Article #333-1 | Gutenberg Articles

Excerpt

Excerpt from Robert Louis Stevenson, by Sir Walter Alexander Raleigh

'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 human
secretary to disinter that character. What! a class that is to be in
want from no fault of its own, and yet greedily eager to receive from
strangers; and to be quite respectable, and at the same time quite
devoid of self-respect; and play the most delicate part of friendship,
and yet never be seen; and wear the form of man, and yet fly in the
face of all the laws of human nature:--and all this, in the hope of
getting a belly-god burgess through a needle's eye! Oh, let him
stick, by all means; and let his polity tumble in the dust; and let
his epitaph and all his literature (of which my own works begin to
form no inconsiderable part) be abolished even from the history of
man! For a fool of this monstrosity of dulness there can be no
salvation; and the fool who looked for the elixir of life was an angel
of reason to the fool who looks for the Deserving Poor.'

An equal sense of the realities of life and death gives the force of a
natural law to the pathos of Old Mortality, that essay in which
Stevenson pays passionate tribute to the memory of his early friend, who
'had gone to ruin with a kingly abandon, like one who condescended; but
once ruined, with the lights all out, he fought as for a kingdom.' The
whole description, down to the marvellous quotation from Bunyan that
closes it, is one of the sovereign passages of modern literature; the
pathos of it is pure and elemental, like the rush of a cleansing wind, or
the onset of the legions commanded by

'The mighty Mahmud, Allah-breathing Lord,
That all the misbelieving and black Horde
Of Fears and Sorrows that infest the Soul
Scatters before him with his whirlwind Sword.'

Explanation

**Detailed Explanation of the Excerpt from Robert Louis Stevenson by Sir Walter Alexander Raleigh**

This passage, written by Sir Walter Raleigh (a British scholar and biographer, not the Elizabethan explorer) in his study of Robert Louis Stevenson, is a scathing critique of charity, social inequality, and the hypocrisy of class relations in Victorian society. The excerpt blends social commentary, moral philosophy, and literary appreciation, using Stevenson’s own ideas (and possibly his essay "Old Mortality") as a springboard for a broader meditation on human dignity, friendship, and the failures of institutionalized benevolence.

Raleigh’s prose is satirical, impassioned, and rhetorically forceful, employing paradox, irony, and biblical allusion to dismantle the myth of the "Deserving Poor" and expose the emotional and psychological barriers that prevent true generosity. Below is a breakdown of the text’s key elements, themes, and literary techniques, with a focus on the actual wording and structure of the passage.

1. Context & Source

Author & Work: Sir Walter Raleigh (1861–1922) was a literary scholar and professor who wrote a critical study of Robert Louis Stevenson (1850–1894), the Scottish novelist (Treasure Island, Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde). This excerpt likely comes from Raleigh’s analysis of Stevenson’s essays or personal philosophy, particularly his views on friendship, poverty, and moral integrity.
Stevenson’s Influence: Stevenson himself was deeply concerned with human duality, social justice, and the ethics of charity. His essay "Old Mortality" (from Memories and Portraits, 1887) is a tribute to his friend William Ernest Henley, a poet who faced poverty and illness with defiant dignity. Raleigh references this essay to contrast true human connection with the hollow mechanisms of institutional charity.
Victorian Background: The passage critiques Victorian philanthropy, which often stigmatized the poor by dividing them into the "deserving" (morally upright, hardworking) and "undeserving" (lazy, vice-ridden). Raleigh (via Stevenson’s ideas) rejects this distinction as absurd and dehumanizing.

2. Themes

A. The Illusion of Gratitude & Charity

The opening lines are provocative and absolute:
"We should wipe two words from our vocabulary: gratitude and charity."
- Gratitude implies a hierarchy—the giver is superior, the receiver inferior.
- Charity is transactional, not relational; it reduces human interaction to economic exchange.
Raleigh argues that true help is given and received through friendship, not obligation:
"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."
- The word "resented" is key—it suggests that charity without mutual respect is humiliating.
- The phrase "we must seem to pay it" implies that even the poor perform dignity to avoid the shame of dependency.

