robert louis stevenson-第31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！
behind all Stevenson's work。 Some have even said； that because of this； he will finally live by his essays and not by his stories。 That is extreme； and is not critically based or justified； because； however true it may be up to a certain point； it is not true of Stevenson's quite latest fictions where we see a decided breaking through of the old limits； and an advance upon a new and a fresher and broader sphere of interest and character altogether。 But these ideas set down truly enough at a certain date； or prior to a certain date； are wrong and falsely directed in view of Stevenson's latest work and what it promised。 For instance； what a discerning and able writer in the EDINBURGH REVIEW of July 1895 said truly then was in great part utterly inapplicable to the whole of the work of the last years； for in it there was grasp； wide and deep； of new possibilities … promise of clear insight； discrimination； and contrast of character； as well as firm hold of new and great human interest under which the egotistic or autobiographic vein was submerged or weakened。 The EDINBURGH REVIEWER wrote：
〃There was irresistible fascination in what it would be unfair to characterise as egotism； for it came natural to him to talk frankly and easily of himself。 。 。 。 He could never have dreamed； like Pepys； of locking up his confidence in a diary。 From first to last； in inconsecutive essays； in the records of sentimental touring； in fiction and in verse； he has embodied the outer and the inner autobiography。 He discourses … he prattles … he almost babbles about himself。 He seems to have taken minute and habitual introspection for the chief study in his analysis of human nature； as a subject which was immediately in his reach； and would most surely serve his purpose。 We suspect much of the success of his novels was due to the fact that as he seized for a substructure on the scenery and situations which had impressed him forcibly； so in the characters of the most different types； there was always more or less of self…portraiture。 The subtle touch； eminently and unmistakably realistic； gave life to what might otherwise have seemed a lay…figure。 。 。 。 He hesitated again and again as to his destination； and under mistakes； advice of friends； doubted his chances； as a story…writer； even after TREASURE ISLAND had enjoyed its special success。 。 。 。 We venture to think that； with his love of intellectual self…indulgence； had he found novel…writing really enjoyable； he would never have doubted at all。 But there comes in the difference between him and Scott； whom he condemns for the slovenliness of hasty workmanship。 Scott； in his best days； sat down to his desk and let the swift pen take its course in inspiration that seemed to come without an effort。 Even when racked with pains； and groaning in agony； the intellectual machinery was still driven at a high pressure by something that resembled an irrepressible instinct。 Stevenson can have had little or nothing of that inspiriting afflatus。 He did his painstaking work conscientiously； thoughtfully； he erased； he revised； and he was hard to satisfy。 In short； it was his weird … and he could not resist it … to set style and form before fire and spirit。〃
CHAPTER XXIV … MR HENLEY'S SPITEFUL PERVERSIONS
MORE unfortunate still； as disturbing and prejudicing a sane and true and disinterested view of Stevenson's claims； was that article of his erewhile 〃friend；〃 Mr W。 E。 Henley； published on the appearance of the MEMOIR by Mr Graham Balfour； in the PALL MALL MAGAZINE。 It was well that Mr Henley there acknowledged frankly that he wrote under a keen sense of 〃grievance〃 … a most dangerous mood for the most soberly critical and self…restrained of men to write in； and that most certainly Mr W。 E。 Henley was not … and that he owned to having lost contact with； and recognition of the R。 L。 Stevenson who went to America in 1887； as he says； and never came back again。 To do bare justice to Stevenson it is clear that knowledge of that later Stevenson was essential … essential whether it was calculated to deepen sympathy or the reverse。 It goes without saying that the Louis he knew and hobnobbed with； and nursed near by the Old Bristo Port in Edinburgh could not be the same exactly as the Louis of Samoa and later years … to suppose so； or to expect so； would simply be to deny all room for growth and expansion。 It is clear that the W。 E。 Henley of those days was not the same as the W。 E。 Henley who indited that article； and if growth and further insight are to be allowed to Mr Henley and be pleaded as his justification CUM spite born of sense of grievance for such an onslaught； then clearly some allowance in the same direction must be made for Stevenson。 One can hardly think that in his case old affection and friendship had been so completely submerged； under feelings of grievance and paltry pique； almost always bred of grievances dwelt on and nursed； which it is especially bad for men of genius to acknowledge； and to make a basis； as it were； for clearer knowledge； insight； and judgment。 In other cases the pleading would simply amount to an immediate and complete arrest of judgment。 Mr Henley throughout writes as though whilst he had changed； and changed in points most essential； his erewhile friend remained exactly where he was as to literary position and product … the Louis who went away in 1887 and never returned； had； as Mr W。 E。 Henley； most unfortunately for himself； would imply； retained the mastery； and the Louis who never came back had made no progress； had not added an inch； not to say a cubit； to his statue； while Mr Henley remained IN STATU QUO； and was so only to be judged。 It is an instance of the imperfect sympathy which Charles Lamb finely celebrated … only here it is acknowledged； and the 〃imperfect sympathy〃 pled as a ground for claiming the full insight which only sympathy can secure。 If Mr Henley was fair to the Louis he knew and loved； it is clear that he was and could only be unjust to the Louis who went away in 1887 and never came back。
〃At bottom Stevenson was an excellent fellow。 But he was of his essence what the French call PERSONNEL。 He was； that is； incessantly and passionately interested in Stevenson。 He could not be in the same room with a mirror but he must invite its confidences every time he passed it； to him there was nothing obvious in time and eternity； and the smallest of his discoveries； his most trivial apprehensions； were all by way of being revelations； and as revelations must be thrust upon the world； he was never so much in earnest； never so well pleased （this were he happy or wretched）； never so irresistible as when he wrote about himself。 WITHAL； IF HE WANTED A THING； HE WENT AFTER IT WITH AN ENTIRE CONTEMPT OF CONSEQUENCES。 FOR THESE； INDEED； THE SHORTER CATECHISM WAS EVER PREPARED TO ANSWER； SO THAT WHETHER HE DID WELL OR ILL； HE WAS SAFE TO COME OUT UNABASHED AND CHEERFUL。〃
Notice here； how undiscerning the mentor becomes。 The words put in 〃italics；〃 unqualified as they are； would fit and admirably cover the character of the greatest criminal。 They would do as they stand； for Wainwright； for Dr Dodd； for Deeming； for Neil Cream； for Canham Read； or for Dougal of Moat Farm fame。 And then the touch that； in the Shorter Catechism； Stevenson would have found a cover or justification for it somehow！ This comes of writing under a keen sense of grievance； and how could this be truly said of one who was 〃at bottom an excellent fellow。〃 W。 Henley's ethics are about as clear…obscure as is his reading of character。 Listen to him once again … more directly on the literary point。
〃To tell the truth； his books are none of mine； I mean that if I wanted reading； I do not go for it to the EDINBURGH EDITION。 I am not interested in remarks about morals； in and out of letters。 I HAVE LIVED A FULL AND VARIED LIFE； and my opinions are my own。 SO； IF I CRAVE THE ENCHANTMENT OF ROMANCE； I ASK IT OF BIGGER MEN THAN HE； AND OF BIGGER BOOKS THAN HIS： of ESMOND （say） and GREAT EXPECTATIONS； of REDGAUNTLET and OLD MORTALITY；
