To return to Walsh's book, 'Midnight Dreary;' here is the relevant passage regarding the 'cooping theory:'
"Even beyond his drinking, [Walsh is unfortunately somewhat obsessed with Poe's so-called drinking, as much as Poe's temperance fanatic contemporaries were, or those bent on pure slander -ML] Thompson could not accept his friend and colleage as entirely worthy: 'He had extraordinary genius, but he lacked sympathy; he was not selfish, but he did not enter warmly into the affairs of others who were ready to befriend him...' * Another time he went further, actually defending as true and accurate the harshly damning portrait of Poe drawn by Rufus Griswold in his obituary... *
For present purposes, the significant thing, the relevant point regarding John Thomposon is the very curious fact that his 'cooping' theory was an afterthought. Only when Mrs. Smith had put forward her beating charge did the cooping idea make its appearance.
At first, Thompson accepted Poe's death, as did everyone then, as the result of a drunken debauch [thanks mostly to Poe's 'friends' Snodgrass & Griswold -ML]. * Scarcely a month afterward he is heard saying in a letter that Poe 'died, indeed, of delirium from drunkenness; the shadow of infamy beclouded his last moments.' Ten years later he is heard saying the same thing...*
Not until the late 1860s...did he come out with his cooping theory. By no means tentative, he postulated the theory in downright terms that left little room for disagreement: 'seized by the lawless agents of a political club, imprisoned in a cellar for the night, and taken out next morning in a state bordering on frenzy,' etc. By then, Mrs. Smith had twice stated her own belief in Poe's having been beaten to death by ruffians who were related to, or agents of, some offended woman.
When Mrs. Smith's first effort came out, in the United States Magazine, in March 1857, Thompson was in Europe on an extended visit. When her second effort made its appearance, in Beadle's for February 1867, he was back in America in the thick of things, working in New York as literary editor for the Evening Post. It was now, twenty years after the fact, that he formed his idea of violent election mobs being responsible for the poet's death.
Put into broad, public circulation through Stoddard in Harper's Magazine, snapped up by the group of journalists in Baltimore that gathered around William Hand Browne and his Southern Magazine, the new theory soon gained credence among Poe adherents. In magazine articles and the first Poe biographies (Gill, Ingram, Harrison, Woodbury, to name the foremost), it was soberly recounted, expanding at each reptition until it came to seem by far the most probable solution. Meantime, Mrs. Smith's assertion about deliberate violence committed on Poe by individual attackers was allowed to fade quietly away."
from John Walsh, 'Midnight Dreary, the Mysterious Death of Edgar Allan Poe' the chapter entitled 'What Mrs. Smith Knew.' pp 103-4
The "Raven and the Whale" gives a great more attention to the Whale; it shows more interest in Melville than Poe, yet the latter, by any standard--and perhaps more so in historical interest--is more worthy of note, since Poe was a more engaged journalist and more influential author, Melville mostly being a failure as an author while he lived, thus the snubbing of the Raven is strange.
Poe had no interest in literary or political alliances; he believed merit ought to win the day, and, for the most part, for him, it did; what Poe produced by the age of 40 is amazing in quality and variety; Cornelius Matthews should have been a political ally of Poe's, but witness Poe's review of "Wakondah;" he rips it to shreds. It had me laughing outloud, as I always do when I read Poe's assault on William Ellery Channing, darling of the transcendalists.
Shelley said no man can consciously write great poetry, one must wait for the gods of inspiration; Poe, I believe, wrote criticism the same way he wrote poetry; he was an inspired critic, writing criticism for his own pleasure, and pleasure, in criticism, depends on critical astuteness, not diplomacy and niceness, and so Poe offended with his criticism the way obscene poets such as Baudelaire, Joyce and Ginsberg offend the moral taste; poets often court a rhetoric of audacity, and even danger, and Poe the critic did the same, in the same spirit; he dared to offend, but I don't think that was his ultimate aim; his aim was to please himself; his most vicious reviews have the most wonderful humor; Emerson's circle was essentially humorless--I can imagine what it must have been like to have that bomb thrown into their midst, that brilliantly scathing and hilarious review in which Poe dissects William Ellery Channing. Most poets are not half as passionately inspired as Poe was--as a critic.
