This rather long but necessary preface brings me to another and more recent attempt to recover the old emotion. I refer to my recent experience with _The Egoist_ and the subject of Imagism in its relation to poetry. I suppose most intelligent persons are inquiring what Imagism and _The Egoist_ have to do with each other. _The Egoist_ is obviously, as its name implies, a journal devoted to egoism. And its sub-title informs us that it is an individualistic review. Of course, egoism is an entirely individualistic affair. It consists in putting on the armour of self-assertion and defending the special faith and interests of one’s own. The power that one seeks to win is that of subjecting material conditions and exacting the utmost spiritual toll from everything. One pays no regard to the opinion of others, and refuses to play the part of a cypher, and at the same time refuses to play any part with others. To stand alone, and with a light heart to do the necessary bargaining with external influences for the possession of one’s own soul—this, it seems to me, is the true ground of egoism. Opposed to this is the process of self-suppression, the process of making bundles of cyphers. When men obliterate not their corporeal natures but the spiritual part of themselves, by coming together and acting together, and so juggle the play tricks in order that they may gain the applause and reward of their fellows, they are cyphers, not egoists, and deserve to be treated as cyphers. Persons who take this view of egoism have naturally been watching for the appearance in the pages of _The Egoist_ of numerous writers with aspirations beyond the group or societal level and not seeing them appear have begun to ask what _The Egoist_ “stands for.” I believe this question of “standing for” is one which is hurled at every new and significant journal. One knows that it has been flung at THE LITTLE REVIEW. There are two ways of answering it. A journal may show that it does “stand for” something, or it may confound its critics by claiming the high distinction of not “standing for” anything. Simply it does not exist in time and space. It exists by the grace of God, so to speak. As to what _The Egoist_ “stands for,” it is not my concern. The thing for me to note is that for some issues it has been affected by a very strong habit of Imagism. Now Imagism is not egoism. I do not think the Imagists themselves are egoists. To me they appear to be socialists by instinct and individualists by profession, just as Mr. Bernard Shaw is an individualist by instinct and a socialist by profession. He is an autocrat with a democratic lampblack rubbed over his face to commercialize his appearance. The Imagists are the reverse with the added difference that they use the polish to beautify rather than commercialize their appearance. In saying this I do not wish to appear to be attacking the Imagists. On the contrary, I am anxious to pay them every possible compliment.