-m^ 
 
 UlBRARYOFCONGKESS.J^ 
 
 m , * ! 
 
 I ' JMe/^ * FCCf ^ 
 
 JUNITKD STATI'^S OF ^ AMf.R10A.J 
 
THE WHOLE TRUTH 
 
 IN THE QUESTION 
 
 OF 
 
 "THE FIRE FIEND," 
 
 BETWEEN 
 
 Dr. E. SHELTON MACKENZIE, 
 
 (Literary Editor of the Philadelphia "Press,") 
 
 AND 
 
 C. D. GARDE TTE, 
 
 BRIEFLY STATED 
 
 BY 
 
 THE LATTER. 
 
 ^*fC 3 86"' 
 
 PHILADELPHIA: 
 
 SHBEMAN & CO., PEINTBES. 
 1864. 
 

PUEFATOEY. 
 
 Dr. E. Shelton Mackenzie's peculiar code of (literary) 
 morals having caused him to refuse me the opportunity 
 of justification, and withheld him equally from acknow- 
 ledging his own self-conscious mistakes and misrepresen- 
 tations in the '' Press'^ with reference to the matter be- 
 tween us, I take this method of making known to my 
 friends, and '' all whom it may concern,^' or interest, 
 ^' the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth' ^ of 
 the affair, as it relates to the relative positions of Dr. 
 Mackenzie and myself, on the subject of the Poem enti- 
 tled "The Fire Fiend.'' 
 
 I shall do this as briefly, clearly, and simply as possi- 
 ble; "nothing extenuating, nor setting aught down in 
 malice" (which, I fear, has not been the way the learned 
 literary Doctor will be thought to have treated me), if I* 
 know myself, or the merits of my case. 
 
 CD. Gardette. 
 
CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. 
 
 On the 80th day of September, 1864, there appeared 
 in the columns of the Philadelphia Press , an editorial 
 article, having for its title, '^Poe's Eaven : Whence 
 
 CAME IT ?'' 
 
 This article, which was, chiefly, a very unnecessary at- 
 tempt (and not a particularly brilliant one) to defend 
 the late Edgar A. Poe from the charge of plagiarism, 
 perorated with the following paragraphs, to wit : 
 
 ''In connection with this aflfair we may notice a great wrong 
 done to Poe — unconsciously, we hope — by a young gentleman of 
 this city, who has dabbled in literature for some years, but has 
 chiefly made his name known by sending to various newspapers 
 some stanzas entitled * The Pire Fiend — A Nightmare ; from an 
 unpublished manuscript of the late Edgar A. Poe, in the possession 
 of Charles A. Gardette.' These stanzas, which have appeared with 
 the above heading in various newspapers during the last seven 
 years, are somewhat in the manner of ' The Kaven,' but are much 
 inferior, in all respects, to that renowned poem, and unworthy of 
 Poe's reputation. We believe that Poe wrote them ;(*) that reject- 
 ing them as not good enough for publication, he laid them aside 
 among his failures ; that he subsequently recurred, partly, to their 
 peculiar metre, when composing his ' Eaven;' that the manuscript, 
 found among his papers after his death, was given away to some- 
 body by Mrs. Maria Clemm, his excellent aunt and mother-in-law; 
 and that this recipient may have been Charles A. Gardette, as 
 aforesaid. A poem which Poe himself had deliberately rejected, 
 
6 
 
 and certainly judiciously rejected, should not be cast before the 
 world, from post to pillar, as the fruit of Poe's genius ; but chiefly, 
 it seems, to proclaim, in connection with the name of Poe, the name 
 of the person who holds the manuscript. Thus flies are embalmed 
 in amber crystallization." 
 
 Circumstances prevented my hearing of the above 
 gratuitous attack upon my literary and personal charac- 
 ter until the 13th of November, when I immediately 
 wrote to Dr. Mackenzie for a copy of the Press contain- 
 ing it, and received the article, cut from that paper, on 
 the 14th, through another attache of the establishment. 
 
 Having read Dr. Mackenzie's remarks, I wrote and 
 sent him, on the 15th, a reply, which I requested him to 
 do me the justice of publishing in the Fress as early as 
 possible. 
 
 On the 18th I received from him the following auto- 
 graph letter : 
 
 *«1712 Locust Street, November 17th, 1864. 
 ^'Sir: When the Press was yet young, 'The Fire Fiend, from 
 an unpublished MS. of the late Edgar A. Poe, in the possession of 
 Charles D. Gardette,' was offered me for publication, and by me 
 declined, because, judging from internal evidence, I thought that 
 Poe could not have written it.(^') Neither he, nor you, nor any 
 educated man could [all the underscoring is the Doctor's] have 
 written 
 
 *And my sweetest incense is the blood and tears my yictims weep ;' 
 
 in which plural nouns and a verb in the singular so palpably break 
 Priscian's head.(«=) 
 
 *'I have an impression that the poem appeared in the Evening 
 Journal of this city, after I declined it. Then it was published in 
 the New York paper, which I never saw, though I knew the fact, 
 and in the St Augustine Examiner , December 6th, 1860, as I find 
 from a MS. copy thereof [Query : of the poem, or of the Examiner ? 
 G.], sent me at the time, which is now before me. [Query: does 
 
he mean that the time, viz., December 6th, 1860, is now before 
 him ? G.] I have always believed that you sent it, for surely no one 
 else could care to copy such a long poem. So much for that point. 
 
