The following six typed dictations, known ever since Paine published them (out of order) in 1924 as “The Grant Dictations” ( MTA, 1:13–70), are now in the Mark Twain Papers. They were all created in May and June 1885; Clemens dictated to his friend and colleague James Redpath, who transcribed his shorthand notes on an all-capitals typewriter (for Redpath see “Lecture-Times,” note at 148.8). Redpath then reviewed the typescripts, adding punctuation but overlooking many errors, and passed them on to Clemens, who lightly revised and corrected them. They make up the earliest known substantial body of texts that Clemens said were intended for his autobiography. The subjects he covered were all of recent date, and all touch on one aspect or another of his relationship with Ulysses S. Grant, who was by then dying of throat cancer. The six dictations are here printed for the first time in the order they were created.
The Chicago G. A. R. Festival
“The Chicago G. A. R. Festival” is about Clemens’s experience, including his toast to “The Babies,” when Grant was honored at the convention of the Grand Army of the Republic in 1879. This is the only one of the six Grant dictations that Neider chose to reprint, and he followed Paine’s text in all of its details ( AMT, 241–45).
[A Call with W. D. Howells on General Grant]
“A Call with W. D. Howells on General Grant” treats three seemingly unrelated topics: Grant’s help for the father of William Dean Howells, Grant’s appreciation of George Horatio Derby (John Phoenix), and Clemens’s own efforts to persuade Grant to write his memoirs. The title adopted here was supplied by Paine.
Grant and the Chinese
“Grant and the Chinese” describes Grant’s efforts to preserve a program for educating Chinese students in the United States.
Gerhardt
“Gerhardt” (previously unpublished) is about the frustration that Clemens’s protégé, the sculptor Karl Gerhardt, experienced in competing to make a statue of Nathan Hale. Gerhardt also made a commercially successful bust of Grant, discussed in the fifth dictation, “About General Grant’s Memoirs.”
About General Grant’s Memoirs
“About General Grant’s Memoirs,” a long and detailed account of how Clemens secured the contract for Grant’s Personal Memoirs, was written to some extent in response to newspaper comments insinuating that he had done so unethically. Paine published the first section and part of the third as continuous text, and made the middle section into a separate dictation, which he titled “Gerhardt and the Grant Bust”; he also omitted the newspaper clippings at the end of this section.
[The Rev. Dr. Newman]
“The Rev. Dr. Newman” is about Grant’s spiritual adviser during the days approaching his death on 23 July 1885. Paine suppressed the identity of the Reverend John Philip Newman, altering every mention of his name to “N––––.” He also provided the title adopted here (using only Newman’s initial).
Clemens was not pleased with the text that Redpath prepared. As he explained to Henry Ward Beecher after he had called a halt to his dictation, this part of the autobiography was “pretty freely dictated, but my idea is to jack-plane it a little before I die, some day or other; I mean the rude construction & rotten grammar. It is the only dictating I ever did, & it was most troublesome & awkward work” (11 Sept 1885, CU-MARK). Clemens never did polish the texts or prepare them for publication. In fact, many years after his death his former secretary, Isabel Lyon, annotated a copy of Paine’s edition, saying in part that “Mr Clemens would not have allowed” the Grant dictations “to be included in the autobiography without serious editing. . . . These Redpath notes were notes only, & held for drastic revision” [begin page 67] (page 13, quoted courtesy of Kevin Mac Donnell). Clemens did go on to retell the story of his involvement with Grant’s memoirs in his 1906 Autobiographical Dictations (see “About General Grant’s Memoirs,” note at 75.28).
The Chicago G. A. R. Festival
The Chicago G. A. R. FestivalⒺexplanatory note
1866.Ⓐapparatus note
TheⒶapparatus note first time I ever saw General Grant was in the fall or winter of 1866 at one of the receptions at WashingtonⒺexplanatory note, when he was General of the Army. I merely saw and shook hands with him along withⒶapparatus note a general crowd but had no conversation. It was there alsoⒶapparatus note that I first saw General SheridanⒺexplanatory note.
I next saw General Grant during his first term as President.Ⓐapparatus note
Senator Bill Stewart of NevadaⒶapparatus note proposed to take me in and see the President. We found him in his working costumeⒶapparatus note with an old shortⒶapparatus note linen duster onⒶapparatus note and it was well spattered with ink. I hadⒶapparatus note acquired some trifle of notoriety through some letters which I had writtenⒶapparatus note in the New York TribuneⒶapparatus note during my trip round about the world in the Quaker City Ⓐapparatus note expedition. I shook hands and then there was a pause and silence. I couldn’t think of anything to say. So I merely looked into the General’s grim, immovable countenance a moment or two in silenceⒶapparatus note and then I said: “Mr. President, I am embarrassedⒶapparatus note—are you?”Ⓔexplanatory note He smiled a smile which would have done no discredit to a cast-ironⒶapparatus note image, and I got away under the smoke of my volley.
I did not see him again for some ten years. In the meantime I had become very thoroughly notorious.
Then, in 1879Ⓐapparatus note the General had just returned from his journey through the European and Asiatic worldⒶapparatus note and his progress from San Francisco eastwardⒶapparatus note had been one continuous ovationⒶapparatus note and now he was to be feasted in Chicago by the veterans of the Army of the TennesseeⒺexplanatory note—the first army over which he had had command. The preparations for this occasion were in keeping with the importance of it. The toast committee telegraphed me and asked me if I would be present and respond at the grand banquet to the toast to the ladies. I telegraphed back that the toast was worn out. Everything had been said about the ladies that could be said at a banquet,Ⓐapparatus note butⒶapparatus note there was one class of the community that had always been overlooked upon such occasions andⒶapparatus note if they would allow me I would take that class for a toast: “The Babies.”Ⓐapparatus note They were willing—so I prepared my toast and went out to Chicago.
There was to be a prodigious procession. General Grant was to review it from a rostrum which had been built out for the purpose from the second story window of the Palmer House. The rostrum was carpeted and otherwise glorified with flags and so on.
The best place of all to see the procession was of courseⒶapparatus note from this rostrum. So I sauntered upon that rostrum while as yet it was empty in the hope that I might be permitted to sit there. It was rather a conspicuous place,Ⓐapparatus note since upon it the public gaze was fixed, and there was a countless multitude below. Presently two gentlemen came upon that platform from the window of the hotelⒶapparatus note and stepped forward to the front. A prodigious shout went up from the vast multitude below, and I recognized in one of these two gentlemen General Grant. [begin page 68] The other was Carter Harrison,Ⓐapparatus note the mayor of ChicagoⒺexplanatory note, with whom I was acquainted. He saw me, stepped over to meⒶapparatus note and said wouldn’t I like to be introduced to the General? I said, I should. SoⒶapparatus note he walked over with me and said, “General,Ⓐapparatus note let me introduce Mr.Ⓐapparatus note Clemens,”Ⓐapparatus note and weⒶapparatus note shook hands. There was the usual momentary pause and then the General said: “I am not embarrassedⒶapparatus note—are you?”Ⓔexplanatory note
It showed that he had a good memory for trifles as well as for serious things.
That banquet was by all odds the most notable one I was ever present at. There were six hundredⒶapparatus note persons present, mainly veterans of the Army of the Tennessee,Ⓐapparatus note and that in itself would have made it a most notable occasion of the kind in my experience but there were other things which contributed. General ShermanⒺexplanatory note and in fact nearly all of the surviving great Generals of the war sat in a body on a dais round about General Grant.
The speakers were of a rare celebrity and ability.
That night I heard for the first time a slang expression which had already come into considerable vogue but I had not myself heard it before.
When the speaking began about ten o’clock I left my place at the table and went away over to the front side of the great dining room where I could take in the whole spectacle at one glance. Among others, Colonel VilasⒶapparatus note was to respond to a toastⒺexplanatory note and also ColonelⒶapparatus note Ingersoll, the silver-tongued infidel, who had begun life in Illinois, and was exceedingly popular there. VilasⒶapparatus note was from Wisconsin and was very famous as an orator. He had prepared himself superbly for this occasion.
He was about the first speaker on the list of fifteen toasts and Bob Ingersoll was the ninth.
I had taken a position upon the steps in front of the brass band,Ⓐapparatus note which lifted me up and gave me a good general view. PresentlyⒶapparatus note I noticed, leaning against the wall near me, a simple-looking young manⒶapparatus note wearing the uniform of a private and the badge of the Army of the Tennessee. He seemed to be nervous and ill at ease about something. PresentlyⒶapparatus note, while the second speaker was talking, this young man said: “Do you know Colonel VilasⒶapparatus note?” I said I had been introduced to him. He sat silent a while and then said: “They say he is hell when he gets started!”
I said: “In what way? What do you mean?”
“Speaking! Speaking! They say he is lightningⒶapparatus note!”
“Yes,” I said, “I have heard that he is a great speaker.”
The young man shifted about uneasily for a whileⒶapparatus note and then he said: “Do you reckon he can get away with Bob Ingersoll?”
I said: “I don’t know.”
Another pause. OccasionallyⒶapparatus note he and I would join in the applause when a speaker was on his legs, but this young man seemed to applaud unconsciously.
Presently he said, “Here in IllinoisⒶapparatus note we think there can’t nobodyⒶapparatus note get away with Bob Ingersoll.”
I said: “Is that so?”
He said, “Yes: we don’t think anybody can lay over Bob Ingersoll.”
Then he added sadly, “But they do say that VilasⒶapparatus note is pretty nearly hell.”
[begin page 69] At lastⒶapparatus note VilasⒶapparatus note rose to speak, and this young man pulled himself together and put on all his anxiety. VilasⒶapparatus note began to warm up and the people began to applaud. He deliveredⒶapparatus note himself of one especially fine passage and there was a general shout: “Get up on the table! Get up on the table! Stand up on the table! We can’t see you!”Ⓐapparatus note So a lot of men standing there picked VilasⒶapparatus note up and stood him on the table in full view of the whole great audienceⒶapparatus note and he went on with his speech. The young man applauded with the rest, and I could hear the young fellow mutter without being able to make out what he said. But presentlyⒶapparatus note when VilasⒶapparatus note thundered out somethingⒶapparatus note especially fine,Ⓐapparatus note there was a tremendous outburst from the whole houseⒶapparatus note and then this young man said in a sort of despairing way:
“It ain’t no use: Bob can’t climb up to that!”
During the next hour he held his position against the wall in a sort of dazed abstraction, apparently unconscious of place or of anythingⒶapparatus note else, and at last when Ingersoll mounted the supper table his worshipper merely straightened up to an attitude of attention but without manifesting any hope.
IngersollⒶapparatus note with his fair and fresh complexion, handsome figure and graceful carriage was beautiful to look at.
He was to respond to the toast of “The Volunteers,”Ⓐapparatus note Ⓔexplanatory note and his first sentence or two showed his quality. As his third sentence fell from his lips the house let go with a crash, and my private looked pleased and for the first time hopeful but he had been too muchⒶapparatus note frightened to join in the applause. Presently, when Ingersoll came to the passage in which he said that these volunteers hadⒶapparatus note shed their blood and perilled their lives in order that a mother might own her own child,Ⓐapparatus note the language was so fine, whatever it was, for I have forgotten,Ⓐapparatus note and the delivery was so superb that the vast multitude rose as one man and stood on their feet, shouting,Ⓐapparatus note stamping, and filling all the place with such a waving of napkins that it was like a snow storm. This prodigious outburst continued for a minute or two, Ingersoll standing and waiting. And now I happened to notice my private. He was stamping, clapping, shouting,Ⓐapparatus note gesticulatingⒶapparatus note like a man who had gone truly mad. At lastⒶapparatus note when quiet was restored once more, he glanced up to me with the tears in his eyes and said:
“Egod! He didn’t get left!”Ⓔexplanatory note
My own speech was granted the perilousⒶapparatus note distinction of the place of honor. It was the last speech on the list, an honor which no person, probably, has ever sought. It was not reached until twoⒶapparatus note o’clock in the morning. But when I got on my feet I knew that there was at any rate one point in my favor: the text was bound to have the sympathy of nine-tenths of the men presentⒶapparatus note and of every woman, marriedⒶapparatus note or single, of the crowds of the sex who stood huddled in the various doorways.
I expected the speech to go off well—and it did.
In it I had a drive at GeneralⒶapparatus note Sheridan’s comparativelyⒶapparatus note new twins and various other things calculated to make it go. There was only one thing in it that I had fears about, and that one thing stood where it could not be removed in case of disaster.
It was the last sentence in the speech.
[begin page 70] I had been picturing the America of fifty years hence, with a population of two hundred million souls,Ⓐapparatus note and was saying that the future President, AdmiralsⒶapparatus note and so forthⒶapparatus note of that great coming timeⒶapparatus note were now lying in their various cradles,Ⓐapparatus note scattered abroad over the vast expanse of this country,Ⓐapparatus note and then said “And now in his cradle somewhere under the flag the future illustrious Commander-in-ChiefⒶapparatus note of the American armies is so little burdened with his approaching grandeur and responsibilities as to be giving his whole strategic mind at this moment to trying to find out some way to get his big toe into his mouth—something, meaning no disrespect to the illustrious guest of this evening,Ⓐapparatus note which he turned his entire attention to some fifty-sixⒶapparatus note years ago”—
And here,Ⓐapparatus note as I had expected,Ⓐapparatus note the laughter ceasedⒶapparatus note and a sort of shuddering silence took its place—for this was apparently carrying the matter too far.
IⒶapparatus note waited a moment or two to let this silence sink well home.Ⓐapparatus note
Then, turning toward the General I added:
“And if the child is but the father of the manⒺexplanatory note there are mighty few who will doubt that he succeeded.”
Which relieved the house: forⒶapparatus note when they saw the General break up in good-sizedⒶapparatus note pieces they followed suit with great enthusiasmⒺexplanatory note.
title The Chicago G. A. R. Festival] More properly, the “Thirteenth Annual Reunion of the Society of the Army of the Tennessee.” The G. A. R. (Grand Army of the Republic) was a fraternal organization of all Union veterans, and one of the sponsors of this nearly week-long event in Chicago, which, as Clemens explains, was a celebration of the returning Grant “by the veterans of the Army of the Tennessee—the first army over which he had had command” (67.19–20).
first time I ever saw General Grant was in the fall or winter of 1866 at one of the receptions at Washington] Clemens misremembered the year of the reception: see the note at 67.6–13. Ulysses S. Grant (1822–85) graduated from West Point and served with distinction in the Mexican War, demonstrating remarkable courage and leadership qualities. He resigned his commission in 1854 and made a meager living as a farmer and merchant. At the outbreak of the Civil War, he reenlisted in the army, eventually emerging as the leading Union general. After Grant’s important victories at Vicksburg and Chattanooga, President Lincoln appointed him general-in-chief of all the Union armies, and in 1866 he received the title of General of the Army—a unique rank equivalent to a four-star general, previously awarded only to George Washington. As president of the United States for two terms, from 1869 to 1877, he failed to curb the widespread corruption in his administration but was not directly implicated in it. In the dictations that follow, Clemens describes Grant’s later years: his unsuccessful bid in 1880 for a third presidential term, his financial reverses, the writing and publication of his memoirs, and his final illness.
General Sheridan] Philip H. Sheridan (1831–88), a brilliant military strategist and one of the most respected Union generals, was, like Grant, a West Point graduate. After the Civil War he served in New Orleans, defeating a small French army stationed in Mexico, and then led campaigns against the Plains Indians. In 1888 he was made General of the Army, but died shortly thereafter. Later that year Clemens’s firm, Charles L. Webster and Company, published Sheridan’s Personal Memoirs.
I next saw General Grant . . . I am embarrassed—are you?”] Clemens served, briefly, as secretary for Republican Senator William M. Stewart of Nevada (1827–1909) in Washington during the winter of 1867–68, shortly after returning from the Quaker City expedition. His fifty letters about the trip written to the San Francisco Alta California, half a dozen to the New York Tribune, and one to the New York Herald, supplied more than half the content of The Innocents Abroad, his first major book, published in 1869 (L2: 7 June 1867 and 9 Aug 1867 to JLC and family, 59 n. 5, 78–79; 22 Nov 1867 and 24 Nov 1867 to Young, 109 n. 2, 113–14; 2 Dec 1867 and 23 June 1868 to Bliss, 119–20, 232 n. 1). Clemens could not have met Grant in 1866, since he did not arrive in the East from San Francisco until early 1867. In a December 1867 notebook entry Clemens wrote, “Acquainted with Gen Grant—said I was glad to see him—he said I had the advantage of him” ( N&J1, 491). The note probably alluded not to an actual meeting, but to an imaginary one, similar to the one in the manuscript [begin page 473] that Clemens wrote on 6 December and left unpublished entitled “Interview with Gen. Grant” (SLC 1867t). It is likely that here Clemens alludes to a reception he attended in Washington in mid-January 1868; in a letter to the San Francisco Alta California he mentioned shaking hands with Grant and noted that “General Sheridan was there” (SLC 1868a). He wrote his family just days later that he had “called at Gen. Grant’s house last night. He was out at a dinner party, but Mrs. Grant said she would keep him at home on Sunday evening. I must see him, because he is good for one letter for the Alta, & part of a lecture for San F” (20 Jan 1868 to SLC and PAM, Paine’s transcript in CU-MARK). That Alta interview probably never took place, but his calling “at Gen. Grant’s house” implies that they had been formally introduced at the reception. Their second meeting at which Clemens claimed to be “embarrassed” actually occurred in mid-1870, during a brief trip to Washington where he met up with Senator Stewart. Clemens described his encounter with Grant, then serving his first term as president, on the day it occurred, in a letter of 8 July to his wife (6 July 1870 and 8 July 1870 to OLC, L4, 164–67). Clemens misplaced the year of his first meeting as 1866 rather than 1868, and may therefore have misplaced the year of the second by almost the same increment, making it early 1869 rather than mid-1870. By 1870 the Quaker City voyage was no longer news and The Innocents Abroad had given Mark Twain more than “some trifle of notoriety.”
Then, in 1879 . . . Army of the Tennessee] In 1877–79 Grant undertook a tour through Europe and Asia, accompanied by his wife, son Jesse, Adam Badeau, and John Russell Young, during which he was graciously received by numerous foreign dignitaries and heads of state. The banquet held in Chicago on 13 November 1879 was the culmination of four days of celebration (for a full account of the tour see Jean Edward Smith 2001, 606–13).
Carter Harrison, the mayor of Chicago] Carter Henry Harrison, Sr. (1825–93), served as mayor of Chicago from 1879 to 1887, and again briefly in 1893, until his assassination in October. His friendship with Clemens has not been otherwise documented.
“I am not embarrassed—are you?”] See the Autobiographical Dictation of 27 August 1906 for another account of the meetings with Grant.
General Sherman] William Tecumseh Sherman (1820–91) entered the army after graduating from West Point in 1840 and served in the Mexican War. In 1853 he resigned his commission and took a position as a banker. At the outbreak of the Civil War he was commissioned colonel; he attained the rank of brigadier general after the capture of Vicksburg in 1863. His famous March to the Sea through Georgia divided the Confederacy and hastened the end of the war. He succeeded Grant as General of the Army in 1869, and engaged in the Indian Wars until his retirement in 1884. His Memoirs, published in 1875, were highly acclaimed.
Colonel Vilas was to respond to a toast] William F. Vilas (1840–1908) of Madison, Wisconsin, was admitted to the bar in 1860. He attained the rank of lieutenant colonel during the Civil War, and later became postmaster general of the United States (1885–88), secretary of the interior (1888–89), and a U.S. senator from Wisconsin (1891–97). He responded to the toast “Our First Commander, Gen. U.S. Grant” (“Banquet of the Army of the Tennessee,” New York Times, 15 Nov 1879, 1).
Ingersoll . . . was to respond to the toast of “The Volunteers,”] Robert G. Ingersoll (1833–99) was trained as a lawyer. He raised and commanded the Eleventh Illinois Cavalry Regiment during the Civil War, fought at the battles of Shiloh and Corinth, and was captured by the Confederates in 1863. After the war he served as attorney general of Illinois. Known for his radical views on religion and slavery, he was a gifted and popular orator who advocated humanism and agnosticism, making him the target of frequent criticism. At the banquet he responded to the toast “The Volunteer Soldiers of the Union Army” (“Banquet of the Army of the Tennessee,” New York Times, 15 Nov 1879, 1). Afterwards Clemens wrote in a letter to his wife, Olivia:
I heard four speeches which I can never forget. One by Emory Storrs, one by Gen. Vilas (O, wasn’t it wonderful!) one by Gen. Logan (mighty stirring), one by somebody whose name escapes me, & one by that splendid old soul, Col. Bob Ingersoll,—oh, it was just the supremest combination of English words that was ever put together since the world began. My soul, how handsome he looked, as he stood on that table, in the midst of those 500 shouting men, & poured the molten silver from his lips! Lord, what an organ is human speech when it is played by a master! All these speeches may look dull in print, but how the lightnings glared around them when they were uttered, & how the crowd roared in response! (14 Nov 1879 to OLC, Letters 1876–1880 )
And to William Dean Howells he wrote:
Bob Ingersoll’s speech was sadly crippled by the proof-readers, but its music will sing through my memory always as the divinest that ever enchanted my ears. And I shall always see him as he stood that night on a dinner table, under the flash of lights & banners, in the midst of seven hundred frantic shouters, the most beautiful human creature that ever lived. “They fought that a mother might own her child”—the words look like any other in print, but Lord bless me, he borrowed the very accent of the angel of Mercy to say them in, & you should have seen that vast house rise to its feet. (17 Nov 1879 to Howells, Letters 1876–1880 )
When he returned to Hartford, Clemens wrote Ingersoll asking for a copy of his speech (9 Dec 1879 to Ingersoll, Letters 1876–1880 ). The printed copy sent by Ingersoll is in the Mark Twain Papers, so identified by Clemens. The sentence he quoted in part to Howells reads as follows:
Grander than the Greek, nobler than the Roman, the soldiers of the Republic, with patriotism as shoreless as the air, battled for the rights of others, for the nobility of labor, fought that mothers might own their babies, that arrogant idleness should not scar the back of patient toil, and that our country should not be a many-headed monster made of warring states, but a nation, sovereign, great, and free. (“The Grand Banquet at the Palmer House, Chicago, Thursday, Nov. 13th, 1879,” CU-MARK)
“Egod! He didn’t get left!”] This was evidently the “slang expression” that was new to Clemens (68.13). While it originally referred to missing a boat or train connection, in the late 1870s it came to mean “lose out” in general. Clemens recorded this exact remark about [begin page 475] Ingersoll in his 1882 notebook ( N&J2, 373, 507; see, for example, “How a Lawyer Got Left,” Puck 3 [24 Apr 1878]: 4).
the child is but the father of the man] A slight misquotation from “The Rainbow,” by William Wordsworth.
for when they saw the General break up in good-sized pieces they followed suit with great enthusiasm] Clemens described this occasion in his letter to Howells:
Gen. Grant sat at the banquet like a statue of iron & listened without the faintest suggestion of emotion to fourteen speeches which tore other people all to shreds, but when I lit in with the fifteenth & last, his time was come! I shook him up like dynamite & he sat there fifteen minutes & laughed & cried like the mortalest of mortals. But bless you I had measured this unconquerable conqueror, & went at my work with the confidence of conviction, for I knew I could lick him. He told me he had shaken hands with 15,000 people that day & come out of it without an ache or pain, but that my truths had racked all the bones of his body apart. (17 Nov 1879 to Howells, Letters 1876–1880 )
For the full text of “The Babies,” see Budd 1992a, 727–29.
