|
[Full page 1, front:]
|
|
|
The
Living Writers of America. Some Honest Opinions about their Literary
Merits, with Occasional Words of Personality. By Edgar A. Poe. With
<a> Notice>>s<< of the Author by James Russell Lowell
>> & P. P. Cooke<<
Begin with the Memoir>>s<< — to which
append Willis’, Simms’, and Field’s
personal descriptions. <End with a foot-note* referring to
Publisher's
Appendix of Notices, prefaced with excuses for giving them.>
Next — Introduction — viz: — The difficulty of
writing about
contemporaries — Proverbial sensitiveness of authors — Instance this in
an account of the germ of the present work — state the great
circulations of Lady’s Book, giving Godey’s advertisements etc — how
he was badgered into giving up — Introduce (conditionally) a * [[a
note]]
referring to English’s attack. — Then original Preface — Success
induced me to extend the plan — careful investigation — discard petty
animosities — it will be seen that where through petulance or neglect,
or under-estimate of the impression the papers were to make, I have
done injustice, I have not scrupled to repair the wrong, even at the
expense of consistency. The man who is consistent is a fool — <My
qualifications for the task.> General object I propose is to convey
to foreigners (the English
especially) and to those among my own countrymen who cannot be supposed
conversant with the arcana, a full view of our Literature, a
desideratum — material scattered about and contradictory — conventional
manner of criticism inadequate to convey distinct impression — analyze
it — instance it — quiz it.
How far the journals are reliable — have already spoken partially on
this topic
in the preface to the “Literati — English see only Eastern opinion —
see artic. [[article]] on Wilmer — also Am. Poet. [["American Poetry"]]
in Aristed." [[Aristidean]] —
speak of the N. Am. R. [[North American Review]] — its
proverbial laudation of N. E. [[New England]] men — incidentally to
this topic, bring in the fact that the
great majority of our books are written & published by northern men
—
this on a/c [[account]] of the natural advance of civilization from E
to W. [[East to
West]] — Political sectional animosities altogether independent of the
partisan animosities of England, and such as equally affect us — result
a depreciation of Southern & Western talent, which upon the whole
is
greater, more vivid, fresher, than that of the North, less
conventional, less conservative — want of centralization gives birth to
a peculiar cliquism whose separate penchants render it
nearly impossible to get at the truth — Instance the Humanity clique
— to which belong Emerson, Lowell, Hawthorne, Godwin, Fuller, Mrs
Child, Whittier — a mixture of Puritm [[Puritanism]], Transcendm
[[Transcendentalism]] and
Credulity. — seldom find one who is not hom [[homoeopathist]],
Preissnit [[Preissnitsian]],
Mesmer [[Mesmerist]], Swed [[Swedenborgian]], Fourier [[Fourierite]] —
inst [[instance]] “Present” Smolnikar
etc — and who judge all literature in accordance with its hobby — even
insisting on estimating works of professed art by such criterion. — The
M Ad [[Mutual Admiration]] Society, Mathews, Duyckinck, Jones, Cheever
etc once
— now reduced to Mathews and Duyckinck. The Magazines, for the most
part, organs of cliques — honorable exception in favor of
Colton — Books on Am Lit [[American Literature]] — Cheever, Kettell,
Keese,
Bryant, Griswold — an account of each — foreigners apt to be deceived
by such a work as Griswold’s — here valued only as a compendium — Baron
————’s [[Van Rauimer’s]] judgment of it about Hoffman. — Quote what
Griswold says abt [[about]] me, to show that I am not misled by
soreness — How is the public to know that I am in better condition to
give the truth — appeal to the public in regard to my whole editorial
career — in great measure aloof from cliques — swearing by no master —
after all the best evidence is internal — in my criticisms I have
seldom given an opinion without at least the semblance of a reason —
have all my life dealt in criticism — opinion of my contemporaries —
refer to Appendix. I give these opinions, too, first because I have a
right to be proud of them and, second, because the charge of vanity is
one which I feel able to bear — Query? shall I subject myself to the
possible charge of vanity (in other words of being proud of that of
which none but a conceited ass could help being proud) — or shall I
suffer the public to remain under [full page 1, back:] a false
impression?
