Edgar Allan Poe to George W. Eveleth — 1846-12-15 — reading text

Edgar Allan Poe to George W. Eveleth — 1846-12-15 Historical printed letter from University of Virginia edition, 1924. Catalog identity RCL-660. The final scan page also begins the next letter; the searchable excerpt stops before that next letter. The local PDF preserves the selected source pages unchanged. Searchable text is unreviewed repository OCR and retains recognition errors and historical editorial notes. This is a historical printed witness, not an autograph manuscript or a modern critical text. [Source scan page 15] (' Copies of Letters from Edgar Allan Poe to H. B. W.) New-York, Dec. 15/46. My Dear Hn: By way of beginning this letter, let me say a word or two of apology for not having sooner replied to your letters of June 9th 1 and Octo. 13th. For more than six months, I have been ill — for the greater part of that time, dan¬ gerously so, and quite unable to write even an ordinary letter. My magazine papers appearing in this interval were all in the publishers’ hands before I was taken sick. Since getting bet¬ ter, I have been, as a matter of course, overwhelmed with the business accumulating during my illness. It always gives me true pleasure to hear from you, and I wish you could spare time to write me more frequently. I am gratified by your good opinion of my writings, because what you say evinces the keenest discrimination. Ten times the praise you bestow on me would not please me half so much, were it not for the intermingled scraps of censure, or of ob¬ jection, which show me that you well know what you are talk¬ ing about. Let me now advert to the points of your two last letters : What you say about the blundering criticism of “the Hart- at 304 Broadway. Poe formally withdrew after printing a “Valedictory” on December 26, 1845. 1. Better IV in the series of Eveleth letters edited by Mabbott is dated Oct. 13, 1846. No letter from Eveleth to Poe of June 9 is printed; apparently it is lost. Ingram dismembers this letter com¬ pletely. Vol. II, p. 103, omitting place and date, gives the first two paragraphs and the following introductory sentence; then leaps to “The criticism on Rogers - ” and continues to end of letter, omit¬ ting closing sentence: Vol. I, p. 275, begins with the third para¬ graph, “What you say, etc.” and goes through the paragraph ending “the palpitating trees.” The reference to “Politian” is not given in Ingram, but the paragraph following is inserted in Vol. II, p. 23. Ingram makes no departures from Eveleth’s copy, in these parts that he prints, except in a few details of punctuation, italics, and words for numbers instead of figures. The heading is Eveleth’s to Ingram’s copies. [7] [Source scan page 16] ford Review man” is just.2 For the purposes of poetry, it is quite sufficient that a thing is possible — or at least that the im¬ probability be not offensively glaring. It is true that in sev¬ eral ways, as you say, the lamp might have thrown the bird’s shadow on the floor. My conception was that of the bracket candleabrum affixed against the wall, high up above the door and bust — as is often seen in the English palaces, and even in some of the better houses of New York. Your objection to the tinkling of the footfalls is far more pointed, and in the course of composition occurred so forci¬ bly to myself that I hesitated to use the term. I finally used it, because I saw that it had, in its (first)3 conception, been suggested to my mind by the sense of the supernatural with which it was, at the moment, filled. No human or physical foot could tinkle on a soft carpet — therefore the tinkling of feet would vividly convey the supernatural impression. This was the idea, and it is good within itself ; but if it fails (as I fear it does) to make itself immediately and generally felt , ac¬ cording to my intention, then in so much is it badly conveyed, or expressed. Your appreciation of “The Sleeper” delights me.4 In the higher qualities of poetry, it is better than “The Raven” — but there is not one man in a million who could be brought to agree with me in this opinion. “The Raven,” of course, is far the better as a work of art — but in the true basis of all art, “The Sleeper” is the superior. I wrote the latter when quite a boy. You quote, I think, the two best lines in “The Valley of Un¬ rest” — those about the palpitating trees.5 2. Eveleth’s comment was apparently in the June 9 letter. The answer shows the nature of the Hartford Review’s criticism of “The Raven.” 3. The word “first” here is marked through in Eveleth’s copy, but the line appears accidental. 4. Eveleth returns to his discussion (of the lost letter, June 9) in his letter of January 19, 1847, of both “The Raven” and “The Sleeper.” See Mabbott, p. 10. 5. Also obviously a reference to the June 9 letter. [8] [Source scan page 17] There is no more of “Politian.” 