I still hold this opinion.  If a man sees the artistic beauty of a thing, he will probably care very little for its ethical import.  If his temperament is more susceptible to ethical than to aesthetic influences, he will be blind to questions of style, treatment and the like.  It takes a Goethe to see a work of art fully, completely and perfectly, and I thoroughly agree with Mr. Whibley when he says that it is a pity that Goethe never had an opportunity of reading Dorian Gray.  I feel quite certain that he would have been delighted by it, and I only hope that some ghostly publisher is even now distributing shadowy copies in the Elysian fields, and that the cover of Gautier’s copy is powdered with gilt asphodels.

You may ask me, Sir, why I should care to have the ethical beauty of my story recognised.  I answer, Simply because it exists, because the thing is there.

The chief merit of Madame Bovary is not the moral lesson that can be found in it, any more than the chief merit of Salammbo is its archaeology; but Flaubert was perfectly right in exposing the ignorance of those who called the one immoral and the other inaccurate; and not merely was he right in the ordinary sense of the word, but he was artistically right, which is everything.  The critic has to educate the public; the artist has to educate the critic.

Allow me to make one more correction, Sir, and I will have done with Mr. Whibley.  He ends his letter with the statement that I have been indefatigable in my public appreciation of my own work.  I have no doubt that in saying this he means to pay me a compliment, but he really overrates my capacity, as well as my inclination for work.  I must frankly confess that, by nature and by choice, I am extremely indolent.

Cultivated idleness seems to me to be the proper occupation for man.  I dislike newspaper controversies of any kind, and of the two hundred and sixteen criticisms of Dorian Gray that have passed from my library table into the wastepaper basket I have taken public notice of only three.  One was that which appeared in the Scots Observer.  I noticed it because it made a suggestion, about the intention of the author in writing the book, which needed correction.  The second was an article in the St. James’s Gazette.  It was offensively and vulgarly written, and seemed to me to require immediate and caustic censure.  The tone of the article was an impertinence to any man of letters.

The third was a meek attack in a paper called the Daily Chronicle.  I think my writing to the Daily Chronicle was an act of pure wilfulness.  In fact, I feel sure it was.  I quite forget what they said.  I believe they said that Dorian 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.