most self-respecting, the most
individual prose writers of the age." Even in the matter of style he
consciously respected his own individuality, refusing to read either
Stevenson or Kipling for fear that their masterful strength might lead
him out of his path. Certainly his bitterest enemies could not accuse
him of borrowing from either of them. Mr. Kipling is apt to sacrifice
everything to force, while Pater is perhaps the gentlest writer of our
time. In Stevenson there is a delicate and yet vigorous human passion,
but also a sense of fitness, a consciousness of style that is all his
own. He is preaching, and not swearing at you, as you often feel Mr.
Kipling to be doing. To preach at one may be indeed to take a great
liberty, but of course much will depend upon whether the preaching is
good preaching. Be that as it may, Pater is distinctive, and borrows
nothing from any writer whose influence can be traced in his work. He
neither swears nor preaches, but weaves about his reader a subtle film
of thought, through whose gossamer all things seem to suffer a curious
change, and to become harmonious and suggestive, as dark and
quiet-coloured things often are. The writer does not force himself upon
his readers, nor tempt even the most susceptible to imitate him; rather
he presupposes himself, and dominates without appearing. His reticence,
to which we have already referred, is one of his most characteristic
qualities. Dr. Gosse ascribes it to a somewhat low and sluggish vitality
of physical spirits. For one in this condition "the first idea in the
presence of anything too vivacious is to retreat, and the most obvious
form of social retreat is what we call affectation." That Pater's style
has impressed many readers as affected there can be no question, and it
is as unquestionable that Dr. Gosse's explanation is the true one.

His style has been much abused by critics who have found it easy to say
smart things about such tempting peculiarities. We may admit at once
that the writing is laboured and shows constant marks of the tool. The
same criticism applies, for that matter, to much that Stevenson has
written. But unless a man's style is absolutely offensive, which Pater's
emphatically is not, it is a wise rule to accept it rather as a
revelation of the man than as a chance for saying clever things. As one
reads the work of some of our modern critics, one cannot but perceive
and regret how much of pleasure and of profit their c