election offers a
grave difficulty. H. G. Wells, who heartily approved the main idea,
brought out the fact that it would never do to leave the choice to a
jury, as no jury would ever have voted for half of the great poets who
have perished miserably. Juries are much too conventionally minded.
For they are public functionaries; or, if not that, at least they feel
self-consciously as if they were going to be held publicly
responsible, and are apt to bring extremely conventional, and perhaps
priggish, standards to bear upon their choice. "They invariably become
timid and narrow," wrote Mr. Wells, "and seek refuge in practical,
academic, and moral tests that invariably exclude the real men of
genius."

Prizes and competitions were considered equally ill-advised methods of
selection. It is significant that these methods are now being rapidly
dropped in the fields of sculpture and architecture. For the mere
thought of a competition is a thing essentially antagonistic to the
creative impulse; and talent is likely to acquit itself better than
genius in such a struggle. The idea of a poetic competition is a relic
of a pioneer mode of thought. Mr. Wells concluded that the decision
should be made by the individual. But I cannot agree with him that
that same individual should be the donor of the fellowship. It seems
to me that this would-be savior of our American poetry should select
the best judge of poets and poetry that he can discover and be guided
by his advice.

On general principles, there are several things that this judge should
_not_ be. He should not be a professor of English, because of the
professor's usual bias toward the academic. Besides, these fellowships
ought not in any way to be associated with institutions of
learning--places which are apt to fetter poets and surround them with
an atmosphere hostile to the creative impulse. Neither should this
momentous decision be left to editors or publishers, because they are
usually suffering from literary indigestion caused by skimming too
many manuscripts too fast, and because, at any rate, they ordinarily
pay little attention to poetry and hold it commercially "in one grand
despise." Nor should the normal type of poet be chosen as judge to
decide this question. For the poet is apt to have a narrow, one-sided
view of the field. He has probably developed his own distinctive style
and personality at the expense of artistic catholicity and kindly
breadth of critical judgm