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.
No comments:
Post a Comment