCHANAN

The Star, 21 April 1895

SIR, — I chanced to read two letters in your issue of this evening, one from Lord Alfred Douglas and another from Mr. Buchanan, in connection with the proceedings against Wilde in the law courts.
     With regard to the sentiments of the first named, it is perhaps not altogether surprising that — because the offence with which Wilde is charged happens to be classified as a misdemeanor — his lordship should characterise it as “comparatively trifling.” The statute at least provides for it a term of two years’ imprisonment with hard labour, this being the maximum period of hard labour, if I mistake not, that our Legislature allows to be imposed for any offence whatever, it being considered the most that any human being is capable of enduring. I apprehend, however, that the majority of decent English folk will fully endorse Sir John Bridge’s sentiments as to the gravity of the offence with which Wilde is charged. Be that, however, as it may, it seems to me that Lord Alfred Douglas is the very last man on the face of creation who is entitled to express an opinion on the case whatever. His allegation of unfairness against Sir John Bridge — one of the kindest-hearted and most just of magistrates that ever sat on the Bench — will be met by your readers with the disdain it merits.
     With Mr. Buchanan the matter assumes an entirely different aspect. His position, disinterestedness, and ability entitle his utterances to receive respectful attention at all hands. With any little difference of opinion between him and Lord Queensberry I am not concerned in dealing. If he considers that the régime of our prisons, as regards persons awaiting their trial, is unduly severe, he has every right to say so; and for aught I know there may be much to be advanced both from his and other points of view. As a general question it is one that may very properly be discussed, but why it should in any way be attached to the case of Wilde more than to that of any poor wretch who is awaiting “presentation at court” I altogether fail to see. I am not aware that it has been alleged that Wilde has been subjected to different treatment from that accorded to any other individual in precisely similar circumstances. If there were any such evidence, there might be some grounds for raising the question in connection with this case, but as I believe there is none, I should advocate relegating the discussion of the matter to some more opportune moment. I daresay Wilde misses his cigarettes, but not one whit more than “Bill Sykes” would his “clay.” I confess my sympathies would be rather with the latter; but that, again, is neither here nor there. Of one thing, however, I am convinced, and that is — if there is to be a dispassionate consideration of the merits or demerits of the existing régime of prison treatment, the surroundings of Wilde’s case are peculiarly unfitted for attaining that end. — Yours, &c.,

     London 20 April.                                                                      COMMON SENSE.

[We have received a host of other letters bearing on the Wilde case, which, for various reasons, we have decided not to publish. — Ed. Star.]

The Star, 22 Apri1 1895

OSCAR WILDE.

TWO VIEWS OF HIS PRESENT POSITION.

Has he been Unfairly or Prematurely Judged by Magistrate and Public, or does His Case Illustrate the Need of Prison Reform?

TO THE EDITOR OF “THE STAR.”

SIR, — After some howls of execration, the expunging of an author’s name from the public playbills, and other acts of Christian charity which have lately been witnessed, it may not be out of place to enter some kind of protest against this very hasty prejudgement of a case still pending. After all, in sexual errors, as in every thing else, the real offence lies, and must always lie, in the sacrificing of another person in any way, for the sake of one’s own pleasure or profit; and judged by this standard — which though not always the legal standard is certainly the only true moral standard — the accused is possibly no worse than those who so freely condemn him. Certainly it is strange that a society which is continually and habitually sacrificing women to the pleasure of men, should be so eager to cast the first stone — except that it seems to be assumed that women are always man’s lawful prey, and any appropriation or sacrifice of them for sex purposes quite pardonable and “natural.”— Yours, &c.,

                                                                                                               HELVELLYN.

The Star, 23 April 1895

OSCAR WILDE.

MR. BUCHANAN PLEADS FOR
A BROTHER ARTIST.

And Says That Wilde Has Already Lost Everything That Can Make Life Tolerable — Another Correspondent Holds Different Views of “Christian Charity.”

TO THE EDITOR OF “THE STAR.”

SIR, — Just one word before you close this discussion, in answer to your correspondent “Common Sense.” What I claim for Mr. Wilde I should certainly claim for any untried prisoner, Mr. William Sikes included; and I certainly do not think that a question of the liberty of the subject should be postponed sine die, on any possible plea of inexpedience. When an outrage on liberty is committed or threatened is the right time to protest against it.
     But I will even go a little further. Just in so far as a man has been respected by us, has amused us, has afforded us harmless pleasure, should he receive delicate consideration. Treatment which would not in the least trouble Mr. Sikes may break the heart of a gentleman and a scholar like Mr. Oscar Wilde; and if we who follow his calling do not speak the needful word on his behalf, who is to do so? Whatever he is, whatever he may be assumed to be, he is a man of letters, a brother artist, and no criminal prosecution whatever will be able to erase his name from the records of English literature. That I say advisedly, though we are far as the poles asunder in every artistic instinct of our lives, and though on more than one occasion I have ridiculed some of his opinions. And I say in conclusion that even if he is as guilty as some suppose him, he has already been terribly and cruelly punished; for while Mr. Sikes would lose nothing by conviction, Mr. Wilde would lose everything — has already lost everything — that can make life tolerable. I have hopes that even a British jury will perceive this, and, not for the first time, temper justice with mercy; for already, I think, the public are awakening to the fact that they have gone too far. “Alas for the rarity of Christian charity under the sun!” Now, as ever, the priests of all creeds are dumb, and it is left for an ordinary citizen to write as I have written. — Yours, &c.,

