of　our　critics；　like　those　of　Alexandria　in　the　first　centuries　of　our　era；　think　and　preach　that　style　is　the　really　important　thing；　much　more　important　than　the　substance　of　the　story。　I　cannot　believe　that　they　are　right。　The　substance　is；　as　it　were；　the　soul　of　the　matter；　the　style　is　its　outward　and　visible　body。　I　prefer　a　creation　with　a　great　soul；　even　if　its　form　is　somewhat　marred；　to　one　with　a　beautifully　finished　form　and　very　little　soul。　Of　course　when　the　two　are　found　together；　a　rare　event；　there　is　perfection。　Also　people　differ　in　their　ideas　of　what　style　really　is。　By　it　some　understand　inverted　sentences；　unusual　words　and　far…fetched　metaphors　or　allusions；　making　up　a　whole　that　is　difficult　to　prehend。　Others　hold　that　the　greater　the　simplicity　of　the　language；　the　better　the　style。　I　am　not　an　authority；　but　my　own　view　is　that　above　all　things　the　written　word　should　be　clear　and　absolutely　readable；　and　that　work　which　does　not　fulfil　these　conditions　can　scarcely　be　expected　to　endure。　It　runs　a　grave　risk　of　passing　with　the　fashion　of　the　hour。　To　take　a　single　instance；　the　Authorised　version　of　the　Old　Testament；　considered　as　literature；　seems　to　me　to　fulfil　all　the　requisites　of　good　writing；　in　fact　to　be　style　in　the　truest　sense。　Yet　the　meaning　remains　perfectly　clear；　and　were　those　books　to　cease　to　be　studied　for　their　religious　contents；　they　would　still　always　be　read　as　a　model　of　plain　and　vigorous　English。

But　to　return　to　Stevenson。　Here　I　will　add　the　last　letter　save　one　that　I　received　from　him；　though　again　I　do　not　know　to　what　it　refers；　since　the　enclosure　of　which　he　speaks　is　missing；　or　at　any　rate　has　not　been　found　at　present。　Like　the　others　it　is　undated；　but　the　allusion　to　“Nada　the　Lily”