Complete Works of Edgar Allan Poe, page 334
I have not seen the January Messenger; — but “Quotidiana” is a very good title(.) “Quodlibetica” is also good; and even more inclusive than the other. I am fond of such articles as these; and in good hands they may be made very interesting.
Burton that illustrious “graduate of St John’s College, Cambridge” is going to the devil with the worst grace in the world, but with a velocity truly astounding. The press here, in a body, have given him the cut direct. So be it — suum cuique. We have said q(u)ite enough about this genius.
Mr Graham is a very g[en]tlemanly personage. I will see him tomorrow, and speak to him in regard to your essay: although, to prevent detection, Burton may have destroyed it.
And now, my dear Snodgrass, will you do me a favor? I have heard some mention made of a new Magazine to be established in Baltimore by a Virginian & a practical printer. I am anxious to know all the de(t)ails of the project. Can you procure & send me (by return of mail) a Prospectus? If you cannot get one, will you write me all about it — the gentleman’s name &c &c &c?
I have underscored the word “anxious” because I really mean what I say, and because, about a fortnight ago, I made to the Hon. N. C. Brooks A. M. a request just such as I now make to yourself. He did not reply; and I, expecting of course the treatment which one gentleman naturally expects from another, have been put to the greatest inconvenience by the daily but fruitless expectation.
ery truly & respectfully yours.
Edgar A Poe.
Dr. J. E. Snodgrass.
EDGAR ALLAN POE TO JOSEPH EVANS SNODGRASS — APRIL 1, 1841
Philadelphia, April 1, 1841.
My Dear Snodgrass —
I fear you have been thinking it was not my design to answer your kind letter at all. It is now April Fool’s Day, and yours is dated March 8th; but believe me, although, for good reason, I may occasionally postpone my reply to your favors, I am never in danger of forgetting them.
I am much obliged to you for permitting me to hand over your essay to Mr. Graham. It will appear in the June number. In order to understand this apparent delay, you must be informed that we go to press at a singularly early period. The May number is now within two days of being ready for delivery to the mails. I should be pleased to receive a brief notice of Soran’s poems for the June number — if you chink this will not be too late.
In regard to Burton. I feel indebted to you for the kind interest you express; but scarcely know how to reply. My situation is embarrassing. It is impossible, as you say, to notice a buffoon and a felon, as one gentleman would notice another. The law, then, is my only resource. Now, if the truth of a scandal could be admitted in justification — I mean of what the law terms a scandal — I would have matters all my own way. I would institute a suit, forthwith, for his personal defamation of myself. He would be unable to prove the truth of his allegations. I could prove their falsity and their malicious intent by witnesses who, seeing me at all hours of every day, would have the best right to speak — I mean Burton’s own clerk, Morrell, and the compositors of the printing office. In fact, I could prove the scandal almost by acclamation. I should obtain damages. But, on the other hand, I have never been scrupulous in regard to what I have said of him. I have always told him to his face, and everybody else, that I looked upon him as a blackguard and a villain. This is notorious. He would meet me with a cross action. The truth of the allegation — which I could easily prove as he would find it difficult to prove the truth of his own respecting me — would not avail me. The law will not admit, as justification of my calling Billy Burton a scoundrel, that Billy Burton is really such. What then can I do? If I sue, he sues; you see how it is.
At the same time — as I may, after further reflection, be induced to sue, I would take it as an act of kindness — not to say justice — on your part, if you would see the gentleman of whom you spoke, and ascertain with accuracy all that may legally avail me; that is to say, what and when were the words used, and whether your friend would be willing for your sake, for my sake, and for the sake of truth, to give evidence if called upon. Will you do this for me?
