Explanatory Notes        Apparatus Notes ()

Source: New York Public Library, Albert A. and Henry W. Berg Collection, New York ([NN-BGC])

Cue: "I have mailed"

Source format: "MS"

Letter type: "[standard letter]"

Notes:

Last modified:

Revision History: AB

Published on MTPO: 2022

Print Publication:

This edited text supersedes the previously published text
MTPDocEd
To William Dean Howells
3 August 1877 • Elmira, N.Y. (MS: NN-BGC, UCCL 02513)
My Dear Howells:

I have mailed one set of the slips to London, & told Bentley you would print Sept. 15 for in October Atlantic, & he must not print earlier in Temple Bar. Have I got the dates & things right?

I am powerful glad to see that No. 1 reads a nation sight better in print than it did in MS. I told Bentley we’d send him the slips each time 6 weeks before day of publication.1explanatory note We can do that, can’t we? Two months ahead would be still better I suppose, but I don’t know.

“Ah Sin” went a-boomingemendation at the Fifth Avenue. The reception of Col. Sellers was calm compared to it.2explanatory note If Bret Harte had suppressed his name (it didn’t occur to me to suggest it) the play would have received as great applause in the papers as it did in the Theatre. * The criticisms were just; the criticisms of the great New York press dailies are always just, always intelligent, & always square & honest—notwithstanding byemendation a blunder which nobody was seriously to blame for I was made to say exactly the opposite of this in a Baltimore paper newspaper some time ago. Never said it at all, & moreover I never thought it. I could not publicly correct it before the play appeared in New York, because that would look as if I had really said that thing & then was moved by fears for my pocket & my reputation to take it back. But I can correct it now, & shall do it; for now my motives cannot be impugned. When I began this letter it had not occurred to me to use you in this connection, but it occurs to me now. Your opinion & mine, uttered a year ago, & repeated more than once since, that the candor & ability of the New York critics were beyond question, is a matter which makes it proper enough that I should speak through you at this time. Therefore if you will print this paragraph somewhere, it may remove the impression that I say unjust things which I do not think, merely for the pleasure of talking.


There, now. Can’t you say—


“In a letter to Mr. Howells of the Atlantic Monthly, Mark Twain describes the reception of the new comedy “Ah Sin,” & then goes on to say:” &c

Beg

Beginning at the * with The words, “The criticisms were just.”

Will you cut that paragraph out of this letter & precede it with the remarks suggested (or with better ones,) & send it to the Globe or some other paper? You can’t do me a bigger favor; & yet if it is in the least disagreeable, you musstn’t think of it. But let me know, right away, for I want to correct this thing before it grows stale again. I explained myself to only one critic (the World)—the consequence was a noble notice of the play. This one called on me, else I shouldn’t have explained myself to him.3explanatory note Mrs. Clemens says, “Don’t ask that of Mr. Howells—it will be disagreeable to him.” I hadn’t thought it, but I will bet two to one on the correctness of her instinct. We shall see.

I have been putting in a deal of hard work on that play in New York, & have left hardly a foot-print of Harte in it anywhere. But it is full of incurable defects: to-wit, Harte’s deliberate thefts & plagiarisms, & my own unconscious ones. I don’t believe Harte ever had an idea that he came by honestly. He is the most abandoned thief that defiles the earth.

My old Plunkett family seemed wonderfully coarse & vulgar on the stage, but it was because they were played in such an outrageously & inexcusably coarse way. The Chinaman is killingly funny. I don’t know when I have enjoyed anything as much as I did him. The people say there isn’t enough of him in the piece. That’semendation a triumph—there’ll never be any more of him in it.

John Brougham said, “Read the list of things which the critics have condemned in the piece, & you have unassailable proof that the play contains all the requirements of success & a long life.”4explanatory note

That is true. Nearly every time the audience roared I knew it was over something that would be condemned in the morning (justly, too) but must be left in—for low comedies are written for the drawing-room, the kitchen & the stable, & if you cut out the kitchen & the stable the drawing-room can’t support the play by itself.

There was as much money in the house the first 2 nights as in the first 10 of Sellers. Haven’t heard from the third—I came away.

Yrs Ever
Mark.
Textual Commentary
Source text(s):

MS, NN-BGC.

Previous Publication:

MTL , 1:298–300; MTHL , 1:191–93.

Provenance:

See Howells Letters in Description of Provenanceclick to open link.

Explanatory Notes
1 See 3 Aug 1877 to Bentley. For Clemens’s dissatisfaction with the first two installments of “Some Rambling Notes” see 27 June 1877 to Howells, 27 June 1877 to Twichell, and 4 and 6 July 1877 to Howells.
2 Ah Sin opened at Augustin Daly’s Fifth Avenue Theatre on 31 July. The reviews were mixed: critics found entertaining elements in the play, but faulted it on artistic grounds (see, for instance, 6 Aug 1877 to Conway, n. 5). Colonel Sellers (the Gilded Age play) had opened in Rochester, New York, on 31 August 1874 and continued until 5 September, drawing large audiences (31 Aug 1874 to Raymond, L6, 215–17).
3 Clemens’s influence is distinctly evident in the New York World’s long and favorable review of Ah Sin on 1 August (“ ‘Ah Sin’ Last Night—Mark Twain Improves the Occasion,” 5). For example, after remarking that the play had not been “playable” during its Washington production in May, the paper noted: “Since then its authors (Mark Twain chiefly, we believe) have pruned and pared it, and rewritten a great portion of the dialogue, so that in its present shape the characters have to speak the language of real life for the most part, instead of, as before, the pedantic, stilted talk of dead books.” And the review’s other remarks on the play’s authorship focused almost exclusively on Clemens, with only a perfunctory mention of Harte.
4 

John Brougham (1814–80) was a well-known comic actor, playwright, and theater manager. The source of his remark has not been discovered. Albert Bigelow Paine reported another comment of Brougham’s:

There is an absolute “embarrassment of riches” in your “Detective” most assuredly, but the difficulty is to put it into profitable form. . . . In narrative structure the story would be full of life, character, and the most exuberant fun, but it is altogether too diffuse in its present condition for dramatic representation. (Brougham to SLC, letter of unknown date, quoted in MTB, 2:596)

Emendations and Textual Notes
 a-booming ● ~- | ~
 by ● by by corrected miswriting
  piece. That’s ●  ~.— | ~
Top