Text: John C. Miller, ed., “Entry 082: Sarah Helen Whitman to John H. Ingram, Jan. 15, 1875,” Poe's Helen Remembers (1979), pp. 247-250 (This material is protected by copyright)

[page 247, continued:]

82. Sarah Helen Whitman to John H. Ingram, Item 195

Your very interesting letter of Dec. 28 reached me last evening, my dear Mr. Ingram, & though still very unwell from an attack of [page 248:] congestion of the heart, I hope to send off a few brief lines of acknowledgment to go by tomorrow's steamer. Mrs. Clemm's letter was very characteristic, illustrating her inaccuracy as to dates & details, & her devoted love for the unfortunate poet, whose character, I am well assured, was truly & faithfully described by her. It was not five years, but three that they lived at Fordham, & her assertion that she could account for “every hour of his life, etc.” was of course a reckless & exaggerated assumption. But why was she writing this letter to Neilson Poe? Could these families, allied by blood & intermarriage, have been strangers to each other's history?

The official copies of the trial of “Cadet E. A. Poe” must be a valuable accession to you. They seem to prove the accuracy of a statement contained in a fragment of a letter which I sent you some time ago, without telling you, I think, from whom I had received it. It was a young poetess of independent fortune & great intellectual gifts who became insane while contemplating a new “Memoir” of Poe.(1) I will tell you this sad story hereafter. I hope you have received Stoddard's book. You will see that it is printed in London, England, by Billing. I forget the name & number of the street. Mr. Harris, whom I have seen since his return from Boston — he was here last evening, just after I received your letter — says that Stoddard's charge of Poe's mendacity as to the verbatim reproduction of the early poems in the 1845 edition was founded on a comparison of the [18]45 with the [18]31 edition. It was Stoddard, he thinks, who wrote the article in the Philobiblion. He, Stoddard, had not then seen the edition of 1829, which is, I think, with some slight alterations & transpositions, a verbatim transcript. Stoddard has now seen the [18]29 edition, yet he has not recalled his charge of “mendacity,” & still, I think, assumes to doubt the existence of the [18]27 edition.

I think I told you that there was positive evidence of this edition in Kettell's Catalogue. Kettell, in a note or appendix to his Collection of American Poetry, gives a list of unpublished poems which he “has seen” in print. Among the poems named therein is Tamerlane & Other Poems, by a Bostonian. Now Mr. Harris thinks that Stoddard has seen this mention of Tamerlane etc., but that he, S[toddard], thinks nobody else interested in the subject would be likely to know of its existence. So he [Mr. Harris] recommends keeping dark on the subject of Kettell until some critic shall have said in defence of Poe that Stoddard had not compared Poe's poems of [18]45 with the first edition. That Stoddard will then say there is no authority for the existence of any such edition but Poe's word, & that is worth nothing.

He [Mr. Harris] earnestly advises to keep Kettell in reserve until Stoddard shows his cards. He has taken so much interest in the matter that I earnestly wish to follow his advice. He said he wanted to go over [page 249:] the poems again so as to be sure of his ground & that he would give me the result in writing or write to you himself. In the matter of sending the [18]31 edition, he said that he had been waiting for the return of the books (sent months ago) from England, not liking to forward more to his bookbinder until these were returned, when he would immediately send the volume he promised you. He says the poems added by Stoddard are from the [18]29 edition. He calls them “suppressed poems,” but portions of them were in the later editions, transposed & cut up. The “Lines to M.L.S.” are printed among the early poems, I believe, but if addressed to Mrs. Shew, must have been among the very latest, apparently.

I asked him about the name of Mrs. L[ewis] affixed to the Records of the Heart, & this morning he sent me the enclosed note.

The Aberdeen notice was admirable. Has the Academy yet published a notice? I could obtain that & the Saturday Review from the [Providence] Athenaeum.

Of course, dear Rose will never know that I was so indiscreet as to send you her enthusiastic words of admiration & cordial sympathy. Yet had I dreamed that there was anything in their import that could have given you pain or which it would have been disloyal in me to betray, be assured I would not have sent them.(2) I thought only of giving you pleasure. But forget & forgive.

I have not received the duplicate copy of the 1st vol., nor either of the 2nd, nor have I received the photographs or engravings — but there is time enough for all.

You ask about the date of the Home Journal article about the “Conchology” story. I think it must have been sometime in the winter of 1858-9, because when preparing my book for publication in 1859, I wrote to O’Connor to consult him about the question of introducing it into my protest against the critics, & he advised me not to, unless I could take up all the slanders at once. I followed his advice, & sent it — the Journal containing it — to some of the numerous correspondents who have from time to time questioned me about the unjust “Memoir” of Griswold. If Graham is still alive he may know something of Wyatt, who, as I told you, contributed articles on Natural History to the magazine. You say Graham is dead. Gill says he is alive — but if he is, Gill will never tell where he is to be found. I wish I could tell you about his last letter to me in which he says he could weep tears of joy that he has been permitted to be a humble instrument in clearing Poe's memory from obloquy! But he is an enigma & I fancy the solution would not be worth the trouble of looking for it — I say this — but enough for the present. With earnest wishes for your happiness, I am ever & ever your friend,

[page 250:]

[Enclosure]

My dear Mrs. Whitman,

I find I have the following by Mrs. Lewis:

The titles as I give them are verbatim, omitting unimportant words, & I think the list includes all she has published in book form, unless something quite recent. I hope you are better this bright morning. Yours most truly,

102 Waterman St.

Friday, Jan. 15, [18]75

 

1. This was Sallie E. Robins of Putnam, Ohio. See p. 114, n. 1.

2. This statement once again implies that either a letter or a portion of one from Ingram is missing.