So far for the matter inasmuch as it concerns Burton. I have now to thank you for your defence of myself, as stated. You are a physician, and I presume no physician can have difficulty in detecting the drunkard at a glance. You are, moreover, a literary man, well read in morals. You will never be brought to believe that I could write what I daily write, as I write it, were I as this villain would induce those who know me not, to believe. In fine, I pledge you, before God, the solemn word of a gentleman, that I am temperate even to rigor. From the hour in which I first saw this basest of calumniators to the hour in which I retired from his office in uncontrollable disgust at his chicanery, arrogance, ignorance and brutality, nothing stronger than water ever passer my lips.
It is, however, due to candor that I inform you upon what foundation he has erected his slanders. At no period of my life was I ever what men call intemperate. I never was in the habit of intoxication. I never drunk drams, &c. But, for a brief period, while I resided in Richmond, and edited the Messenger, I certainly did give way, at long intervals, to the temptation held out on all sides by the spirit of Southern conviviality. My sensitive temperament could not stand an excitement which was an everyday matter to my companions. In short, it sometimes happened that I was completely intoxicated. For some days after each excess I was invariably confined to bed. But it is now quiet four years since I have abandoned every kind of alcoholic drink — four years, with the exception of a single deviation, which occurred shortly after my leaving Burton, and when I was induced to resort to the occasional use of cider, with the hope of relieving a nervous attack. You will thus see, frankly stated, the whole amount of my sin. You will also see the blackness of that heart which could revive a slander of this nature. Neither can you fail to perceive how desperate the malignity of the slanderer must be — how resolute he must be to slander, and how slight the grounds upon which he would build up a defamation — since he can find nothing better with which to charge me than an accusation which can be disproved by each and every man with whom I am in the habit of daily intercourse.
I have now only to repeat to you, in general, my solemn assurance that my habits are as far removed from intemperance as the day from the night. My sole drink is water.
Will you do me the kindness to repeat this assurance to such of your friends as happen to speak of me in your hearing?
I feel that nothing more is requisite, and you will agree with me upon reflection.
Hoping soon to hear from you, I am,
Yours most cordially,
Edgar A. Poe.
P.S. — You will receive the magazine, as a matter of course. I had supposed that you were already on our free list.
P.P.S. — The Penn, I hope, is only “scotched, not killed.” It would have appeared under glorious auspices, and with capital at command, in March, as advertised, but for the unexpected bank suspensions. In the meantime, Mr. Graham has made me a liberal offer, which I had great pleasure in accepting. The Penn project will unquestionably be resumed hereafter.
Dr. J. E. Snodgrass.
EDGAR ALLAN POE TO JOSEPH EVANS SNODGRASS — JULY 12, 1841
Philadelphia July 12. 1841.
My Dear Snodgrass,
I have this moment received yours of the 10th, and am really glad to find that you have not quite given me up. A letter from you now is a novelty indeed.
The “Reproof of a Bird” shall appear in the September number. The last sheet of the August no: has already gone to press.
I am innocent of the elision in your quoted lines. Most probably the syllables were left out by our proof-reader, who looks over the articles after me, for such things as turned s’s & o’s, or battered type. Occasionally he takes strange liberties. In our forthcoming number he has substituted, (I see), a small for a capital R in Rosinante. Still — the lines read very well as they are, and thus no great harm is done. Every one is not to know that the last one is a finale to a stanza.
You say some of your monumental writers “feel small” — but is not that, for them, a natural feeling? I never had much opinion of Arthur. What little merit he has is negative. McJilton I like much better. He has written one or two very good things. As a man, also, I like him better. Do you know, by the bye, that W. G. Clark reproved me in his Gazette, for speaking too favorably of McJilton?
I re-enclose the notice of Soran. It was unavoidably crowded from the July no: and we thought it out of date, for the August[.] I have not read the book — but I would have been willing to take his merits upon your word.
You flatter me about the Maelstrom. It was finished in a hurry, and therefore its conclusion is imperfect. Upon the whole it is neither so good, nor has it been 1/2 so popular as “The Murders in the Rue Morgue”. I have a paper in the August no: which will please you.