 "As to the other, — that Poe did write 'The Fire Fiend,' that 
 Mrs. Clemm gave it away, that Poe rejected it, and that you held 
 it, — I am not the person to be assailed. (<J) Some months ago, a 
 correspondent of the Times (London) published a letter therein, in 
 which he accused Poe of having translated * The Kaven' from an 
 
 Oriental poem One of the London journals defending 
 
 Poe, said, that if he stole from any one, it was from himself, for that 
 he had written a poem called the *Pire Fiend,' which he had re- 
 jected, but on which he drew for the metre and the manner of ' The 
 Eaven,' and that Poe's mother-in-law had given the MS. to a gen- 
 tleman in Philadelphia. Naturally enough I thought that you were 
 the recipient, and said so 
 
 *'If you desire it, your letter shall appear in the Press on Mon- 
 day, followed by a note of mine, to the effect of what I now have 
 told you. I take leave, in all good feeling, to suggest the omission 
 of the paragraph which states that Poe never rejected the *Fire 
 Fiend,' * though he might have rejected it, had it ever chanced to 
 come within the sphere of his critical observation.' (•) This affirms 
 a new and illogical theory, that the writer of a poem is not naturally 
 a critic upon it, with power to reject or publish it. 
 
 '' I have to add that I am sorry to learn from you that what I 
 hastily wrote, without any unfriendly feeling, has been offensive 
 to you. I would suggest that you give the public a history of the 
 * Fire Fiend,' and how it came into your possession, (f) for where 
 such a man as Poe is charged with having written such a feeble 
 poem, the mere assertion of any gentleman that he holds its manu- 
 script, will not and ought not be accepted as proof of author- 
 ship, (s) 
 
 ^' Your obedient servant, 
 
 *'E. Shelton Mackenzie." 
 
 To this letter I made an immediate reply, stating in 
 substance, what is reproduced by the Doctor as its con- 
 tents, in his published "explanation'^ (given below), and 
 one thing, in addition, which he does not reproduce, viz., 
 
8 
 
 that I affirmed the line, " And my sweetest incense is 
 the blood and tears my victims weep/' to be grammati- 
 cally correct^ and was willing to stake my claims as an 
 "educated man'' on its correctness. 
 
 On the 21st of November, Dr. Mackenzie published 
 my first letter to him, and added to it what he called 
 "a few sentences of explanation." Here is the combined 
 article, as it appeared in the Press of November 21st. 
 
 "Literary Counterfeiting. 
 
 "To THE Editor of the Press. 
 
 **Sir: Owing to long absence from town, it was but a day or 
 two ago that I became aware of the use (or, more properly, abuse) 
 of my name in an article under the heading above quoted, in The 
 Press of September 30th. 
 
 *' Pray permit me to correct a few errors into which the writer 
 of that article has fallen — 'unconsciously, I hope' — with regp,rd 
 both to the MS. poem (the ' Fire Fiend') to which he therein 
 alludes, and to myself. The writer of that article asserts that I 
 have been ' sending to various newspapers some stanzas, entitled 
 the '^ Fire Fiend, ' ' &c. ' I assure the writer that I never sent, caused 
 to be sent, or knew of the sending of the stanzas alluded to, to any 
 other newspaper than the New York Saturday Press, to which I 
 gave them at the request of the then editor, Mr. Henry Clapp, Jr. 
 
 ''And, had the writer seen the said stanzas in that journal — 
 where they were originally and only published by me — and read 
 the editorial note by which they were prefaced therein, he would 
 have been spared the perpetration of his ingenious and ingenuous (?) 
 criticism. 
 
 " The writer further states that the said stanzas ' have appeared 
 in various newspapers during the last seven years. ' I assure him 
 that, if this be true, it is an authentic case of modern miracle, in- 
 asmuch as I have the best of all possible reasons for believing that 
 the said stanzas were never in type previous to their publication in 
 the New York Saturday Press^ which was in the winter of 1859-60. 
 
 "The writer asserts that 'a great wrong' has beerwdone to Mr. 
 
9 
 
 Poe by the * casting before the world, from post to pillar, a poem 
 which Poe himself had deliberately and judiciously rejected.' 
 
