done；　only　new　ground　would　be　got　for　holding　that　　Stevenson；　instead　of；　as　has　been　said；　〃seeing　only　the　visible　　world；〃　was；　in　truth；　a　mystical　moralist；　once　and　always；　whose　　thoughts　ran　all　too　easily　into　parable　and　fable；　and　who；　　indeed；　never　escaped　wholly　from　that　atmosphere；　even　when　　writing　of　things　and　characters　that　seemed　of　themselves　to　be　　wholly　outside　that　sphere。　　This　was　the　tendency；　indeed；　that　　militated　against　the　complete　detachment　in　his　case　from　moral　　problems　and　mystical　thought；　so　as　to　enable　him　to　paint；　as　it　　were；　with　a　free　hand　exactly　as　he　saw；　and　most　certainly　not　　that　he　saw　only　the　visible　world。　　The　mystical　element　is　not　　directly　favourable　to　creative　art。　　You　see　in　Tolstoy　how　it　　arrests　and　perplexes　…　how　it　lays　a　disturbing　check　on　real　　presentation　…　hindering　the　action；　and　is　not　favourable　to　the　　loving　and　faithful　representation；　which；　as　Goethe　said；　all　true　　and　high　art　should　be。　　To　some　extent　you　see　exactly　the　same　　thing　in　Nathaniel　Hawthorne　as　in　Tolstoy。　　Hawthorne's　　preoccupations　in　this　way　militated　against　his　character…power；　　his　healthy　characters　who　would　never　have　been　influenced　as　he　　describes　by　morbid　ones　yet　are　not　only　influenced　according　to　　him；　but　suffer　sadly。　　Phoebe　Pyncheon　in　THE　HOUSE　OF　THE　SEVEN　　GABLES；　gives　sunshine　to　poor　Hepzibah　Clifford；　but　is　herself　　never　merry　again；　though　joyousness　was　her　natural　element。　　So；　　doubtless；　it　would　have　been　with　Pansie　in　DOCTOR　DOLLIVER；　as　　indeed　it　was　with　Zenobia　and　with　the　hero　in　the　MARBLE　FAUN。　　　〃We　all　go　wrong；〃　said　Hawthorne；　〃by　a　too　strenuous　resolution　　to　go　right。〃　　Lady　Byron　was　to　him　an　intolerably　irreproachable　　person；　just　as　Stevenson　felt　a　little　of　the　same　towards　　Thoreau；　notwithstanding　that　he　was　the　〃sunnily…ascetic；〃　the　　asceticism　and　its　corollary；　as　he　puts　it：　　the　passion　for　　individual　self…improvement　was　alien　in　a　way　to　Stevenson。　　This　　is　the　position　of　the　casuistic　mystic　moralist　and　not　of　the　man　　who　sees　only　the　visible　world。
  Mr　Baildon　says：
  〃Stevenson　has　many　of　the　things　that　are　wanting　or　defective　in　　Scott。　　He　has　his　philosophy　of　life；　he　is　beyond　remedy　a　　moralist；　even　when　his　morality　is　of　the　kind　which　he　happily　　calls　'tail　foremost；'　or　as　we　may　say；　inverted　morality。　　　Stevenson　is；　in　fact；　much　more　of　a　thinker　than　Scott；　and　he　is　　also　much　more　of　the　conscious　artist；　questionable　advantage　as　　that　sometimes　is。　　He　has　also　a　much　cleverer；　acuter　mind　than　　Scott；　also　a　questionable　advantage；　as　genius　has　no　greater　　enemy　than　cleverness；　and　there　is　really　no　greater　descent　than　　to　fall　from　the　style　of　genius　to　that　of　cleverness。　　But　　Stevenson　was　too　critical　and　alive　to　misuse　his　cleverness；　and　　it　is　generally　employed　with　great　effect　as　in　the　diabolical　　ingenuities　of　a　John　Silver；　or　a　Master　of　Ballantrae。　　In　one　　sense　Stevenson　does　not　even　belong　to　the　school　of　Scott；　but　　rather　to　that　of　Poe；　Hawthorne；　and　the　Brontes；　in　that　he　aims　　more　at　concentration　and　intensity；　than　at　the　easy；　quiet　　breadth　of　Scott。〃
