The following appeared in the Literary World for November 13, 1847, in defense of Headley's accusations against Hoffman and I:
Friday, November 14, 2014
The Griswold-Headley Controversy...Day Nine.
The New York Tribune for November 12, 1847, carried the following two letters in the ongoing scuffle between Carey & Hart and Baker & Scribner, the first so much blather from Headley, and the second from his publisher:
NEW-YORK, Nov. 11.
To the Editors of the Tribune:
Messrs. Carey & Hart, having seen
fit to extend their defence to The Tribune, I beg leave to make the following
statement, which I trust will be final, and ask the few who care anything about
this matter to read it candidly. I must
state also at the outset that I have been dragged
unwillingly before the public by these men, and forced into a defence, when
if they had told the simple truth I should have needed none. Now what is the root of all this trouble and
outcry? Carey & Hart wished to
publish a book for me, which I chose to give to another house. I never
made a contract with them—I never made a verbal promise—I never offered them a
book—I never even promised to inform them of my plans, or expressed a wish to
make an arrangement with them. They
wrote me a courteous letter, requesting the book. I replied courteously, complimenting their
house, for which at the time I had the highest respect, but not committing
myself in any way. On this they
commenced their crusade; first, by showing around the city the correspondence
between them and my publishers and me, and endeavoring to get the opinions of
the trade in their favor, and thus frighten my publishers into a relinquishment
of their claim. Next, by publishing a
book as nearly like mine, in form, size, external getting up and title, as they
well could. All this flattering notice
of me I, of course, appreciated, yet could not but wonder at their folly. Not satisfied with this, they endeavored in
the introduction to their work, to prove that I had wronged them—nay, stolen from them their own
property. The following extract from my
letter to the Courier & Enquirer will explain all this:
To the Editors of the Courier & Enquirer:
GENTLEMEN—As I have
been unwillingly dragged before the public by a portion of the press, and
accused of dishonesty in the publication of my “Washington and his Generals,”
will you do me the favor to allow a word of explanation in your columns? Messrs. Carey & Hart of Philadelphia,
having issued a work bearing a similar title and copied after mine in form,
size, binding, &c. so closely that no one can doubt their intentions. In doing this they have found it necessary,
in order to exculpate themselves, to assail me with heavy charges which have
been repeated and enforced in several of the papers. They say in their introduction that they
cannot explain this course more fairly than by giving the following extracts
from our correspondence on the subject.
The following are the extracts they give: “PHILADELPHIA. Sept. 9, 1846
“We have had in contemplation the
publication of a work to be entitled “The Generals of the American Revolution,”
to make one or two 12mo. Volumes and should like to know if you would be
willing to undertake the authorship of it.
It you feel inclined to do so, please let us know your terms.”
Also an extract from my reply, viz: “STOCKBRIDGE, Mass. Sept. 21, 1846.
“I have just received your favor of
the 9th inst. I scarcely know
what to say in reply, as I do not yet know what my engagements will be for the
winter.…but before I undertake it, I shall want to inquire respecting the
materials for it, and whether they are easily accessible. I am afraid the archives of the separate
States will have to be searched. There
is another consideration; whether it
would be better for me as an author to write such a work….I shall return to
New-York in a week or two, when I shall decide on what I undertake.”
They then state that—
“Since the date of that letter,
however, he has not written a line to the publishers; though they suggested the
idea of the work to him, he has arranged with Messrs. Baker and Scribner, of
New-York, (who were perfectly aware of the circumstances of his correspondence
on the subject with Carey & Hart,) for its publication.
“The publishers have only to add
that, as they were the originators of the work, their suggestions in regard to
it should not have been used by Rev. J. T. Headley, for his own benefit or that of any other house, without first
giving them notice and obtaining their consent.
As well might a publisher make use of a MS submitted to him for
publication by an author, by appropriating that author’s ideas in the
preparation of a similar work, while he should be under the impression and
expectation that the publisher was deciding upon the merits of his literary
labors. PHILADELPHIA, 1847.
Messrs. Carey & Hart here
distinctly assert that they suggested an entirely new work to me, and that,
while they supposed I was deliberating on their proposals, I coolly
appropriated their plan and made arrangements with another house. To substantiate this charge of dishonesty,
they adduce, my letter as the proof and the only
proof. Now to show the nature of this
proof, and where the dishonesty and falsehood rest, I give the letter as
written by me, that it may be compared with the extract made by them: “STOCKBRIDGE, Mass. Sept. 21, 1846.
