Text: Anonymous, “[Objection to the Poe Monument],” Putnam's Monthly (New York, NY), vol. VIII, whole no. 47, November 1856, pp. 555-556

[page 555, column 2, continued:]

— In some of our journals we have seen suggested a monument to Edgar A. Poe. No doubt, it is good to remember distinguished men; but crowds of the best men of the world have never had monuments, save the printed record, and we think this sufficient in the vast majority of cases, Indeed, types are better memorials than the monuments or tombs, and, save as a matter of municipal ornament in the line of art (which, we admit, is a high consideration), we do not see that these last have many good arguments to recommend them. And this seems to be the general impression. The slowest work in the world is, not church work, but monument work — as everybody knows — as if people felt the superfluity of it. Claude Frollo, in Victor Hugo's Notre Dame, holds a book in his hand, and says “this will destroy that” — meaning that the stone symbols are feebler than book meanings. In something of the same way, we think, the memorials of men are best kept in books. For the rest, the worthiest of being monumented are men identified with great and good opinions, and a course of conduct held in honor by the world. Here intellect should never be glorified in stone, or bronze. It is an involuntary thing, and, besides, it makes its own best monument. A statue of Sir Isaac Newton would be the coldest in the world. If we must memorialize in the public places, it should be bold acts, lofty thoughts, generous will, and those sentiments that tend to make men better than they were, especially when belonging to those who cannot make [page 556:] their own record with the pen. Mr. Poe was a fine intellect unhappily warped by circumstances; but there is nothing in his literature which calls for a genial admiration. His writings are his monument; they will keep his name as long as Franklin's — a sufficient honor for him or any man.