Editing Oscar Wilde (section)

== Trials ==
[[File:Somdomite.jpg|thumb|alt=A rectangular calling card printed with "Marquess of Queensberry" in copperplate script.|The [[John Douglas, 9th Marquess of Queensberry|Marquess of Queensberry]]'s [[Visiting card|calling card]] with the handwritten offending inscription "For Oscar Wilde posing {{Sic|Som|domite|nolink=1}}". The card was marked as exhibit 'A' in Wilde's libel action.]]

=== ''Wilde v Queensberry'' ===
On 18 February 1895, the Marquess of Queensberry left his calling card at Wilde's club, the [[Albemarle Club|Albemarle]], inscribed: "For Oscar Wilde, posing somdomite{{sic}}".{{sfn|Holland|2004|p=300}}{{efn|Queensberry's handwriting was almost indecipherable: The hall porter initially read "ponce and sodomite", but Queensberry himself claimed that he'd written "posing 'as' a sodomite", an easier accusation to defend in court. [[Merlin Holland]] concludes that "what Queensberry almost certainly wrote was "posing {{sic|som|domite}}".{{sfn|Holland|2004|p=300}}}} Wilde, encouraged by [[Lord Alfred Douglas|Douglas]] and against the advice of his friends, initiated a [[private prosecution]] against Queensberry for [[defamatory libel]], since the note amounted to a public accusation that Wilde had committed the crime of [[sodomy]].<ref name="Trials"/>

Queensberry was arrested for [[criminal libel]], a charge carrying a possible sentence of up to two years in prison. Under the [[Libel Act 1843]], Queensberry could avoid conviction for libel only by demonstrating that his accusation was in fact true, and furthermore that there was some "public benefit" to having made the accusation openly.<ref name="Moran2002">{{cite book |last=Moran |first=Leslie |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=9TSIAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA47 |title=The Homosexual(ity) of law |publisher=[[Routledge]] |year=2002 |isbn=978-1-134-89645-5 |page=47 |access-date=6 November 2018 |archive-date=18 August 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200818213826/https://books.google.com/books?id=9TSIAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA47 |url-status=live}}</ref> Queensberry's lawyers thus hired private detectives to find evidence of Wilde's homosexual liaisons.<ref name="Frankel2017">{{cite book |last=Frankel |first=Nicholas |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=d4M4DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA34 |title=Oscar Wilde: The Unrepentant Years |publisher=Harvard University Press |year=2017 |isbn=978-0-674-98202-4 |page=34 |access-date=6 November 2018 |archive-date=19 August 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200819030513/https://books.google.com/books?id=d4M4DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA34 |url-status=live}}</ref>

Wilde's friends had advised him against the prosecution at a ''Saturday Review'' meeting at the [[Hotel Café Royal|Café Royal]] on 24 March 1895; [[Frank Harris]] warned him that "they are going to prove sodomy against you" and advised him to flee to France.{{sfn|Belford|2000|p=251}} Wilde and Douglas walked out in a huff, Wilde saying "it is at such moments as these that one sees who are one's true friends". The scene was witnessed by [[George Bernard Shaw]] who recalled it to [[Arthur Ransome]] a day or so before Ransome's trial for libelling Douglas in 1913. To Ransome it confirmed what he had said in his 1912 book on Wilde: that Douglas's rivalry for Wilde with [[Robbie Ross]] and his arguments with his father had resulted in Wilde's public disaster, as Wilde wrote in [[De Profundis (letter)|''De Profundis'']]. Douglas lost his case. Shaw included an account of the argument between Harris, Douglas and Wilde in the preface to his play ''[[The Dark Lady of the Sonnets]]''.<ref>''The Autobiography of Arthur Ransome'' pp. 151–152 (1976, Jonathan Cape, London) {{ISBN|0-224-01245-2}}</ref><ref>''The Life of Arthur Ransome'' by [[Hugh Brogan]] p. 85 (1984, Jonathan Cape, London) {{ISBN|0-224-02010-2}}</ref>

The libel trial became a ''[[cause célèbre]]'' as salacious details of Wilde's private life with Taylor and Douglas began to appear in the press. A team of private detectives had directed Queensberry's lawyers, led by [[Edward Carson]] [[Queen's Counsel|QC]], to the world of the Victorian underground. Wilde's association with blackmailers and male prostitutes, cross-dressers and homosexual brothels was recorded, and various persons involved were interviewed, some being coerced to appear as witnesses since they too were accomplices to the crimes of which Wilde was accused.{{sfn|Ellmann|1988|p=415}}