“I have just received your favor of
the 9th inst. forwarded from New-York.
I scarcely know what to say in reply, as I do
not yet know what my engagements will be for the winter. I have
had such a work as the one you propose to publish in contemplation for some
time; last Spring I was spoken to on the subject in New-York, but before I
undertake it, I shall want to inquire respecting the materials for it, and
whether they are easily accessible. I am
afraid the archives of the separate States will have to be searched. There is another consideration; whether it would be better for me as an
author to write such a work,” &c.
Thus it is seen that they have
endeavored to suborn a witness, in order to make it sustain a false
accusation. They quote a letter intended
to prove that I had acknowledged them to be the originators of the book; yet
that very letter asserts my claim to it in the strongest manner. They cite the letter to prove by my
confession, their priority over all others; that letter informs them I had
already been spoken to on the subject.
And yet, with this letter in their
hands, with all these facts before them, they have publicly claimed the idea of
the book as their own, charged me with having dishonestly appropriated it
to my own use and benefit, and then, to sustain these charges, have garbled the
very letter which refutes them all!
Among honorable men such an act would stamp the author of it with
lasting disgrace.
With regard to the abstract question,
who suggested the work, it is too ridiculous to be entertained a moment. Every one who has taken the trouble to think
on the subject at all, believes that “Washington and his Generals” grew out of
“Napoleon and his Marshals.”
Since this was published they have
made another statement and again garbled my letter and endeavored to make
another point. In reply I say, there
stands the extract as copied from Carey & Hart’s copy of the original which
they showed around town last Spring. Do
they deny its genuineness? I wished to
publish the whole letter but could not get hold of it. I directed my publishers to write a polite
note to Mr. Hart requesting a copy. They
did so; but hitherto he has declined to send it or to publish it himself. The only
point they raise in their preface is that they suggested the book to me, and that I stole and appropriated the
suggestion. That point is settled by the extract I gave. Let them publish the whole letter and then
the public can determine where the honesty rests.
Are they not
aware that their refusal to do so is and will be construed into a confession of
guilt? If they are justified in the
course they have pursued by that letter as they assert, why not publish
it? It is a short one and would not take
up a tenth part of the space they have occupied with their comments. I am willing that letter should stand without
note or comment as my answer to all their charges, and side by side with their
preface as the only testimony I need to convict them. Nay, more, it will give the lie direct to the
following statement in their last letter.
“He (Mr. Headley) gives in your paper
the letter as written by himself, in
which he states he had ‘such a work as the one we proposed to publish in
contemplation for some time,’ but does not add, as he did in his original
letter received by us, that the work he contemplated publishing, (which is
evident to us from the tenor of that letter,) was a History of the late War.”
I said I
had had in contemplation a History of the Last War; but the one which I stated
I had had “in contemplation for some time”
is asserted distinctly in the following sentence of my letter as quoted
above:--“I have had such a work as you
propose to publish in contemplation for some time.” Can anything equal this misrepresentation and
effrontery?
In
conclusion, I must say again, that I have been forced unwillingly into this
controversy, and should not have noticed Mr. Hart’s misrepresentations, had not
several of the papers taken them up, and extended them to my injury. They say they have never before been
“unfairly treated by an American author.”
I can assure them that if they treat all as they have me, they will soon
find none to treat with them. I have
written a book in the way I saw best—“this is the head and front of my
offending;” and yet I must be abused, misrepresented and forced into a
newspaper quarrel, because I will not let a certain wealthy house make some
money out of me.
Yours, truly, J.
T. HEADLEY.
NEW-YORK, Nov. 11, 1847.
To the Editor of The
Tribune:
SIR: Messrs. Carey
& Hart published in your paper this morning some extracts from letters that
passed between us respecting Mr. Headley’s work, entitled “Washington and his
Generals.” We have only to say in reply,
let them publish the whole correspondence
between us, including Mr. Headley’s letter.
Their selected extracts and
quotations we shall not notice, as they do not tell the whole truth. We appeal to
the whole correspondence and object to ex parte extracts. We are willing that the whole correspondence should decide the question between us; but
until they give that, we have only to
say that any one who will take the trouble to read the exposition of Mr.
Headley will see that Carey & Hart had no claim on him for his book—that he
was under no obligation to them respecting it, and therefore had a perfect
right to give it to us if he pleased. If he had a right to dispose of the book as
he say fit, we certainly had a right to make an arrangement with him. Yours, &c. BAKER & SCRIBNER.
