第53章 MR HENLEY'S SPITEFUL PERVERSIONS(2)

But, after all, his style is so perfectly achieved that the achievement gets obvious: and when achievement gets obvious, is it not by way of becoming uninteresting? And is there not something to be said for the person who wrote that Stevenson always reminded him of a young man dressed the best he ever saw for the Burlington Arcade? (10) Stevenson's work in letters does not now take me much, and I decline to enter on the question of his immortality;

since that, despite what any can say, will get itself settled soon or late, for all time.No - when I care to think of Stevenson it is not of R.L.Stevenson - R.L.Stevenson, the renowned, the accomplished - executing his difficult solo, but of the Lewis that I knew and loved, and wrought for, and worked with for so long.

The successful man of letters does not greatly interest me.I read his careful prayers and pass on, with the certainty that, well as they read, they were not written for print.I learn of his nameless prodigalities, and recall some instances of conduct in another vein.I remember, rather, the unmarried and irresponsible Lewis; the friend, the comrade, the CHARMEUR.Truly, that last word, French as it is, is the only one that is worthy of him.I shall ever remember him as that.The impression of his writings disappears; the impression of himself and his talk is ever a possession....Forasmuch as he was primarily a talker, his printed works, like these of others after his kind, are but a sop for posterity.A last dying speech and confession (as it were) to show that not for nothing were they held rare fellows in their day."

Just a month or two before Mr Henley's self-revealing article appeared in the PALL MALL MAGAZINE, Mr Chesterton, in the DAILY NEWS, with almost prophetic forecast, had said:

"Mr Henley might write an excellent study of Stevenson, but it would only be of the Henleyish part of Stevenson, and it would show a distinct divergence from the finished portrait of Stevenson, which would be given by Professor Colvin."

And it were indeed hard to reconcile some things here with what Mr Henley set down of individual works many times in the SCOTS AND NATIONAL OBSERVER, and elsewhere, and in literary judgments as in some other things there should, at least, be general consistency, else the search for an honest man in the late years would be yet harder than it was when Diogenes looked out from his tub!

Mr James Douglas, in the STAR, in his half-playful and suggestive way, chose to put it as though he regarded the article in the PALL MALL MAGAZINE as a hoax, perpetrated by some clever, unscrupulous writer, intent on provoking both Mr Henley and his friends, and Stevenson's friends and admirers.This called forth a letter from one signing himself "A Lover of R.L.Stevenson," which is so good that we must give it here.

A LITERARY HOAX.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE STAR.

SIR - I fear that, despite the charitable scepticism of Mr Douglas, there is no doubt that Mr Henley is the perpetrator of the saddening Depreciation of Stevenson which has been published over his name.

What openings there are for reprisals let Mr Henley's conscience tell him; but permit me to remind him of two or three things which R.L.Stevenson has written concerning W.E.Henley.

First this scene in the infirmary at Edinburgh:

"(Leslie) Stephen and I sat on a couple of chairs, and the poor fellow (Henley) sat up in his bed with his hair and beard all tangled, and talked as cheerfully as if he had been in a king's palace, or the great King's palace of the blue air.He has taught himself two languages since he has been lying there.I SHALL TRY TO BE OF USE TO HIM." Secondly, this passage from Stevenson's dedication of VIRGINIBUS PUERISQUE to "My dear William Ernest Henley":

"These papers are like milestones on the wayside of my life; and as I look back in memory, there is hardly a stage of that distance but I see you present with advice, reproof, or praise.Meanwhile, many things have changed, you and I among the rest; but I hope that our sympathy, founded on the love of our art, and nourished by mutual assistance, shall survive these little revolutions, undiminished, and, with God's help, unite us to the end."

Thirdly, two scraps from letters from Stevenson to Henley, to show that the latter was not always a depreciator of R.L.Stevenson's work:

"1.I'm glad to think I owe you the review that pleased me best of all the reviews I ever had....To live reading such 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.