Poe's critical ferocity is such that I'm sure it intimidates all who attempt to write of him, and why so few who write of Poe seem to like him--they probably assume that if Poe were to review their writings, he would not be kind--and so, writing of him, they cannot find it in themselves to be kind in the other direction.
But I love Poe's critical ferocity, since it did not win him friends, and was thus daring and in the spirit of the true poet who cares not for worldly amibtion, but strives for higher things. I would be honored to be demolished by Poe. It would please me if he skinned me alive. I would feel so honored.
I was more interested in Miller's book because of the other stuff described in the New York literary scene - I haven't seen a lot of other work done on Cornelius Mathews, C. F. Briggs, and the Duyckinck brothers! But, yes, the Ludwig image of Poe permeates through many Poe portraits. But remember Miller wrote his book in the 1950s and I think we hadn't quite broken through the Ludwig portrait yet.
Okay, I'm giving benefit of the doubt. No matter what year it is, we still see the same Poe problems. Did anyone read the book Poe: A Life Cut Short? It's been out in the UK for about a year but won't be released in the US until January 2009. As I understand, the author didn't spend any time doing any historical research, and just rehashed the same Poe old "depressed, drunk, druggie" image.
__________________
It was night in the lonesome October, of my most immemorial year.
Norman George recommended Perry Miller's "Raven & the Whale" to me and when I finally read it, I was very disappointed. I didn't find Miller sympathetic to Poe at all. Miller seemed to me just another sharp-tongued intellectual who didn't 'get' Poe at all. A similar work is Poe and the British Magazine Tradition, I've got the book at home, the author's name escapes me, good in parts, but the underestimation of Poe's genius really gets in the way. The "Ludwig" portraint always manifests itself somehow in nearly all Poe commentators--I'm not sure why; I'm not sure why it's been so hard to break away from that.
the author of 'Poe and the British Magazine Tradition' (1969) is Michael Allen Allen makes the absurd claim that Poe sought a "core" audience of "plantation aristocrats" (!!??)and breezily supports his charge by quoting liberally from the 'Brook Farm Phalanx.' Until this point the book seemed interesting, but then I realized, sadly, it was another hit job. Poe is portrayed as a sneering, elitist, Southern aristocrat, which is one of those lies that contains a grain of truth (OK, he was from the South, yes, he was a genius, so he did have elitist tendencies, and he could be sneering in his reviews) which makes it all the more insidious.
In case I haven't mentioned it, I highly recommend an independent film which came out two or three years ago called The Death of Poe. The filmmaker is a Baltimore-based Poe fan named Mark Redfield who carefully tied the entire story together and presented a plausible scenario surrounding Poe's death. Most of the medical theories are left out, but it does give a very solid theory as to why Poe was in Baltimore (a theory that I believe Maria Clemm herself believed and I can't find reason to deny). It also shows how Poe might have fallen into a cooping plot, if you want to believe that theory. No mention of the mysterious mustache, however. Anyway, look it up and see if you can track down a copy.
And, while we're also talking about literary rivalries and fanatic wars of words and especially Horace Greeley, I'll recommend a couple books: Young America: The Flowering of Democracy in New York City (1999) by Edward Widmer and the "must-have" The Raven and the Whale: Poe, Melville, and the New York Literary Scene (1956) by Perry Miller. The latter one doesn't focus on Poe and Melville as much as you might think - thankfully, it gives much-needed focus on people like C. F. Briggs and E. A. Duyckinck and Cornelius Mathews.
-- Edited by Midnightdreary at 18:34, 2008-11-09
__________________
It was night in the lonesome October, of my most immemorial year.