 '' I assure the writer that Mr. Poe never deliberately, nor in any 
 other manner, * rejected' the poem of the Tire Fiend.' I feel 
 constrained to add, however, that I think it extremely probable he 
 would have rejected it, had it ever chanced to come within the 
 sphere of his critical observation. 
 
 '' The writer's pleasant irony on the subject of my literary repu- 
 tation, and the brilliant and original simile with which he adorns 
 it, I pass cheerfully over. It has not hurt me much, and its com- 
 position was doubtless a relief to his feelings. 
 
 ''The motive, too, to which he so shrewdly (!) attributes my 
 'casting from post to pillar,' &c., the said poem, — viz., a desire 
 to ' proclaim, in connection with the name of Poe, the name of the 
 person holding the manuscript' — I am disposed to treat with equal 
 mildness. But, as he himself has — 'unconsciously,' I suppose — as- 
 sisted to spread still further the said < connection,' I think he 
 might, at least, have given my name correctly. To the best of my 
 knojv^ledge and belief, my middle initial is D, and not A. 
 
 " However, I even forgive him this, also, and will merely state, 
 in conclusion, that the MS. of the ' Fire Fiend' was never ' laid 
 aside,' nor ' subsequently recurred to' by Mr. Poe ; that it was not 
 * found among his MSS. after his death;' that it was no?^ * given 
 away to somebody by Mrs. Clemm' (who never saw it in MS.) ; 
 and that the undersigned was not such a 'recipient' of the said 
 manuscript as the aforesaid writer believes he may have been. 
 
 " Eespectfully, &c., 
 
 "C. D. Gardette. 
 
 " November 15, 1864." 
 
 ["The writer of the above, son of a respectable dentist in this 
 city, thinking himself aggrieved by our mention of his name some 
 weeks ago, has appealed to our sense of justice to allow his denial 
 or defence to appear. G-ranting his request, it is necessary to add 
 a few sentences in explanation. 
 
 " Some months ago a letter appeared in the Times, charging the 
 late Edgar A. Poe with having plagiarized ' The Kaven' from an 
 Oriental poem, and comments on this accusation were made by 
 'The Lounger' of the Illustrated Times, Mr. 'Planeur' of the 
 
 1^ 
 
10 
 
 Morning Star^ the editor of The Reader, and, we believe, in other 
 London papers. One of these writers mentioned the on dit that 
 Poe had written a poem, in a metre resembling that of ' The Ka- 
 ven ;' that, having laid it aside as not good enough for publication, 
 he had worked some of its lines into 'The Eaven,' and that the 
 manuscript of the rejected poem was in possession of a gentleman 
 of Philadelphia, to whom Poe's mother-in-law (Mrs. Clemm) had 
 given it. On this subject we wrote an article, vindicating Poe 
 from the charge of plagiary, [?] and mentioning that the other poem 
 alluded to had repeatedly, within the last seven years, been pub- 
 lished under the title of ' The Fire Fiend : A Nightmare — from an 
 unpublished manuscript of the late Edgar A. Poe, in the possession 
 of Charles D. Gardette. ' We attributed this frequent publication 
 to a desire, on Mr. Gardette's part, to have his name publicly as- 
 sociated with Poe's, and said that flies were sometimes thus pre- 
 served in amber crystallization, — a remark not in the best taste, nor 
 at all original. 
 
 '<Our strong impression, amounting to a belief, is that ' The Fire 
 Fiend' was offered for publication in The Press, and declined, .be- 
 cause we did not believe that Poe had written it. (^) He never 
 could have said ' The blood and tears my victims weep is my 
 sweetest incense,' for he always wrote grammatically. (*) We have 
 also believed that ' The Fire Fiend' appeared in the Evening Jour- 
 nal in this city before it was published in the New York Saturday 
 PresSy in which, however, we did not see it, and therefore missed 
 *the editorial note' referred to. But it did also appear in the St. 
 Augustine Examiner, December 16th, 1860, for a manuscript copy, 
 avowedly made from that paper, is before us, and we reasonably 
 thought that Mr. Gardette, whose middle initial is D, not A, had 
 sent it to us. We are not quite satisfied that our impression is in- 
 correct. We cannot implicitly rely on Mr. Gardette's assertion 
 until he shows how this ' unpublished manuscript of the late Edgar 
 A. Poe' came into ' the possession of Charles D. Gardette ;' shows, 
 also, that it is one of Poe's manuscripts. Up to this time there is 
 nothing but Mr. Gardette's word that it is."(^) 
 
 ''Since the above was written, we have received a communica- 
 tion from Mr. Gardette (to whom we had privately suggested, for 
 his own sake, that he lijiight withdraw or modify his letter), in 
 
