33mm EZHWLES‘ QMM

GfiEE ‘3? ML 9.

flifiéWEfigfiY
E F0“.

up; a M4.“
mun a»;
«E

21. En flu 5....
mm Wan. E an...
way an.“ a?
“W.“ 9% MM.“
.5...“ Hum

W E
emu» SW— E
'53- 1!!

UR... nib
mu an» nu.
a '3]
v3 3
Wm“
Eva
@w
an.“
33
mm,

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlIi

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

THE WELL-TEMPERED COLLABORATOR:

ROBERT CHARLES SANDS
presented by

Llewellyn Eugene Foll
has been accepted towards fulfillment

of the requirements for

PhoDo degree in EngliSh

 

 

\“—. p
A/flmdd ({- Inutf’éjkl'k—

 

" l
(/ Major professor
~ ../

Date _Ap_:il_2fi._i914_

0-7639

 

 

.9" “V Y —
TKL “Luau

a???
vuta

Llewl

Hebert Charles C'

‘4 ~

Zity's most pepular a'

:33“: even to St‘dCi

This neglect of

“tie“ F‘ '
. “any important
iii: +1..
‘1 ...e poem Yano'xr‘e
\

S'lbfect H. .
ma..er for 1."

2! nati

Ve landscaoe

 

\
é».

 

ABSTRACT
THE WELL-TEMPERED COLLABORATOR:
ROBERT CHARLES SANDS
BY

Llewellyn Eugene Foll

Robert Charles Sands (1799-1832) was one of New York
City's most pOpular authors during the Knickerbocker period.
Today, due to the inequities of fate, his love of collabora-
tive writing, and the diffusion of his talent, he is virtually
unknown, even to students of American literature.

This neglect of Sands is unfortunate, for he made
undeniably important contributions to American literature.
With the poem Yamoyden (1820), he showed that America had
subject matter for imaginative literature in the Indian and

our native landscape. While editor of the Atlantic Magazine

 

and New York Review (1824-1826), he became one of the coun-

 

try's most important critics and helped shape the emerging
nation's ideas on literature. Always an advocate for a unique
national literature, Sands was willing to undertake person-
ally any new literary venture. His short prose fiction has
to be counted among the best of the early American short
stories. The exuberant yet genteel sense of humor which

permeates his writing places him in the tradition that

 

56:31.9 one of the PCS
literature. His inte
iarf-zer sides, anticip
leiville, and Poe.

All in all, Sand
Prerican literary men
:atisr. to help carve
This purpose is acccrr
first tine all the av

V
:c~~-~:

........ry, on Sands ' s

thee; and (2) by ree

in America

n literatur

2"; nnzrl

My 150 years C

:?913 ' ‘
ped during tnos

n
.ne obstacle to

 

tic: '
”as hlS love of

fght
n'L'

k n
t..e Single meet

LI
“:5 n
Mk seems to be

5:365 , .
tho literary a.
teem- . d
~*ebla Peithcl»

f’lang
““NS M
Inns.
UL lmh .
HrOVlng th:

't :NI
e~§ylsm O

C
‘ Each 0+:

 

 

FOLL
became one of the most uniquely American features of our
literature. His interest in the human mind, especially its
darker sides, anticipates the studies of guilt by Hawthorne,
Melville, and Poe.

All in all, Sands deserves a niche in the gallery of
American literary men, and it is the purpose of this disser-
tation to help carve a place for this neglected Knickerbocker.
This purpose is accomplished (l) by bringing together for the
first time all the available information, both primary and
secondary, on Sands's life, his work, his friends, and his
times; and (2) by reevaluating Sands's achievements and place
in American literature according to the perspective provided
by nearly 150 years of history and the literary standards
developed during those years.

One obstacle to Sands's achieving any permanent reputa-
tion was his love of writing with and for other peOple; in
fact, the single most common element in the wide variety of
his work seems to be his collaboration. In college he pro-
duced two literary journals in collaboration with members of
the Columbia Peithologian Society. After college he and three
friends formed the Literary Confederacy for the avowed pur-
pose of improving their literary talent by constructive
criticism of each other's work. The group wrote for literary
and critical journals and published two series of essays in
New York newspapers. The best example of Sands's collabora-
tion is the poem Yamoyden, a verse romance written with his

friend James Eastburn. Sands also worked with William Cullen

went and Henry Ance
Later he collaborated
“he and edit three

.6-

arrual, The Talisran

 

Sara‘s joined Brl'ant'
113 William Leggett 1
Tales of Glauber-Spa.

Even Sands's ind
:: inaugurated by 0th
fictice of Hernan Cort
:ffchn Paul Jones (1
3.: were built around
his peers are transla
:al, or Romance langc
best when he had some
355 as a framework or.

. l .
CClaab‘Orathn a1

.

.