I also found out recently that after Lincoln's election, when he was traveling from Illinois to Washington for the first time as president-elect in 1860, 11 years after Poe's death, Pinkerton got word of an assassination threat, and Lincoln was disguised as an old woman as he made his way through the place where the killers were supposed to strike, and this place was the very same area where Poe met his end, the dock area neighborhood of Baltimore. Baltimore was a nasty place in those days, full of Civil War-related fanatics.
Horace Greeley, when he ran for President against Grant, lost in a landslide, but as the Democratic candidate, Greeley did carry the state of Maryland.
Zachary Taylor, the US president who died in 1850 (and some believed he was poisoned, enough for scholars to actually dig up his body some years ago!) less than a year after Poe, was, like Poe, a Southerner who was popular not just in the South, but in the North as well (as a war hero, in Taylor's case, Poe, as a famous writer in Philly, NY) and was in a position to be a great symbol and force for compromise, for keeping the country together, and avoiding Civil War. This period in our history, around 1850, was the crucial turning point, when the spirit of compromise suffered a mortal blow, and war, though it was still 10 years off, began to seem inevitable. Poe and Taylor, supreme symbols of compromise, dead. Taylor even signed a compromise bill before his death. The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 ignited the abolitionists to new heights of indignation. 1850 was the year Emerson turned into a fierce abolitionist--until then he was not so.
Many believed that Great Britain and France were hoping for a civil war to destory the United States, and were secretly supporting fanatics on BOTH sides of the debate to spur on war, and this did turn out to be explicit policy on the part of Napolean in France and Palmerston and Russell in England, officially "neutral," but England was supporting the Confederacy in clandestine ways and the government of Napolean III sat down with U.S. representatives in 1862 to negotiate an end of the war, which would have given a 'victory' to the South, and broken the U.S. in two. A chief instigator in these negotiations with France? Horace Greeley.
Poe stood up to Great Britain during his lifetime. The Emerson transcendental clique which Poe enjoyed attacking was wined and dined in Great Britain. Emerson was well-recieved there and his most ambitious work, "English Traits," published in the 1850s, praises the English blood and hints that the 'sea kings' of Great Britain, with a 'long memory' may be moved enough to take back her colonies (the United States, destroyed by Civil War?)
Civil War politics does play a part in Poe's literary battles, even though Poe died 11 years before the Civil War began. Poe lived long enough to see the European move to the Left in 1848, and Poe did make brief but sharp political observations in 'Marginalia' especially, so that we can see where Poe stood. Like all great writers, it is easy to see that Poe transcends politics in many, many ways, but when we are talking about Poe the man and his possible murder, and even Poe the writer, these issues are not without some merit.
Some men have no core beliefs--they only follow fanaticism, and these tend to be the most untrustworthy types of men. Horace Greeley, if we look at his life, seems to be one of these men. He was anti-tobacco, yet secretly went into the cigar business with Boss Tweed. Greeley was anti-slavery and wanted to march in a whip the South and destroy the Slavocracy. But he changed his positions constantly (and drove Lincoln crazy) and at the end of the war Greeley used his own money to get Jefferson Davis out of jail. Greeley is so fascinating and so little is known about him. He is absolutely part of Poe's universe. I don't believe that Poe was a fanatic. But he was living in fanatical times. Griswold's "Ludwig" article would not have had the influence it had were it not published--by Horace Greeley. In 1849, the Tribune was the most influential paper in the U.S.
Yes, and it's delicious speculation! So many people don't want 'to go there.' But why not? We learn so much on the way.
Margaret Fuller died so tragically--months after Poe! Poe was often kind to her in print, as he was to many, such as JR Lowell & Hawthorne, who belonged to the clique who hated Poe. Poe had a reputation as a harsh critic, but he praised with the best of them, and praised and defended those who were not always kind to him.
I am very impressed that you've been to the Snodgrass home! The one in W. VA, not the one in Baltimore, right?
