Text: Anonymous, “[Some Comments on Poe],” The Library Table (New York, NY), vol. III, no. 13, October 11, 1877, pp. 197-198

[page 197, column 2, continued:]

IN the Providence Journal for September 25 Mrs. Sarah Helen Whitman takes occasion to animadvert with the sarcastic severity of a woman whose idol has been shattered and a woman must have an idol of some sort-upon a recent comment of ours on the improper tone of Mr. William F. Gill's attacks upon the late Mr. Griswold, Poe's first biographer. It will be remembered that in the course of our remarks the late Mrs. Ellet was quoted as the authority that a sentimental intimacy existed [page 198:] between Poe and a lady who shall here be nameless, but not as authority for the fact that he used her letters to obtain money. The explanation given by Mrs. Whitman of that episode is that

“Mrs. Ellett having been shown, at the home of the poet during his absence, a note addressed to him by Mrs Osgood (who made no secret of her correspondence with him), took that lady to task for her indiscretion, and prevailed upon her to consent that a demand should be made for the return of her letters. Margaret Fuller was one of the two ladies to whom this embassy was entrusted; from the other I received this account, which she would, I doubt not, confirm to the letter were I at liberty to use her name. Irritated by what he regarded as an unwarrantable interference on the part of Mrs. Ellet, Poe indignantly replied to the demand by saying that ‘Mrs. Ellet had better look to her own letters” — only this and nothing more. In the autumn of 1848, I received from Mr. Poe a letter in confirmation of the facts I have stated.”

Of course, the editors of the LIBRARY TABLE cannot pretend to enter into competition as concerns information with a lady who is in constant communication with the spirit of the departed poet; but they may venture to correct her as respects their own information. What Mrs. Ellet did say was that Mrs. Poe had shown her some letters from the lady in question and other ladies, written to Mr. Poe; had complained tearfully of Poe's infatuation with another and his neglect of herself, and had asked her opinion whether the letters necessarily implied an improper intimacy, to which Mrs. Ellet replied affirmatively. There are several ladies in this city to whom Mrs. Ellet has related the incident, and who stand ready to verify our statement. As to obtaining money by threats of exposure, that rests upon the authority of a gentleman who knew Poe personally, and communicated the fact without seal of privacy in a conversation to which the writer was only one of several parties — a gentleman whose name is as familiar in literature as Poe's, and whose veracity is unquestioned. Under the circumstances, therefore, a little appendix to Mrs. Whitman's statement is naturally called for. The Providence Journal will please copy.

———

By the way, speaking of the Poe controversy, Mr. William F. Gill addresses a note to the LIBRARY TABLE, in which he appears to misapprehend our position in relation to Griswold. It was not intended, in our recent comment upon his biography of the poet, to defend Griswold from the imputation of having used his function as Poe's biographer to darken the memory of the brilliant and distinguished dead. On the contrary, the writer of that comment is well aware that Griswold, acute as he was in criticism, was a man not to be trusted in his relations with authors and publishers. An instance in point may suffice. While William Pitt Palmer, the author of that beautiful waif, the “Origin of Light,” and now a trusted officer in one of our oldest insurance companies, was still a struggling and needy litterateur in this city, Griswold looked over some of his manuscripts and volunteered to sell some poems for him to Mr. Graham. He sold one, and gave the poet fifteen dollars, and then took another and more ambitious one which he thought would answer. For weeks and months the poet heard nothing either [column 2:] from Griswold or from his poem. At length, after writing several notes to his literary broker, which remained unanswered, he addressed a letter to Mr. Graham, who replied at once that the poem had been accepted at twenty-five dollars and paid for, the money having been entrusted to Griswold in the same manner as the previous fifteen dollars had been. It was never refunded, however, and the nefarious transaction severed the agreeable relations that had previously subsisted between the two litterateurs. But, although defence of Griswold is impossible, it is not necessary to heap hard names upon a man over whom the rank cemetery grass has grown for years, and for whom there is none to speak.