Text: John C. Miller, ed., “Entry 100: Sarah Helen Whitman to John H. Ingram, June 2, 1875,” Poe's Helen Remembers (1979), pp. 300-302 (This material is protected by copyright)

[page 300, continued:]

100. Sarah Helen Whitman to John H. Ingram. Item 231

My dear Don Felix,

I have just received yours of May 20. I am glad you have seen Mrs. Cleaveland, very glad. She is good & truthful, warm-hearted & enthusiastic, not very discriminating, perhaps, but very sincere — knows a great many literary people & is well acquainted with the Stoddards. I am glad that our friend D[on] F[elix] exerted himself to be “agreeable.” That he succeeded is a matter of course.

She is mistaken about my having left out anything from E.P. & His Critics. She has seen much of the spiritual phenomena & been deeply interested in the subject, though having joined the Romanists become a good Catholic, she probably now relegates all anti-Catholic miracles to the power of darkness.

You asked how I liked “the two photographs.” I received but one, [page 301:] probably the envelope had been opened & the smaller one abstracted. If the engraver does as well by this as he did by the one I sent you, it will be a valuable accession to your book. In some respects it is admirable. Still the air of the head does not satisfy me; it lacks spirit, & the face is heavier than in the one taken six months before in Providence. I cannot understand how anyone familiar with Poe's features can speak of his mouth as “weak.” His chin, though delicately curved, was marked by symmetry & strength, while his mouth was sweet & gracious, or haughty & disdainful, according to his mood. At no time had it any trait of weakness.

Undoubtedly the prevailing impression with regard to this feature of his face has been derived from Osgood's portrait & the engravings and other copies which have been taken from it.

As to my feelings in relation to the introduction of my name in the article in Civil Service Review, you entirely misapprehend me. I am not “on friendly terms with Stoddard.” I have no desire (to use your own words) to be “put right with him,” nor did I regret it from any selfish fear of personal annoyance, as your words seem to imply.

Forgive me if I am a little stirred by the imputation, & let me try briefly to define my position. When I wrote to Stoddard in relation to his article in Harper's, he wrote in reply, Sept. 19, 1872, “My dear Mrs. Whitman, so many months have elapsed since I wrote the paper on Poe about which you write that I am not able to remember what I said in it. I certainly had no intention to discredit any statement that you made in Edgar Poe & His Critics, and if I have done so I am sorry for it & ask your forgiveness.” etc., etc.

It was evident that he had placed himself in a very uncomfortable predicament. I had no wish to hold him there any longer than was necessary, & frankly accepted his apology. I was willing to believe that he was ready to do Poe justice whenever the truth should be made apparent to him. But when the following spring he inserted an article on Poe's “mendacity” in the Aldine, I saw that nothing could be further from his heart than justice to Poe, and I began to put a new interpretation on his conduct toward myself. Still I shrink from insisting on my own rights or animadverting on my own wrongs, especially from one who has so abjectly asked my forgiveness. Doubtless he deserved all that our Civil Service friend said of him, and has only received “even justice.” That he will trace a portion of the article to me or to my friends speaking for me, ought not perhaps to give me pain, and yet I shrink from assuming the role of an avenging angel or even a minister of justice.

You (or your friend of the C.S. Review) write in a way to make his heart quail & his hair to stand on end! I almost feel like recommending him to mercy, notwithstanding his ignoble course. [page 302:]

Another letter this morning from Whitestone! Nothing in it about Poe, but some rash charges against Mrs. L[ewis] & evident distrust of Mrs. Clemm. I think they did not part as friends & never met after Mrs. C[lemm] went to Lowell.

Gill's assertion that he had furnished you with facts for your “Memoir” is indeed a bold one.(1) I suppose he justifies, or affects to justify, the claim on the ground that he returned me copies of the University letter, a copy of which I had sent him, & also the printed slip containing Mr. Gowans’ recollections of Poe, which I had entrusted to him!! I demanded them of him for the avowed purpose of sending them to you. I had allowed Stoddard to retain the autograph letter of Dr. Maupin (which was simply an authentication of the validity of Mr. Wertenbaker's statement), and a copy of Wertenbaker's statement as furnished me by S. E. Robins. This copy gave Feb. as the month [of Poe's birth]. Where or how this mistake originated, I do not know. It was certainly not with me, for I was (on receiving it) disappointed to find that it was not January, which Poe had told me was the month of his birth. He did not name the year. I had a day of great suffering yesterday, & it is a weariness to write, but let me entreat you

[Letter is incomplete]

 

1. This is the cause of the first serious quarrel to develop between John Ingram and Mrs. Whitman. The letters that follow will make quite clear Ingram's violent reactions to Gill's claim.