'I

I 2v
0“.

e credit is due;

ere ' '
This disserta
3..::b. ‘
wrative effort“
‘R‘

w: fin»:
“‘H

by QXaminatiC

'I'V-Nenh .
Le. Invarlah‘.

MM ‘

"otaDOrat

OIS Usual},

An- 'l-

31:3 of c
“a“dS's tale-
Sieve n
”reatness in
{a 4
mourn .
allst' San;

l

 

FOLL

Bryant and Henry Anderson in editing the New York Review.

 

Later he collaborated with Bryant and Gulian C. Verplanck to
write and edit three numbers of the first New York literary

annual, The Talisman (1828-1830). In his last year (1832),

 

Sands joined Bryant, James K. Paulding, Catharine Sedgwick,
and William Leggett in producing the collection of stories,

Tales of Glauber-Spa.

 

Even Sands's individual productions were often inspired
or inaugurated by others: his two biographies, "Historical

Notice of Hernan Cortes" (1828) and Life and Correspondence

 

of John Paul Jones (1830), were both written upon request

 

and were built around a series of letters. The majority of
his poems are translations or imitations of classical, Bibli-
cal, or Romance language verse. Sands just seemed to work
best when he had someone else to suggest ideas which he could
use as a framework on which to hang his erudite wit.
Collaboration always makes it difficult to give credit
where credit is due; consequently Sands's reputation has suf-
fered. This dissertation establishes Sands's share in these
collaborative efforts by comparing them with their original
M85 and by examination of club minutes and personal corre-
spondence. Invariably Sands was the major creator, and fellow
collaborators usually gave him entire credit for a work.
Another barrier to any lasting fame was the wide diffu-
sion of Sands's talent. He simply spread himself too thin to
achieve greatness in any single area. Besides being a full—

time journalist, Sands wrote in nearly every literary genre

but drama: essay, 1i
and biography. With ‘
sac.“ of these at a di
fare, this critical b.
aperiod as a franewo:

tritings of Robert Ch.

 

 

 

FOLL
but drama: essay, literary criticism, poetry, short story,
and biography. With the exception of poetry, Sands practiced
each of these at a different period in his short life. There-
fore, this critical biography uses the genre which dominated
a period as a framework in which to examine the life and

writings of Robert Charles Sands.

THE WELL-

ROBE

Lieu

Michi'
I
in partial fulf

f:

DOCT

 

 

 

THE WELL-TEMPERED COLLABORATOR:

ROBERT CHARLES SANDS

BY

Llewellyn Eugene Foll

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to

Michigan State University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of English

1974

 

Copyright by
LLEWELLYN EUGENE FOLL

1974

 

fr!

This dissertatir
carpleted without the
3:. lanes H. Pickerir
‘Iyprofessor, Dr. C

leiical Center; my t2

 

Seidel; and my long-S

  

Ialso wish to
troperation of the he

'v'av‘
J

..x Public Library's

 

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This dissertation could never have been successfully
completed without the help of the following: my mentor,
Dr. James H. Pickering; my inspiration, Dr. Russel B. Nye;
my professor, Dr. C. David Mead; my patron, the Kettering
Medical Center; my typists, Mary Ann Biersack and Lynda
Seidel; and my long-suffering wife, Patricia.

I also wish to acknowledge the invaluable services and
cooperation of the New York Historical Society and the New

York Public Library's manuscript division and Berg Collection.

ii

1:21:111101'. . - .
11:31:11. 11:1: 51.32?

Relatives, Distant
New York City Durrr

SEPTER II. THE AVA".
C11'urbia Collece (E.
ThePei-thologian S
.11. vs Literature
TheBridal of Vau '1
\

 

TESTER III. THE ESP

Organization and N.
e\eolocust" (6
ehnphilogist"
TheLiterary Journ?
St.

Tammany Maca21: -

2:11:11 IV. THE 111:

 

 
 
    

Production of Yamc
C “Eiticism of Ya
Papantzin"
Ianslated Verse (
Pi»! Original Poe
«Mary (139)

31.01

11-111 11. 1111: c111:

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0
CHAPTER I. THE SANDS FAMILY . . . . . . . . . .

Relatives, Distant and Close (16)
New York City During Sands's Childhood (23)

CHAPTER II. THE AMATEUR LITTERATEUR . . . . . .

Columbia College (30)

The Peithologian Society (33)
Law vs. Literature (41)

The Bridal of Vaumond (44)

 

CHAPTER III. THE ESSAYIST . . . . . . . . . . .

16

30

53

Organization and Membership of the Literary Confederacy(54)

"The Neologist" (64)

"The Amphilogist" (74)
The Literary Journal (82)
St. Tammany_Magazifie (87)

 

 

CHAPTER IV. THE POET . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Production of Yamoyden (92)
Criticism of Yamo den (112)
"Papantzin" (

Translated Verse (128)
Other Original Poetry (132)
Summary (139)

CHAPTER V. THE CRITIC O O O I O O O O O O I I 0

Coming of Age (142)
The Atlantic Magazine (152)

 

The New-YorK Review and Athenaeum Magazine (165)

 

Sands's Philosophy ofLiterary Criticism T175)
CHAPTER VI. THE JOURNALIST . . . . . . . . . .
CHAPTER VII. THE BIOGRAPHER . . . . . . . . . .

