Rohut Louis Stevens i F there be a writer of our language, at the present moment, who has the effect of making us forget the extinction of the pleasant fashion of the literary portrait, it is certainly the bright particular genius whose name is written at the head of these remarks. Mr. Stevenson fairly challenges portraiture, as we pass him on the highway of literature (if that be the road, rather than some wandering, sun-checkered by-lane that he may be said to follow), just as the possible model, in local attire, challenges the painter who wanders through the streets of a foreign town looking for subjects. He gives us new ground to wonder why the effort to fix a face and figure, to seize a literary character and transfer it to the canvas of the critic, should have fallen into such discredit among us and have given way to the mere multiplication of little private judgment-seats, where the scales and the judicial wig, both of them considerably awry and not rendered more august by the company of a vicious-looking switch, have taken the place, as the symbols of office, of the kindly, disinterested palette and brush. It has become the fashion to be effective at the expense of the sitter, to make some little point, or inflict some little dig, with a heated party air, rather than to catch a talent in the fact, follow its line, and put a finger on its essence; so that the exquisite art of criticism, smothered in grossness, finds itself turned into a question of "sides." The critic industriously keeps his score, but it is seldom to be hoped that the author, criminal though he may be, will be apprehended by justice through the handbills given out in the case; for it is of the essence of a happy description that it shall have been preceded by a happy observation and a free curiosity; and desuetude, as we say, has overtaken these amiable, uninvidious faculties, which have not the advantage of organs and chairs. I hasten to add that it is not the purpose of these few pages to restore their luster, or to bring back the more penetrating vision of which we lament the disappearance. No individual can bring it back, for the light that we look at things by is, after all, made by all of us. It is sufficient to note, in passing, that if Mr. Stevenson had presented himself in an age or in a country of portraiture, the paint VOL. XXXV.-118. ers would certainly each have had a turn at him. The easels and benches would have bristled, the circle would have been close, and quick, from the canvas to the sitter, the rising and falling of heads. It has happened to all of us to have gone into a studio, a studio of pupils, and seen the thick cluster of bent backs and the conscious model in the midst. It has happened to us to be struck, or not to be struck, with the beauty or the symmetry of this personage, and to have made some remark which, whether expressing admiration or disappointment, has elicited from one of the attentive workers the exclamation, "Character character is what he has!" These words may be applied to Mr. Robert Louis Stevenson: in the language of that art which depends most on observation, character -character is what he has. He is essentially a model, in the sense of a sitter; I do not mean, of course, in the sense of a pattern or a guiding light. And if the figures who have a life in literature may also be divided into two great classes, we may add that he is conspicuously one of the draped; he would never, if I may be allowed the expression, pose for the nude. There are writers who present themselves before the critic with just the amount of drapery that is necessary for decency, but Mr. Stevenson is not one of these; he makes his appearance in an amplitude of costume. His costume is part of the character of which I just now spoke; it never occurs to us to ask how he would look without it. Before all things he is a writer with a style — a model with a complexity of curious and picturesque garments. It is by the cut and the color of this rich and becoming frippery-I use the term endearingly, as a painter might - that he arrests the eye and solicits the brush. That is, frankly, half the charm he has for us, that he wears a dress and wears it with courage, with a certain cock of the hat and tinkle of the supererogatory sword; or, in other words, that he is curious of expression, and regards the literary form not simply as a code of signals, but as the keyboard of a piano and as so much plastic material. He has that vice deplored by Mr. Herbert Spencer, a mannera manner for a manner's sake, it may sometimes doubtless be said. He is as different as possible from the sort of writer who regards words as numbers and a page as the mere addition of them; much more, to carry out our image, the dictionary stands for him as a wardrobe, been indifferent to such a danger constitutes and a proposition as a button for his coat. Mr. in itself an originality. How few they are in William Archer, in an article so gracefully number and how soon we could name them, and ingeniously turned that the writer may the writers of English prose, at the present almost be accused of imitating even while he moment, the quality of whose prose is perdeprecates, speaks of him as a votary of "light- sonal, expressive, renewed at each attempt! ness of touch" at any cost, and remarks