     22 April.                                                                            ROBERT BUCHANAN.

***

Sir, — The two letters which you publish to-day appear to be specimens of the opposite views held on the Wilde case. It is a matter for regret that an epistle like that of “Helvellyn” should be produced as the views of anyone.
     However, that expression carries its own mark with it, and requires no general comment. The two or three points in it will hardly bear touching. That affectation of heavy sarcasm as to Christian Charity is an example of inanity which might hardly have been surpassed by any of the correspondents whose contributions are for various reasons unpublished. To publish a letter like that is hardly charitable to the writer, and there are few who would be deceived by its contents. The writer seems unable to appreciate the fact that in the action at law now concluded, Wilde had tacitly admitted, with the ablest counsel on his side, that he was compelled to abandon the attempt to refute another man’s right to address him in terms of the grossest condemnation.
     When vice cannot be openly palliated the last resort is usually a sneer at Christian Charity. Perhaps “Helvellyn” will learn that Christian Charity does not mean weakness and toleration of Pagan viciousness. Moreover, virtue is something in itself, and is older than Christianity. Everyone who believes in virtue is not tied to Christianity; but everyone who disbelieves in the one is sure to oppose the other. A sneer is not always the fruit of moral or intellectual superiority.
     When a man has offended the ears of all decent people, in the most ordinary sense, by openly flaunting the universal and not too exacting code of this world’s morals, and by posing as the apostle of corruption, and all that is opposed to civilisation itself, it is not Christian Charity that has anything to do with it — until he has reversed his ways and rendered some satisfaction to an outraged public. The howls of execration, if they have reached “Helvellyn,” are a healthy sign; and as to the erasure of a name from playbills, I say emphatically that I wonder why the productions themselves have not been withdrawn. Along with broad opinions on many subjects, it is possible to have a narrow aversion to countenancing even the works of the man who has, with diffidence, been compelled to expose himself to the contempt of mankind.
     There is no question as to Sir John Bridge’s treatment of Wilde. Everyone is aware that but for the serious nature of the charge, and that the evidence was in Sir J. Bridge’s estimation “not slight,” he could have been released on bail. With this in mind is it to be supposed that the loss of cigarettes, but with the advantage of good meals — not possible to many others — renders the man a martyr? It is puerile nonsense to suggest he is not well enough treated.
     On the other hand many people are asking why the indictment has been drawn under the Act involving the minor penalties. If rumour is but tinged with truth the reason is a good one — and as bad as it could be. — Yours, &c.,

     Whitehall, S.W., 22 April.                                                                             DIKE.

[We have received another large batch of letters on this subject, some of them from Liverpool, Middlesbrough, and other far-off centres, but none expresses views different from those which have been published from other correspondents.]

The Star, 24 April 1895

Letter from Robert Buchanan (extract):

... While we have a whole mob of savages clamoring ... for lynch-law and retribution, we have not one Christian clergyman to utter a sound. Be the victim either Jean Valjean or Oscar Wilde, “Bill Sikes” or the Marquess of Queensberry, no Bishop Miguel appears (save in romantic fiction), to preach and to practise forgiveness. That, I may add, is left to the “agnostic,” who has most right to feel revengeful. I heard from the Marquess of Queensberry’s own lips that he would gladly, were it possible, set the public eye an example of sympathy and magnanimity. — Yours, &c.,

     23 April.                                                                             ROBERT BUCHANAN

(“On the same day that a notice announced the sale of Wilde’s possessions in order to help with expenses relating to the trial, Buchanan responded vigorously to DIKE’s “lying perversions of truth.” After characterizing DIKE as an “anonymous coward” and someone who “snaps and gnaws at a fallen man,” Buchanan addressed himself to “the only serious statement in ‘DIKE’s’ letter,” which interpreted Wilde’s abandonment of his prosecution of Queensberry as an admission of guilt. Buchanan argued that by withdrawing in the face of “unexpected evidence” Wilde had only done what was prudent and reasonable, and that DIKE had jumped to conclusions based on evidence whose precise contents and sources had yet to be examined and understood. He further defended Wilde by saying that “two thirds of all Mr. Wilde has written is purely ironical, and it is only because they are now told that the writer is a wicked man that people begin to consider his writings wicked [also].” — From The Trials of Oscar Wilde by Michael S. Foldy, p. 64)

The Star, 25 Apri1 1895

TO THE EDITOR OF “THE STAR.”