The amazing thing about Griswold's "Ludwig" piece (by the way, isn't that how members of the Illuminati identified themselves? with German nicknames? I read this once, many years ago...) is not that it's completely inaccurate or libelous regarding Poe's character, but that it treats the actual FACTS of Poe's death with such indifference. That's the great wrong, here. Greeley's newspaper (no newspaper!) took the responsibility of saying, "Our greatest author just died and here's how he died." Strangely, that piece is covered up. Griswold: "Uh...don't know how he died....uh, it was sudden,,,and...well, yea, it happened in Baltimore...so he must of been on his way back to New York, or something, right? Yea, OK, that's it...bye." This is what is horrific. Griswold's lie that Poe had "no friends" is 'true' in as much as no one was speaking up in those days during Poe's hospitalization and in the days following his death: utter silence on the circumstances of his death. None of his 'friends' could speak up, because Poe's last days were not spent near them, for if a friend had been present, there would have been questions asked, a police investigation, an autopsy, etc etc, but there was not. Just extremely vague obituaries in the press. This is one of the key signs to me that Poe was done in. And, by believing that Nielson Poe and Snodgrass were "friends," this keeps the great cover-up secure. So I think it's signifcant that "Ludwig" makes that point so prominently: Poe had no friends. True--at that horrible moment in time!
The U.S. in the years leading up to the Civil War was a nasty, brutal place, like Elizabethan England and its rivalries and skulduggery.
Was it a mere coincidence that Joseph Walker, who found Poe, worked for "The Sun," and that Snodgrass, who also worked for "The Sun," lived right near by? Poe should have been in Philadelphia, or New York--what was he doing in Baltimore?
On Snodgrass, briefly: he was certainly a friend of Poe's (at least, in my opinion)... but it is definitely more complicated than that. First, Snodgrass did not live in Baltimore permanently but only temporarily; he was, in fact, a Virginian like his friend Poe - though his family home is in what is now West Virginia... I've been there. Beat that, fellow Poeists! Snodgrass was looking to get ahead politically and socially. Any involvement he had in the story of Poe after Poe's death was for his own benefit, not Poe's. When he concocted the "beastly intoxication" line, he was a prominent figure in the temperance movement and purposely chose Poe, a well-known name, as the "cautionary tale" that would help recruit others to the movement. Temperance groups in those days were, frankly, bordering on religious cult status and its members were diehards, to say the least.
I will contest the notion that Walsh's book is one of the most important books on Poe ever published (Arthur Hobson Quinn jumps to mind; I'd also argue for J. Gerald Kennedy's Poe, Death, and the Life of Writing). If the suggestion is that the most important thing he did was destroy the cooping theory, you must keep in mind that his scholarship was a bit off. Cooping was not tracked down to "one man"; by the time Thompson was reporting it, it was the "word on the street" - be it rumor mill or truth, it was in place before Thompson. Further, cooping was always just a likely guess. Hardly anyone today really ultimately believes that Poe's death was a direct result of cooping.
Not sure about the claim that Griswold "had a thing" with Horace Greeley. I'm not going to go there. I will note Greeley was never officially a Brook Farmer, however. Emerson was judgmental all around; his comments on Poe were no worse than many, many comments he made about even his closest friends (today he is infamous for writing "character studies" of his friends which basically identified every character flaw he could find). And I will jump in defense of Margaret Fuller. You leave her out of this!! :)
What your last post reveals, however, is something that has been ridiculously overlooked in most scholarship of correspondence of the 19th century: American writers, editors, and critics in the middle of the 1800s were incredibly catty! There was constant bickering, all-out rivalries (which sometimes mellowed or even faded into friendship), alliances, lines drawn in the sand... and for what? Duyckinck hates Briggs. Briggs hates Fuller. Fuller hates Lowell. Lowell hates everyone who doesn't love Longfellow. What a crazy world! Can you imagine what they would have done if they had MySpace??
-- Edited by Midnightdreary at 00:41, 2008-11-09
__________________
It was night in the lonesome October, of my most immemorial year.
