robert louis stevenson-第24章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


h　reviews　and　die　　eating　ortolans　…　sich　is　my　aspiration。

〃2。　Dear　lad；　…　If　there　was　any　more　praise　in　what　you　wrote；　I　　think　…　（the　editor　who　had　pruned　down　Mr　Henley's　review　of　　Stevenson's　PRINCE　OTTO）　has　done　us　both　a　service；　some　of　it　　stops　my　throat。　。　。　。　Whether　（considering　our　intimate　relations）　　you　would　not　do　better　to　refrain　from　reviewing　me；　I　will　leave　　to　yourself。〃

And；　lastly；　this　extract　from　the　very　last　of　Stevenson's　letters　　to　Henley；　published　in　the　two　volumes　of　LETTERS：

〃It　is　impossible　to　let　your　new　volume　pass　in　silence。　　I　have　　not　received　the　same　thrill　of　poetry　since　G。　M。's　JOY　OF　EARTH　　volume；　and　LOVE　IN　A　VALLEY；　and　I　do　not　know　that　even　that　was　　so　intimate　and　deep。　。　。　。　I　thank　you　for　the　joy　you　have　given　　me；　and　remain　your　old　friend　and　present　huge　admirer；　R。　L。　S。〃


It　is　difficult　to　decide　on　which　side　in　this　literary　friendship　　lies　the　true　modesty　and　magnanimity？　　I　had　rather　be　the　author　　of　the　last　message　of　R。　L。　Stevenson　to　W。　E。　Henley；　than　of　the　　last　words　of　W。　E。　Henley　concerning　R。　L。　Stevenson。



CHAPTER　XXV　…　MR　CHRISTIE　MURRAY'S　IMPRESSIONS



MR　CHRISTIE　MURRAY；　writing　as　〃Merlin〃　in　our　handbook　in　the　　REFEREE　at　the　time；　thus　disposed　of　some　of　the　points　just　dealt　　with　by　us：


〃Here　is　libel　on　a　large　scale；　and　I　have　purposely　refrained　　from　approaching　it　until　I　could　show　my　readers　something　of　the　　spirit　in　which　the　whole　attack　is　conceived。　　'If　he　wanted　a　　thing　he　went　after　it　with　an　entire　contempt　for　consequences。　　　For　these；　indeed；　the　Shorter　Catechist　was　ever　prepared　to　　answer；　so　that　whether　he　did　well　or　ill；　he　was　safe　to　come　out　　unabashed　and　cheerful。'　　Now　if　Mr　Henley　does　not　mean　that　for　　the　very　express　picture　of　a　rascal　without　a　conscience　he　has　　been　most　strangely　infelicitous　in　his　choice　of　terms；　and　he　is　　one　of　those　who　make　so　strong　a　profession　of　duty　towards　mere　　vocables　that　we　are　obliged　to　take　him　AU　PIED　DE　LA　LETTRE。　　A　　man　who　goes　after　whatever　he　wants　with　an　entire　contempt　of　　consequences　is　a　scoundrel；　and　the　man　who　emerges　from　such　an　　enterprise　unabashed　and　cheerful；　whatever　his　conduct　may　have　　been；　and　justifies　himself　on　the　principles　of　the　Shorter　　Catechism；　is　a　hypocrite　to　boot。　　This　is　not　the　report　we　have　　of　Robert　Louis　Stevenson　from　most　of　those　who　knew　him。　　It　is　a　　most　grave　and　dreadful　accusation；　and　it　is　not　minimised　by　Mr　　Henley's　acknowledgment　that　Stevenson　was　a　good　fellow。　　We　all　　know　the　air　of　false　candour　which　lends　a　disputant　so　much　　advantage　in　debate。　　In　Victor　Hugo's　tremendous　indictment　of　　Napoleon　le　Petit　we　remember　the　telling　allowance　for　fine　　horsemanship。　　It　spreads　an　air　of　impartiality　over　the　most　　mordant　of　Hugo's　pages。　　It　is　meant　to　do　that。　　An　insignificant　　praise　is　meant　to　show　how　a　whole　Niagara　of　blame　is　poured　on　　the　victim　of　invective　in　all　sincerity；　and　even　with　a　touch　of　　reluctance。

〃Mr　Henley；　despite　his　absurdities　of　''Tis'　and　'it　were；'　is　a　　fairly　competent　literary　craftsman；　and　he　is　quite　gifted　enough　　to　make　a　plain　man's　plain　meaning　an　evident　thing　if　he　chose　to　　do　it。　　But　if　for　the　friend　for　whom　'first　and　last　he　did　　share'　he　can　only　show　us　the　figure　of　one　'who　was　at　bottom　an　

excellent　fellow；'　and　who　had　'an　entire　contempt'　for　the　　consequences　of　his　own　acts；　he　presents　a　picture　which　can　only　　purposely　be　obscured。　。　。　。