B. The Rich Man’s Dilemma (The Needle’s Eye)

Raleigh invokes the biblical metaphor of the "needle’s eye" (Matthew 19:24: "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.").
"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..."
- The rich man is trapped—he has money but lacks the love that makes money meaningful.
- His social circle is exclusive ("the rich to dinner, it is with the rich that he takes his pleasure"), so when he tries to be charitable, he has no genuine relationships with the poor.
- The satirical question: "To whom is he to give?" exposes the absurdity of his position.

C. The Myth of the "Deserving Poor"

Raleigh mocks the Victorian obsession with finding the "Deserving Poor"—a class of people who are:
- Poor through no fault of their own (yet somehow still exist in a system designed to blame them).
- Eager to receive help from strangers (but not so eager as to seem undignified).
- Respectable yet lacking self-respect (a contradiction).
- Invisible yet performing friendship (another impossibility).
The sarcastic tone peaks here:
"What! a class that is to be in want from no fault of its own, and yet greedily eager to receive from strangers; and to be quite respectable, and at the same time quite devoid of self-respect..."
- The accumulation of contradictions ("respectable yet devoid of self-respect") makes the idea logically absurd.
- The final jab:
  "and all this, in the hope of getting a belly-god burgess through a needle's eye!"
  - "Belly-god" (a term for materialism) + "burgess" (a middle-class citizen) = a greedy, hypocritical philanthropist.
  - The needle’s eye returns, now applied to the rich man’s impossible moral task.

D. The Collapse of the System

Raleigh’s final outburst is apocalyptic and dismissive:
"Oh, let him stick, by all means; and let his polity tumble in the dust; and let his epitaph and all his literature... be abolished even from the history of man!"
- "Let him stick"—the rich man is irredeemable; his system is doomed.
- "Polity" (social order) should collapse because it’s built on hypocrisy.
- The self-deprecating humor ("of which my own works begin to form no inconsiderable part") suggests that even literature (including Raleigh’s own) is complicit in perpetuating these myths.

E. Contrast with True Human Connection (Old Mortality)

The second half shifts to Stevenson’s essay on his friend, which Raleigh calls "one of the sovereign passages of modern literature."
- The friend (likely William Ernest Henley) is described as:
  "had gone to ruin with a kingly abandon, like one who condescended; but once ruined, with the lights all out, he fought as for a kingdom."
  - "Kingly abandon" = noble defiance in the face of poverty.
  - "Lights all out" = total despair, yet he fights on.
- The quotation from Bunyan (likely from The Pilgrim’s Progress) and the image of Mahmud (a warrior scattering "Fears and Sorrows") reinforce the heroic struggle against adversity.
- This is the antithesis of charity—it’s about dignity, friendship, and mutual respect, not condescension.

3. Literary Devices & Style

Device	Example	Effect
Paradox	"quite respectable, and at the same time quite devoid of self-respect"	Exposes the impossibility of the "Deserving Poor" ideal.
Irony/Sarcasm	"the hunt of the Deserving Poor goes merrily forward"	Mocks the bureaucratic, dehumanizing search for "worthy" recipients.
Biblical Allusion	"needle’s eye"	Frames wealth as a moral obstacle, not a virtue.
Rhetorical Questions	"To whom is he to give?"	Highlights the rich man’s isolation and the futility of his charity.
Metaphor	"belly-god burgess"	Portrays the rich as greedy idolaters of wealth.
Contrast	Charity (cold, institutional) vs. Friendship (warm, personal)	Reinforces the moral superiority of genuine human connection.
Hyperbole	"a more than merely human secretary to disinter that character"	Emphasizes the absurdity of the "Deserving Poor" as a mythical creature.
Epic Simile	"like the rush of a cleansing wind" (describing Old Mortality)	Elevates Stevenson’s essay to a sublime, almost spiritual experience.