that The state of things that would have been ex"he is not only philosophically content, but pected to be the rule has become the excep deliberately resolved, that his readers shall tion, and an exception for which, most of the look first to his manner and only in the sec- time, an apology appears to be thought necesond place to his matter." I shall not attempt sary. A mill that grinds with regularity and to gainsay this; I cite it rather, for the pres- with a certain commercial fineness-that is ent, because it carries out my own sense. Mr. the image suggested by the manner of a good Stevenson delights in a style, and his own has many of the fraternity. They turn out an arnothing accidental or diffident; it is eminently ticle for which there is a demand, they keep conscious of its responsibilities and meets them a shop for a specialty, and the business is with a kind of gallantry — as if language were carried on in accordance with a useful, wella pretty woman and a person who proposes tested prescription. It is just because he has to handle it had, of necessity, to be something no specialty that Mr. Stevenson is an indiof a Don Juan. This element of the gallant is vidual, and because his curiosity is the only a noticeable part of his nature, and it is rather receipt by which he produces. Each of his odd that, at the same time, a striking feature books is an independent effort—a window of that nature should be an absence of care opened to a different view. "Dr. Jekyll and for things feminine. His books are for the Mr. Hyde" is as dissimilar as possible from most part books without women, and it is not "Treasure Island"; "Virginibus Puerisque " women who fall most in love with them. But has nothing in common with "The New AraMr. Stevenson does not need, as we may say, bian Nights," and I should never have supa petticoat to inflame him; a happy colloca- posed "A Child's Garden of Verses" to be tion of words will serve the purpose, or a sin- from the hand of the author of "Prince Otto." gular image, or the bright eye of a passing conceit, and he will carry off a pretty paradox without so much as a scuffle. The tone of letters is in him - the tone of letters as distinct from that of philosophy or of those industries whose uses are supposed to be immediate. Many readers, no doubt, consider that he carries it too far; they manifest an impatience for some glimpse of his moral message. They may be heard to ask what it is he proposes to deduce, to prove, to establish, with such a variety of paces and graces. The main thing that he establishes, to my own perception, is that it is a delight to read him and that he renews this delight by a constant variety of experiment. Of this anon, however; and meanwhile it may be noted as a curious characteristic of current fashions that the writer whose effort is perceptibly that of the artist is very apt to find himself thrown on the defensive. A work of literature is a form, but the author who betrays a consciousness of the responsibilities involved in this circumstance not rarely perceives himself to be regarded as an uncanny personage. The usual judgment is that he may be artistic, but that he must not be too much so; that way, apparently, lies something worse than madness. This queer superstition has so successfully imposed itself that the mere fact of having "R. L. Stevenson: his Style and Thought." "The [London] Times," November, 1885. Though Mr. Stevenson cares greatly for his phrase, as every writer should who respects himself and his art, it takes no very attentive reading of his volumes to show that it is not what he cares for most, and that he regards an expressive style only, after all, as a means. It seems to me the fault of Mr. Archer's interesting paper that it suggests too much that the author of these volumes considers the art of expression as an end—a game of words. He finds that Mr. Stevenson is not serious, that he neglects a whole side of life, that he has no perception, and no consciousness, of suffering; that he speaks as a happy but heartless pagan, living only in his senses (which the critic admits to be exquisitely fine), and that, in a world full of heaviness, he is not sufficiently aware of the philosophic limitations of mere technical skill. (In sketching these aberrations Mr. Archer himself, by the way, displays anything but ponderosity of hand.) He is not the first reader, and he will not be the last, who shall have been irritated by Mr. Stevenson's jauntiness. That jauntiness is an essential part of his genius; but, to my sense, it ceases to be irritating-it indeed becomes positively touching, and constitutes an appeal to sympathy and even to tenderness-when once one has perceived what lies beneath the dancing-tune to which he mostly moves. Much as he cares for his phrase he cares more for life, and for a certain transcendently lovable part of it. He feels, as it seems to us, and that is not given to every one; this constitutes a philosophy which Mr. Archer fails to read between his lines the respectable, desirable moral which many a reader doubtless finds that he neglects to point. He does not feel everything equally, by any manner of means; but his feelings are always his reasons; he regards them, whatever they may be, as sufficiently honorable, does not disguise them in