I return the verses--with apology for tardiness. I've been "full up"
with cares.
* * * * *
I would not change "Religion" to "Dogma" (if I were you) for all "the
pious monks of St. Bernard." Once you begin to make concessions to the
feelings of this person or that there is no place to stop and you may
as well hang up the lyre. Besides, Dogma does not "seek"; it just
impudently declares something to have been found. However, it is a
small matter--nothing can destroy the excellence of the verses. I only
want to warn you against yielding to a temptation which will assail
you all your life--the temptation to "edit" your thought for somebody
whom it may pain. Be true to Truth and let all stand from under.
Yes, I think the quatrain that you wrote in Col. Eng's book good
enough to go in your own. But I'd keep "discerning," instead of
substituting "revering." In art discernment _carries_ reverence.
_Of course_ I expect to say something of Scheff's book, but in no
paper with which I have a present connection can I regularly "review"
it. Hearst's papers would give it incomparably the widest publicity,
but they don't want "reviews" from me. They have Millard, who has
already reviewed it--right well too--and Prof. Peck--who possibly
might review it if it were sent to him. "Prof. Harry Thurston Peck,
care of 'The American,' New York City." Mention it to Scheff. I'm
trying to find out what I can do.
I'm greatly pleased to observe your ability to estimate the relative
value of your own poems--a rare faculty. "To Imagination" is, _I_
think, the best of all your short ones.
I'm impatient for the book. It, too, I shall hope to write something
about. Sincerely yours,