"Historical Notice of Hernan Cortes" (200)
John Paul Jones (209)

iii

92

142

183

199

CEPPTER VIII. THE K.‘

Collaboration on t}
The Sketch Club (21
Tales of Glauber-S;

3355‘s Short 1‘1th

 

TESTER IX. THE DEA:

Var-.1?
"“‘V00000000

31111111111111

 

iv
CHAPTER VIII. THE KNICKERBOCKER WIT . . . . . . . . . 218
Collaboration on the TaliSman (218)
The Sketch Club (238)

Tales of Glauber-Spa (245)
Sands’s Short Fiction (252)

 

CHAPTER IX. THE DEAD OF 1832 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279
NOTES 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 I O O O O O 29 3

BIBLIOGRAPHY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O 314

 

 

1

‘Ah, there's Sa'
as he gently nudged

succrbed to the war‘

 

ping of the waves.
'Aye, prompt as
figure next to him a
green shore of New .1
looked around the or
here. 111.153 the 0.
11101010113, but fas
The smaller ma

inwardly at the eas

:1 ‘~ '
iersone Lat1nat1

3

‘4‘

made his Come

1.,'

INTRODUCTION

"Ah, there's Sands," said the slim, mild-mannered man
as he gently nudged his dozing companion, who had momentarily
succumbed to the warmth of the June sun and the steady lap-
ping of the waves.

"Aye, prompt as usual," returned the agreeably rotund
figure next to him as he roused and peered toward the lush
green shore of New Jersey. Then he twisted in his seat and
looked around the cabin of the ferry: "Fine boat Stevens has
here. I miss the old horse-boat ferry he used to run, though.
Malodorous, but fascinating."

The smaller man in the conservative brown coat smiled
inwardly at the easy way his companion had thrown off the
cumbersome Latinate words which so often stifled his prose
and made his conversation as imposing as his appearance.
"Let's go out on deck," he suggested.

Outside they had a better view of the small inlet and
ferry dock they were now cautiously approaching. From the
dock a dusty road wound around a hill into Hoboken, which, in
1827, was a village of about 50 houses scattered around the
large hill on which stood the palatial home of Col. John Ste-
vens. Many of the houses were large and had that look of

prosperity about them, for they belonged to wealthy New Yorkers

1

 

like John Jacob Astc
try, sought escape

As the ferry q;
ran squirted into th

hands in order to gC

 

round shouldered, Y3I
worker seated on a x»
glasses set in octag
leak rather sharp ar.
:aroaflaged by rathe
from the back of the
was listening intent
resident of Hohoken

L'1v
41439.1 In fact.

 

ferr
.Y hdd dOCkEd al":
in: ,

eere walking hri

I
Sand In
S. AA: rue
FCunn
3 man turfled to

Pan
*1

s. welcome to the

 

2

like John Jacob Astor who, even in the early nineteenth cen-
tury, sought escape in suburbia.

As the ferry quietly inched toward the dock, the larger
man squinted into the sun, then shaded his eyes with his
hands in order to get a better look at the medium sized,
round shouldered, young man who was talking to an old dock
worker seated on a wooden crate. The young man wore thick
glasses set in octagonal, wire frames, which made his eyes
look rather sharp and beady. His receding hairline was subtly
camouflaged by rather tousled hair, which was combed forward
from the back of the head in the style currently pOpular. He
was listening intently and apparently with empathy as the old
resident of Hoboken told how his wife's health was steadily
failing.1 In fact, he scarcely seemed to notice that the
ferry had docked and the two observers on deck had disembarked
and were walking briskly toward him.

"Sands!" At hearing his name shouted, the bespectacled
young man turned to greet his friends: "Gentlemen, gentle-
men, welcome to the Elysian fields. I'd like you to meet my
old friend, Hans Van Endt. Hans, this is the most Honorable
Gulian Crommelin Verplanck, our distinguished representative
from New York to the United States Congress, recently re-
turned from the halls of parliament in Washington." The in-
troduction was delivered in mock-heroic tones as he waved his
hand toward the broadly grinning, larger man, who obviously
appreciated the mock-heroics. Turning to the man in the

brown coat, who was smiling graciously, Sands continued the

I
introduction: "And -
Evening Post and our
.___._._.

'Mein pleasure.
stiffly to each man.
before they parted:
hard. "Get somethir.
Hans.

Sands took Br 1.:
the: towards the es:
grounds into a vast
taste of the country
the well kept woods
overlooking the Huds
entrance to the par}:

{-4 .
.cnus has a friend a

 

ly'
nice man, " sai

at the dock as they

talk leading to the

C

giro '
efid In reference

98. a great c

recently h V
3'.
' The Dutch d
JD; Eturned r0“
- u. V
~€tte

 

3
introduction: "And this is Mr. Bryant, the editor of the

Evening Post and our country's finest poet."