Among the Reviews (for August) I have one which will, at least, surprise you. It is a long notice of a satire by a quondam Baltimorean L. A. Wilmer. You must get this satire & read it — it is really good — good in the old-fashioned Dryden style. It blazes away, too, to the right & left — sparing not. I have made it the text from which to preach a fire-&-fury sermon upon critical independence, and the general literary humbuggery of the day. I have introduced in this sermon some portion of a Review formerly written by me for the “Pittsburg Examiner”, a monthly journal which died in the first throes of its existence. It was edited by E. Burke Fisher Esqre — th[a]n whom a greater scamp never walked. He wrote to me offering 4$ per page for criticism, promising to put them in as contributions — not editorially. The first thing I saw was one of my articles under the editorial head, so altered that I hardly recognized it, and interlarded with all manner of bad English and ridiculous opinions of his own. I believe, however, that the number in which it appeared, being >>its<< th last kick of the maga:; was never circulated.
I presume you get our Mag: regularly. It is mailed to your address.
Very cordially your friend,
Edgar A. Poe.
Will you do me the favor to call at the Baltimore P.O. and enquire for a letter addressed to John P. Kennedy at Baltimore. By some absence of mind I directed it to that city in place of Washington. If still in the P.O. will you forward it to Washington?
EDGAR ALLAN POE TO JOSEPH EVANS SNODGRASS — SEPTEMBER 19, 1841
Philadelphia — Sep. 19. 41.
My Dear Snodgrass,
I seize the first moment of leisure to say a few words in reply to yours of Sep. 6.
Touching the “Reproof of a Bird,” I hope you will give yourself no uneasiness about it. We don’t mind the contre-temps; and as for Godey, it serves him right, as you say. The moment I saw the article in The “Lady’s Book”, I saw at once how it all happened.
You are mistaken about “The Dial”. I have no quarrel in the world with that illustrious journal, nor it with me. I am not aware that it ever mentioned my name, or alluded to me either directly or indirectly. My slaps at it were only in “a general way.” The tale in question is a mere Extravaganza levelled at no one ir particular, hitting right & left at things in general.
The “Knickerbocker” has been purchased by Otis Broadus & Co of Boston. I believe it is still edited by Clark the brother of W. Gaylord. Thank you for attending to the Kennedy matter. We have no news here just yet — something may turn up by & bye. It is not impossible that Graham will join me in The “Penn.” He has money. By the way, is it impossible to start a first-class Mag: in Baltimore? Is there no publisher or gentleman of moderate capital who would join me in the scheme? — publishing the work in the City of Monuments.
Do write me soon & tell me the news,
Yours most cordially
Edgar A Poe
EDGAR ALLAN POE TO JOSEPH EVANS SNODGRASS — JUNE 4, 1842
Philadelphia — June 4. 1842.
My Dear Snodgrass,
How does it happen that, in these latter days, I never receive an epistle from yourself? Have I offended you by any of my evil deeds? — if so, how? Time was when you could spare a few minutes occas>>s<
I see with pleasure that you have become sole proprietor of the “Visiter”; and this reminds me that I have to thank your partiality for many flattering notices of myself. How is it, nevertheless, that a Magazine of the highest class has never yet succeeded in Baltimore? I have often thought, of late, how much better it would have been had you joined me in a Magazine project in the Monumental City, rather than engage with the “Visiter” — a journal which has never yet been able to recover from the mauvais odeur imparted to it by Hewitt. Notwithstanding the many failures in Baltimore, I still am firmly convinced that >>B<< your city is the best adapted for such a Magazine as I propose, of any in the Union. Have you ever thought seriously upon this subject.