〃All　I　know　of　Robert　Louis　Stevenson　I　have　learned　from　his　　books；　and　from　one　unexpected　impromptu　letter　which　he　wrote　to　　me　years　ago　in　friendly　recognition　of　my　own　work。　　I　add　the　　testimonies　of　friends　who　may　have　been　of　less　actual　service　to　　him　than　Mr　Henley；　but　who　surely　loved　him　better　and　more　　lastingly。　　These　do　not　represent　him　as　the　victim　of　an　　overweening　personal　vanity；　nor　as　a　person　reckless　of　the　　consequences　of　his　own　acts；　nor　as　a　Pecksniff　who　consoled　　himself　for　moral　failure　out　of　the　Shorter　Catechism。　　The　books　　and　the　friends　amongst　them　show　me　an　erratic　yet　lovable　　personality；　a　man　of　devotion　and　courage；　a　loyal；　charming；　and　　rather　irresponsible　person　whose　very　slight　faults　were　counter…　balanced　many　times　over　by　very　solid　virtues。。。。

〃To　put　the　thing　flatly；　it　is　not　a　heroism　to　cling　to　mere　　existence。　　The　basest　of　us　can　do　that。　　But　it　is　a　heroism　to　　maintain　an　equable　and　unbroken　cheerfulness　in　the　face　of　death。　　　For　my　own　part；　I　never　bowed　at　the　literary　shrine　Mr　Henley　and　　his　friends　were　at　so　great　pains　to　rear。　　I　am　not　disposed　to　　think　more　loftily　than　I　ever　thought　of　their　idol。　　But　the　Man　　…　the　Man　was　made　of　enduring　valour　and　childlike　charm；　and　　these　will　keep　him　alive　when　his　detractors　are　dead　and　buried。〃


As　to　the　Christian　name；　it　is　notorious　that　he　was　christened　　Robert　Lewis　…　the　Lewis　being　after　his　maternal　grandfather　…　Dr　　Lewis　Balfour。　　Some　attempt　has　been　made　to　show　that　the　Louis　　was　adopted　because　so　many　cousins　and　relatives　had　also　been　so　　christened；　but　the　most　likely　explanation　I　have　ever　heard　was　　that　his　father　changed　the　name　to　Louis；　that　there　might　be　no　　chance　through　it　of　any　notion　of　association　with　a　very　　prominent　noisy　person　of　the　name　of　Lewis；　in　Edinburgh；　towards　　whom　Thomas　Stevenson　felt　dislike；　if　not　positive　animosity。　　　Anyhow；　it　is　clear　from　the　entries　in　the　register　of　pupils　at　　the　Edinburgh　Academy；　in　the　two　years　when　Stevenson　was　there；　　that　in　early　youth　he　was　called　Robert　only；　for　in　the　school　　list　for　1862　the　name　appears　as　Robert　Stevenson；　without　the　　Lewis；　while　in　the　1883　list　it　is　given　as　Lewis　Robert　　Stevenson。　　Clearly　if　in　earlier　years　Stevenson　was；　in　his　　family　and　elsewhere；　called　ROBERT；　there　could　have　then　arisen　　no　risk　of　confusion　with　any　of　his　relatives　who　bore　the　name　of　　Lewis；　and　all　this　goes　to　support　the　view　which　I　have　given　　above。　　Anyhow　he　ceased　to　be　called　Robert　at　home；　and　ceased　in　　1863　to　be　Robert　on　the　Edinburgh　Academy　list；　and　became　Lewis　　Robert。　　Whether　my　view　is　right　or　not；　he　was　thenceforward　　called　Louis　in　his　family；　and　the　name　uniformly　spelt　Louis。　　　What　blame　on　Stevenson's　part　could　be　attached　to　this　family　　determination　it　is　hard　to　see　…　people　are　absolutely　free　to　　spell　their　names　as　they　please；　and　the　matter　would　not　be　worth　　a　moment's　attention；　or　the　waste　of　one　drop　of　ink；　had　not　Mr　　Henley　chosen　to　be　very　nasty　about　the　name；　and　in　the　PALL　MALL　　MAGAZINE　article　persisted　in　printing　it　Lewis　as　though　that　were　　worthy　of　him　and　of　it。　　That　was　not　quite　the　unkindest　cut　of　　all；　but　it　was　as　unkind　as　it　was　trumpery。　　Mr　Christie　Murray　　neatly　set　off　the　trumpery　spite　of　this　in　the　following　passage：


〃Stevenson；　it　appears；　according　to　his　friend's　judgment；　was　　'incessantly　and　passionately　interested　in　Stevenson；'　but　most　of　　us　are　incessantly　and　passionately　interested　in　ourselves。　　'He　　could　not　be　in　the　same　room　with　a　mirror　but　he　must　invite　its　　confidences　every　time　he　passed　it。'　　I　remember　that　George　Sala；　　who　was　certainly　under　no　illusion　as　to　his　own　personal　aspect；　　made　public　confession　of　an　identical　foible。　　Mr　Henley　may　not　　have　an　equal　affection　for　the　looking…glass；　but　he　is　a　very　　poor　and　unimaginative　reader　who　does　not　see　him　gloating　over　　the　god…like　proportions　of　the　shadow　he　sends　sprawling　over　his　　own　page。　　I　make　free　to　say　that　a　more　self…conscious　person　　than　Mr　Henley　does　not　live。　　'The　best　and　most　interesting　part　　of　Stevenson's　life　will　never　get　written　…　even　by　me；'　says　Mr　　Henley。