The Chicago G. A. R. Festival ❉ Textual Commentary
On the verso of the TS Redpath wrote, ‘Autobiography of Mark Twain | The G. A. R. Festival to Grant | Chicago—1866 | “The Babies” Speech’ (the correct year was 1879). Clemens made no corrections or revisions on this typescript, but Redpath corrected it in both pencil and ink.
[A Call with W. D. Howells on General Grant]
[A Call with W. D. Howells on General Grant]Ⓐapparatus note
Howells
1881Ⓔexplanatory note.Ⓐapparatus note
HowellsⒺexplanatory note wrote me that his old father, who is well along in the seventies, was in great distress about his poor little consulate, up in Quebec. Somebody not being satisfied with the degree of poverty already conferred upon him byⒶapparatus note a thoughtful and beneficent Providence, was anxious to add to it by acquiring the Quebec consulate. SoⒶapparatus note Howells thought that if we could get General Grant to say a word to President Arthur it might have the effect of stopping this effort to oust old Mr.Ⓐapparatus note Howells from his position. Therefore, at my suggestion Howells came down and we wentⒶapparatus note to New York to lay the matter before the General. We found him at number 2, Wall street, in the principal office of Grant and Ward, brokers.
I stated the case and asked him if he wouldn’t write a word on a card which Howells could carry to Washington and hand to the President.
But, as usual, General Grant was his naturalⒶapparatus note self—that is to say, ready and also determined to do a great deal more for you than you could possibly have the effrontery to ask him to do. Apparently he never meets anybody half way: he comes nine-tenths of the way himself voluntarily. “No” he said,—he would do better than that and cheerfully: he was going to Washington in a couple of days to dine withⒶapparatus note the President and he would speak to him himself and make it a personal matter.Ⓐapparatus note Now as General Grant not only never forgets a promise but never evenⒶapparatus note the shadow of a promise,Ⓐapparatus note he did asⒶapparatus note he said he would do, and within a week came a letter from the Secretary of State, Mr. FrelinghuysenⒶapparatus note, to say that in no case would old Mr. Howells be disturbed. [And he wasn’t. He resigned, a couple of years laterⒺexplanatory note.]Ⓐapparatus note
[begin page 71]Grant and Derby
1881.Ⓐapparatus note
ButⒶapparatus note to go back to the interview with General Grant, he was in a humor to talk—in fact he was always in a humor to talk when no strangers were present—and he resisted all our efforts to leave him.
He forced us to stay and take luncheon in a private room and continued to talk all the time. [It was bacon and beans. Nevertheless, “How he sits and towers”—Howells, quoting from DanteⒺexplanatory note.]Ⓐapparatus note
He remembered “Squibob” Derby at West Point very well. He said that Derby was foreverⒶapparatus note drawing caricaturesⒶapparatus note of the professors and playing jokes of all kinds on everybody. He also told of one thing, which I had heard before, but which I have never seen in print. At West Point, the professor was instructing and questioning a class concerning certain particulars of a possible siegeⒶapparatus note and he said this, as nearly as I can remember: I cannot quote General Grant’s words:Ⓐapparatus note
Given: That a thousand men are besieging a fortress whose equipment of men, provisions, etc.Ⓐapparatus note, are so and so—it is a military axiomⒶapparatus note that at the end of forty-fiveⒶapparatus note days the fort will surrender. Now, young men, if any of you were in command of such a fortress, how wouldⒶapparatus note you proceed?
Derby held up his hand in token that he had an answer for that question. He said: “I would march out, let the enemy in,Ⓐapparatus note and at the end of forty-fiveⒶapparatus note days I would change places with himⒺexplanatory note.”Ⓐapparatus note
Grant’s Memoirs
1881.Ⓐapparatus note
IⒶapparatus note tried very hard to get General Grant to write his personal memoirs for publication but he would not listen to the suggestion. His inborn diffidence made him shrink from voluntarily coming forward before the public and placing himself underⒶapparatus note criticism as an authorⒶapparatus note. He had no confidence in his ability to write well, whereas IⒶapparatus note and everybody else in the worldⒶapparatus note excepting himselfⒶapparatus note areⒶapparatus note aware that he possesses an admirable literary gift and style. He was also sure that the book would have no sale and of course that would be a humiliation, too. He instanced the fact that GeneralⒶapparatus note Badeau’sⒶapparatus note military history of General Grant had had but a trifling sale,Ⓐapparatus note and that John Russell Young’s account of General Grant’s trip around the globe had hardly any sale at allⒺexplanatory note. But I said that these were not instances in point;Ⓐapparatus note that what another man might tell about General Grant was nothing, while what General Grant should tell about himselfⒶapparatus note with his own penⒶapparatus note was a totally different thing. I said that the book would have an enormous sale: that it should be in two volumes soldⒶapparatus note in cashⒶapparatus note at $3 50 apiece,Ⓐapparatus note and that the sale in two volumes would certainly reach half a million sets. I said thatⒶapparatus note from myⒶapparatus note experienceⒶapparatus note I could save him from making unwise contracts with publishersⒶapparatus note and could also suggest the best plan of publication—the subscription planⒺexplanatory note—and find for him the best men in that line of business.
I had in my mind at that time the American Publishing Company of Hartford, andⒶapparatus note while I suspected that they had been swindling me for ten yearsⒶapparatus note Ⓔexplanatory note I was well aware that I could arrange the contract in such a way that they could not swindle General Grant. But the General said that he had no necessityⒶapparatus note for any addition to his income. I knew that he meant by that that his investmentsⒶapparatus note through the firm in which his sons were partnersⒶapparatus note were paying him all the money [begin page 72] he needed. So I was not able to persuade him to write a book. He said that some day he would make very full notes and leave them behind himⒶapparatus note and thenⒶapparatus note if his children chose to make them into a bookⒶapparatus note that would answer.
And . . . later. (TS-SLC)
It . . . Dante. (TS-SLC)
1881] The year should be 1882: see the note at 70.19–37.
Howells] William Dean Howells (1837–1920) was born at Martin’s Ferry, Ohio, into a large family with radical political and religious tendencies. He was apprenticed to his father, a printer, and became a journalist. With, as he was to say, “an almost entire want of schooling,” he read widely in his father’s library, teaching himself Spanish, German, French, and Italian (Howells to John S. Hart, 2 July 1871, in Howells 1979, 375). In recognition of his support of Lincoln’s 1860 presidential campaign, Howells was rewarded with a consulship in Venice (1861). Returning to America in 1865, he rose as a journalist, moving to Cambridge, Massachusetts, to be assistant editor (1866–71) and then editor (1871–81) of the Atlantic Monthly. In 1881 he retired to concentrate on writing. Among his personal friends were Henry Adams, William and Henry James, and jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (son of the poet). His friendship with Clemens dates from his review of The Innocents Abroad in 1869 (Howells 1869). Howells used his position at the epicenter of American letters to help assure Mark Twain’s literary success; he also served his friend as editor, proofreader, and sounding-board. In literature, Howells championed and practiced realism. His best novels, out of a vast output, are usually considered to be The Rise of Silas Lapham (1885) and A Hazard of New Fortunes (1890); he memorialized Clemens in My Mark Twain (1910).
his old father . . . resigned, a couple of years later] Howells’s father, William Cooper Howells (1807–94), was appointed U.S. consul at Toronto in 1878, after serving for four years as the consul at Quebec. Howells learned in late January 1882 that his father might lose his position, and on 2 March wrote him that he planned “to spend Sunday with Mark Twain who is a great friend of Grant’s, and can possibly get me access to him” (Howells to [begin page 476] William C. Howells, 2 Mar 1882, in Howells 1980, 10–11). Clemens and Howells called on Grant in New York on 10 March. In My Mark Twain, Howells reported that Grant was “very simple and very cordial, and I was instantly the more at home with him, because his voice was the soft, rounded, Ohio River accent to which my years [i.e., ears] were earliest used from my steamboating uncles, my earliest heroes. When I stated my business he merely said, Oh no; that must not be; he would write to Mr. Arthur” (Howells 1910, 71). Grant acted so promptly that Secretary of State Frederick T. Frelinghuysen (1817–85) responded the following day, “You may inform Mr. Clemens that it is not our purpose to make a change in the Consulate at Toronto” (Frelinghuysen to Grant, 11 Mar 1882, CU-MARK). Grant forwarded the letter to Clemens, and he in turn wrote Howells, on 14 March, “This settles the matter—at least for some time to come—& permanently, I imagine. You see the General is a pretty prompt man” (MH-H, in MTHL, 1:394). The elder Howells resigned his post in June 1883 (21 June 1874 to Howells, L6, 166 n. 2; Howells 1979, 61, 196; Howells 1980, 10–11, 14, 58–59).
“How he sits and towers” . . . Dante] Howells quoted this phrase in a letter to Clemens from Bethlehem, New Hampshire, of 9 August 1885: “We had a funeral service for Grant, here, yesterday, and all the time while they were pumping song and praise over his great memory, I kept thinking of the day when we lunched on pork and beans with him in New York, and longing to make them feel and see how far above their hymns he was even in such an association. How he ‘sits and towers’ as Dante says” (CU-MARK, in MTHL, 2:536). Less than a month later, on 10 September, Clemens added this quotation to his dictated typescript, inserting in brackets the words “It was bacon and beans” and Howells’s presumed quote from Dante. The phrase is not, however, from Dante, but from a sonnet by Italian dramatist and poet Vittorio Alfieri (1749–1803): “Siena, dal colle ove torreggia e siede” (“Siena, from the hill where she towers and sits”). Howells’s source was E. A. Brigidi’s La Nuova Guida di Siena (a work he drew on for his Tuscan Cities), where it appeared without citation (Brigidi 1885, 11; Howells 1886, 126, 139). Many years later Howells recalled that the “baked beans and coffee were of about the railroad-refreshment quality; but eating them with Grant was like sitting down to baked beans and coffee with Julius Caesar, or Alexander, or some other great Plutarchan captain” (Howells 1910, 72).
“Squibob” Derby at West Point . . . would change places with him] Howells later recalled:
Grant seemed to like finding himself in company with two literary men, one of whom at least he could make sure of, and unlike that silent man he was reputed, he talked constantly, and so far as he might he talked literature. At least he talked of John Phoenix, that delightfulest of the early Pacific Slope humorists, whom he had known under his real name of George H. Derby, when they were fellow-cadets at West Point. (Howells 1910, 72)
George Horatio Derby (1823–61), a captain in the U.S. Army Corps of Topographical Engineers, was known primarily for the humorous sketches he wrote under his pseudonym while stationed on the Pacific Coast. These were collected in Phoenixiana; or, Sketches and Burlesques (1856) and, posthumously, The Squibob Papers (1865) (15 Dec 1866 to JLC and family, L1, 374 n. 2).
General Badeau’s military history . . . John Russell Young’s account . . . had hardly any sale at all] Adam Badeau (1831–95) became Grant’s military secretary in 1864, and by the time he retired from the army in 1869 (with the brevet rank of brigadier general) the two men had become close friends. President Grant appointed Badeau U.S. consul in London, where he served from 1870 to 1881, except for a leave from his post to travel with Grant for the first five months of his 1877–79 world tour. Between 1868 and 1881 Badeau published his three-volume Military History of Ulysses S. Grant (Badeau 1868–81; N&J3, 107 n. 137; 15 June 1873 to Badeau, L5, 382 n. 1). John Russell Young (1840–99) had a distinguished career as a journalist with several newspapers before becoming managing editor of the New York Tribune from 1866 to 1869. In 1872 he accepted a position as foreign correspondent for the New York Herald. He accompanied Grant on his tour, which he chronicled in Around the World with General Grant (1879). Appointed by President Chester A. Arthur as U.S. minister to China in 1882 (through Grant’s influence), Young mediated a number of disputes involving the United States, China, and France before returning to the Herald in 1885 (14 May 1869 to OLL, L3, 230 n. 6; 17 or 18 June 1873 to Young, L5, 383 n. 1).
best plan of publication—the subscription plan] Subscription publishers sold books in advance of publication through agents who went door to door, largely in rural areas, and persuaded people to place orders by showing them a bound “prospectus” with sample pages and illustrations. Subscription books typically cost more than those sold in bookstores, and were the best way to ensure high profits—a lesson that Clemens had learned from his own experience, beginning in 1869 with the American Publishing Company.
American Publishing Company . . . swindling me for ten years] In early 1872, shortly after the publication of Roughing It, Clemens began to suspect that his publisher, Elisha P. Bliss, Jr., of the American Publishing Company, was cheating him by overstating his production expenses. He was reassured by Bliss’s explanation, however, and stayed with the firm through the publication of A Tramp Abroad in 1880 (see RI 1993, 877–80; AD, 21 Feb 1906, note at 370.32–33). Although after Bliss’s death in 1880 Clemens considered suing the company, he decided that Francis Bliss, who had succeeded his father, had treated him fairly (26 Oct 1881 to Webster, NPV, in MTBus, 173–74; 28 Dec 1881 to Osgood and Company and 31 Dec 1881 to Osgood, MH-H, in MTLP, 147–49; 3? Oct 1882 to Elliott, CU-MARK; 6 Oct 1882 to Webster, NPV, in MTBus, 203–4). By mid-1883 he was willing to recommend the firm to fellow author George Washington Cable:
If I were going to advise you to issue through a Hartford house, I would say, every time, go to my former publishers, the American Publishing Company, 284 Asylum st. They swindled me out of huge sums of money in the old days, but they do know how to push a book; and besides, I think they are honest people now. I think there was only one thief in the concern, and he is shoveling brimstone now. (4 June 1883 to Cable, LNT)
[A Call with W. D. Howells on General Grant] ❉ Textual Commentary
On the verso of the TS Redpath wrote, ‘Autobiography of Mark Twain | 1 Howells & Grant | 2 Grant & Derby | 3 Grant’s Memoirs.’ There are markings on the TS in pencil; most were made by Redpath, but a few are in Paine’s hand. Clemens reviewed the TS after Redpath, making corrections and revisions in ink.
Grant and the Chinese
Grant and the Chinese
1884.Ⓐapparatus note
Early in this yearⒶapparatus note or late in 1883, if my memory serves me, I called on General Grant with YungⒶapparatus note Wing,Ⓐapparatus note late Chinese Minister at WashingtonⒺexplanatory note, to introduce Wing and let him lay before General Grant a proposition. Li-Hung-Chang, one of the greatest and most progressive men in China since the death of Prince KungⒺexplanatory note, had been trying to persuade the Imperial government to build a system of military railroads in ChinaⒺexplanatory note, and had so far succeeded in his persuasions that a majority of the government were willing to consider the matterⒶapparatus note—provided that money could be obtained for that purpose, outside of China—this money to be raised upon the customs of the country and by bonding the railway or some such way. YungⒶapparatus note Wing believed that if General Grant would take charge of the matter hereⒶapparatus note and create the syndicateⒶapparatus note the money would be easily forthcoming. He also knew that General Grant was better and more favorably known in China than any other foreigner in the world and was aware that if his name were associated with the enterprise—the syndicate—it would inspire the Chinese government and people and give them the greatest possible sense of security. We found the GeneralⒶapparatus note cooped up in his room with a severe rheumatismⒶapparatus note resulting from a fall on the ice, which he had got some months before. He would not undertake a syndicate, because times were so hardⒶapparatus note hereⒶapparatus note that people would be loathⒶapparatus note to invest money soⒶapparatus note far away. Of course YungⒶapparatus note Wing’sⒶapparatus note proposal included a liberal compensation for General Grant for his trouble, but that was a thing that the General would not listen to for a moment. HeⒶapparatus note said that easier times would come by and bye,Ⓐapparatus note and that the money couldⒶapparatus note then be raised, no doubt,Ⓐapparatus note and that he would enter into it cheerfully and with zeal and carry it through to the very best of his ability,Ⓐapparatus note but he must do it without compensation. In no case would he consent to take any money for it. HereⒶapparatus note againⒶapparatus note he manifested the very strongest interestⒶapparatus note in China, an interest which I hadⒶapparatus note seen him evince on previous occasions. He said he had urged a system of railways on Li-Hung-Chang when he was in ChinaⒶapparatus note and he now felt so sure that such a system would be a great salvation for the countryⒶapparatus note and also the beginning of the country’s liberation from the Tartar rule and thraldomⒶapparatus note that he would be quite willing at a favorable time to do everything he could toward carrying out that projectⒶapparatus note without other compensation than the pleasure he would derive from being useful to China.
This reminds me of one other circumstance.
About 1879 or 1880, the Chinese pupils in HartfordⒶapparatus note and other New England townsⒶapparatus note had been ordered home by the Chinese governmentⒺexplanatory note. ThereⒶapparatus note were two parties in the Chinese government: one headed by Li-Hung-Chang, the progressive party, which was striving to introduce Western arts and education into China,Ⓐapparatus note and the other was opposed to all progressive measures. Li-Hung-Chang and the progressive party kept the upper hand for some timeⒶapparatus note andⒶapparatus note during this periodⒶapparatus note the government had sent one hundred or moreⒶapparatus note of the country’s choicest youth over here [begin page 73] to be educated. But nowⒶapparatus note the other party had got the upperⒶapparatus note hand and had ordered these young people home. At this time an old Chinaman named WongⒶapparatus note, non-progressionist, was the chief China MinisterⒺexplanatory note at Washington and YungⒶapparatus note Wing was his assistant. The order disbanding the schools was a great blow to YungⒶapparatus note Wing, who had spent many years in working for their establishment. This order came upon him with the suddenness of a thunder clap. He did not know which way to turn.
First, he got a petition signedⒶapparatus note by the Presidents of variousⒶapparatus note American colleges setting forth the great progress that the Chinese pupils had made and offering arguments to show why the pupils should be allowed to remain to finish their education. This paper was to be conveyed to the Chinese government through the Minister at Pekin. But YungⒶapparatus note Wing felt the need of a more powerful voice in the matter and General Grant occurred to him. He thought that if he could get GeneralⒶapparatus note Grant’s great name added to that petition that that alone would outweigh the signaturesⒶapparatus note of a thousand college professors. So the Rev. Mr. TwichellⒶapparatus note Ⓔexplanatory note and I went down to New York to see the General. I introduced Mr. Twichell,Ⓐapparatus note who had come with a careful speech for the occasionⒶapparatus note in which he intended to load the General with information concerning the Chinese pupils and the Chinese question generally. But he never got the chance to deliver it. The General took the word out of his mouth and talked straight ahead andⒶapparatus note easily revealed to TwichellⒶapparatus note the fact that the General was master of the whole matter and needed no information from anybodyⒶapparatus note and also the fact that he was brimful of interest in the matter. Now as alwaysⒶapparatus note the General was not only ready to do what we asked of him but a hundred times more. He said yes, he would sign that paper if desired,Ⓐapparatus note but he would do better than that: he would write a personal letter to Li-Hung-ChangⒶapparatus note and do it immediatelyⒺexplanatory note. So TwichellⒶapparatus note and I went down stairs into the lobby of the FifthⒶapparatus note Avenue Hotel, a crowd of waiting and anxious visitors sitting in the anteroom,Ⓐapparatus note andⒶapparatus note in the course of half an hourⒶapparatus note he sent for us againⒶapparatus note and put into our hands his letter to Li-Hung-ChangⒶapparatus note to be sent directly and without the intervention of the American MinisterⒶapparatus note or any one else. It was a clear, compactⒶapparatus note and admirably written statement of the case of the Chinese pupilsⒶapparatus note with some equally clear arguments to show that the breaking up of the schools would be a mistake. We shipped the letter and prepared to wait a couple of months to see what the result would be.
But we had not to wait so long. The moment the General’s letter reached China a telegram came back from the Chinese governmentⒶapparatus note which was almost a copyⒶapparatus note in detailⒶapparatus note of General Grant’s letter and theⒶapparatus note cablegram ended with the peremptory command to old Minister WongⒶapparatus note toⒶapparatus note continue the Chinese schoolsⒺexplanatory note.
It was a marvelousⒶapparatus note exhibition of the influence of a private citizen of one country over the counsels of an empire situated on the other side of the globe. Such an influence could have been wielded by no other citizen in the world outside of that empire—in fact the policyⒶapparatus note of the Imperial government had been reversedⒶapparatus note Ⓔexplanatory note from room 45,Ⓐapparatus note Fifth Avenue Hotel, New York,Ⓐapparatus note by a private citizen of the UnitedⒶapparatus note States.
Yung Wing, late Chinese Minister at Washington] Yung Wing (1828–1912) was raised in a peasant family in southern China and learned to read and write English at a missionary [begin page 478] school. He came to the United States with his teacher in 1847 and graduated from Yale College in 1854. In 1876 he was appointed minister to Washington jointly with Chin Lan Pin, a position he declined, agreeing instead to serve as Chin’s assistant minister (1878–81). Clemens became acquainted with Yung through their mutual friend the Reverend Joseph Twichell (Yung 1909, 1, 3, 7, 13, 19–21, 27, 41, 173, 180–90, 197–200; New York Times: “The Chinese Ambassadors,” 29 Sept 1878, 1; “China’s Backward Step,” 2 Sept 1881, 5; 21 Feb 1875 to Sprague and others, L6, 393 n. 3).
Li-Hung-Chang . . . military railroads in China] Li Hung Chang (1823–1901), viceroy of the Chinese capital province of Zhili from 1870 to 1896, was, as Clemens claimed, a progressive politician who promoted modernization of the army and the building of railroads. Clemens first approached Grant about the railroad project in early 1881. Twichell described the circumstances in a journal entry for 25–28 March of that year:
Yung Wing arrives from Washington full of business. The Chinese Gov. (so he is advised) is soon to embark in a great Rail Road enterprize, and he wants the United States to get in ahead of England and all the world in furnishing the men and the capital involved in carrying out the project. . . . Accordingly M. T. is called on for counsel and aid. He writes to Gen. G. at once. Answer comes promptly that he is on the point of setting out for Mexico, but will be sure to seize an opportunity to write en route to Li Hung Chang making recommendations in the line of Y. W’s ideas. (Twichell 1874–1916)
Neither Clemens’s letter nor Grant’s reply is known to survive. On 1 April Grant wrote to Clemens while en route to Mexico, enclosing the promised letter to Li:
If you will show this letter to Yung Wing, and he approves of it, and then forward it to Li Hung Chang, I will be much obliged to you.
I regret much not reading your letter when it was received. Had I done so I would have arranged for a meeting with you and friends no matter what I had to do. (CU-MARK)
In a second letter of the same day he added, “On my return to New York I will be very glad to meet you with Yung Wing, and any others you, or he, choose to bring, to talk on this subject” (CU-MARK). Clemens wrote to thank Grant on 22 April: “Your letter to the viceroy has gone at a fortunate time, for it will strengthen his hands at a needed season” (quoted in Dawson 1902). Clemens’s recollection that he and Yung called on Grant three years later to discuss the project, in early 1884, is confirmed by his remark below about Grant’s “fall on the ice,” an accident that occurred in December 1883 (Badeau 1887, 416).
Prince Kung] Prince Gong (1833–98), as he is now more commonly known, was head of China’s Grand Council. As the most prominent statesman in China during the 1860s and 1870s, he pursued an agenda of modernization and cooperation with Western countries. Clemens had evidently read a false newspaper report that the prince had committed suicide after the emperor deposed him, but he had only retired from public life (“Prince Kung,” Chicago Tribune, 2 May 1884, 5).
About 1879 or 1880, the Chinese pupils . . . had been ordered home by the [begin page 479] Chinese government] Yung’s life work was to promote the education of Chinese students in the United States. As a result of his efforts, in 1872 the Chinese government established the Chinese Educational Commission, which brought more than a hundred boys to Hartford for a program of studies intended to prepare them for government service in their native country. Yung was appointed co-commissioner with Chin Lan Pin. Both Chin and Woo Tsze Tun, who became co-commissioner in 1876, were conservatives who feared that the mission was a threat to traditional Chinese culture. According to Yung, Woo’s “malicious misrepresentations and other falsehoods” ultimately persuaded the Chinese government, with the consent of Viceroy Li, to take steps to abolish the program in late 1880 (Yung 1909, 200–210).
