Text: John Carl Miller, “Chapter VII,” Building Poe Biography (1977), pp. 195-234 (This material is protected by copyright)

Jan. 3, 1854

Your letter is before me. I am happy to say that Mrs. Clemm has been a member of my family for several months. She is in every way comfortable.

I knew much of Poe. As I knew him, I will speak of him. In my presence, he was always the refined gentleman — the scholar — the Poet. I place him among the greatest minds that this country has produced. Let me know precisely what you are going to write, and I will furnish you with any biographical items in my possession.

I know Griswold. I do not think he is in consumption. Though he may be.

Please tell me what condition Neal's work is in at present. My prenomen is not Sarah Anna — though once or twice thus printed. It was a mistake. It is Stella Anna, or Estella Anna.

It is my intention to place the remains of Mr. Poe and his wife in Greenwood Cemetery [[Brooklyn]]. This much done, I think the literary friends would erect a monument over them. What do you think of this plan?

Will you be in Maine next summer? Tell Mr. Neal I should like to see him before he writes. I should like to see you before you publish anything about Poe. Who wrote that in Graham, for Feb? (P.S. The portrait of Poe in his works is the best).

[John Neal, of Portland, Maine. He proposed to make a critical survey of American Literature in general. Poe being one of his subjects. The design was not carried out — H.B.W.]

11 Feb., 1854

Your's of the 21st Jan. is before me. I have not time to write the Sketch of Poe now. I will prepare it the first leisure moment.

I do not believe that he was a drunkard. I do not believe that he could have been a very vulgar man under any circumstances. That Despair did sometimes lay her dark clutch on his heart and drag him to the very precipice of insanity, I have no doubt. That he shed bitter tears — that he heaped fiery curses on the heads of Wrong and Perfidy, at [page 199:] such hours, I have no doubt. But when I recall the depth of my agony, when wrong and misrepresentation have wound up my nerves to their highest tension, and remember that he was thus finely organised, I wonder that he was able to comport himself as well as he did. May the God of Heaven be merciful to all liars!

Edgar Poe dined with me at 3 o’clock, P.M., on the 29th of June, 1849, and left at 5, the same afternoon, for Richmond, Virginia. He never returned to New York again. He died on the 7th of the Oct. following, while on his way from Richmond to meet his mother at my house. She waited for him one long week; but alas! he never came.

6 Nov., 1854

Your favor of the 16th ult. is at hand. ...

After looking over a bushel of letters, I found one from you dated Jan. 23 and one, Mar. 1st. I am almost certain that I replied to both.

To the letter of Mar. 1st, I reply thus: 1. I was in the habit of seeing Mr. Poe once or twice a month from Jan. 1847, to the 29th of June, 1849, on which day he dined with me, as I have previously informed you. I did see him in March, 1848. He did not leave for the South in Aug., but in June, /49. His last letter to you was three days prior to his departure. 2. I did tell Griswold that Mr. Poe expressed a desire that he should [page 200:] become his editor, in case of his death. I did this in compliance with Mr. Poe's own request. He had great confidence in Griswold's editorial ability; and as they had become friends prior to Poe's departure for the South, I do not wonder at the appointment. I do not comprehend Griswold, therefore could not tell you what kind of man he is.

[“Sketch of Poe” never came — H.B.W.]

8 Bedford Place Russell Square

15 April, [18]79

Dear Ingram,

I read your Memoir of Edgar A. Poe in Black's Complete Edition of his works with profound pleasure. It is a noble vindication of the genius and character of the most cruelly slandered man since Lord Byron.

I have heard that you are now writing an exhaustive Life of the Author of “The Raven”, in which Poem his name will live as long as the language.

I saw much of Mr. Poe during the last year of his life. He was one of the most sensitive, gentle, and refined gentlemen I ever knew.

My child-Poem — “The Forsaken”, made us acquainted.

He had seen it floating the round of the Press, and wrote to tell me how much he liked it — “It is inexpressibly beautiful,” he said, and I should like [[much]] to know the young author.” [page 201:]

After the first call, he frequently dined with us, and passed the evening in playing whist or in reading to me his last poem.

The day before he left New York for Richmond, he came to dinner and stayed the night. He seemed very sad, and retired early. On leaving the next morning, be took my hand in his, and looking in my face said, with tears in his eyes, “Dear Stella — my best and most beloved friend on this earth, the only being that truly understands and appreciates me — I have a presentiment that I shall never see you again.

I leave for Richmond at 2 P.m. today. If I never return, write my life. You only can do me justice.”

“I will!” I exclaimed. And we parted to meet no more in this life. You, Dear Ingram, have done it far better than I could.

You have nobly vindicated his character, and placed him in his true light before the world. [[The letter breaks off, unsigned.]]

April 5, 1856

... I always understood that Mr. E. A. Poe, though a man of genius, was intemperate, and subject to attacks of lunacy. He was frequently in the asylum . ... [Take notice that every statement of the author's bad habits is simple hearsay — H.B.W.]

March 8, 1854

In reply to your letter of Feb. 27th, I would say that for the last two or three years of Mr. Poe's life, I saw very little of him — in consequence of a wide difference of opinion between us in reference to his treatment of another lady.(1) During the time that he habitually visited me, a period of two or three years, I saw him almost always on my reception evenings, when many other guests were present; and my relations with him were rather superficial than intimate.