General glance at our literature. An erroneous idea that there is
anything very distinctive about it. — Allude to the talk of the British
critics about our duties as a young country — instance the
Athenaeum’s
critique on my poems etc. — general idea in England that Americans are
all blacks or Indians — we are, in fact, only politically young
— we are a continuation of England — we have known no aera (vid
[[vide]]
Macaulay). What is a true Nationality — the cant of the M An [[Mutual
Admiration]] society abt [[about]] it — there should be no
nationality —
the world the proper stage —
Ө [[insert appended text about “English cant . . .” here]] distant
subjects in fact most desirable —
nationality means, according to Mathews, toadying Americans &
abusing
foreigners right or wrong — quote pencilled par [[paragraph]] from Am
Actors [[American
Actors]] in D R [[Democratic Review]], Sep 46 [[September
1846]], — Copy from rev [[review]] of
Wilmer in “Graham” passage about effect of wholesale laudation of
Americans. — As a colony we are prone to ape the mother country*-men of
letters, unmoved by political animosity, have no reason not to admire —
another source of imitativeness is that our literature (for Copyright
reasons) is altogether in the hands of a class proverbial for
conservatism — the “gentlemen of elegant leisure.” — As a new country,
too, we have a natural bias toward utilitarianism —
“the good afterwards.” Folly of measuring all others — that is, their
fames — with the fames of the old English worthies — “can America ever
show a Milton” is often asked. — No — nor England either — that is a
Milton’s fame. When Milton lived no competition — required infinitely
less genius then than now to acquire fame — that is to rise above the
ocean-level. — We should, compare Cooper with Dickens and so on. — The
aristocracy of dollars here tends, also, to depress genius which,
as a general rule, is poor, for the reason that it seeks especially the
unpurchasable pleasures. — Just as wealth is — worshipped, so is
poverty despised, and in every way depressed. A poor genius may triumph
in England — rarely here. There is no aristocracy of dollars. —
Publishers here seldom glance at the work of a poor author, while our
rich dillettanti have little trouble in getting a (of course temporary
and factitious) fame. Neal, Willis, Hawthorne (the three best) have
been abused or neglected
— Osborn also — Benjamin, Kennedy, Paulding, Cooper, Longfellow,
Calvert, Sprague, Doane, Wilde, succeed. Wealth or social position
determines an authorts success here very emphatically. The want of Copy
Right Law however, depresses us more than all else. Say how. Question
overloaded with words — give it in brief — see Marginalia — Mirror. —
Look at Copy Right pamphlets — Lieber etc. — Law would have been passed
but for the ridicule thrown upon it by Mathews. — Journalism here —
Quarterlies rather sectional than partisan — Barrets opinion see
Broadway Journal: — manner in which they ape the British essay-reviews
— pretend to be more dignified, however, and are especially
behind the qui vive spirit of the age — have alluded already to
the gross
dishonesty of the N. Am. [[North American]]. Touch incidentally upon
criticism of
it — system of self-puffery. Our Magazines are, upon the whole, the
best representatives of our
literature — quote from D. R. [[Democratic Review]] opinion of
the Lon. For. Quar [[London Foreign
Quarterly]] — (in the article on Western Tales) their chief
distinction
is that they deal more in criticism than the English. — The $3s are a
feature peculiar to us. — Give an account of all — the puff
advertisements — fashion-plates — anomalous character-good writers —
prices paid to myself and others — extensive circulation — influence on
our letters depressing — tempted by high prices men of genius
contribute — good articles rejected — instance myself, Gold-B. [[“The
Gold-Bug”]], Raven,
Vald Case [[“Facts in the Case of M. Valdemar”]] — result is men of
genius send their refuse — worse than
the refuse of men of talent — see Burton — finally finding themselves
in danger of ruining their reputations, they drop off or starve (for it
is their best resource) — $3s going rapidly down. Newspapers impossible
to rival the foreign on account of the want of
centralization — see “Journalism” American Review. In general far
better edited (in proportion to circulation and pay of editors) than
the British because our men of talent are forced into the service of
journalism as a dernier ressort.
* Disposition to worship models greater here than in the mother
country. Depreciating effect. see Pol. Education [[“Political Education
— Statemanship”]] Am. R. [[American
Review]] Ap 46 [[April 1846]]
[full page 2, front:]
Conclude Introduction by a Glance at dead authors — see Griswold’s
books.
Next — Authors, as they occur, with autograph.
End — with a Resume and Classification in several Departments of
Letters. The spirit of cliquerie perhaps the worst feature we
have, next to the want of International Law — to be remedied only by
establishment of a Magazine very distinctive from any yet established —
whose honesty shall be guaranteed by a total rejection of the
anonymous, and whose opinion shall be self-sustained. It is here that
the greatest efforts are most rationally to be expected. In this epoch
of profound thought guided and rendered effective by analytic art
Circular battle of authors. [[To the left of this phrase, Poe has drawn
a large circle.]]