Wong, non-progressionist, was the chief China Minister] Although Clemens did not correctly recall Minister Chin’s name, he did accurately describe his role in bringing about the end of the Chinese Mission (Yung 1909, 203).
Rev. Mr. Twichell] Joseph H. Twichell (1838–1918), the son of a tanner, was born in Connecticut. He graduated from Yale in 1859, but his studies at Union Seminary were interrupted by Civil War service as chaplain of the Seventy-first New York Volunteers. In 1865 he completed his divinity studies at Andover Seminary and accepted the pastorate of Asylum Hill Congregational Church (Hartford, Connecticut), where he would remain for the rest of his career. The same year, he married Julia Harmony Cushman (1843–1910); they had nine children. He struck up a friendship with Clemens in 1868, which deepened when the Clemenses moved to the Hartford neighborhood of Nook Farm, where the Twichells also lived. Twichell preached a “muscular Christianity” more concerned with social progress than with doctrine, and was broad-minded enough to be Clemens’s confidant and adviser. He accompanied Clemens to Bermuda in 1877 and to Europe in 1878; in A Tramp Abroad he is the model for the character of Harris. He was one of Clemens’s closest friends, presiding at both his wedding and his funeral.
went down to New York to see the General . . . do it immediately] Twichell, who had befriended Yung and strongly endorsed his work, asked Clemens to enlist Grant’s support. The two men called on Grant in New York on 21 December 1880. Clemens wrote Howells, “Grant took in the whole situation in a jiffy, & before Joe had more than fairly got started, the old man said: ‘I’ll write the Viceroy a letter—a separate letter—& bring strong reasons to bear upon him’ ” (24 Dec 1880 to Howells, Letters 1876–1880 ).
General Grant’s letter . . . peremptory command to old Minister Wong to continue the Chinese schools] In March 1881 Clemens wrote to thank Grant for his intervention, announcing that the “Mission in Hartford is saved. The order to take the students home to China was revoked by the Viceroy three days ago—by cable. This cablegram mentions the receipt of your letter” (15 Mar 1881 to Grant, OKeU).
policy of the Imperial government had been reversed] Ultimately, the efforts of Grant and others to continue the mission were futile. By July 1881 it had been abolished and the students recalled to China (New York Times: “China’s Educational Mission,” 16 July 1881, 5; “China’s Backward Step,” 2 Sept 1881, 5).
Grant and the Chinese ❉ Textual Commentary
On the verso of the TS Redpath wrote, ‘Autobiography of Mark Twain | Grant, the Chinese Pupils and the Chinese Government’. There are markings on the TS in pencil; most were made by Redpath, but a few are in Paine’s hand. There are also corrections in purple pencil, which could have been made either by Redpath or by Clemens; since their source is uncertain, they have been identified with the label “TS-Redpath/SLC.”
Gerhardt
Gerhardt
1884. (September: at the farm at ElmiraⒺexplanatory note.)Ⓐapparatus note
Gerhardt arrived home from Paris,—leaving his wife and his little boy behind him. He had found living much more expensive at Paris than it had been in J. Q. A. Ward’s day. ConsequentlyⒶapparatus note Ward’s estimate of $3,000Ⓐapparatus note for five years had fallen woefully short. Gerhardt’sⒶapparatus note expenses for three years and a half had already amounted to $6,000Ⓐapparatus note. There was nothing for him to do—so he made a bust of meⒶapparatus note in the hope that it might bring him work. The times were very hardⒶapparatus note and he was not able to get anything to doⒺexplanatory note.Ⓐapparatus note
(October.)Ⓐapparatus note
About this time GerhardtⒶapparatus note heard that a competition was about ready to begin for a statue of Nathan Hale, the Revolutionary spy and patriotⒶapparatus note caught and hanged by the British. This statue had been voted by the Connecticut Legislature and the munificent price to be paid for it was $5,000Ⓐapparatus note. The speech which ex-Governor Hubbard had made in advocacy of the proposition was worth four times the sumⒺexplanatory note.
TheⒶapparatus note committee in whose hands the Legislature had placed the matter consisted of Mr.Ⓐapparatus note Coit, a railroad man, of New London,Ⓐapparatus note a modest, sensible, honorable, worthy gentleman, whoⒶapparatus note while wholly unacquainted with art and confessing it,Ⓐapparatus note was willing and anxious to do his duty in the matter. Another committeeman was an innocent ass by the name of Barnard,Ⓐapparatus note who knew nothing about art and in fact about nothing else, and if he had a mind was not able to make it up on any question. As for any sense of duty, that feature was totally lacking in him—he had no notion of it whatever. The third and last committeeman was the reigning Governor of the state, WallerⒺexplanatory note, a smooth-tongued liar and moral coward.
GerhardtⒶapparatus note designed and made a clay Nathan HaleⒶapparatus note and offered it for competition.
A salaried artistⒺexplanatory note of Mr. Batterson, a stone cutter, designed a figure and placed it in competition, and so also did Mr. Woods, an elderly man who was sexton of Mrs. Colt’s private church.
Woods had some talent but no genius and no instruction in art. The stone cutter’sⒶapparatus note man had the experience and the practice that comes from continually repeating the same forms on hideous tombstones—robust prize-fighting angels, mainly.
The figure and pedestal made by GerhardtⒶapparatus note were worthy of a less stingy price than the Legislature had offered,Ⓐapparatus note decenter companionship in the competitionⒶapparatus note andⒶapparatus note a cleaner and less stupid committee.
In the opinion of William C. PrimeⒺexplanatory note and Charles D. WarnerⒺexplanatory note, Gerhardt’sⒶapparatus note was a very fine work of art and these men would not have hesitated to awardⒶapparatus note the contract to him. The Governor looked at the three modelsⒶapparatus note and said thatⒶapparatus note as far as he could seeⒶapparatus note Gerhardt’sⒶapparatus note was altogether the preferable design. Mr. Coit said the same. But it was found impossible to get the aged BarnardⒶapparatus note to come to look at Gerhardt’sⒶapparatus note model. He offeredⒶapparatus note among other excusesⒶapparatus note that he didn’t like to give a statue to a man who still had his reputation to make—that the statue ought to be made by an artist of established reputation. WhenⒶapparatus note asked what artistⒶapparatus note of established reputationⒶapparatus note would make a statue for $5,000Ⓐapparatus note he was not able to reply. It was difficultⒶapparatus note for some timeⒶapparatus note to find out what the real reason was for this old man’s delay, but it finally came out that Mrs. Colt’s money and influence were at the bottom of it. Mrs. Colt was anxious to throw that statue into the hands [begin page 75] of her sextonⒶapparatus note in some way or other. She wrote a letter to the Governor, in which she argued the claims of her sexton, and it presently became quite manifest that the Governor found himself in an uncomfortable position, for the reason that he had characterized the sexton’s attempt as exceedingly poor and crude,Ⓐapparatus note and had also statedⒶapparatus note quite distinctlyⒶapparatus note that of the three models Gerhardt’sⒶapparatus note and was ready to vote in that way.
This incredible puppy actually described Gerhardt’sⒶapparatus note design to the sexton and advised him to make a new design for competition—which he did;Ⓐapparatus note and he used Gerhardt’sⒶapparatus note design in it! The Governor had no more sense than to tell GerhardtⒶapparatus note that he had done this thing. TakingⒶapparatus note the whole thing roundⒶapparatus note it has been the most comical competition for a statue the country has ever seen. It was soⒶapparatus note ludicrous and soⒶapparatus note paltry—in every way contemptibleⒶapparatus note—that I tried to get GerhardtⒶapparatus note to retire from the competition and make a groupⒶapparatus note for me to be called the Statue Committee to present portraits of these cattle and mousers over a clay image. I said I would write a history of the Nathan Hale committee to go with the statueⒶapparatus note and I believed he could put it in terra cotta and make some money out of it. But he did not wish to degrade his art in gratifying his personal spite and he declined to do it.Ⓐapparatus note
It is customaryⒶapparatus note everywhere else, I believe, for such a committee to specify what is the latest date for the offering of designsⒶapparatus note and also a date when a judgment on them shall be rendered,Ⓐapparatus note but this committee made no limit—at least in writing. Their policy evidently was to give Mrs. Colt’s sexton time enough to get up a satisfactory image—no matter how long that might take—Ⓐapparatus noteand then give him the contract.
Waller failed to be reelected Governor,Ⓐapparatus note but was appointed Consul-General to LondonⒶapparatus note and sailed on the 10thⒶapparatus note of MayⒶapparatus note with the Nathan Hale statue still undecided,Ⓐapparatus note although,Ⓐapparatus note as he had a personal favor to ask of a friend of Gerhardt’s,Ⓐapparatus note just before sailingⒶapparatus note he said “GrantⒶapparatus note me the favor and I will pledge my word that the Nathan Hale business shall be settled before I sail.”Ⓐapparatus note
GerhardtⒶapparatus note kept his clay image wet and waiting three or four monthsⒶapparatus note and then he let it crumble to piecesⒶapparatus note because theⒶapparatus note prospects of the design seemed to be as far away as everⒺexplanatory note.
at the farm at Elmira] From 1871 until 1889, the Clemens family spent their summers at Quarry Farm, the Elmira, New York, residence of Olivia’s sister and brother-in-law, Susan and Theodore Crane. Susy, Clara, and Jean were all born there. The property had been purchased in 1869 by Jervis Langdon, who bequeathed it to his daughter Susan. Named after an old slate quarry on the site, it was situated outside the city, on a hill overlooking the Chemung River. In 1874 Susan built an octagonal study on the hill above the house for Clemens to use as a writer’s retreat. There he worked on The Adventures of Tom Sawyer (1876), A Tramp Abroad (1880), The Prince and the Pauper (1881), Life on the Mississippi (1883), Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1885), and A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court (1889) (17 Mar 1871 to Bliss, L4, 366–67 n. 3; Cotton 1985, 59).
Gerhardt . . . not able to get anything to do] Clemens befriended Karl Gerhardt (1853–1940), a young self-taught sculptor and chief mechanic for a tool manufacturer in Hartford, in February 1881. His wife, Josephine (called “Hattie”), initiated the relationship by calling on Clemens and persuading him to visit her husband’s studio. Clemens, impressed by Gerhardt’s talent, sought the opinions of several artists, who endorsed his judgment: painter James Wells Champney (1843–1903), sculptor John Quincy Adams Ward (1830–1910), and sculptor Augustus Saint-Gaudens (see AD, 16 Jan 1906, note at 284.7–8). Clemens offered to loan Gerhardt $3,000 to study at the École des Beaux-Arts in Paris, an amount that Ward and others assumed would easily support the artist and his wife for five years. Gerhardt exhausted his stipend (and supplements) in less than four years and returned to the United States in the summer of 1884, leaving his wife in Paris with their infant daughter, Olivia (named in honor of Olivia Clemens; his “little boy,” Lawrence, was not yet born). Having failed to secure any work, he sculpted a clay bust of Clemens, and a plaster casting of it was photographed to provide a second frontispiece for Huckleberry Finn. In the late 1880s Gerhardt won a number of important commissions for memorial statues, but by the end of the decade work became scarce. In the mid-1890s he was briefly in partnership with architect Walter Sanford and was employed by a bicycle manufacturer. Sometime after Hattie died in 1897, he moved to New Orleans and lived in obscurity, doing some sculpting but chiefly tending bar and doing other odd jobs until his own death in 1940 (21 Feb 1881 to Howells [1st], NN-BGC, and 7 Aug 1884 to Howells, MH-H, in MTHL, 1:350–55, 2:497–98; “Art Notes,” New York Times, 6 Mar 1881, 8; letters to the Gerhardts: 30 Sept and 1 Oct 1882, MB; 26 Mar 1883, CLjC; 14–25 June 1883, CU-MARK; 1 Aug 1883, CtHMTH; HF 2003, xxvii, 374; AskART 2008e; see Schmidt 2009c).
The speech . . . was worth four times the sum] Richard D. Hubbard (1818–84) was a Yale graduate and lawyer who served as governor of Connecticut from 1877 to 1879. On 28 March 1883 he addressed the state legislature in Hartford proposing that a statue of Nathan Hale be commissioned for the exterior of the capitol building. A brief sample will explain Clemens’s sarcasm:
Nathan Hale perished more than a century ago, a bloody sacrifice on a bloody altar. . . . In the lonely watches of that prison night whose early dawn was to end his days—yes, in [begin page 481] that night’s thickest gloom and still more in that morning’s horror of great darkness that was to deliver his body from the power of hell, it pleased God—this also I dare affirm—it pleased God to come nigh unto his waiting servant; to uncurtain the future for a space of time, and to let down to his watching eyes a prophetic vision of his country’s coming independence. (“Connecticut’s Martyr Spy,” Hartford Courant, 29 Mar 1883, 1)
The committee . . . Mr. Coit . . . Barnard . . . Waller] Robert Coit (1830–1904), president of the New London Northern Railroad Company since 1881, served as a Connecticut state senator from 1880 to 1883 (“Robert Coit Dead,” Hartford Courant, 20 June 1904, 1; Biographical Review 1898, 276–77). Henry Barnard (1811–1900) was an educator and editor who devoted his career to the improvement of public schools and held a number of government positions. He acquired a reputation, however, as an inept administrator who failed to complete his obligations. He was appointed to the committee to replace Hubbard, who died in February 1884. Thomas M. Waller (1840–1924) practiced law and entered politics in 1867, serving as a state legislator, secretary of state, mayor of New London, and governor from 1883 to 1885.
A salaried artist . . . Mrs. Colt’s private church] The “salaried artist” has not been identified. James G. Batterson (1823–1901), a prominent Hartford businessman and founder of the Travelers Insurance Company, was the president of the New England Granite Works, which specialized in producing “artistic memorials” in granite, marble, and bronze. Enoch S. Woods, a sculptor with a studio in Hartford, was the sexton of the Church of the Good Shepherd. This Episcopal church had been built in 1866 by Elizabeth Jarvis Colt (1826–1905), the widow of Samuel Colt (the founder of Colt’s Patent Fire-Arms Manufacturing Company), as a memorial to her late husband and the three children she had lost in infancy (Geer 1886, 42, 207, 245, 297, 521). Woods created a model of Hale “as he had prepared himself for the hangman’s rope, standing bare-headed and with his hands pinioned” (“A Sculptor’s Model of Nathan Hale,” Hartford Courant, 12 July 1883, 2).
William C. Prime] Clemens had satirized Tent Life in the Holy Land (1857), an idealized travel narrative by journalist and author William C. Prime (1825–1905), in chapters 46 and 48 of The Innocents Abroad—calling him “Grimes”—and in 1908 still considered him a “gushing pietist” (AD, 31 Oct 1908). In late 1885 and early 1886, however, Clemens was negotiating with Prime for the right to publish McClellan’s Own Story, a work that Prime edited on behalf of General George B. McClellan’s widow. The book was issued in 1887 by Webster and Company (31 Jan 1886 to Prime, DLC; N&J3, 218).
Charles D. Warner] Charles Dudley Warner (1829–1900), an essayist, travel writer, and editor of the Hartford Courant, was a central figure in the Hartford Nook Farm community. With Clemens he coauthored The Gilded Age (1873–74), a satirical novel that lent its name to the materialism and political corruption in American society after the Civil War. Warner had met Gerhardt at the same time as Clemens and continued to take an interest in his career (link note following 20–22 Dec 1872 to Twichell, L5, 259–60; 21 Feb 1881 to Howells [1st], NN-BGC, in MTHL, 1:350–55; 5 Apr 1884 to the Gerhardts, CtHMTH).
the prospects . . . seemed to be as far away as ever] In December the committee— [begin page 482] which by then consisted of Coit, Barnard, and Governor Henry B. Harrison (Waller’s successor)—at last awarded the contract to Gerhardt. Olin L. Warner, a sculptor who had studied with the same Paris mentor as Gerhardt (François Jouffroy), persuaded the committee that his sketch was superior to the full-sized model that Woods submitted. A year later Gerhardt’s clay model, a figure of “heroic size . . . standing with his arms partly outstretched,” was approved, and was cast in bronze. Both Clemens and Gerhardt attended the unveiling ceremony in June 1887; the Reverend Joseph Twichell gave the invocation, and Charles Dudley Warner (a new committee member) made the presentation address (Hartford Courant: “The Nathan Hale Statue,” 22 Dec 1885, 2; 22 Dec 1886, 1; “The Hale Statue Unveiled,” 15 June 1887, 5; “The Hale Statue,” 15 June 1887, 1).
Gerhardt ❉ Textual Commentary
On the verso of the TS Redpath wrote, ‘Autobiography of Mark Twain | Gebhart’. There are markings on the TS in pencil; most were made by Redpath, but a few are in Paine’s hand. Paine corrected the spelling of Gerhardt’s name throughout. Clemens made no corrections or revisions.
About General Grant’s Memoirs
About General Grant’s Memoirs
1885.Ⓐapparatus note (Spring.)
I want to set down somewhat of a history of General Grant’s memoirsⒺexplanatory note.
By way of preface I will make a remark or two indirectly connected therewith.
During the Garfield campaign General Grant threw the whole weight of his influence and endeavor toward the triumph of the Republican PartyⒺexplanatory note. He made a progress through many of the states, chiefly the doubtful ones, and this progress was a daily and nightly ovation as long as it lasted. He was received everywhere by prodigious multitudes of enthusiastic people andⒶapparatus note to strain the facts a littleⒶapparatus note one might almost tell what part of the country the General was inⒶapparatus note for the momentⒶapparatus note by the red reflections on the sky caused by the torch processions and fireworksⒶapparatus note.
He was to visit HartfordⒶapparatus note from BostonⒶapparatus note and I was one of the committee sent to Boston to bring him down here. I was also appointed to introduce him to the Hartford people when the population and the soldiers should pass in review before him. On our way from Boston in the [begin page 76] palace carⒶapparatus note I fell to talking with Grant’s eldest son, Colonel Fred GrantⒺexplanatory note,Ⓐapparatus note whom I knew very well, and it gradually came out that the General,Ⓐapparatus note so far from being a rich man, as was commonly supposed, had not even income enough to enable him to live as respectablyⒶapparatus note as a third-rateⒶapparatus note physician.
Colonel Grant told me that the General left the White HouseⒶapparatus note at the end of his second termⒶapparatus note a poor man, and I think he said he was in debt but I am not positively sure. (Said he was in debt $45,000, at the end of one of his terms.)Ⓐapparatus note Friends had given the General a couple of dwelling houses but he was not able to keep themⒶapparatus note or live inⒶapparatus note either of themⒺexplanatory note. This was all so shameful and such a reproach to Congress that I proposed to take the General’s straitenedⒶapparatus note circumstances as my text in introducing him to the people of Hartford.
I knew that if this nation, which was rising up daily to do its chief citizen unparalleled honor,Ⓐapparatus note had it in its powerⒶapparatus note by its voteⒶapparatus note to decide the matter, that it would turn his poverty into immeasurable wealth, in an instant. Therefore, the reproach lay not with the people but with their political representatives in Congress and my speech could be no insult to the people.
I clove to my plan, and, in introducing the General, I referredⒶapparatus note to the dignities and emoluments lavished upon the Duke of Wellington by England and contrasted with that conduct our far finer and higher method towardⒶapparatus note the savior of our country: to wit—the simple carrying him in our hearts without burdening him with anything to live on.
In his reply, the General, of course, said that this country had more than sufficiently rewarded him and that he was well satisfiedⒺexplanatory note.
He could not have said anything else, necessarily.
A few months laterⒶapparatus note I could not have made such a speech, forⒶapparatus note by that timeⒶapparatus note certain wealthy citizens had privately made up a purse of a quarter ofⒶapparatus note a million dollars for the General, and had invested it in such a way that he could not be deprived of it either by his own want of wisdom or the rascality of other peopleⒺexplanatory note.
Later still, the firm of Grant and Ward, brokers and stock-dealers,Ⓐapparatus note was established at number 2, Wall street, New York City.
This firm consisted of General Grant’s sons and a brisk young man by the name of Ferdinand Ward. The General was alsoⒶapparatus note in some wayⒶapparatus note a partner,Ⓐapparatus note but did not take any active part in the business of the houseⒺexplanatory note.
In a little time the business had grown to such proportions that it was apparently not only profitable but it was prodigiously so.
The truth was, however, that Ward was robbing all the Grants and everybodyⒶapparatus note else that he could get his hands onⒶapparatus note and the firm was not making a penny.
The General was unsuspicious, and supposed that he was making a vast deal of money, whereasⒶapparatus note indeedⒶapparatus note he was simply losing such as he had, for Ward was getting it.
About the 5th of May,Ⓐapparatus note I think it was, 1884, the crash cameⒶapparatus note and the several Grant families found themselves absolutely pennilessⒺexplanatory note Ⓐapparatus note.
Ward had even captured the interest due on the quarter of aⒶapparatus note million dollars of the Grant fund,Ⓐapparatus note which interest had fallen due only a day or two before the failure.
General Grant told me that that month,Ⓐapparatus note for the first time in his life, Ⓐapparatus note he had paid his domestic billsⒶapparatus note with checks. They cameⒶapparatus note back upon his hands dishonored. He told me that Ward had spared [begin page 77] no one connected with the Grant nameⒶapparatus note however remote—that he had taken all that the General could scrape together and $45,000 that the General had borrowed on his wife’s dwelling house in New York;Ⓐapparatus note that he had taken $65,000—the sum for which Mrs.Ⓐapparatus note Grant had sold, recently, one of the houses which had been presented to the General;Ⓐapparatus note that he had taken $7,000Ⓐapparatus note, which some poverty-stricken nieces of hisⒶapparatus note in the WestⒶapparatus note had recently received by bequest,Ⓐapparatus note and which was all the money they had in the world—that, in a word, Ward had utterly stripped everybody connected with the Grant familyⒺexplanatory note.
It was necessary that something be immediately done toward getting bread.
The bill to restore to General Grant the title and emoluments of a full General in the army, on the retired list, had been lagging for a long time in Congress—in the characteristic, contemptible and stingy congressional fashion. No relief was to be looked for from that source, mainly because Congress chose to avenge on General Grant the veto of the Fitz-John Porter Bill by President ArthurⒺexplanatory note.
The editors of the Century MagazineⒶapparatus note some months beforeⒶapparatus note conceived the excellent idea of getting the surviving heroes of the late Civil War, on both sides, to write out their personal reminiscences of the war and publish themⒶapparatus note nowⒶapparatus note in the magazine. But the happy project had come to grief, for the reason thatⒶapparatus note some ofⒶapparatus note these heroes were quite willing to write out these things only under oneⒶapparatus note conditionⒶapparatus note that they insisted on as essential.Ⓐapparatus note They refused to write a line unless the leading actor of the war should also write.Ⓔ Ⓐapparatus note All persuasions and arguments failed on General Grant. He would not write;Ⓐapparatus note so, the scheme fell through.
Now, however, the complexion of things had changed and GeneralⒶapparatus note Grant was without bread. [Not figurative, but actual.]Ⓐapparatus note
The Century people went to him once more and now he assented eagerly. A great series of war articles was immediately advertised by the Century publishers.
I knew nothing of all this, although I had been a number of times to the General’s houseⒶapparatus note to pass half an hourⒶapparatus note talking and smoking a cigar.
