[Rufus W. Griswold having appealed to our personal
friendship for an opportunity to reply to certain grave imputations on his
conduct and veracity put forth by Mr. J. T. Headley in yesterday’s Courier
& Enquirer, we most reluctantly make room for the article yesterday offered
by him to the Courier and refused an insertion.
It is as follows. Ed. Trib.]
NEW YORK. Friday
Morning, Nov. 5, 1847.
To the Editor of the
Courier and Enquirer:
I regretted very much that the
publication in your journal of J. T. Headley’s recent attack made it necessary
for me to appear as a party to a controversy in which neither myself nor the
public has any interest; and I regret still more that—knowing all the
circumstances—you should have admitted to the Courier & Enquirer of this
morning the letter which compels me to this rejoinder. The readers of these notes will not need to
be informed that I have written and now write in the defensive only, and will
believe my assertion that it is with extreme reluctance that I have anything to
do in such a conflict or with such an antagonist.
J. T.
Headley charged me distinctly with making myself a party to his controversies,
by writing of them in the Literary World, and with reviewing favorably in that
journal a rival publication of which I was a principal author and in which I
had an interest. In the Courier &
Enquirer of this morning he alleges that in a conversation with me I had admitted the truth of his
statements. But I have not seen him, or
had the slightest communication with him, except on one occasion—the 24th
of September—for more than a year; while the review in question appeared in the Literary World of the 23rd
of October, and the same paper contained every syllable that has ever appeared in that journal respecting his
publishing quarrels. Of course, his
first charge was utterly false. In his
last letter he makes a new issue, charging me with the authorship of an article
on one of his publications, in the Literary
World of the 10th of last July and with having stated in a
conversation with him that for that article I was paid as a literary
contribution. All of this is of little
consequence, and it has nothing to do with his first accusations. But as I have before alleged that I never had
written in the Literary World for a
consideration, I deem it proper now to deny that I ever made a contrary
statement.
I might
here terminate my reply to the assertion that I am a party to his quarrels;
but, as Mr. Headley has chosen to refer to a private conversation with me, I
must be permitted to state what really passed in that conversation, which I am
able to do from having for years kept a personal diary. Upon referring to this, I find that on the
morning of the 24th of Sept. I encountered Mr. Headley in Broadway,
where, after some conversation irrelevant to the present issue, he charged me
with writing an article upon his second volume in the Literary World, and also
with writing a book in opposition to his own, for Carey & Hart. Deeming it absurd for Mr. Headley or any
other person to dictate to authors what they should or should not write, I declined
any acknowledgement or denial in the premises.
In the conversation which followed, however, I stated that Carey &
Hart had applied to me, upon the conclusion of their correspondence with
himself, to write the work they proposed to publish; that I had declined, on
the ground that while I could not deny the justness of their action, I was
unwilling to engage in a work which would lead to controversy, particularly as
Mr. Headley was an acquaintance; that I had endeavored to induce them to adjust
the matter with him in an amicable manner, which I believe they had attempted
to do; that subsequently, on the request of Carey & Hart—who had for
several years been my publishers, whom I held in much respect, and to whom I
was under obligations for their uniform courtesy and liberality, --I consented
to write two or three of the biographies in their collection. In regard to his assertion respecting an
article in the Literary World, I expressed some surprise. “You need not deny it,” he said; “I knew you
wrote it before it had been printed 24 hours.”
“The editor of that journal is responsible for the article, whoever is
its author, as he adopted it.” I
answered; “but you have little cause to complain of it, since, if I am not
mistaken, it is in a very kindly spirit, recognizing the real merits of your
work, and only showing that it is not history, for which you could scarcely
have intended it, but dashing historical romance, well enough fitted to attract
attention to historical studies.” He
seemed to be irritated, and declared that there was not a book in our
literature more accurate in its statements.
“Why,” I observed, “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, as
you would have seen by Washington’s own letter, in the 10th volume
of Sparks. St. Claire wished to RETAIN his commission, and Washington insisted upon his instant resignation,
for the obvious reason that a commander must be in the field in whom the army
had confidence. In the same chapter, “I
continued, “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.
Your books are full of similar errors, and it is a common duty, when
such things are published as history,
to correct them.” I assured him that for
the articles I had contributed to Carey & Hart’s volume, they had paid me,
and that I had not the slightest interest in the copyright. He repeated the assertion that I had written
a severe criticism of his book, with interested motives. I said that I was an occasional but always
gratuitous contributor to the journals, upon whatever I read that might be made
a subject of interesting discussion; and that the errors in his late work were
of so strange and amusing a character, that any one might be excused for
pointing them out, especially if, immediately after reading it, a friend had
asked him for a paper, as had been the case in this instance. I assured him I had never written a line
respecting any author that I thought should be personally offensive; nor did I
then, nor do I now admit, that exposing an author’s mistakes should involve a
reviewer in his business quarrels with publishers. Mr. Headley appeared to be very much excited,
and exclaimed, “No man shall ever cross my path but I will have my
revenge. You have done so, and I will
ruin you, if it costs me all I possess, and a life’s labor.” Upon this, of course, we parted.
It will be
easy to understand the feeling which induced Mr. Headley to turn aside from his
controversy with Carey & Hart to attack me; and I need not urge that one
who writes public history, in which he has no personal interest, in such a
reckless manner, may err in detailing private conversations, when it becomes
necessary to do so to escape from such a position as that in which Mr. Headley
had placed himself. [With this
communication I terminate all participation in a conflict into which, it will
be confessed, I was most ungenerously forced by the editors of the Courier & Enquirer, by printing an
attack upon me as uncalled for as it was unjust.]
Yours,
&c. R. W. Griswold
Note—With regard
to the letter of Mr. Baker upon the subject of the Editor of the Literary World
having written a portion of Cary & Hart’s book, lately reviewed with favor
in that journal, I deem it due to Mr. Hart to state, that he probably derived
the impression from myself (last Spring) that the author of the Life of
Leisler, in Spark’s collection, would readily undertake the biographies of
eminent New-Yorkers, in a similar miscellany—That gentleman’s subsequent
accession to the editorship of the Literary World prevented him from furnishing
the expected contributions to the work.
The words above which are placed in brackets [ ] have been added to the
manuscript since it was offered for publication in the Courier & Enquirer. R.
W. G.
No comments:
Post a Comment