Some curious letter superscriptions which have come to Mr. Clemens—Our inefficient postal system under Postmaster-General Key—Reminiscences of Mrs. Harriet Beecher Stowe—Story of Reverend CharleyⒶapparatus note Stowe’s little boy.
A good many years ago Mrs. Clemens used to keep as curiosities some of the odd and strange superscriptions that decorated letters that came to me from strangers in out-of-the-way corners of the earth. One of these superscriptions was the work of Dr. John Brown, and the letter must have been the first one he wrote me after we came home from Europe in August or September, ’74. Evidently the Doctor was guessing at our address from memory, for heⒶapparatus note made an amusing mess of it. The superscription was as follows:
Mr.Ⓐapparatus note S. L. Clemens.
(Mark Twain),
Hartford, N.Y.
Near Boston, U.S.A.Ⓐapparatus note Ⓔexplanatory note
Now then comes a fact which is almost incredible, to wit: the New York postofficeⒶapparatus note which did not contain a single salaried idiot who could not have stated promptly who the letter was for and to what town it should go, actually sent that letter to a wee little hamlet hidden away in the remotenesses of the vast State of New York—for what reason? Because that lost and never previously heard-of hamlet was named Hartford. The letter was returned to the New York postofficeⒶapparatus note from that hamlet. It was returned innocent of the suggestion “Try Hartford Connecticut,” although the hamlet’s postmaster knew quite well that that was the Hartford the [begin page 437] writer of the letter was seeking. Then the New York postofficeⒶapparatus note opened the envelope, got Doctor John’s address out of it, then enclosed it in a fresh envelope and sent it back to Edinburgh. DoctorⒶapparatus note John then got my address from MenziesⒶapparatus note, the publisherⒺexplanatory note, and sent the letter to me again. He also enclosed the former envelope—the one that had had the adventures—and his anger at our postal system was like the fury of an angel. He came the nearest to being bitter and offensive that ever he came in his life, I suppose. He said that in Great Britain it was the Postal Department’sⒶapparatus note boast that by no ingenuity could a man so disguise and conceal a Smith or a Jones or a Robinson in a letter address that the department couldn’t find that man, whereas—then he let fly at our system, which was apparently designed to defeat a letter’s attempts to get to its destination when humanlyⒶapparatus note possible.
Doctor John was right about our department—at that time. But that time did not last long. I think Postmaster-General Key was in office thenⒺexplanatory note. He was a new broom, and he did some astonishing sweeping for a while. He made some cast-iron rules which worked great havoc with the nation’s correspondence. It did not occur to him—rational things seldom occurred to him—that there were several millions of people among us who seldom wrote letters; who were utterly ignorant of postal rules, and who were quite sure to make blunders in writing letter addresses whenever blunders were possible, and that it was the Government’s business to do the very best it could by the letters of these innocents and help themⒶapparatus note get to their destinations, instead of inventing ways to block the road. Key suddenly issued some boiler-iron rules—one of them was that a letter must go to the place named on the envelope, and the effort to find its man must stop there. He must not be searched for. If he wasn’t at the place indicated the letter must be returned to the sender. In the case of Doctor John’s letter the postofficeⒶapparatus note had a wide discretion—not so very wide either. It must go to a HartfordⒶapparatus note. That Hartford must be near Boston; it must also be in the State of New York. It went to the Hartford that was furthest from Boston, but it filled the requirement of being in the State of New York—and it got defeated.
Another rule instituted by Key was that letter superscriptions could not end with “Philadelphia”Ⓐapparatus note—or “Chicago,”Ⓐapparatus note or “San Francisco,”Ⓐapparatus note or “Boston,”Ⓐapparatus note or “New York,”Ⓐapparatus note but, in every case, must add the StateⒶapparatus note, or go to the Dead Letter OfficeⒺexplanatory note. Also, you could not say “New York, N.Y.,”Ⓐapparatus note you must add the word City to the first “New York”Ⓐapparatus note or the letter must go to the Dead Letter Office.
During the first thirty days of the dominion of thisⒶapparatus note singular rule sixteen hundred thousand tons of letters went to the Dead Letter Office from the New York postofficeⒶapparatus note alone. The Dead Letter Office could not contain them and they had to be stacked up outside the building. There was not room outside the building inside the city, so they were formed into a rampart around the city; and if they had had it there during the Civil WarⒶapparatus note we should not have had so much trouble and uneasiness about an invasion of Washington by the Confederate armies. They could neither have climbed over nor under that breastwork nor bored nor blasted through it. Mr. Key was soon brought to a more rational frame of mind.
Then a letter arrived for me enclosed in a fresh envelope. It was from a village priest in Bohemia or GaliciaⒶapparatus note, and was boldly addressed:
[begin page 438]MarkⒶapparatus note Twain,
Somewhere.Ⓐapparatus note
It had traveled over several European countries; it had met with hospitality and with every possible assistance during its wide journey; it was ringed all over, on both sides, with a chain-mail mesh of postmarks—there were nineteen of them altogether. And one of them was a New York postmark. The postal hospitalities had ceased at New York—within three hours and a half of my home. There the letter had been opened, the priest’s address ascertained, and the letter had then been returned to him, as in the case of Dr.Ⓐapparatus note John Brown.