In answer to your queries as to his private habits, I can only say that I never saw him under the influence of wine; and, with the exception of his course towards the lady alluded to, I knew nothing personally of him that was discreditable or unworthy of his remarkable genius. Mrs. Sarah H. Whitman, of Providence, to whom he was engaged after the death of his wife, would probably be the person to give you any information you might desire in respect to him.

March 19th, [18]54

In reply to your last, I regret that I am unable to give you any further satisfaction, since I am obliged to confess that I never read the Memoir written by Griswold, therefore cannot judge of the spirit in which it was written. I know Mr. Griswold, personally, but have not spoken with him in reference to Poe for a long time. I did not see Poe at all, after he became acquainted with Mrs. Whitman; and it was not to me that he made the remark alluded to, though I did hear of his making it to another in reference to Mrs. Whitman.

In society, so far as my observation went, Poe had always the bearing and manners of a gentleman — interesting in conversation, but not monopolising; polite and engaging, and never, when I saw him, abstracted or dreamy. He was always [page 204:] elegant in his toilet, quiet and unaffected, unpretentious, in his manner; and he would not have attracted any particular attention from a stranger, except from his strikingly intellectual head and features, which bore the unmistakable character of genius. As I said before, I had no particular intimacy with him myself, but those who had, or many who had, were personally attached, and some devoted, to him. For myself, I was never under the influence of the fascination which he exercised over many; and, while I liked him and appreciated his genius, it was always with a certain degree of coldness, or at least, not enthusiasm. If he had any faults, I, for one, would let the grave cover them and let them be “interred with his bones”, and the light of his genius alone “live after him”. I do not believe that the interests of truth require that the aberrations of genius should be held up to the gaze and criticism of those who can appreciate only the faults and errors of genius.

Mrs. Whitman I know personally. I know that she had, at one time, certainly, the highest admiration and regard for Poe; and I have no doubt that you would receive from her many interesting facts connected with him.

Richmond, Virginia

December 22nd, 1852

Your's of the 10th, together with a short communication from Mr. Nelson Poe, not received until yesterday, owing to my absence from the city.

My acquaintance with the person in question commenced at a very early period in my life. I have always felt a deep interest in him, and still have the deepest respect for his memory. I have every reason to believe that he has been misrepresented, but would beg to be excused from communicating anything which might bring me before the public in any form whatever.

A few weeks since, I received a letter from Mrs. Clemm, similar to those sent to yourself; and I intend, as soon as an opportunity offers, to render her some assistance.

Sarah Elmira Royster possibly was Poe's boyhood sweetheart and it is possible they considered themselves engaged to be married when he left Richmond to enter the University of Virginia in February, 1826; however, when he returned to Richmond in December, he found her engaged to marry Mr. Shelton, whom she did marry when she was seventeen. Twenty-two years later Poe certainly asked her to marry him, for she was a widow with property and he was desperately following Mrs. Shew's advice to marry a woman strong enough and fond enough to take care of him and his affairs. After Poe's death, Mrs. [page 206:] Shelton denied that she and Poe were planning to be married, but she certainly adopted a daughter-in-law-to-be attitude and tone in her letter to Mrs. Clemm on September 22, 1849 (see Quinn, 634-35). Her polite but definite refusal, in her letter to Eveleth, to allow her name to be used in connection with Poe's, or, for that matter, even to name Poe in her letter, may reflect, in part, the Virginia gentlewoman's traditional shrinking from public notice, but perhaps it indicates more strongly how aware she was of the unpleasant notoriety surrounding Poe's name in 1852. Twenty-eight years later Poe's literary fame was firmly established, and her attitude had changed markedly, when she wrote the following letter to Ingram: First printing. [Item 356]

414 North 10th Street

Richmond, Virginia

June 30th 1880

Mr. J. H. Ingram Dear Sir:

I take the earliest opportunity to acknowledge the receipt of your valuable, (and to me) very interesting book, on The Life, Letters, and Opinions of The Lamented Edgar A. Poe — I should have done so before this, but my health is extremely delicate, and I have been very sick recently — I assure you, that I am reading it, with deep interest, and find much in it, which revives many sad remembrances, as well as very pleasant ones, and am glad (after so many years) that one, has been found, to do him the justice, which he, (I believe) truly deserves — Please accept my warmest thanks, and believe me (Dear Sir)

Yours Very truly

Sarah E. Shelton

Dec. 7th, 1852

I have your note of yesterday referring to Mr. Griswold's statement of the circumstances under which the late Edgar A. Poe received the prize offered by the Baltimore Saturday Visiter, at the hands of a committee, of which I was a member. The point to which you call attention particularly, is the assertion that “it was unanimously decided that the prizes should be paid to the first of geniuses who had written legibly. Not another manuscript was unfolded.” [[See Griswold's Memoir, xii]].

Certainly, the fact is not as is here asserted. I cannot be mistaken; for I was the reader on the occasion. The Mss., as received from the Editor, were laid in a pile upon the table. Each one was opened, as it came to hand. Sometimes, the first few sentences would condemn it as unworthy. Sometimes several pages were borne with. In some cases, the whole production was read. Two only of the prose pieces were laid aside for re-examination. I recollect them well. One was clever, but watery — evidently a woman's work. The other was terse — and the denouement terribly original. The poems were treated in the same way. But two of these were put by for review — one, “The Coliseum,” by Poe; the other, to which the prize was awarded, by Mr. J. H. Hewitt,* though the authorship was not known till afterward. The loose Mss. having been gone through, I turned to the Book, which contained many tales, and read it from beginning to end. It was so far — so very far — superior to anything else before us, that we had no difficulty in awarding the first prize to the author. Our only difficulty was in selecting from the rich contents of the volume. We took the “MS. Found in a Bottle.”

