Autobiography Of Mark Twain, Volume 1

by Mark Twain

  257.9–13 we have to-day . . . Standard Oil Corporation . . . how much crippled] The Standard Oil Company and its subsidiaries were being sued in the New York Supreme Court by Missouri Attorney General Herbert S. Hadley, in support of his ongoing suits in Missouri courts for Standard’s violation of that state’s antitrust laws. On 10 January 1906, the New York Times reported at length on the previous day’s New York proceedings, highlighting the evasive testimony and arrogant demeanor of the vice-president of Standard Oil, Clemens’s good friend Henry H. Rogers (New York Times: “H. H. Rogers Summoned to the Supreme Court,” 10 Jan 1906, 1; “Herbert S. Hadley—the Man from Missouri,” 14 Jan 1906, SM4; see also “Henry H. Rogers”).

  257.13–15 we have Congress threatening to overhaul the Panama Canal Commission . . . recently added eleven millions] In mid-December 1905 Congress had “added” $11 million to the $59 million already expended since 1904 on preparatory work and to acquire the rights and assets of the failed French Panama Canal company. Nevertheless, the New York Times observed on 21 December, the commission had “not yet decided what kind of canal it will build. Neither the engineers nor the Commissioners knowwhetherwe are to spend $150,000,000 more, or $200,000,000 more. Nobody knows how much the canal will cost.” On 9 January 1906, the Senate voted to investigate “all matters relating to the Panama Canal.” Actual construction began later in 1906. The canal opened in 1914, at a total cost of about $375 million (New York Times: “Money for the Canal,” 12 Dec 1905, 8; “Taft Agrees to Accept $11,000,000 for Canal,” 13 Dec 1905, 4; “A Rooseveltian Episode,” 21 Dec 1905, 8; “Panama Investigation Voted by the Senate,” 10 Jan 1906, 4; “The President’s Responsibility,” 22 Jan 1906, 6; Panama Canal Authority 2008).

  257.16–17 Church and State separated in France] A bill providing for the separation had become effective on 7 December 1905. It marked “the culmination of the strained relations which have long existed between the French Government and the Vatican” and ended a system dating “from 1801, when the Concordat was signed by Pius VII. and Napoleon. Under the Concordat the churches were Government property, and the clergy was paid by the State.” The change was not universally welcomed: there was rioting and other protest “encouraged and indirectly fomented by leaders of the anti-Republican Party, and probably to some extent by the priests of the Roman Church” (New York Times: “End of State Church Declared in France,” 7 Dec 1905, 8; “The Religious Troubles in France,” 4 Feb 1906, 6).

  257.17–18 we have a threat . . . Morocco question] Since late 1905 France and Germany had been moving toward war over political control of (and commercial access to) Morocco. Germany had not joined a 1904 agreement in which Great Britain, Spain, and Italy had accepted French domination, and now objected to France’s “special privileges”—especially in policing the country (New York Times: “The Conference of Algeciras,” 6 Jan 1906, 8; “Clash in Moroccan Conference Expected,” 7 Jan 1906, 3). The conflict was resolved diplomatically on 31 March 1906 with a new agreement, largely brokered by the United States, that addressed the commercial issues and provided for shared police responsibility without undermining French hegemony (“Morocco Conference Ends with Agreement,” New York Times, 1 Apr 1906, 4).

  257.18–21 we have a crushed revolution in Russia . . . three centuries] The Russian Revolution of 1905 began in January, on “Bloody Sunday,” when troops fired on a peaceful protest march in St. Petersburg, killing more than a thousand participants. Rebellion against the tyranny of Tsar Nicholas II (1868–1918) then spread, culminating in September and October of that year in a general strike that paralyzed the entire country. Nicholas was forced to issue his October Manifesto, providing for a parliament and freedom of speech, the press, and assembly. He soon reneged on these reforms, however, and by December 1905 the revolt was over, with its leaders under arrest.