other names or colors, and looks at whatever he meets in the brilliant candle-light that they shed. As in his extreme artistic vivacity he seems really disposed to try everything, he has tried once, by way of a change, to be inhuman, and there is a hard glitter about "Prince Otto" which seems to indicate that in this case, too, he has succeeded, as he has done in most of the feats that he has attempted. But "Prince Otto" is even less like his other productions than his other productions are like each other. The part of life that he cares for most is youth, and the direct expression of the love of youth is the beginning and the end of his message. His appreciation of this delightful period amounts to a passion; and a passion, in the age in which we live, strikes us, on the whole, as a sufficient philosophy. It ought to satisfy Mr. Archer, and there are writers graver than Mr. Stevenson on whose behalf no such moral motive can be alleged. Mingled with his almost equal love of a literary surface it represents a real originality. This combination is the key-note of Mr. Stevenson's faculty and the explanation of his perversities. The feelings of one's teens, and even of an earlier period (for the delights of crawling, and almost of the rattle, are embodied in "A Child's Garden of Verses"), and the feeling for happy turns these, in the last analysis (and his sense of a happy turn is of the subtlest), are the corresponding halves of his character. If "Prince Otto" and "Dr. Jekyll" left me a clearer field for the assertion, I should say that everything he has written is a direct apology for boyhood; or rather (for it must be confessed that Mr. Stevenson's tone is seldom apologetic) a direct rhapsody on the age of little jackets. Even members of the very numerous class who have held their breath over "Treasure Island" may shrug their shoulders at this account of the author's religion; but it is none the less a great pleasure-the highest reward of observation - to put one's hand on a rare illustration, and Mr. Stevenson is certainly rare. What makes him so is the singular maturity of the expression that he has given to young sentiments; he judges them, measures them, sees them from the outside, as well as entertains them. He describes credulity with all the resources of experience, and represents a crude stage with infinite ripeness. In a word, he is an artist accomplished even to sophistication, whose constant theme is the unsophisticated. Sometimes, as in "Kidnapped," the art is so ripe that it lifts even the subject into the general air; the execution is so serious that the idea (the idea of a boy's romantic adventures) becomes a matter of universal relations. What he prizes most in the boy's ideal is the imaginative side of it, the capacity for successful make-believe. The general freshness in which this is a part of the gloss seems to him the divinest thing in life; considerably more divine, for instance, than the passion usually regarded as the supremely tender one. The idea of making believe appeals to him much more than the idea of making love. That delightful little book of rhymes, the "Child's Garden," commemorates, from beginning to end, the picturing, personifying, dramatizing faculty of infancy, the view of life from the level of the nursery-fender. The volume is a wonder, for the extraordinary vividness with which it reproduces early impressions; a child might have written it if a child could see childhood from the outside, for it would seem that only a child is really near enough to the nursery-floor. And what is peculiar to Mr. Stevenson is that it is his own childhood he appears to delight in, and not the personal presence of little darlings. Oddly enough, there is no strong implication that he is fond of babies; he does n't speak as a parent, or an uncle, or an educator — he speaks as a contemporary absorbed in his own game. That game is almost always a vision of dangers and triumphs; and if emotion, with him, infallibly resolves itself into memory, so memory is an evocation of throbs and thrills and suspense. He has given to the world the romance of boyhood, as others have produced that of the peerage, the police, and the medical profession. This amounts to saying that what he is most curious of in life is heroism,- personal gallantry, if need be, with a manner, or a banner,- though he is also abundantly capable of enjoying it when it is artless. The delightful exploits of Jim Hawkins, in "Treasure Island," are unaffectedly performed; but none the less "the finest action is the better for a piece of purple," as the author remarks in the paper on "The English Admirals," in "Virginibus Puerisque "- a paper of which the moral is, largely, that "we learn to desire a grand air in our heroes; and such a knowledge of the human stage as shall make them put the dots on their own i's and leave us in no suspense as to when they mean to be heroic." The love of brave words as well as brave deeds which is simply Mr. Stevenson's essential love of style-is recorded in this little paper with a charming, slightly sophistical ingenuity. "They served their guns merrily, when it came to fighting, and they had the readiest ear for a bold, honorable sentiment of any class of men the world ever produced." The author goes on to say that most men of