Men of truest genius despise ambition — not likely to come forward
under present circumstances — prophecy that from those scarcely heard
of as yet will arise our great men — reason for including so many.
un >>Philadelphia clique — Neal, Chandler, McMichael,
Godey, Smiths, Browns,
Mitchell.<<
>>Griswold . . . as to best poems — no opinion of his own about
anything.<<
In what respect my book will, differ from all others. >>Not his
fault
that New England writers fill the book.<<
— in a cursory work our prejudices and partialities peep out
without our being aware of it.
|| >>Excuse for egotism of a work which discusses men and
letters with which
I have been so mixed. I shall at every hazard write a plain
straightforward. << Must expose the wires.
|| No order observed and frequently the length of the articles,
or the
insertion of the person at all (as in the case of Clark and English)
had reference only to the principle involved. Thus &c
oo >>No intention to be profound. Touch upon the criticism
in vogues,
which
avoiding particulars deals in vague generalities to conceal incapacity
and may be made to mean anything as occasion demands — Non-Commitalism.
<< >>Approbation or condemnation may be found writing
of 2 authors at
diff. [[different intervals]] & without the published papers before
me, stronger expression may be applied to the
weaker yet the weaker be the favorite. This difficulty to be remedied
only by a connected work.<<
== Defect of the “Literati” that the length of each article was
naturally
taken as the measure of the author’s importance — this arose from
fragmentary character of the papers, which were rifacimentos. Show how,
in this way, erroneous estimate of comparative >>$<<
which for want of the C. R. [[Copy Right]] Law is thus rendered
essentially
scrappy. Repugnance to regard a short work as great. Distinguish. A
mountain affects us by bulk. Instance Whelpley — Monam Mountain. Hunter
— Definition of Clas. Webber
± >>The toadyism of the portraits
in Griswold’s
Prose Authors.<<
Ө >>English cant about our “vast forests” etc, Our men of
letters
generally
live in cities, and all great works have thence emanated. Besides the
true poet is less affected by the absolute contemplation than the
imagination of a great landscape. Living among such scenery is the
surest way not to feel it.<<
¶ >>Put this in publisher’s mouth, “Let those judge
others who
themselves
excel and censure freely Who have written well.”<<
‡ Excuse for publishing Reply to E. [[English]]* Deficient
circulation
of original
reply, Godey demands a rep. [[reply]] and I wrote it and sent it to him
at
his request. After a month’s delay it appeared in the Sp of Times [[Spirit
of the
Times]] without my seeing proofs and accompanied by the following
letter.
[Give it]. To which I sent the following reply. [Give it]. Godey
returns the letters and refuses me the 100 papers — am written to in
various quarters, [Give southern letter]. Lest public might suppose
Godey’s dignity offended — is a little round oily man with a fat head —
true reason, scared — refer to com. [[communication]] of Hale
to Hunt. —
No animosity — treated me on the whole better than any.
Only a sample of what all have to suffer. That I was not
unreasonable by his advertisement — 50 per cent. He urged the
publication. He would not back out.
† >>Excuse my personality. No offensiveness of course.
Except in certain
rare cases no delicacy required. Why should distinction be made between
an engraved and written portrait? General desire to know the man as
well as the author. Imposs. [[Impossible]] to give intelligible view
without <<
* Put all this in an Appendix
note — “to my personal friends”
[full page 2, back:]
Transcendentalism — agree with Sue — refer briefly to my notes for
review of Wandering Jew — disagree with Phalanxes etc — may and
probably will come to pass at some distant epoch — but man will be
foiled as usual — instance the fact that in proportion to excess so
depression — in proportion to enjoyment so the fear of death — as well
try to carry oneself in a basket — doubt if one nation is any happier
than another — there is a perpetual system of checks, showing clearly
the intention of Deity — just as the phalansteries advance in
artificial comforts will they fall off in their sense of enjoyment.
There is no doubt that in general there can be a small advance made in
human happiness, by throwing ourselves loose from artificialities
priestcraft etc — very nearly as Sue indicates — cultivating our
tastes, passions etc — as in the case of Adrienne. At all events the
limit to Hum. Prog. [[Human Progress]] is infinitely narrower than the
Socialists
suppose it.
Filth of the mouth and fog o’ the mind.
Tendency of the
transcend. [[transcendentalists]] to reject Art — to regard the artist
as inconsistent
with the worker.