This was eighteen years ago, about. But the impression made on my mind by the wonderful power and originality of the writer is as vivid as an occurrence of yesterday. The calligraphy, to which Mr. Griswold refers, was certainly remarkable. It was not writing — it was printing with a pen. But it imparted no interest to the productions in the volume. It formed no part of the consideration on which the prize was bestowed — so far, at least, as I understood at the time, and [page 208:] now believe. The prize was recognized, and given, as the right of Genius. I have taxed my memory more than once, since Mr. Griswold's Memoir first appeared; but I can recall nothing that corresponds with his statement of the grounds on which Mr. Poe received the prize — not one thing.

The author of a new style, if it is a good one, or even, an exciting one, gives to us a new taste, which craves nourishment of the same sort — Originality creates its market, only to destroy it. The “MS. Found in a Bottle,” “The Maelstrom”, “The Murders of the Rue Morgue” are now every-day affairs [if the letter of the declaration carries the exact spirit intended, I enter a dissent — H.B.W.] To the Committee they were novelties, for which they were wholly unprepared. Hence, the admiration which, I well remember, the reading of them produced.

In this statement, I hardly think I can be mistaken, so far as the action of the Committee can be looked upon as a recognition of Mr. Poe's merits. Mr. Kennedy sent for him at once, and became his most valued friend. At my instance [sic], he called upon me sometimes, and entered at length into the discussion of subjects on which he proposed to employ his pen. When he warmed up, he was most eloquent. He spoke, at that time, with eager action; and, although, to judge from his outward mien, the world was then going hard with him, and his look was blasé, yet his appearance was forgotten, as he seemed to forget the world around him, as wild fancy, logical truth, mathematical analysis and wonderful combination of facts flowed, in strange commingling, from his lips, in words choice and appropriate, as though the result of the closest study. I remember being particularly struck with the power that he seemed to possess of identifying himself with whatever he was describing. He related to me all the facts of a voyage to the Moon, I think (which he proposed to put upon paper), with an accuracy of minute detail, and a truthfulness as regard philosophical phenomena, which impressed you with the idea that he had himself just returned from the journey, that existed only in his imagination.

I have been led into this detail, as a corroboration of my impression that Mr. Poe's merits as an author, on the occasion [page 209:] referred to were certainly not overlooked in the Committee's regard for his penmanship.

Baltimore, Maryland

April 13, 1853

. ... I had no time last winter, to write to you on the subject of your inquiries about Poe [He was, at the time, one of the President's Secretaries — Sec. of the Navy, I think — H.B.W.]. I coincided in the statement Latrobe sent me; and 1 suppose he so informed you.

As to the other questions respecting Poe, I can not say much. I lost sight of him after he broke off from Mr. White.* I have heard stories that he was dissipated and given to drink. White told me he could not be relied on for work; and Burton* has told me the same.

I did not see him when he was last in Baltimore, and know nothing of the facts to which you refer. [page 210:]

Excuse the brevity of this — I am too much of an invalid to to without pain.

28th May 1866

I have just read the memoranda in The Old Guard for June [[1866]] under the title of “Poe and his Biographer, Griswold”. I am grateful to you for putting in this form what I always felt to be true — that so much of Griswold's Memoir is utterly untrue. The fires of truth are gathering round, closer and closer, hemming in to consume him — this serpent-biographer — this Reverend Memoirist. I feel as if you had done me a personal favor; and you have, for somehow Poe-truth is personal to me.

8th Feb. 1869

... Mrs. Clemm told me, years ago, that E. A. Poe never was out of America, except while at Dr. B's school — that it was his brother who was the actor in the St. Petersburg affair — that he (E.A.) permitted the error to continue, from motives of delicacy, in that it was rather a rum affair — that St. P. bout. In connection with this view, do me the favor to remember (1) that such a course toward his brother was eminently in keeping with his mental bent; (2) that it is hard to fix upon a convenient time for this episode; (3) that he cared not a button for the Greeks, and still less, if possible, for liberty; (4) that he never mentions it; and (5) that St. Petersburg does not lie in the way of one going from America to Greece.

... concerning Poe's Eureka, I once felt that I knew what he means in it, but am not sufficiently familiar now to give you any clear reply to your criticism. It strikes me, however, I am free to confess, that the criticism is well put, and the point well taken. [The matter objected against is to be found in my friend's Living Writers of the South — page 464 — in this passage: — “The author of Eureka held that the Creator of the Universe is ‘one, individual, unconditional, irrelative and absolute Particle Proper’, which, by radiation, fills its sphere — the universe — with subdivisions of itself.” My point was that matter and mind — the particles created and the the Creator of them — are kept entirely distinct all through the work quoted from — that Poe, himself, says, reverently, in substance: — “Of the awful nature of the ether (the Soul) separating the distributed atoms, I venture not to speak” — H.B.W.]