"Mein pleasure, mein pleasure," said the old man, bowing
stiffly to each man. As Sands shook hands with the old man
before they parted, he dropped several coins into the man's
hand. "Get something for Mrs. Van Endt," he said quietly to
Hans.

Sands took Bryant and Verplanck by the arm and headed
them towards the estate of Col. Stevens, who had turned his
grounds into a vast park pOpular among New Yorkers wanting a
taste of the country. He charged six cents for admission to
the well kept woods which ran for two miles along the cliffs
overlooking the Hudson River. As the trio approached the
entrance to the park, the attendant waved them on because
Sands was a friend and neighbor of Col. Stevens.

"Nice man," said Verplanck in reference to the old man
at the dock as they began to climb the broad, well-gravelled
walk leading to the bluffs.

"Perhaps he's a distant relative of yours," Bryant
quipped in reference to Verplanck's Dutch ancestry.

"Yes, a great old man," replied Sands. "I first met
him at a Dutch festival over in Communipaw. Unfortunately,
he has only one god, and him only does he serve--Bacchus.
Until recently he worked in the Hoboken distillery."

"The Dutch do love their spirits," mused Verplanck. "I
just returned from visiting my relatives up around New Rochelle

——better stocked cellars I never saw. By the way, a man I

hoe up there is in\'
that might make a go

"Good," replied
the _al__sna_n finishe

“Well it seems
at civility, sent th
hisbunper crop. Th
of the gentleman's i

ding." As the three

 

i’erplanck filled in

   
  

bursts of laughter.

They stepped se

Inch they had a nea

4
know up there is involved in a ticklish matrimonial situation
that might make a good piece for our miscellany."

"Good," replied Sands enthusiastically, "we must have
the Talisman finished in a month. Let's hear the tale."

"Well it seems that this old gentleman, in an attempt
at civility, sent the lady next door a basket of plums from
his bumper crop. The lady interpreted the gift as symbolic
of the gentleman's intention to marry her, and planned a wed-
ding." As the threesome continued to climb the broad path,
Verplanck filled in the details of the story amid great out-
bursts of laughter.

They stopped several times to look at lower Manhattan of
which they had a nearly perfect view from the Weehawken bluffs.
The low, compact skyline of crowded buildings was broken only
by the tall church spires and masts of ships. Bryant re-
marked once, "I thought I was getting away from my office, but
I can nearly see it from here."

Shortly after passing the terraced bluff on which the
famous Hamilton-Burr duel had taken place, Sands guided them
up a narrow, seldom used path that soon led down into a natu—
ral ampitheater formed by a combination of hills and rocks.

At one end was a rocky bluff that had broken off from the
cliff behind it and had slipped down several yards. The

t0p of the crumpled bluff formed a natural stage for the ampi-
theater; however, being so high, it seemed more like a pulpit,
and, like a pulpit, it could be easily mounted from behind by

steps formed of broken rock. Sands and his friends climbed

the pulpit: and, as

 

rock, Sands told the
say the devil USEd t
that he used to harr
it was attached to t
struck the rock on w
of the bluff to tree
button of this glen
As the afterno
Hoboken. On their
Ptlpit as the local
Bryant would write

the Tal‘ m
w. San‘

hr, ..

Ske‘

Book.

Back in the

tired to Sands' s
Pun-ch. Sands fu:
fey talked furt
*3‘1‘1 don‘t we we:
1 problems

\
A I
.. I“
"

 

5
the pulpit, and, as they lounged in the sun on the top of the
rock, Sands told the legend about the place: "The natives
say the devil used to hold meetings in this ampitheater and
that he used to harrangue his audience from this bluff when
it was attached to the cliff. During one meeting lightning
struck the rock on which the devil stood and caused this part
of the bluff to break off and slide down several yards to the
bottom of this glen."

As the afternoon wore on, the trio turned back toward
Hoboken. On their way they concocted a tale using the Devil's
Pulpit as the locale of the climax. It was decided that
Bryant would write it up for their joint publishing venture,
the Talisman. Sands offered to show the place to his friend
Dr. John Nielson, an amateur artist, so that he could make a
sketch for an engraving to accompany the story in the gift
book.

Back in the Sands's hospitable home, the three men re-
tired to Sands's study and relaxed around a bowl of milk
punch. Sands furnished cigars for everyone; as they smoked,
they talked further about their plans for the Talisman.

"Why don't we work on that sketch about the man with matri-
monial problems in New Rochelle," suggested Sands. From the
twinkle in his eyes, it was plain to see he enjoyed this
kind of joint creativity.

"Fine," said Verplanck. "Which one of you wants to act
as amanuensis?"