Gen. Memoranda.
| Books wanted — |
“Griswold's Poets & Poetry of
Am” & “Prose Writers of Am”.
Kettell’s “Specimens”.
Keese’s Collection
Morris’ ”
[[Collection]]
Cheever’s “Common-Place-Book”.
Bryant’s Collection.
Tuckerman’s “Thoughts on the Poets”
S. L. Messenger. — Vols 1.2.3.
“Graham” complete.
Am. Rev [[American Review]] — complete.
Articles, abt [[about]] 3 years ago, in Lond. For. Quar. [[London
Foreign Quarterly]] on Am. Poetry & Am.
Romance
Simms’ Views & Reviews.
Curios, of Lit: Griswold — Greeley & McElrath.
Lardner’s Lect. —————— do — do
|
Write to Neal — Brooks — to Thomas abt. [[about]] Welby, Prentice, —
Cist abt.
Mrs. Nichols, Hall. Speak to Cooper abt. publication. To Mrs Hale for
autog. & Reply. To Benjn abt self and Mathews. To Ide — ask Morris
who wrote notices.
Critics — Emerson, Godwin, Neal, Dana, Tuckerman, Whipple, Simms,
Colton.
Intersperse from “Marginalia” — Look it all over at each author.
Ask Mrs. Gove who is the author of “Why this sighing for the unattained
& dim?” — Winslow.
In quizzing the Transcendental poems quote Sternhold & Hopkins.
[fragment 1, front:]
[[Longfellow and]] Sprague are desperate imitators.
Distinct from the error arising from the vast sectional animosities is
an analogous one (confined however, more closely to our own people) and
that is cliquism, springing from want of a great central
emporium like London or Paris, (and giving rise to antagonism and
confusion of opinion). Each of our chief cities has its clique. New
York is at present the chief focus, but must rapidly lose its
ascendancy. The most desperate clique is that of the Humanity party of
Boston.
Describe it as well as it can be described. As its
chief trait is confusion and mysticism, they naturally do not very
clearly see their own objects or limits. — They could not define their
own position and it cannot be expected that I can define them exactly.
They differ from the Humanity party of England in the want of precision
in their purposes. If there is any one binding principle it is
Credulity. Never saw one of them who is not at once Mesmerist,
Phrenologist, Preissnitsian, Swedenborgian, Fourieritet and Fanny
Wright,[theor]ies for which the [Bostoni]an intellect seems [to ha]ve a
natural af. [[afffinity]] — For want of a more comprehensive term and
for no
better reason we may class them all as Transcendentalists. — The public
have naturally adopted this term from its idea that their doctrine
(whatever it is) is like the peace [“which passeth all understanding “]
......... about (Cetera desunt) [fragment
1, back:]
Nationality. We dem [[demand]] that nationality wh. [[which]] will do
all it
can to procure our
authors fair play — we dem [[demand]] for instance, the firm advocacy
of a Cop. R. [[Copy
Right]] Law to put them on equal grounds with the Eng. [[English]] —
but beyond
this wh. [[which]] is called Nationality is adverse to the Nation. We
demand
that nationality which will not cringe to foreign opinion — but we
repudiate that nationality wh. [[which]] wd. [[would]] throw off all
respect for it — We
do our Literature grosser wrong in over-praising our authors than the
British cd. [[could]] possibly do in over-abusing them. We shd.
[[should]] drop the
gross folly of forcing our readers to relish a stupid book the better
because sure enough its stupidity was American.
[fragment 2, front:]
Criticism — its idiosyncrasy here (if any) aping the mother country —
see true offices of criticism notice of Mathews in “Graham” — the idea
of fostering — see commencement of review of Halleck in S.L.M.
— also review of Wilmer— conservative* criticism inadequate to convey
distinct impression — analyze it, instance it — quiz it — see Briggs on
Macaulay Democratic Review.
Begin with this
In a few years our literature will assume a new character — the
tendency to think which is characteristic of the age is especially so
in a republic — a Copy-right law will be passed — it seems advisable
now to sum up what has been done and to prophecy what we can do. We
will entirely throw off the shackles of a conservative criticism and we
may look for better works originating here than have originated
elsewhere. Our system of Education more thorough than the English. [fragment
2, back:]
Mrs Sigo[urney] [[Her name appears in the margin, but the text it
accompanied has been cut off.]]