Tuesday, November 11, 2014
The Griswold-Headley Controversy...Day Eight.
The following wall of text appeared in the New York Tribune for November 11, 1847. The first item is yet another letter from Headley, in which he coins a phrase that has irritated me no end and has been oft repeated. The remaining items were written by my wonderful publishers, Carey & Hart.
To the Editor of The
Tribune:
You state that I made a sort of
appeal “to you respecting Mr. Griswold’s veracity.” I certainly had no wish or design to drag you
into the controversy. That appeal, if it
was one, was of course wholly unwarranted by you. I stated what I did entirely on my own
responsibility; nay, it was no more than I should say to anyone acquainted with
Mr. Griswold who repeated to me a false and slanderous statement of his. I should say in each and every case, “you
know he cannot be relied on,” and that without fear of contradiction or
intending to compromise the person to whom it was addressed. I should not have taken the trouble to
contradict the ridiculous accusations he made, if your paper had been confined
to the city where he is understood. A
man to whom even his friends have been accustomed to say, “Is that a Griswold
or a fact,” I can well let pass where he is known, but in other parts of the
country where the Tribune circulates, people are not so well acquainted with
matters. Yours, &c. J. T. HEADLEY.
To the Editors of The
Tribune, N. York:
GENTLEMEN: We
enclose a copy of the Letter handed to the Editors of the Courier &
Enquirer on the 4th inst. in reply to an attack on us, in their
paper of the 2d Nov. by Rev. J. T. Headley, which we expected would appear the
next morning, instead of which a farther attack from Mr. Headley appeared that
day, and this morning only they published a part of our letter, with an
explanation; stating, also, “that anything farther to be inserted from any
party must be placed on the footing of an advertisement,” and as we are
desirous that the public may judge of the entire letter written by us we have sent
a Telegraphic Dispatch to them this afternoon requesting the insertion of the
same as a paid advertisement in their paper of tomorrow.
Fearing
farther delay in its appearance (in case our message did not reach them) we
request you will also insert it as a paid
advertisement, on the 2d page of your journal of the 11th inst.
and send bill to us. Yours
respectfully, CAREY &
HART.
PHILADELPHIA, Nov. 3, 1847.
To
the Editors of the Courier & Enquirer:
GENTLEMEN—In your paper of the
2d inst. we notice the insertion of a letter from Rev. J. T. Headley respecting
the publication of “Washington and the Generals of the American Revolution,” in
which he states we have garbled his letter, [we here beg you to observe that we
distinctly stated in our notice that we gave an extract from Mr. Headley’s letter of 21st September, not
his letter entire,] and he gives in your paper the letter as written by himself, in which he states
he had “such a work as the one we proposed to publish in contemplation for some
time,” but does not add, as he did in his original letter received by us, that
the work he contemplated publishing, (which is evident to us from the tenor of
the letter,) was a History of the late War. (1812,) not “Washington and his
Generals,” as will appear by a farther extract form this same letter of Sept. 21, 1846, which he has omitted in your
columns, via:
“I have had
in contemplation a history of the last war—a condensed history—perhaps it might
be called a military one, for which I think there is a place. It is a little singular that we should have
to standard history of that war. I shall
return to New-York in a week or two, when I shall decide on what I
undertake. Nothing would give me greater
pleasure than to publish a work with your imprint on the title page. There is no house in the country I should
prefer to have my books before yours.”
You will,
therefore, perceive that the garbling, if any, is not on our part, and that the
gentleman himself is fairly entitled to all the epithets he so lavishly bestows
on us.
He asserts
that, in order to exculpate ourselves in consequence of the publication of our
work, we have found it necessary to assail him with heavy charges. We had no occasion to exculpate ourselves, as
we applied to Mr. Headley to compile a book for us (which he afterward wrote
for himself,) entitled “The Generals of the American Revolution.” Of course Washington was included as ONE OF
THE GENERALS—and we had no objection to use his illustrious name prominently on
the title page, as we have since done—at the same time retaining our original
title (and) “THE GENERALS OF THE REVOLUTION.”
Mr. Headley
states that he had previously been spoken to on the subject of publishing that
work (“Washington and His Generals”).
Perhaps he will be kind enough to state the name of the House who made
application previous to us! as it seems strange indeed that he should, under
those circumstances, have offered “Washington and His Generals” to the Messrs.
