oo　　assertive　〃invisible　reality；〃　that　Stevenson　most　often　fails；　and　　is；　in　his　own　words；　〃execrable〃；　the　ending　shaming；　if　not　　degrading；　the　beginning　…　〃and　without　the　true　sense　of　　pleasurableness；　and　therefore　really　imperfect　IN　ESSENCE。〃　　Ah；　　it　is　to　be　feared　that　Stevenson；　viewing　it　in　retrospect；　was　a　　far　truer　critic　of　his　own　work；　than　many　or　most　of　his　all　too　　effusive　and　admiring　critics　…　from　Lord　Rosebery　to　Mr　Marriott　　Watson。
  Amid　the　too　extreme　deliverances　of　detractors　and　especially　of　　erewhile　friends；　become　detractors　or　panegyrists；　who　disturb　　judgment　by　overzeal；　which　is　often　but　half…blindness；　it　is　　pleasant　to　come　on　one　who　bears　the　balances　in　his　hand；　and　　will　report　faithfully　as　he　has　seen　and　felt；　neither　more　nor　　less　than　what　he　holds　is　true。　　Mr　Andrew　Lang　wrote　an　article　　in　the　MORNING　POST　of　16th　December　1901；　under　the　title　　〃Literary　Quarrels；〃　in　which；　as　I　think；　he　fulfilled　his　part　in　　midst　of　the　talk　about　Mr　Henley's　regrettable　attack　on　　Stevenson。
  〃Without　defending　the　character　of　a　friend　whom　even　now　I　almost　　daily　miss；　as　that　character　was　displayed　in　circumstances　　unknown　to　me；　I　think　that　I　ought　to　speak　of　him　as　I　found　him。　　　Perhaps　our　sympathy　was　mainly　intellectual。　　Constantly　do　those　　who　knew　him　desire　to　turn　to　him；　to　communicate　with　him；　to　　share　with　him　the　pleasure　of　some　idea；　some　little　discovery　　about　men　or　things　in　which　he　would　have　taken　pleasure；　　increasing　our　own　by　the　gaiety　of　his　enjoyment；　the　brilliance　　of　his　appreciation。　　We　may　say；　as　Scott　said　at　the　grave　of　　John　Ballantyne；　that　he　has　taken　with　him　half　the　sunlight　out　　of　our　lives。　　That　he　was　sympathetic　and　interested　in　the　work　　of　others　（which　I　understand　has　been　denied）　I　have　reason　to　　know。　　His　work　and　mine　lay　far　apart：　　mine；　I　think；　we　never　　discussed；　I　did　not　expect　it　to　interest　him。　　But　in　a　　fragmentary　manuscript　of　his　after　his　death　I　found　the　unlooked　　for　and　touching　evidence　of　his　kindness。　　Again；　he　once　wrote　to　　me　from　Samoa　about　the　work　of　a　friend　of　mine　whom　he　had　never　　met。　　His　remarks　were　ideally　judicious；　a　model　of　serviceable　　criticism。　　I　found　him　chivalrous　as　an　honest　boy；　brave；　with　an　　indomitable　gaiety　of　courage；　on　the　point　of　honour；　a　Sydney　or　　a　Bayard　（so　he　seemed　to　me）；　that　he　was　open…handed　I　have　　reason　to　believe；　he　took　life　'with　a　frolic　welcome。'　　That　he　　was　self…conscious；　and　saw　himself　as　it　were；　from　without；　that　　he　was　fond　of　attitude　（like　his　own　brave　admirals）　he　himself　　knew　well；　and　I　doubt　not　that　he　would　laugh　at　himself　and　his　　habit　of　'playing　at'　things　after　the　fashion　of　childhood。　　　Genius　is　the　survival　into　maturity　of　the　inspiration　of　　childhood；　and　Stevenson　is　not　the　only　genius　who　has　retained　　from　childhood　something　more　than　its　inspiration。　　Other　examples　　readily　occur　to　the　memory　…　in　one　way　Byron；　in　another　　Tennyson。　　