I have a proposition to make. You may remember a tale of mine published about a year ago in “Graham” and entitled the “Murders in the Rue Morgue”. Its theme was the exercise of ingenuity in detecting a murderer. I am just now putting the concluding touch to a similar article, which I shall entitle “The Mystery of Marie Roget — a Sequel to ‘The Murders in the Rue Morgue’.” The story is based upon that of the real murder of Mary Cecilia Rogers, which created so vast an excitement, some months ago, in New-York. I have handled the design in a very singular and entirely novel manner. I imagine a series of nearly exact coincidences occurring in Paris. A young grisette, one Marie Roget, has been murdered under precisely similar circumstances with Mary Rogers. Thus under presence of showing how Dupin (the hero of the Rue Morgue) unravelled the mystery of Marie’s assassination, I, in fact, enter into a very rigorous analysis of the real tragedy in New-York. No point is omitted. I examine>>d<<, each by each, the opinions and arguments of our press on the subject, and show (I think satisfactorily) that this subject has never yet been approached. The press has been entirely on a wrong scent. In fact, I really believe, not only that I have demonstrated the falsity of the idea that the girl was >>not<< the victim of a gang >>as supposed<<, but have indicate! the assassin. My main object, however, as you will readily understand, is the analysis of the principles of investigation in cases of like character. Dupin reasons the matter throughout.
The article, I feel convinced, will be one of general interest, from the nature of its subject. For reasons which I may mention to you hereafter, I am desirous of publishing it in Baltimore, and there would be no channel so proper as the paper under your control. Now the tale is a long one — it would occupy twenty-five pages of Graham’s Magazine — and is worth to me a hundred dollars at the usual Magazine price. Of course I could not afford to make you an absolute present of it — but if you are willing to take it, I will say $40. Shall I hear from you on this head — if possible by return of mail?
Have you seen Griswold’s Book of Poetry? It is a most outrageous humbug, and I sincerely wish you would “use it up”.
If you have not yet noticed my withdrawal from Graham’s Magazine, I would take it as a great favor if you would do so in something like the following terms. Even if you have noticed it, this might go in.
We have it from undoubted authority that Mr Poe has retired from the editorship of “Graham’s Magazine”, and that his withdrawal took place with the May number, notwithstanding the omission of all announcement to this effect in the number for June. We observe that the “Boston Post”, in finding just fault with an exceedingly ignorant and flippant review of “Zanoni” which appears in the June number, has spoken of it as from the pen of Mr Poe[.] We will take it upon ourselves to say that Mr P. neither did write the article, nor could have written any such absurdity. The slightest glance would suffice to convince us of this. Mr P. would never be guilty of the grammatical blunders, to say nothing of the mere “wattle, which disgrace the criticism. When did >>Mr P.<< he ever spell liaison, liason, for example, or make use of so absurd a phrase as “attained to” in place of attained? We are also fully confident that the criticism in question is not the work of Mr Griswold, who (, whatever may be his abilities as the compiler of a Book of Poetry,) is at all events a decent writer of English. The article appears to be the handiwork of some underling who has become imbued with th[e] fancy of aping >>some of<< Mr Poe’s peculiarities of diction. A pretty mess he has made of it! Not to announce Mr P’s withdrawal in the June number, was an act of the rankest injustice; and as such we denounce it. A man of talent may occasionally submit to the appropriation of his articles by others who insinuate a claim to the authorship, but it is a far different and vastly more disagreeable affair >>matter<< when he finds >>th<< himself called upon to father the conceit, ignorance and flippant impertinence of an ass.
Put this in editorially, >>ny<< my dear S., and oblige me eternally. You will acknowledge that it will be an act of justice.
Write immediately and believe me[,]
Your friend.
Edgar A Poe
If you put in th[e] paragraph send me the no: of the Visiter.
SPARKS, JARED
EDGAR ALLAN POE TO JARED SPARKS — MAY 23, 1836
Richmond May 23. 1836.
Dear Sir,
Your letter of the 17th is received, and I reply to it at the request of Mr White. Herewith a number of the Messenger is forwarded, containing the Letter of Celia Single.