Harpers (after he had received our letter) and partly arranged with those
gentlemen, but upon being offered a
larger price by Messrs. Baker & Scribner, the publishers of his
“Napoleon”, withdrew the work from the Messrs. Harpers and gave it to
them. We quote the following extracts
from Messrs. Baker & Scribner’s letter to us of 27th February,
1847, in evidence of the foregoing:
“Having had
some reason to suspect that Mr. Headley was employed on such a work, we
inquired of him distinctly, and then for the first time learned that he had
been engaged on “Washington and His Generals” and had it partly written, and
had partially agreed with the Messrs. Harpers to publish, and could not give us
his book. Mr. H. also stated that he
considered himself as having a right to such a work, both from its similarity
in plan with “Napoleon,” to which it would naturally follow as a sequel, the
unanimous opinion of all his friends, and the universal expectation that he
should write it…
“We had
then, in compliance with the wishes of Mr. Stewart, determined to abandon his
work, (“Washington and his Staff,”) under the supposition, too, that Mr. Headley’s engagements with the Harpers
were such that they would publish for him;…and we had offered him terms which
he considered more favorable than any other he could make, he, with the consent
of the Messrs. Harpers, gave us his book.”
We could
make our letter much longer, and produce farther proof to show how unfairly we
have been treated both by Mr. Headley and his publishers; could also furnish
you copies of the written opinions we have in our possession from some of the
most eminent publishers in this city and New-York who read the whole correspondence, prior to the publication of either Mr.
Headley’s or our book, did we dare to encroach farther on your columns or
readers, but offer you for publication in your paper, if Mr. Headley but
desires it and you are willing to afford sufficient space, the entire correspondence from the 9th September, 1846, to
March 4, 1847, between ourselves, Mr. Headley, and Messrs. Baker &
Scribner, so that the public may fully judge between us. The correspondence was brought to a close at
that date by the non-acceptance, on the part of Mr. Headley and his publishers,
of our offer to leave the whole matter in dispute between us to three
disinterested publishing houses in New-York, whose decision should be final in
the matter, as the following paragraph form our letter of 2d March, 1847, to
Messrs. Baker & Scribner will more fully show:
“In order
to settle the difficulty between us, although we are satisfied we are in the
right, but we wish also to place ourselves in the right before the Trade; we
propose to leave the matter for final decision to two publishing houses, (in
your city if you choose,) one to be selected by yourselves and the other chosen
by us, which two in case they should not be able to agree to call in a third
whose decision (from the whole correspondence between yourselves, Mr. Headley,
and ourselves) as to whether you or us shall have the publication of Mr.
Headley’s ‘Washington and his Generals’, on the terms you have agreed with him,
shall be conclusive. (It is of course
requisite that Mr. Headley’s consent should be first obtained by you to this
proposition.) Should you accept of this
arrangement please advise us of the same on or before the 8th inst.”
Had Mr.
Headley and his publishers been satisfied that the course they were pursuing
was a correct one they would gladly have accepted our offer. Farther comment we think unnecessary.
We have
reason to congratulate ourselves that Mr. Headley did not become the author of
our book, as we have been more fortunate in obtaining a work every way
superior, and at the same time authentic, and by authors who have obtained
their materials from “The Archives of the Separate States.” In support of the above we beg to quote the
following from the Richmond Times:
“There are
interesting circumstances attending the production of this work, and for
ourselves, we do not regret Messrs. Carey & Hart’s disappointment. In lieu of the turgid declamations of Mr.
Headley, they have obtained clearly written sensible sketches from a number of
other gentlemen competent to the task allotted to them.”
In
conclusion, we beg to say that we have been in business upward of eighteen
years, during which time we have had transactions with many authors for
numerous works, and to the amount of thousands of dollars, but this is the
first time that we have been unfairly treated by an American Author. Yours, very respectfully, CAREY & HART
On the completion
of the work a list of all the contributors was forwarded to us, for the purpose
of making payment to the various authors for their contributions, and we then
learned that the spirited Memoir of Gen. Schuyler contained in our book had not
been written by him, but had been furnished by another writer in New-York.
CAREY &
HART, Publishers of “Washington and the Generals of the Revolution.”
Philadelphia,
Nov. 5, 1847
As Messrs.
Baker & Scribner say they “had some reason to suspect,” we here annex a
copy of our letter to them, (Oct. 8, 1846,) which, if they had referred to
again, they would have noticed that we informed them of the very fact four
months before “they suspected.”
(Copy.)