"I will," offered Sands eagerly as he found writing

:aterials. ObViOUS
friends had often b
Verplanck tilt
tion, a precarious
said, "Let's make I".
anybody in New Roch
cane up with the n.
everyone. Then \-'e
of t'r. De Viellecc
tones he had just
Sands wrote furiox
and adding detail
library: "There

arch even those

‘L
«.8 ‘3
Duke Of SKIS:

 

6
materials. Obviously, this was not a new procedure; these
friends had often before composed a tale together.

Verplanck tilted his chair back into his favorite posi-
tion, a precarious balance on the chair's two back legs, and
said, "Let's make him half-French in order not to offend
anybody in New Rochelle." After several suggestions, Bryant
came up with the name De Viellecour, which seemed to please
everyone. Then Verplanck began describing the home and estate
of Mr. De Viellecour, which amounted to a composite of the
homes he had just visited in New Rochelle. As he talked,
Sands wrote furiously, taking down Verplanck's descriptions
and adding details of his own. Verplanck described the
library: "There stood, armed in its massive and embossed
boards and brazen clasps, the old family Bible; a book of
which even those famous Bible-collectors, Earl Spencer and
the Duke of Sussex might envy him the possession."2

Bryant, perhaps taking a clue from looking around the
Sands library, added, "Then there was a grand worm-eaten
folio of Boileau, with the spirited engravings of Picart."
There was a hearty roar of laughter at the mention of this
item, for they knew how much Sands's sister Julia prized that
collection.

Sands, now in high spirits and anxious to get on with
the plot, added, "There too stood--the source of all his wo
—-the "Art d'Ecrire par M. Villemain, maitre écrevain juré;"
a superb system of penmanship, by the writing master of 'Mon-

seigneur 1e Grand Dauphin.'" It had been decided that the

conflict would cente

 

sent by the bachelor

caused by the gentle
Great roars of

Pr. De Viellecour ' 5

out and while Verpla

 

sore punch, Sands, w
furiously. As soon
age to his conpanior
the hands of Ron: ..

«4.1...
and there too was u

:19 I ,

tra'
& (1‘8 we a'

:h

e late FmPeror n.

F“! ' .

.lourisners, to b-
«C

.0; of terms he h

We of is
he trio

L
Je read ‘I

7
conflict would center around the misinterpretation of a note
sent by the bachelor with the plums, a misinterpretation
caused by the gentleman's poor penmanship.

Great roars of laughter followed each item suggested for
Mr. De Viellecour's library. While the last roar was dying
out and while Verplanck tilted his chair down and got up for
more punch, Sands, with a broad smile on his face, wrote
furiously. As soon as he finished writing, he read the pass-
age to his companions: "Therein were to be seen samples of
the hands of Romaine, and 32292! and Batarde, and Coulee:
and there too was unfolded the analysis of all letters, into
pleins, and déléé, and liasons: and there were cadeaux, and
traits dg_plgmg, and paraphes, which might have defied even
the late Emperor Alexander, the prince of all chirographical
flourishers, to have imitated." While Sands read the cata-
log of terms he had compiled, they laughed softly because
none of the trio took their penmanship seriously. But when
he read "the prince of all chirographical flourishers," they
burst into wild laughter again. Bryant laughed until tears
came to his eyes. Sands's mastery of florid diction never
ceased to amuse them.

Because of their laughter, they could not hear the
gentle knocking on the study door. But they quieted down
slowly when Julia, Sands's younger sister, opened the door.
She was smiling prettily as she said, "Jim Johnson, the man
who built that new house down from the church, just came to

the door. He said he was passing by and heard all the laughter

and wondered if V6
it was just some 5
:enposition." At
the room.

Having about
and Verplanck made
cater the last fer
asuccess: the se
rcueh outline had
the story himself ,
XEi'ithrS" was pub
planek gave cred it

CH1, '
.a..ds 5 works afte

1..
T..e scene jug

8
and wondered if we might not be having a party. I told him
it was just some sober and sedate scholars in the throes of
composition." At this bit of irony, laughter again filled
the room.

Having about laughed and written themselves out, Bryant
and Verplanck made ready to leave. They wanted to be sure to
catch the last ferry back to New York. The evening had been
a success: the setting of the story had been composed and a
rough outline had been plotted. They knew Sands would finish
the story himself, which he did. "Mr. De Viellecour and his
Neighbors" was published in the Talisman for 1828 and Ver-
planck gave credit for the story to Sands when he edited

Sands's works after his death.3

The scene just described is typical of Sands's favorite
diversion--the witty interchange of joint authorship. Sands
loved to write; he once called composition his mania. But
what he enjoyed even more than writing, was writing with
other people. Most of his social life was centered in groups
where joint composition took place. Verplanck sums it up
well in his memoir of Sands which serves as an introduction
to Sands's collected Writings: "He had this peculiarity, that
the presence of others, in which most authors find a restraint
upon the free course of thought and fancies, was to him a
source of inspiration and excitement."4

