Oscar Wilde by Richard Ellmann Analysis

Oscar Wilde (Literary Masterpieces, Volume 7)

Richard Ellmann’s biography has no subtitle and needs none. Oscar Wilde presents—without limitation or special advocacy—the whole of the artist. Exhaustively researched, the book nevertheless conceals Ellmann’s prodigious scholarship; he offers the oft-told tale of Wilde’s life with freshness and even a measure of surprise. Ellmann views his subject as a figure out of tragedy rather than sophisticated farce. He underplays Wilde’s antic wit, while amply demonstrating it, to reach the profound intelligence beneath the glittering exterior. Earlier biographies have treated Wilde with affection, others with detachment and admiration, and at least one recent study with scholarly tact. Compared to Ellmann’s work, however, these treatments appear partial or even partisan investigations. Published a year after Ellmann’s death, this biography has the advantage of rigorous scholarship, subtle intellect, and artistry. Ellmann’s final production, which won the Pulitzer Prize and the National Book Critics Circle Award for biography, is vastly entertaining, powerfully affecting.

From his book the reader discovers at least two stunning secrets that force him to reinterpret Wilde’s life. Wilde most likely died of complications from syphilis, which he had picked up from a prostitute while he was at the University of Oxford. Although Ellmann cannot prove the truth of this absolutely, his evidence (much of it circumstantial but including a medical diagnosis made shortly before Wilde’s death) is substantial and reasonably convincing. Also, Ellmann disputes the widely accepted notion concerning Wilde’s deathbed conversion to Catholicism. He assembles evidence to show that Wilde had been brought “to the point of decision” but that he rejected, as he had always done, taking the final step; moreover, his mental powers had diminished so much by the time of his final collapse that he could not communicate intelligently any idea or intention.

More significant than a revelation of these secrets is Ellmann’s reassessment of three clichés of Wilde criticism: that the poet was a plagiarist of others’ ideas; that in personal life he lacked moral substance; and that in matters of conviction he was often merely frivolous. The first of these misconceptions (partly established by Wilde’s own repeated insistence that all great writers borrow ideas but that poor writers “invent”) Ellmann exposes by demonstrating the pains that the poet took with his productions. Never a mere “borrower,” Wilde was a conscious artist to whom literature mattered. In recounting Wilde’s feud with James McNeill Whistler, Ellmann shows the meanness of the painter’s spirit, the generosity (until Whistler became insufferable) of the poet’s. For many years, Wilde accepted as an affectionate joke Whistler’s spiteful comments upon his presumed plagiarism. Whistler, however, was never an affectionate friend. Early in their relationship, he masked his malice; later he became an obsessive enemy, even to the point of slandering Wilde among their shared French acquaintances. The best refutation to the argument that Wilde plagiarized much of his material is Ellmann’s patient collection of detail on the poet’s work habits. Posing as a languid aesthete, Wilde during his productive career was actually a disciplined artist, deeply concerned about the impact of his work upon a complacent late-Victorian public. That public wished to be amused, so he was amusing. A social butterfly, a publicity seeker, an effeminate dandy, Wilde was all these; yet he was also serious about his social task. His objective, no less than that of his moralistic contemporaries in letters—Matthew Arnold, John Ruskin, and others—was to educate the public as well as to entertain.

Indeed, Ellmann makes it clear that Wilde considered himself a moralist. His morals, to be sure, were unconventional. Even as a quintessential aesthetic poseur early in his career, he established for himself the task of developing in his audience a sensibility that approved beauty as well as commerce, art as well as piety. Later, he came to equate art with a higher morality. To shatter Victorian complacency, he became the great critic of aestheticism: Art was not merely decorative; it was subversive.

Ellmann traces Wilde’s intellectual development from dandified aesthete to secret decadent, from talker to doer, from entertainer to philosopher. Wilde’s morals—like those of William Blake, George Bernard Shaw, William Butler Yeats, and D. H. Lawrence—were centered upon doctrines of contraries. He used paradoxes to startle, epigrams to concretize argument into quotable units, and parables to provide countermyths in defiance of Victorian smugness. By turning morals upside down, he insisted that his public see the world (as he did) through contradictions and ironies. Although his public accepted Wilde as amusing, even brilliant, as a wit and entertainer, they neglected to view him in his...

(The entire section is 2022 words.)

Oscar Wilde Analysis (Critical Survey of Contemporary Fiction)

Born Oscar Fingal O’Flahertie Wills Wilde in 1854, the son of an eccentric poet and a controversial surgeon, Oscar Wilde seemed destined to be anything but “plain Oscar.” Indeed, during his early twenties at Oxford University he began in earnest to create himself as an extraordinary man who was not only something of a dandy in his dress and personal furnishings, but also a brilliant wit in his conversation and his art.

Based on a relatively small output of writing during and shortly after his Oxford days, Wilde easily entered the social world of the end-of-the-century aesthetes and quickly became their lionized darling, even before the publication of his best-known works, THE IMPORTANCE OF BEING EARNEST and THE PICTURE OF DORIAN GRAY, confirmed his brilliance.

Wilde’s passionate nature and prideful self-image, however, soon led to a tragic fall. According to Ellmann, he wanted a consuming passion; when he met Lord Alfred Douglas, the young and beautiful son of the brutal Marquess of Queensberry, he got that passion and was indeed consumed by it. Queensberry’s hatred of Wilde led him to make a public accusation of sodomy, to which Wilde foolishly responded with a libel charge. After losing that case, his own trial on a charge of committing indecent acts followed soon after.

The story of Wilde’s public humiliation, his brutal imprisonment, his subsequent exile, his abandonment by many of his former admirers, and his lonely, poverty-stricken death at the age of forty-six is recounted by Ellmann in sympathetic detail.

The result of twenty years of research and writing, completed just before his death in 1987, OSCAR WILDE is the crowning achievement of Richard Ellmann’s distinguished career

Sources for Further Study

The Atlantic. CCLXI, February, 1988, p. 84.

Booklist. LXXXIV, January 1, 1988, p. 729.

The Christian Science Monitor. LXXX, March 7, 1988, p. 20.

Commentary. LXXXV, April, 1988, p. 78.

Drama: The Quarterly Theatre Review. CLXVII, 1988, p. 51.

Library Journal. CXII, December, 1987, p. 114.

London Review of Books. IX, October 29, 1987, p. 12.

Los Angeles Times Book Review. February 14, 1988, p. 3.

The Nation. CCXLVI, February 13, 1988, p. 203.

The New Republic. CXCVIII, February 15, 1988, p. 25.

The New York Review of Books. XXXV, February 18, 1988, p. 3.

The New York Times Book Review. XCIII, February 21, 1988, p. 3.

The New Yorker. LXIV, March 21, 1988, p. 117.

Publishers Weekly. CCXXXII, November 27, 1987, p. 74.

Time. CXXXI, January 4, 1988, p. 69.