PHILADELPHIA, Oct. 8, 1846
“Messrs. Baker & Scribner:
“GENTLEMEN—Having seen a notice of
yours in the “Commercial Advertiser” of the 6th of a work in press
entitled “Washington and his Staff,” and thinking you might unintentionally
interfere with a work we are preparing entitled “The Generals of the American
Revolution,” and in regard to which had corresponded with Mr. Headley previous
to the appearance of your announcement, we have thought it best to inform you
prior to your proceeding with the work you announced, as we should be very
sorry to have any misunderstanding with your house.
Yours, respectfully, CAREY & HART.”
If all of this blather were not enough, The Courier & Enquirer the same day published the following letter from Headley:
We publish the following letter from Mr. Headley, in
accordance with the terms which we mentioned yesterday,--as an advertisement.
NEW
YORK, Nov. 9, 1847
To the Editors of the Courier and Enquirer:--
I
see that you publish this morning a letter from Mr. Griswold, in reply to my
note of Wednesday last. The most of his
letter has nothing to do with the point at issue,--which is simply a question
of veracity between us. Of course I shall not argue that question with him; nor am I at all fearful that people
who know Mr. Griswold’s manner of talking and who understand the constitutional
infirmity which prevents his speaking the simple truth, should attach any
importance to his additional falsehood that I have threatened “to ruin him,
even if it costs all I possess and a life’s labor!”
As
you have allowed him, however, to make this statement, I claim the right, (for
which, if necessary, I will pay,) of stating that I never made such an absurd
and ridiculous threat as this, which he pretends to quote from his veracious
diary. That “Diary” should certainly be included in the next edition of
Griswold’s “Curiosities of American Literature.”
But
Mr. G. not only makes the facts he needs, to suit his own convenience, but
attempts also to correct the facts of history.
Here also he makes some statements which may as well be noticed. He says:
“After
describing the defeat of St. Clair, in the Miami country, you allege that
Washington, refusing to sympathize with the popular feeling against him,
insisted on his retaining his commission, which he wished to resign; while, in
truth, St. Clair wished to retain his commission, and Washington insisted upon
his instant resignation.”
Now
every reader of our early history knows very well that St. Clair ‘offered
spontaneously to resign,’ and asked to retain his commission only till a Court
of Enquiry could be called to investigate his conduct. To this manifestly just request Washington wished to accede, but could not; and the peremptory manner in
which St. Clair was thrown aside was not the result of Washington’s
displeasure, but of the great exigencies of the country. But the fact I was after, was, not which of
the two proposed or desired the resignation, but that Washington “did not sympathize with the popular clamor”
against St. Clair. And this is perfectly
true: and Col. STONE, after speaking of the same event in his “Life of Bryant,”
says:--
“It
is believed, however, that the veteran Governor of the North Western Territory,
continued in the full enjoyment of the
President’s confidence to the last.”
The
next charge is of somewhat more importance, and is thus set forth:--
“In
the same chapter you state that numerous armed galleys, 200 boats, &c.
sailed all the night of the evacuation of Ticonderoga, up Wood Creek, which,
you should have known, is a small stream, not navigable, dashing precipitously
over a ledge of rocks into the Champlain, some twenty miles from the point
which the army is acknowledged to have left at midnight.”
The
pains which Mr. Griswold takes to display his own ignorance is ludicrous. As to the simple matter of fact, NEILSON, who
was brought up on the ground he describes, and who certainly knew as much about
it as Mr. Griswold, says expressly in his “Burgoyne’s Campaigns,”—(p. 27)
“The
passage at Ticonderoga being cleared, the ships
of Burgoyne immediately entered Wood
Creek and proceeded with extreme rapidity in search of the Americans.”
Again
BOTTA, in his ‘History of the American Revolution,’ in speaking of the same
affair says:--
“The
general rendezvous was appointed at Skeensborough, [now Whitehall,] and the batteaux, proceeding, under cover of the
galleys, up Wood Creek, &c.”—(p. 46)
And
again the same writer says:--
“The
passage being thus cleared, [referring to the boom and bridge,] the ships of Burgoyne immediately entered
Wood Creek.”
Both
these writers, though Mr. Griswold be ignorant of them, are generally regarded
as good authority among persons of ordinary intelligence. The truth is, that the whole narrow channel
at the head of Lake Champlain was formerly
called Wood Creek, and sometimes a part of it only was so designated, and the
other portion was called South River. Now, the name of Wood Creek applies only to the small stream which falls into Lake
Champlain at Whitehall. But history
describes things of the past, as they were,--not as they become a century
after.—Somebody probably quizzed Mr. Griswold by pointing out this “grave
historical blunder;”—and the bee has been buzzing “in his bonnet” ever since.