The Elizabeth Oakes Smith theory is all the more interesting in light of the case of Elizabeth Ellet's letters and the subsequent death threat against Poe by Ellet's brother. Margaret Fuller was directly involved in another incident of jealousy and fury, marching to Poe's cottage with a posse of Belles to demand return of Fanny Osgood's letters; Osgood's husband finally intervened to stop the madness in support of Poe. Here we have the documented background of 'murder due to women troubles' of which Smith speaks. Even more delicious is the fact that Smith, Ellet and Poe were all in Griswold's anthology, "Poets and Poetry of America." Griswold, a Vermonter like Horace Greeley--who was the most important newspaper editor in America as head of the New York Tribune--would later publish "Women Poets of America" and was thus a crucial player in the Female Poet intrigues, never mind that Griswold had a thing for Fanny Osgood.
Griswold also 'had a thing' with Horace Greeley. Greeley published Griswold's libelous "Ludwig" obituary of Poe. Greeley wrote a letter to Griswold which expresses explicit and radical antipathy towards Poe, asking Griswold if there isn't something he can do to prevent Poe's marriage to Helen Whitman. What a blockbuster document. Poe owed Greeley 50 bucks; why wouldn't Greeley want Poe to marry into money, so he could pay him back? Why did the most powerful newspaper man in America care about Poe's private affairs enough to write such a letter to fellow New Englander, Griswold?
Margaret Fuller, mentioned above, who got Poe into trouble which could have led to Poe's death, was an intimate friend of Greeley's--they co-habited for many months (Fuller also wrote for Greeley's 'Tribune.'
Greeley was also a Fourierist, a Brook Farm-ist, and Poe explicitly ridiculed the 'hippie fads' of the Transcendentalist circles, naming Greeley disparagingly as a Fourierist, together with Carlyle (who Poe reviled) and Carlyle's friend Emerson, who is connected to Fuller also, and is famous for his 'jingle man' dismissal of Poe to William Dean Howells. Poe took this swipe at Greeley, Carlyle and Emerson in one of his published 'Marginalia' pieces near the end of his life.
Little is known of the exact circumstances of Poe's death, but much is known of a kind of 'death struggle' which took place in Letters, with ample documentation of Poe and his rivals trying to 'murder' each others' reputations in print.
Poe's review of Griswold's 'Poets and Poetry of America' is generally laudatory, but does make a few digs which Griswold did not take kindly; Poe also disparages Griswold directly in a letter to Snodgrass around this time. In the early 1840s Snodgrass and Poe corresponded a lot--Poe treating Snodgrass like a trusted confidante--but then their correspondence abruptly stops. From Poe's letters to Snodgrass just before they break off, it is clear that Snodgrass is badgering Poe about 1) his abuse of the transcendentalists and 2) Poe's alleged drinking. Poe's famous claim, "My only drink is water" was made in one of his last letters to Snodgrass.
What's even more delightful is to see the history of Poe-hatred and how it lives on through generations; Emerson's enmity for Poe is well-known; what is not well-known is that Emerson was close to Henry James, who disparaged Poe; that Emerson was close to T.S. Eliot's grandfather who graduated from the Harvard Divinity School was a pupil of Channing's: witness Eliot's excoriation of Poe in "From Poe to Valery." Emerson's 'jingle man' remark was made in a rage when William Dean Howells (who published Henry James in the Atlantic) said he only knew the poet Channing (the Unitarian minister's nephew and good friend of Emerson, Thoreau and other Transcendalists) through a negative review of Channing by Poe. Emerson's hatred of Poe fans out in a thousand ways.
None of this proves murder, of course. But it all adds up to something which shouldn't be ignored, not only in terms of Poe's actual murder, but in the attempted murder by so many (TS Eliot's "From Poe To Valery, for instance, in 1949, or Harold Bloom, New York Review of Books, October 1984) of Poe's literary reputation.
'Midnight Dreary' is a very important for several reasons:
1. It demolishes the cooping theory
2. It traces the origin of the cooping theory to a man (Thompson) who didn't like Poe.
3. It introduces Elizabeth Oakes Smith and her theory that Poe was beaten due to women troubles, pointing out how Thompson changed his theory to the Cooping Theory only AFTER Smith's theory surfaced in the press.