[[File:The Trial of Oscar Wilde and Alfred Taylor - from 'Illustrated Police News', 20 April 1895.jpg|thumb|left|Wilde arriving at [[Bow Street Magistrates' Court]] (left), and in the dock (top right), from ''[[The Illustrated Police News]]'', April 1895]]
Wilde's preliminary hearing took place at [[Bow Street Magistrates' Court]], before the trial, which captivated Victorian society, opened at the [[Old Bailey]] in central London on 3 April 1895 before Mr. Justice [[Richard Collins, Baron Collins|Richard Henn Collins]], a fellow Dubliner, amid scenes of near hysteria both in the press and the public galleries.<ref>{{cite news |title='The love that dare not speak its name': The show trial of Oscar Wilde |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/independentpremium/long-reads/oscar-wilde-trial-homosexuality-lgbtq-homophobia-victorian-england-a9523996.html |access-date=22 January 2025 |work=The Independent}}</ref> The extent of the evidence massed against Wilde forced him to declare meekly, "I am the prosecutor in this case".{{sfn|Ellmann|1988|p=418}} Wilde's [[barrister]], [[Edward Clarke (barrister)|Sir Edward Clarke]], opened the case by pre-emptively asking Wilde about two suggestive letters Wilde had written to Douglas, which the defence had in its possession. He characterised the first as a "prose sonnet" and admitted that the "poetical language" might seem strange to the court but claimed its intent was innocent. Wilde stated that the letters had been obtained by blackmailers who had attempted to extort money from him, but he had refused, suggesting they should take the £60 ({{Inflation|UK|60|1895|r=-2|fmt=eq|cursign=£}}) offered, "unusual for a prose piece of that length". He claimed to regard the letters as works of art rather than something of which to be ashamed.{{sfn|Foldy|1997|p=3}}

Carson, who was also a Dubliner who had attended [[Trinity College Dublin]], at the same time as Wilde, cross-examined Wilde on how he perceived the moral content of his works. Wilde replied with characteristic wit and flippancy, claiming that works of art are not capable of being moral or immoral but only well or poorly made, and that only "brutes and illiterates", whose views on art "are incalculably stupid", would make such judgements about art. Carson, a leading barrister, diverged from the normal practice of asking [[closed question]]s. Carson pressed Wilde on each topic from every angle, squeezing out nuances of meaning from Wilde's answers, removing them from their aesthetic context and portraying Wilde as evasive and decadent. While Wilde won the most laughs, Carson scored the most legal points.{{sfn|Foldy|1997|p=8}} To undermine Wilde's credibility, and to justify Queensberry's description of Wilde as a "posing somdomite", Carson drew from the witness an admission of his capacity for "posing", by demonstrating that he had lied about his age under oath.<ref>{{cite web |last=Linder |first=Douglas O. |title=Testimony of Oscar Wilde on Direct Examination (April 3,1895) |url=https://www.famous-trials.com/wilde/347-wildedirect |access-date=29 November 2020 |website=Famous Trials |publisher=University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law |archive-date=17 August 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210817175646/https://www.famous-trials.com/wilde/347-wildedirect |url-status=live}}</ref>{{efn|Wilde, age forty, had earlier stated he was thirty-nine years old at the beginning of his direct examination by Clarke. When pressed about the lie by Carson, Wilde flippantly replied: "I have no wish to pose as being young. I am thirty-nine or forty. You have my certificate and that settles the matter."<ref>{{cite web |last=Linder |first=Douglas O. |title=Testimony of Oscar Wilde on Cross Examination (April 3, 1895) (Literary Part) |url=https://www.famous-trials.com/wilde/346-literarypart |access-date=30 November 2020 |website=Famous Trials |publisher=University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law |archive-date=12 December 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201212151649/https://www.famous-trials.com/wilde/346-literarypart |url-status=live}}</ref>}} Playing on this, he returned to the topic throughout his cross-examination.<ref>{{cite book |last=Marjoribanks |first=Edward |title=Carson the Advocate |publisher=Macmillan |year=1932 |location=London |page=213 |oclc=679460 |quote=Carson had again and again used the word "pose" with ironic emphasis. |author-link=Edward Marjoribanks (Conservative politician)}}</ref> Carson also tried to justify Queensberry's characterisation by quoting from Wilde's novel, ''The Picture of Dorian Gray'', referring in particular to a scene in the second chapter, in which Lord Henry Wotton explains his decadent philosophy to Dorian, an "innocent young man", in Carson's words.{{sfn|Stern|2017|p=758|ps=. "Carson began by emphasizing that at this point in the novel, Dorian is an 'innocent young man'."}}