high destinies have even highsounding names. Alan Breck, in "Kidnapped," is a wonderful picture of the union of courage and swagger; the little Jacobite adventurer, a figure worthy of Scott at his best, and representing the highest point that Mr. Stevenson's talent has reached, shows us that a marked taste for tawdry finery-tarnished and tattered, some of it, indeed, by ticklish occasions is quite compatible with a perfectly high mettle. Alan Breck is, at bottom, a study of the love of glory, carried out with extreme psychological truth. When the love of glory is of an inferior order, the reputation is cultivated rather than the opportunity; but when it is a pure passion, the opportunity is cultivated for the sake of the reputation. Mr. Stevenson's kindness for adventurers extends even to the humblest of all, the mountebank and the strolling player, or even the peddler whom he declares that in his foreign travels he is habitually taken for, as we see in the whimsical apology for vagabonds which winds up "An Inland Voyage." The hungry conjurer, the gymnast whose maillot is loose, have something of the glamour of the hero, inasmuch as they, too, pay with their person. To be even one of the outskirters of art leaves a fine stamp on a man's countenance.... That is the kind of thing that reconciles me to life; a ragged, tip. pling. incompetent old rogue, with the manners of a gentleman and the vanity of an artist, to keep up his self-respect! What reconciles Mr. Stevenson to life is the idea that in the first place it offers the widest field that we know of for odd doings, and that in the second these odd doings are the best of pegs to hang a sketch in three lines or a paradox in three pages. As it is not odd, but extremely usual, to marry, he deprecates that course in "Virginibus Puerisque," the collection of short essays which is most a record of his opinions-that is, largely, of his likes and dislikes. It all comes back to his sympathy with the juvenile, and that feeling about life which leads him to regard women as so many superfluous girls in a boy's game. They are almost wholly absent from his pages (the main exception is "Prince Otto," though there is a Clara apiece in "The Rajah's Diamond" and "The Pavilion on the Links"), for they don't like ships and pistols and fights; they encumber the decks and require separate apartments; and, almost worst of all, have not the highest literary standard. Why should a person marry, when he might be swinging a cutlass or looking for a buried treasure? Why should he go to the altar when he might be polishing his prose? It is one of those curious, and, to my sense, fascinating inconsistencies that we encounter in Mr. Stevenson's mind that, though he takes such an interest in the childish life, he takes no interest in the fireside. He has an indulgent glance for it in the verses of the "Garden," but to his view the normal child is the child who absents himself from the family-circle, in fact when he can, in imagination when he cannot, in the disguise of a buccaneer. Girls don't do this, and women are only grown-up girls, unless it be the delightful maiden, fit daughter of an imperial race, whom he commemorates in "An Inland Voyage." A girl at school in France began to describe one of our regiments on parade to her French schoolmates; and as she went on, she told me the recollection grew so vivid, she became so proud to be the Countrywoman of such soldiers, and so sorry to be in another country, that her voice failed her, and she burst into tears. I have never forgotten that girl, and I think she very nearly deserves a statue. To call her a young lady, with all its niminy associations, would be to offer her an insult. She may rest assured of one thing, although she never should marry a heroic general, never see any great or immediate result of her life, she will not have lived in vain for her native land. There is something of that in Mr. Stevenson. When he begins to describe a British regiment on parade (or something of that sort) he, too, almost breaks down for emotion, which is why I have been careful to traverse the insinuation that he is primarily a chiseler of prose. If things had gone differently with him (I must permit myself this allusion to his personal situation, and I shall venture to follow it with two or three others), he might have been an historian of famous campaigns—a great painter of battle-pieces. Of course, however, in this capacity it would not have done for him to break down for emotion. Although he remarks that marriage "is a field of battle, and not a bed of roses," he points out repeatedly that it is a terrible renunciation, and somehow, in strictness, incompatible even with honor-the sort of roving, trumpeting honor that appeals most to his sympathy. After that step there are no more by-path meadows where you may innocently linger, but the road lies long and straight and dusty to the grave. You may think you had a conscience and believed in God; but what is a conscience to a wife?.... To marry is to domesticate the Recording Angel. Once you are married, there is nothing left for you, not even suicide, but to be good. How, then, in such an atmosphere of compromise, to keep honor bright and abstain from base capitulations?. . . The proper qualities of each sex are, in ... |