I
see that Carey & Hart have again garbled my letter. As I informed you in a private note, which
accompanied my published letter of Wednesday last, I wished to publish the
letter entire, but could not get hold of it.
The extract I gave was copied from Carey & Hart’s copy of the
original, last spring, when Mr. Hart was showing it around town to get sympathy
from the booksellers, and, on the strength of it, sell their book. I directed my publishers to write to Mr. Hart
requesting a copy of my letter. They did
so,--but hitherto he has declined to send it or publish it himself. Under these circumstances I certainly stand
absolved from the charge they bring, of “garbling” the letter. The only point they raise in their preface
is, that they suggested the book to me, and that I stole and appropriated the
suggestion. That point is settled by the
extract I gave. Let them publish the
whole letter and then the public can determine where the dishonesty rests. Yours, &c.,
J.
T. Headley
Monday, November 10, 2014
The Griswold-Headley Controversy...Day Seven.
The following letter, written by me, appeared in the New York Tribune for November 10, 1847, continuing the idiotic fracas between Headley and myself:
To the Editor of The
Tribune:
I cannot of
course take any notice of such a letter as that under the signature of J. T.
Headley in The Tribune of this
morning. It did not need your assurance
to convince me that you never dreamed of authorizing, in the slightest degree,
its imputations by neglecting to rebuke them.
Mr. Headley has utterly abandoned all his original charges; and with a
brief recapitulation of his controversy with myself, and a reference to Carey
& Hart’s letters in the Courier of today for a statement of his dealing
with that house, I leave him to the judgment of the public.
In a letter
written to the Courier and Enquirer, on the 2d inst. he attempted a reply to a
card published by Carey & Hart; censured the journals for unwarrantable
interference in his “private affairs,” and in this connexion made particular
reference to the Richmond Enquirer and the Literary World, remarking of the
latter as follows:
“The
Literary World has made itself prominent in this affair, and for the benefit of
those who have hitherto considered it a fair literary journal, I would state
that the articles on the subject have been written, chiefly, if not wholly, by
Rufus W. Griswold, who wrote the first sixty pages of Carey & Hart’s book,
and who for certain considerations, growing out of his connection with these
publishers, has undertaken their defence in New-York. Mr. Hoffman has lent the Literary World to
this interested person.”
The accusations
are, of making myself a party to his business quarrels, by writing of them in
the Literary World; of reviewing favorably a work in which I am interested as
an author; and of undertaking in New-York the defence of Carey & Hart,
against himself. Though unwilling to
take any notice of so wanton and unjustifiable an attack, I at length
concluded, as it was altogether personal in its nature, to publish the
following explicit and unqualified denial in the Courier and Enquirer of the 4th
inst,:
“I beg leave
to state that every allegation here made is wholly and unqualifiedly
false. Respecting the book I am charged
with reviewing, (“Washington and the Generals of the American Revolution,”) or
the controversy between J. T. Headley and its publishers, I have not written or
published, caused to be written or published, or, (except by reading printed
articles on the subject,) known to be written or published, a single syllable.”
The reader
should bear in mind that no review of Carey & Hart’s book has appeared in
the Literary World, except the one in the number for the 24th of
October, before which time that journal never contained a word which the most
ingenious malice could torture into an allusion to Mr. Headley’s
difficulties. That his original charges
had exclusive reference to this review of “Washington and the Generals of the
American Revolution,” is sufficiently evident from the terms in which they are
stated; and it is distinctly admitted in his communication to the Courier and
Enquirer of the 5th, in which he quotes a passage from this very
review as having suggested a part of his first defamatory letter. Yet, convinced that they are utterly
groundless, instead of ingenuously retracting his accusations, a endeavors to
convey an impression that they had reference to an article in the Literary
World for the 10th of last July—months before the appearance of
Carey & Hart’s book, and, before the public had heard a word of his
quarrels with that house! With an
effrontry as shameless as it is shallow, he attempts to divert attention from
his conviction and confession of falsehoods, by urging that I was myself, in a
conversation held with him last September, his authority for a statement that I
was the writer of an article thus dragged into the discussion, as if it were of
the slightest consequence to the issues he had raised whether I wrote that
article or not.
There is no
“question of veracity” between myself and J. T. Headley, as he has entirely
withdrawn from every position that led me to notice him, and has not ventured
to meet my denials, even by the objection of his own word—the value of which I
will not discuss, as it is sufficiently shown by the letter of Carey &
Hart, this day published in the Courier and Enquirer.