Sir, — I must take exception to the word “sympathy” that is placed in my mouth. I never used it. In my time I haved helped to cut up and destroy sharks. I had no sympathy for them, but may have felt sorry, and wished to put them out of pain as soon as possible.
     What I did say was that as Mr. Wilde now seemed to be on his beam ends and utterly down I did feel sorry for his awful position, and that supposing he was convicted of those loathsome charges brought against him that were I the authority that had to mete out to him his punishment, I would treat him with all possible consideration as a sexual pervert of an utterly diseased mind, and not as a sane criminal. If this is sympathy Mr. Wilde has it from me to that extent.
—Yours, &c.,

     24 April.                                                                                     QUEENSBERRY.

_____

Acknowledgements:

I first became aware of Robert Buchanan’s public defence of Oscar Wilde during an internet search when I came across the Court Theatre (Chicago) Playnotes on Gross Indecency: The Three Trials of Oscar Wilde by Moises Kaufman. David Rose then published my appeal for more information about this connection between Buchanan and Wilde in The Oscholars (the online Journal of Wilde Studies) which prompted an email from Angie Kingston of the University of Adelaide whose research for her PhD thesis, “Wilde Imaginations: Oscar Wilde as a Character in Victorian Fiction” had thrown up several connections between Wilde and Buchanan (including the fact that Buchanan had fictionalised Wilde (as ‘Mervyn Darrell’) in his 1894 play “The Charlatan”) and who suggested several books including Jonathan Goodman’s “The Oscar Wilde File”. Finally, I hope Michael S. Foldy doesn’t mind me quoting from his book, “The Trials of Oscar Wilde”.

_____

Robert Buchanan and Oscar Wilde - an additional note

Buchanan’s defence of Wilde is not mentioned in Harriett Jay’s biography and I always wondered whether Oscare Wilde acknowledged Buchanan’s support in any way. When the archives of The Guardian newspaper went online in November 2007 I came across the following item:

From The Guardian (27 June, 1929 - p.10)

The Modern First-Edition Craze.

The prices paid at Sotheby’s to-day for first editions of Shaw, Hardy, Barrie, Wilde, and one or two other modern authors will make many more of us think of having our bookshelves “vetted.” It is hard to convince most people who have been buying books off and on for thirty years that they have not some book of value under the new market conditions if they could only spot it. Of course the people who have books with the author’s autograph are likely to know of it, and those are the ones that fetch the top prices. But the ordinary first edition in good condition by about twenty living authors has now high rarity value. The biggest price to-day was £310 paid for a copy of Wilde’s “Salome” inscribed in the handwriting of the author: “George Bernard Shaw, with the author’s compliments. February, 93.” And then presented by Mr. Shaw to “Bertha Newcombe from G. Bernard Shaw, May, 1893.” Another first edition sold by Miss Newcombe was Shaw’s “Widowers’ Houses,” inscribed by the author to the lady in May, 1893. It brought £155, and the “Unsocial Socialist” £142. A first edition of Wilde’s “The Ballad of Reading Gaol” was inscribed by the author to Robert Buchanan, and inserted in it was a letter in Wilde’s handwriting about the officials of Reading Gaol, written in Posilipo in November, 1897. It finishes: “For four days I have had no cigarettes—no money to buy them—or no paper.” This book and letter fetched £170, which would have gone a long way to buy cigarettes and notepaper for Wilde.

An email to David Rose of the Oscholars site elicited the information, courtesy of Mark Samuels Lasner of the University of Delaware Library, that Buchanan’s copy of The Ballad of Reading Gaol now resides in the Robert H. Taylor Collection at the Princeton University Library. Thanks are also due to Meg Sherry Rich of the Princeton University Library for confirming this and offering the following information:

“It is inscribed to Buchanan by Wilde and dated March ’98. There’s a note penciled in the front, probably by a dealer, about a “very interesting letter about the poem,” but the letter is not laid in or tipped into this volume.” 

The fact that the letter (mentioned in the Guardian article) has been separated from the book confirms my suspicion that the letter was not actually addressed to Buchanan, but was probably passed on to Buchanan by one of Wilde’s friends after the publication of his first letter in The Star (16th April 1895). In his letter of 20th April he mentions Wilde’s lack of cigarettes, a fact referred to in the quotation from the letter in the Guardian article, and my feeling is that Buchanan was given the letter sometime between the 16th and the 20th April. But whatever the origin of the letter, the important thing is that Oscar Wilde did acknowledge Robert Buchanan’s support by sending him a copy of The Ballad of Reading Gaol.

Back to Miscellanea