for it must be clear to your readers, that, beside his clean polish, as prettily set forth in his epistle, I, alas! am but the "ill-bred and ignorant person," whose "lucubrations" "it is a trouble" for him "to notice."

Still will I, desperate as is my condition, point out that though "impertinent," "venomous," and "vulgar," he claims me as his "master"--and, in the dock, bases his innocence upon such relation between us.

In all humility, therefore, I admit that the outcome of my "silly vanity and incompetent mediocrity," must be the incarnation: "Oscar Wilde." _Mea culpa!_ the G.o.ds may perhaps forgive and forget.

To you, _Truth_--champion of the truth--I leave the brave task of proclaiming again that the story of the lecture to the students of the Royal Academy was, as I told it to you, no fiction.

In the presence of Mr. Waldo Story did Oscar make his prayer for preparation; and at his table was he entrusted with the materials for his crime.

You also shall again unearth, in the _Nineteenth Century Review_ of Jan. 1889, page 37, the other appropriated property, slily stowed away, in an article on "The Decay of Lying"--though why Decay!

To shirk this matter thus is craven, doubtless; but I am awe-stricken and tremble, for truly, "the rage of the sheep is terrible!"

[Ill.u.s.tration]

_Just Indignation_

Oscar--How dare you! What means this disguise?

[Sidenote: Upon perceiving the Poet, in Polish cap and green overcoat, befrogged, and wonderfully befurred.]

Restore those things to Nathan's, and never again let me find you masquerading the streets of my Chelsea in the combined costumes of Kossuth and Mr. Mantalini!

[Ill.u.s.tration]

_An Advanced Critic_

_TO THE EDITOR:_

[Sidenote: _Pall Mall Gazette_, March 28, 1888.]

Sir--I find myself obliged to notice the critical review of the "Ten o'Clock," that appeared in your paper (March 6).

In the interest of my publishers, I beg to state formally that the work has not as yet been issued at all--and I would point out that what is still in the hands of the printer, cannot possibly have fallen into the fingers of your incautious contributor!

The early telegram is doubtless the ambition of this smart, though premature and restless one--but he is wanting in habit, and unhappy in his haste!--What will you? The _Pall Mall_ and the people have been imposed upon.

Be good enough, Sir, to insert this note, lest the public suppose, upon your authority, that the "Ten o'Clock," as yet unseen in the window of Piccadilly, has, in consequence of this sudden summing up, been hurriedly withdrawn from circulation.--I am, Sir,

[Ill.u.s.tration]

_The Advantage of Explanation_

_TO THE EDITOR:_

[Sidenote: _Pall Mall Gazette_, March 31, 1888.]

Sir--Just three weeks after publication Mr. Whistler "finds himself obliged to notice the critical review of the 'Ten o'Clock' that appeared in your paper." He points out that "what is still in the hands of the printer cannot possibly have fallen into the fingers of your incautious contributor." I do not pretend to be acquainted with the mult.i.tudinous matters that may be in the hands of his publishers'

printers. But I can declare--and you, Sir, will corroborate me--that a printed copy of Mr. Whistler's smart but misleading lecture was placed in my hands for review, and, moreover, that the notice did not appear until the pamphlet was duly advertised by Messrs. Chatto and Windus as ready. It is, of course, a matter of regret to me if, as Mr. Whistler suggests, his publishers' interests are likely to suffer from the review; but if an author's work, in the reviewer's opinion, be full of rash statement and mischievous doctrine, the publishers must submit to the risk of frank criticism. But it will be observed that Mr. Whistler is merely seeking to create an impression that your Reviewer never saw the work he criticized, which is surely not a creditable position to take up, even by a sensitive man writhing under adverse criticism.--I am, Sir, most obediently,

YOUR REVIEWER.

_Testimony_

_TO THE EDITOR:_

[Sidenote: _Pall Mall Gazette_, April 7, 1888.]

Sir--My apologies, I pray you, to the much disturbed gentleman, "Your Reviewer," who complains that I have allowed "just three weeks" to go by without noticing his writing.

Let me hasten, lest he be further offended, to acknowledge his answer, in Sat.u.r.day's paper.

After much matter, he comes unexpectedly upon a clear understanding of my letter--"It will be observed," he says navely, "that Mr. Whistler is merely seeking to create an impression that your Reviewer never saw the work he criticized,"--herein he is completely right, this is absolutely the impression I did seek to create--"which," he continues, "is surely not a creditable position to take up"--again I agree with him, and admit the sad spectacle a "Reviewer" presents in such position.

He further "declares," and calls upon you, Sir, to "corroborate"

him, "that a printed copy of Mr. Whistler's misleading lecture was placed in my hands for review"--and moreover, that "the notice did not appear until the pamphlet was duly advertised by Messrs. Chatto and Windus as ready."

Pausing to note that if the lecture had not seemed misleading to him, it would surely not have been worth uttering at all, I come to the copy in question--this could only have been a printed proof, quaintly acquired--as will be seen by the following letter from Messrs. Chatto and Windus, which I must beg you Sir, to publish, with this note--as it deals also with the remaining point, the advertis.e.m.e.nt of the pamphlet,

And, I am, Sir,

[Ill.u.s.tration]

The following is the letter from Mr. Whistler's publishers:--

DEAR SIR--In reply to your question we have to say that we certainly have not sent out any copy of the "Ten o'Clock" to the press, or to anybody else excepting yourself. The work is still in the printers' hands, and we have for a long time past been advertising it only as "shortly" to be published; indeed, only a few proofs have so far been taken from the type.

Yours faithfully,

CHATTO and WINDUS.