None　of　us　is　perfect：　　I　do　not　want　to　erect　an　　immaculate　clay…cold　image　of　a　man；　in　marble　or　in　sugar…candy。　　　But　I　will　say　that　I　do　not　remember　ever　to　have　heard　Mr　　Stevenson　utter　a　word　against　any　mortal；　friend　or　foe。　　Even　in　　a　case　where　he　had；　or　believed　himself　to　have；　received　some　　wrong；　his　comment　was　merely　humorous。　　Especially　when　very　　young；　his　dislike　of　respectability　and　of　the　BOURGEOIS　（a　　literary　tradition）　led　him　to　show　a　kind　of　contempt　for　virtues　　which；　though　certainly　respectable；　are　no　less　certainly　　virtuous。　　He　was　then　more　or　less　seduced　by　the　Bohemian　legend；　　but　he　was　intolerant　of　the　fudge　about　the　rights　and　privileges　　of　genius。　　A　man's　first　business；　he　thought；　was　'keep　his　end　　up'　by　his　work。　　If；　what　he　reckoned　his　inspired　work　would　not　　serve；　then　by　something　else。　　Of　many　virtues　he　was　an　ensample　　and　an　inspiring　force。　　One　foible　I　admit：　　the　tendency　to　　inopportune　benevolence。　　Mr　Graham　Balfour　says　that　if　he　fell　　into　ill　terms　with　a　man　he　would　try　to　do　him　good　by　stealth。　　　Though　he　had　seen　much　of　the　world　and　of　men；　this　practice　　showed　an　invincible　ignorance　of　mankind。　　It　is　improbable；　on　　the　doctrine　of　chances；　that　he　was　always　in　the　wrong；　and　it　is　　probable；　as　he　was　human；　that　he　always　thought　himself　in　the　　right。　　But　as　the　other　party　to　the　misunderstanding；　being　also　　human；　would　necessarily　think　himself　in　the　right；　such　secret　　benefits　would　be；　as　Sophocles　says；　'the　gifts　of　foeman　and　　unprofitable。'　　The　secret　would　leak　out；　the　benefits　would　be　　rejected；　the　misunderstanding　would　be　embittered。　　This　reminds　　me　of　an　anecdote　which　is　not　given　in　Mr　Graham　Balfour's　　biography。　　As　a　little　delicate；　lonely　boy　in　Edinburgh；　Mr　　Stevenson　read　a　book　called　MINISTERING　CHILDREN。　　I　have　a　faint　　recollection　of　this　work　concerning　a　small　Lord　and　Lady　　Bountiful。　　Children；　we　know；　like　to　'play　at'　the　events　and　　characters　they　have　read　about；　and　the　boy　wanted　to　play　at　　being　a　ministering　child。　　He　'scanned　his　whole　horizon'　for　　somebody　to　play　with；　and　thought　he　had　found　his　playmate。　　From　　the　window　he　observed　street　boys　（in　Scots　'keelies'）　enjoying　　themselves。　　But　one　child　was　out　of　the　sports；　a　little　lame　　fellow；　the　son　of　a　baker。　　Here　was　a　chance！　　After　some　　misgivings　Louis　hardened　his　heart；　put　on　his　cap；　walked　out　…　a　　refined　little　figure　…　approached　the　object　of　his　sympathy；　and　　said；　'Will　you　let　me　play　with　you？'　　'Go　to　hell！'　said　the　　democratic　offspring　of　the　baker。　　This　lesson　against　doing　good　　by　stealth　to　persons　of　unknown　or　hostile　disposition　was；　it　　seems；　thrown　away。　　Such　endeavours　are　apt　to　be　misconstrued。〃
  CHAPTER　XXVIII　…　UNEXPECTED　COMBINATIONS
  THE　complete　artist　should　not　be　mystical…moralist　any　more　than　　the　man　who　〃perceives　only　the　visible　world〃　…　he　should　not　　engage　himself　with　problems　in　the　direct　sense　any　more　than　he　　should　blind　himself　to　their　effect　upon　others；　whom　he　should　　study；　and　under　certain　conditions　represent；　though　he　should　not　　commit　himself　to　any　form　of　zealot　faith；　yet　should　he　not　be；　　as　Lord　Tennyson　puts　it　in　the　Palace　of　Art：