11 
 
 which he confesses that ^ The Fire Fiend,' which appeared, under 
 his own imprimatur ^ as ' an unpublished manuscript of the late 
 Edgar A. Poe,' in the possession of Charles D. Gardette, 'did not 
 exist even in MS. a fortnight previous to its appearance in the 
 New York Saturday Press f that the editor of that journal knew, 
 when publishing it, that the authorship (imputed) was a hoax, but 
 added a prefatory note pleasantly expressing his own skepticism ; 
 that the poem was written and published in consequence of a dis- 
 cussion, followed by a challenge, between its author and a friend 
 about the originality of Mr. Poe's genius, which, it was contended, 
 rendered a successful literary counterfeit of his productions impossi- 
 ble, and that, therefore, Mr. Poe never laid eyes upon said poem. 
 Mr. Gardette actually congratulates himself on the counterfeit 
 having 'been enough like Poe in manner and matter to have de- 
 ceived several literary critics on both sides of the Atlantic' In 
 this he is wrong. One English critic seems to have merely heard 
 of the forged poem, and we venture to affirm that no one in this 
 country carefully read it without doubts of its authenticity. (•) 
 Lastly, Mr. Gardette offers us a succinct and authentic history of 
 the composition and authorship of the ' Fire Fiend,' together with 
 many other details he happens to know in connection with it. We 
 decline this detailed confession of a literary fraud, and advise Mr. 
 Gardette to confine it to his own bosom. (•") There is nothing 
 wrong in imitating an author's style, but what can justify publish- 
 ing an imitation, as from the dead author's own manuscript, and 
 doing his memory the great injustice of not confessing the 'hoax' 
 for four or five years ? We dismiss this painful subject, with no 
 intention of returning to it.] — Ed. Press." 
 
 The tone and style of Dr. Mackenzie's " sentences of 
 explanation'^ in the above article, as well as the errors 
 and misrepresentations they contained, appeared to me 
 to demand a prompt reply, and consequently, on the 
 22d, I addx'essed him the following letter, to wit : 
 
 *^910 Walnut Street, Nov. 22d, 1864. 
 ^'K. Shelton Mackenzie, Esq. 
 
 "Sir: Your intention, as expressed in this morning's Press j to 
 
12 
 
 dismiss and not recur again to the subject between us, you will, I 
 trust, find cause to modify after reading this communication. 
 
 '*Your comments, in your journal of to-day, upon my let- 
 ters, &c., are written in a petty spirit of injustice, which I should 
 have thought beneath a gentleman of your age and experience. 
 For example. Sir : in your private note of November 17th, to me, 
 you correc% quoted a line from the ' Tire Fiend,' and pronounced 
 it, as thus quoted^ ' ungrammatical,' and unworthy an 'educated 
 man. ' I replied to you, that the line was grammatically correct^ 
 and offered to stake my claims as an educated man on its accuracy. 
 Now, sir, in your published comments of this morning, you withhold 
 or ignore that portion of my letter, while you deliberately inisquote 
 the line in question, — so reversing it as to make it ungrammatical, 
 which it is not as it stands in the poem, or in your own previous note. 
 If, sir, you consider this fair and honorable, / do not ! Nor, I 
 think, will the public, to whom I propose to submit the question. 
 
 '' Furthermore, you state that you are not yet satisfied that the 
 MS. copy of the poem from, the St. Augustine Exa^niner was not 
 sent you by me, — in the face of my positive denial. A moment's 
 reflection might have shown you the absurdity of your belief that 
 a man would recopy his own poem from the columns of a distant 
 and obscure newspaper, for the purpose of offering it to another at 
 home, when he had his own MS. to transcribe from. But, really, 
 your insinuation of my untruth is of no consequence. It is a mat- 
 ter of great indifference to me what you may think or believe with 
 reference to myself^ as I do not fancy your opinions will much 
 affect either my literary or social standing. 
 
 " But I cannot refrain from observing to you, sir, that you have 
 taken an unwarrantable liberty, in introducing into your remarks 
 the wholly irrelevant subject of my father's profession, and your 
 very unnecessary testimony as to his respectability. Whether I 
 be the son of a dentist, or of a doctor, or of a shoemaker, for that 
 matter, has certainly nothing whatever to do with the subject un- 
 der discussion. Toward me, who am much your junior, such a 
 style of remark is simply 'little' and undignified. But toward my 
 father, I beg to say, that it very much resembles an impertinence. 
 
 ''Again: you say, that I 'congratulate' myself on the poem 
 having successfully deceived several critics, &c., &c. This is not 
 
13 
 
 true. There is no word of self-gratulation in my note. I said, 
 that I agreed with you as to the inferiority of the poem to that it 
 was intended to resemble, and simply added, that such resemblance 
 had, nevertheless, sufficed to hoax both English and American 
 critics successfully. That this success has been a fact, in spite of 
 your denial, is conclusively proven by an article in the New York 
 Leader^ for N'ovember 19th, 1864, on the subject, which, however, 
 I had not seen at the time I wrote you. But I did not, nor do I 
 specially congratulate myself on so small a matter. 
 