4. Significance & Interpretation

Critique of Victorian Philanthropy: Raleigh (via Stevenson) rejects the moralizing charity of the 19th century, which judged the poor rather than helped them. The "Deserving Poor" is a fantasy that allows the rich to feel virtuous without real sacrifice.
Human Dignity vs. Economic Transaction: True generosity must be mutual—given freely, received without shame. Friendship is the only valid currency.
The Rich Man’s Tragedy: Wealth isolates; the rich are trapped in their own class, unable to form authentic relationships with those in need.
Literary & Moral Urgency: Raleigh’s passionate tone suggests that society’s failure to recognize these truths is a moral catastrophe. The destruction of false charity is necessary for real human connection.
Stevenson’s Influence: The contrast with Old Mortality shows that Stevenson valued personal loyalty and defiance over institutional pity. His friend’s noble struggle is the opposite of the "Deserving Poor"—it’s unapologetic, proud, and human.

5. Conclusion: Why This Passage Matters

Raleigh’s excerpt is not just a critique of charity—it’s a manifesto on human relationships. By dismantling the language of gratitude and charity, he exposes how economic inequality corrupts even our best intentions. The rich man’s dilemma is not just about money—it’s about love, respect, and the failure of a society that reduces people to transactions.

The shift to Old Mortality at the end is redemptive—it shows that true connection is possible, but only outside the hypocritical structures of class and charity. Stevenson’s friend fights like a king in ruin, embodying the dignity that no alms can buy.

In a broader sense, this passage challenges us to rethink how we help others:

Is our generosity real, or performative?
Do we see the poor as equals, or as projects for our moral improvement?
Can money ever replace love?

Raleigh’s fiery, uncompromising prose makes it clear: until we answer these questions, the rich man will remain stuck in the needle’s eye—and the poor will remain invisible.

Questions

Question 1

The passage’s depiction of the "Deserving Poor" primarily serves to:

A. illustrate the psychological toll of poverty on those who resist institutional aid.
B. expose the bureaucratic inefficiencies of Victorian charitable organizations.
C. advocate for a more systematic approach to identifying genuinely needy individuals.
D. highlight the moral superiority of those who reject charity out of self-respect.
E. reveal the logical and ethical absurdity of a category designed to justify conditional generosity.

Question 2

The phrase "the hunt of the Deserving Poor goes merrily forward" is best understood as:

A. a neutral observation of the administrative zeal behind philanthropic efforts.
B. a satirical indictment of the performative and futile nature of institutional charity.
C. an acknowledgment of the genuine progress made in alleviating poverty through organized systems.
D. a lament for the diminishing role of personal relationships in modern benevolence.
E. a call to action for more aggressive pursuit of those who exploit charitable resources.

Question 3

The contrast between the rich man’s dilemma and the depiction of Stevenson’s friend in Old Mortality is most fundamentally a contrast between:

A. transactional pity and unconditional human solidarity.
B. religious hypocrisy and secular heroism.
C. economic pragmatism and artistic idealism.
D. institutional failure and individual resilience.
E. class-based obligation and meritocratic self-reliance.

Question 4

The author’s reference to "the mighty Mahmud, Allah-breathing Lord" functions primarily to:

A. introduce an exotic metaphor to elevate the passage’s literary grandeur.
B. underscore the spiritual dimension of poverty as a test of faith.
C. evoke the image of a liberating force that transcends material and moral constraints.
D. contrast Eastern conceptions of charity with Western philanthropic traditions.
E. emphasize the inevitability of suffering as a universal human experience.

Question 5

The final sentence—"the fool who looked for the elixir of life was an angel of reason to the fool who looks for the Deserving Poor"—is structured to:

A. equate the search for immortality with the pursuit of moral perfection.
B. emphasize the greater absurdity of the "Deserving Poor" compared to even the most fantastical quests.
C. suggest that both endeavors are equally futile but differ in their societal impact.
D. critique the scientific materialism underlying both alchemy and modern philanthropy.
E. imply that the "Deserving Poor" might exist but are as rare as the elixir of life.

Solutions and Explanations

1) Correct answer: E

Why E is most correct: The passage systematically dismantles the concept of the "Deserving Poor" by exposing its internal contradictions (e.g., being "respectable yet devoid of self-respect") and practical impossibility (a class that must be both invisible and eagerly receptive). The author’s tone is mocking and hyperbolic, framing the category as a rationalization for conditional, hierarchical generosity rather than a genuine moral or logical construct. The correct answer captures this absurdity as both ethical and structural, aligning with the passage’s broader critique of transactional charity.