Nov. 9, 1847 Yours,
&c. R. W. GRISWOLD.
Also appearing on November 10 was this piece of commentary on the whole affair, which was published in the New York Evening Mirror, and which seems to take a few swipes at Headley, to my great joy:
HEADLEY AND HIS CRITICS.—We should suggest this title to Mr.
Headley as a very good one for a new book of blood and thunder, if he should
not be engaged on any similar work just now.
The whigs being about to take possession of the country, and being great
lovers of peace and quietness, according to the Tribune, will probably bring
the Mexican war to an immediate close, and so destroy the popular taste for
smoke, and the slap dash style of literature, which has helped the sale of Mr.
Headley’s war sketches to such a frightful extent. Whether we are indebted to Mr. Headley for
the present appetite for bloodshed that prevails in the country, or Mr. Headley
be himself indebted for his popularity to the innate existence of such a
passion, it is not necessary to inquire; it is enough to know that the passion
and the popularity have both existed, although they seem to be both on the
wane. To keep up the excitement, Mr. H.
addressed a letter to the Courier and Enquirer, smelling horribly of brimstone,
blood and saltpetre, denouncing a respectable book-publisher in Philadelphia,
the editor of the Literary World, and Mr. H.’s own special panegyrist, Dr.
Griswold, as a trio of literary enemies to himself, and accused them of
practices which ought not to be dreamed of as possible by a literary gentleman.
These gentlemen all deny point blank the charges of their
accuser, who then renews his charges in a more offensive form, and threatens
war to the—knife, we were going to say, but to a “court of justice;” it seems
the “fighting parson” means to carry the cause.
Some of the papers notice this quarrel and speak of it as one with which
the public has nothing to do. But we
think it is just one of those cases in which the reading public is particularly
interested. The quarrel between Mr.
Headley and Carey & Hart the public have no right to meddle with, as long
as they keep their differences to themselves, but the moment they appeal to the
public, then the public is bound to take sides in the quarrel, and declare for
the injured party. If the belligerents
do not want to be judged harshly, let them keep their affairs to themselves. The cause of dissension between Carey &
Hart and Mr. Headley is a very simple matter.
Messrs. C. & H. wrote a letter to Mr. Headley, stating to that
gentleman that they proposed publishing a work to be called Washington and the
Generals of the Revolution, or something like it, and asked him if he would
undertake to write it; to this letter Mr. Headley replies that he had been
thinking of doing something of the kind himself but was not sure of his
qualifications for the undertaking, didn’t know exactly where to look for the
necessary materials, &c., but neither said that he would, nor that he would
not; they hear nothing more from Mr. Headley until they see an announcement by
a firm in this city of a new work by that gentleman, to be called Washington
and his Generals. Messrs. Carey &
Hart believe that they have been wronged by Mr. Headley, who makes use of their
ideas in getting up a new work, and immediately take measures to publish a
similar one themselves, which in time they do, and the public is left to choose
between the two works. IN regard to the
right of title to the idea of the work, another claimant starts up in the
person of George Lippard, of Philadelphia, who says that he had used it before
either of the other claimants has suggested it.
By referring to a back number of the Mirror, it will be seen that on the
first appearance of Napoleon and his Marshals, we suggested that “Washington
and his Generals” would be a good subject for Mr. Headley to employ his pen
upon next.
It will thus be seen that the title of the work was by no
means an exclusive idea, but Mr. Headley having been applied to by Carey &
Hart before he had taken any measures for the production of the work, or even
settled with himself the important point of his fitness to undertake it, they
had a prior right of invention in having taken steps to produce it, and their
application to Mr. Headley at least gave them a right to his work provided the
terms they offered him were equal to those offered by another publisher, even
though it did not give them right of title in the plan of the work. Since the two works have been published, Mr.
Headley has accused Mr. Hoffman of writing a part of the work published by
Carey & Hart, and of then publishing a review of it in the Literary World,
written by Dr. Griswold, who puffed Mr. Hoffman’s portion of it as well as his
own, and then accepted pay for writing the review. To all of these charges these two gentlemen
make a plump and unqualified denial.
