∞∞∞∞∞∞∞
E. — A Critical Estimate of the Sketches
Historically, the “Literati” papers are interesting because of the intimate glimpses they afford of a group of authors who, for the most part, were successful in appealing to the popular literary tastes of mid-nineteenth century America. A few of the thirty-eight writers — among them Willis., Halleck, Duyckinck, Hoffmann, Miss Fuller, Miss Sedgwick, and Mrs. Kirkland — are yet remembered for other reasons, but the personality and the evanescent fame of most of Poe's subjects, are recalled, if at all, chiefly by the sketches. Biographically, the papers are of value because they reflect Poe's activities in New York literary society and frequently record his personal reactions to his acquaintances. The “crisp distinction” of Poe's style and “the absolutely lucid form of his statement” in the papers have received [page 55:] appreciative notice.(1)
As he acknowledged both publicly and in a private letter, Poe did not regard the “Literati” series as a production of high merit. In replying to English's attack he wrote that the reaction of his enemies had given the articles a notoriety in excess of their merit and that he himself did not consider them important. They were, he added, “loosely and inconsiderately written.”(2) Late in 1846 Poe wrote to Eveleth that he had not cared enough for the papers to guard sufficiently against “haste, inaccuracy, or prejudice.(3) And, indeed, the sketches do contain inaccuracies and show signs of haste and prejudice; they were, as Hervey Allen described them, “frankly journalistic sketches meant for contemporary consumption, and to make a noise. They were to fill the author's purse, and the pages of an anthology.”(4)
Among other inaccuracies, Poe erroneously stated that Briggs's The Adventures of Harry Franco had appeared in the Knickerbocker,(5) and he doubled the value of the prize which Mrs. Stephens received for Mary Derwent.(6) He gave a wrong source for a quotation from Margaret Fuller's works,(7) grossly underrated [page 56:] Benjamin Day's role in establishing the Sun,(8) and attributed to Francis a work written by a Scotch physician.(9)
Poe's assertion that he had not guarded sufficiently against prejudice is an admission that he had not entirely fulfilled his stated purpose in writing the sketches. He had written in the prefatory remarks to the papers that his design was, “in giving my own unbiased opinion of the literati ... to give at the same time, very closely if not with absolute accuracy, that of conversational society in literary circles.”(10) The latter portion of the statement requires comment. Out of its context, Poe's implication here that his own views on literary matters were in virtual agreement with those of the literary circles may be misleading. In these introductory remarks he had been defending an old thesis of his, that the views expressed of an author in private conversation were superior to and more consistent than those found in press notices.(11) These private expressions of opinion may well have been closer to his own views than were the customary puffs of the press, but Poe probably exaggerated their approximation in his statement here. Thomas Holley Chivers reported a conversation in which Poe spoke with little respect for [page 57:] the opinions of literary circles:
I hold the policy, — or shall I call it politeness — to speak, in noticing Bryant's Poems, respectfully — or, perhaps, I should here, too, qualify my expression [b]y saying flatteringly of the private opinions of Literary Circles. But did you not know — does not every true Critic know — that if Mr Bryant, himself does not know in what true Poetry consists, that it is eternally impossible these Private Circles should. But would any honest man — would any man but one who is an arrant coward — morally as well as physically — withhold his conscientious opinions of the merits of any book merely because they would come in conflict with the preconcerted opinions of the world? Certainly not. Then why should any man hesitate to say, most positively, that these before-mentioned Private Circles know nothing at all about the matter?(12)
It was Allen's view that the opinions of the sketches “were not the critical judgments of Poe himself, but for the most part his obiter dicta, and his record of the current impressions of an author's importance at the time.”(13) But the evaluations in the “Literati” papers seem to be Poe's own. In equating them to the private opinions of literary circles, he probably hoped to lend them some of the fascination of gossip.
As concerns their value as literary criticism, the sketches have three principal shortcomings. First, and very obviously, the papers on English, Clark, and Briggs are steeped in the prejudices Poe had acquired in his previous dealings with those writers; and it is quite likely that the sketches of Cary and [page 58:] Aldrich would have been written with more sympathy had not the subjects been friends of Clark and Briggs. In the second place, the criticism in the sketches draws liberally upon Poe's previous writings. Instead of making fresh appraisals, it was Poe's method to represent whenever he could opinions he had published, sometimes more than once, in the Southern Literary Messenger, Graham's, the Broadway Journal, and elsewhere. Approximately one-fourth of all the material in the papers — and a larger proportion of the criticism — was transcribed verbatim, closely paraphrased, or summarized from earlier reviews. There was some fresh comment on Willis, and the entire paper on Margaret Fuller was new. But the sketches of Halleck, Anthon, Locke, Mrs. Mowatt, Mrs. Kirkland, Miss Sedgwick, Mrs. Osgood, and Mrs. Hewitt contain little criticism that had not previously been published.