However,Ⓐapparatus note I was reading one nightⒶapparatus note in Chickering HallⒶapparatus note early in November, 1884, and as my wife and I were leaving the building we stumbled over Mr.Ⓐapparatus note GilderⒶapparatus note, the editor of the Century, and went home with him to a late supper at his house. We were there an hour or two andⒶapparatus note in the course of the conversationⒶapparatus note Gilder said that General Grant had written three war articles for the Century and was going to write a fourthⒺexplanatory note. I pricked up my ears. Gilder went on to describe how eagerly General Grant had entertained the proposition to write when it had last been put to himⒶapparatus note and how poor he evidently wasⒶapparatus note and how eager to make some trifle of bread and butter moneyⒶapparatus note and how the handing him a check for $500Ⓐapparatus note for the first article had manifestly gladdened his heart and lifted from it a mighty burden.
The thing which astounded me was,Ⓐapparatus note that, admirable man as Gilder certainly is,Ⓐapparatus note and with a heart which is in the right place, it had never seemed to occur to him that to offer General Grant $500Ⓐapparatus note for a magazine article was not onlyⒶapparatus note the monumental insult of the nineteenth century,Ⓐapparatus note but of all centuries. He ought to have known thatⒶapparatus note if he had given General Grant a check for $10,000Ⓐapparatus note the sum would still have been trivial;Ⓐapparatus note that if he had paid him $20,000Ⓐapparatus note for [begin page 78] a single article the sum would still have been inadequate;Ⓐapparatus note that if he had paid him $30,000Ⓐapparatus note for a single magazine warⒶapparatus note article it still could not be called paid for;Ⓐapparatus note that if he had given him $40,000Ⓐapparatus note for a single magazine article he would still be in General Grant’s debt. Gilder went on to say that it had been impossible, months before, to get General Grant to write a single line, but that now that he had once got started it was going to be as impossible to stop him again;Ⓐapparatus note that, in fact, General Grant had set out deliberatelyⒶapparatus note to write his memoirs in fullⒶapparatus note and to publish them in book form.
I went straight to General Grant’s house next morning and told him what I had heard. He said it was all true.
I said I had foreseen a fortune in such a book when I had tried in 1881Ⓐapparatus note to get him to write it;Ⓐapparatus note that the fortune was just as sure to fall now. I asked him who was to publish the book, and he said doubtless the Century Company.
I asked him if the contract had been drawn and signed?
He said it had been drawn in the rough but not signed yet.
I said I had had a long and painful experience in book making and publishing and that if there would be no impropriety in hisⒶapparatus note showing me the rough contract I believed I might be useful to him.
He said there was no objection whatever to my seeing the contract,Ⓐapparatus note since it had proceeded no further than a mere consideration of its detailsⒶapparatus note without promises given or received on either side. He added that he supposed that the Century offer was fair and right and that he hadⒶapparatus note been expecting to accept it and conclude the bargain or contract.Ⓐapparatus note
He read the rough draft aloudⒶapparatus note and I didn’t know whether to cry or laugh.
Whenever a publisher in the tradeⒶapparatus note thinks enough of the chances of an unknown author’s book to print itⒶapparatus note and put itⒶapparatus note on the market,Ⓐapparatus note he is willing to risk paying the man 10Ⓐapparatus note per cent royaltyⒶapparatus note and that is what he does pay him. He can well venture that much of a royalty but he cannot well venture any more. If that book shall sell 3,000 or 4,000Ⓐapparatus note copies there is no loss on any ordinary book, and both parties have made something;Ⓐapparatus note but whenever the sale shall reach 10,000 copies the publisher is getting the lion’s share of the profits and would continue to get the lion’s share as long thereafter as the book should continue to sell.
When such a book is sure to sell 35,000 copies an author ought to get 15 per cent: that is to say,Ⓐapparatus note one-half of the netⒶapparatus note profit. When a book is sure to sell 80,000Ⓐapparatus note or more, he ought to get 20 per cent royalty: that is, two-thirds of the total profits.
Now, here was a book that was morally bound to sell several hundred thousand copies in the first year of its publication and yet the Century people had had the hardihood to offer General Grant the very same 10Ⓐapparatus note per cent royalty which they would have offered to any unknown Comanche Indian whose book they had reason to believe might sell 3,000 or 4,000 or 5,000Ⓐapparatus note copies.
If I had not been acquainted with the Century people I should have said that this was a deliberate attempt to take advantage of a man’s ignorance and trusting nature,Ⓐapparatus note to rob him;Ⓐapparatus note but I do know the Century people and therefore I know that they had no such base intentions as these but were simply making their offer out of their boundless resources of ignorance and stupidity. They were anxious to do book publishing as well as magazine publishing,Ⓐapparatus note and had tried one book already,Ⓐapparatus note but owing to their inexperience had made a failure of it. So, I suppose [begin page 79] they were anxious, and had made an offer which in the General’s instance commended itself asⒶapparatus note reasonable and safe,Ⓐapparatus note showing that they were lamentably ignorant and that they utterly failed to rise to the size of theⒶapparatus note occasion. This was sufficiently shown in the remark of the head of that firm to me a few months later: a remark which I shall refer to and quote in its proper place.
I told General Grant that the Century offer was simply absurd and should not be considered for an instant.
I forgot to mention that the rough draft made two propositions—one at 10Ⓐapparatus note per cent royaltyⒶapparatus note and the other the offer of half the profits on the bookⒶapparatus note after subtracting every sort of expense connected with itⒶapparatus note, including office rent, clerk hire, advertisingⒶapparatus note and EVERYTHING ELSEⒶapparatus note, a most complicated arrangement and one which no business-like author would accept in preference to a 10Ⓐapparatus note per cent royalty. They manifestly regarded 10 per cent and half profits as the same thing—which shows that these innocent geese expected the book to sell only 12,000 or 15,000 copies.Ⓐapparatus note
I told the General that I could tell him exactly what he ought to receive: that, if he accepted a royalty,Ⓐapparatus note it ought to be 20Ⓐapparatus note per cent on the retail price of the book, orⒶapparatus note if he preferred the partnership policyⒶapparatus note then he ought to have 70Ⓐapparatus note per cent of the profits on each volumeⒶapparatus note over and above the mere cost of makingⒶapparatus note that volume. I said thatⒶapparatus note if he would place these terms before the Century peopleⒶapparatus note they would accept them;Ⓐapparatus note but, if they were afraid to accept them,Ⓐapparatus note he would simply need to offer them to any great publishing house in the countryⒶapparatus note and not one would decline them. If any should decline them let meⒶapparatus note have the book. I was publishing my own book,Ⓐapparatus note under the business name of Charles L. Webster & Co., I being the company,Ⓐapparatus note (andⒶapparatus note Webster being my business man,Ⓐapparatus note on a salary,Ⓐapparatus note with a one-tenth interestⒺexplanatory note,)Ⓐapparatus note and I had what I believed to be much the best-equippedⒶapparatus note subscription establishment in the country.
I wanted the General’s bookⒶapparatus note and I wanted it very much,Ⓐapparatus note but I had very little expectation of getting it. I supposed that he would lay these new propositions before the Century people, that they would accept immediately, and that there the matter would end,Ⓐapparatus note for the General evidently felt under great obligations to the Century people for saving him from the grip of poverty by paying him $1,500Ⓐapparatus note for three magazine articles which were well worth $100,000;Ⓐapparatus note and he seemed wholly unable to free himself from this sense of obligation, whereasⒶapparatus note to my mindⒶapparatus note he ought rather to have considered the Century people under very high obligations to him,Ⓐapparatus note not only for making them a present of $100,000,Ⓐapparatus note but for procuring for them a great and desirable series of war articles from the other heroes of the warⒶapparatus note which they could never have got their hands on if he had declined to write. (According to Gilder.)Ⓐapparatus note
I now went away on a long western tour on the platform,Ⓐapparatus note but Webster continued to call at the General’s house and watch the progress of events.
Colonel Fred Grant was strongly opposed to letting the Century people have the book and wasⒶapparatus note at the same timeⒶapparatus note as strongly in favor of my having it.
The General’s first magazine article had immediately added 50,000 names to their list of subscribers and thereby established the fact that the Century people would still have been the gainers if they had paid General Grant $50,000 for the articles—for the reason that they could expect to keep the most of these subscribers for several yearsⒶapparatus note andⒶapparatus note consequentlyⒶapparatus note get a profit out of them in the end of $100,000 at least.
[begin page 80] Besides this increased circulation, the number of the Century’s advertising pages at onceⒶapparatus note doubled—a huge addition to the magazine’s cash income inⒶapparatus note itself. (An addition of $25,000 a month as I estimate it from what I have paid them for one-fifth of a page for six months [$1,800].)Ⓐapparatus note
The Century people had eventually added to the original check of $1,500Ⓐapparatus note a check for $1,000Ⓐapparatus note after perceiving that they were going to make a fortune out of the first of the three articles.
This seemed a fine liberality to General Grant,Ⓐapparatus note who is the most simple-hearted of all men;Ⓐapparatus note butⒶapparatus note to meⒶapparatus note it seemed merely another exhibition of incomparable nonsense,Ⓐapparatus note as the added check ought to have been for $30,000 instead of $1,000.Ⓐapparatus note Colonel Fred Grant looked upon the matter just as I did, and had determined to keep the book out of the CenturyⒶapparatus note people’s hands if possible. This action merely confirmed and hardened him in his purpose.Ⓐapparatus note
While I was in the West, propositions from publishers came to General Grant daily, and these propositions had a common form—to wit: “OnlyⒶapparatus note tell us what your best offer is and we stand ready to make a better one.”Ⓐapparatus note
The Century people were willing to accept the terms which I had proposed to the General but they offered nothing better. The American Publishing Company of Hartford offered the General 70Ⓐapparatus note per cent of the profits but would make it more if required.
These things began to have their effect. The General began to perceiveⒶapparatus note from these various viewsⒶapparatus note that he had narrowly escaped making a very bad bargain for his bookⒶapparatus note and now he began to incline toward meⒶapparatus note for the reason, no doubt,Ⓐapparatus note that I had been the accidental cause of stopping that bad bargain.
He called in George W. ChildsⒺexplanatory note of Philadelphia and laid the whole matter before him and asked his advice. Mr. Childs said to me afterwards that it was plain to be seen that the General, on the score of friendship,Ⓐapparatus note was so distinctly inclined toward me that the advice which would please him best would be the advice toⒶapparatus note turn the book over to me.
He advised the General to send competent people to examine into my capacity to properly publish the book and into the capacity of the other competitors for the book. (This was done at my own suggestion—Fred Grant was present.) And ifⒶapparatus note they found that my house was as well equippedⒶapparatus note in all ways as the others,Ⓐapparatus note that he give the book to me.
The General sent persons selected by a couple of great law firms (Clarence Seward’s was oneⒺexplanatory note,)Ⓐapparatus note to make examinations,Ⓐapparatus note and Colonel Fred Grant made similar examinations for himself personally.
The verdict in these several cases was that my establishment was as competent to make a success of the book asⒶapparatus note was that of any of the firms competing.
The result was that the contract was drawn and the book was placed in my handsⒺexplanatory note.
In the course of one of my business talks with General Grant he asked me if I felt sure I could sell 25,000 copies of his book and he asked the question in such a way that I suspected that the Century people had intimated that that was about the number of the booksⒶapparatus note that they thoughtⒶapparatus note ought to sell. [See Roswell Smith’s remarkⒺexplanatory note, later on.]Ⓐapparatus note
I replied that the best way for a man to express an opinion in such a case was to put it in money—therefore, I would make this offer: if he would give me the book I would advance him the sum of $25,000 on each volume the moment the manuscript was placed in my hands, and [begin page 81] if I never got the $50,000 back again, out of the future copyrights due, I would never ask him to return any part of the money to me.
The suggestion seemed to distressⒶapparatus note him. He said he could notⒶapparatus note think of taking in advance any sum of money large or small which the publisher would not be absolutely sureⒶapparatus note of getting back again. Some time afterwards when the contract was being drawn and the question was whether it should be 20Ⓐapparatus note per cent royalty or 70Ⓐapparatus note per cent of the profits,Ⓐapparatus note he inquired which of the two propositions would be the best all roundⒶapparatus note. I sent WebsterⒶapparatus note to tell him that the 20Ⓐapparatus note per cent royalty would be the best for him, for the reason that it was the surest, the simplest, the easiest to keep track of, and, better still, would pay him a trifle more, no doubt,Ⓐapparatus note than with the other plan.
He thought the matter over and then said in substance that by the 20Ⓐapparatus note per cent plan heⒶapparatus note would be sure to make,Ⓐapparatus note while the publisher might possibly lose: therefore, he would not have the royalty plan, but the 70-per-cent-profit plan;Ⓐapparatus note since if there were profits he could not thenⒶapparatus note get them all but the publisher would be sure to get 30 per cent of it.
This was just likeⒶapparatus note General Grant. It was absolutely impossible for him to entertain for aⒶapparatus note moment any proposition which might prosper him at the risk of any other man.
After the contract had been drawn and signed I remembered I had offered to advance the General some money and that he had said he might possibly need $10,000 before the book issued. The circumstance had been forgotten and was not in the contract but I had the luck to remember it before leaving town;Ⓐapparatus note so I went back and told Colonel Fred Grant to draw upon Webster for the $10,000Ⓐapparatus note whenever it should be wanted.
That was the only thing forgotten in the contract and it was now rectified and everything wasⒶapparatus note smooth.
And now I come to a circumstance which I have never spoken of and which cannot be known for many years to come,Ⓐapparatus note for this paragraph must not be published until the mention of so private a matter cannot offend any living person.
The contract was drawn by the great law firm of Alexander & GreenⒶapparatus note on my partⒶapparatus note and Clarence Seward, son of Mr. Lincoln’s Secretary of State, on the part of General Grant.
Appended to the contract was a transfer of the book to GeneralⒶapparatus note Grant’s wife,Ⓐapparatus note and the transfer from her to my firm for the consideration of $1,000Ⓐapparatus note in hand paid.
This was to prevent the General’s creditors from seizing the proceeds of the book.
Webster had said yesⒶapparatus note when the sum named was $1,000Ⓐapparatus note andⒶapparatus note after he had signed the contract and was leaving the law officeⒶapparatus note he mentioned incidentallyⒶapparatus note that the $1,000Ⓐapparatus note was of course a mere formality in such a paperⒶapparatus note andⒶapparatus note means nothing. But Mr. Seward took him privately asideⒶapparatus note and said “NoⒶapparatus note, it means just what it says— for the General’s family have not a penny in the house and they are waiting at this moment with lively anxiety for that small sum of money.”Ⓐapparatus note
Webster was astonished. He drew a check at once and Mr. Seward gave it to a messenger boy, and told him to take it swiftly—by the speediest route—to General Grant’s house, and not let the grass grow under his feet.
It was a shameful thing that the man who had saved this country and its government from destruction should still be in a position where so small a sum—so trivial an amount—as $1,000Ⓐapparatus note, could be looked upon as a godsendⒶapparatus note. Everybody knew that the General was in reduced circumstances, [begin page 82] but what a storm would have gone up all over the land if the people could have known that his poverty had reached such a point as this.
The newspapers all over the land had been lauding the princely generosity of the Century people in paying General Grant the goodly sum of $1,500Ⓐapparatus note for three magazine articles, whereasⒶapparatus note if they had paid him the amount which was his just due for them he would still have been able to keep his carriage and not have been worrying about $1,000Ⓐapparatus note. Neither the newspapers nor the public were probably aware that fifty-fiveⒶapparatus note years earlier the publishers of an annual in London had offered little Tom MooreⒺexplanatory note twice $1,500Ⓐapparatus note for two Ⓐapparatus note articles and had told him to make them long or short and to write about whatever he pleased. The difference between the financial value of any article written by Tom Moore in his best day and a war Ⓐapparatus note article written by General Grant in these days was about as one to fifty.
To go back a while. After being a month or two in the West, during the winter of 1884–5, I returned to the East, reaching New York about the 20th of February.
No agreement had at that time been reached as to the contract,Ⓐapparatus note but I called at General Grant’s house simply to inquire after his health,Ⓐapparatus note for I had seen reports in the newspapers that he had been sick and confined to his house for some time.
The last time I had been at his house he told me that he had stopped smokingⒶapparatus note because of the trouble in his throat,Ⓐapparatus note which the physicians had said would be quickest cured in that way. But while I was in the West the newspapers had reported that this throat affection was believed to be in the nature of a cancer. However, on the morning of my arrival in New YorkⒶapparatus note the newspapers had reported that the physicians had said that the General was a great deal better than he had been and was getting along very comfortably. So, when I called, at the house, I went up to the General’s roomⒶapparatus note and shook handsⒶapparatus note and said I was very glad he was so much better and so well along on the road to perfect health again.
He smiled and said “If it were only true.”
Of course I was both surprisedⒶapparatus note and discomfitedⒶapparatus note and asked his physician, Dr. Douglas, if the General were in truth not progressing as well as I had supposed. He intimated that the reports were rather rose-colored and that this affection was no doubt a cancer.
I am an excessive smokerⒶapparatus note and I said to the General that some of the rest of us must take warning by his case, but Dr. DouglasⒺexplanatory note spoke up and said that this result must not be attributed altogether to smoking. He said it was probable that it had its originⒶapparatus note in excessive smoking,Ⓐapparatus note but that that was not the certain reason of its manifesting itself at this time: that more than likely the real reason was the General’s distress of mind and year-long depression of spirit, arising from the failure of the Grant and Ward firm.
This remark started the General at once to talkingⒶapparatus note and I found thenⒶapparatus note and afterwards thatⒶapparatus note when he did not care to talk about any other subject,Ⓐapparatus note he was always ready and willing to talk about that one.
He told what I have before related about the robberies perpetrated upon himⒶapparatus note and upon all the Grant connectionⒶapparatus note by this man Ward,Ⓐapparatus note whom he had so thoroughly trusted,Ⓐapparatus note but he never uttered a phrase concerning Ward which an outraged adult might not have uttered concerning an offending child.Ⓐapparatus note He spokeⒶapparatus note as a man speaks who has been deeply wronged and humiliated and betrayed;Ⓐapparatus note but he never used a venomous expression or one of a vengeful nature.Ⓐapparatus note
[begin page 83] As for myself I was inwardly boiling all the time: I was scalping Ward, flaying him alive, breaking him on the wheel, pounding him to jelly, and cursing him with all the profanity known to the one languageⒶapparatus note that I am acquainted with, and helping it outⒶapparatus note in times of difficulty and distressⒶapparatus note with odds and ends of profanity drawn from the two other languages of which I have a limitedⒶapparatus note knowledge.
He told his story with deep feeling in his voice,Ⓐapparatus note but with no betrayal upon his countenance of what was going on in his heart. He could depend upon that countenance of his in all emergencies. It always stood by him. ItⒶapparatus note never betrayed him.
July 1st or 2d, 1885, (at Mount McGregorⒺexplanatory note,) about three weeks before the General’s death, Buck Grant and I sat talking an hour to each other across the General’s lap—just to keep him company—he had only to listen. The news had just come that that Marine Bank man (Ward’s pal—what was that scoundrel’s name?) had been sent up for ten yearsⒺexplanatory note. Buck Grant said the bitterest things about him he could frame his tongue to; I was about as bitter myself. The General listened for some time, then reached for his pad and pencil and wrote “He was not as bad as the other”—meaning Ward. It was his only comment. Even his writing looked gentle.Ⓐapparatus note
While he was talking, Colonel Grant said:
“Father is letting you see that the Grant family are a pack of fools, Mr. Clemens!”
The General combatted that statement. He saidⒶapparatus note in substanceⒶapparatus note that facts could be produced which would show that when Ward laid siege to a man that man would turn out to be a fool too—as much of a fool as any Grant: that all men were fools if the being successfully beguiled by Ward was proofⒶapparatus note by itselfⒶapparatus note that the man was a fool. He began to present instances. He said, (in effect,) that nobody would call the President of the Erie RailroadⒺexplanatory note a fool,Ⓐapparatus note yet Ward beguiled him to the extent of $800,000: robbed him of every cent of it. He mentioned another man who could not be called a fool,Ⓐapparatus note yet Ward had beguiled that man out of more than half a million dollars and had given him nothing in return for it. He instancedⒶapparatus note a man with a name something like Fisher, though that was not the name, whom he said nobody could call a fool: on the contrary,Ⓐapparatus note a man who had made himself very rich by being sharper and smarter than other people and whoⒶapparatus note always prided himself upon his smartnessⒶapparatus note and uponⒶapparatus note the fact that he could not be fooled, he could not be deceived by anybody;Ⓐapparatus note but what did Ward do in his case? He fooled him into buying a portion of a mine belonging to ex-Senator ChaffeeⒺexplanatory note—a property which was not for sale, which Ward could produce no authority for selling—yet he got out of thatⒶapparatus note man $300,000Ⓐapparatus note in cash, without the passage of a single piece of paperⒶapparatus note or a line of writing, to show that the sale had been made. This man came to the office of Grant and Ward every day for a good whileⒶapparatus note and talked with Ward about the prospects of that rich mine, andⒶapparatus note it wasⒶapparatus note very rich,Ⓐapparatus note and these two would pass directly by Mr. Chaffee and go into the next room and talk. You would think that a man of his reputation for shrewdness would at some time or other have concluded to ask Mr. ChaffeeⒶapparatus note a question or two;Ⓐapparatus note but, no: Ward had told this man that Chaffee did not want to be known in the transaction at all,Ⓐapparatus note that he must seem to be at Grant and Ward’s office on other business,Ⓐapparatus note and that he must not venture to speak to Chaffee or the whole business would be spoiled.
ThereⒶapparatus note was a man who prided himself on being a smart business man and yet Ward robbed him of $300,000 without giving him a scrap of anything to show that the transaction had [begin page 84] taken placeⒶapparatus note and to-day that man is not among the prosecutors of Ward at all for the reason perhapsⒶapparatus note that he would rather lose all of that money than have the fact get out that he was deceived in so childish a way.
General Grant mentioned another man who was very wealthy, whomⒶapparatus note no one would venture to call a fool, either business-wise or otherwise, yet this man came into the office one day and said “Ward, here is my check for $50,000Ⓐapparatus note, I have no use for it at present, I am going to make a flying trip to Europe;Ⓐapparatus note turn it over for me, see what you can do with it.” Some time afterwards I was in the office when this gentleman returned from his trip and presented himself. He asked Ward if he had accomplished anything with that money? Ward said “Just wait a moment,” went to his books, turned over a page, mumbled to himself a few moments, drew a check for $250,000, handed it to this man with the air of a person who had really accomplished nothing worth talking of! The man stared at the check a moment, handed it back to Ward, and said “ThatⒶapparatus note is plenty good enough for me, set that hen again,”Ⓐapparatus note and he went out of the place. It was the last he ever saw of any of that money.
I had been discovering fools all along when the General was talking,Ⓐapparatus note but this instance brought me to my senses. I put myself in this fellow’sⒶapparatus note place and confessed that if I had been in that fellow’s clothes it was a hundred to one that I would have done the very thing that he had done, and I was thoroughly well aware that,Ⓐapparatus note at any rate,Ⓐapparatus note there was not a preacher nor a widowⒶapparatus note in Christendom who would not have done it: for these people are always seeking investments that pay illegitimately large sums;Ⓐapparatus note and they never, or seldom,Ⓐapparatus note stop to inquire into the nature of the business.
When I was ready to go, Colonel Fred Grant went down stairs with me, and stunned me by telling me confidentiallyⒶapparatus note that the physicians were trying to keep his father’s real condition from him, but that in fact they considered him to be under sentence of death and that he would not be likely to liveⒶapparatus note more than a fortnight or three weeks longer.