Among Mrs. Clemens’s collection of odd addresses was one on a letter from Australia, worded thus:
MarkⒶapparatus note Twain,
God knows where.Ⓐapparatus note Ⓔexplanatory note
That superscription was noted by newspapers,Ⓐapparatus note here and there and yonder while it was on its travels, and doubtless suggested another odd superscription invented by some stranger in a far-off land—and this was the wording of it:Ⓐapparatus note
That stranger’s trust was not misplaced. Satan courteously sent it along.
This morning’s mail brings another of these novelties. It comes from France—from a young English girl—and is addressed:
Mark Twain
———
c/o President Roosevelt.
The White House
Washington
America
———
U.S.A.Ⓐapparatus note
It was not delayed, but came straight along bearing the Washington postmark of yesterdayⒺexplanatory note.
In a diary which Mrs. Clemens kept for a little while, a great many years ago, I find various mentions of Mrs. Harriet Beecher StoweⒺexplanatory note, who was a near neighbor of ours in Hartford, with no fences between. And in those days she made as much use of our grounds as of her own, in pleasant weather. Her mind had decayed, and she was a pathetic figure. She wandered about all the day long in the care of a muscular Irish womanⒶapparatus note. Among the colonists of our neighborhood the doors always stood open in pleasant weather. Mrs. Stowe entered them at her own free will, and as she was always softly slippered and generally full of animal spirits, she was able [begin page 439] to deal in surprises, and she liked to do it. She would slip up behind a person who was deep in dreams and musings and fetch a war whoopⒶapparatus note that would jump that person out of his clothes. And she had other moods. Sometimes we would hear gentle music in the drawing-room and would find her there at the piano singing ancient and melancholy songs with infinitely touching effect.
Her husband, old Professor Stowe, was a picturesque figure. He wore a broad slouch hat. He was a large man, and solemn. His beard was white and thick and hung far down on his breast. His nose was enlarged and broken up by a disease which made it look like a cauliflower.Ⓐapparatus note The first time our little Susy ever saw him she encountered him on the street near our house and came flying wide-eyed to her mother and saidⒶapparatus note “Santa Claus has got loose!Ⓐapparatus note”
Which reminds me of ReverendⒶapparatus note Charley Stowe’s little boyⒺexplanatory note—a little boy of seven years. I met ReverendⒶapparatus note Charley crossing his mother’s grounds one morning and he told me this little tale. He had been out to Chicago to attend a Convention of Congregational clergymen, and had taken his little boy with him. During the trip he reminded the little chap, every now and then, that he must be on his very best behavior there in Chicago. He saidⒶapparatus note “We shall be the guests of a clergyman, there will be other guests—clergymen and their wives—and you must be careful to let those people see by your walk and conversation that you are of a godly household. Be very careful about this.” The admonition bore fruit. At the first breakfast which they ate in the Chicago clergyman’s house he heard his little son say in the meekest and most reverent way to the lady opposite him,
“PleaseⒶapparatus note, won’t you, for Christ’s sake, pass the butter?”
Doctor was guessing at our address . . . Near Boston, U.S.A.] Brown sent two letters to Clemens in early 1874 that were returned to Scotland “Unclaimed.” According to a complaint about the post office that Clemens wrote to the editor of the Boston Advertiser on 16 June 1874, one was addressed “Hartford, State of New York.” In his complaint Clemens also mentioned another letter, addressed to him in “Hartford, Near Boston, New York,” which did reach him “promptly” from England (16 June 1874 to the Editor of the Boston Advertiser, L6, 162–63).
Menzies, the publisher] John Menzies (1808–79) was an Edinburgh publisher, bookseller, and newsagent, whose company was one of Scotland’s principal book, magazine, and newspaper distributors. The firm continues in business today and despite diversification still derives much of its revenue from newspaper and magazine distribution (Clan Menzies 2009; John Menzies plc 2009).
I think Postmaster-General Key was in office then] The postmaster general at the time John Brown’s letters were mishandled was John A. J. Creswell (1828–91), a Republican congressman and senator from Maryland (1863–65, 1865–67, respectively), who served from March 1869 until July 1874. He is considered to have been exceptionally effective, responsible for sweeping reforms that reduced costs and increased speed and efficiency of delivery of both domestic and foreign mail. David McKendree Key (1824–1900), a lawyer, Confederate soldier, and Democratic senator from Tennessee (1875–77), was postmaster general from March 1877 to June 1880.
