Text: Samuel V. Cole, “Stedman and Poe Again,” The Critic (New York, NY), November 28, 1885, p. 257, col. 1

[page 257, column 1, continued:]

Stedman and Poe Again.

TO THE EDITORS OF THE CRITIC:

THE two points in Mr. Stedman's notice of Poe which are objected to by your correspondent in a recent issue, have impressed me in another way. They confirm rather than weaken my faith in the critic's acumen. Mr. Stedman says of Poe that ‘ the slender body of his poetial [[poetical]] remains should make writers hesitate to pronounce him our greatest one,’ and your correspondent asks: ‘If this were so, where would Sappho stand? or the unknown creator of the Apollo Belvedere, in the ranks of Greek artists?’ As to Sappho, we may answer that she would probably stand exactly where she now stands — not by any means as the greatest one among Greek poets, but only so great a one as the quality and quantity of her poems can make her. Not the fragments of her writing which we possess, but these plus the greater fragments which are lost, decide her standing. Our judgment of her is formed largely on that of her readers in ancient times. Moreover, her prominence in the world is due in part to the fact that she stands within the classical circle where another interest attaches besides that of personal achievement.

With the sculptor of the Apollo Belvedere we can hardly compare a modern American poet. The circumstances are too widely different. But it is safe to say that if this unknown sculptor had made also a perfect Diana, it would be natural and right to increase his share of fame. We know men only so far as they express themselves to us. Fullness of life and fullness of expression are two factors, neither of which can be ignored. Many a man can write a perfect line, or stanza, perhaps even a perfect poem, who can yet go no farther. But it would be a false standard of criticism which should assign such a man a higher place than Shakspeare on the ground that Shakspeare is not free from literary faults. It is the constant flow that reveals the perennial spring. The great artist is he who both possesses and expresses life. And as a rule have not our greatest ones, other things being equal, produced the most abundantly?

As to the other point, also, I think Mr. Stedman is right when he says in allusion to Poe's habit of hoarding and elaborating his songs: ‘It does not betoken affluence.’ But your correspondent asks: ‘Why should he search the mines for new jewels when he had rough diamonds of the first water already on hand?’ I would not underestimate the value of elaboration in poetical work. That it is of prime importance and productive of the best results, we have sufficient evidence in such workers as Tennyson. But there is a difference between working on an old song and working on a new song as indicative of affluence.

For the time being a man's latest inspirations seem always to be his best, and so long as they come in fullness and power he is less likely to attempt a resurrection of those which are dead. To ‘search the mines,’ in the question just quoted, should refer to the laborious process of working over old songs; the ‘rough diamond’ should mean the new inspirations. With this rearrangement of the meaning, the question may be regarded as its own answer.

SAMUEL V. COLE.

ANDOVER, Mass., 21 Nov., 1885.