I do not agree with Mr. Watson or with Mr. Mackaye, that real poets
are speaking to deaf ears, or that they should be stimulated by forced
attention. I once heard Percy Mackaye make an eloquent and high-minded
address, where, if my memory serves me rightly, he advocated something
like a stipend for young poets. A distinguished old man in the
audience, now with God, whispered audibly, "What most of them need is
hanging!" I do not think they should be rewarded either by cash or the
gallows. Let them make their way, and if they have genius, the public
will find it out. If all they have is talent, and no means to support
it, poetry had better become their avocation.

Mr. Watson has expressly disclaimed that in his lecture he was
lamenting merely "the insufficient praise bestowed upon living poets."
It is certainly true that most poets cannot live by the sale of their
works. Is this especially the fault of our age? is it the fault of our
poets? is it a fault in human nature? Mr. Watson said, "Yet I am bound
to admit that this need for the poet is felt by but few persons in our
day. With one exception there is not a single living English poet, the
sales of whose poems would not have been thought contemptible by Scott
and Byron. The exception is, of course, that apostle of British
imperialism--that vehement and voluble glorifier of Britannic ideals,
whom I dare say you will readily identify from my brief, and, I hope,
not disparaging description of him. With that one brilliant and
salient exception, England's living singers succeed in reaching only a
pitifully small audience." In commenting on this passage, we ought to
remember that Scott and Byron were colossal figures, so big that no
eye could miss them; and that the reason why Kipling has enjoyed
substantial rewards is not because of his political views, nor because
of his glorification of the British Empire, but simply because of his