As to your own chirograph, you know that we — Mrs. Whitman and I — regarded it as almost identical with Poe's. That says a great deal. I think that your hand indicates less ego-personality than his; consequently you should bring in — lug in — personalities far less than he did. [Here, too, I have a [page 213:] criticising suggestion to throw in. The chirograph-reader has taken, unwittingly, of course, the very cue supplied to him by the Griswold School of Memorialists. He implies a charge that Poe was accustomed to “lug in” himself on on every possible occasion. Where, except in that School, does he get his support for the charge? Not in his own prior remark touching the same subject. On page 348 of Living Writers is, this opinion: — “Captain McCabe's chirograph is one of the finest that I have seen. It indicates liberal and careful culture, an acutely sensitive aesthetical mind, and more originality than any other young writer in the South. In the quality of isolation of mind and in the faculty of forgetting personalities” (the italics are mine) “in literary estimates, and in literary work generally, I have not seen it surpassed since Edgar A. Poe.” There we have the Chief of Egotists; here, the Standard of Impersonalities! — H.B.W.].

Stoddard's article in Harper is very readable. In a private letter since, he writes me: — “If I hadn’t seen Poe personally, I don’t know that I should believe in his existence.” [This reference to that article, which I purpose to send to you, Mr. Ingram, gives excuse for another parenthesis. Stoddard employs the adjective “brutal”, in commenting upon The Literati of New York City. I feel sure that the expression was not chosen in any, even remote, connection with a careful reading of the subject of the commentary, but was caught, as a kind of parrott-echo from the Griswold — Chimney Sweepings — H.B.W.].

Dec. 15th, 1864

I left Providence for New York the day after I sent you the little volume — Edgar Poe and his Critics — and have been at home only a few days. I am glad to know that it interested you, as I learn by a letter from Phillips which I found on my return.

The quotation from Mr. Poe's writings which you have italicised, you will find in the Tale of the Ragged Mountains. I almost despaired of finding it, and had looked all through the Marginalia and the stories of Ligeia, Morella, Eleanora and Berenice, when I happened to remember some analogous speculations and experiences in the tale first named; and there I found the passage.

I cannot tell you, for I do not know, the time when the marginal note [numbered sixteen in Griswold's Collection — H.B.W.], to which you refer was first published.

You will have learned, from my little offering, how little reliance can be placed on Dr. Griswold's Memoir — I have abundant proof that Griswold purposely falsified every anecdote and altered nearly every purported note or assumed Ms of his much maligned author. The reason of his treachery is indicated in my work. I have been permitted to see a note which he wrote to a friend in New York, in the spring of 1850, in which he says: — “I am getting on rapidly with my Life of Poe, and am trying hard to do him justice; for Fanny's (Frances Sargent Osgood's) spirit looks down on me while I write.” The task was evidently too great for him. He could not forgive Poe the interest which he inspired in the person he [Griswold] most wished to please.

You will perhaps remember a paragraph in the Memoir in which it is said: — “He would have graduated with the highest honors, had not his gambling, intemperance and other vices induced his expulsion from the University”. This passage, blindly accepted on the authority of Griswold, has passed through nearly all the European reviews, and has been again and again cited in proof of Poe's early and hopeless depravity. I have been favored with the perusal of letters from Dr. Maupin, Mr. Wertenbaker and other gentlemen of the Faculty of Charlottesville University, in which they affirm that he [page 215:] never at any time came under the censure of the University and that he did not graduate there, simply because the University, at that time, conferred no degree. I have also in my possession a letter from one of his class-mates (Mr. John Willis, of Orange County, Virginia), written on the 8th of April, 1861, confirmatory of their favorable statements.

In turning over the volume of “Tales” and “Poems”, to find the passage quoted in your letter, I paused to read again a short sketch called “Landor's Cottage”, with which some interesting memories are, in my mind, associated. In one of Mr. Poe's earlier letters to me, he spoke of the “Domain of Arnheim” as embodying some of his most interior and familiar tastes and aspirations. Two months afterward, while sitting with me in a room whose very simple and inexpensive arrangement and decoration seemed to charm his fancy, he expressed to me his intention of writing a “pendant” to the “Domain”, in which the most charming effects should be attained by artistic combinations of familiar and unvalued materials. I remember that he noticed the delicate tints of the paper on the wall and spoke of the fine relief it gave to the pictures and to an antique oval mirror framed with evergreens. When his collected stories were published, after his death, I saw, for the first time, “Landor's Cottage” — A Pendant to the Domain of Arnheim”, and found that he had introduced into it the paper he had praised so much, with its “silver ground and faint-green cord running zig-zag throughout”. I do not know whether the story (or sketch) had been previously published, but think not.

About my theory of the “correlation” and derivation of surnames (which furnished you with a theme for a humorous and ingenious article in one of the New York periodicals, some years ago), I might present a very plausible show, which might at least serve to amuse you. Assuming, for the present, a common derivation for the names Poe and Poer, which can be incontestibly established, I would remind you that Mark Anthony Lower, in his work on surnames, states that the name of Power [Mrs. Whitman's maiden name — H.B.W.], variously written as Le Poer, Power, Poure, and Poore, is of Norman origin. Gilbert de la Poree was the philosophical friend and colleague of Abelard. Again, the French Memoirs speak of [page 216:] Gilbert Poret. Now, from Poret to P’ret the transition is easy — don’t you see? [The name of my mother before her marriage was Pratt. I had traced this, and kindred words, to the Dutch prat, and so on, through various connections, to the Welsh pert, which, by transposition of the letters, becomes pret; and, upon the strength of the literal similarities, had claimed blood-relationship to her and Poe — H.B.W.].