  If；　indeed；　it　should　not　here　have　been　added　that　Stevenson's　　theory　of　life　and　conduct　was　not　seldom　too　insistent　for　free　　creativeness；　for　dramatic　freedom；　breadth　and　reality。
  Now　here　I　humbly　think　Mr　Baldion　errs　about　the　cleverness　when　　he　criticises　Stevenson　for　the　FAUX　PAS　artistically　of　resorting　　to　the　piratic　filibustering　and　the　treasure…seeking　at　the　close　　of　THE　MASTER　OF　BALLANTRAE；　he　only　tells　and　tells　plainly　how　　cleverness　took　the　place　of　genius　there；　as　indeed　it　did　in　not　　a　few　cases　…　certainly　in　some　points　in　the　Dutch　escapade　in　　CATRIONA　and　in　not　a　few　in　DR　JEKYLL　AND　MR　HYDE。　　The　fault　of　　that　last　story　is　simply　that　we　seem　to　hear　Stevenson　chuckling　　to　himself；　〃Ah；　now；　won't　they　all　say　at　last　how　clever　I　am。〃　　　That　too　mars　the　MERRY　MEN；　whoever　wrote　them　or　part　wrote　them；　　and　PRINCE　OTTO　would　have　been　irretrievably　spoiled　by　this　self…　conscious　sense　of　cleverness　had　it　not　been　for　style　and　　artifice。　　In　this　incessant　〃see　how　clever　I　am；〃　we　have　another　　proof　of　the　abounding　youthfulness　of　R。　L。　Stevenson。　　If；　as　Mr　　Baildon　says　（p。　30）；　he　had　true　child's　horror　of　being　put　in　　fine　clothes　in　which　one　must　sit　still　and　be　good；　PRINCE　OTTO　　remains　attractive　in　spite　of　some　things　and　because　of　his　fine　　clothes。　　Neither　Poe　nor　Hawthorne　could　have　fallen　to　the　　piracy；　and　treasure…hunting　of　THE　MASTER　OF　BALLANTRAE。
  〃Far　behind　Scott　in　the　power　of　instinctive；　irreflective；　　spontaneous　creation　of　character；　Stevenson　tells　his　story　with　　more　art　and　with　a　firmer　grip　on　his　reader。〃　　And　that　is　　exactly　what　I；　wishing　to　do　all　I　dutifully　can　for　Stevenson；　　cannot　see。　　His　genius　is　in　nearly　all　cases　pulled　up　or　spoiled　　by　his　all　too　conscious　cleverness；　and　at　last　we　say；　〃Oh　　Heavens！　if　he　could　and　would　but　let　himself　go　or　forget　himself　　what　he　might　achieve。〃　　But　he　doesn't　…　never　does；　and　therefore　　remains　but　a　second…rate　creator　though　more　and　more　the　stylist　　and　the　artist。　　This　is　more　especially　the　case　at　the　very　　points　where　writers　like　Scott　would　have　risen　and　roused　all　the　　readers'　interest。　　When　Stevenson　reaches　such　points；　he　is　　always　as　though　saying　〃See　now　how　cleverly　I'll　clear　that　old　　and　stereotyped　style　of　thing　and　do　something　NEW。〃　　But　there　　are　things　in　life　and　human　nature；　which　though　they　are　old　are　　yet　ever　new；　and　the　true　greatness　of　a　writer　can　never　come　　from　evading　or　looking　askance　at　them　or　trying　to　make　them　out　　something　else　than　what　they　really　are。　　No　artistic　aim　or　　ambition　can　suffice　to　stand　instead　of　them　or　to　refine　them　　away。　　That　way　lies　only　cold　artifice　and　frigid　lacework；　and　　sometimes　Stevenson　did　go　a　little　too　much　on　this　line。
  CHAPTER　XXI　…　UNITY　IN　STEVENSON'S　STORIES