Longfellow [[His name appears in the margin]] . . . [on] the whole the
best poet we [. . .]
misrepresentation of “Evening Gazette”. See scrap about Harney
N. Boo[l]
As a critic. Germanic. Flowery — trite. see Arc. [[Arcturus]]
3.153.
Add to plagiarism in Rep. to Outis [[“Reply to Outis”]] from Yankee p.
32-72.
378 — also Bel. City [[“The Beleagured City”]]. also Rain Mrs Smith see
B. J. [[Broadway Journal.]]
Get Waif — Poets and Poetry of Europe — Ou. [[Outre]] Mer. Plag.
[[Plagiarism]] see
B. J. [[Broadway Journal]], 2.72 [[volume 2, p. 172]]. “Rain”
Graham’s Aug. also same no: [[number]] P. & P. of Europe [[The
Poets
and Poetry of Europe]].
HERBERT ? — Son of Eng. [[English]] nobleman — see poems in “Graham” [[Graham’s
Magazine]]. Scholar.
Translations. See “Roman Traitor.” — write to him.
HEADLEY —— See scrap in bundle — also “Alfieri” D R [[Democratic
Review]] >>Nov<< 44 [[November 1844]] — “Paul Jones” Am
R. [[American
Review]] Sep. 46 [[September 1846]] — “Nap and Marsh” [[“Napoleon
and Marshals”]] Am R. [[American Review]] May 46 [[1846]] —
“Oliver Crom:” [[“Oliver Cromwell”]] Am. R. [[American
Review]] Ap 46 [[April 1846]] — nervou [[nervous,]] not so much
imag.
[[imaginative]] as impressed easily
— admires dash & sublimity — writes with a catching enthusiasm on
which his Irish headlong style too often throws a wet blanket — his
vivacity of fancy often throws him on a vivid image. Is full of the
subject & grasps its gen. [[general]] features — no powers of
reason[. . .]
[[Gimbel fragment:]]
... the deception only upon seeing my own previous jeu d’esprit.
The great effect wrought on the public mind is attributable, first, to
the novelty of the conception; secondly, to the fancy-exciting
and reason-repressing character of the alleged discoveries; thirdly, to
the tact with which the matter was brought forth; and, fourthly, to the
vraisemblance of the narration. Here introduce the discussion of vraisemblance
from Margin[alia] in Graham’s.
[[Plus quote of Simms review from N. A. Review,
from October 1846,
63:357-381:]]
The author of The Yemassee, Guy Rivers, Life of Marion, & a good
many other things of that sort is a writer of great pretensions &
some local reputation. We remember to have read in some one of the
numerous journals wh. [[which]] have been illustrated by his genius, an
amusing explanation from his pen, addressed to persons who had applied
to him for information, of the difference between author and publisher,
— the object of it being evidently to tell the public that he was often
written to by persons who, being anxious to get his works, very
naturally fancied that he was the proper person to obtain them from,
and to let the applicants know that the trade part of the book business
was in quite different hands. We were struck by the ingenuity of the
announcement, and grateful for the information thus condescendingly
imparted. We availed ourselves of it to procure some of the volumes,
which we proceeded forthwith to read and inwardly digest. Both of these
processes were attended with no ordinary difficulties; but we believe
we were uncommonly successful at last. (The author of these
novels means to be understood as setting up for an original, patriotic,
native Am. [[American]] writer; but we are convinced that every
judicious reader will set him down as uncommonly deficient in
the first elements of originality. He
has put on the cast-off garments of the British novelists, merely
endeavoring to give them an Am. [[American]] fit; and, like those fine
gentlemen who make up their wardrobes from the 2d hand cloth.
[[clothing]] <stores> shops, or from the unp. [[unparalleled]]
estab. [[establishment]] of Oak Hall, there is in his literary outfits
a decided touch of the shabby genteel. The outward form of his novels
is that of their English models; the current phrases of sentiment and
description, worn threadbare in the circulating libraries, and out at
the elbows, are the robes wherewith he covers imperfectly the nakedness
of his invention. The obligato tone of sentimentality
wearisomely drones through the soft passages of the thousand times
repeated plot of love. To borrow a metaphor from one of the unhappy
experiences of domestic life, the tender lines are so old that they are
spoiled; they have been kept too long, and the hungriest guest at the
intellectual banquet finds it nauseating to swallow them. The style of
Mr Simms — we mean (for, like other great writers, he designates
him[sel]f by th[e titles] of his chief prod. [[productions]], r[are]ly
condescending to the c[ompa]rative [. . .]
|
|
|
|
|
|