In other words, Walsh does not wildly speculate in a random fashion; the book's 'answer' is surely wrong, but the work Walsh does along the way is so crucial that it's easily the most important Poe book every published.
Walsh also writes in a footnote (p 180) "I think that Joseph Walker himself may deserve closer scrutiny..."
Indeed. The Snodgrass/Walker discovery of Poe in Baltimore, the actions of Snodgrass, the relationship of Poe and Snodgrass, have never been examined satisfactorily in light of Poe's possible murder, and Walsh, in "Midnight Dreary," performs a service in at least touching (if barely) on these factors.
Investigations of Poe's death typically ask questions of events, not persons. It is always assumed, for instance, that Snodgrass was Poe's "friend" and it's left at that. But what if Snodgrass was not a "friend?"
Is it not odd that Poe was found in Baltimore--where he was not supposed to be--a couple of blocks from Snodgrass's home? And that Walker (a shadowy figure who strangely appears to write a note and then vanishes) who just 'happens' to find Poe is a colleague of Snodgrass at 'The Baltimore Sun?' And that Snodgrass changes the note from 'worse from wear' to 'state of beastly intoxication?' That Snodgrass is one of a few who sees Poe to a hurried burial without an autopsy and does not inform the public in Poe's final days, even though he is an editor at the 'Sun?' Poe's cousin Nielson, must also be questioned; we assume he was 'family' and therefore had Poe's best interest at heart, but should we automatically assume this? Snodgrass was into the temperance movement and this is often used to explain some of his odder moves, but we shouldn't assume this explains everything.
Thank you, John Walsh, for 'Midnight Dreary!'
I've read the book many times and always find new food for speculation every time I read it.
There's not much already out there about Griswold that I don't already know, including his two portraits at the time of his death (the other was Frances Osgood). Of course, most of his personal items had been destroyed by a recent fire, which implies that he did not purposely save Poe's portrait. Then again, he also used that portrait as a frontispiece to one of his editions of Poe's works. So, again, he was in it for profit, not for sentiment or obsession or anything.
The truth is, Griswold was incredibly talented and very, very capable. The question is, what was his actual talent? As a poet? As a critic? Or something else?
Griswold life's was full of success, hardship, personal tragedy, struggle, and a constant fight to claw his way to the top. Poe was just one in a series of many events that shaped Griswold and his legacy; Poe was not the most important just the one most remembered today. If anyone has heard of Griswold today, it is because of that connection to Poe. Yet, you can imagine, he's not as simple as the villain in the story of Poe; he's much, much more complicated (possibly more complicated than Poe himself!).
Sorry for the mini-rant. If anyone qualifies as a Griswold expert these days, I'm probably the closest you'll get. So, if anyone is going to defend him, it has to be me by default!
__________________
It was night in the lonesome October, of my most immemorial year.
I'm looking forward to reading your book on Griswold when it's finished. There's someone who had a modicum of talent but stretched it into a career of sorts. It would be an interesting character study...kind of like the way the movie Amadeus depicted Salieri.
Not sure I would agree about Poe being minor to Griswold, though. Apparently after Griswold died, his very sparse dwelling had only two pictures on the wall, and one of them was Poe's!
Walsh's book should not be completely dismissed, I'll admit. The first half of his book is excellent - he sort of catalogues the chronology and a few theories. The problem is that most of the theories he denounces as having insufficient evidence. And, yet, he writes half a book on his own theory that has precious little evidence to support it. What makes his theory any better than others? The fact that he wrote it as a flourishing fiction-like narrative?
As far as the Rufus Griswold, murderer, theory... Ugh. Griswold was many things but I hardly think he was capable of murder. That kind of accusation (as Walsh's) requires lots and lots of evidence. I'm currently working on a book on Griswold which will hopefully put him right where he needs to be. The truth is, his enmity with Poe was one of several literary rivalries and his volatile personality and dictator-like literary influence far outweigh what happened posthumously with Poe. In other words, though Griswold plays an important role in the story of Poe, Poe plays only a very minor role in the story of Griswold. He would not have thought enough of this minor acquaintance named Poe to murder him.
