New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-01-09
MR.. STEVENSON.
III.

OTHER BOoKs-A NEW CRITICISM. A
NEW ESTIMATE AND A FALSE
JUDGMENT ON STEVENSON.
WITH AN EFFORT TOW
ARD A TRUE ONE.
London December a.
The Westminster Gazette" Is responsible for
some curious figures relating to Stevensons and
some other books. If these may be trusted. DR..
Jekyll and Mr. Hyde has had much larger cir
culation than any other of Mr.. Stevensons writ
ngs.-perhaps because IL is the cheapest Inc
number is 1000. Treasure Island comes next
with 52,o 900 and then Kidnapped with $4,000; all
the Others under 10000 But what is so curious Is
10 find Mr. Rider Haggards King Solomons
Mines" issued in the same year and at the same
price as Treasure Island in its oath thousand.
II one looked only al these figures one might be
tempted TO say that 1t pays better 10 write Ill than
to write we'll; which would be hasty generalza-
ton But Mr.. Rider Haggard, with all his popu-
larity has very little literature. Nobody would
think Of ranking him high as writer To brack-
ct him with Stevenson would be absurd. Steven
son Is an artist. Mr.. Rider Haggard has fluent
pen and mechanical kind OF inventiveness
which bears much the same relation to magma
ton which the notes OF handorgan do TO the
lie buys more Haggard than Stevenson; there
fore. say the critics who combine commerce with
literature and apply the democratic principle to
both art IL a mistake and vOuble commonplace
in the right thing.
Well there are two standards. One. we
have seem is commercial and democratic The
other Is less transient. / suppose writer may
always choose whether he will appeal TO the YER
dict of to-day or of all time. Mr.. IIaggard has
chosen to-day. Stevenson wrote with some nope
OF a lasting renown; wrote. at any rate. with
strenuous passion for excellence and with a re-
solve which never faltered that he would always
do his best and spared pains in the doing or H.
The result in one case Is King Soomons Mines
and she; in the other. Treasure Island Md
mapped" and the long list of novels and of critical
essays which almost more admirable than Inc
novels.
There is still another way OF looking al the
matter There are more publics than one There
Is public for penny dreadfuls and for MI Rider
Haggard and for Mr. Hall Game That is one:
its component parts not perhaps. homogeneous.
but all coming under convenient and suffi-
GENTLY accurate classification. Then there Is
public which is sensitive to style and to other art
qualities in literature. II may not be all critical.
nor even always conscious of the true reason OF
its preferences Often 1t feels without analyzing:
enjoys style as it does the beauty of nature, and
finds itself in a sympathetic relation TO such
writer as Stevenson while not caring. or perhaps
unable, to explain the secret Of the attraction.
That Is a permanent public. 1t may never be
the most numerous. but 1t is the public on which,
aided as 1t Is by the artculate criticism OF still
smaller minority. the verdict Of the ages depends.
That is Stevenson's public.
The most extraordinary estimate which has yet
appeared of Stevenson may be found in The
Saturday Review" To the man. his delicacy OF
nature and wayward charm. 1t does some justice
So 1t does to his critical work. and TO those writ
ings of his which most individual But II
Sims him I'D as "a writer Of boys books; To be
measured with Cooper and Marryatt. not with
Scott For the reasons l gave the other day,
don't think this system OF parallels or OF criti-
csm, based on differences from other writer's or
likeness to them of much value. But let us
weigh this critic in his own balances He sets
out with the remark that it Is difficult to believe
that any man should do first-rate things in both
subjective and objective work. and cites two ex-
amples In proof Balzac is one. You might as
well take Homer Louis Lambert. which Is
mentioned as an attempt at sef-reveation,
stands alone among the library of Balzac's mas
terp.eces, the exception; experiment which he
did not care to repeat. But let that pass Then
we come to Stendhal, of whom THE Saturday"
saws truly enough that in lie Rouge ct lie Noir
he analyzed his own nature and the passion Of
love in the most searching way. But we are
asked TO believe that Stendhars "Chartreuse de
Parme." in which he attempts to paint the
world outside himself. is scarcely success"
Down 10 this time It has been thought that the
"Chartreuse de Parme was Stendhal's chef
d'oeuvre. 1t Is perfectly true that in this book
Stendhal attempted to paint the world OUTSIDE
himself To say that he failed, or even that he
succeeded imperfectly, is TO contradict the whole
current of the best modern criticism In France
Bazac himself poured out eulogies on the book
Stendhal sought before all things 10 paint
picture of the life Of Italy. and 1t Is far more as
picture Of that life than as study OF character
or even as a skilfully constructed story that the
book has made its fame. The battle-picture OF
Waterloo at the beginning is itself sufficient
answer to the crude assertion that Stendhal can
not paint the world outside himself. II Is a
sketch, or rather an etching. but there Is hardly
anywhere anything finer in its kind-anything
more delicate and more true: not line that does
not tell Its story and do its work and make part
OF the picture. Stendhal was an observer; none
saw clearer than he what went on before his
ewes. none rendered 1t all more visible and vivid.
am expressing my own opinion. no doubt and
1.-The Saturday critic is expressing his. But
mine is in accord with that Of nearly every COM
petent Judge in Stendhals own country. and the
critic Of THE Saturday is not only In opposition
to all that but to the facts. and to facts which
are undisputed. What he says makes one doubt
whether he ever read The Chartreuse de
Parme" or read 1t with anything but his eyes.
However that may be. we reach this conclu-
sion Stendhal, In the opinion OF The Satur-
day." was a master in subjective work. In the
unanimous opinion of all competent critics he was
also a master in objective work. The foundation
Of the censure upon Stevenson Is the theory that
a man cannot be equally good in both. and
Stendhal is alleged in proof. But as Stendhal
nroves II ANYTHING the exact contrary, what be-