6 It may be some years before I publish the rest of my Tales, Essays, etc.7 The publishers cheat — and I must wait till I can be my own publisher. The collection of tales issued by W. & P. (Wiley and Putnam) were selected by a gentle¬ man whose taste does not coincide with my own, from 72, written by me at various times — and those chosen are not my best — nor do they fairly represent me — in any respect. The criticism on Rogers is not mine — although, when it ap¬ peared I observed a similarity to my ordinary manner. The notice of Powell’s “Brittany” is mine.8 You will see that it was merely a preparatory 9 notice — I had designed speaking in full, but something prevented me. The criticism on Shelley is not mine; is the work of Parke Godwin. I never saw it. The critic alluded to by Willis as connected with the Mir- 6. This sentence is not given in Ingram. The question was in the June letter apparently. Ingram possessed Poe’s manuscript of “Politian” with the unprinted portion, which he secured from Mrs. Lewis. Later, he sold it and it became in time the property of Mr. J. P. Morgan. From this manuscript Dr. Thomas Ollive Mabbott prepared his excellent edition of the play, a first edition of the parts not previously printed. Ingram, upon the receipt of Eveleth’s letter with the copies of Poe’s letters, sent Eveleth one of the articles he had based upon the “Politian” ms. In his reply, October 30, 1878, Eveleth wrote Ingram: “I was glad to receive “Politian” — have re¬ read, in connection with it, the other “fragment” of the same, as given in Griswold’s edition — interest renewed and enlightened. My ques¬ tion to Poe about there being more of it implied that I thought there was an abrupt breaking off — as though for a future continuance. I took his answer in the light of the query — not, exactly, that no change in the original plan had been made, nor that no sentences or “scenes,” first contained, had been left out — simply that there was to be no continuance of the published article.” 7. Eveleth, Oct. 14, expressed at the close of his letter the hope that Wiley and Putnam, who had printed a few of Poe’s Tales, would print the remainder. 8. The reference is to a review in Graham’s, March, 1844. Reprinted, Harrison, Va. Ed. Works, Vol. XI, pp. 243 seq. 9. In Eveleth’s copy this word is spelt “preparitory.” [9] [Source scan page 18] ror, and as having found a parallel between Hood and Aid- rich is myself. See my reply 10 to “Outis” in the early num¬ bers of The Broadway Journal. My reference to L. G. Clark, in spirit but not in letter, is what you suppose. He abused me in his criticism— but so feebly— with such a parade of intention and effort, but with so little effect or power, that I — forgave him : — that is to say, I had little difficulty in pardoning him. His strong point was that I ought to write well, because I had asserted that others wrote ill; and that I didn't write well, because, although there had been a great deal of fuss made about me, I had written so little — only a small volume of a hundred pages. Why, he had written more himself! You will see that I have discontinued “The Literati” in God- ey’s Mag. I was forced to do so, because I found that people insisted on considering them elaborate criticisms, when I had no other design than critical gossip. The unexpected circula¬ tion of the series, also, suggested to me that I might make a hit and some profit, as well as proper fame, by extending the plan into that of a book 11 on American Letters generally, and keeping the publication in my own hands. I am now at this — body and soul. I intend to be thorough — as far as I can — to examine analytically, without reference to previous opinions by anybody — all the salient points of Literature in general — e. g. Poetry, The Drama, Criticism, Historical Writing, Ver¬ sification, etc., etc. You may get an idea of the manner in which I propose to write the whole book, by reading the no¬ tice of Hawthorne which will appear in the January “Godey,” as well as the article on “The Rationale of Verse” which will be out in March or April No. : of Colton’s Am. Magazine, or 10. This part of the letter answers questions in Eveleth’s, Oct. 14 letter. The “Outis” answers are printed in the Harrison Virginia Edition of Poe, Vol. XII, pp. 41-106. 11. The book was, perhaps, never written. Mabbott says (note 14, Letter Five) that a rough draft is preserved. The essays on Haw¬ thorne and on The Rationale of Verse are republished in Harrison, Volumes XIII and XIV. [10] [Source scan page 19] Review. [In this connection, it occurs to me to mention the fact that there were afterward published in the pages of that Review some very able and promising articles — articles prom¬ ising more in the future — under the head of The American Drama (if my memory is correct, that was the title) ; which articles I have not seen in any collection of the author’s works,, and which, Mr. Ingram, I do not find named in the “Pros¬ pectus” of your edition of those works. H. B. W.] 12 Do not trust, in making up your library, to the “opinions” in the Godey series.13 I meant “honest” — but my meaning is not so fully made out as I could wish. I thought too little of the series myself to guard sufficiently against haste, inaccuracy, or prejudice. The book will be true — according to the best of my abilities. As regards Dana, it is more than possible that I may be do¬ ing him wrong. I have not read him since I was a boy, and must read him carefully again. The Frogpondians (Boston¬ ians) have badgered me so