Carson then moved to the factual evidence and questioned Wilde about his friendships with lower-class males, some of whom were as young as sixteen when Wilde had met them.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Ross |first=Iain |title='I took pleasure where it pleased me' |journal=The Wildean |volume=55 |pages=90–98 |date=July 2019 |issue=55 |jstor=48569322 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/48569322 |access-date=19 July 2024}}</ref> Wilde admitted being on a first-name basis and lavishing gifts upon them, but insisted that nothing untoward had occurred and that the men were merely good friends of his. Carson repeatedly pointed out the unusual nature of these relationships and insinuated that the men were prostitutes. Wilde replied that he did not believe in social barriers, and simply enjoyed the society of young men. Then Carson asked Wilde directly whether he had ever kissed a certain servant boy, Wilde responded, "Oh, dear no. He was a particularly plain boy&nbsp;– unfortunately ugly&nbsp;– I pitied him for it."{{sfn|Foldy|1997|p=17}} Carson pressed him on the answer, repeatedly asking why the boy's ugliness was relevant. Wilde hesitated, then for the first time became flustered: "You sting me and insult me and try to unnerve me; and at times one says things flippantly when one ought to speak more seriously".{{sfn|Foldy|1997|p=17}}

In his opening speech for the defence, Carson announced that he had located several male prostitutes who were to testify that they had had sex with Wilde. On the advice of his lawyers, Wilde dropped the prosecution. Queensberry was found not guilty, as the court declared that his accusation that Wilde was "posing as a Somdomite {{sic}}" was justified, "true in substance and in fact".{{sfn|Foldy|1997|p=19}} Under the [[Libel Act 1843]], Queensberry's acquittal rendered Wilde legally liable for the considerable expenses Queensberry had incurred in his defence, which left Wilde bankrupt.{{sfn|Foldy|1997|p=150}}

=== ''Regina v Wilde'' ===
After Wilde left the court, a warrant for his arrest was applied for on charges of [[sodomy]] and [[Gross indecency between men|gross indecency]]. [[Robbie Ross]] found Wilde at the Cadogan Hotel,<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000378/18950406/022/0005 |url-access=subscription |title=The Arrest of Oscar Wilde at the Cadogan Hotel |date=6 April 1895 |newspaper=[[Hartlepool Mail]] |access-date=15 May 2021}} Via {{cite web |title=The Arrest of Oscar Wilde at the Cadogan Hotel – 6 April 1895 |url=https://blog.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/2013/04/05/the-arrest-of-oscar-wilde-at-the-cadogan-hotel-6-april-1895/ |website=[[British Newspaper Archive]] |date=5 April 2013 |access-date=27 November 2018 |archive-date=27 November 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181127194250/https://blog.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/2013/04/05/the-arrest-of-oscar-wilde-at-the-cadogan-hotel-6-april-1895/ |url-status=live}}</ref> [[Pont Street]], [[Knightsbridge]], with [[Reginald Turner]]. Both men advised Wilde to go at once to [[Dover]] and try to get a boat to France; his mother advised him to stay and fight. Wilde, lapsing into inaction, could only say, "The train has gone. It's too late."{{sfn|Ellmann|1988|p=455}} On 6 April 1895, Wilde was arrested for "gross indecency" under Section 11 of the [[Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885]], a term meaning homosexual acts not amounting to [[buggery]] (an offence under a separate statute).{{efn|See [[Offences against the Person Act 1861#Unnatural offences|Offences Against the Person Act 1861, ss 61, 62]]}}{{sfn|Hyde|1948|p=5}} At Wilde's instruction, Ross and Wilde's butler forced their way into the bedroom and library of 16 Tite Street, packing some personal effects, manuscripts, and letters.{{sfn|Ellmann|1988|p=429}} Wilde was then imprisoned on remand at [[Holloway (HM Prison)|Holloway]], where he received daily visits from Douglas.

Events moved quickly and his prosecution opened on 26 April 1895, before [[Arthur Charles (judge)|Mr Justice Charles]]. Wilde pleaded [[not guilty (plea)|not guilty]]. He had already begged Douglas to leave London for Paris, but Douglas complained bitterly, even wanting to give evidence; he was pressed to go and soon fled to the Hotel du Monde. Fearing persecution, Ross and many others also left the United Kingdom during this time. Under cross-examination, Wilde was at first hesitant, then spoke eloquently:

{{blockquote|
'''Charles Gill''' (prosecuting): What is "[[the love that dare not speak its name]]"?