This was about the 21st of February, 1885.Ⓐapparatus note
AfterⒶapparatus note the 21st of FebruaryⒶapparatus note General Grant busied himself dailyⒶapparatus note as much as his strength would allowⒶapparatus note in revising the manuscript of his book. It was read to him by Colonel GrantⒶapparatus note very carefullyⒶapparatus note and he made the corrections as he went along. He was losing valuable time because only one-halfⒶapparatus note or two-thirds of the second and last volume was as yet written. However,Ⓐapparatus note he was more anxious that what was written should be absolutely correctⒶapparatus note than that the book should be finished in an incorrect formⒶapparatus note and then find himself unable to correct it. His memory was superbⒶapparatus note and nearly any other man with such a memory would have been satisfied to trust it. Not so the General. No matter how sure he was of the fact or the date,Ⓐapparatus note he would never let it go until he had verified it with the official records. This constant and painstaking searching of the recordsⒶapparatus note cost a great deal of time,Ⓐapparatus note but it was not wasted. Everything stated as a fact in General Grant’s book may be accepted with entire confidence as being thoroughly trustworthy.
Speaking of his memory, what a wonderful machine it was! He told me one day that he never made a report of the battles of the Wilderness until they were all over, and he was back in Washington. Then he sat down and made a full report from memory andⒶapparatus note when it was finished,Ⓐapparatus note examined the reports of his subordinatesⒶapparatus note and found that he had made hardly an error. To be exact, he said he had made two errors.Ⓐapparatus note
[begin page 85] This is his statement as I remember it, though my memory is not absolutely trustworthy and I may be overstating it.
(These and other statements of mine to be laid before Colonel FredⒶapparatus note Grant for verification.)
The General lost some moreⒶapparatus note time in one other way. Three Century articles had been written and paid for, but he had during the summer before promised to write a fourth one. He had written it in a rough draft but it had remained unfinished.
The Century people had advertised these articles and were now fearful that the General would never be able to complete them. By this time the General’s condition had got abroad and the newspapers were full of reports about his perilous condition. The Century people called several times to get the fourth articleⒶapparatus note and this hurt and offended ColonelⒶapparatus note Fred GrantⒶapparatus note because he knew that they were aware, as was all the world, that his father was considered to be in a dying condition. ColonelⒶapparatus note Grant thought that they ought to show more consideration—more humanity. By fits and startsⒶapparatus note the General worked at that article whenever his failing strength would permit himⒶapparatus note and was determined to finish itⒶapparatus note if possibleⒶapparatus note because his promise had been given and he would in no way depart from it while any slight possibility remained of fulfilling itⒶapparatus note. I asked if there was no contract or no understanding as to what was to be paid by the Century people for the article. He said there was not. Then, I said, “ChargeⒶapparatus note them $20,000 for it. It is well worth it—worth double the money. Charge them this sum for it in its unfinished condition and let them have itⒶapparatus note and tell them that it will be worth still more in case the General shall be able to complete it. This may modify their ardor somewhatⒶapparatus note and bring you a rest.”Ⓐapparatus note He was not willing to put so large a price upon it but thought that if he gave it to them he might require them to pay $5,000Ⓐapparatus note. It was plain that the modesty of the family in money matters was indestructibleⒶapparatus note.
Just about this time I was talking to General BadeauⒶapparatus note there one dayⒶapparatus note Ⓔexplanatory note when I saw a pile of type-writer manuscript on the table and picked up the first page and began to read it. I saw that it was an account of the siege of Vicksburg. I counted a page and there were about three hundred words on the page: 18,000Ⓐapparatus note or 20,000 words altogether.
General BadeauⒶapparatus note said it was one of the three articles written by General Grant for the Century.
I said, “Then they have no sort of right to require the fourth article, for there is matter enough in this one to make two or three ordinary magazine articles.”Ⓐapparatus note The copy of this and the other two articles were at this moment in the Century’s safe;Ⓐapparatus note the fourth article agreement was therefore most amply fulfilled alreadyⒶapparatus note without an additional article: yet the Century people considered that the contract would not be fulfilled without the fourth article and so insisted upon having it. At the ordinary price paid me forⒶapparatus note Century articles, this Vicksburg article, if I had written it, would have been worth about $700. Therefore, the Century people had paid General Grant no more than they would have paid me,Ⓐapparatus note and this includingⒶapparatus note the $1,000Ⓐapparatus note gratuity which they had given him.
It is impossible to overestimate the enormity of this gouge. If the Century people knew anything at all;Ⓐapparatus note if they were not steepedⒶapparatus note to the marrow in ignorance and stupidity, they knew that a single page of General Grant’s manuscript was worth more than a hundred of mine. But they were steeped to such a degree in ignorance and stupidity. They were honest, honorable [begin page 86] and good-hearted people according to their lights, and if anybody could have made them see that it was shameful to take such an advantage of a dying soldier,Ⓐapparatus note they would have rectified the wrong. But all the eloquence that I was able to pour out upon them went for nothing, utterly for nothing. They still thought that they had been quite generous to the General and were not able to see the matter in any other light.
Afterwards, at Mt. McGregor they consented to give up half of the Vicksburg article; and they did; they gave up more than half of it—cut it from twenty-two galleys down to nine, and only the nine will appear in the magazine. And they added $2,500 to the $2,500 already paid. Those people could learn to be as fair and liberal as anybody, if they had the right schooling.Ⓐapparatus note
I will make a diversion here, and get back upon my track again laterⒺexplanatory note.Ⓐapparatus note
While I was away with G. W. Cable, giving public readingsⒺexplanatory note in the theatres, lecture halls, skating rinks, jailsⒶapparatus note and churches of the country, the travel was necessarily fatiguing and thereforeⒶapparatus note I ceased from writing letters excepting to my wife and children. This foretaste of heaven, this relief from the fretⒶapparatus note of letter-answering,Ⓐapparatus note was delightful,Ⓐapparatus note but it finally left me in the dark concerning things which I ought to have beenⒶapparatus note acquainted with at the moment.
Among these the affairs of Karl Gerhardt, the young artist, should be mentioned.
I had started out on this reading pilgrimage the day after the Presidential electionⒺexplanatory note: that is to say,Ⓐapparatus note I had started on the 5thⒶapparatus note of November and had visited my home only once between that time and the 2dⒶapparatus note of March following.
During all these four monthsⒶapparatus note GerhardtⒶapparatus note had been waiting for the verdict of that dilatory committee, and had taken it out in waiting: that is to say,Ⓐapparatus note he had sat stillⒶapparatus note and done nothing to earn his bread. He had been tirelessly diligent in asking forⒶapparatus note work in the line of his artⒶapparatus note, and had used all possible means in that direction: he had written letters to every man he could hear of who was likely to need a mortuary monument for himselfⒶapparatus note, or his friendsⒶapparatus note, or acquaintancesⒶapparatus note, and had also applied for theⒶapparatus note chance of a competition for a soldiers’ monument—for all things of this sort—but always without success;Ⓐapparatus note the natural result,Ⓐapparatus note as his name was not known. He had no reputation.
When I closed my reading campaign at Washington, the last day of February, I came home and found theⒶapparatus note state of things which I have just spoken of. Gerhardt had waited four longⒶapparatus note months on that committee which would have needed four centuries in which to make up its mind, and I was thoroughly provoked. I told him that he ought to have had more pride than to permit me to support him and his family during all that time with no assistance from his idle hands. He said that he had wanted to work and had felt the humiliation of the state of things as much as any one could, but that he had been afraid of the effect which it might haveⒶapparatus note if it became known that this artistⒶapparatus note who was applying for statues and monumentsⒶapparatus note was not to be found in a studio but in some one’s workshop. I said I thought the argument had not a leg to stand on,Ⓐapparatus note that he ought to have made it his business to find something to do: that he ought to have been shovelingⒶapparatus note snow, sawing wood, all these four months, and that the revelation that he had been so engaged would have been a credit to him in anybody’s eyes whose respect was worth anything. It was hard to have to talk to him so plainly, but it was manifest that mere [begin page 87] hints were valueless when leveledⒶapparatus note at him: I had tried them before. He said he would find some work to do immediately.
He came back the next day and said he had got work at Pratt & Whitney’s shop and could go on corresponding with people about statues without interfering with that work.
It seemed to me that Gerhardt compactlyⒶapparatus note filled JamesⒶapparatus note Redpath’s definition of an artist:Ⓐapparatus note “A man who has a sense of beauty and no sense of duty.”
Once, J. Q. A. Ward, in speaking of his early struggles to get a status as a sculptor, had told me that he had made his beginning by hanging around the studios of sculptors of reputeⒶapparatus note and picking up odd jobs of journey work in them,Ⓐapparatus note for the sake of the breadⒶapparatus note he could gain in that way. I had turned this suggestion over to Gerhardt,Ⓐapparatus note but his replyⒶapparatus note from ParisⒶapparatus note had been an almost indignant scouting of the idea, as being a thing which noⒶapparatus note true artist couldⒶapparatus note bring himself to doⒺexplanatory note;Ⓐapparatus note and I saw by that that Gerhardt was a true artist because he was manifestlyⒶapparatus note determined not to do it.
I may as well say hereⒶapparatus note and be done with itⒶapparatus note that my connection with Gerhardt had very little sentiment in it, from my side of the house,Ⓐapparatus note and no romance. I took hold of his case, in the first place, solely because I had become convinced that he had it in him to become a very capable sculptor. I was not adopting a child, I was not adding a member to the family, I was merely taking upon myself a common duty—the duty of helping a man who was not able to help himself. I never expected him to be grateful, I never expected him to be thankful—my experience of men had long ago taught me that one of the surest ways of begetting an enemy was to do some stranger an act of kindness which should lay upon him the irritating sense of an obligation. Therefore my connection with Gerhardt had nothing sentimental or romantic about it. I told him in the first place that if the time should ever come when he could pay back to me the money expended upon himⒶapparatus note and pay it without inconvenience to himself, I should expect itⒶapparatus note at his hands, and thatⒶapparatus note when it wasⒶapparatus note paidⒶapparatus note I should consider the account entirely requited—sentiment and all: that thatⒶapparatus note act would leave him freeⒶapparatus note from any obligation to me. It was wellⒶapparatus note all roundⒶapparatus note that things had taken that shape in the beginningⒶapparatus note and had kept it,Ⓐapparatus note for, if the foundation had been sentiment,Ⓐapparatus note that sentiment would have grown sour when I saw that he did not want to work for a livingⒶapparatus note in outside waysⒶapparatus note when art had no livingⒶapparatus note to offer. It had saved me from applyingⒶapparatus note in his caseⒶapparatus note a maxim of mineⒶapparatus note thatⒶapparatus note whenever a man preferred being fed by any other man to starving in independence he ought to be shot.
One evening Gerhardt appeared in the library and I hoped he had come to say he was getting along very well at the machine shop and was contented;Ⓐapparatus note so I was disappointed when he said he had come to show me a small bust he had been making, in clay, of General Grant, from a photograph. I was the more irritated for the reason that I had never seen a portrait of General Grant—Ⓐapparatus notein oil, water-colors, crayon, steel, wood, photograph, plaster,Ⓐapparatus note marble or any other material,—Ⓐapparatus notethat was to me at all satisfactory; and, therefore,Ⓐapparatus note I could not expect that a person who had never even seen the General could accomplish anything worth considering in the way of a likeness of him.
However, when he uncovered the bust my prejudices vanished at once. TheⒶapparatus note thing was not correct in its details, yet it seemed to me to be a closer approach to a good likeness of General Grant than any one which I had ever seen before. Before uncovering itⒶapparatus note Gerhardt had said [begin page 88] he had brought it in the hope that I would show it to some member of the General’s family, and get that memberⒶapparatus note to point out its chief defectsⒶapparatus note for correction;Ⓐapparatus note but I had repliedⒶapparatus note that I could not venture to do that,Ⓐapparatus note for there was a plenty ofⒶapparatus note people to pester these folks without me adding myself to the number. But a glance at the bust had changed all thatⒶapparatus note in an instant. I said I would go to New York in the morning and askⒶapparatus note the family to look at the bust and that he must come along to be within call in case they took enough interest in the matter to point outⒶapparatus note the defects.
We reached the General’s house at one o’clock the next afternoon, and I left GerhardtⒶapparatus note and the bust below and went up stairs to see the familyⒺexplanatory note.
And now, for the first time, the thought came into myⒶapparatus note mind, that perhapsⒶapparatus note I was doing a foolish thing,Ⓐapparatus note that the family must of necessity have been pestered with such matters as this so many times that the very mention of such a thing must be nauseating to them. However,Ⓐapparatus note I had started and so I might as well finish. ThereforeⒶapparatus note I said I hadⒶapparatus note a young artist down stairs who hadⒶapparatus note been making a small bust of the General from a photographⒶapparatus note and IⒶapparatus note wished they would look at it, if they were willing to do me that kindness.
Jesse Grant’s wifeⒺexplanatory note spoke up with eagerness and said “IsⒶapparatus note it the artist who made theⒶapparatus note bust of you that is in Huckleberry Finn?”Ⓐapparatus note I said, yes.Ⓐapparatus note She saidⒶapparatus note with great animation, “How good it was of you, Mr. Clemens, to think of that!” She expressed this lively gratitude to me in various ways until I began to feel somehow a great sense of merit in having originated this noble idea of having a bust of GeneralⒶapparatus note Grant made by so excellent an artist. I will notⒶapparatus note do my sagacity the discredit of saying that I did anythingⒶapparatus note to remove or modify this impression that I had originated the idea and carried it out to its present state through my own ingenuity and diligence.
Mrs. Jesse Grant added, “HowⒶapparatus note strange it is;Ⓐapparatus note only two nights ago I dreamed that I was looking at your bust in Huckleberry FinnⒶapparatus note and thinking how nearly perfect it was,Ⓐapparatus note and then I thought that I conceived the idea of going to you and asking you if you could not hunt up that artist and get him to make a bust of father!”Ⓐapparatus note
Things were going on very handsomely!
The persons present were Colonel FredⒶapparatus note Grant, Mrs.Ⓐapparatus note Jesse Grant, and Dr. DouglasⒶapparatus note.
I went down for Gerhardt and he brought up the bust and uncovered it. All of the family present exclaimed over the excellence of the likeness, and Mrs.Ⓐapparatus note Jesse Grant expended some more unearned gratitude upon me.
The family began to discuss the detailsⒶapparatus note and then checked themselves and begged Gerhardt’sⒶapparatus note pardon for criticising. Of courseⒶapparatus note he said that their criticisms were exactly what he wantedⒶapparatus note and begged them to go on. The General’s wife said thatⒶapparatus note in that caseⒶapparatus note they would be glad to point out what seemed to them inaccuracies,Ⓐapparatus note but that he must not take their speeches as being criticisms upon his art at all. They found two inaccuracies:Ⓐapparatus note in the shape of the nose andⒶapparatus note theⒶapparatus note shape of the forehead. All were agreed that the forehead was wrong, but there was a livelyⒶapparatus note dispute about the nose. Some of those present contended that the nose was nearly right—the others contended that it was distinctly wrong. The General’s wife knelt on the ottoman to get a clearer view of the bustⒶapparatus note and theⒶapparatus note others stood about her—all talking at once. FinallyⒶapparatus note the General’s wife said, hesitatingly, with the mienⒶapparatus note of one who is afraid he is taking a liberty andⒶapparatus note asking too much—“If Mr.Ⓐapparatus note Gerhardt could see the General’s nose and foreheadⒶapparatus note himself,Ⓐapparatus note that would dispose [begin page 89] of this dispute at once”;Ⓐapparatus note finally, “TheⒶapparatus note General is in the next room—would Mr. Gerhardt mind going in there and making the correction himself?”
Things were indeed progressing handsomely!
Of course, Mr. Gerhardt lost no time in expressing his willingness.
While the controversy was going on concerning the nose and the forehead, Mrs. Fred GrantⒺexplanatory note joined the group, and then presentlyⒶapparatus note each of the three ladiesⒶapparatus note in turnⒶapparatus note disappeared for a few minutesⒶapparatus note and came back with a handful of photographs and hand-painted miniaturesⒶapparatus note of the General.
These pictures had been made in every quarter of the world. One of them had been painted in Japan. But, good as many of these pictures wereⒶapparatus note they were worthless as evidenceⒶapparatus note for the reason that they contradicted each other in every detail.Ⓐapparatus note
The photograph apparatus had lied as distinctly and as persistently as hadⒶapparatus note the hands of the miniature-artistsⒶapparatus note. No two noses were alike and no two foreheads were alike.
We steppedⒶapparatus note into the General’s room—all but GeneralⒶapparatus note Badeau and Dr. DouglasⒶapparatus note.
The General was stretched out in a reclining chair with his feet supported upon an ordinary chair.Ⓐapparatus note He was muffled up in dressing gowns and afghans withⒶapparatus note his black woolen skull-capⒶapparatus note on his head.
The ladies took the skull-capⒶapparatus note offⒶapparatus note and began to discuss his noseⒶapparatus note and his foreheadⒶapparatus note and they made him turn this wayⒶapparatus note and that wayⒶapparatus note and the other wayⒶapparatus note to get different views and profiles of his features. He took it all patiently and made no complaint. He allowed them to pullⒶapparatus note and haul him aboutⒶapparatus note in their own affectionateⒶapparatus note fashionⒶapparatus note without aⒶapparatus note murmur. Mrs. Fred Grant, who is very beautiful and of the most gentle and loving character, was very active in this serviceⒶapparatus note and very deftⒶapparatus note with her graceful handsⒶapparatus note in arrangingⒶapparatus note and re-arranging the General’s head for inspectionⒶapparatus note and repeatedly called attention to the handsome shape of his head—a thing which reminds me that Gerhardt had picked up an old plug hat of the General’s down stairsⒶapparatus note and had remarked upon the perfect ovalⒶapparatus note shape of the inside of it, this oval being so uniform that the wearer of the hat could never be able to knowⒶapparatus note by the feel of itⒶapparatus note whether he had it right-endⒶapparatus note in frontⒶapparatus note or wrong-endⒶapparatus note in front, whereasⒶapparatus note the average man’s head is broadⒶapparatus note at one end and narrow at the other.
The General’s wife placed him in various positions, none of which satisfied her, and finallyⒶapparatus note she went to him and said—“Ulyss! Ulyss! Can’t you put your feet to the floor?” He did so at once and straightened himself up.Ⓐapparatus note
During all this time, the General’s face wore a pleasant, contentedⒶapparatus note and, I should say, benignant aspect,Ⓐapparatus note but he never opened his lips once. As had often been the case before, soⒶapparatus note now, his silence gave ample room to guess at what was passing in his mind—and to take it out in guessing. I will remark, in passing, that the General’s hands were very thin, and they showed, far more than did his face, how his long siege of confinement and illness and insufficient foodⒶapparatus note had wasted him. He was at this time sufferingⒶapparatus note great and increasing pain from the cancer at the root of his tongue,Ⓐapparatus note but thereⒶapparatus note was nothing ever discoverable in the expression of his face to betray this factⒶapparatus note as long as he was awake. When asleepⒶapparatus note his face would take advantage of him and make revelations.
At the end of fifteen minutesⒶapparatus note Gerhardt said he believed he could correct the defects now. So, we went back to the other room.
[begin page 90] Gerhardt went to work on the clay image, everybody standing round, observing and discussing with the greatest interest.
Presently,Ⓐapparatus note the General astonished us by appearing there, clad in his wraps, and supporting himselfⒶapparatus note in a somewhat unsureⒶapparatus note way upon a cane. He sat down on the sofa and said he could sit thereⒶapparatus note if it would be for the advantage of the artist.
But his wife would not allow that. She said that he might catch cold. She was for hurrying him back at once to his invalid chair. He succumbed,Ⓐapparatus note and started back,Ⓐapparatus note but at the doorⒶapparatus note he turned and said:
“Then can’t Mr. Gerhardt bring the clay in here and work?”
This was several hundred times better fortune than GerhardtⒶapparatus note could have dreamed of. He removed his work toⒶapparatus note the General’s roomⒶapparatus note at once. The General stretched himself out in his chair,Ⓐapparatus note but said thatⒶapparatus note if that position would not do,Ⓐapparatus note he would sit up. Gerhardt said it would do very well,Ⓐapparatus note indeed;Ⓐapparatus note especially if it were more comfortable to the sitterⒶapparatus note than any other would be.
The General watched Gerhardt’sⒶapparatus note swift and noiseless fingers for some time with manifestⒶapparatus note interest inⒶapparatus note his face,Ⓐapparatus note and no doubtⒶapparatus note this novelty was a valuable thing to one who had spent so many weeks that were tedious with sameness and unemphasized with change or diversion. By and bye, one eyelid began to droop occasionally;Ⓐapparatus note then everybody stepped out of the room excepting GerhardtⒶapparatus note and myselfⒶapparatus note and I moved to the rearⒶapparatus note where I would be out of sight and not be a disturbing element.
Harrison, the General’s old colored body-servantⒺexplanatory note,Ⓐapparatus note came in presentlyⒶapparatus note and remained a while watching Gerhardt, and then broke outⒶapparatus note with great zeal and decision:Ⓐapparatus note
“That’s the General! Yes, sir! That’s the General! Mind! I tell you! That’s the General!”
Then he went away, and the place became absolutely silent.
Within a few minutes afterwards theⒶapparatus note General was sleeping, and for two hours he continued to sleep tranquilly, the serenity of his face disturbed only at intervals by a passing wave of pain. It was the first sleepⒶapparatus note he had had for several weeks uninduced by narcotics.
To my mind this bust, completedⒶapparatus note at this sitting,Ⓐapparatus note has in it more of General Grant than can be found in any other likeness of him thatⒶapparatus note has ever been made since he was a famous man. I thinkⒶapparatus note it may rightly be called the best portrait of GeneralⒶapparatus note Grant that is in existenceⒺexplanatory note. It has also a feature which must always be a remembrancerⒶapparatus note to this nation of what the General was passing through during the long weeks of that spring. For, into the clay image went the pain which heⒶapparatus note was enduring but which did not appear in his faceⒶapparatus note when he was awake. Consequently, the bust has about itⒶapparatus note a suggestion of patient and brave and manly suffering which is infinitely touching.
At the end of two hours GeneralⒶapparatus note Badeau entered abruptly and spoke to the General and this woke him up. But for this animal’sⒶapparatus note interruptionⒶapparatus note heⒶapparatus note might have slept as much longerⒶapparatus note possibly.
GerhardtⒶapparatus note worked on as long as it was light enough to workⒶapparatus note and then he went away. HeⒶapparatus note was to come again,Ⓐapparatus note and did come the following day;Ⓐapparatus note but, at the last moment,Ⓐapparatus note Colonel FredⒶapparatus note Grant would not permit another sitting. He said that the face was so nearly perfect that he was afraid to allow it to be touched again, lest some of the excellence might be refinedⒶapparatus note out of it, instead of adding more excellenceⒶapparatus note to it. He called attention to an oil painting on the wall down stairs [begin page 91] and asked if we knew that man. We couldn’t name him—had never seen his face before. “Well,” said ColonelⒶapparatus note Grant, “that was a perfect portrait of my father once: it was given up by all the family to be the best that had ever been made of him. We were entirely satisfied with it, but the artist, unhappily, was not: he wanted toⒶapparatus note do a stroke or two to make it absolutelyⒶapparatus note perfectⒶapparatus note and he insisted on taking it back with him. After he had made those finishing touches it didn’t resemble my father or any one else. We took it,Ⓐapparatus note and have always kept it as a curiosity. But with that lesson behind us we will save this bust from a similar fate.”
He allowed Gerhardt to work at the hair, however: he said he might expend as much of his talent on that as he pleased but must stop there.