The third major failing of the series, and one which requires more detailed discussion, derives from Poe's strong aversion to dealing severely with the productions of women writers.
In the month in which the last installment of the “Literati” papers appeared in Godey's, a writer for the National Press took note of the fact that much contemporary literature was being written by women. Composition, he remarked, had become as familiar among them as needlework, “and the pen is as appropriate an implement in their hand as the scissors.”(14) The poetry and fiction then appearing in such periodicals as Godey ‘s, Graham's, [page 59:] the Ladies’ Companion, and the Columbian catered largely to feminine tastes, and little of it is of permanent literary value. Most of these poems and tales treat stock themes in a conventional manner, blending sentimentality and didacticism in proportions which the critical palate finds objectionable. The nature of many of these pieces was indicated by Duyckinck upon resuming the editorship of the Literary World in 1848, in a pronouncement which banned them from his columns:
We shall from time to time introduce Tales and Sketches, where they have freshness, originality, and a genuine knowledge of life; insisting, of course, upon something more than the vicissitudes of Amanda Jenkins’ affection for Peter Stubbs for a story, the wonderful narrative connected with Penelope Smith's new bonnet, and all that flatulent kind of thing, which is so interesting in the Milliners’ Magazines.(15)
Such proprietors of successful ladies’ magazines as Louis Godey, George Graham, and William Snowden, however, were astute enough judge correctly the taste of their readers: sentiment, morality and the conventional tale of love triumphant or of broken hearts and pining spirits sold well. Largely on the basis of the popularity of this type of writing Godey was able to boast early in 1847 of his “one hundred thousand readers.”(16) The authors of these pieces were often, but by no means always, women, who, one surmises, wrote less frequently from conviction [page 60:] of talent than from the desire to see their productions in print, because they mingled in literary society and had friends who wrote, or, as Miss Lynch stated her own case to Poe, “only for the bread and butter considerations.”(17) Some of the most prolific of the contributors to the ladies’ magazines, Mrs. Osgood, Mrs. Embury, Mrs. Stephens, and Mrs. Hewitt, were chosen by Poe as subjects for “Literati” sketches.
In general Poe's estimates of the output of the women writers who appeared in his sketches were more than generous. One may read the poetry of Mrs. Osgood, for example, and find it difficult to agree with Poe that she wrote from necessity, that “Not to write poetry is entirely out of her power.”(18) In her best moments, perhaps, Mrs. Osgood was capable of writing verse that indicates a genuine poetic ability, and many of her poems have the grace and the charm which Poe attributed to them. In selecting illustrative passages for the sketch of Mrs. Osgood, Poe tactfully chose from among her most meritorious efforts. The greater part of her verse is facile, sentimental, didactic, and possesses little originality or force. Her prose productions display the characteristics of her poetry and strike one as belonging to the class of composition to which Duyckinck was to object; they fall far short of the merit Poe assigned to them. He found indications of “poetic capacity of no common order” in the poetry of Mrs. Embury, which a later reader characterized as [page 61:] possessing “the vagueness of imagery, conventionality of tone, and unimpassioned fluency of all bad verse.”(19)
Of course Poe's criticism of the writings of women was not always entirely favorable. He found, for example, Mrs. Osgood guilty of faulty versification, Mrs. Hewitt of lack of unity, and Mrs. Stephens of verbosity. In dealing with productions of genuine merit, such as Mrs. Mowatt's Fashion, Mrs. Kirkland's sketches of Western life, and Miss Sedgwick's The Linwoods, he struck a sound balance between praise and censure. But, on the whole, the reader of Poe's sketches of women authors is not so likely to be impressed by his excessive praise of mediocre works as by the comparative absence of unfavorable comment. Here was ample opportunity, had he desired to use it, for Poe to maintain the reputation as a slashing critic which he had held since his Southern Literary Messenger days. In view of his earlier treatment of the writings of Theodore S. Fay, William W. Lord, and Henry B. Hirst and others, one wonders what the result might have been had he chosen to examine dispassionately such productions as Mrs. Embury's poem “The Shepherd Boy”(20) or Mrs. Osgood's prose tale “Virginia, the Little Match-Girl of Kentucky.”(21)