  〃As　God　holding　no　form　of　creed；　But　contemplating　all；〃
  because　his　power　lies　in　the　broadness　of　his　humanity　touched　to　　fine　issues　whenever　there　is　the　seal　at　once　of　truth；　reality；　　and　passion；　and　the　tragedy　bred　of　their　contact　and　conflict。
  All　these　things　are　to　him　real　and　clamant　in　the　measure　that　　they　aid　appeal　to　heart　and　emotion　…　in　the　measure　that　they　　may；　in　his　hands；　be　made　to　tell　for　sympathy　and　general　effect。　　　He　creates　an　atmosphere　in　which　each　and　all　may　be　seen　the　more　　effectively；　but　never　seen　alone　or　separate；　but　only　in　strict　　relation　to　each　other　that　they　may　heighten　the　sense　of　some　　supreme　controlling　power　in　the　destinies　of　men；　which　with　the　　ancients　was　figured　as　Fate；　and　for　which　the　moderns　have　hardly　　yet　found　an　enduring　and　exhaustive　name。　　Character　revealed　in　　reference　to　that；　is　the　ideal　and　the　aim　of　all　high　creative　　art。　　Stevenson's　narrowness；　allied　to　a　quaint　and　occasionally　　just　a　wee　pedantic　finickiness；　as　we　may　call　it　…　an　over…　elaborate；　almost　tricky　play　with　mere　words　and　phrases；　was　in　　so　far　alien　to　the　very　highest　…　he　was　too　often　like　a　man　　magnetised　and　moving　at　the　dictates　of　some　outside　influence　　rather　than　according　to　his　own　freewill　and　as　he　would。
  Action　in　creative　literary　art　is　a　SINE　QUA　NON；　keeping　all　the　　characters　and　parts　in　unison；　that　a　true　DENOUEMENT；　determined　　by　their　own　tendencies　and　temperaments；　may　appear；　dialogue　and　　all　asides；　if　we　may　call　them　so；　being　supererogatory　and　weak　　really　unless　they　aid　this　and　are　constantly　contributory　to　it。　　　Egotistical　predeterminations；　however　artfully　intruded；　are；　　alien　to　the　full　result；　the　unity　which　is　finally　craved：　　　Stevenson　fails；　when　he　does　fail；　distinctly　from　excess　of　　egotistic　regards；　he　is；　as　Henley　has　said；　in　the　French　sense；　　too　PERSONNEL；　and　cannot　escape　from　it。　　And　though　these　　personal　regards　are　exceedingly　interesting　and　indeed　fascinating　　from　the　point　of　view　of　autobiographical　study；　they　are；　and　　cannot　but　be；　a　drawback　on　fiction　or　the　disinterested　　revelation　of　life　and　reality。　　Instead；　therefore；　of　〃the　　visible　world；〃　as　the　only　thing　seen；　Stevenson's　defect　is；　that　　between　it　and　him　lies　a　cloud　strictly　self…projected；　like　　breath　on　a　mirror；　which　dims　the　lines　of　reality　and　confuses　　the　character　marks；　in　fact　melting　them　into　each　other；　and　in　　his　sympathetic　regards；　causing　them　all　to　become　too　much　alike。　　　Scott　had　more　of　the　power　of　healthy　self…withdrawal；　creating　　more　of　a　free　atmosphere；　in　which　his　characters　could　freely　　move　…　though　in　this；　it　must　be　confessed；　he　failed　far　more　　with　women　than　with　men。　　The　very　defects　poor　Carlyle　found　in　　Scott；　and　for　which　he　dealt　so　severely　with　him；　as　sounding　no　　depth；　are　really　the　basis　of　his　strength