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！
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