The tone of Poe's criticism of women authors in the “Literati” [page 62:] papers was an expression of his sincere respect for and chivalrous deportment toward women. Women liked the gallant Southerner, and it was with them, rather than with men, that his warmest friendships were formed. Something of Poe's conduct in the presence of women and the impression created by his courtliness may be gathered from the observations of Mrs. Osgood written after his death —
... I have never seen him otherwise than gentle, generous, well-bred, and fastidiously refined. To a sensitive and delicately-nurtured woman, there was a peculiar and irresistible charm in the chivalric, graceful, and almost tender reverence with which he invariably approached all women who won his respect. It was this which first commanded and always retained my regard for him.(22)
It is doubtful whether those women authors who knew Poe well and who, early in 1846, knew of the forthcoming “Literati” series felt much apprehension concerning what might be said of them. Earlier Poe had admitted his limitations in criticizing the productions of women:
Where the gentler sex is concerned, there seems but one course for the critic — speak if you can commend — be silent — if not; for a woman will never be brought to admit a non-identity between herself and her book, and “a well-bred man” says, justly, that excellent old English moralist, James Puckle, in his ‘Grey Cap for a Green Heat,” “A well-bred man will never give himself the liberty to speak ill of women.”(23) [page 63:]
Susan Archer Talley Weiss, who met Poe in Richmond in 1849, wrote an account of a conversation with him which deals with his handicaps in criticizing the works of women and which is of particular interest here because it indicates that Poe's true opinion of Mrs. Osgood's poetry had not been given in the “Literati” sketch of her. The article on Mrs. Osgood(24) which Mrs. Weiss mentions incorporates much of the “Literati” paper.
He admitted [she wrote] that much which he had said in praise of certain writers was not the genuine expression of his opinions. Before my acquaintance with him I had read his critique on Mrs. Osgood, in the ‘'Southern Literary Messenger,” and had in my turn criticized the article, writing my remarks freely on the margin of the magazine. I especially disagreed with him in his estimate of the lines on Fanny Elsler [sic] and “Fanny's Error,” — ridiculing his suggested amendment of the latter. This copy of the magazine Mrs. Mackenzie afterward showed to Poe, and upon my expressing consternation thereat, she remarked laughingly, “Don't be frightened; Edgar was delighted.” On this evening he alluded the subject, saying, “I am delighted to find you so truly critical; your opinions are really the counterpart of my own.” I was naturally surprised, when he added, “You must not judge of me by what you find me saying in the magazines. Such expressions of opinion are necessarily modified by a thousand circumstances, — the wishes of editors, personal friendships, etc.” When I expressed surprise at his high estimate of a certain lady writer, he said, “It is true, she is really commonplace, but her husband was kind to me;” and added, “I cannot point an arrow against any woman.”(25) [page 64:]
As Mrs. Weiss's account indicates, Poe's gallantry at times wore thin. Her conversation with him on the subject of literary women may have been prompted by a paragraph from his pen which had recently appeared in the Messenger:
Our “blues” are increasing in number at a great rate; and should be decimated, at the very least. Have we no critic with nerve enough to hang a dozen or two of them, in terrorem? He must use a silk cord, of course — as they do, in Spain, with all the grandees of the blue blood — of the “sangre azula [sic].”(26) [page 65:]
Earlier in the year he had written to Annie L. Richmond that he intended thenceforth to ‘'shun the pestilential society of literary women. They are a heartless, unnatural, venomous, dishonorable set, with no guiding principle but inordinate self-esteem, Mrs [Osgood] is the only exception I know.”(27) When he wrote thus Poe had long since ceased to frequent the salons of the literary ladies of New York. After writing the “Literati” sketches he had suffered from the malicious gossip of Mrs. Ellet, undergone the humiliating experience of reviewing Mrs. Lewis's poems, and seen the rupture of his unfortunate engagement to Mrs. Whitman
[The following footnotes appear at the bottom of page 55:]
1 Harrison, in Works, I, 249.
2 Ibid., XVII, 241.
3 Poe to Eveleth, December 15, 1846; Ostrom, op. cit., II,
4 Op. cit., p. 548.
5 Works, XV, 20.
6 Ibid., XV, 56. The premium was $200, not $400; see the Ladies’ Companion, IX, 39 (May, 1838).
7 Works, XV, 77. The passage is from Summer on the Lakes, the review of Philip Van Artevelde.
[The following footnotes appear at the bottom of page 56:]
8 Ibid., XV, 126.
9 Ibid., XV, 25. The Anatomy of Drunkenness was written by Robert Macnish.
10 Godey's, XXXII, 195 (May, 1846); Works, XV, 5.
11 For Poe's earlier expressions of this opinion, see Works, XI, 131-132; XIII, 54; XV, 213; and the Aristidean, I, 130 (April, 1845).
[The following footnotes appear at the bottom of page 57:]
12 Davis, op. cit., pp. 48-49. Chivers' conversations with Poe took place in the summer of 1845.
13 Op. cit., p.548.
[The following footnote appears at the bottom of page 58:]
14 National Press, October 17, 1846.
[The following footnotes appear at the bottom of page 59:]
[The following footnotes appear at the bottom of page 60:]
[The following footnotes appear at the bottom of page 61:]
19 George H. Genzmer, in the Dictionary of American Biography, New York, 1928-1936, VI, 125.
20 Guido, a Tale, Sketches from History, and Other Poems, New York, 1828, pp.128-132.
21 Graham's, XXV, 133-135 (March, 1844).
[The following footnote appears at the bottom of page 62:]
22 Literati, 1850, p. xxxvi.
[The following footnote appears at the bottom of page 62, running to the bottom of page 63:]
23 “Marginalia,” Democratic Review, XV, 448 (November, 1844); [page 63:] Works, XVI, 12. For James Puckle and his work, see Thomas O. Mabbott, “Puckle and Poe,” Notes and Queries, CLXIV, 205-206 (March 25, 1933).
24 Southern Literary Messenger, XV, 509-515 (August, 1849); Works, XIII, 175-193.
[The following footnote appears at the bottom of page 63, running to the bottom of page 64:]
25 “Last Days of Edgar A. Poe,” Scribner's Monthly, XV, 714 (March, 1878). The “certain lady writer” mentioned by Mrs. Weiss was probably Mrs. S. D. Lewis, of Brooklyn, Poe's review whose poetry she may have seen in the Southern Literary Messenger [page 64:] for September, 1848. Richard Henry Stoddard, who wrote I several unsympathetic articles on Poe after his death, relates that Mrs. Lewis “... paid him [Poe] one hundred dollars to review one of her books, and ... on his neglecting to do so, very naturally complained of him. He did not deny her charges, but simply remarked that if he reviewed her rubbish it would kill him. Nevertheless he did review it in the Southern Literary Messenger and in Graham's Magazine, sending his notes to Bayard Taylor with the request that he would insert them as his own production. I had, before I lost it or gave it away, the letter in which he made this preposterous request, which was of course complied with, and the tuneful soul of his gushing friend was thus propitiated” (Recollections; Personal and Literary, New York, 1903, pp.159-160). Credence is given to Stoddard's report by Mrs. Mary Gove Nichols’ account of a conversation with Poe in 1846. The discussion had turned to the sale of opinions by reviewers, and, according to Mrs. Nichols, Poe remarked: “A literary critic must be loth to violate his taste, his sense of the fit and the beautiful. To sin against these, and praise an unworthy author, is to him an unpardonable sin. But if he were on the rack, or if one he loved better than his own life were writhing there, I can conceive of his forging a note against Bank of Fame, in favor of some would-be poetess, who is able to buy his poems and opinions.’ He turned almost fiercely upon me, his fine eyes piercing me, ‘Would you blame a man for not allowing his sick wife to starve?’ said he” (Reminiscences of Edgar Allan Poe, New York, 1931, p. 11; reprinted from the Six Penny Magazine, February. 1863).
[The following footnote appears at the bottom of page 64:]
26 “Marginalia,” Southern Literary Messenger, XV, 416 (July, 1849); Works, XVI, 173-174.
[The following footnote appears at the bottom of page 65:]
27. Ostrom, op. cit., II, 419. Ostrom suggests January 21, 1849, as the date of the letter. His version is a composite from two printed sources; he encloses Mrs. Osgood's name in brackets because it is found in only one of the printings.
∞∞∞∞∞∞∞
Notes:
None.
∞∞∞∞∞∞∞
[S:0 - PNYL, 1954] - Edgar Allan Poe Society of Baltimore - Bookshelf - Poe and the New York Literati (Reece)