As Stephen observes about Einstein and Wilde as symbols: "it is the life of the mind that will free the world. We want to penetrate the nature of the universe and understand the nature of our own humanity.”
Stephen Fry is such a good guy. In the 1990s he played Oscar Wilde in the movie Oscar Wilde. If you appreciate Oscar Wilde definetly see that movie. He's superb as Oscar.
He never "came out" in the usual sense. He was forced out.In the court cases he consistently denied it all. He committed perjury. I would in no way defend the odious law under which Wilde was prosecuted, but he acted very badly where his wife and sons were concerned and didn't seem to consider the consequences of what he was doing for them. And he was an intelligent educated man who knew what he was about - as he said "feasting with panthers."
Yea but life back then was so very different. Homosexuality was still considered against the law, and if you wanted to have a family with children you pretty much had to do it the traditional way.
Well don't worry about them. They won't worry about you. Unless you think you may be on the path way of Bohemian Sodomy then you worrying about them may be your lifestyle choice.
Did Oscar regret them? He was certainly still carrying on regardless in France. The fate of his poor wife and family is so sad - she pre-deceaserd him by 2 years.
The eldest son, Cyril Holland, joined the British Army and made it to captain, but was killed at Neuve-Chapelle in 1915 during the Great War. His younger brother Vyvyan managed better, surviving the war, winning an OBE, becoming a successful author and translator thereafter, and living to the age of 80. There's a grandson named Merlin Holland, who has become a recognized scholar on the life of Oscar Wilde.
Its a bit of a false dichotomy between Karl Marx as a revolutionary and Wilde as purely a 'great mind' given that Wilde was a socialist revolutionary and Karl Marx a great writer and beautiful mind.
Nothing beautiful about Marxist world with out any one other thanCommunists unless you are a Marxist Communist. But how would a Marxist Communist fare in a court of law with a jury of non Marxist Communist if those Jurists were informed that Karl's Marxists believe in the total elimination of every person on earth who is not a Communist Marxists. Not beautiful at all.
@@MikeGreenwood51 many, many gay men and lesbians and obviously bisexuals would have married at the time. this was a time when the words and concepts around heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual were just about to be coined and hadn't yet become the basic knowledge they are today. there were certainly people who had the orientations we would now call straight, gay, lesbian, bi, or maybe even asexual, but they didn't have the language or identity of any of those things. one was seen, no matter their true orientation, of being able to 'do' any of these things. there were no set sexual identities yet, so maybe he didn't understand that he was gay. even if he knew he liked guys, one would still marry because of social pressure. it still happens (way less commonly) today! people will get into relationships based on what is expected of them, and then realize they're gay later on. if he was really into his wife, but also guys, then at the very least he would have been bisexual. so what I'm trying to say is, you don't make sense.
@@llewyn506 that person is just plain dumb if they're suggesting that. i mean most if not all gay/lesbian people did get married back then because of social pressure and lack of language and understanding of the idea of sexual orientation despite the feelings people had always existing: aka the caragorys of straight/gay/bi or asexual people. even the terms heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual (except for in reference to intersex plants) didn't exist just yet. even if he understood he was into guys, that was highly illegal so he had to put up a front. some people STILL do that so how would a man in the 1800s not have? hell, even if he was into his wife he couldn't have 'turned gay'. that would have just made him a bisexual lol, but that's apparently a difficult concept for some, despite being a relatively simple explanation. one thing does not negate the other. but even then, like i said, social pressure made people made people marry people they weren't attracted to. the above commenter doesn't seem go get that lol.
@@rageagainstthemicrowave1313 did u mean this comment for michael? because i totally agree w everything you’ve written and its always so fun and incredibly interesting to discuss! & in case u meant to reply to me, i was only using gay in this comment thread because the other two were and i didnt feel it would help get my point across if i brought that up, but either way thank u for bringing it up, genuinely:)
You mean on his death bed he converted to Catholicism and greatly regretted his homosexual excesses because of the harm it caused his life and himself? Is that what you mean? Because I don't think that counts. And of course he lied to his wife!? Considering the amount of hostility and the life destruction that befell him upon his 'coming' out. You realise homosexuality was illegal at the time? You are a fool sir/madame for thinking less of Wilde for his short-comings. After all he was human.
Relevant as in people give a damn about him? No. Relevant as in his claims are more accurate than ever? Possibly, but that is just because he never was accurate at all.
Oscar Wilde can only be judged by his own actions and the words he used to justify those actions . so say you were being abused as a boy by a man and nobody will listen to you because you're abuser is "respected" in the community . now we come to Wilde's flippant quip . " Little boys should be obscene and not heard " How funny does that sound now ?
@Sam That’s simply not true. Wilde showed a deep interest in Catholic conversion throughout his adult life which is well documented including a private papal audience.
@Sam Oh, and Lord Alfred Douglas also converted to Catholicism, and not to mimic Wilde, and was very devout until his death. Fry will never admit such, though he knows it - he is a liar - but the truth will set you free.
@Sam He had attempted a formal conversion and acceptance into the Church before but to his great dismay was rejected. In a sense he was already Catholic, most likely baptised as a child, and he was not to be denied a conditional baptism and the sacraments at his death. You seem to be speculating about Wilde - there is no need to do so, his lifetime interest in Catholicism is no secret. It is wrong to suggest that it was merely a deathbed affair or a sort of late hedging of bets. It is much more the case that Wilde, such as Augustine, had prayed for God to make him holy but not yet. He was profoundly aware that his lifestyle had for long been amiss and prevented formal acceptance into the Church. He had frequently engaged in pederasty through prostitution in London and even paedophilia in Morocco. He had for several years given himself entirely over to his lust but he never saw that other than temporary and depraved. It was never to be his final destination; it was not.
@Sam Do you find pederasty abominable? The desire is clearly naturally occurring; it commonly features in antiquity. It has clearly presented itself within the Catholic clergy to great detriment and scandal. It was clearly practiced by Oscar Wilde. This is ‘the love that dare not speak its name’ - pederasty. Now it is the truth that dare not be spoken.
@Sam I’m not tiptoeing around anything. If there is anything I’ve not been factual in proclaiming, please let me know. You did not answer the question whether you thought pederasty (the sexual attraction and physical engagement of men with teenage boys) abominable or not, though the attraction is of course naturally occurring. The Church does not condemn the attraction, although it sees it as disordered, but condemns the practice. That said, many Catholic priests have engaged in it, as we know, to great detriment, suffering and scandal.
Pretty shitty assessment of Marx there. Wilde and Einstein were both socialists, and Marx explicitly rejected any kind of messianic, Great Man theory of history. Furthermore, the USSR was had been critiqued by left communists since the 1920s and analyzed as a capitalist welfare state. A bit disappointing from someone as well-read as Stephen Fry. Otherwise a pretty good lecture.
