New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1888-05-27
which a respectable white churchman deigni
to consider.
nIcKENSS GENTLEMEN.

Tn IN. June Scribner" Mr. Robert Louis
Stevenson has q paper on Some 0entiepieh ~
Fiction which does somewhat less than lus''ce
90 Charles Dickens. The assertion tnat DicAens
could not create o gentleman is hoary libel ana
Mr. Stevenson does not indorsc 1t. but ne uoe'
express the opinion that :" for many yeass
Dickens laborcd In vain to create gen'icnian
or course any discussion on such point requires
preliminary definitions Of the word gentleman,
and here it is not easy to ascertain Wna' nA'
Stevensons definition is, for while nc Cues eoi''
instances in fiction to which no oDJection Con
be taken. he names at least one character-hich-
ardson's Lovelace-whose admission TO the order
involves fatal concessions or Dckens's people
Mr.. Stevenson names David Copperfeld, carton
Wrayburn and Twemlow as satisfying MS ldeai'
though as TO the first Of these he hesitaoes. "o
should have been somewhat IN douot conoeins
the last of the four, and his admission seems "
indicate O tendency to accept dennpioh paS'u
rather on convention than ethics. But surely
larger estimate should be made OF DlcKehss Pui-
poses and methods His books do not present. many
conventional gentleman, though even OF them .heio
are some typical portraits, but when we LOOK ~.
the traits and the behavior which ought TO- pu'
nv no means always do, distinguish those VINO are
called gentlemen. we find them easily and often.
Dickens wos n true democrat, and CONTENDER
NJ rank and artificial distinctions 1t was natura'
IN him to put his finest spirits lhoo
rouCh enyelopes. and to develop their Inmate ho-
hilitv in adverse conditions But IL we are to give
its truest meaning to the word
tlemanp we must bestow 1t, not only upon .r'
| characters Mr. Stevenson has named, but upon "r'
Peggutty old Riah, the Jew, Joe Gargery' stephen
Blaclxpool. and other undetermined, loyal true,
heroic personages IN these novels why snouiu
that great-hearted gentleman, Lawrence boyonorn,
be excluded from Mr.. Stevensons list, eltherf
Surely, he Is a better example, even OF the CON
ventional gentleman, than the feeble lwemiow'
No doubt there are people who ii asked to deciae
| which was the truer gentleman-Lord OneSterne1u
| or Jean valjean-would give their votes TO the
neer without hesitation. That, perhaps, is the
result of heredty; a survival Of the long Grill IN
the system of caste. Nevertheless, there is no
| room for rational doubt on the question before
any Court Of Morals the epistolary noDlemah
must give place to the social outcast
We do not altogether like Mr.. Stevensons
| choice of Wrayburn. Compared with Steve BLACK
| pool he is poor sort of creature Inc rough
miner is full of delicacy, patience, loyalty, devo-
| ton to duty The tragedy of his life is ennopieo
by his behavior under hopeless suffering, whereas
| Wrayburn is infrm of purpose, lax OF principle,
| and but for external help would have drlfted
| into infamy. Even the poor convict IN Oreat
Expectations" Is more Of man than the nstless,
| briehess young barrister and the purpose OF MS
| life indicates line natural aptitudes In him.
Mr.. Stevenson SCOTS at the old jew To us he
appears much more than q lay fEsre; nothing less
in fact, than O beautiful character. But how
could any one in search Of a gentleman overlook
Mr.. Peggotty and Joe Gargery2 Oh, but they
are uneducated, they speak bad English they are
wholly uncultivated-it may be said. Perhaps
Dickens had a purpose in putting such white
souls into rude and homely cases. Certainly he
could have cited for his course one OF the most
venerable presidents known to Christendom.
He may have desired to enforce Burns's doctrine
that
| HThe rank is but the guinea stamp.
mans a man for a. that"
Mr.. Stevenson writes SO pleasantly and geniaily
that one thinks it pity he should take Philistne
| view of Dickenss gentlemen. Dickens indeed
may be said to have sympathized rather with the
masses than with the classes, but this was be-
cause his genius was large for the artfcialism
of social caste; because he looked beyond the