The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-09-05
Watson VS.. KipIing.

Although Rudyard Kipling is an Eng
lishman by birth, his versatility and his
disregard of sacred English traditions has
not endeared him to the British literary
mugwump. This element of the reading
world does not know what to make of his
jubilee hymn, Professionalism, rather,
they do not know what to make of him.
For they seem to be unable to separate the
writer from his work. They acknowledge
that the lines have merit, but, as one lit
erary periodical says, lone cannot feel
quite convinced of the poets sincerity"
1t adds: IF there is one singer of the en-
pire more firebreathing than another, one
that has taught us. more than most, the
religion of reeking tube and iron shard,
it is this same poet who now exhorts us to
recant our frantic boast and foolish
word 1t is possible, of course, to regard
this hymn as a kind of public confession
of the writer's own past sins; but it is far
easier to suspect it of being a mere exercise
in versatility"
Then follows the curious comment, 1.-The
hand is the hand of Kipling, but the voice
is the voice of William Watson" The
mugwump mind, whether directed toward
politics, religion or literature, is constitu-
tionally unable to comprehend anything
but the serious and solemn. Anything
verging on the light or humorous order is
regarded as suspicious, and versatility is
hardly less than crime. William Watson
pleases the serious-m minded Briton; he is
scholarly beyond doubt, and the English
man admires a scholar though he may not
be one himself; but, more potent than this,
he is also serious and devout. That he is
a trihe heavy also in nowise lessons this
esteem. But they cannot understand that
the man who wrote the gay and rollicking
"barrack-room ballads" may also be rever-
ent and devout. Mr.. Watson never did
anything so frivolous, and therefore when
Mr.. Watson writes hymn he is sincere.
1t is queer reasoning. But the charge that
the "Recessional hymn is the voice of
Watson and the hand of Kipling is the
more remarkable in view of a hymn to the
Unknown Cod" which appears in Har-
pers Weekly and which, while entirely
different In theme, curiously suggests the
"Recessional'' in hand and voice." and
to some extent in thought. Kipling says:
God of our fathers, known of old
Lord of our far-fung battle line
Beneath whose awful hand we hold
Dominion over palm and pine
Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forget-lest we forget"
Watson writes:
"Best by remembering God say some,
We keep our high imperial lot.
Fortune, l fear hath oftenest come
When we forgot-when we forgot.
a lovelier faith their happier crown,
But history laughs and weepS 1t down.
OF course, if Mr. Watson wrote this
poem quite recently and had read Mr. Kip
lings verses this apparent echo of them
or answer TO them, in this strain is ex-
planned. but If not, then it is one of the
odd condolences of literature. But though
it is a stately hymn it nowise exceeds in
fervor and reverence the one by Kipling.
The English critics may as well accept the
fact that they have two poets of a high
order-one who can do one thing well, and
the other many things. and both sincere.