Upon surveying the wide variety of Sands's literary out-
put, the single most common element seems to be the collabora-

tion. In college he produced two literary journals in

collaboration with
college he formed
'to endeavour, by
and individual [1i
lit rary and criti
essays in New Yer}:
collaboration is t

written with his ‘

Killian Cullen Bri.
E’cr‘ "
r Revrew (1825-

“f: Y?
a... Verplanck in r

annual cited above

Year (1832) , Sand:

Sed n7
ngCk, and Wil

stor'
195. Tales or:
\

9
collaboration with the Columbia Peithologian Society. After
college he formed the Literary Confederacy with three friends
"to endeavour, by all prOper means, to advance their mutual
and individual [literary] interest." The group wrote for
literary and critical journals and published two series of
essays in New York newspapers. The best example of Sands's
collaboration is the poem Yamoyden (1820), a verse romance
written with his friend James Eastburn. Sands worked with
William Cullen Bryant and Henry Anderson in editing the New

York Review (1825-1826). Later he collaborated with Bryant

 

and Verplanck in producing three numbers of the literary

annual cited above, The Talisman (1828-1830). In his last

 

year (1832), Sands joined Bryant, James K. Paulding, Catharine
Sedgwick, and William Leggett in producing the collection of
stories, Tales of Glauber-Spa.

Labelling Sands a collaborator is not meant to detract
from the value of his work nor to imply that Sands never pro-
duced anything on his own, for of course he did. But even
his individual productions were often inspired or inaugurated
by others, as the opening sketch indicates. His two biogra-
phies, Life and Correspondence of John Paul Jones (1830) and
"Historical Notice of Hernan Cortes" (1828) were both written
upon request and were built around a series of letters. The
majority of his poems are translations or imitations of class-
ical, Biblical, or Romance language verse. Sands just seemed
to work best when he had someone else to suggest ideas which

he could use as a framework on which to hang his erudite wit.

But while wri
and inSpired most
proved to be the u
Sands is virtually
even in the most t
fact that much of
part of the reason
thing, collaborati
cally what Sands s
is a case in pOint
rers

e, but because

. kl -
inane to give the

author. And when

is compounded by 1

 

10

But while writing with and for other people motivated
and inSpired most of Sands's work, the same collaboration
proved to be the undoing of his literary reputation. Today,
Sands is virtually an unknown author and is seldom mentioned
even in the most thorough American literary histories.5 The
fact that much of his work was produced in collaboration is
part of the reason for this regrettable neglect. For one
thing, collaboration makes it difficult to determine specifi-
cally what Sands should be credited with. The poem Yamoyden
is a case in point-—a critic can admire a passage of its
verse, but because it is the result of collaboration, he is
unable to give the credit for that passage to a specific
author. And when the anonymity resulting from collaboration
is compounded by the habits of anonymity typical of that
period, a habit which Sands especially loved and exploited,
it becomes even more difficult to find and evaluate the work
which made him such a popular literary figure among con-
temporaries who knew of his work. Another problem raised by
this "joint-stock authorship," as Verplanck calls it, is in
the nature of the work produced. Too often it was light,
humorous, tOpical material, widely popular in his day, but
nonetheless ephemeral. Furthermore, Sands's collaborative
works were generally produced in great haste and published
with little or no revision, a fact which seems not to have
bothered readers during his lifetime, but which has since
reduced the critical estimation of Sands.

His nearly non-existent place in American literature is

unfortunate, because
reading. esseciallY
ieniably important t
First, with the pee.“
subject matter for

our native landscape
and New York Review,
liportant literary c
ideas on literature.
literature, Sands we
from critical journa
tion has to be coun'

.tfi '
hurt stories . Th e

obi ' '
inhibited in his wr'

L
oecane one of the m

tire 6

His intereS'

side ‘ '
S. antiCipates

 

 

 

ll
unfortunate, because Sands's work, even today, makes enjoyable
reading, especially his prose. Furthermore, he has made un-
deniably important contributions to American literature.
First, with the poem Yamoyden, he showed that America had a
subject matter for imaginative literature in the Indian and

our native landscape. While editor of the Atlantic Magazine

 

and New York Review, he became one of the country's most
important literary critics and helped shape the emerging nation's
ideas on literature. Always an advocate for a unique national
literature, Sands was willing to try any new literary venture
from critical journals to gift books. His short prose fic-

tion has to be counted among the best of the early American
short stories. The exuberant yet genteel sense of humor
exhibited in his writings places him in the tradition which
became one of the most uniquely American features of our litera-
ture.6 His interest in the human mind, especially its darker
sides, anticipates the studies of guilt by Hawthorne, Melville,
and Poe. All in all, he deserves a niche in the gallery of
American literary men, and it is the purpose of this disserta-
tion to help carve a place for this neglected Knickerbocker.
This purpose will hopefully be accomplished by (l) bringing
together all the available information, both primary and
secondary, on Sands's life, his work, his friends, and his

time; and by (2) reevaluating Sands's achievements and place

in American literature according to the perspective provided

by nearly 150 years of history and the literary standards

that have deve10ped during those years.