 ''finally, sir, though you have an undoubted right to decline 
 my proffered history of the ' Fire Fiend,' you certainly have none 
 to advise me as to its publication or withholding. You are not as- 
 sociated, that I am aware, in the monitorship of my 'bosom,' or 
 conscience, nor is your ipse dixit on the matter of the ' wrong' of 
 the literary hoax, and its indefensibility, by any means final and 
 without appeal. 
 
 "You will or will not publish this letter, as you see fit, of 
 course. It is, however, my intention to give it to the public — if 
 you do not (perhaps, whether you do or not) — together with what 
 other information on the subject I may possess (including your 
 former note to me), at such time as shall be convenient to myself. 
 " Your obedient servant, 
 
 " C. D. Gardette." 
 
 The above letter was sent, as before stated, to Dr. 
 Mackenzie on the 2 Jfej^ of November ! Since which date I 
 have heard nothing, directly or indirectly, from him, nor, 
 as far as I know, has anything appeared in the columns 
 of his journal — the Press — on the subject. 
 
 Therefore, being, of course, unable to compel Dr. Mac- 
 kenzie to act justly and honorably toward me in the 
 matter, I thus, after due reflection, present the facts of 
 the affair, clearty and succintly, before my friends and 
 the literary public. 
 
 I desire, however, before concluding my statement, to 
 make a few comments, draw a few comparisons, and 
 
14 
 
 place more immediately before the reader a few points of 
 contrast between the assertions and opinions of Dr. Mac- 
 kenzie, as attered at different dates and under different 
 circumstances, on the subject of the '^ Fire Piend^^ con- 
 troversy. And I shall also reprint an article or two, 
 from journals other than the Press, with reference to the 
 poem. 
 
 Comments, &c. 
 
 For the sake of method and brevity, I have marked 
 such passages in the foregoing correspondence, &c., as I 
 desire the reader to take special note of, by index-letters; 
 and these passages I now propose to speak of, isolating 
 them, and specifying them by means of the aforesaid 
 index-letters. For instance : 
 
 (*) September 30. Dr. Mackenzie says, plainly and posi- 
 tively : " We believe that Foe wrote them !'' (z. e., the stan- 
 zas of the " Fire Fiend.'') 
 
 C') November 17. Dr. Mackenzie says, plainly, but not 
 quite as positively, ^' The ' Fire Fiend' .... was by me 
 declined, because .... J thought that Foe could not have 
 written it !'^ 
 
 (^) November 21. Dr. Mackenzie repeats, plainly, and 
 again positively :. " We did not believe Foe had written it T' 
 
 Eeader, what is your opinion of Dr. Mackenzie's value 
 as a lucid and consistent critic ? 
 
 Again : (*") November 17. Dr. Mackenzie says : ^'Neither 
 Foe nor any educated man could have written, ' And my 
 sweetest incense 2S,' &c. &c. &c." 
 
 (J) November 21. Dr. Mackenzie asserts (and very 
 truly) that, " Foe never could have said, ' The blood and 
 tears my victims weep is' &c. &c. &c." 
 
 Eeader, can you tell me why the Doctor mentioned 
 
15 
 
 notliing of a grammatical breaking of Priscian^s head in 
 any line of the '' Fire Piend/^ in his article of September 
 30 ? When, how, and wh}^ he discovered the said head- 
 breaking in the above line, as quoted by him November 
 17 ? And why he reversed the said line in his re-quotation 
 and re-condemnation of it on November 21 ? 
 
 Let me help you by a suggestion. The Doctor says, 
 September 30, that he believes Foe wrote the poem. Of 
 course, then, there could be no outrage committed on 
 Priscian therein, because, as the Doctor twice avers, Poe 
 always wrote grammatically. But, on the 17th of Novem- 
 ber, the Doctor wished to state that he had formerly 
 declined the poem because, from " internal evidence,^^ he 
 thought Poe could not have written it. So, he, naturally, 
 looked up this " internal evidence,^^ and fell foul of the 
 supposed violence done to Priscian. (I grant you that 
 the dates, here, of the Doctor's two beliefs, make his case 
 rather unsound, and a little conflicting ; but all men, even 
 doctors and critics, are fallible.) 
 
 As to his reversion of the line in his article of Novem- 
 ber 21, if you recollect that I had, in my reply to his 
 first accusation, asserted the grammatical correctness of 
 the line as it really stood in the poem, and also in his quo- 
 tation of November 17 ; you may, perhaps, fancy that the 
 Doctor had thereupon consulted his Lindley Murray, and 
 had found his friend Priscian in no need of his rather 
 officious, but, no doubt, kindly intended surgery. And 
 that, consequently, still wishing to have a case of it, he — 
 but I leave the inference to your own perspicacity. 
 