'''Wilde:''' "The love that dare not speak its name" in this century is such a great affection of an elder for a younger man as there was between [[David and Jonathan]], such as Plato made the very basis of his philosophy, and such as you find in the sonnets of Michelangelo and Shakespeare. It is that deep spiritual affection that is as pure as it is perfect. It dictates and pervades great works of art, like those of Shakespeare and Michelangelo, and those two letters of mine, such as they are. It is in this century misunderstood, so much misunderstood that it may be described as "the love that dare not speak its name", and on that account of it I am placed where I am now. It is beautiful, it is fine, it is the noblest form of affection. There is nothing unnatural about it. It is intellectual, and it repeatedly exists between an elder and a younger man, when the elder man has intellect, and the younger man has all the joy, hope and glamour of life before him. That it should be so, the world does not understand. The world mocks at it, and sometimes puts one in the pillory for it.
(Loud applause, mingled with some hisses.)<ref>{{cite web |title=Testimony of Oscar Wilde |url=https://famous-trials.com/wilde/342-wildetestimony |website=Famous Trials |publisher=[[University of Missouri–Kansas City School of Law|UMKC School of Law]] |access-date=21 September 2024}}</ref>{{sfn|Ellmann|1988|p=435}}}}

[[File:oscarwildetrial.jpg|thumb|right|upright|alt=A cartoon drawing of Wilde in a crowded courtroom|Wilde in the dock at the [[Old Bailey]], from ''The Illustrated Police News'', 4&nbsp;May 1895]]
This response was counter-productive in a legal sense, for it only served to reinforce the charges of homosexual behaviour. The trial ended with the jury unable to reach a verdict. Wilde's counsel, Sir Edward Clarke, was finally able to get a magistrate to allow Wilde and his friends to post bail.<ref name="oldbailey">{{Old Bailey|defendant=Oscar Fingal O'Fflahartie Wills Wilde, Alfred Waterhouse Somerset Taylor|trialdate=22 April 1895|id= t18950520-425|access-date=22 April 2010}}</ref> The Reverend [[Stewart Headlam]] put up most of the £5,000 surety required by the court, having disagreed with Wilde's treatment by the press and the courts.{{sfn|Foldy|1997|p=40}} Wilde was freed from Holloway and, shunning attention, went into hiding at the house of Ernest and [[Ada Leverson]], two of his firm friends. Edward Carson approached [[Frank Lockwood (politician)|Sir Frank Lockwood]] QC, the [[Solicitor General for England and Wales|Solicitor General]], and asked "Can we not let up on the fellow now?"{{sfn|Ellmann|1988|p=435}} Lockwood answered that he would like to do so, but feared that the case had become too politicised to be dropped.

The final trial was presided over by [[Alfred Wills|Mr Justice Wills]]. On 25 May 1895, Wilde and Alfred Taylor were convicted of gross indecency and sentenced to two years' hard labour.<ref name="oldbailey" /> The judge described the sentence, the maximum allowed, as "totally inadequate for a case such as this", and that the case was "the worst case I have ever tried".{{sfn|Foldy|1997|p=47}} Wilde's response of "And I? May I say nothing, my Lord?" was drowned out in cries of "Shame" in the courtroom.<ref>[http://famous-trials.com/wilde/335-statement Sentencing Statement of Justice Wills] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180326143605/http://famous-trials.com/wilde/335-statement |date=26 March 2018}}.</ref>

Although it is widely believed that the charges were related to Wilde's consensual activities, ''The Trials of Oscar Wilde'', which includes an original transcript of the libel trial (which came to light in 2000), suggests that he took advantage of teenagers.<ref name="Trials">{{cite news |last=Field |first=Marcus |title=Is Oscar Wilde's reputation due for another reassessment? |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/theatre-dance/features/oscar-wilde-facing-retrial-9773718.html |url-status=live |work=[[The Independent]] |date=4 October 2014 |access-date=16 March 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210302134040/https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/theatre-dance/features/oscar-wilde-facing-retrial-9773718.html |archive-date=2 March 2021}}</ref> Antony Edmonds feels that Wilde would have faced prosecution today: "For example, he certainly paid for sex with youths under the age of 18 which is a criminal offence. But even if his activities had led only to exposure and not to arrest, he would have been savagely pilloried in the media. Wilde was 39 when he seduced Alphonse Conway, and Conway was an inexperienced boy of 16". Another teenager who said he had engaged in sex acts with Wilde, Walter Grainger, who was 16 at the time, said Wilde had threatened him with "very serious trouble" if he told anyone about their relationship.<ref name="Trials" /> [[Marriageable age#Modern history|Marriageable age]] (and the age of consent) in England was 16 at the time, having been 13 as recently as 1885: the [[Offences against the Person Act 1875]] raised the age of consent to 13 years old, and a decade later, the [[Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885]] raised the age of consent to 16 years old, just ten years before the trial.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.swarb.co.uk/acts/1885Criminal_Law_AmendmentAct.shtml|title=Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 {{snd}}An Act to make further provision for the Protection of Women and Girls, the suppression of brothels, and other purposes. |date=1885|website=www.swarb.co.uk}}</ref>