Jan.15th,1865

... It gratifies me that you liked my defense of “The Raven” [her appellation for the author of the poem thus entitled — H.B.W.], and that you read again the stories — Ligeia, Eleonora, etc, — “with renewed interest”, also that you [page 217:] found them enlightened by the “spiritual rays” thrown on them by my suggestions. It is strange that, in no notice of my book have I ever seen, an allusion, the most distant, to this part of the volume, which, to me, is the most significant and important feature in it [the feature associating Poe, somehow, with “spirit-manifestations” — H.B.W.]. Do you remember that I once wrote you a letter, in answer to some enquiries and suggestions of your's, in which I spoke of the strange spiritual energy or effluence which seemed to surround or ensphere “The Raven”, and which acted on those who were en-rapport with him enhancing and intensifying the spiritual faculties of insight an impression, which suddenly flashed on me while in his presence, of the original identity of the names Power and Poe, an impression which I told you was afterward corroborated, if not authenticated? [The substance of her statement was that she was sitting with her eyes down-cast; that, upon the coming of the sudden thought, she looked up and met the fixed, intent gaze of Poe; and that, when she expressed to him her conviction of their kinship, he said: — “Helen, you startle me — therewith hangs a history!” Then he went into the genealogy already indicated — H.B.W.].

Feb. 27th,1865

You ask so many questions in your letter of the 19th, that I am at a loss where to begin with my answers. Perhaps it were best to take them in their order. — [page 218:]

Thirdly, “The Raven” was written before my acquaintance with its author. I think the line about the footfalls was altered by Mr. Poe himself, from the earlier version.

Fourthly: It is true, I believe, that Mr. Poe first saw me in 1845, when passing a night in Providence, on his way from Boston to New York. I think it was not after the delivery of his poem before the Boston Lyceum, but earlier in the season. Probably Dr. Griswold learned all that he knew of the matter from Mrs. Osgood, who was at the hotel in Providence, where Mr. Poe stopped on that “July midnight.” Her account of the incident, given me in the autumn of 1848, agreed with what Mr. Poe had himself told me. Mrs. Osgood informed me that the night was exceedingly hot and sultry; that Mr. Poe told her, in the morning, he had passed the greater part of the night in rambling over the hills that command a fine view of the City from the east; that, at a late hour, he passed the house where I then lived, whose situation he had previously ascertained from her, and saw me walking up and down the lime-shaded side-walk in the neighborhood of my home. He told her that I wore a white dress, with a thin white shawl or scarf thrown over my head, and that he knew me through her description of me. The moon was at, or near, the full. I knew nothing of his having seen me at that time, till the summer of 1848, when he sent me, anonymously, the poem (in Ms) beginning: — “I saw thee once, once only — “. About the same time (I think it was in June, 1848), he wrote a letter to my friend, Miss Anna Blackwell, then spending the summer in Providence, speaking of his interest in my writings, and saying that he had once seen me. In allusion to the “July Midnight”, Mr. Poe afterward wrote: — “The poem which I sent you contains all the incidents of a dream which occurred to me soon after I first saw you”.

Fifthly: Am I not “younger” than the “grim and ancient Raven”? If I am to believe the assertions of my “friends, lovers and countrymen”, generally, I should answer “Yes.” If I am to believe the written asservations of “The Raven”, in particular, I should still answer, “Yes”. But if I am to believe the figures, somewhat variously stated, of Dr. Griswold I should answer, “No.” Or, if I am to believe “The Raven's” age to be correctly given by himself in the matriculation books of [page 219:] the University of Virginia, which made him four years older than (one of) the dates given by Dr. Griswold, I should still answer, “No”. Or, more especially, If I am to believe the partially obscured date on the torn fly-leaf of an old family Bible, just come to light, I should say that I am, at least ten years older. The fly-leaf seems to indicate that I was born on the 19th of January 1803. The figure 3 is, to be sure, a little indefinite, and might be construed as an 8 or a 0 (an eight or a naught); but the three first figures 1 8 0, are perfectly distinct, and would seem to show, conclusively, that I was born sometime within the present century. You will perceive, from what I have told you, that “The Raven” himself was of a very “uncertain age”, and seems at times to have affected the Mephistophelian longevity of Cagliostro, Cartaphilus, and other wandering Jew-ish celebrities.

Jan. 17, 1866

— I cannot, I think, stay long on this “bank and shoal of time.” Before I go, I wish to put into your hand the [page 220:] accompanying statement about one of Griswold's myths. It is a statement which I have made, in writing, to but one person — and that one has met with a sad, strange fate; and the record is lost in oblivion. A rough sketch of it, made in 1860, follows. If you will, at some time when you are quite at leisure, copy it for me, and send me the copy, I shall be glad:

To S.E.R.* — Dear Sir: It is not a little singular that, within a few days of your note, enclosed to me by Messrs. [[Rudd & Carleton]], of New York, I received a note from a gentleman of Philadelphia (who was to have been associated with Mr. Poe in the publication of The Stylus), announcing that he had prepared, and was intending soon to publish, a vindication of Edgar Poe. I do not think, from its scope and purpose, it will very soon make an appearance in print. He questioned me in regard to some of the charges brought against Mr. Poe by Dr. Griswold, and especially with respect to the story of his riotous conduct at the house of a New England lady, rendering necessary a summoning of the police, etc., etc!!