Gerhardt finished the hair to his satisfaction but never touched the face again. ColonelⒶapparatus note Grant required Gerhardt to promise that he would take every pains with the clay bustⒶapparatus note and then return it to himⒶapparatus note to keepⒶapparatus note as soon as he had taken a mould from it. This was done.
Gerhardt prepared the clay as well as he could for permanent preservation and gave it to ColonelⒶapparatus note Grant.
Up to the present day, May 22, 1885, no later likeness of GeneralⒶapparatus note GrantⒶapparatus note of any kindⒶapparatus note has been made from lifeⒶapparatus note and if this shall chance to remain the last ever made of him from life, coming generations can properly be gratefulⒶapparatus note that one so nearly perfect of him was made after the world learned his nameⒺexplanatory note.Ⓐapparatus note
Grant’s Memoirs
1885. (Spring.)Ⓐapparatus note
Some time after the contract for General Grant’s book was completed, I found that nothing but a verbal understanding existed between General Grant and the Century Company giving General Grant permission to use his Century articles in his book. There is a law of custom which gives an author the privilege of using his magazine articleⒶapparatus note in any way he pleasesⒶapparatus note after it shall have appeared in the magazine,Ⓐapparatus note and this law of custom is so well established that an author never expects to have any difficulty about getting a magazine copyright transferred to himⒶapparatus note whenever he shall ask for itⒶapparatus note with the purpose in view of putting it in a book. ButⒶapparatus note in the present caseⒶapparatus note I was afraid that the Century Company might fall back upon their legal rights and ignore the law of custom, in which case we should be debarred from using General Grant’s Century articles in his book—an awkward state of things, because he was now too sick a man to re-write them. It was necessary that something should be done in this matter, and done at once.
Mr. Seward, General Grant’s lawyer, was a good deal disturbed when he found that there was no writing. But I was not. I believed that the Century people could be relied upon to carry out any verbal agreement which they had made. The only thing I feared was that their idea of the verbal agreementⒶapparatus note and General Grant’s idea of itⒶapparatus note might not coincide. So I went back to the General’s house and got Colonel FredⒶapparatus note Grant to write down what he understood the verbal agreement to beⒶapparatus note and this piece of writing he read to General Grant, who said it was correctⒶapparatus note and then signed itⒶapparatus note with his own hand: a feeble and trembling signature, but recognizable as his.
Then I sentⒶapparatus note for Webster,Ⓐapparatus note and our lawyer,Ⓐapparatus note and we three went to the Century office,Ⓐapparatus note where [begin page 92] we found Roswell Smith, (the head man of the company,)Ⓐapparatus note and several of the editors. I stated my case plainly and simplyⒶapparatus note and found that their understandingⒶapparatus note and General Grant’sⒶapparatus note were identical;Ⓐapparatus note so, the difficulty was at an end at once, and we proceeded to draw a writing to cover the thingⒺexplanatory note.
When the business was finished, or, perhaps, in the course of it, I made another interesting discovery.
I was already aware that the Century people were going to bring outⒶapparatus note all their war articles in book formⒶapparatus note eventually, General Grant’s among the number;Ⓐapparatus note butⒶapparatus note as I knew what a small price had been paid to the General for his articlesⒶapparatus note I had a vague general notion that he would receive a further payment for the use of them in their book,Ⓐapparatus note a remuneration which an author customarily receivesⒶapparatus note in our dayⒶapparatus note by another unwritten law of custom. But when I spoke of this, to my astonishment they told me that they had bought and paid for every one of these war articles with the distinct understanding that that first payment was the last. In confirmation of this amazing circumstance, they brought out a receipt which General Grant had signed, and therein it distinctly appeared that each $500 not only paid for the use of the article printed in the magazine but also in the subsequent book!Ⓐapparatus note
One thing was quite clear to me: if we consider the value of those articles to that book, we must grant that the General was paid very much less than nothing at all for their issue in the magazine.
This was altogether the sharpest trade I have ever heard of, in any line of business, horse tradingⒶapparatus note included.
The Century people didn’t blush and thereforeⒶapparatus note it is plain that they considered the transaction fair and legitimate;Ⓐapparatus note and I believe myself that they had no idea that they were doing an unfair thing. It was easily demonstrable that they were buying ten-dollarⒶapparatus note gold pieces from General Grant at twenty-fiveⒶapparatus note cents apieceⒶapparatus note, and I think it was as easily demonstrable that they did not know that there was anything unfair about it.
During our talkⒶapparatus note RoswellⒶapparatus note Smith said to me, with the glad air of a man who has stuck a nailⒶapparatus note in his foot, “I’m glad you’ve got the General’s book, Mr. Clemens, and glad there was somebody with courage enough to take itⒶapparatus note, under the circumstances. What do you think the General wanted to require of me?” “What?” “He wanted me to insure a sale of 25,000 sets of his book. I wouldn’t risk such a guarantee on any book that ever was published.”Ⓐapparatus note This is the remark I have already several times referred to. I’ve got Smith’s exact languageⒺexplanatory note; (from my note-book); it proves that they thought 10 per cent royalty would actually represent half profits on General Grant’s book! Imagine it.Ⓐapparatus note
I did not say anything,Ⓐapparatus note but I thought a good deal. This was one more evidence that the Century people had no more just idea of the value of the book than as many children might be expected to have. At this present writing (May 25, 1885) we have not advertised General Grant’s book in any way: we have not spent a dollar in advertising of any kind;Ⓐapparatus note we have not even given notice by circulars or otherwise that we are ready to receive applications from book agents,Ⓐapparatus note and yetⒶapparatus note to-dayⒶapparatus note we have bona fide orders for 100,000 sets of the book—that is to say,Ⓐapparatus note 200,000 single volumes,Ⓐapparatus note and these orders are from men who haveⒶapparatus note bonded themselves to take and pay for them, and who have also laid before us the most trustworthy evidence that they [begin page 93] are financially able to carry out their contracts. The territory which these men have taken is only about one-fourthⒶapparatus note of the area of the Northern states. We have also under consideration applications for 50,000 sets moreⒶapparatus note andⒶapparatus note although we have confidence in the energy and ability of the men who have made these applications,Ⓐapparatus note we have not closed with them becauseⒶapparatus note as yetⒶapparatus note we are not sufficiently satisfied as toⒶapparatus note their financial strength. [Sept. 10; 250,000 sets (500,000 single copies,) have been sold, to date—and only half the ground canvassed.]Ⓐapparatus note
When it became known that the General’s book had fallen into my hands, the New York World and a Boston paper, (I think the Herald)Ⓔexplanatory note came out at once with the news;Ⓐapparatus note and,Ⓐapparatus note in both instances,Ⓐapparatus note the position was taken that,Ⓐapparatus note by some sort of superior under-handed smartness,Ⓐapparatus note I had taken an unfair advantage of the confiding simplicity of the Century people,Ⓐapparatus note and got the book away from themⒺexplanatory note—a book which they had the right to consider their property,Ⓐapparatus note inasmuch as the terms of its publication had been mutually agreed upon,Ⓐapparatus note and the contract covering it was on the point of being signed by General Grant when I put in my meddling appearance.
None of the statements of these two papers was correct,Ⓐapparatus note but the Boston paper’s account was considered to be necessarily correct, for the reason that it was furnished by the sister of Mr. GilderⒺexplanatory note, editor of the Century. So, there was considerable newspaper talk about my improper methods,Ⓐapparatus note but nobody seemed to have wit enough to discover that if one gouger had Ⓐapparatus note captured the General’s book,Ⓐapparatus note here was evidence that he had only prevented another gouger from getting it, since the Century’s terms were distinctly mentioned in the Boston paper’s account as being 10 per cent royalty Ⓐapparatus note. No party observed that,Ⓐapparatus note and nobody commented upon it. It was taken for granted all round that General GrantⒶapparatus note would have signed that 10Ⓐapparatus note per cent contract without being grossly cheated.
It is my settled policy to allow newspapers to make as many misstatements about me or my affairs as they like;Ⓐapparatus note thereforeⒶapparatus note I had no mind to contradict either of these newspapersⒶapparatus note or explain my side of the case in any way. But a reporter came to our house at Hartford fromⒶapparatus note one of the editors of the CourantⒶapparatus note to ask me for my side of the matter for use in the Associated Press dispatches. I dictated a short paragraph in which I said that the statement made in the World that there was aⒶapparatus note coolness between the Century Company and General Grant,Ⓐapparatus note and thatⒶapparatus note in consequence of itⒶapparatus note the Century would not publish any more articles by GeneralⒶapparatus note Grant, notwithstanding the fact that they had advertised them far and wide,Ⓐapparatus note was not true. I said there was no coolness and no ground for coolness;Ⓐapparatus note that the contract for the book had been open for all competitors;Ⓐapparatus note that I had put in my application and had asked the General to state its terms to the other applicants in order that he might thereby be enabled to get the best terms possible;Ⓐapparatus note that I had got the book eventually,Ⓐapparatus note but by no underhandⒶapparatus note or unfair method. The statementⒶapparatus note I made was concise and briefⒶapparatus note and contained nothing offensive. It was sent over the wires to the Associated Press headquartersⒶapparatus note in New York, but it was not issuedⒶapparatus note by that concern. It did not appear in print. I inquiredⒶapparatus note why, and was told thatⒶapparatus note although it was a piece of news of quite universal interest,Ⓐapparatus note it was also more or less of an advertisement for the book—a thing I had not thought of before. I was also told that if I had had a friend round about the Associated Press office, I could have had that thing published all over the country for a reasonable bribe. I wondered if that were true. I wondered if so great and important a concern dealt in that sort of thing.
[begin page 94] I presently got something in the way of a confirmation in New York.Ⓐapparatus note A few days afterwards, I found that our lawyers, Alexander &Ⓐapparatus note Green, and also Mr. Webster, had been disturbed by the World’s statement of this matterⒶapparatus note and had thought a correction ought to be made through the press of the country. They had imagined that the Associated Press, havingⒶapparatus note for its sole business the collection of valuable news for newspapers,Ⓐapparatus note would be very glad to have a statement of the facts in this case. Therefore, they called on an employee of that concern and put into his hands a brief statement of the affair. He read it over, hesitated, said it was certainly a matter of great public interest but that he couldn’t see any way to make the statement without its being also a pretty good advertisement for General Grant’s book, and for my publishing firm;Ⓐapparatus note but he said if we would pay $500 he would send it over the wires to every newspaper in the country connected with that institution.
This pleasant offer was declined. But the proposition seemed to explain to me a thing which had often puzzled me. That was the frequent appearanceⒶapparatus note among the Associated Press dispatchesⒶapparatus note of prodigious puffs of speculative schemes. One, in particular, was a new electric light company of Boston. During a number of weeks there had been almost daily a wildly extravagant puff of this company’s prosperous conditionⒺexplanatory note in the Associated Press dispatches of the Hartford papers. TheⒶapparatus note prosperity or the unprosperity of that company was a matter of not the slightest interest to the generality of newspaper readers, and I had always wondered before why the Associated Press people should take such an apparent interest in the matter. It seemed quite satisfactorily explained now. The Associated Press had sent the World’s misstatements over the wiresⒶapparatus note to all parts of the countryⒶapparatus note free of chargeⒶapparatus note for the reason, no doubt, that that statement slandered General Grant,Ⓐapparatus note lied about his sonⒺexplanatory note, dealt the Century Company a disastrousⒶapparatus note blow, and was thoroughly well calculated to sharply injure me in both character and pocket. Therefore it was apparent that the Associated Press were willing to destroy a man for nothing, but required cash for rehabilitating him again. That was Associated Press morals. It was newspaper morals, too. Speaking in general termsⒶapparatus note it was always easy to get any print to say any injurious thing about a citizen in a newspaper,Ⓐapparatus note but it was next to impossible to get that paper or any other to right an injured man. We have a law of libel, but it is inoperative and merely cumbers the statute books. For several reasons: First—The case must take its routine place in the calendarⒶapparatus note of the court and that ensures that some months must elapse before the courts get down to it, so that whatever injury the libel might do has been alreadyⒶapparatus note done.Ⓐapparatus note Second Ⓐapparatus note—A jury is afraid of the newspapers and always lets a newspaper offⒶapparatus note at the cheapest and easiest rate. As the resultⒶapparatus note libel suits are very uncommon andⒶapparatus note whenever one is triedⒶapparatus note it simply serves as a reminder to later comers that the best way is to let libel suits alone and take what the newspapers choose to give you in the way of abuseⒺexplanatory note.Ⓐapparatus note
Gen Grant, Mark Twain and the Century.—The story of Gen Grant’s last days includes yet another disagreeable episode, according to the New York correspondent of the Boston HeraldⒺexplanatory note. It has been generally understood that Grant’s papers on the war in the Century magazine have been chapters from the autobiography which he is preparing, and that they were to be followed by other chapters; and it now seems that it was all but concluded that the Century company should publish the book. Arrangements, says this correspondent, were made for the printing of the volumes and the making of the pictures, [begin page 95] and terms nearly settled, on the basis of a royalty, when in stepped Mark Twain and spoiled it all. It is stated by this writer that Mr Clemens is the principal partner in the subscription book firm of Charles L. Webster & Co, which publishes his own books, and that Webster & Co made a proposition to Gen Grant to take his son JesseⒺexplanatory note into the enterprise of publishing and circulating the autobiography, showing the general that he could get a clean profit treble the royalty offered by the Century company. The consequence is represented to be that no more of Gen Grant’s work will appear in the magazine, and it is intimated that Mark Twain cannot have any more of his “Huckleberry Finn”Ⓐapparatus note literature published hereafter in those offended pages. The readers of the magazine may well hope the last item of this news is true. “Brunswick,” the Boston Saturday Gazette correspondent from New York, who is Miss Jeannette L. Gilder, sister of the editor of the Century, and, therefore, ought to know—gives a somewhat different account, saying:—
The terms offered Gen Grant, by Mr Webster, are the same, I believe, as those offered by the Century company—10 per cent on the retail price. But Mr Webster’s contract includes one of the young Grants, which makes it more attractive to the general. The Century company would probably have published the Grant autobiography if it had not been for the “son” clause; but that put a new aspect on the thing, and while it was perfectly natural for Gen Grant to want to see his son fixed in business, it was not so natural for the Century company to want to be forced into a bargain of this sort. The relations between Gen Grant and the Century people are still perfectly friendly, and it may be that, after all, they will publish the bookⒺexplanatory note.
Springfield Republican
March 9, 1885Ⓐapparatus note
GRANT AND HIS MEMOIRS.
why an advertised article
did not appear
in the “century.”
A Brilliant Business Scheme by Which Mark Twain Takes
Jesse Grant for a Partner and Becomes the Publisher of
the
Forthcoming Work.
The March number of the Century appeared without the promised and much-advertised article from the pen of Gen. Grant on one of the great battles of the civil war. The fact caused much comment in literary circles, and in some quarters it was thought that the absence of the article was due to the General’s serious illness. Better informed people, however, have known that nearly all, if not all, the papers of the series had been prepared before the first appeared.
It has just leaked out that Gen. Grant and the Century Company have had a “falling out” and it is not likely that any further papers from the General will appear in the Century. Gen. Grant is preparing an autobiography and it was all but concluded that the book would be published by the Century Company. He was paid $1,000 for the article on “Shiloh,” which appeared in the February number. The managers expected that chapters from the autobiography would first appear in their magazine and that the volumes would bear their imprint. Negotiations were in progress in regard to the illustrations and the printing of the volumes, and terms between Gen. Grant and the company had almost been concluded on the basis of a royalty. The contract, however, had not yet been signed [begin page 96] when Mark Twain appeared upon the scene with more advantageous terms than the Century Company offered. Mark Twain, besides being a rollicking humorist, is a smart business man, and it is said that in recent years he has not shared the profits of his fun with any one. He has mastered the art of selling books by subscription, and, moreover, is the principal in the firm of Charles L. Webster & Co. Mr. Webster is a relative, and his duties are mainly to look after the regiments of agents who go about the country soliciting customers for any literary novelties that the firm may have to offer.
The story goes that Mr. Webster, acting for Mark Twain, proposed to Gen. Grant to take his son Jesse, who travelled with him during a part of his famous trip around the world, into the firm as partner. This proposition was regarded favorably, and then it was suggested that the firm would publish and circulate the General’s autobiography. Mr. Webster told the General that the mechanical cost of producing each $2 volume would not exceed 30 cents, and that if large editions were sold, as was sure to be the case, the profits would be three times larger than the royalty offered by the Century Company. Gen. Grant accepted the offer not only because his profits would be larger but because also it would make a business for his son, who was almost “cleaned out” by the failure of Grant & Ward.
A representative of the Century Company when questioned about the matter said that a contract had not been completed for the publication of Gen. Grant’s reminiscences, but it had been considered almost settled that the book would be issued by the company. The General visited the office almost daily, when able to go about, to consult about the material and make-up of the book and the advice given was generally followed.
“We have no grievance,” continued the Century’s representative. “Gen. Grant had the right to go elsewhere, his main object being to create a place for his son. We were not prepared to do that.”
It is said, however, that the Century people feel exceedingly “sore” about the matter, and it is doubtful if any more of Gen. Grant’s papers will appear in the magazine. It is not likely that any passages from the forthcoming book will appear in it in advance, either.
N. Y. WorldⒶapparatus note Ⓔexplanatory note
THE GENERAL’S LITERARY WORK.
four articles for “the century”—
his
memoirs to fill two subscription volumes.
Many curious and anxious eyes ran over the columns of The Century for March expecting to find therein another paper from the pen of General Grant. The impression had gone forth that the article on Shiloh which appeared in the February number was the first of a series that were to be published regularly every month and when the March number was issued without containing the expected paper speculation was rife as to its cause. Some attributed the omission to the General’s ill health; others to the fact that he was more anxious that his more important memoirs should be first completed; but it was left for The World to discover the fact that there had been a “falling out” between the publishers of The Century and General Grant and that it was not likely that any more of his papers would be published in the magazine. The cause of the falling-out was said to be that General Grant had taken the publication of his memoirs away from The Century and had entered into a contract for their publication by Charles L. Webster & Co., because The Century could not find a place for Jesse Grant in any of its departments.
[begin page 97] The facts are that General Grant stipulated some time ago to write for The Century four papers on the War, and the following subjects were selected: Shiloh, Vicksburg, Chattanooga, and the Wilderness Campaign. As soon as the terms were agreed upon the General entered upon his literary work with characteristic energy, working frequently from eight to ten hoursⒶapparatus note a day: and though he was hampered by the insidious disease that is now sapping his vitality, only a comparatively short interval elapsed from the time he began his labors when the papers on Shiloh, Vicksburg and Chattanooga were completed and handed over to The Century. They were paid for in accordance with the agreement, and are now in the possession of The Century. The manuscript for “The Wilderness Campaign” is completed and is now being revised by the General as rapidly as his health and other duties will permit.
There has been no falling-out between General Grant and The Century, and their relations are in every way cordial and pleasant. The Century Publishing Company entered into competition for the publication of General Grant’s books and its failure to obtain the contract was simply a business incident, the General being better satisfied with the arrangements made with Webster & Co. In the negotiation for the publication of the book the question of giving his son a position was not a matter of consideration.
The contract between Webster & Co. and General Grant was signed on February 28, and it is denied at the publishers’ office that taking Jesse Grant into partnership, as The World alleged, had anything to do with awarding them the contract, for the reason that such an arrangement has not been made. Samuel L. Clemens (Mark Twain) is a silent partner in the firm of Webster & Co., but entrusts the management of the business to his nephew, Charles L. Webster, who conducted all the negotiations with General Grant. The book is to be complete in two volumes. The manuscript for the first is completed and will be delivered to Mr. Webster, the latter part of this week. The General is working as much as possible on the materials for the secondⒶapparatus note volume, which is also nearly finished, the principal labor now being that of revision. The book will be sold by subscription, and the price will probably be $3 50 a volume. It is expected that the two volumes will be ready for delivery in October or November.
N. Y. TribuneⒶapparatus note Ⓔexplanatory note
GEN. GRANT AND HIS BOOK.
Over 100,000 Orders for the Set Received by His Publishers.
Gen. Grant has done much towards completing his book during his period of convalescence and expects to finish it within the next few days. The first volume is written and revised. Only about one hundred pages are needed to complete the second, though only a portion of it has been revised. The story of Lee’s surrender was finished on Monday and revised yesterday. The General’s connection with Lincoln’s assassinationⒺexplanatory note has been related. It is his intention to begin work to-day on a description of the grand review of the Federal armies in Washington at the close of the war. He writes little himself, but dictates to a stenographer. Not only is his mind clear, but the story as he dictates it is lucid and requires but little revision. His daily average is about thirty pages and the work apparently fatigues him little, if any.
The title of the book is “The Personal Memoirs of U. S. Grant.” It tells the story of his life from childhood down to the grand review. It is replete with interesting sketches and [begin page 98] anecdote of Lincoln and other great men, with whom Gen. Grant came in contact in civil and military life. Each volume will contain about 500 pages with numerous illustrations and maps. Charles L. Webster & Co., of this city, are the publishers. The work will be published simultaneously by them in the United States, England, France, Germany and Canada. Mr. Webster will go abroad in July to arrange for translating and publishing it in foreign countries. The first volume will be issued Dec. 1, and the second about March 1, 1886. Already orders for over 100,000 sets of the “Memoirs” have been received without solicitation or advertising. At least 50,000 additional orders have come in which have not yet been accepted. It is expected that the sales will be unprecedentedly large. If nothing unforeseen happens the publishers expect to have all the manuscript in hand inside of a month. It will require but a few days to finish the second volume, after which it will be leisurely revised. Nearly all of volume II. has been written since the General was confined to the house by his present illness.
Gen. Grant yesterday sent the following letter to his publishers:
New York, May 2, 1885.
To Charles L. Webster & Co.
Dear Sirs: My attention has been called to a paragraph in a letter published in The World newspaper of this city of Wednesday, April 29, of which the following is a part:
“The work upon his new book, about which so much has been said, is the work of Gen. Adam Badeau. Gen. Grant, I have no doubt, has furnished all of the material and all of the ideas in the memoirs as far as they have been prepared, but Badeau has done the work of composition. The most that Gen. Grant has done upon this book has been to prepare the rough notes and memoranda for its various chapters.”Ⓐapparatus note
I will divide this into four parts and answer each of them.
First—“The work upon his new book, about which so much has been said, is the work of Gen. Adam Badeau.” This is false. The composition is entirely my own.
Second—“Gen. Grant, I have no doubt, has furnished all of the material and all of the ideas in the memoirs as far as they have been prepared.” This is true.
Third—“But Badeau has done the work of composition.” The composition is entirely my own.
Fourth—“The most that Gen. Grant has done upon this book has been to prepare the rough notes and memoranda for its various chapters.” This is false. I have not only prepared myself whatever rough notes were made, but, as above stated, have done the entire work of composition and preparing notes, and no one but myself has ever used one of such notes in any composition.
You may take such measures as you see fit to correct this report, which places me in the attitude of claiming the authorship of a book which I did not writeⒺexplanatory note, and is also injurious to you who are publishing and advertising such book as my work.
Yours truly,
U. S. Grant.
N. Y. WorldⒶapparatus note Ⓔexplanatory note
a history of General Grant’s memoirs] See the Autobiographical Dictations of 6 February, 28 May, 29 May, 31 May, 1 June, and 2 June 1906 for Clemens’s later recollections of the events he describes below. See also N&J3, 122–25, for an overview of the circumstances surrounding the publication of Grant’s Personal Memoirs (1885–86).