〃There　is　one　curious　little　mark　of　animus；　or　one　equally　curious　　affectation　…　I　do　not　profess　to　know　which；　and　it　is　most　　probably　a　compound　of　the　two　…　in　Mr　Henley's　guardedly　spiteful　　essay　which　asks　for　notice。　　The　dead　novelist　signed　his　second　　name　on　his　title…pages　and　his　private　correspondence　'Louis。'　　Mr　　Henley　spells　it　'Lewis。'　　Is　this　intended　to　say　that　Stevenson　　took　an　ornamenting　liberty　with　his　own　baptismal　appellation？　　If　　so；　why　not　say　the　thing　and　have　done　with　it？　　Or　is　it　one　of　　Mr　Henley's　wilful　ridiculosities？　　It　seems　to　stand　for　some　sort　　of　meaning；　and　to　me；　at　least；　it　offers　a　jarring　hint　of　small　　spitefulness　which　might　go　for　nothing　if　it　were　not　so　well　　borne　out　by　the　general　tone　of　Mr　Henley's　article。　　It　is　a　　small　matter　enough；　God　knows；　but　it　is　precisely　because　it　is　　so　very　small　that　it　irritates。〃



CHAPTER　XXVI　…　HERO…VILLAINS



IN　truth；　it　must　indeed　be　here　repeated　that　Stevenson　for　the　　reason　he　himself　gave　about　DEACON　BRODIE　utterly　fails　in　that　　healthy　hatred　of　〃fools　and　scoundrels〃　on　which　Carlyle　somewhat　　incontinently　dilated。　　Nor　does　he；　as　we　have　seen；　draw　the　line　　between　hero　and　villain　of　the　piece；　as　he　ought　to　have　done；　　and；　even　for　his　own　artistic　purposes；　has　it　too　much　all　on　one　　side；　to　express　it　simply。　　Art　demands　relief　from　any　one　phase　　of　human　nature；　more　especially　of　that　phase；　and　even　from　what　　is　morbid　or　exceptional。　　Admitting　that　such　natures；　say　as　　Huish；　the　cockney；　in　the　EBB…TIDE　on　the　one　side；　and　Prince　　Otto　on　the　other　are　possible；　it　is　yet　absolutely　demanded　that　　they　should　not　stand　ALONE；　but　have　their　due　complement　and　　balance　present　in　the　piece　also　to　deter　and　finally　to　tell　on　　them　in　the　action。　　If　〃a　knave　or　villain；〃　as　George　Eliot　aptly　　said；　is　but　a　fool　with　a　circumbendibus；　this　not　only　wants　to　　be　shown；　but　to　have　that　definite　human　counterpart　and　　corrective；　and　this　not　in　any　indirect　and　perfunctory　way；　but　　in　a　direct　and　effective　sense。　　It　is　here　that　Stevenson　fails　…　　fails　absolutely　in　most　of　his　work；　save　the　very　latest　…　fails；　　as　has　been　shown；　in　THE　MASTER　OF　BALLANTRAE；　as　it　were　almost　　of　perverse　and　set　purpose；　in　lack　of　what　one　might　call　ethical　　decision　which　causes　him　to　waver　or　seem　to　waver　and　wobble　in　　his　judgment　of　his　characters　or　in　his　sympathy　with　them　or　for　　them。　　Thus　he　fails　to　give　his　readers　the　proper　cue　which　was　　his　duty　both　as　man　and　artist　to　have　given。　　The　highest　art　and　　the　lowest　are　indeed　here　at　one　in　demanding　moral　poise；　if　we　　may　call　it　so；　that　however　crudely　in　the　low；　and　however　　artistically　and　refinedly　in　the　high；　vice　should　not　only　not　be　　set　forth　as　absolutely　triumphing；　nor　virtue　as　being　absolutely；　　outwardly；　and　inwardly　defeated。　　It　is　here　the　same　in　the　　melodrama　of　the　transpontine　theatre　as　in　the　tragedies　of　the　　Greek　dramatists　and　Shakespeare。　　〃The　evening　brings　a'　'hame'〃　　and　the　end　ought　to　show　something　to　satisfy　the　innate　craving　　（for　it　is　innate；　thank　Heaven！　and　low　and　high　alike　in　moments　　of　ELEVATED　IMPRESSION；　acknowledge　it　and　bow　to　it）　else　there　　can　scarce　be　true　DENOUEMENT　and　the　sense　of　any　moral　rectitude　　or　law　remain　as　felt　or　acknowledged　in　human　nature　or　in　the　　Universe　itself。

Stevenson's　toleration　and