As mentioned
thing about Sands'
this study. Anoth
wia’e variety. Sat
but :1: 11a: essay,
and biography. Wi
each of these at a
fare, this critica
various periods as

antings of Robert

Very little h

he euIOgies and t

{
ct these was by hi
he anckerbocker

J. C. Verplanck,

Sands

U

I Published a

,-
CI

WQv

IV
nfizfllr'

12

As mentioned above, collaboration seems to be the unique
thing about Sands's work, and thus provides the title for
this study. Another important feature of Sands's work is its
wide variety. Sands wrote in nearly every literary genre
but drama: essay, literary criticism, poetry, short story,
and biography. With the exception of poetry, Sands practiced
each of these at a different period in his short life. There-
fore, this critical biography uses the genre which dominated
various periods as a framework for examining the life and

writings of Robert Charles Sands.

Very little has been written or said about Sands since
the eulogies and tributes at the time of his death. The best
of these was by his close friend, William Cullen Bryant in
the Knickerbocker Magazine (Jan. 1833). Another friend,

G. C. Verplanck, used Bryant's article in his "Memoir" of
Sands, published as a preface to his edition of The Writings

of R.C. Sands (2 vols.; New York, 1834). Since Verplanck's

 

"Memoir" amounts to a composite recollection of Sands's two
closestfriends during his later years, since both friends

were literary collaborators with Sands, since both men were
major authors of the period, and since the recollection was
written immediately after Sands's death, the "Memoir" naturally
serves as a primary source of information to anyone writing

on the life and works of Sands. Therefore this dissertation
relies heavily on Verplanck's "Memoir." Evidence from other
sources generally proves the accuracy and reliability of

Verplanck; his few errors, mainly in names and dates

:cr.nected with Sam
Sands), have been 1
ticgraphy. The "5/1
cf Sands's persona
learning, his sens
lily the recollect

into a person's ch

several journals a
year (1835), but 1:
t... °

or articles writ

L, -
..eat1ng Sands as

F,
..om the past. Du

Various items of c

...e popular anttol

31' hls Work .

 

13
connected with Sands's early life (before Verplanck met
Sands), have been pointed out and corrected in this critical
biography. The "Memoir" is most valuable for the descriptions
of Sands's personality, characterized by his humor, his
learning, his sensitivity, his enthusiasm, and his charm.
Only the recollections of close friends yield these insights
into a person's character.

The Writings, including the "Memoir," were reviewed by

 

several journals and more tributes were paid during the next
year (1835), but by 1843 Lewis Gaylord Clark, in a series of
four articles written for his Knickerbocker Magazine, was
treating Sands as some kind of novelty and forgotten curiosity
from the past. During the rest of the nineteenth century,
various items of Sands's works were collected into some of

the popular anthologies, but nothing else was said of the man
or his work. Literary histories and biographical dictionaries
have relied entirely on the Bryant and Verplanck accounts.

The only study devoted exclusively to Sands in the
twentieth century is a Master's essay (unpublished) by Jane
Margaret Tiquin (Columbia University, 1936). The most
valuable aspect of this study is the bibliography which
compiles Sands's contributions to the Aeronaut M88 and lists
the extant Sands letters in the New York Historical Society.
Ms. Tiquin made very little use, however, of these primary
sources in her essay, which is little more than a paraphrase
of Verplanck's "Memoir." Several other twentieth century

works have studied Sands in connection with other topics:

Kendall B. Taft dis
w (New
naturally mentions
Study in Cultural P
Cclurinia University
are of the Literary
and lanes T. Callow
Sririts: Knickerboc}
(Chapel Hill. 1967)
been mentioned only
century Scholars and
This study 15'
authors and to the
zanuscript by Frede

IL"
,ues and selection

CCerde +-
rues [Sands

”31"“. 1870) :

“Cris of t

(

he Litera
{3) ti

I
'

GS
I also at C01
:pr MS of

YamO‘ der
558:8.
I

 

. (61

’l) Mi:
3r.
«J: i...

ML Verplanck c
{9‘} tr

“G M1!)
Utes c
I‘r‘Stiht Or
a e Of Art)

14
Kendall B. Taft discussed both Sands and his works in Minor

Knickerbockers (New York, 1947). William Cullen Bryant II

 

naturally mentions Sands in "Bryant: The Middle Years: A
Study in Cultural Friendship" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Columbia University, 1954). John P. Pritchard considers Sands
one of the Literary Wise Men of Gotham (Baton Rouge, 1963)

and James T. Callow frequently refers to Sands in Kindred

Spirits: Knickerbocker Writers and American Artists, 1807—1855

 

(Chapel Hill, 1967). Outside of these studies, Sands has
been mentioned only in passing, if at all, by twentieth
century scholars and historians.

