The Libel Trial of Oscar Wilde

Who is Oscar Wilde? 

Oscar Wilde was a brilliant author, poet, and playwright. He experienced the peak of his popularity in the 1890s nearing the end of the Victorian era. He defined the Victorian era and captured the attention of the public with his gothic literature as seen in The Picture of Dorian Gray, his entertaining comedies such as The Importance of Being Earnest and Lady Windermere’s Fan, and his flamboyant style. He defied many expectations for the period which we now know as stiff and prudish and stirred up quite a controversy for his unconventional art and adherence to the aesthetics movement. The primary controversy of his day, and how many recognize his name now, was his homosexuality trial and jail sentence. 

Homosexuality Laws in England

Sodomy first became a civil offense punishable by death in 1533 and remained a capital offense in England until 1828. Throughout the rest of the century (and into the next), sodomy was still illegal, but instead punishable by imprisonment rather than death. Interestingly enough, by the late 1800s, these sodomy laws were hardly enforced (Linder). This is for two main reasons. 

Firstly, the Victorians found sexual discussion, especially homosexual sexual discussion, to be crude and and wished for it to be kept out of the public sphere. They believed talk of homosexuality “defiled” the public and “tainted” the minds of youths (Adut 222). Journalists referred to homosexuality as the “nameless crime.” Legal scholar of the time Sir William Blackstone wrote, “I will not act so disagreeable a part, to my readers as well as to myself, as to dwell longer upon a subject the very mention of which is a disgrace to the human nature. It will be more eligible to imitate . . . the delicacy of our English law, which treats it in its very indictments as a crime not fit to be named.” 

Secondly, if the police were to enforce all of these sodomy laws, a lot of powerful Victorians would have been incriminated. For example, In 1889, a male brothel was discovered by law enforcement. The clientele of this male brothel happened to include many famous London aristocrats. The lord chancellor wrote a memorandum advising that no legal action be taken. He wrote to the treasury solicitor: “The social position of some of the parties will make a great sensation and this will give very wide publicity and consequently will spread very extensively the matter of which I am satisfied will produce enormous evil,” (Adut 225).

The Facts of the Case

In 1891, Oscar Wilde met the prolific poet Lord Alfred Douglas at a party and formed an instant connection. The two later began a relationship which would last between three and four years. It was fairly well known in London that Wilde was a gay man. Speculation of his sexuality was passed back and forth amongst artists and actors, but kept mainly within the realm of gossip. By the end of the 1880s, Wilde was sporting a green carnation boutonnie`re— a symbol of homosexuality in France at the time (Adut 227). While Wilde’s homosexuality was well known and ignored by the general public, Lord Alfred Douglas’ sexuality was not. 

Douglas was the son of a noble in London– the Marquess of Queensbury. When Queensbury learned of his son’s affair with Wilde, he was furious. Queensbury threatened his son after he learned of the relationship with Wilde and wrote: “If I catch you again with that man, I will make a public scandal in a way you little dream of.” On February 18, 1895, Queensberry came to the private Albermarle Club to which Wilde belonged and left an insulting note. Queensbury intended to write, “To Oscar Wilde posing as a sodomite”, but mispelled his insult and wrote “To Oscar Wilde, ponce and sondomite.” This was one of the first times that Wilde had been openly called out as a homosexual, and intended to get ahead of the incoming scandal that he sensed. So, he set out to sue Queensbury for libel (Adut 230).

Wilde’s friends encouraged him to drop the lawsuit, but Wilde was sure that he would win the trial and crush all negative speculation of his homosexuality. This optimism was quickly crushed when Queensbury’s lawyer began to bring in witnesses who claimed they had engaged in sexual relations with Wilde. Queensbury’s lawyer completely shocked Wilde and interrogated him with the names of various men, letters to Lord Alfred Douglas, and passages of his own poetry and The Picture of Dorian Gray. Fearing that the libel trial would expose his homosexuality, Wilde withdrew his case, but it was too late. A warrant had already been put out for his arrest (Linder).

Works Cited:

Adut, Ari. “A Theory of Scandal: Victorians, Homosexuality, and the Fall of Oscar Wilde.” American Journal of Sociology, vol. 111, no. 1, 2005, pp. 213–48. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.1086/428816. Accessed 22 Sep. 2022.

Linder, Douglas O. “The Trials of Oscar Wilde: An Account.” Famous Trials, UMKC School of Law, 1995, https://famous-trials.com/wilde/327-home. 

Schulz, David. “Redressing Oscar: Performance and the Trials of Oscar Wilde.” TDR (1988-), vol. 40, no. 2, 1996, pp. 37–59. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1146528. Accessed 22 Sep. 2022.

Link to Podcast: https://drive.google.com/file/d/16S-zwn7pnpWrdmG0WJkeLgp1eUd-8qTg/view?usp=sharing

Final Thoughts:

The Oscar Wilde libel trial emerged at a time where conservatism prevailed and individuality was suppressed in virtually every way possible. The Victorians were a group who shamed topics which were supposedly ghastly and immoral, but deeply craved what they oppressed. When a person indulged in a desire that they had deemed unsightly, a media spectacle and public shaming sensation was a way to engage with these desires while still maintaining a moral image. I view the Oscar Wilde trial as a prime example of this: repressed sexuality bubbling under the surface for decades and turning into an enormous spectacle. Oscar Wilde was a scapegoat for the Victorian homosexual. He was also a scapegoat for the Victorian who repressed their sexual selves, who sought art in different forms, and who pushed the status quo. This trial was as sensational as it was because of the moral oppression practiced by the Victorians and the hidden lives which many refused to acknowledge– it is easier to reveal one person’s secrets than everyone’s secrets, and to convince yourself that you can remain hidden.

This trial– the events, the transcripts, the witness testimony– all seem absurd to us because our morals have evolved in such a way that we can never imagine this being a reality. While the absurdity can be laughable, it is important to reflect on our history as well as our present lives and ask: why is this sensational to us? What hidden aspect of ourselves does this engage with?