  THE　unity　in　Stevenson's　stories　is　generally　a　unity　of　subjective　　impression　and　reminiscence　due；　in　the　first　place；　to　his　quick；　　almost　abnormal　boyish　reverence　for　mere　animal　courage；　audacity；　　and　doggedness；　and；　in　the　second　place；　to　his　theory　of　life；　　his　philosophy；　his　moral　view。　　He　produces　an　artificial　　atmosphere。　　Everything　then　has　to　be　worked　up　to　this　…　kept　　really　in　accordance　with　it；　and　he　shows　great　art　in　the　doing　　of　this。　　Hence；　though；　a　quaint　sense　of　sameness；　of　artificial　　atmosphere　…　at　once　really　a　lack　of　spontaneity　and　of　freedom。　　　He　is　freest　when　he　pretends　to　nothing　but　adventure　…　when　he　　aims　professedly　at　nothing　save　to　let　his　characters　develop　　themselves　by　action。　　In　this　respect　the　most　successful　of　his　　stories　is　yet　TREASURE　ISLAND；　and　the　least　successful　perhaps　　CATRIONA；　when　just　as　the　ambitious　aim　compels　him　to　pause　in　　incident；　the　first…person　form　creates　a　cold　stiffness　and　　artificiality　alien　to　the　full　impression　he　would　produce　upon　　the　reader。　　The　two　stories　he　left　unfinished　promised　far　　greater　things　in　this　respect　than　he　ever　accomplished。　　For　it　　is　an　indisputable　fact；　and　indeed　very　remarkable；　that　the　　ordinary　types　of　men　and　women　have　little　or　no　attraction　for　　Stevenson；　nor　their　commonplace　passions　either。　　Yet　precisely　　what　his　art　wanted　was　due　infusion　of　this　very　interest。　　　Nothing　else　will　supply　the　place。　　The　ordinary　passion　of　love　　to　the　end　he　SHIES；　and　must　invent　no　end　of　expedients　to　supply　　the　want。　　The　devotion　of　the　ordinary　type；　as　Thomas　Hardy　has　　over　and　over　exhibited　it；　is　precisely　what　Stevenson　wants；　to　　impart　to　his　novels　the　full　sense　of　reality。　　The　secret　of　　morals；　says　Shelley；　is　a　going　out　of　self。　　Stevenson　was　only　　on　the　way　to　secure　this　grand　and　all…sufficing　motive。　　His　　characters；　in　a　way；　are　all　already　like　himself；　romantic；　but　　the　highest　is　when　the　ordinary　and　commonplace　is　so　apprehended　　that　it　becomes　romantic；　and　may　even；　through　the　artist's　deeper　　perception　and　unconscious　grasp　and　vision；　take　the　hand　of　　tragedy；　and　lose　nothing。　　The　very　atmosphere　Stevenson　so　loved　　to　create　was　in　itself　alien　to　this；　and；　so　far　as　he　went；　his　　most　successful　revelations　were　but　records　of　his　own　　limitations。　　It　is　something　that　he　was　to　the　end　so　much　the　　youth；　with　fine　impulses；　if　sometimes　with　sympathies　　misdirected；　and　that；　too；　in　such　a　way　as　to　render　his　work　　cold　and　artificial；　else　he　might　have　turned　out　more　of　the　　Swift　than　of　the　Sterne　or　Fielding。　　Prince　Otto　and　Seraphina　　are　from　this　cause　mainly　complete　failures；　alike　from　the　point　　of　view　of　nature　and　of　art；　and　the　Countess　von　Rosen　is　not　a　　complete　failure；　and　would　perhaps　have　been　a　bit　of　a　success；　　if　only　she　had　made　Prince　Otto　come　nearer　to　losing　his　virtue。　　　The　most　perfect　in　style；　perhaps；　of　all　Stevenson's　efforts　it　　is　yet　most　out　of　nature　and　truth；　…　a　farce；　felt　to　be　　disguised　only　when　read　in　a　certain　mood；　and　this　all　the　more　　for　its　perfections；　just　as　Stevenson　would　have