__________________
It was night in the lonesome October, of my most immemorial year.
I wouldnt totally dismiss Walshs book. Though the end theory does seem convoluted and a little contrived, at least he does attempt a play-by-play scenario of events. The book is valuable in that it can provide a general glance at the theory of murder or maybe just another way of looking at the murder theory. Maybe he didnt hit all points, but then again maybe he hit some. Thats why, for example, Im seeking more info on the Sartain visit. In the biographies Ive studied, I have found the date of the Sartain visit being in July of 1848. Walsh explores the possibility that it was, however, more likely to have happened in late Septemberduring the days Poe disappeared. During this visit, Sartain reports that Poe complained of being followed and that he had Sartain clip his moustache off so that he would be less-recognizable. If this happened in July, the moustache would have to have grown back by November because of its presence in the Ultima Thule daguerreotype. Which it certainly had time to do. However, if the clipping happened in late September, then Poe would have been discovered in Baltimore in October 1849 sans moustache. Anyway, if nothing else, its interesting how much of Walshs theory hinges on the presence of the moustache and the Sartain visit. If Walsh is correct about Sartain mixing up the dates, then the likelihood of Poe having been murdered is greater. If nothing else, Walsh has his audience asking questions and taking another look, right?
Rereading John Walsh's fascinating and I believe totally believeable "Midnight Dreary". First time I read it I was totally convinced that Poe was murdered! "Cooping" theory, which I'm not totally convinced of, my be a cover up story for actual murder by relatives or hired thugs for spurned marriage proposal(s). Remember the old saying: "A woman scorned..." and there were at least two women scorned! I also believe that Poe would not break his drinking vow to his intended, to whom he was very, very much in love with.
Sorry to hear you were so easily convinced by Walsh's book, Dupin. You might want to re-read it and note the astonishing lack of evidence that Walsh provides. I think even he has to admit that what he wrote was fiction. Walsh particularly likes to note the lack of evidence for the cooping theory, which is all well and good, but accusing a couple people of murder is a hell of a claim and he could at least attempt to provide some back-up. He does not. His theory is far-fetched and, frankly, unlikely. If you have a relative who is planning on getting married to someone you don't approve of, murder is not the typical reaction. Very few people in the Poe circle these days seem to believe that Poe broke his sobriety vow - that does not rule out the several dozen other theories on Poe's death, though, so it does not make murder any more or less likely.
Isobel: As far as John Sartain, I'm not an expert, but he was a very well-known artist in those days. I've also been to his house (well, not inside) in Philadelphia - really, if there is a Poe connection and it's in the northeast, I've probably been there.
__________________
It was night in the lonesome October, of my most immemorial year.
Rereading John Walsh's fascinating and I believe totally believeable "Midnight Dreary". First time I read it I was totally convinced that Poe was murdered! "Cooping" theory, which I'm not totally convinced of, my be a cover up story for actual murder by relatives or hired thugs for spurned marriage proposal(s). Remember the old saying: "A woman scorned..." and there were at least two women scorned! I also believe that Poe would not break his drinking vow to his intended, to whom he was very, very much in love with.
I am trying to find out a little more information about John Sartain, Poe's friend who helped Poe clip his moustache in July 1849. In reviewing the book "Midnight Dreary," Walsh seems to think that Sartain had the dates of Poe's visit mixed around. He proposes that Sartain accidentally linked two separate visits by Poe into one. He seems to think that the moustache clipping visit happened in late September (during the days Poe went missing) instead of in July. I am mulling this around but I'm having difficulty in locating another source that entertains this same idea (about Sartain being confused about dates.) Are there any? Either fiction or non-fiction sources would interest me. Does anyone else think his mixing up the dates is a possibility?
There was a lock of hair at the Baltimore Poe Museum that was tested for mercury, lead, and all kinds of heavy metals and all turned up pretty normal. So, maybe, we can rule out mercury and lead poisoning... maybe.