You will have seen that some of the critics of my little book have chosen to assume that, since I make no reference to this pleasant and piquant fiction, the story was undoubtedly a true one! If I had not wished my vindication of Edgar Poe to be entirely impersonal, in so far as regarded my own relations to him, I could most certainly have acquitted him of all the grosser charges brought against him in this most improbable narrative.

Mr. Poe came to Providence, on the occasion alluded to, by invitation of the Providence Lyceum, to deliver the second lecture of their course (Daniel Webster having delivered the first). Before leaving New York, Mr. Poe said to a lady of that city: — “I am going, this evening, to Providence”. “To be married, I learn”, rejoined the lady. “No — to deliver a lecture before the Providence Lyceum”. On this slender foundation Dr. Griswold raised a fabric — a temple of fame — that has made me immortal — “You will go down to posterity”, said a witty friend, “as the brilliant New England lady who sent her Raven lover to prison on the evening of her bridal”.

Now for the facts of the case. In an interview with Mr. Poe, [page 221:] some three or four weeks previous to the giving of this lecture, he had vehemently urged me to an immediate marriage. As an additional reason for delaying a marriage which, under any circumstances, seemed to all my friends full of evil portents, I read to him some passages from a letter which I had recently received from one of his New York associates. He seemed deeply pained at the result of our interview, and left me abruptly, saying that, if we should meet again, it would be as strangers. He passed the evening in a bar-room of his hotel, and, after a night of delirious phrenzy, returned the next day to my mother's house in a state of great mental excitement and suffering, declaring that his welfare for time and eternity depended on me. A physician — Dr. A. H. Oakie — was sent for, by my mother, who, perceiving indications of brain-fever, advised his removal to the house of his friend W. J. Pabodie, of this city, where he was kindly cared for until his recovery. The incident naturally caused much talk and gossip, and was, I suppose, the basis of Dr. Griswold's distorted statement. “Only this, and nothing more.”

It was soon after his return to New York, that he wrote me, in reference to these events, under date of Nov. 24, 1848, the words I have quoted on the 74th page of my book.

March 2nd, 1867

— You spoke of a paragraph in The Round Table in relation to “The Mystery of Marie Roget”. By a strange coincidence, just after receiving your letter, I happened to see a number of that paper lying on the table of a friend. I borrowed it, and, on reverting to your letter, found that it was the one to which you referred me as containing your paragraph. It was the only copy of The Round Table that had ever chanced to fall my way!

Mr. Poe told me the fact there stated by you, and stated, moreover, that the name of the young “naval officer” was Spencer. I had entirely forgotten this, till your item brought it to my mind.

Sept. 30th,1874

In your letter of Aug. 2nd, you asked whether I considered the picture of Poe, given with Stoddard's biographical sketch in Harper's Magazine, like him, as I knew him. It was taken from an engraving, which engraving was taken from a photograph which does resemble him, though never to me a satisfactory likeness; but in the woodcut in Harper, an impression [page 223:] from the steel engraving, all likeness is lost. Poe had two daguerreotypes taken in Providence, one of which will appear in Mr. Ingram's volume.(5) He thinks the engraving good. I hope it will prove so. This picture was once lithographed and enlarged by a Boston picture-dealer, I think, though the lithograph bears the name of a French artist. I have a copy of the enlarged lithograph, also a photograph of a carte visite size, which I had taken by a Providence photographer, last winter, from the large lithograph. But it gives no adequate idea of Poe's beautiful face and head. I will enclose you one — but, remember, it is not good. [I do, and shall, to the end of all the chapters, “remember” this, at any rate — that it is no true lens through which for me to peer into the wondrous, far-down depths of the mind-and-soul of him with whom I thought I was somewhat acquainted (from his writings, only — not personally), as “Edgar Allan Poe.” If it is, really, a likeness of any Poe, I trust not that one — H.B.W.].

Nov. 30th, 1875

I was very glad to receive your letter of the 19th inst. reminding me that I had not yet replied to your's of a year ago.

I think I can answer all your questions satisfactorily; and will do so seriatim.

In the first place, “Where did Mr. Stoddard and Mr. Ingram obtain the information that Poe's birth occurred in [page 224:] 1809?” From the matriculation books of the University at Charlottesville. The only wonder is, that this source of information should have been so long overlooked by his biographers. I received the fact in 1860, from a correspondent in Ohio,(6) who sent me an autograph note from Dr. Stephen Maupin,(7) referring to and authenticating an account (accompanying the note) from Mr. Wertenbaker, Secretary of the Faculty of the University. ...

Now, as to the discrepancy in dates respecting the year of the birth, I admit there is a difficulty. Mrs. Clemm wrote me that Poe never could retain dates in his memory, and always had to apply to her. There is no reason to doubt her own fallibility [It is this, or is it in — “fallibility” which is meant? — H.B.W.] on statistical matters. Poe had not seen Mrs. Clemm until after he left West Point, since his earliest years. She must (or may) have told him that he was two years younger than he imagined. And on her authority the dates given in Griswold's American Poets may have been founded. The subsequent story, in Griswold's “Memoir”, may have been, probably was, a fabrication. I cannot think that Poe would consciously have misrepresented his age, when he knew that the Charlottesville record was open to all enquirers. What think you? [I am of opinion that, if he held out the idea that his birth took place at a time not the actual one, he did so “consciously” — deliberately — for a purpose — just as he was accustomed to bring up to sight the points in his veritable narratives — the “Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym”, for instance. Touching the fact of his birthday, I lean toward the belief — nay, am convinced — that its rightful place upon the record is that which was given in the first statement seen by me, before he, his friends and his enemies took into their individual and collective heads the freak of leading the public imagination by the nose (see number 27 of the Marginalia) — that is, the place between the names of Henry and Rosalie, Henry — 1809; Edgar — 1811; Rosalie — 1813. I don’t accept, at [page 225:] all, the information of Mrs. Clemm (I mean, as this was applied by her), that one who dealt so carefully, so effectively, in details regarding other matters as Edgar A. always did deal, was at a loss when he came to guessing about his own age-H.B.W.].