During the Garfield campaign . . . Republican Party] Grant himself had been a potential candidate for a third term as president at the June 1880 Republican convention. Although he did not actively campaign for the nomination, he indicated his willingness to run if drafted. Although many of his supporters backed him through thirty-six ballots, the nomination finally went to James A. Garfield. Grant pledged his support, and at Garfield’s invitation, joined his campaign (Jean Edward Smith 2001, 614–17). Garfield defeated Democrat Winfield Hancock, but was in office only six months before his assassination, in July 1881. He was succeeded by his vice-president, Chester A. Arthur.
Grant’s eldest son, Colonel Fred Grant] Ulysses S. Grant married Julia Dent (1826–1902), the daughter of a Missouri farmer, in 1848. Frederick Dent (1850–1912) was their first child, followed by Ulysses S., Jr. (1852–1929), Ellen Wrenshall (1855–1922), and Jesse Root, Jr. (1858–1934). As a youth Frederick spent much of the Civil War at his father’s side, serving with distinction. After graduating from West Point in 1871, he joined a cavalry regiment, and later served on the staffs of several generals, attaining the rank of lieutenant colonel. In 1877–79 he joined his father and mother on their world tour. He resumed his military career during the Spanish-American War, reaching the rank of major general. Ulysses S. Grant, Jr. (called “Buck”), a graduate of Harvard and Columbia Law School, became a stockbroker. After the failure of his firm, he recovered with the help of his father-in-law, Jerome B. Chaffee, a former state senator (see the note at 83.30). Jesse Grant studied at Cornell, but left to accompany his parents on the early part of their world tour. He attended Columbia Law School for only a year (McFeely 1981, 22, 489–90, 521).
the General left the White House . . . live in either of them] No evidence has been found that Grant was in debt after either term as president. After leaving the White House in March 1877, he spent $85,000 of his own money (earned from investments) on his world tour. [begin page 483] After their return the Grants still had $100,000 invested, which provided an annual income of less than $6,000. This amount was not sufficient to maintain their standard of living (it barely covered the cost of their rooms at the Fifth Avenue Hotel). The Grants also owned a house in Philadelphia, given to them in 1865, and “four or five little houses” they had purchased in Washington (Julia Dent Grant 1975, 161, 322). Grant had resigned from the army in 1869—giving up his unique title of General of the Army, awarded by an act of Congress in July 1866—and was therefore ineligible to be placed on the retired list; nor did he qualify for a pension by virtue of his political office: former presidents received no government support until 1958 (Badeau 1887, 316, 418; Jean Edward Smith 2001, 419–20, 607–8; Stephanie Smith 2006).
in introducing the General, I referred to the dignities and emoluments . . . he was well satisfied] Clemens accompanied the Grant party from Boston to Hartford on the morning of 16 October 1880, and introduced the general at a gathering in Bushnell Park that afternoon. His speech included the following remarks:
When Wellington won Waterloo—a battle about on a level with some dozen of your victories—sordid England tried to pay him for that service—with wealth and grandeurs! She made him a duke, and gave him $4,000,000. If you had done and suffered for any other country what you have done and suffered for your own, you would have been affronted in the same sordid way. (Laughter.) But thank God this vast and rich and mighty republic is imbued to the core with a delicacy which will forever preserve her from so degrading you. (Renewed laughter.) Your country loves you, your country is proud of you, your country is grateful to you. (Applause.) Her applauses, which have been thundering in your ears all these weeks and months, will never cease while the flag you saved continues to wave. (Great applause.)
Your country stands ready, from this day forth, to testify her measureless love, and pride, and gratitude towards you in every conceivable—inexpensive way. (Roars of laughter.) (“Grant. His Reception in Hartford,” Hartford Courant, 18 Oct 1880, 1)
Clemens sent Howells a clipping of his speech, with the remark that “Gen. Grant came near laughing his entire head off” (19 Oct 1880 to Howells, Letters 1876–1880 ). Grant replied that what the American people had given him was “of more value than gold and silver. No amount of the latter could compensate for the respect and kind feelings of my fellow-citizens” (“Grant. His Reception in Hartford,” Hartford Courant, 18 Oct 1880, 1).
certain wealthy citizens . . . rascality of other people] At the end of 1880 George Jones of the New York Times and other friends came to the Grants’ rescue by raising a trust fund of $250,000, which was invested in railroad bonds to provide a guaranteed income of $15,000 a year (Goldhurst 1975, 12–13, 21).
Grant and Ward, brokers and stock-dealers . . . business of the house] The principals in the firm, established in mid-1880, were Ulysses S. Grant, Jr., and Ferdinand Ward. Ward, the son of a minister, grew up in Geneseo, New York. He went to New York in 1875, and worked as a clerk in the produce exchange. He began building his fortune by “speculating in memberships” on the exchange, and later inherited a fortune upon the death of his father- [begin page 484] in-law, an officer of the Marine National Bank (“Wall Street Startled,” New York Times, 7 May 1884, 5). By the early 1880s he was reputed to be worth $750,000, and was known as the “Young Napoleon” of the financial world. Grant and Ward invested $100,000 each. In November 1880 General Grant and James D. Fish, president of the Marine National Bank, each added $100,000, and became “special” partners. The Grants put in cash, while the other two men pledged securities. Frederick Grant and, to a lesser extent, Jesse Grant also invested with the firm (McFeely 1981, 489–90; Jean Edward Smith 2001, 619; New York Times: “The Fish-Grant Letters,” 28 May 1884, 5; advertisement for “Grant & Ward, Bankers,” 8 Dec 1881, 7; Goldhurst 1975, 13–14).
5th of May . . . penniless] The firm collapsed on 6 May 1884 and simultaneously caused the closure of the Marine National Bank. For several years, investors had made unrealistic profits, collecting annual dividends sometimes as high as 40 percent. Grant and his son had left everything in Ward’s hands, and believed themselves millionaires. Ward’s scheme was to induce investors to buy securities, retain them on deposit as collateral on multiple loans from the Marine Bank (with the collusion of Fish), and then pay out the borrowed funds in large dividends to other investors. The scheme collapsed when Ward finally could not repay the loans. The securities he had pledged to the bank did not cover the loss, which in turn caused the bank to fail. The estimated liabilities of the firm of Grant and Ward totaled nearly $17 million, with actual assets of about $67,000 (Goldhurst 1975, 13–19; Jean Edward Smith 2001, 619–21; McFeely 1981, 490; New York Times: “Wall Street Startled,” 7 May 1884, 1; “Ward’s Curious Methods,” 13 May 1884, 1; “Debts of Grant & Ward,” 8 July 1884, 8; “Ferdinand Ward Arraigned,” 5 June 1885, 8).
.7 Ward had spared no one . . . connected with the Grant family] The New York house, purchased with money from a $100,000 fund raised by wealthy friends, belonged to Mrs. Grant. The Grants assumed an existing mortgage and gave the balance of the gift—$52,000—to Ward, who falsely claimed that it was invested in bonds. The $65,000 was most likely from the sale of the Philadelphia house (Badeau 1887, 420; Julia Dent Grant 1975, 161, 323–24). According to Badeau, Grant
was ruined; one son was a partner in the wreck and the liabilities; another, the agent of the firm, was bankrupt for half a million; his youngest son on the 3d of May had deposited all his means, about $80,000, in the bank of his father and brother, and the bank suspended payment on the 6th; his daughter had made a little investment of $12,000 with the firm; one sister had put in $5,000, another $25,000; a nephew had invested a few thousands, the savings of a clerkship; and other personal friends had been induced by Grant’s name and advice to invest still more largely. (Badeau 1887, 421)
In one sense it cannot be claimed that Grant lost his initial investment, because he and his son had each been drawing as much as $3,000 a month from the firm for living expenses. So between late 1880 and early 1884, they probably received an amount equal to their original investment, plus a reasonable return. What Grant had lost, however, was a putative fortune: he believed that his withdrawals did not affect his principal, which was now alleged to be about a million dollars. In addition, he was now responsible for the liabilities of the firm. (Mrs. Grant [begin page 485] eventually paid out about $190,000 from the proceeds of Grant’s Memoirs to settle these business debts.) And, finally, he had borrowed $150,000 from William H. Vanderbilt in a last-minute effort to avert the disaster, in the belief that Ward would return the money immediately. To repay the debt, Grant made over all his assets to Vanderbilt, including deeds to his real estate. (When Vanderbilt offered to return the property to Mrs. Grant and forgive the debt, the Grants refused.) Mrs. Grant—whose property was considered separate—still owned two houses in Washington, which she sold to raise money; loans from friends provided additional funds for living expenses (Goldhurst 1975, 3–5, 13, 22–25, 250; “Gen. Grant’s Testimony,” New York Tribune, 28 Mar 1885, 1; Badeau 1887, 419–20, 423, 432–33).
bill to restore to General Grant . . . Fitz-John Porter Bill by President Arthur] Major General Fitz-John Porter (1822–1901) was convicted by a court martial in January 1863 of disobeying orders at the second battle of Bull Run. Many believed he was innocent of the charges, arguing that the orders were based on false information, and would have resulted in a doomed assault. In 1879 Porter was exonerated by a board of inquiry, and in early 1880 his supporters began a long campaign to restore him to his army rank on the retired list, either by legislation or by executive action. Late in 1880 a bill authorizing the president to similarly reinstate Grant was introduced in Congress. These were the first of a series of “relief” bills for both men that were debated in Congress over the next several years. When at last a bill for Porter passed both houses, President Arthur vetoed it in July 1884, claiming that it was unconstitutional because it named a specific person, a power not granted to Congress. Meanwhile, after the failure of Grant and Ward in May 1884, a second bill to reinstate Grant had been introduced in Congress. President Arthur, who wanted to avoid contradicting his earlier position in the Porter case, asked Congress to confer a pension upon Grant without presidential action—a form of charity that Grant “indignantly declined to receive” (Badeau 1887, 432). In January 1885 a final bill was proposed, authorizing the president to place one former general on the army retired list with the corresponding “rank and full pay.” The Porter bill and the Grant bill both passed the Senate, but were stalled in the House, in part because some congressmen wanted to retaliate against Arthur by forcing a veto. Finally, less than half an hour before Congress was to adjourn sine die at noon on 4 March, the last bill was passed. The timing was so close that at 11:45 the assistant doorkeeper “stood upon a chair and pushed the hands of the Senate clock back six minutes, while everybody laughed at the cheating of time.” The bill was signed at once, and at “11:53 by the corrected time” the president proffered Grant’s nomination, which was unanimously approved. Clemens, who was present when Grant heard the news, sent a telegram to his wife: “We were at General Grants at noon and a telegram arrived that the last act of the expiring congress late this morning retired him with full Generals rank and accompanying emoluments. The effect upon him was like raising the dead” (“Gen. Grant’s Retirement,” New York Times, 5 Mar 1885, 1; 4 Mar 1885 to OLC, CU-MARK). Unfortunately, the result of these efforts was essentially honorary. Grant died less than five months later, and his pay, $13,600 a year, was not continued to his widow. In December 1885, however, Congress awarded Mrs. Grant her own pension of $5,000 a year. Porter’s case was not resolved until July 1886, when he was restored to his former rank by a special act of Congress and awarded an annual pension of $3,375 (New York Times: “Fitz John Porter Whitewashed,” [begin page 486] 29 Mar 1879, 2; “Gen. Grant’s Former Salaries,” 14 Dec 1880, 1; “Fitz John Porter’s Case,” 12 Jan 1880, 1; “In Vindication of Porter,” 3 Jan 1882, 5; “Porter’s Last Hope Gone,” 16 Apr 1882, 1; “Still Seeking a Pardon,” 1 Jan 1884, 1; “The Fitz John Porter Bill Killed,” 4 July 1884, 1; “For Gen. Grant’s Benefit,” 8 May 1884, 1; “Mrs. Grant’s Pension Approved,” 27 Dec 1885, 1; “Army and Navy News,” 7 July 1886, 3; Annual Cyclopaedia 1883, 236–48; Annual Cyclopaedia 1884, 207–8; Annual Cyclopaedia 1885, 203–4, 225–27; Badeau 1887, 340–41, 432, 443; Jean Edward Smith 2001, 624–25; Los Angeles Times: “The Retired List,” 22 Oct 1893, 9; “Current Notes,” 22 May 1885, 2; “Will Mrs. Grant Have a Pension?” Utica Observer, undated clipping in Scrapbook 22:59, CU-MARK).
I was reading . . . going to write a fourth] In the winter of 1884–85, Clemens was on a lecture tour with George Washington Cable. Olivia was present at the first of their two performances in New York at Chickering Hall, on 18 and 19 November. Grant’s four war articles (“The Battle of Shiloh,” “The Siege of Vicksburg,” “Chattanooga,” and “Preparing for the Wilderness Campaign”) were published in the Century between February 1885 and February 1886. They were part of “Battles and Leaders of the Civil War,” a series of articles by dozens of authors, including generals from both sides of the conflict, which appeared from November 1884 to October 1887 and was then collected in four volumes (Ulysses S. Grant 1885a, 1885b, 1885c, 1886; Johnson and Buel 1887–88).
footnote *Aug. ’85 . . . Gilder himself] Richard Watson Gilder (1844–1909) was a poet and the influential editor of the Century Magazine from its first issue in November 1881 until his death (see Johnson 1923, 88–96). This footnote is one of several comments that Clemens added in August 1885 to the text he had dictated in May.
Charles L. Webster & Co. . . . one-tenth interest] Charles L. Webster (1851–91), a surveyor and civil engineer from Fredonia, New York, had married Annie Moffett, the daughter of Clemens’s sister, Pamela, in 1875. Clemens hired him as his general manager in 1881, giving him broad responsibility for both his business and personal affairs. In 1884, when Clemens established his own publishing company, he relied on Webster to run the business, at a salary of $2,500 a year, supplemented (starting in 1885) by one-third of the profits up to $20,000 a year, and one-tenth of earnings beyond that (contracts dated 10 Apr 1884 and 20 Mar 1885, NPV). Webster and Company published all of Clemens’s books from Huckleberry Finn (1885) to Tom Sawyer Abroad (1894), as well as other works. Clemens forced Webster to retire, ostensibly because of ill health, in 1888; he returned to Fredonia, where he died at age thirty-nine. The publishing firm, which had been losing money for several years, declared bankruptcy on 18 April 1894 (“Mark Twain’s Company in Trouble,” New York Times, 19 Apr 1894, 9).
George W. Childs] Childs (1829–94) was the editor and publisher of the Philadelphia Public Ledger from 1864 until his death. He was a highly respected and admired businessman and philanthropist, as well as a good friend of Grant’s ( N&J3, 100 n. 111).
Clarence Seward’s was one] Clarence A. Seward (1828–97) established the firm of Seward, Da Costa and Guthrie in 1867; it became one of the most prominent and successful law practices in New York.
the contract was drawn . . . in my hands] Clemens delegated Webster to negotiate [begin page 487] with Grant. On 27 February 1885, Grant agreed to allow the firm to issue his book in return for 70 percent of the net profits. The amount of money ultimately paid to Mrs. Grant has not been determined, but Webster Company records show that by 1 October 1887 she had received checks totaling about $397,000 (Fred Grant to Charles L. Webster and Co., 22 July 1887, CU-MARK; “Cash Statement | Oct. 1st 1887 | Chas. L. Webster & Co.,” CU-MARK; N&J3, 94–97, 142, 312–13, 316 n. 47). Clemens estimated that she received between $420,000 and $450,000; the Webster Company’s portion was therefore at least $180,000. These amounts are equivalent—by some estimates—to $8 million and $3.4 million, respectively, in today’s dollars. In 1908 Fred Grant placed the figure even higher, claiming that the “first checks received for royalties on the sale of the book amounted to $534,000” (“Gen. Frederick Dent Grant’s Recollections of His Famous Father,” Washington Post, 3 May 1908, SM4, 8). On 6 July 1885, Clemens drafted a letter to the editor of the Boston Herald in response to a letter from its New York correspondent, published on 20 June. Clemens protested the claim that he had made an offer to Grant
“which no regular publisher felt like competing with.” I merely offer double as much for General Grant’s book as the Century Co had offered—that is all. I suggested to Gen. Grant that he submit my offer to the Century & other great publishing houses, & close with the one that offered him the best terms. He did it, & my offer was duplicated by several “regular publishers,” the Century among the number; & two firms exceeded my offer. But none of them could exceed my facilities for publishing a subscription book—nor equal them, either—a fact which I proved to the satisfaction of General Grant’s lawyer; & that is why I got the book. (MS draft in CU-MARK)
Roswell Smith’s remark] Smith (1829–92), publisher of the Century Magazine, had been one of the journal’s founders in 1870, when it was called Scribner’s Monthly. The change of name took place in 1881, when the magazine severed its connection with the Scribner firm, but Smith continued as its publisher (Mott 1957, 457, 467).
annual in London had offered little Tom Moore] The diminutive Irish writer Thomas Moore (1779–1852) published his first poetry collection under the pen name “Thomas Little.” The “annual in London” has not been identified.
Dr. Douglas] John H. Douglas was a leading New York throat specialist; in October 1884 he diagnosed Grant’s affliction as cancer of the throat (“Sinking into the Grave,” New York Times, 1 Mar 1885, 2).
Mount McGregor] On 16 June 1885 the Grants traveled to a cottage owned by a friend, financier Joseph W. Drexel, on Mount McGregor, a summer resort near Saratoga Springs, New York. Grant stayed there, attended by his family and Dr. Douglas, until his death on 23 July (New York Times: “Resting at Mount McGregor,” 17 June 1885, 1; “A Hero Finds Rest,” 24 July 1885, 1).
Marine Bank man . . . sent up for ten years] James D. Fish was sentenced in June 1885 to ten years in Auburn State Prison (“On the Way to Auburn,” New York Times, 28 June 1885, 7).
President of the Erie Railroad] Hugh J. Jewett (1817–98) served as president of the Erie Railroad from 1874 to 1884, and was credited with rescuing it from insolvency. He was one of the largest creditors of the Marine Bank when it failed (“The Marine Bank Failure,” New York Times, 14 May 1884, 1).
ex-Senator Chaffee] Ulysses S. Grant, Jr., married Fannie Josephine Chaffee, the daughter of Jerome B. Chaffee, in 1880. Chaffee became wealthy from mining, land speculation, and banking in Colorado, and served as one of the state’s first senators in 1876–79. Chaffee himself was another of Ward’s victims: he lost about $500,000 in bonds that he had given to Ward to use as securities on loans (McFeely 1981, 489; “Senator Chaffee’s Bonds,” New York Times, 28 Dec 1884, 12).
I was talking to General Badeau there one day] Badeau recalled a conversation with “one of the greatest wits of this generation” that took place when they met on a visit to Grant as he “lay lingering in his final illness”:
The visitor was a personal friend as well as an admirer of Grant, and he and I talked of the great revulsion in popular feeling which had occurred—the sympathy and affection that had revived as soon as the hero was known to be dying. It made me think of Lincoln, reviled and maligned for years, but in one night raised to the rank of a martyr and placed by the side of Washington. “Yes,” said the other, with the terrible sententiousness almost of Voltaire: “The men that want to set up a new religion ought always to get themselves crucified.” (Badeau 1887, 590)
I will make a diversion here, and get back upon my track again later] Albert Bigelow Paine published this “diversion” (86.11–91.18) in Mark Twain’s Autobiography under the title “Gerhardt and the Grant Bust”; he placed it after his incomplete text of “About General Grant’s Memoirs,” which ends with “that sort of thing” (93.41–42; MTA , 1:57–68). Physical evidence in the typescript as well as several references and dates in the text itself show, however, that Clemens dictated the text as it is presented here (see the Textual Commentary, MTPO ).
away with G. W. Cable, giving public readings] George Washington Cable (1844–1925), a New Orleans native, was known for his stories of Creole life. He and Clemens became friends in 1881, and from November 1884 through February 1885 they joined in a lecture tour. Billed as the “Twins of Genius,” they spoke in more than sixty cities in the East, Midwest, and Canada. Clemens gave readings from his forthcoming Huckleberry Finn (which issued in February) and other works, and Cable read from several of his books and sang Creole songs (Cardwell 1953, 1–3, 12; HF 2003, 578).
the Presidential election] Grover Cleveland, a Democrat, defeated James G. Blaine in the 1884 election.
J. Q. A. Ward . . . no true artist could bring himself to do] On 5 April 1884, before Gerhardt returned from Paris, Clemens wrote to him, “I would strongly advise that you now write A. St Gaudens & J. Q. A. Ward, & ask them if they can give you employment & wages in their establishments in New York. If they can & will, that is a certainty; it is sure bread & [begin page 489] butter; & is of course better & wiser than setting up for one’s self without capital” (CtHMTH). Gerhardt replied on 27 May that he strongly preferred to work independently, and pleaded, “Don’t make me be a second fiddle that would kill me” (CU-MARK).
We reached the General’s house . . . to see the family] Clemens wrote an account of this visit in his notebook on the day it took place, 20 March 1885 ( N&J3, 106–7).
Jesse Grant’s wife] Elizabeth Chapman Grant (known as “Lizzie”) married Jesse in San Francisco in 1880 (McFeely 1981, 484).
Mrs. Fred Grant] Ida Honoré married Fred Grant in 1874 (Goldhurst 1975, 117).
Harrison, the General’s old colored body-servant] Harrison Tyrrell had been Grant’s devoted valet for many years (McFeely 1981, 519). In a letter of 11 September 1885 Clemens wrote to Henry Ward Beecher about Grant’s loyalty to him:
You remember Harrison, the colored body-servant? the whole family hated him, but that did not make any difference, the General always stood at his back, wouldn’t allow him to be scolded; always excused his failures & crimes & deficiencies with the one unvarying formula, “We are responsible for these things in his race—it is not fair to visit our fault upon them—let him alone;” so they did let him alone, under compulsion. (CU-MARK, in MTL, 2:460–61)
best portrait of General Grant that is in existence] For an image of the bust see the photograph preceding page 203; see also Schmidt 2009d.
after the world learned his name] Here, at the end of the account of the bust of Grant, Clemens wrote “Depew’s speech” in the bottom margin of the page as a prompt to himself. It wasn’t until the Autobiographical Dictation of 1 June 1906, however, that he actually described the speech, which was delivered at a banquet in Grant’s honor by Chauncey M. Depew (1834–1928), a prominent attorney and director of several railroads. There Clemens noted that it was “the most telling speech I ever listened to—the best speech ever made by the capable Depew, and the shortest.”
we proceeded to draw a writing to cover the thing] Webster wrote to Clemens on 15 April 1885 that he had just signed a contract with the Century Company, which stipulated that all of Grant’s “future articles” in the Century Magazine—that is, the second, third, and fourth—were to be copyrighted by Webster and Company “in the name of U. S. Grant.” In regard to the Memoirs, Webster agreed “not to publish first vol before Dec. 1st next, and second vol before Mch. 1st next” (CU-MARK).
Smith’s exact language] Clemens’s extant notebook contains no such remark. Clemens did, however, note that
Mr. R S . . . said to me shortly after the contract was signed, “I am glad on GG’s account that there was somebody with pluck enough to give such a figure; I should have been chary of venturing it myself.” . . .
10 p c.
[begin page 490] This was a perfectly fair & honorable offer, for it was based upon a possible sale of 25,000 sets. But I was not figuring on 25,000, I was figuring on a possible 300,000. Each of us could be mistaken, but I believed I was right. ( N&J3, 182–84)
New York World and a Boston paper, (I think the Herald)] Clemens appended four clippings at the end of his typescript, which are included in the text; among them is the World article, which appeared on 9 March 1885 (see 95.24–96.27). No copy of the Herald has been found, but another article that Clemens appended, from the 9 March Springfield (Mass.) Republican (see 94.36–95.21), repeats the information reported by the New York correspondent of the Herald.