As far as Moran, as nice as it is that he corroborated my own suspicion that Poe was not drunk when he was found on October 3, 1849 (two days away from the anniversary!), I just don't find his account particularly credible. Moran is certainly not one of the "bad guys" in this story (Griswold holds that role fairly nicely) I'm not sure he was without sin himself - namely capitalizing for his 15 minutes of fame.
Errr... by the way, others are more than welcome to join our conversation.
-- Edited by Midnightdreary at 23:33, 2008-10-01
__________________
It was night in the lonesome October, of my most immemorial year.
Last I was at the Richmond museum, they had his vest still on display. There is a book they sell at their store and via the web titled "Quoth the Raven: The Susan Jaffe Tane Collection Exhibited at the Poe Museum" which contains a picture of the vest. Alas, no photo of the mirror, though. The book also consists of pictures of his original writing and some first edition things. Nice reference tool to have on hand.
I, too, don't think that Poe would have broken his vow. I think that he had too much of a certain pride to just go willy nilly and do something like that. Especially when he was on his way from Richmond to New York and things were so close for him and Elmira. I personally think that there was some sort of foul play afoot, though I don't have an answer as to what. I don't think it was cooping at all.
Actually, at the museum in Richmond, they had a display of a lock of Poe's hair, clipped at the hospital shortly after his death. It was recently tested for (lead I think?) because a lot of alcahol contained it back in the day. The test came up negitive. Also, from my understanding, Poe's doctor Moran detected no alcahol.
Poe's lifting his doctor friend's cane/sword is suspicious, too. Hmm. And he did claim to being followed about there toward the end.
I'm not familiar enough with the story of Poe's trunk to comment. I don't have a picture of the mirror either but I will say that my favorite parts of the Richmond museum were Poe's vest on display (do they still have that?) and the room dedicated to different theories on his death.
Okay, I'll jump in. For the longest time, I was firmly convinced of the cooping theory. Lately I've been leaning towards diabetic shock of some sort, exacerbated by exposure. I definitely don't believe the drug overdose and I have enough faith in Poe to believe he did not break his vow to stay sober.
-- Edited by Midnightdreary at 13:02, 2008-10-01
__________________
It was night in the lonesome October, of my most immemorial year.
It is truly too much fun to speculate and Poe's death is a subject that begs for a story itself. Speaking of, has anyone read "The Lighthouse at the End of the World" by Marlowe. Just got it in at the library. Also, I have "Not Quite Dead" on my reading list. Any thoughts on either? Maybe this is the start another thread on Poe in Fiction/speculative Fiction.
I have a question about Poe's trunk key, too. When he was found in Baltimore, he still had his trunk key in his shirt pocket even though he had changed his clothing, correct? (Or, I suppose, when and if his clothing had been changed for him) This, though, suggets to me that Poe had done the clothes-changing himself since I can hardly see diabolical coopers bothering with it. Thoughts?
Also, the contents of his trunk included the mirror on display at the Richmond museum. Does anyone know if there is a photograph of this in existance anywhere? When I visited, photos were prohibited and I, of course (even being the the fan-girl that I am) behaved myself. Still, I'd love to have a visual of this if anyone has any info.
I have plenty of thoughts on Walsh's book. But, as I don't know if this is a family friendly site, I will keep those words to myself. Suffice to say, I hold it in the same regard as Susan Cheever's book American Bloomsbury: both are fiction.
As far as Poe's death, I used to have a new conviction every other month. Nowadays, I'm happy to accept at face-value that Poe's death is a mystery and will probably remain unsolved. I'm sort of happy with that, actually.
__________________
It was night in the lonesome October, of my most immemorial year.
First I complain in a separate post about a lecturer sensationalizing Poe and now watch me open this can of worms.
But thats what cans of worms are for, right?
There are so many theories on how Poe died. Rabies, cooping, alcohol, a brain tumor etc. Does anyone have thoughts or theories on the idea of Poe being murdered? Was it Griswold in the ballroom with the wrench? Was Poes death brought about by his supposed women trouble?
Also, does anyone have any thoughts on Walshs book on the subject titled Midnight Dreary?