 Further : (^) The Doctor says, November 17 : he is 
 ^' not the person to he assailed,^' because an English writer 
 had previously asserted that I had received a rejected 
 MS. of Poe's from Mrs. Clemm, called the " Fire Fiend,'' 
 
16 
 
 &c. &c., and that he (the Doctor) only repeated it. But 
 the English critic did not attack me as having done a 
 " great wrong'^ to Mr. Poe. And the Doctor did ! The 
 English critic did not impugn my motives in publishing 
 the said poem. And the Doctor did ! The English critic 
 did not make false statements as to the manner and 
 times of the said publication by me. And the Doctor 
 did! The English critic did not affect to doubt my 
 veracity, nor attempt to crush me by irony, nor pass 
 sentence upon me, nor '' advise'' me as to the affairs of 
 my '' bosom.^' And all these things the Doctor did, as 
 you may read in his articles of September 30 and No- 
 vember 21, and in his private note of November 17. Is 
 he ^^not the person to he assailed^^' forsooth? 
 
 (®) In his note of November 17, the Doctor objects 
 to my statement, that '^ Poe would have, probably, re- 
 jected the ' Eire Fiend' if it had ever come within his 
 critical observation,'' on the ground that it is " illogical^^' 
 to suppose an author cannot properly criticise his own pro- 
 duction with reference to its rejection. I acknowledge 
 freely that such a theory is illogical; nay, I even think 
 it is positively absurd. But bless you ! I didn't fancy 
 I was making any such assertion. Let me put a case to 
 you, Eeader. Suppose I had written you, that the poem 
 of ^' Don Juan" had never come within the sphere of 
 Byron's observation, what would you take me to mean ? 
 Would it not dimly occur to you that, possibly, I intended 
 to insinuate that Lord Byron was not the author of " Don 
 Juan ?" I think it would — to you, or to '' any other 
 man" of average intelligence, except Dr. Mackenzie. 
 But the learned critic did not see it in that light, for 
 with that remark of mine before him, he still insists, with 
 commendable, but somewhat obtuse pertinacity, both in 
 
17 
 
 his note of November 175(^) and in his published com- 
 ments of November 21('^') upon my letter of November 
 15 (in which that remark occurs), that I shall show 
 otherwise than by mere assertion, the ^' Fire Fiend'' to 
 be a genuine MS. of Poe. And yet, as I thought, I had 
 just neatly and delicately confessed that it was nothing 
 of the sort I 
 
 (^) Dr. Mackenzie, in his note of November 17, kindly 
 suggests that I ^'' give the public'^ (meaning through his 
 columns, I take it) " a history of the ' Fire Fiend.^ '^ 
 
 But in his comments of November 2 !,("") he declines 
 what he calls — not quite so kindly — my " detailed con- 
 fession of a literary fraud ^^^ and ^' advises'^ me — his benevo- 
 lence getting the better of him again — '' to confine it to 
 my own bosom.'' 
 
 Now what could have caused this somewhat sudden 
 change in the Doctor's feelings and judgment with regard 
 to the acceptance of the " history,'^ or " detailed confes- 
 sion,'' do you think ? It couldn't be his discovery of the 
 fictitiousness of the poem, for you know he had no belief 
 in its authenticity, as far back even, as the exceedingly 
 misty and uncertain period at which he " declined'' it for 
 the Press, as he asserts on the 17th, and still again on the 
 21st of November. The fact that he did believe Poe was 
 its author, on the 30th of September, may have had some 
 influence in the matter, though I can't exactly see how. 
 Perhaps, however, you may imagine the question as to 
 the condition of Priscian's head had something to do 
 with it. Well, perhaps so; it certainly is not pleasant to 
 be defrauded by one's own haste out of a capital operation 
 in critical surgery. 
 
 (^) Dr. Mackenzie asserts, in his published note of 
 November 21, that only "^ one English critic seems to 
 
18 
 
 have merely heard of the forged^' (forged is severe!) 
 "poem;'' and he ^^ ventures'' (0! venturesome Doctor!) 
 ^^to affirm that no one in this country carefully read it without 
 doubts of its authenticity !'' Now this latter affirmation hardly 
 coincides, I " venture'' to hint, with the Doctor's own 
 brief but comprehensive statement of September 30,(*) 
 that he believes Poe wrote them! referring to the same 
 poem, then called " some stanzas" by the Doctor. And 
 the rest of his above "venture" in the affirmation way 
 will not by any means be fully corroborated by the follow- 
 ing articles on the subject, extracted respectively from 
 the Philadelphia Evening Bulletin and the New York 
 Leader^ viz. : 
 
 [No. 1. rrom the Leader^ November 19, 1864.] 
 
 *' One of Poe's Experiments towards ' The Kayen.' 
 
