had been real, like laughter; and production, without prejudice to
liquor, was his god and guide.'


This sense of the realities of the world, - laughter, happiness,
the simple emotions of childhood, and others, - makes Stevenson an
admirable critic of those social pretences that ape the native
qualities of the heart. The criticism on organised philanthropy
contained in the essay on BEGGARS is not exhaustive, it is
expressed paradoxically, but is it untrue?


'We should wipe two words from our vocabulary: gratitude and
charity. In real life, help is given out of friendship, or it is
not valued; it is received from the hand of friendship, or it is
resented. We are all too proud to take a naked gift; we must seem
to pay it, if in nothing else, then with the delights of our
society. Here, then, is the pitiful fix of the rich man; here is
that needle's eye in which he stuck already in the days of Christ,
and still sticks to-day, firmer, if possible, than ever; that he
has the money, and lacks the love which should make his money
acceptable. Here and now, just as of old in Palestine, he has the
rich to dinner, it is with the rich that he takes his pleasure: and
when his turn comes to be charitable, he looks in vain for a
recipient. His friends are not poor, they do not want; the poor
are not his friends, they will not take. To whom is he to give?
Where to find - note this phrase - the Deserving Poor? Charity is
(what they call) centralised; offices are hired; societies founded,
with secretaries paid or unpaid: the hunt of the Deserving Poor
goes merrily forward. I think it will take a more than merely