  257.21–26 we have China furnishing a solemn and awful mystery . . . convulsion is impending there] In January 1906 a “curious unrest in parts of China” seemed “a puzzle” to the Western world: “There are two elements clearly enough present in this feeling. One is distrust and dislike of foreigners from the Occident; the other is discontent with the Imperial Government. But it is by no means certain that each of these sentiments is felt by all who feel the other” (“The Outlook in China,” New York Times, 8 Jan 1906, 8). It was feared that there might even be “a general uprising of the people against the entire political system of the empire.” Consequently, two U.S. infantry regiments and two batteries of field artillery were dispatched to the Philippines (which the United States had controlled since the end of the Spanish-American War in 1898), to be ready in the event that troops had to be “landed in China for the protection of American lives and property” (“America Preparing for Crash in China,” New York Times, 7 Jan 1906, 1). One of the infantry brigades was under the command of General Frederick Funston, who captured Emilio Aguinaldo, the leader of the Filipino insurgents (see AD, 14 Mar 1906, 408.30–42 and note). Although China remained newsworthy well into 1906, the anticipated explosion did not come and no U.S. brigades were sent.

  258.34 There you have the facts] Clemens’s account is consistent in its details with the report in the New York Times of 5 January 1906 (“Drag Hull’s Sister from White House,” 1). On 4 January Mrs. Minor Morris had gone to the White House, hoping to convince President Theodore Roosevelt to intervene to have her physician husband restored to his post at the Army Medical Bureau, from which he had been abruptly dismissed. She alleged that the dismissal had been instigated by her brother, Republican Congressman John A. T. Hull of Iowa, with whom Mrs. Morris was bitterly disputing the settlement of their father’s estate. After she was carried and dragged from the White House at the order of Benjamin F. Barnes, an assistant presidential secretary, she was imprisoned on a charge of disorderly conduct. To prevent her immediate release on bail, a charge of insanity also was brought against her. After two examining physicians pronounced her sane, however, she was released after several hours and allowed to return to her room at the Willard Hotel, where she was soon under medical care for bruising, shock, and nervous prostration. Her own “calm and mild, unexcited and well worded account” of the incident appeared in the New York Times on 6 January (“Mrs. Morris Tells of White House Expulsion,” 1). The Morris incident remained a national cause célèbre for more than six months, with attempts at congressional inquiries, all deflected, and with repeated calls for the president to accept responsibility, disavow Barnes’s actions, and apologize, all rejected. In April Roosevelt confirmed his faith in Barnes by appointing him Washington postmaster. And in May, during Barnes’s Senate confirmation hearings, the White House was charged with using false testimony, from a physician who never actually treated Mrs. Morris, to impugn her reputation and question her sanity (New York Times: numerous articles, Jan–June 1906).

  259.3–6 Morris incident . . . the President’s character] In the margin of the typescript alongside this passage, Paine wrote, “Not to be used for 50 years from 1920—.” Nevertheless, he included the passage in his 1924 edition of Mark Twain’s Autobiography (MTA, 1:288).

  259.13 It is the Roosevelts that have the Barneses around] Clemens was not alone in seeing Roosevelt’s imperiousness behind Barnes’s behavior. The Hartford Times, for example, condemned the “new spirit of high mightiness in the White House, which differs widely from anything which has been seen there heretofore” (“From the Hartford Times,” New York Times, 12 Jan 1906, 8).

  259.32–36 He flies from one thing to another . . . opinion] On 7 January 1906, Lyon recorded in her diary another of Clemens’s vivid descriptions of Roosevelt: “This morning Mr. Clemens was speaking of Roosevelt & his great blustering—& he said that ‘he is magnificent when his ears are pricked up & his tail is in the air & he attacks a lightning express, only to be lost in the dust the express creates’ ” (Lyon 1906, 7).

  260.2 these joyous ebullitions of excited sincerity] Clemens was not always so tolerant of Roosevelt’s “opinions and feelin
gs and convictions.” In 1907, in his copy of a volume of Roosevelt’s “ideas expressed on many occasions,” Clemens altered the title page from A Square Deal to “BANALITIES,” and the title of the publisher’s introductory remarks from “Foreword” to “A PUKE BY A DISINTERESTED PUBLISHER” (Roosevelt 1906, volume in CU-MARK). He was always careful, however, to avoid any public criticism, as he explained in a letter to his daughter Clara in February 1910:

  Roosevelt closed my mouth years ago with a deeply valued, gratefully received, unasked favor; & with all my bitter detestation of him I have never been able to say a venomous thing about him in print since—that benignant deed always steps in the way & lays its consecrated hand upon my lips. I ought not to allow it to do this; & I am ashamed of allowing it, but I cannot help it, since I am made in that way, & did not make myself. (21, 22, and 23 Feb 1906 to CC, photocopy in CU-MARK)

  Autobiographical Dictation, 11 January 1906

  260 title January 11, 1906] The first page of this dictation is reproduced in facsimile in the Introduction (figure 14).