As to the portrait in Harper, I know nothing. I supposed it to have been taken from the engraving prefixed to Redfield's illustrated octavo edition of Poe's poems, published in 1858. It does not resemble either of the Daguerreotypes taken in Providence. The one of those two which was taken expressly for me, was photographed (also in Providence) by Coleman and Remington sixteen months ago, and a copy of the photograph was sent to Mr. Ingram, and selected by him (from among a number of others) to illustrate his Memoir prefixed to Black's Edinburgh edition of Poe's complete works. It has been admirably engraved, and is thought, by those who remember Poe, to be more like him that any other of the portraits extant.

I fancy that Stoddard was right in saying that the daguerre, prefixed to his article, was taken in Richmond ten days before Poe's death. It resembles the portraits published in the Illustrated Papers, to accompany reports of the recent celebration at Baltimore [on occasion of the unveiling of Poe's monument], which portraits are claimed to have been taken from a daguerre in the possession of the original's Baltimore relatives “ten days before his death” [It seemed (and seems) to me that the portrait represented a much more youthful person than Poe was at the time indicated. Besides, the whole out-look of the countenance, general and particular, even including feature, as well as expression, struck me as being very different from what it ought to be, judging from other pictures which I had seen previously — for example, the picture in the first volume of Griswold's edition (which, as I infer, was taken when its subject was quite a young man) and that accompanying Lowell's biography, published in the number of Graham's Magazine for February, 1845. I confess that the last-named suits better my mental vision of him who etched so aptly the Literati; laid open all the heart of his matter, in his Criticisms generally; pulled out so skillfully the tangles in the Murders of the Rue Morgue; probed with so [page 226:] great effect the horrors of the Man of Usher; gave bodies so beautiful to the Souls of the Northern Lights, in Ulalume. Query — Whether it was not the image of the spirit of Henry Poe, which was caught upon that plate in Richmond, on Thursday, Sept. 27th, 1849 — whether, indeed, it was not that same spirit, “materialized”, that got into all the scrapes and cut all the curious capers put to the account of Edgar A.? — H.B.W.].

I agree with you in doubting Poe's habitual resort to intoxicating liquors. I think Mr. Ingram admits too much, and will see occasion to qualify his statement.

I find your question as to the disagreement in the item about Ligeia a very natural and pertinent one. Mr. Poe brought me, in the autumn of 1848, two bound volumes of The Broadway Journal. In these volumes were a few marginal notes penciled by him. Prefixed to the letter-press of the page on which was commenced the story of Ligeia were these lines, in pencil: — “The lines I sent you contained all the events of a dream which occurred to me soon after I knew you through Mrs. O's description. Ligeia was also suggested by a dream. Observe the eyes in both tale and poem” — that is to say, “soon after I recognized you through Mrs. O's description.”

I had been so importuned by friends and strangers for some single line (or even word) of Poe's writing, that, over-persuaded, I had often clipped to [sic] or three words from some fragment, to oblige the soliciter. In this instance, I had cut the passage: — “through Mrs. O's description” from the penciled lines on the upper margin of the page. In sending these volumes to Mr. Ingram, I pointed out the mutilated sentence, and gave him the concluding words. Probably, in his haste in preparing his notes for the press, he had mislaid my letter explaining the matter, and had published what he thought an interesting item without reflecting that, in their incomplete meaning, they contradicted the fact that the lines were written before our introduction by letter from Miss M. G. McIntosh. I noticed this apparent discrepancy, on reading Mr. Ingram's narrative, and long ago intended to point it out to him, but neglected to do so because the intention was frustrated by a press of other matters. [page 227:]

October 7th, 1877

Sir:

In your last (Oct.) number, you have a notice of Mr. Gill's Life of Poe, to the following passage from which I wish to call your attention: — “It is now well ascertained that Poe's intoxication was a thing caused by even the smallest quantity of wine, and took the form of terrible despondence or of strange and highly intellectual but deranged orations on abstruse subjects.”

How has it been ascertained? From what source or sources, and through what channels, has the item of information come? Which are the witnesses to the “intoxication”, and where — in whose keeping — are to be found the “deranged orations”?

As I have read the testimony — even that put in by Griswold himself, who is charged with having had a desire and a design to show the case of his subject in as bad a light (as black a shadow) as possible — no habitual use of intoxicating liquors is indicated — much less, proved. All the persons who are introduced upon the stand, whose names are vouchers for the truthfulness of their statements and for their ability to judge of the matter in hand — Willis, Graham, Mrs. Osgood, Mrs. Whitman-say, in substance, that during no one of their frequent interviews with their acquaintance did they discover a sign of the effects of strong drink in him, but that he was always the sober (in two senses, sober), rather sad, genial-hearted, intelligent (clear — not wine — or brandy — muddled — , headed) refined gentleman.