Sunday, November 9, 2014
ON THE TRAGIC DEATH OF THE WIFE OF THE REVEREND RUFUS GRISWOLD, POE'S DEFAMER BY WILLIAM TOPAZ MCGONAGALL
The following unpublished and possibly never before seen poem by the Scottish poet William Topaz McGonagall was found amongst my son William's papers, sent to him in a letter dated November 9th, 1892, commemorating the death of my wife Caroline Griswold. He attempted to have it published, but for reasons that elude me not a single publication ever printed it. Even my own poem on the subject, Five Days, found publication, despite its poetical deficiencies. My endless thanks go out to McGonagall for his kindness and sympathy.
ON THE TRAGIC DEATH
OF THE WIFE OF THE REVEREND RUFUS GRISWOLD, POE'S DEFAMER
BY WILLIAM TOPAZ MCGONAGALL
For poor Rufus
Griswold few tears have been shed,
Because of his
treatment of Edgar Allan Poe after he was dead,
But hear ye this
tragic tale I shall to ye relate,
And for Rufus
Griswold I think ye shall harbour less hate.
In 1842, t'was a grim
second Wednesday of the month of November,
For an event occurred
that all should remember,
For on this tragic
day, November nine,
The Reverend Rufus
Griswold lost his sweet wife, Caroline.
To Griswold's third
child, a son, his wife in New York had just given birth,
But the occasion was
swiftly robbed of its mirth,
For as soon as he had
returned to Philadelphia,
Both Caroline and her
newborn became most unhealthy.
While dining with
friends at the Jones Hotel,
A messenger arrived
with the dreadful news to tell,
That back in New
York, which he had three days ago left,
Both his wife and his
baby had died, and he was quite bereft.
Griswold's heart was
full of dismay,
With the news that
his bride had been taken away,
And his lamentations
must have been terrible to see;
I'd wager his cries
could be heard e'en 'round bonnie Dundee.
'Neath his burning
brow the tears did heavily drop,
And all the way back
to New York his weeping did not stop,
Until when he arrived
he embraced and kissed her cold corpse,
As his daughters
waited with him for his grief to run its course.
And his face as he
caressed her was horrible to behold,
As he cut off locks
of her hair to have and to hold,
To save as a keepsake
of his wife, lost to him on November nine,
Which he would mourn
and remember for a very long time.
She was placed in her
vault on November eleventh,
And he could not
doubt her soul had ascended to heaven,
And to almighty God
he begged and complained,
And that night at
midnight he wrote her a poem that was much tear-stained.
Forty days Griswold
suffered with grief and pain and sadness,
And his friends and
relatives thought he had been plunged into madness,
For though she was
entombed, by him she could not be forgotten,
So he entered her
tomb and kissed her, not caring if she was rotten.
All the night long he
held her dead body in his arms,
For he loved her too
much to be frightened of germs,
And he cut off more
hair and on her cold breast he slept,
Until in the morning
when he was dragged from her crypt.
So, good Christians,
keep Griswold in your heart every ninth of November,
Even those of you who
otherwise would his memory dismember,
For if he had not on
this day suffered so much of woe,
His life may have
been happier, and he may not have libelled Poe.
Not even the dead
bloating in the depths of the silvery Tay,
Could elicit such
grief as that suffered by Griswold this day,
For of the many
tragedies that I have in verse so far chronicled,
This is the worst by
far, yours truly, the poet, William McGonagall.
If I still had a
heart it would now be broken.
Saturday, November 8, 2014
Friday, November 7, 2014
The Griswold-Headley Controversy...Day Six.
The Courier & Enquirer having refused to continue occupying its columns with our dispute, the New York Tribune for November 7th, 1847, published the following note from the impudent Mr. Headley, in which he shamelessly suggests that I have a penchant for dishonesty:
November 7th,
1847
NEW YORK. Nov. 6.
To the Editor of the
Tribune:
Dear Sir:
I see that
Rufus Griswold publishes a letter in your paper of this morning in reply to my
note in the Courier & Enquirer of Thursday, most of which has nothing to do
with the point at issue, which is simply a question of veracity between
us. Of course I cannot stoop to argue
such a question with him, but I am surprised that you who know Mr. Griswold
perfectly well, and to say the least, the unfortunate habit he has of stating
things incorrectly, should have allowed him to state the additional and
ridiculous falsehood that I had threatened “to ruin him, even if it cost me all
I possessed and a life’s labor.” The
object of this note is to deny what seems scarcely necessary to deny, that I
never made such an absurd and foolish threat as this which he pretends to quote
from his convenient “diary.” That diary
must be curiosity.
Yours
truly, J.
T. HEADLEY.
TO BE CONTINUED.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)