f the English. So far from encouraging
it, you should set yourself against it, and should try to teach your
critics to recognise the essential difference between art and life.

The gentleman who criticised my book is in a perfectly hopeless confusion
about it, and your attempt to help him out by proposing that the subject-
matter of art should be limited does not mend matters. It is proper that
limitation should be placed on action. It is not proper that limitation
should be placed on art. To art belong all things that are and all
things that are not, and even the editor of a London paper has no right
to restrain the freedom of art in the selection of subject-matter. I now
trust, Sir, that these attacks on me and on my book will cease. There
are forms of advertisement that are unwarranted and unwarrantable.--I am,
Sir, your obedient servant,

OSCAR WILDE.

16 TITE STREET, S. W., June 27.

IV. (St. James's Gazette, June 30, 1890.)

To the Editor of the St. James's Gazette.

SIR,--In your issue of this evening you publish a letter from 'A London
Editor' which clearly insinuates in the last paragraph that I have in
some way sanctioned the circulation of an expression of opinion, on the
part of the proprietors of Lippincott's Magazine, of the literary and
artistic value of my story of The Picture of Dorian Gray.

Allow me, Sir, to state that there are no grounds for this insinuation. I
was not aware that any such document was being circulated; and I have
written to the agents, Messrs. Ward and Lock--who cannot, I feel sure, be
primarily responsible for its appearance--to ask them to withdraw it at
once. No publisher should ever express an opinion of the value of what
he publishes. That is a matter entirely for the literary critic to
decide.

I must admit, as one to whom contemporary literature is constantly
submitted for criticism, that the only thing that ever prejudices me
against a book is the lack of literary style; but I can quite understand
how any ordinary critic would be strongly prejudiced against a work that
was accompanied by a premature and unnecessary panegyric from the
publisher. A publisher is simply a useful middleman. It is not for him
to anticipate the verdict of criticism.

I may, however, while expressing my thanks to the 'London Editor' for
drawing my attention to this, I trust, purely American method of
procedure, venture to differ from him in one of his criticisms. He
sta