Key suddenly issued some boiler-iron rules . . . the letter must go to the Dead Letter Office] Clemens alludes to the United States Postal Laws and Regulations issued by Postmaster General Key on 1 July 1879, and to supplementary orders regarding misdirected letters issued by him in September and October of that year. Postmasters and postal employees could not on their own authority change a letter’s “direction to a different person or different office or different state.” Misdirected matter received at any post office for delivery had to be returned to the sender if his name and address were on it, and if not, the item had to be sent to the dead-letter office. Letter addresses were required to include both city and state, making “New York, N.Y.” the acceptable form, with letters addressed merely to “New York City” consigned to the dead-letter office. These rules occasioned much complaint and criticism. Clemens added his voice to the protests in a letter of 22 November 1879 and two letters of 8 December 1879, all to the Hartford Courant ( Letters 1876–1880 ; Bissell and Kirby 1879, 2, 117; New York Times: “Notes from the Capital,” 10 Oct 1879, 2; “Orders to Postmasters,” 12 Oct 1879, 2; “The Post Office . . . ,” 15 Oct 1879, 4; “Imperfectly-Directed Letters,” 31 Oct 1879, 3).
Mark Twain, God knows where] Clemens was in London, in 1896, when he received the letter thus addressed, which had been sent (according to Paine) by Brander Matthews and Francis Wilson of The Players club ( MTB, 2:565–66). Clemens replied:
I glanced at your envelope by accident, and got several chuckles for reward—and chuckles are worth much in this world. And there was a curious thing; that I should get a letter addressed “God-Knows-Where” showed that He did know where I was, although I was hiding from the world, and no one in America knows my address, and the stamped legend “Deficiency of address supplied by the New York P.O.,” showed that He had given it away. In the same mail comes a letter from friends in New Zealand addressed, “Mrs. Clemens (care Mark Twain), United States of America,” and again He gave us away—this time to the deficiency department of the San Francisco P.O. (24 Nov 1896 to The Players, New York Tribune, 31 Dec 1896, 6)
It comes from France . . . Washington postmark of yesterday] The envelope, but not the letter itself, survives in the Mark Twain Papers, and was once pinned to the typescript of this dictation (see the envelope with the redirected address, below).
In a diary which Mrs. Clemens kept . . . mentions of Mrs. Harriet Beecher Stowe] A diary that Olivia used sporadically between 21 October 1877 and 19 June 1902, with only twenty-five of its leaves bearing her writing, survives in the Mark Twain Papers. Just one entry mentions Harriet Beecher Stowe. Dated 7 June 1885, it describes how Stowe appeared that afternoon
carrying in her hand a bunch of wild flowers that she had just gathered. She asked if I would like some flowers, of course I said that I should. She handed them to me thanking me most heartily for taking them. Said she could not help gathering them as she walked but that when she took them home the daughters would say “Ma what are you going to do with them, everything is full” meaning with those that she had already gathered. Mrs Stowe is so gentle and lovely. (OLC 1877–1902)
Reverend Charley Stowe’s little boy] Charles Edward Stowe’s son was author and editor Lyman Beecher Stowe (1880–1963) (“Charles E. Stowe” in “Hartford Residents” 1974; “Lyman Beecher Stowe Dead,” New York Times, 26 Sept 1963, 35).
Source documents.
Envelope MS envelope addressed to Clemens in care of President Roosevelt: ‘Mark Twain . . . U.S.A.’ (438.22–29). (The envelope is reproduced in facsimile in the Explanatory Note at 6.7.)TS1 (incomplete) Typescript, leaves numbered 539–45 (most of 546 is missing), made from Hobby’s notes and revised: ‘Friday . . . got loose.” ’ (436 title–439.10).
TS2 Typescript, leaves numbered 681–88, made from the revised TS1 and further revised.
TS4 Typescript, leaves numbered 931–38, made from the revised TS1.
NAR 7pf Galley proofs of NAR 7, typeset from the revised TS2, ViU (the same extent as NAR 7).
NAR 7 North American Review 183 (7 December 1906), 1094–95: ‘In a . . . the butter?” ’ (438.31–439.21).
The pages missing from TS1 were discarded by Paine when he edited the dictation for MTA . He preserved seven lines from the top of page 546, pasting them to the bottom of page 545. The revisions that Clemens made on TS1 were incorporated into TS2, and they were incorporated into TS4 as well. TS4 has no authority for the text that survives in TS1. Where TS1 is missing, however, TS4 was collated and its variant reported, because TS2 and TS4 derive independently from TS1 and therefore either may incorporate authorial readings not present in the other. When TS2 and TS4 agree, they confirm the readings of the missing portion of TS1.
Harvey reviewed TS2 for possible publication in the NAR and selected an excerpt. Clemens revised TS2 to serves as printer’s copy for NAR 7, where it follows excerpts from the ADs of 5 March and 6 March 1906. The bottom of page 686 was cut away, and sent with the last two pages (687–88); an NAR editor renumbered the pages to place them in sequence after the earlier excerpts. Clemens made no revisions in this excerpt on NAR 7pf.
Marginal Notes on TS2 Concerning Publication in the NAR