Those are only a few, from among the many, names which might have been (doubtless, now might be) cited. The evening literary gatherings, spoken of in Griswold's Memoir and in Mrs. Whitman's Edgar Poe and his Critics imply that a considerable number of the poet's associates are living, and could give evidence of his habits, particularly, evidence touching his sensitiveness to wine; for it is to be presumed that the spirit constituted a part of the furniture of the assemblies.

Then there are The Literati of New York City. In his “few words of personality” thus entitled (Godey's Ladies Book for 1846), Poe said that, with one or two exceptions, he was [page 229:] personally acquainted with those about whom he was gossiping. What answer to the question before the public have those deponents? Especially, what is their knowledge (or, lacking that, what their opinion) of this “smallest quantity of wine” affair? In my estimation, if it proves anything, it proves too much; for lo! — the man swallowed the first drop, which set him athirst — wild, craving, raving — for still other drops upon drops — and so on, hurrying, rushing, through his brief course. The natural inference is that his life would have been an almost unbroken series of confused, disconnected, unmeaning harangues from the way-side ditches.

But who, again, is the revelator of those harangues (“deranged orations”)? Did the orator himself, or did any one for him, put the effusions in writing? If so, are they a portion, or all, of the contents of his printed volumes? If so, once more, then I join issue immediately, and declare that the disorder assumed — disorder, whether of thought or of expression — is nowhere throughout those contents manifest. Even where slackest rein is given to the imagination (say, in “The Black Cat”), there the regulator, analysis, keeps pace abreast, the two combining to throw a wonderful semblance of reality, yet a vivid strange coloring, about the narrative.

Professor Lowell says (not in the mangled mess which is offered under his name by Griswold, but in the original, genuine article, as it was printed in Graham's Magazine (No. for Feb., 1845) that Poe had two gifts which are rarely found united — those of analysis and imagination. It was the former ingredient that made its possessor so good a critic, Nothing (save now and then a pet prejudice) could drive him off his scent — He watched, with an eye serene the very pulse of the machine; for such the thing under examination was to him, with wheels and cogs and piston-rods all working to a determinate end.

That mental “eye serene” (always keen, as well as steady, never clouded by liquor-fumes) looks on me from out all its owner's productions which I have read. Mind, I am not to be understood as claiming that no inaccuracies ever occur in them. I do claim, however, that, when there are any, they are such as the productions of any well-balanced intellect will show. For instance, the errors (of calculation, simply); — [page 230:] Eureka are of the same nature as those which can be found in Newton's Principea. Indeed, the most notable of them grew out of the fact that too much reliance was place in the unproved “principle of Gravitation” — the later theorist took, for a part of his foundation, the reckoning of the earlier, without first having brought that analytic knife of his, ever sharp and sure, to bear upon it.

So I conclude with a reintimation of my unbelief in the story of common drunkenness and of the crazing power of a drop of wine.

[I will add here, and now (Oct. 1st, 1878), the opinion; formed long ago and still held by me, that Poe was willing — yes, that he coolly planned — to leave behind him the impres sion (for such as might be glad to receive it) of his having been almost anything or everything that was bad — a malign, unhealthful product of the soil of the evil latter times. I will state, farther, my strong persuasion, if not my full conviction, that those remarkable events (remarkable, from whatever point of view considered), which have been designated by many sincere people as messages from the “spirit world”, had, somehow, their advent through the strange processes of his mental chemistry. My supposition is that the coming was foretokened in those “physical shadows of shadows” spoken of in the sixteenth number of the Marginalia. It was upon this supposition that I made inquiry (as indicated in one of the foregoing letters of Mrs. Whitman) about the time when the note first appeared in print. I have a half-recollection of seeing it in Graham in 1846 or ‘7. Perhaps some one can give the date; also can tell when, and upon the margin of what book, it was penned or penciled — ?

H.B.W.]

Oct. 1, 1878

John H. Ingram, Esqre,

There, my friend and partner in the Good Cause, you have my contribution toward the making-up of something like a true estimate of Poe. You will not complain of any lack in quantity of matter. Of quality, I will say nothing.

You say in your letter (which came duly) that Mrs. Whitman posted you pretty thoroughly about her relations with him. Nevertheless, I thought I would give you such of her letters in my possession, as have a bearing on the case — you may find an item or a hint which will be new.

I have written on both sides of the leaves, and with lines near together, in order that the bill for postage might be not very large, having taken for granted that you would re-copy for the press.

You perceive that I have taken the initials H.B.W., instead of giving either my own initials or my full name. I ask you to follow the same course — that is, not to present me, in proper person, at all before the public. I have my reasons. It is fair that you should know whose initials I have appropriated — they are owned by a Mrs. Helen Bullock Webster. Mrs. Whitman once sent me a very interesting letter (to me interesting) which the lady had written her. I have a suspicion (it may be groundless) that Mrs. Webster is the author of Prometheus in Atlantis — Did you ever read it?

I did not see (in Aps. Journal) “Unknown Correspondence of Poe” — How, unknown?

I received your letter (‘74); but was situated so (with no documents within reach) that I couldn’t supply you with any information. Davidson* was so kind as to lend me your article in Int’l Rev. I am glad to put in this (my mite) without [page 232:] reference to pay; yet, if you can well afford, a trifle would be acceptable; for, as the Fates know, I am poor enough.

I mail, with this, a package of clippings — among them English vs Poe, and Poe in rejoinder.

Cordially — G. W. Eveleth