I am sorry now not to have treasured every word that came from my poet. At the moment I disliked to play Boswell; I thought it beneath my dignity. But artists like Arnold Bennett who ply the notebook are not ashamed to be the Boswells of mediocrity. Why should I have hesitated to take notes of William Butler Yeats?

In the Pennsylvania station I had met him, as his host agreed, and I intruded on him as far as Philadelphia. I say intruded: his forehead wrinkled in tolerant endurance too often for me to feel that I was welcome. And yet, once we were settled, he was not unwilling to speak. His dark eyes, oblique and set far into his head, gave him a cryptic and remote suggestion. His pursed lips closed as on a secret. He opened them for utterance almost as in a dream. As if he were spokesman of some sacred book spread in front of him but raptly remembered, he pronounced his opinions seriously, occasionally raising his hands to fend his words. He was, I think, inwardly satisfied that I was attentive. I was indeed attentive. I had never listened to more distinguished conversation. Or, rather, monologue—for when I talked he suspended his animation, like a singer waiting for the accompanist to run down.

It was on the eve of The New Republic. I asked him if he’d write for it, and he answered characteristically. He said that journalism was action and that nothing except the last stage of exasperation could make him want to write for a journal as he had written about Blanco Posnet or The Playboy. The word “journalism” he uttered as a nun might utter “vaudeville.” He was reminded, he said, of an offer that was made to Oscar Wilde of the editorship of a fashion paper, to include court gossip. Wouldn’t it interest Wilde? “Ah, yes,” responded Wilde, “I am deeply interested in a court scandal at present.” The journalist (devourer of carrion, of course) was immediately eager. “Yes,” said Wilde, “the scandal of the Persian court in the year 400 B. C.”

It was telling. It made me ashamed for my profession. I could not forget, however, pillars of the Ladies’ World edited by Oscar Wilde which I used to store in an out-house. Wilde had condescended in the end.

Yeats’s mind was bemused by his recollection of his fellow-Irishman. Once he completed his lectures he would go home, and a “fury of preoccupation” would keep him from being caught in those activities that lead to occasional writing. His lectures would not go into essays but into dialogues, “of a man wandering through the antique city of Fez.” In the cavern blackness of those eyes I could feel that there was a mysterious gaze fixed on the passing crowd of the moment, the gaze of a stranger to fashion who might as well write of Persia, a dreamer beyond space and time.

“And humanitarian writing,” he concluded, with a weary limp motion of his hand, “the writing of reformers, ‘uplifters,’ with a narrow view of democracy I find dull. The Webbs are dull. And truistic.”

I spoke of the Irish John Mitchel’s narrow antidemocracy and belief in the non-existence of progress, such as he had argued in Virginia during the Civil War. Mitchel, he protested, was a passionate nature. The progress he denied was a progress wrongly conceived by Macaulay and the early Victorians. It was founded on “truisms” not really true. Whether Carlyle or Mitchel was the first to repudiate these ideas he didn’t know: possibly Mitchel was.

Yeats’s one political interest at that time, before the war, was the Irish question. He believed in home rule. He believed the British democracy was then definitely making the question its own, and “this is fortunate.” I spoke of Jung’s belief in England’s national complex. He was greatly interested. Ulster opposition to home rule he regretted. “The Scarlet Woman is of course a great inspiration,” he said, “and Carson has stimulated this. His one desire is to wreck home rule, and so there cannot be arrangement by consent. I agree with Redmond that Carson has gone ahead on a military conspiracy. Personally, I do not say so for a party reason. I am neither radical nor tory. I think Asquith is a better man than Lloyd George—less inflated. He is a moderate, not puffed up with big phrases. He meets the issue that arises when it arises.... I object to the uplifter who makes other people’s sins his business, and forgets his chief business, his own sins. Jane Addams? Ah, that is different.”

His lectures he would not discuss but he spoke a good deal of audiences. In his own audiences he found no one more eager, no one who knows more, than an occasional old man, a man of sixty. He was surprised and somewhat disappointed to find prosperity go hand in hand with culture in this country. In the city where the hotel is bad there is likely to be a poor audience. Where it is good, the audience is good. In his own country the happiest woman he could name was a woman living in a Dublin slum whose mind is full of beautiful imaginings and fantasies. Is poverty an evil? We should desire a condition of life which would satisfy the need for food and shelter, and, for the rest, be rich in imagination. The merchant builds himself a palace only for auto-suggestion. The poor woman is as rich as the merchant. I said yes, but that a brute or a Bismarck comes in and overrides the imagination. He agreed. “Life is the warring of forces and these forces seem to be irreconcilable.”

It could cost an artist too much to escape poverty. I spoke of the deadness of so much of the work done by William Sharp and Grant Allen. He said it was Allen’s own fault. He, or his wife, wanted too many thousand dollars a year. They had to bring up their children on the same scale as their friends’ children! And he kindled at this folly. “A woman who marries an artist,” he said with much animation, “is either a goose, or mad, or a hero. If she’s a goose, she drives him to earn money. If she’s mad she drives him mad. If she’s a hero, they suffer together, and they come out all right.”

Phrases like this were not alone. There was the keen observation that the Pennsylvania station is “free from the vulgarity of advertisement”; the admission of second hand expression in Irish poetry except in The Dark Rosaleen and Hussey’s Ode; a generalization on Chicago to the effect that “courts love poetry, plutocracies love tangible art.” Not for a moment did this mind cease to move over the face of realities and read their legend and interpret its meaning. Meeting him was not like Hazlitt’s meeting Coleridge. I could not say, “my heart, shut up in the prison-house of this rude clay, has never found, nor will it ever find, a heart to speak to; but that my understanding also did not remain dumb and brutish, or at length found a language to express itself, I owe to Coleridge.” But the Yeats I met did not meet me. I remained on the periphery. Yet from what I learned there I can believe in the sesame of poets. I hope that some one to-day, nearer to him than a journalist, is wise enough to treasure his words.