New-York tribune., 1922-12-25
a MYTH Breaker

tuab ono GNOikt - AlNtiHieH '"N'N
smash 20 smithcrecns in the Dcccm-
bcr Century? Briefly says the
writer. that Robert Louis Stevenson
was the type Of man possessing al
those virtues which arc generally
scld I'D for tho emulation Of youth.
Stevenson himself, Wc arc told. was
"on." lie was Gar too aware Of the
weaknesses in his armor to pose as
perfect knight" But Mr.. Hellman,
graciously observing that only a
churlish critic would question Mrs.
stevcnson's title TO the love and graf
itude Of her husband, nevertheless
concludes that "she was not the per-
feet wife for such a man as Robert
Louis Stevenson" and outlines a
situation in which the novelist want
ed TO be human, but had to struggle
against his vife's wish to set him on
a knightly pedestal.
Our myth breaker starts of by
dragging in "a rumor long credited
in the inner Stevensonian circles
Who compose these circles and what
arc their rumors worth? Mr.. He'll
man swallows them with gusto.
"The story goes" he says, that
during a period Of special physical
distress, when Stevenson was so
weakened by hemorrhages that his
conversations were conducted By
means Of n notebook and pencil,
Mrs. Stevenson, overriding the OBJ
iections Of r. L. S., took it upon her
self TO throw into the fire the manu-
script Of a novel by her husband.
The carly sos has been given as
the date, Hyeres the place, and the
subject Of the manuscript the life Of
a street-walker." Convincing, isn't
It? "The story goes" The date
"has been given" And so on. Not
a verifablc fact anywhere, in a mat
ter concerning which, indeed. facts
would be, in the nature Of things,
next TO impossible 10 come at. The
notes that passed between the voice
less invalid and his wife may have
been preserved. but unless they can
be produced "the story goes to no
purpose. We may be quite sure that
the sickroom was not precisely
packed with "Stevensonian" wit
nosses, and We may be equally sure
that Stevenson and his wife were not
the kind Of people to 90 running
about among their friends with the
incident.
Mr. Hellman sorrows, Of course,
over the supposititious suppression
Of this mythical" manuscript. He
is oracularly Of the opinion, By the
way, that I'VE need not accept the
statement that Stevenson considered
this his masterpiece, although It
might we'll have been. Ste
venson's treatment of the enforced
victim Of an elemental fact could
easily have been n fine masterpiece
Of his style, and the even finer mas
terpieee Of his philosophy toward
life" Here's richness! What right
has Mr.. Hellman 70 air his opinions
on a manuscript that, according TO
his own story, does not exist? How
does he know that the heroine was
"the enforced victim Of an elemental
fact? But these smart differences
are as nothing 70 the glib theories as
10 why Mrs. Stevenson hustled the
painted lady of before ever she had
chance TO play her part upon the
printed page.
We are treated to the shrewd sur
mise that the manuscript aforesaid
went into the CRATE at Hyeres be-
cause Mrs. Stevenson didn't want the
story Of "the enforced victim Of an
elemental fact" 10 hurt the sale Of
those writings in which r. L. s. was
ranging himself as an author suit
able for the young! Not in a long
time have we come upon an asper-
sion as unlovely as that. "She saw
him on a pedestal, and she made It
her business 70 keep him therefor
profit. II VIC know the Stevenson
whose gallant character is writ large
in the very grain Of his works we
know with what a movement Of his
Doc. he would reward this reflection
on his wife. Somewhere in one Of
his essays or letters he speaks Of his
terror lest he fail, at a pinch, 10 re-
sent with violence an insult offered
70 him. He would have risen TO this
occasion, We think
There will always be something
nsuseating about the self-elected
"truth teIlerS' Suppose Stevenson