  261.11–16 Address of Samuel L. Clemens . . . as published in the BOSTON EVENING TRANSCRIPT, December 18, 1877] This heading was not in the Boston Evening Transcript’s lengthy account of the dinner and speeches (“The Atlantic Dinner,” 1, 3). It must have been supplied by the unidentified “Boston typewriter” (i.e., typist) who transcribed the speech from the newspaper. The Transcript text was based (probably indirectly) on Clemens’s own manuscript. On 19 December, the Boston Globe reported, “At the Atlantic dinner, Monday night, a reporter sent a note to Mr. Samuel L. Clemens asking him for the manuscript of his speech. In reply ‘Mark’ wrote: ‘Yes, if you will put in the applause in the right places, especially if there isn’t any’ ” (“Table Gossip,” 4). Several newspapers printed the text on the morning after the speech, any one of which could have been the source of the Transcript’s version in the evening edition (see the Textual Commentary, MTPO).

  261.18 Mr. Chairman—] Henry O. Houghton (1823–95), publisher of the Atlantic Monthly and the “chief host” of the dinner, gave the opening address. He introduced William Dean Howells, editor of the magazine and Clemens’s close friend, as the man who would “take charge of the proceedings” (see “A Call with W. D. Howells on General Grant,” note at 70.19). Howells spoke and then introduced each of the other speakers (“The Atlantic Dinner,” Boston Evening Transcript, 18 Dec 1877, 1, 3).

  261.21–24 I am reminded of a thing which happened . . . California] In May of 1864, having achieved fame and notoriety during twenty months as local reporter and editor for the Virginia City Territorial Enterprise, Clemens left Nevada for San Francisco, where he worked as local reporter for the San Francisco Morning Call and also contributed to the Californian, a literary weekly. In early December 1864 (“thirteen years ago,” in 1877) Clemens accepted an invitation from his friend Steve Gillis to leave San Francisco and join his brother James Gillis and Dick Stoker at their cabin at Jackass Hill, Tuolumne County. Steve had recently been jailed for fighting, and Clemens signed a $500 bond for his bail; when Steve decided to return to Virginia City rather than face trial, Clemens became liable for the whole amount. Clemens, out of work save for a few articles in the Californian, was short of funds himself, having lost or cashed in his valuable shares of the Hale and Norcross Silver Mining Company. It was this trip to Jackass Hill and nearby Angels Camp (in Calaveras County) that he refers to here as an “inspection tramp of the southern mines.” The visit turned into a twelve-week retreat during which he stayed with Gillis and Stoker, helped them “pocket-mine,” and listened to tales like the “Jumping Frog” and the blue-jay yarn. Clemens returned to San Francisco in late February 1865. The notebook he kept during the trip is in the Mark Twain Papers (L1: link note following 28 May 1864 to Cutler, 302–3; 18 Oct 1864 to OC, 317; link note following 11 Nov 1864 to OC, 320–21; N&J1, 63–82).

  262.1–4 “ ‘Through . . . soul!’] From Holmes’s “The Chambered Nautilus” (1858).

  262.9–12 “ ‘Give me . . . altitudes.’] From Emerson’s “Mithridates” (1847).

  262.16–17 “ ‘Honor . . . Pau-Puk-Keewis—’] From Longfellow’s “The Song of Hiawatha” (1855). The verses are not consecutive: the first is the opening line of book 2; the second is the opening line of book 16.

  262.22–23 “ ‘Flash . . . days.’] From Holmes’s “Mare Rubrum” (1858).

  262.33 “ ‘This . . . primeval.’] The opening line of Longfellow’s “Evangeline: A Tale of Acadie” (1847).

  262.35–36 “ ‘Here . . . world.’] From Emerson’s “Concord Hymn” (1837).

  262.41–263.3 “ ‘I am . . . again!’] Rearranged and adapted lines from Emerson’s “Brahma” (1857).

  263.8–9 “I tire . . . played!’] Adapted from Emerson’s “Song of Nature” (1859), where the first line actually reads “I tire of globes and races.”

  263.11–12 “ ‘Thanks . . . taught’] From Longfellow’s “The Village Blacksmith” (1841).