 *' Under this heading the Evening Post of Tuesday has the fol- 
 lowing : 
 
 *' ' The assertion lately made by a correspondent of the London 
 Morning Star J that Edgar A. Poe plagiarized "The Raven" from the 
 Persian, has brought out several letters from a class of Englishmen 
 who look upon that celebrated production as *' the greatest single 
 poem that America has ever produced." A writer in Notes and 
 Quei^ies indignantly protests against the translation theory, and 
 only hopes that, if it be true, we have more of the same stamp, and 
 done by as competent men as Edgar A. Poe. But the most impor- 
 tant result of the discussion is a note from Mr. Macready, the tra- 
 gedian, part of which we subjoin. 
 
 *' ' 1 think the following fantastic poem (a copy of which I inclose), 
 written by the poet whilst experimenting towards the production 
 of that wonderful and beautiful piece of mechanism, " The Raven, '^^ 
 may possibly interest your numerous readers. ''The Eire-Fiend" 
 (the title of the poem I inclose), Mr. Poe considered incomplete, 
 and threw it aside in disgust. Some months afterwards, finding it 
 amongst his papers, he sent it in a letter to a friend, labelled face- 
 tiously, '' To be read by firelight, at midnight, after thirty drops of 
 
19 
 
 laudanum." I was intimately acquainted with the motlier-in4aW 
 of Poe, and have frequently conversed with her respecting " The 
 Eaven," and she assured me that he had the idea in his mind for 
 some years, and used frequently to repeat verses of it to her, and 
 ask her opinion of them frequently, making alterations and im- 
 provements according to the mood he chanced to be in at the time.' 
 
 '' ' There are, certainly, remarkable discrepancies between this 
 account and that which Poe has himself given to the world in 
 one of the most famous of his critical essays. 
 
 *' ' The poem which Mr. Macready transmitted to the Morning Star 
 is very long, and contains much which is terrible, ghastly, and too 
 horrible for print. Its author probably never designed that it 
 should see the light. We give below the best stanzas, and the 
 reader will not be slow to discover the presence of that same weird, 
 wonderful, musical, sensuous harmony, which has made this singular 
 and erratic genius the head of a distinct school of literature. ' 
 
 " Here follow the extracts from the poem alluded to, which, we 
 beg to inform the Post, was first printed in the New York Saturday 
 PresSj in its issue of November 19, 1859. 
 
 **The contributor to that paper accompanied his communication 
 with the subjoined note, which the reader will please compare with 
 Mr. Macready 's. 
 
 " ' Philadelphia, November 6th, 1869. 
 a cjiq ^jjj. Editor of the Saturday Press. 
 
 " ' Dear Sir : The following fantastic poem was written by Mr. 
 Poe, while experimenting towards the production of that wondrous 
 mechanism, ^*The Baven ;" but considering it incomplete, he threw 
 it aside. Some time afterwards, finding it among his papers, he 
 inclosed it in a letter to a particular friend, Isibelled facetiously j " To 
 be read by firelight, at midnight, after thirty drops of laudanum." 
 How it finally came into the possession of the undersigned, he is not 
 at present at liberty to tell. The poem is copied verbatim, literatim, 
 et punctuatim, from the original MS. 
 
 ^^' Yours, &c., 
 
 '^ ^C. D. GrARDETTE.' 
 
 ^' Of course, the whole aifair was a hoax." 
 
20 
 
 tNo. 2. From the Evening Bulldiny Noyember 21st, 1864.] 
 ^* Lately a joke, practised in 1859, upon a part of the reading 
 world in this country, has been put upon the English public with 
 great success. A poem purporting to have been an original sketch 
 for the more elaborate picture of * The Kaven' by Edgar A. Poe, 
 was sent to a London newspaper, by Mr. Macready, the actor, 
 who appears to have been deceived by it himself ; for his note accom- 
 panying it, which the London editor published with the poem, bears 
 marks of its having been written in entire good faith. The real 
 history of the thing is, that it was written by a gentleman of Phila- 
 delphia, and sent to a N'ew York literary paper, not now in exist- 
 ence, the writer accompanying it with the following note : 
 
 *' 'Philadelphia, November 6th, 1859. 
 *' ' To THE Editor oe the Saturday Press. 
 
 *' ' Dear Sir : The following fantastic poem was written by Mr. 
 Poe, while experimenting towards the production of that wondrous 
 mechanism, " The Kaven;" but considering it incomplete, he threw 
 it aside. Some time afterwards, finding it among his papers, he 
 inclosed it in a letter to a particular friend, labelled /ac^^m^s^y, '* To 
 be read by firelight, at midnight, after thirty drops of laudanum." 
 How it finally came into the possession of the undersigned, he is not 
 at present at liberty to tell. The poem is copied verbatim^ literatim^ 
 et punctuatinij from the original MS. 
 
 *' 'Yours, &c., 
 
 *' ' C. D. Gardette.' 
 
 .<* The poem was an exti^emely clevei^ imitation of Poe, but the li- 
 mited circulation of the Saturday Press prevented it from becoming 
 widely known. It has fallen, however, into the hands of Mr. Ma- 
 cready, and he has been the means of hoaxing with it the whole 
 British public, for it has been widely copied in the metropolitan 
 and provincial papers, and has even been accepted as a verity by a 
 number of journals in this country." 
 
