- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [Begin page 134] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Tuesday, April 7, 1891

     7:55 P.M. W. seemed let down a peg or two from last night. Pretty good humor, however. Sent me some proofs to Bank by Warren today—but I brought them all back, as the directions sent along were too vague. Now cleared up in a minute. Neither of us have word from Talcott Williams yet. W. adds still more to "Some Laggards Yet," several notes, one on health and one about cheer in human life. I brought him the envelopes from Cohen and he was delighted with them, speaking of Cohen's "eminent taste." I received this note from Bucke today:
5 April 1891

My dear Horace

I have yours of 1 Ap. Longaker says about Walt just about what I wrote you and I do not understand [if] it is in reply to my letter (which

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [Begin page 135] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
you were to show him) [or] but a spontaneous prognosis of his own? If you see my letter to W. of 31st Mar kicking about save it or return it to me—W. refers to it in card of 2d inst. and I may want it later—all very quiet here—Winter has come back—ground frozen hard and at present snowing—a regular February day. My brother from Ottawa is to be here this week to stay—he has taken a house in London.

So long!

R. M. Bucke

I replied as to Longaker, no, he has not seen Bucke's note—this makes their correspondent views the more valuable. As to the letter of 31st, "no sign yet," W. said. I do not remember having seen it. W. decided, "I think it was the letter in which he spoke itemistically about the 'Good-Bye' poems—in highly eulogistic terms—warm—almost passionate—certainly vehement." And then, "I shall keep an eye about for it—lay it aside for you if it turns up." The Times (Phila.) has dealt rather sarcastically with the Stedman lectures. So Morris reports. We have not seen. W. anxious to know how. Gave me a Camden Courier, in which E.J. Edwards writes of Stedman (article copied no doubt). "It will interest you, though there is nothing new in it."

     Met Jim Scovel on the way down. We shook hands—he spoke of [my] article (Lippincott's). I said, "I was told by at least one person that the postal you wrote me was written in satire." He flashed out, "That person is a damned fool! Tell him so for me. Why! I had a long talk with Joe Stoddart the other day on this very subject and he agreed with all I said!" W. was much amused at this—called it "Scovelish"—and said, "Well, Jim is right for once, probably, anyhow."


Published Works | In Whitman's Hand | Life & Letters | Commentary | Resources | Pictures & Sound

Support the Archive | About the Archive

Distributed under a Creative Commons License. Ed Folsom & Kenneth M. Price, editors.