Richard Ellmann (1918–1987)

‘I have lived. Yes, I have lived. I drank the sweet, I drank the bitter, and I found the bitterness in the sweetness and the sweetness in the bitterness.’

Se amate questo scrittore, non potete assolutissimamente perdervi questa biografia. Sappiate che quando avrete voltato l'ultima pagina, saprete quasi quante volte andava in bagno Mr. Wilde. Il lavoro svolto da Ellmann, infatti, è certosino e accurato, oltre ad aver coperto quasi un ventennio della sua vita.

Detto questo, sappiate che ho impiegato due settimane circa per costringermi a continuare la lettura dal momento che ho letto Lord Douglas. Voi vi chiederete che bisogno ne avessi mai, visto che anche le pietre conoscono per sommi capi le vicende della vita di Wilde. Be', credetemi, non sono mai stata tanto felice di essermi presa del tempo prima di proseguire una lettura. Il fatto è che passa un oceano tra “sapere la biografia per sommi capi” e “conoscere lo strazio che è stato inflitto a quest'uomo”. E dire che ho anche letto il De Profundis. Non si può dire che non fossi preparata (e, infatti, ho optato per prendere fiato prima di sapere).

Il punto è che è difficile oggi non percepire come orribilmente ingiusta la pena inflitta a Wilde, con tutto ciò che ne è seguito. Come per il massacro degli indios nelle Americhe o per la persecuzione dei cristiani nell'antica Roma, la nostra mente ha ben chiaro quanto sia stato sbagliato (o almeno lo è per quelle menti lontane da una particolare forma di stupidità). Questo, infatti, induce Ellmann a commentare, a chiusa della biografia, che Oscar Wilde è più un uomo del nostro tempo che dell'epoca vittoriana.

He belongs to our world more than to Victoria’s. Now, beyond the reach of scandal, his best writings validated by time, he comes before us still, a towering figure, laughing and weeping, with parables and paradoxes, so generous, so amusing, and so right.

Oggi non troveremmo niente di sbagliato nel pretendere che la società ci accetti per come siamo e si vergogni della propria ipocrisia, e anche Wilde era di questo avviso.

He asked it to tolerate aberrations from the norm, such as homosexuality, to give up its hypocrisy both by recognizing social facts and by acknowledging that its principles were based upon hatred rather than love, leading to privation of personality as of art.

Ma la società vittoriana inglese non aveva nessuna intenzione di cedere alla richiesta di Wilde, e sappiamo come è andata a finire. È davvero straziante leggerlo nero su bianco, sia i terribili anni della prigionia (quando malattia e malnutrizione erano scambiati per pigrizia e riluttanza al dovere), sia l'esilio (che a Wilde in alcuni momenti sembrò peggiore dello stesso carcere, quando molti che erano stati suoi amici si voltavano dall'altra parte se lo incrociavano per strada).

His stubbornness, his courage, and his gallantry also kept him there. He had always met adversity head on, to face hostile journalists, moralistic reviewers, and canting, ranting fathers. A man so concerned with his image disdained to think of himself as a fugitive, skulking in dark corners instead of lording it in the limelight. He preferred to be a great figure, doomed by fate and the unjust laws of a foreign country.

The move took place on 21 November, and proved to be the single most humiliating experience of Wilde’s prison life. Handcuffed and in prison clothing, he had to wait on the platform at Clapham Junction from two to half past two on a rainy afternoon. A crowd formed, first laughing and then jeering at him. One man recognized that this was Oscar Wilde, and spat at him. ‘For a year after that was done to me,’ Wilde wrote in De Profundis, ‘I wept every day at the same hour and for the same space of time.’

One warder was assigned to cut his hair, which at Wandsworth had been allowed to grow out a little. ‘Must it be cut?’ asked Wilde, with tears in his eyes; ‘you don’t know what it means to me.’ It was cut.

‘Why do you not write now?’ she asked. ‘Because I have written all there was to write. I wrote when I did not know life, now that I know the meaning of life, I have no more to write.’ Then, less penitently, he said, ‘I have found my soul. I was happy in prison because I found my soul.’ Anna de Brémont felt close to tears, but they had reached the pier, and he said, ‘Contessa, don’t sorrow for me,’ and left her.… (més)

Fascinating and readable critical analysis and synthesis. This book had its origins in lectures Ellmann gave at the Library of Congress in the early 1980s. The theme seems to be the way in which each writer dealt with contradictions in their lives and work. I knew the least about Beckett beforehand and consequently learned a lot about him. I knew the most about Yeats, but my favourite chapters were those on Wilde and Joyce. Contains some mature language (how could it not with these modernists?) and outdated language ('commit suicide') but definitely worth reading for those interested in art and its creation, Irish literature and drama, European history 1850-1980.

Strangely, the title has nothing to do with the analysis. The author spends no time on Dublin's effect on the writers and does talk about their time away from Ireland - Wilde at Oxford, Yeats in London and the south of France, Joyce and Beckett in Paris. A better would have been 'Four Irishmen at Home and Abroad'.

If the book were extended after Wilde (b. 1854), Yeats (b. 1865), Joyce (b. 1882), and Beckett (b. 1906) to bring the literary tradition up to today, who might be included? Maybe Behan (b. 1923), Heaney (b. 1939), Patrick McCabe (b. 1955), and Martin MacDonaugh (b. 1970)?… (més)