Edgar Allan Poe: His Life, Letters, and Opinions — John H. Ingram, 1880, volume II — reading text

supposed defenceless, the animadversions of the pensive Fuller, the cultivated Clark, the ‘indignant Briggs,’* and the animalcula with moustaches for antennal, that is in the capital habit of signing itself in full ‘Thomas Dunn English’ — of this series of papers all have been long since written, and three have been already given to the public. The circulation of the Magazine in which they appear cannot be much less than 50,000, and, admitting but four readers to each copy, I may congratulate myself on a monthly audience of at least 200,000 from amongst the most refined and intellectual classes of American society. Of course, it will be difficult on the part of The Mirror (I am not sure whether five hundred or six hundred be the precise number of copies it now circulates) — difficult, I say, to convince the 200,000 readers in question that, individually and collectively, they are blockheads — that they do not rightly comprehend the unpretending words which I have addressed trs them in this series — and that, as for myself, I have no other design in the world than misrepresentation, scurrility, and the indulgence of personal spleen. What has been printed is before my readers; what I have written besides is in the hands of Mr. Godey, and shall remain unaltered. . . . In sketching individuals, every candid reader will admit that, while my general aim has been accuracy, I have yielded to delicacy even a little too much of verisimilitude. Indeed, on this score, should I not have credit for running my pen through certain sentences referring, for example, to the brandy nose of Mr. Briggs (since Mr. Briggs is only onethird described when this nose is omitted), and to the family resemblance between the whole visage of Mr. English and that of the best looking but most unprincipled of Mr. Barnum’s baboons? “It will not be supposed, from anything here said, that I myself attach any importance to this series of papers. The public, however, is the best judge of its own taste; and that the spasms of one or two enemies have given the articles a notoriety far surpassing their merit or my expectation, is possibly no fault of mine. In a preface their very narrow scope is defined. They are loosely and inconsiderately written — aiming at nothing beyond the gossip of criticism — unless, indeed, at the relief of those ‘necessities’ which I have never blushed to admit, and which the editor of The Mirror — the quondam associate of gentlemen — has, in the same manner, never blushed publicly to insult and to record. “But let me return to Mr. English’s attack — and, in so returning, let me not permit any profundity of disgust to induce, even for an instant, a violation of the dignity of truth. What is not false amid the scurrility of this man’s statements, it is not in my nature to brand as false. . . . The errors and frailties which I deplore, it cannot at least be asserted that I have been the coward to deny. Never, even, have I made attempt at extenuating a weakness which is (or, by the blessing of God, was) a calamity, although those who did not know me intimately had little reason to regard it otherwise than as a crime. For, indeed, had my pride, or that of my family, permitted, there was much — very much — there was everything — to be offered in extenuation. Perhaps, even, there was an epoch of which it might not have been wrong in me to hint — what by the testimony of Dr. Francis and other medical men, I might have demonstrated, had the public, indeed, cared for the demonstration — that the irregularities so profoundly lamented were the effect of a terrible evil rather than its cause. . . . “It is not, then, my purpose to deny any part of the conversation represented to have been held privately between this person and myself. . . . The details of the ‘conversation,’ as asserted, I shall not busy myself in attempting to understand. . . . “I shall not think it necessary to maintain that I am no ‘coward.’ On a point such as this a man should speak only through the acts, moral and physical, of his whole public career. But it is a matter of common observation that your real coward never fails to make it a primary point to accuse all his enemies of cowardice. . . . Now, the origin of the nickname, ‘Thomas Done Brown,’ is, in Philadelphia, quite as thoroughly understood as Mr. English could desire. With even the inconceivable amount of brass in his possession, I doubt if he could, in that city, pronounce aloud that simple word I coward,’ if his most saintly soul depended upon the issue. . . . “His primary thrashing, of any note, was bestowed upon him, I believe, by Mr. John S. Du Solle, the editor of the Spirit of the Times, who could not. very well get over acting with this indecorum, on account of Mr. E.’s amiable weakness — a propensity for violating the privacy of a publisher’s, MSS. I have not heard that there was any resentment on the part of Mr. English.” A record of several other chastisements inflicted by various known and named individuals on Mr. English’s person follows, and then the poet proceeds to deal seriatim with the charges against himself: — “About the one or two other unimportant points in this gentleman’s attack upon myself, there is, I believe, very little to be said. He asserts that I have complimented his literary performances. . . . I solemnly say that in no paper of mine did there ever appear one word about this gentleman — unless of the broadest and most unmistakable irony — that was not printed from the MS. of the gentleman himself. The last number of the Broadway Journal (the work having been turned over by me to another publisher) was edited by Mr. English. The editorial portion was wholly his, and was one interminable pæan of his own praises. The truth of all this — if any one is weak enough to care a penny about who praises or who damns Mr. English — will no doubt be corroborated by Mr. Jennings, the printer. “I am charged, too, unspecifically, with being a plagiarist on a very extensive scale. He who accuses another of what all the world knows to be especially false, is merely rendering the accused a service by calling attention to the converse of the fact, and should never be helped out of his ridiculous position by any denial on the part of the accused. We want a magazine paper on ‘The Philosophy of Billingsgate.’ But I am really ashamed of indulging even in a sneer at this poor miserable fool, on any mere topic of literature alone. “As a matter of course I should have been satisfied to follow the good example of Mr. Wise,* when insulted by Mr. English (if this be, indeed, the person’s name), had there been nothing more serious in the blatherskite’s attack than the particulars to which I have hitherto alluded. — The two passages which follow, however, are to be found in the article referred to: I hold Mr. Poe’s acknowledgment for a sum of money which he obtained from me under false pretences.’ And again: — ‘A merchant of this city,’ &c. (vide paragraph ending, ‘thus virtually admitting the truth of the charge,’ page 75). It will be admitted by the most patient that these accusations are of such a character as to justify me in rebutting them in the most public manner possible, even when they are found to be urged by a Thomas Dunn English. The charges are criminal, and, with the aid of the Mirror, I can have them investigated before a criminal tribunal. In the meantime, I must not he under these imputations a moment longer than necessary. To the first charge I reply, then, simply that Mr. English is indebted to me in what (to me) is a considerable sum — that I owe him nothing — that in the assertion that he holds my acknowledgment for a sum of money under any pretence obtained, he lies — and that I defy him to produce such acknowledgment. “In regard to the second charge, I must necessarily be a little more explicit. ‘The merchant of New York’ alluded to, is a gentleman of high respectability — Mr. Edward J. Thomas, of Broad Street. I have now the honour of his acquaintance, but some time previous to this acquaintance, he had remarked to a common friend that he had heard whispered against me an accusation of forgery. The friend, as in duty bound, reported this matter to me. I called at once on Mr. Thomas, who gave me no very thorough explanation, but promised to make inquiry, and confer with me hereafter. Not hearing from him in what I thought due time, however, I sent him (unfortunately by Mr. English, who was always in my office for the purpose of doing bimself honour in running my errands) a note, of which the following is a copy: — ‘OFFICE OF THE Broadway Journal, &c. ‘EDWARD J. THOMAS, ESQ. ‘SIR, — As I have not had the pleasure of hearing from you since our interview at your office, may I ask of you to state to me distinctly, whether I am to consider the charge of forgery urged by you against myself, in the presence of a common friend, as originating with yourself or Mr. Benjamin? — Your obedient servant, ‘(Signed) EDGAR A. POE.’ “The reply brought me was verbal and somewhat vague. As usual. my messenger had played the bully, and, as very usual, had been treated with contempt. The idea of challenging a man for a charge of forgery could only have entered the head of an owl or an English: of course I had no resource but in a suit which one of Mr. E.’s friends offered to conduct for me. I left town to procure evidence, and on my return found at my house a letter from Mr. Thomas. It ran thus: — ‘NEW YORK, July 5, 1845. ‘E. A. POE, ESQ., NEW YORK. ‘DEAR SIR: — I had hoped ere this to have seen you, but as you have not called, and as I may soon be out of the city, I desire to say to you that, after repeated efforts, I saw the person, on Friday evening last, from whom the report originated to which you referred in your call at my office. He denies it in toto — says he does not know it and never said so — and it undoubtedly arose from the misunderstanding of some word used. It gives me pleasure thus to trace it, and still more to find it destitute of foundation in truth, as I thought would be the case. I have told Mr. Benjamin the result of my inquiries, and shall do so to ———* by a very early opportunity — the only two persons who know anything of the matter, as far as I know. — I am, Sir, very truly your friend and obedient servant, (Signed) EDWARD J. THOMAS.’ “Now, as this note was most satisfactory and most kind — as I neither wished nor could have accepted Mr. Thomas’ money — as the motives which had actuated him did not seem to me malevolent — as I had heard him spoken of in the most flattering manner by one whom, above all others, I most profoundly respect and esteem — it does really appear to me hard to comprehend how even so malignant a villain as this English could have wished me to proceed with the suit. “In the presence of witnesses I handed him the letter, and requested his opinion In lieu of it he gave me his advice: it was that I should deny having rweived such a letter and urge the prosecution to extremity. I promptly ordered him to quit the house. In his capacity of hound, he obeyed. “These are the facts which, in a court of justice, I propose to demonstrate; and, having demonstrated them, shall I not have a right to demand of a generous public that it brand with eternal infamy that wretch, who, with a full knowledge of my exculpation from so heinous a charge, has not been ashamed to take advantage of my supposed inability to defend myself, for the purpose of stigmatising me as a felon “And of the gentleman who (also with a thorough knowledge of the facts, as I can and will show) prostituted his sheets to the circulation of this calumny — of him what is it necessary to say? At present — nothing. . . . Not even in taking vengeance on a Fuller can I stoop to become a Fuller myself. . . . EDGAR A. POE.” This rejoinder appears to have been the most foolish act of Poe’s life; for it was as difficult for him, as for any one else,