 The above article from the Leader also contained the 
 poem of the ^^ Fire Fiend" in fall. But, anxious as I am 
 
21 
 
 (or, at least, as Dr. Mackenzie says I am) to have my 
 " name published in connection with that of Poe, as the 
 holder of one of his manuscripts/' I have thought it best 
 to withhold the reproduction of this slender link between 
 that brilliant man of genius and myself, on this occasion, 
 and 1 hope the Doctor will give me credit for the effort 
 such self-denial has cost me. 
 
 Eeaders, and friends, I have now put the case of Mac- 
 kenzie vs. the '' Fire Piend'^ and its author, fairly before 
 you, I believe, and I really am not very much afraid of 
 your prospective verdict. But while I ask only simple 
 justice for myself, I shall be glad to know that, toward 
 the worthy and venerable Doctor and Critic, your jus- 
 tice is tempered by the mercy which is due to his age 
 and infirmities. 
 
 0. D. GrARDETTE. 
 
 November 28th, 1864. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 It occurs to me that a few words of explanation, with 
 reference to the original composition and publication of 
 the "Fire Fiend/' may be appropriately added here, 
 and I therefore add them briefly, as follows : 
 
 On a day of November, 1859, a discussion took place 
 between a literary friend and myself, on the subject of 
 Poe's poetic genius. In the course of this discussion, my 
 friend maintained that Poe's marked originality of style, 
 both in thought and expression, rendered difficult almost 
 to impossibility a successful imitation of him. I denied 
 this, and contended that this very peculiarity made such 
 imitation facile; and that, generally, the more marked 
 and singular the style of a writer, the easier it was to 
 produce a literary counterfeit of his productions. 
 
 A challenge to prove my position by such an imitation 
 of Poe, followed the argument, and " The Eaven'^ was 
 selected as the poem to be paraphrased in style and 
 rhythm. 
 
 Under this challenge I composed the " Fire Fiend ^^^ 
 and, its public success being part of the bargain, I sent 
 it to the Editor of Harper's Magazine for publication. 
 
 He, however, while admitting its resemblance to Poe 
 
23 
 
 in manner and treatment, considered the Magazine an 
 unsuitable medium for its publication, and politely de- 
 clined it. But lie added that he had shown it to a literary- 
 acquaintance, — the Editor of the New York Saturday 
 Press, — who would accept it for his paper if I was willing 
 to give it him. I was wholly unacquainted with this 
 gentleman at that time, but wrote him immediately, 
 offering him the poem, gratuitously, for the Saturday 
 Press, and it was published in that paper, on the 19th of 
 November, 1859, with the following editorial note, in 
 brackets, prefacing it, viz. : 
 
 '' [We postpone several articles this week to make place for the 
 following communication, which we print with the single remark, 
 that we ^ don't see it.']'^ 
 
 From that date to the present moment, I have never 
 seen the poem, in type, in the columns of any newspaper 
 or other publication, save in the JVew York Leader of ISTo- 
 vember 19th, 1864 ; nor have I ever offered it to any one, 
 directly or indirectly. Nor, finally, had I heard of its 
 ever having been offered to any such newspaper or 
 publication, until the perusal of Dr. Mackenzie's articles 
 in the Philadelphia Press gave me the startling informa- 
 tion that for '^ several years'' I had (wholly unknown 
 to myself) been '' sending the ' Fire Fiend' to various 
 newspapers and magazines,^^ including his own journal. 
 This statement of the Doctor's is perfectly consistent 
 with the general accuracy and ingenuousness displayed 
 throughout his remarks on the same subject. 
 
 The ^^ Fire Fiend/^ then, was written as a hoax, pub- 
 lished as a hoax, with an editorial remark sufficiently 
 indicating the fact to any reader of fair perspicacity ; 
 and, as no money was asked, nor received for or by its 
 
24 
 
 publication, and no efforts whatever made to dissemi- 
 nate or perpetuate the hoax, either by its publisher or 
 author, I feel no hesitation in ^pronouncing it, and in be- 
 lieving that my readers will pronounce it, to have been 
 a venial and harmless literary joke, instead of an " un- 
 justifiable fraud,^^ " forgery ,^^ and a '' great wrong,'^ as it 
 is solemnly declared to be by Dr. E. (Ehadamanthus ?) 
 Shelton Mackenzie ! 
 
 C. D. G. 
 
Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
 Neutralizing agent: IVIagnesium Oxide 
 Treatment Date: Sept. 2009 
 
 PreservationTechnologies 
 
 A WORLD LEADER IN COLLECTIONS PRESERVATION 
 
 111 Thomson Park Drive 
 Cranberry Township, PA 1 6066 
 (724)779-2111