  263.13 and blamed if he didn’t down with another right bower] A “right bower” was the jack of trumps, the highest card in the game of euchre, and therefore unique in each deck of cards.

  263.15–16 “ ‘God help . . . palm!’] From Holmes’s “A Voice of the Loyal North” (1861).

  263.21 All quiet on the Potomac] The famous Civil War song “All Quiet Along the Potomac Tonight” was from a poem by Ethel Lynn Beers (1827–79) entitled “The Picket-Guard,” which had first appeared in Harper’s Weekly in 1861. In 1863 it was set to music by John Hill Hewitt (1801–90).

  263.22 how-come-you-so] Drunk.

  263.23–24 Barbara Frietchie . . . Biglow Papers . . . Thanatopsis] “Barbara Frietchie” (1863) was actually by John Greenleaf Whittier. “The Biglow Papers” (1846–67) were by James Russell Lowell. “Thanatopsis” (1817, revised 1821) was by William Cullen Bryant. Neither Lowell nor Bryant attended the dinner.

  263.27–28 “ ‘Is yonder . . . breed?’] From Emerson’s “Monadnoc” (1847).

  263.31 ‘When Johnny Comes Marching Home’] This popular Civil War song was by bandmaster and composer Patrick Sarsfield Gilmore (1829–92), who published it in 1863 under the pseudonym “Louis Lambert” (Library of Congress 2008).

  263.36–39 “ ‘Lives . . . Time.’] From Longfellow’s “Psalm of Life” (1838).

  264.9–19 Mr. and Mrs. A. P. Chamberlaine . . . I had been irreverent beyond belief, beyond imagination] The Clemenses had met Augustus P. Chamberlaine and his wife in Venice in October 1878. The Chamberlaines’ acquaintance with Emerson permitted them to assure Clemens then that his Whittier dinner speech had not given offense to the venerable poets (see N&J2, 220–21). There had in fact been some negative comments in the press in the days following the dinner. The Boston Transcript, for example, noted that the speech “was in bad taste and entirely out ofplace” (19 Dec 1877, 4); and the Worcester Gazette opined that “Mark’s sense of propriety needs development, and it is not his first offense” (reprinted in the Boston Evening Traveller, 26 Dec 1877, 1). Several other newspapers, however, gave Clemens positive reviews. The Boston Advertiser noted that “the amusement was intense, while the subjects of the wit, Longfellow, Emerson and Holmes, enjoyed it as much as any” (“Whittier’s Birthday,” 18 Dec 1877, 1). The Boston Globe reported that the speech “produced the most violent bursts of hilarity” and that “Mr. Emerson seemed a little puzzled about it, but Mr. Longfellow laughed and shook, and Mr. Whittier seemed to enjoy it keenly” (“The Whittier Dinner,” 18 Dec 1877, 8). The Boston Journal observed that Clemens’s speech “soon aroused uproarious merriment” (“Whittier’s Birthday,” 18 Dec 1877, unknown page), and the Evening Traveller noted that Clemens “served up a characteristic series of parodies on Longfellow, Emerson, and Holmes, ‘setting the table in a roar’ as is his wont” (“A Bard’s Birthday Banquet,” 18 Dec 1877, 1). Nevertheless, on 27 December 1877, in the depths of his remorse, and with Howells’s encouragement, he wrote letters of apology addressed to Hol
mes, Emerson, and Longfellow. On 29 December Holmes replied that “it grieves me to see that you are seriously troubled about what seems to me a trifling matter. It never occurred to me for a moment to take offence, or to feel wounded by your playful use of my name” (CU-MARK). On 31 December Ellen Emerson replied for her father—not to Clemens himself, but to Olivia—saying that although the family was “disappointed” in Clemens’s speech, “no shadow of indignation has ever been in any of our minds. The night of the dinner, my Father says, he did not hear Mr Clemens’s speech he was so far off, and my Mother says that when she read it to him the next day it amused him” (CU-MARK). And on 6 January 1878 Longfellow wrote Clemens that the incident was “a matter of such slight importance. The newspapers have made all the mischief. A bit of humor at a dinner table is one thing; a report of it in the morning papers is another” (CU-MARK). By 5 February 1878 Clemens had rebounded sufficiently from his initial embarrassment to write his Quaker City mentor, Mary Mason Fairbanks: