us。　　He　did　his　painstaking　　work　conscientiously；　thoughtfully；　he　erased；　he　revised；　and　he　　was　hard　to　satisfy。　　In　short；　it　was　his　weird　…　and　he　could　not　　resist　it　…　to　set　style　and　form　before　fire　and　spirit。〃
  CHAPTER　XXIV　…　MR　HENLEY'S　SPITEFUL　PERVERSIONS
  MORE　unfortunate　still；　as　disturbing　and　prejudicing　a　sane　and　　true　and　disinterested　view　of　Stevenson's　claims；　was　that　article　　of　his　erewhile　〃friend；〃　Mr　W。　E。　Henley；　published　on　the　　appearance　of　the　MEMOIR　by　Mr　Graham　Balfour；　in　the　PALL　MALL　　MAGAZINE。　　It　was　well　that　Mr　Henley　there　acknowledged　frankly　　that　he　wrote　under　a　keen　sense　of　〃grievance〃　…　a　most　dangerous　　mood　for　the　most　soberly　critical　and　self…restrained　of　men　to　　write　in；　and　that　most　certainly　Mr　W。　E。　Henley　was　not　…　and　　that　he　owned　to　having　lost　contact　with；　and　recognition　of　the　　R。　L。　Stevenson　who　went　to　America　in　1887；　as　he　says；　and　never　　came　back　again。　　To　do　bare　justice　to　Stevenson　it　is　clear　that　　knowledge　of　that　later　Stevenson　was　essential　…　essential　whether　　it　was　calculated　to　deepen　sympathy　or　the　reverse。　　It　goes　　without　saying　that　the　Louis　he　knew　and　hobnobbed　with；　and　　nursed　near　by　the　Old　Bristo　Port　in　Edinburgh　could　not　be　the　　same　exactly　as　the　Louis　of　Samoa　and　later　years　…　to　suppose　so；　　or　to　expect　so；　would　simply　be　to　deny　all　room　for　growth　and　　expansion。　　It　is　clear　that　the　W。　E。　Henley　of　those　days　was　not　　the　same　as　the　W。　E。　Henley　who　indited　that　article；　and　if　　growth　and　further　insight　are　to　be　allowed　to　Mr　Henley　and　be　　pleaded　as　his　justification　CUM　spite　born　of　sense　of　grievance　　for　such　an　onslaught；　then　clearly　some　allowance　in　the　same　　direction　must　be　made　for　Stevenson。　　One　can　hardly　think　that　in　　his　case　old　affection　and　friendship　had　been　so　completely　　submerged；　under　feelings　of　grievance　and　paltry　pique；　almost　　always　bred　of　grievances　dwelt　on　and　nursed；　which　it　is　　especially　bad　for　men　of　genius　to　acknowledge；　and　to　make　a　　basis；　as　it　were；　for　clearer　knowledge；　insight；　and　judgment。　　　In　other　cases　the　pleading　would　simply　amount　to　an　immediate　and　　complete　arrest　of　judgment。　　Mr　Henley　throughout　writes　as　though　　whilst　he　had　changed；　and　changed　in　points　most　essential；　his　　erewhile　friend　remained　exactly　where　he　was　as　to　literary　　position　and　product　…　the　Louis　who　went　away　in　1887　and　never　　returned；　had；　as　Mr　W。　E。　Henley；　most　unfortunately　for　himself；　　would　imply；　retained　the　mastery；　and　the　Louis　who　never　came　　back　had　made　no　progress；　had　not　added　an　inch；　not　to　say　a　　cubit；　to　his　statue；　while　Mr　Henley　remained　IN　STATU　QUO；　and　　was　so　only　to　be　judged。　　It　is　an　instance　of　the　imperfect　　sympathy　which　Charles　Lamb　finely　celebrated　…　only　here　it　is　　acknowledged；　and　the　〃imperfect　sympathy〃　pled　as　a　ground　for　　claiming　the　full　insight　which　only　sympathy　can　secure。　　If　Mr　　Henley　was　fair　to　the　Louis　he　knew　and　loved；　it　is　clear　that　he　　was　and　could　only　be　unjust　to　the　Louis　who　went　away　in　1887　and　　never　came　back。
  〃At　bottom　Stevenson　was　an　excellent　fellow。　　But　he　was　of　his　　essence　what　the　French　call　PERSONNEL。　　He　was；　that　is；　　incessantly　and　passionately　interested　in　Stevenson。　　He　could　not　　be　in　the　same　room　with　a　mirror　but　he　must　invite　its　　confidences　every　time　he　passed　it；　to　him　there　was　nothing　　obvious　in　time　and　eternity；　and　the　smallest　of　his　discoveries；　　his　most　trivial　apprehensions；　were　all　by　way　of　being　　revelations；　and　as　revelations　must　be　thrust　upon　the　world；　he　　was　never　so　much　in　earnest；　never　so　well　pleased　（this　were　he　　happy　or　wretched）；　never　so　irresistible　as　when　he　wrote　about　　himself。　　WITHAL；　IF　HE　WANTED　A　THING；　HE　WENT　AFTER　IT　WITH　AN　　ENTIRE　CONTEMPT　OF　CONSEQUENCES。　　FOR　THESE；　INDEED；　THE　SHORTER　　CATECHISM　WAS　EVER　PREPARED　TO　ANSWER；　SO　THAT　WHETHER　HE　DID　WELL　　OR　ILL；　HE　WAS　SAFE　TO　COME　OUT　UNABASHED　AND　CHEERFUL。〃
  Notice　here；　how　undiscerning　the　mentor　becomes。　　The　words　put　in　　〃italics；〃　unqualified　as　they　are；　would　fit　and　admirably　cover　　the　character　of　the　greatest　criminal。　　They　would　do　as　they　　stand；　for　Wainwright；　for　Dr　Dodd；　for　Deeming；　for　Neil　Cream；　　for　Canham　Read；　or　for　Dougal　of　Moat　Farm　fame。　　And　then　the　　touch　that；　in　the　Shorter　Catechism；　Stevenson　would　have　found　a　　cover　or　justification　for　it　somehow！　　This　comes　of　writing　under　　a　keen　sense　of　grievance；　and　how　could　this　be　truly　said　of　one　　who　was　〃at　bottom　an　excellent　fellow。〃　　W。　Henley's　ethics　are　　about　as　clear…obscure　as　is　his　reading　of　character。　　Listen　to　　him　once　again　…　more　directly　on　the　literary　point。
  〃To　tell　the　truth；　his　books　are　none　of　mine；　I　mean　that　if　I　　wanted　reading；　I　do　not　go　for　it　to　the　EDINBURGH　EDITION。　　I　am　　not　interested　in　remarks　about　morals；　in　and　out　of　letters。　　I　　HAVE　LIVED　A　FULL　AND　VARIED　LIFE；　and　my　opinions　are　my　own。　　SO；　　IF　I　CRAVE　THE　ENCHANTMENT　OF　ROMANCE；　I　ASK　IT　OF　BIGGER　MEN　THAN　　HE；　AND　OF　BIGGER　BOOKS　THAN　HIS：　　of　ESMOND　（say）　and　GREAT　　EXPECTATIONS；　of　REDGAUNTLET　and　OLD　MORTALITY；　OF　LA　REINE　MARGOT　　and　BRAGELONNE；　of　DAVID　COPPERFIELD　and　A　TALE　OF　TWO　CITIES；　　while　if　good　writing　and　some　other　things　be　in　my　appetite；　are　　there　not　always　Hazlitt　and　Lamb　…　to　say　nothing　of　that　globe　of　　miraculous　continents；　which　is　known　to　us　as　Shakespeare？　　There　　is　his　style；　you　will　say；　and　it　is　a　fact　that　it　is　rare；　and　　IN　THE　LAST　times　better；　because　much　simpler　than　in　the　first。　　　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　　h