I had taken an unfair advantage . . . got the book away from them] Robert Underwood Johnson, an associate editor of the Century Magazine, wrote many years later that Paine’s account of the Grant negotiations in Mark Twain: A Biography ( MTB, 2:799–803)—which was based on this dictation—“leaves something to be desired. It places Mr. Roswell Smith in the attitude of treating the author in a somewhat niggardly manner, the fact being that the matter was wholly in the hands of General Grant, on whose terms it was to have been undertaken”:
As to the first offer of Mr. Clemens, the difference between it and ours was very slight, if any: in one case a larger royalty being computed on the net returns and in the other a smaller on the gross. Mr. Clemens made a later alternative offer of a considerable cash advance, a large percentage of the profits, and a guaranty of a certain sale. Had we known of this we should have been able to meet the situation. We were at the disadvantage that Mark Twain, who was a frequent visitor at the Sixty-sixth Street house, knew our terms and we did not know his.
Nevertheless, with all respect to Roswell Smith’s motives, which were above criticism, it remains that his failure to secure this work beyond peradventure within the five months from the time he was invited to Long Branch in September until the signing of the contract in February was, from a business point of view, a signal exception in the successful career of a publisher of imagination, boldness, and resourcefulness. His omission to clinch the matter did not reflect the alertness and enterprise of his associates, but he had the disadvantage of having as a rival a man of winning personality, shrewd business ability, and large horizon. The result cast a gloom over the younger members of the Century Co., who never ceased to think that in our hands this phenomenal book would have reached as phenomenal a sale as it did in Mr. Clemens’s; for at that time the success of the War Series had put the Century Co. in close touch with the public in the matter of military history. We thought it hard that another should have “plowed with our heifer.” (Johnson 1923, 218–19)
In late October 1884 Smith was still confident that Grant would place his book with the Century Company. In a letter of 9 September 1884 he wrote to Gilder that Grant was
thoroughly intelligent in relation to the subscription book business, and very much disgusted with the way it is usually managed. He remarked that he did not propose to pay a scalawag canvasser $6 for selling a $12 book, not worth much more than half the money, as in some cases he quoted. His ideas agree with ours—to make a good book, manufacture [begin page 491] it handsomely, sell it at a reasonable price, and make it so commanding that we can secure competent agents at a fair commission. (Rosamond Gilder 1916, 123–24)
Johnson later learned from Fred Grant that “his father’s decision had been influenced chiefly by the fact that Mr. Clemens had convinced him that . . . his own firm had been successful publishers of subscription books, while the Century Co. had done little in that line” (Johnson 1923, 218).
Boston paper’s account . . . sister of Mr. Gilder] Jeannette L. Gilder (1849–1916) corresponded from New York for the Boston Saturday Evening Gazette (not the Herald, as Clemens suggests) under the pseudonym “Brunswick.” Her letter to the Gazette is largely reprinted in the article from the Springfield (Mass.) Republican of 9 March 1885 that here follows Clemens’s dictation (see 95.13–21). Although less well known than her brother Richard Watson Gilder, Jeannette Gilder pursued a successful literary career. In 1881 she cofounded a literary magazine, The Critic, with her other brother, Joseph B. Gilder, which they edited together until 1906. Her work appeared in a variety of newspapers and magazines, and she compiled several literary anthologies.
new electric light company of Boston . . . prosperous condition] In the spring of 1883, numerous articles in the Hartford Courant reported on the rapid growth of the American Electric and Illuminating Company of Boston, incorporated a year earlier. Its successful plan to establish subsidiary companies throughout New England was expected to pay shareholders “substantial dividends” (Hartford Courant, 20 Feb 1883, 3).
lied about his son] See the note at 95.3–4.
in the way of abuse] Clemens’s dictation ends here. Redpath added two typed comments. The first, “To be followed by Duncan’s libel suit,” referred to the lawsuit for libel that Charles C. Duncan—former captain of the Quaker City and organizer of the 1867 Holy Land excursion—brought against the New York Times in 1883. Duncan objected to an article published on 10 June which reported remarks of Clemens’s condemning his misuse of public funds in his position as New York shipping commissioner. Clemens claimed that the Times reporter had misrepresented his comments. Duncan technically won his suit in March 1884, but was awarded only twelve cents in damages. No 1885 dictation about the lawsuit has been found ( N&J3, 18 n. 34; “Mr. Mark Twain Excited,” New York Times, 10 June 1883, 1; see also N&J2, 35 n. 26). Redpath’s second note read: “See two pages of newspaper statements about Grant’s book and the Century people and Mark Twain affixed.” These “statements,” which survive in four clippings preserved with the typescript, are transcribed at the end of Clemens’s dictated text.
Gen Grant, Mark Twain and the Century . . . correspondent of the Boston Herald] The first part of this article (through “news is true,” 95.10), from the Springfield (Mass.) Republican of 9 March 1885, reports information published in the Boston Herald, presumably on 7 or 8 March; no copy of the Herald has been located.
Webster & Co . . . his son Jesse] Jesse and Fred Grant were both interested in a partnership in Webster and Company, an arrangement that neither Clemens nor Webster favored. [begin page 492] Clemens’s first known mention of the idea was in a letter of 21 July 1885 to Edward H. House: “Neither of the General’s sons is a partner. We all talked about that, but it was never seriously considered. Col. Fred talks about it yet—but if seriously it doesn’t sound so” (ViU). On 20 December 1885 Clemens alluded to the scheme in a letter to Webster. At that time the partnership was “a consideration” in the firm’s negotiations to secure the right to publish Grant’s letters to his wife—a deal that was never concluded (NPV, in MTBus, 347). Although discussions of a Grant partnership continued into early spring 1886, neither of Grant’s sons joined the business (8 Feb 1886 to Webster, NPV, in MTBus, 353–54; Webster to SLC, 10 Feb 1886 and 20 Mar 1886, CU-MARK; see N&J3, 218, 220, 222).
“Brunswick,” . . . publish the book] Jeannette Gilder’s column, “New York Gossip,” which began with a long section on Grant’s medical news, appeared in the Saturday Evening Gazette on 7 March 1885. The Springfield Republican accurately quoted her discussion of Grant’s book, omitting only two brief passages about subscription books and the series of war articles in the Century Magazine.
N. Y. World] From the issue of 9 March 1885.
N. Y. Tribune] From the issue of 10 March 1885.
General’s connection with Lincoln’s assassination] Abraham Lincoln and his wife invited the Grants to accompany them to Ford’s Theater on 14 April 1865, the night that John Wilkes Booth assassinated the president. The Grants did not attend because they were visiting their children at school in New Jersey. Booth’s co-conspirators planned to assassinate two men who were not at the theater: Secretary of State William Seward (who was injured but survived) and Vice-President Andrew Johnson (who was not actually attacked). It is probable, but not certain, that Grant was another intended victim.
work of Gen. Adam Badeau . . . book which I did not write] Grant prepared most of the manuscript of his Memoirs himself, but occasionally dictated to his son Fred, or to a stenographer, Noble E. Dawson. Badeau provided editing services, for which he was to receive nothing if the book earned less than $20,000, $5,000 if it earned $20,000, and $5,000 more if it earned $30,000. The false accusation that Grant was not doing his own writing was based on information from “General George P. Ihrie, who had served with Grant in Mexico. Ihrie had inadvertently remarked to a Washington columnist that the General was no writer” (Goldhurst 1975, 118, 153, 193–94). Clemens was so outraged by the World article that he briefly considered initiating a lawsuit. He wrote to Fred Grant on 30 April 1885:
The General’s work this morning is rather damaging evidence against the World’s intrepid lie. The libel suit ought to be instituted at once; damages placed at nothing less than $250,000 or $300,000; no apologies accepted from the World, & no compromise permitted for anything but a sum of money that will cripple—yes, disable—that paper financially. The suit ought to be brought in the General’s name, & the expense of it paid out of the book’s general expense account. (NPV, in MTBus, 319)
By 3 May he had reconsidered and wrote to Webster:
[begin page 493]I have watched closely & have not seen a single reference to the World’s lie in any newspaper. So it is possible that it fell dead & did no harm. I suppose Alexander & Green have decided that a libel suit against a paper which hasn’t influence enough to get its lies copied, would be a waste of energy & money (as you give me no news of any kind about the matter.) If that is their verdict, & if the lie has not been copied around, it is no doubt the right & sensible verdict. I recognize the fact that for General Grant to sue the World would be an enormously valuable advertisement for that daily issue of unmedicated closet-paper. (NPV, in MTBus, 323)
Badeau responded to the World article by demanding a new financial arrangement with Grant: $1,000 a month until the book was done, and 10 percent of the profits. After a bitter exchange of letters, Badeau withdrew from the project. He and Grant never met again (Goldhurst 1975, 194–200, 251). After Grant’s death, Badeau threatened Mrs. Grant with a lawsuit to claim what he was owed. The dispute was settled in 1888, when Badeau accepted $10,000 plus interest (as stipulated in the original contract), and agreed that the composition of the Memoirs “was entirely that of Gen. Grant, and to limit his claim to that of suggestion, revision, and verification” (“Gen. Badeau’s Suit Ended,” New York Times, 31 Oct 1888, 8).
N. Y. World] From the issue of 6 May 1885.
About General Grant’s Memoirs ❉ Textual Commentary
World Clipping from the New York World, 9 March 1885, 1, attached to the TS: ‘GRANT . . . either.’ (95.24–96.27).
Tribune Clipping from the New York Tribune, 10 March 1885, 5, attached to the TS: ‘THE . . . November.’ (96.29–97.29).
World Clipping from the New York World, 6 May 1885, 8, attached to the TS: ‘GEN. GRANT . . . Grant.’ (97.31–98.43).
Redpath corrected the TS in both black and blue pencil. Clemens reviewed the text in August and September 1885, several months after it was dictated, revising it more extensively than the other dictations. He began using a purple pencil, and then switched to ink. The piece consists of three sections. The first begins the account of Grant’s memoirs (75.27–86.10); the second tells of Gerhardt’s bust of Grant (86.11–91.18); and the third concludes the account of the memoirs. Paine published, in MTA, the first section and most of the third as continuous text, followed by the middle section as a separate piece. The TS has no typed page numbers; the numbers penciled at the top appear to be Paine’s. In his efforts to assemble the TS for publication, Paine numbered the first section 1–23, and the third (with a note to himself to ‘continue paging’), 24–32. He apparently first intended to attach the middle section to the end of “Gerhardt,” numbering it 5–16 to follow the four typescript pages of that piece. Ultimately, he decided not to include “Gerhardt,” renumbered the middle section 1–12, entitled it “Gerhardt and the Grant Bust,” and placed it after the “Memoirs” piece. This section on the bust has been interpolated here between the two sections about the memoirs on the basis of several pieces of evidence. First, Clemens calls it a ‘diversion’ (86.11) from the topic of the memoirs, to which he returns at 91.19. Second, his mention of specific dates confirms that the bust material was dictated before the last section about the memoirs (see ‘May 22’ at 91.15 and ‘May 25’ at 92.37). Finally, his reference to ‘that dilatory committee’ (at 86.21–22) alludes to the material in “Gerhardt” (74.1–75.26), and must therefore follow that piece but precede the concluding “Memoirs” section. The paper of the TS confirms this sequence: the first four Grant pieces and pages 1–16 of “Memoirs” are typed on “Linen 1883”; pages 17–23 on the memoirs are on unwatermarked paper with blue lines; while a third paper, “Parchment Linen,” was used for the material on the Grant bust, the last portion on the memoirs, and “The Rev. Dr. Newman,” which concludes the dictations.
Although there is evidence of attempts by Redpath and Clemens to organize the Grant material, it does not contradict the order of the present text, and there is no indication that Clemens intended to remove the ‘diversion’ about the Gerhardt bust from its original place in the sequence. The TS show the imposition of section numbers by Redpath and subsequently by Clemens. On the verso of page 7 of the “Memoirs” typescript (ending ‘offer which in’ at 79.1) Redpath wrote, ‘Autobiography of Mark Twain | About Gen Grants Memoirs | Part I’; on the verso of page 16, following Clemens’s added note of 1 or 2 July (83.9–15), he wrote ‘II | Gen Grant’s Memoirs | Contd’ (apparently intending the second part to begin at 83.16); on the verso of page 19 (ending ‘February, 1885.’ at 84.26) he wrote ‘III’; and on the verso of page 23 (ending with Clemens’s added note, ‘Afterwards . . . schooling.’ at 86.7–10) he wrote ‘III | Gen Grant’s Memoirs | Contd.’ Clemens, when reviewing all of the Grant dictations he had so far completed, wrote ‘I’ at the top of “Grant and the Chinese,” ‘II’ at the top of page 1 of “About General Grant’s Memoirs,” and ‘III’ at the top of page 17 (83.23) in ink. He (or Redpath) wrote ‘IV’ at the top of page 24 in pencil, where the last section begins (91.19).
[The Rev. Dr. Newman]
[The Rev. Dr. Newman]
1885.Ⓐapparatus note
Extract from my note bookⒺexplanatory note:
April 4, 1885.Ⓐapparatus note GeneralⒶapparatus note Grant is still living,Ⓐapparatus note this morning. Many a person between the two oceans lay hours awake, last night,Ⓐapparatus note listening for the booming of the fire-bells thatⒶapparatus note should speak to theⒶapparatus note nation inⒶapparatus note simultaneous voice and tell it its calamity. The bell-strokesⒶapparatus note are to be thirty seconds apart and there will be sixty-three—the General’s age. They will be striking in every town in the United States at the same moment—the first time in the world’s history that the bells of a nation have tolled in unison,Ⓐapparatus note beginning at the same moment and ending at the same moment.Ⓐapparatus note
More than onceⒶapparatus note during two weeks, the nation stood watching with bated breath expecting the news of GeneralⒶapparatus note Grant’s death.
The family in their distressⒶapparatus note desired spiritual helpⒶapparatus note and one Rev. Dr. NewmanⒺexplanatory note was sent for to furnish it. Newman had lately gone to California where he had got a ten-thousand-dollarⒶapparatus note job to preach a funeral sermon over the son of ex-Governor StanfordⒶapparatus note Ⓔexplanatory note, the millionaire,Ⓐapparatus note and a most remarkable sermon it was—and worth the money. If Newman got the facts right, neither he nor anybody else—any ordinary human being—Ⓐapparatus notewas worthy to preach that youth’s funeral sermonⒶapparatus note and it was manifest that one of the disciples ought to have been imported into California for the occasion. Newman came on from California at once, and began his ministration at the General’s bedside;Ⓐapparatus note andⒶapparatus note if one might trust his daily reportsⒶapparatus note the General had conceived a new and perfect interest in spiritual things. It is fair to presume that the most of Newman’s daily reports originated in his own imagination.
Colonel Fred Grant told me that his father was,Ⓐapparatus note in this matter,Ⓐapparatus note what he was in all mattersⒶapparatus note and at all times—that is to say, perfectly willing to have family prayers going on, or anything else that could be satisfactory to anybody, or increaseⒶapparatus note anybody’s comfort in any way;Ⓐapparatus note but he also said that while his father was a good man, and indeed as good as any man, Christian or otherwise, he was notⒶapparatus note a praying man.
Some of the speeches put into General Grant’s mouth were to the last degree incredible to people who knew the General,Ⓐapparatus note since they were such gaudy and flowery misrepresentations of that plain-spoken man’s utterances.
About the 14th or 15th of April,Ⓐapparatus note Rev.Ⓐapparatus note Mr.Ⓐapparatus note Newman reported thatⒶapparatus note upon visiting the GeneralⒶapparatus note in his sick chamber,Ⓐapparatus note the General pressed his hand and delivered himself of this astounding remark:
“Thrice have I been in the shadow of the valley of death and thrice have I come out again.”Ⓔexplanatory note
General Grant never used flowers of speech, and dead or aliveⒶapparatus note he never could have utteredⒶapparatus note anything like that, either as a quotation or otherwise.
About that time I came across a gentleman in the railway train who had been connected with our embassy in China during the past sixteen yearsⒶapparatus note and was now at home on leave of absence,Ⓐapparatus note and he told me something about Newman. He said that once, when General Grant [begin page 100] was President,Ⓐapparatus note Newman wanted to travel about the world a little and he was given the post of Inspector of Consulates. It was a salaried position and the salary was paid out of an appropriation set apart for that purpose. Whenever an inspector’s time expired,Ⓐapparatus note whatever might be left unexpended of that appropriationⒶapparatus note had to be turned in to the Treasury.
This Secretary of Legation tried to make me understandⒶapparatus note how there was some crookedness about Newman’s expenditures,Ⓐapparatus note but I am not able to callⒶapparatus note to mind in what the crookedness consisted,Ⓐapparatus note so I will not make the attempt. The Secretary was mainly interested in showingⒶapparatus note not that Newman was a knave but that he was simplyⒶapparatus note an ass. He said he came out to China and proceeded to investigate the legation, and hauled it vigorously over the coals, and was getting along very satisfactorily with his workⒶapparatus note when the American Minister spoiled it all by calling his attention to the fact that the legation was not a consulate and did not come within the jurisdiction of his powers.
There was a social club there, composed of American ladies and gentlemen, who met occasionally to discuss things, and Newman showed a good deal of anxiety to get an invitation to address it and to furnish an essay for one of their discussions. His hints were not favorably received. So he compacted them into a clear form: in fact he invited himself. In introducing him the chairman almost apologized to the company and said in substanceⒶapparatus note that Rev.Ⓐapparatus note Mr.Ⓐapparatus note Newman had asked permission to address the club.
This chilly introduction didn’t distress the essayist a bit apparently. He opened his remarks with a graceful reference to the urgency which had been brought to bear upon him to address the club and which he could not politely decline.
The Secretary of Legation may have exaggerated the case, butⒶapparatus note from what I can gatherⒶapparatus note Dr. Newman is really about that kind of a man.
Extract from my note book] This extract is a near verbatim rendering of Clemens’s notebook entry (see N&J3, 117–18).
Rev. Dr. Newman] John Philip Newman (1826–99) was ordained as a minister in the Methodist Episcopal church in 1849. After serving as chaplain of the U.S. Senate from 1869 to 1874—during which time he became a confidant of Julia Grant’s—he was appointed inspector of U.S. consuls in Asia by President Grant (Goldhurst 1975, 187–88).
ex-Governor Stanford] Leland Stanford (1824–93) was trained in the law. He went West in 1852 to join his brothers in various mercantile pursuits, and served as governor of California from 1861 to 1863. He became immensely wealthy from his partnership in the Central Pacific Railroad corporation, which completed the transcontinental railroad in 1869. His only son, Leland, Jr., died at age fifteen in March 1884 while visiting Italy. His body was brought home and held in a vault while his family built a mausoleum on their property in Palo Alto, said to be “as magnificent as an Oriental palace.” At the memorial service held in Grace Church in San Francisco on 30 December, $20,000 was spent on floral decorations. Newman delivered a eulogy, the “most fulsome ever delivered in the Western Hemisphere,” comparing “young Stanford to all the great of earth, and then, as if weary of the effort to find a fitting prototype for him among human beings, he boldly declared that the boy was some sort of a reproduction of Jesus Christ” (“California Astonished,” Chicago Tribune, 2 Jan 1885, 3).
“Thrice have I been . . . come out again.”] A similar version of Newman’s remark was reported in the New York Times on 16 April 1885, and doubtless in other newspapers as well (“A Day of Hopefulness,” 4).
[The Rev. Dr. Newman] ❉ Textual Commentary
Redpath corrected the TS in purple pencil; Clemens then made corrections and revisions in ink. When Paine published the text in MTA, he substituted ‘N——’ for ‘Newman’ throughout. The first paragraph is an extract from Clemens’s 1885 notebook, which is therefore used as the source for the readings adopted that passage (99.3–9; Notebook 23, TS pp. 39–40, in N&J3, 117).
(This commentary addresses the dictations on the whole;
textual commentaries for individual dications follow their texts below.)
Source document.
TS Typescript made in 1885 by James Redpath from his notes of Clemens’s dictation, corrected by him and revised by Clemens.The TS was prepared in 1885 by James Redpath, who used a typewriter with only capital letters to transcribe his stenographic notes of Clemens’s dictation. He left the pages unnumbered; the texts are published in this edition in the order in which they were dictated, as determined by subject matter, references to topics mentioned earlier, specific dates in the text, and type of paper. (For a fuller discussion of this evidence, see the Textual Commentary for “About General Grant’s Memoirs.”) Redpath’s typed punctuation was sparse and idiosyncratic, but when he reviewed the TS he hardly improved it: he left some exceedingly long sentences without punctuation, while elsewhere he added commas to nearly every phrase. He also made a few substantive changes that do not appear to be revisions, but rather corrections reflecting his memory of what Clemens dictated. Clemens reviewed some of the marked dictations in July, August, and September 1885: there are authorial marks on “A Call with W. D. Howells on General Grant” and “About General Grant’s Memoirs,” and possibly on “Grant and the Chinese.” He made most of his revisions in ink, occasionally using purple or black pencil, while Redpath wrote in black and purple pencil, and in ink only rarely. The medium of inscription is therefore often the primary evidence used to distinguish their revisions. Clemens’s review was cursory; he made few corrections, improving awkward wording but seldom deleting or altering Redpath’s punctuation—whether typed or inserted—and supplying his own only sporadically. Both men overlooked obvious typographical errors. Clemens was dissatisfied with this first effort at dictating a literary work, and never did “jack-plane” the text to correct the “rude construction & rotten grammar” as he intended (see the editorial headnote).
Because Redpath was not skilled—unlike Josephine Hobby—the editorial policy applied to the Grant Dictations is necessarily an exception to the general policy described in the Note on the Text. All of Clemens’s marks have been adopted and reported. The typed punctuation has likewise been retained, and Redpath’s handwritten substantive revisions have been accepted. Redpath’s added handwritten punctuation, however, has been evaluated to determine its similarity to Clemens’s own predominant style. Punctuation that is highly uncharacteristic of Clemens has been rejected, and the rest adopted. This judgment was based on a careful study of Clemens’s manuscript usage in letters and other holograph documents. For example, when Redpath added a comma or semicolon before a clause beginning with “but,” or after a clause beginning with “when” or “whenever,” it accords with the author’s demonstrable practice and has been accepted. In addition, whenever Clemens revised the punctuation on the typescript, any punctuation inscribed by Redpath in the same sentence is likewise adopted, on the assumption that Clemens, who was demonstrably attentive to the punctuation, gave it his tacit approval. Another characteristic of the TS is its entire lack of semicolons and abundance of colons. This peculiarity has not been explained, since even the earliest typewriters had a semicolon key, and Redpath’s revisions prove that he did occasionally use semicolons. Some typed sentences consist of several clauses connected by a series of colons, a style of punctuation that Clemens is not known to have used. A few colons have therefore been editorially altered to semicolons or, more rarely, commas. Since there are no lowercase letters in the TS, all lowercase letters have been necessarily supplied by the editors, guided by the author’s predominant usage. Rejected variants in the apparatus entries are not represented as they appear in the TS, in full capitals.
To avoid an excessively long list of trivial entries, the following errors have been silently corrected or removed (that is, they are not reported): periods and commas typed together (‘copies.,’); two words typed as one (‘emptyin’); words typed with one letter typed over another; contractions spelled with spaces (‘did n’t’); periods missing at the ends of paragraphs; and superfluous dots and dashes typed at line ends, apparently added to indicate the continuation of a sentence on the next line (‘no . . . | discredit’ and ‘gets— | started’). In addition, the errors that Redpath corrected while typing are not listed, including changes in wording, and mistypings that he corrected by hand are not listed if they do not form words (such as ‘emeny’ and ‘mainle’), if they result from physical features of the page (‘no | notable’), or if they are dittography (‘of of’). The two titles enclosed in brackets were supplied by Paine when he published the Grant Dictations in MTA .