This study is, of course, indebted to the above mentioned
authors and to the following primary sources: (1) the
manuscript by Frederick De Peyster containing brief biogra-
phies and selections from the writings of the four Literary
Confederates [Sands and three friends] (New York Historical
Society c. 1870); (2) the thirteen MS volumes containing the
works of the Literary Confederacy (at Columbia University);

(3) the two volumes of Aeronautica (minutes of the Confed-

 

erates, also at Columbia); (4) the collating MS and the fair
copy MS of Yamoyden (Columbia); (5) letters from Sands to
Eastburn (NYHS); (6) Letters from Sands to Verplanck (NYHS);

(7) Miscellaneous Sands correspondence (NYHS); (8) the
Bryant-Verplanck correspondence (Berg Collection-~NYPL); and
(9) the Minutes of the Sketch Club (on microfilm at the Detroit
Institute of Art).

Most of these sources, with the exception of the Yamoyden

we have been pert:

nub,
authors of the stud
E
is the first to use
before have the hr
the only extant co;
studied; never befo
wit. their printed

i . '
ert.ser and Ball

 

With the excepl
Historical Society,
in a survey of the "l
eugh research of an

a;
u. the Sands fdlhil"
1

scripts other than

 

 

15
M85, have been perused or used at one time or another by the
authors of the studies mentioned above. This study, however,
is the first to use sources 1-7 with any thoroughness. Never
before have the Yamoyden MSS been compared; never before has
the only extant copy of St. Tammany_Magazine (NYPL) been
studied; never before have the Aeronaut essays been compared

with their printed versions in the New York Commercial

 

Advertiser and Daily Advertiser.

 

With the exception of a letter in the Philadelphia
Historical Society, run other primary sources were discovered
in a survey of the major East Coast research libraries. Thor-
ough research of and correspondence with living descendants
of the Sands family has turned up no other letters or manu-

scripts other than those already known to exist.

  
 
 

FROM THE ISLE C.

  
  
 

Relati‘
The lineage of

:he time of England

itself, according tc

Brit 1’. '
an, derives frc

h, 1 ..
night. Trrough m.

an: good marriages ,

cane part of the nol

Shakespeare pc
5 n l
“'3’ VerY pcpular
Ann
9. BOlel’n and sexy
.WOIS V '

e] S baanEt ha

 

semis Sir T
“:L alf my 1a:
The a r
e a SWee
Lov.
TOE; O, that
u 0 tw
0 o
Nk\'
they Should fl“
Lop:
Sara
‘ \3 AS e;
433 CL 4
tnakefi
" e

CHAPTER I

THE SANDS FAMILY:

FROM THE ISLE OF WIGHT TO THE ISLE OF MANHATTAN

Relatives, distant and close

The lineage of the Sands family can be traced back to
the time of England's Edward the Confessor (1041). The name
itself, according to the Domesday Book and Camden's Survey of
Britain, derives from a place called Sande on the Isle of
Wight.1 Through military prowess, sparkling personalities,
and good marriages, various members of the Sands family be-
came part of the nobility.

Shakespeare portrays one Lord Sands as a bawdy wit, evi-
dently very popular in the court of Henry VIII. Upon seeing
Anne Boleyn and several other beautiful women in Cardinal
Wolsey's banquet hall, Lord Sands gets off a double-entendre:

Sands: Sir Thomas Lovell, had the cardinal
But—FEE} my lay thoughts in him, some of these
Should find a running banquet ere they rested,

They are a sweet society of fair ones.

Lov: O, that your lordship were but now confessor
To one or two of these!

Sands: I would I were;
They should find easy penance.

‘Lov: Faith, how easy?
"Sands: As easy as a down-bed would afford it.2

Thus Shakespeare recreates the spicy conversation of William

16

Sandy's) Night Of
the reicns Of Henr
which soon causes .
ster, My Lord Sand
adull and dreary j
Three centurii
of Lord Sands, Robi
reputation: "his .
irforration," repo:
C. Verplanck. "Tim
scetines grotesqm

2:5 learning and c1

:crpanion. "3 Both

 

17
Sandys, Knight of the Garter and an important figure during
the reigns of Henry VII and Henry VIII. His merry banter,
which soon causes Anne Boleyn to say, "You are a merry game-
ster, My Lord Sands," provides one of the few light spots in
a dull and dreary play.

Three centuries later in New York City, a distant relative
of Lord Sands, Robert Charles Sands (1799-1832), had a similar
reputation: "his conversation was full of sprightliness and
information," reports his close friend and biographer, Gulian
C. Verplanck. "The whimsical and lively wit, the odd and
sometimes grotesque humours . . . made him as entertaining as
his learning and originality of thought did an instructive
companion."3 Both Lord Sands and his nineteenth-century
descendant were well-tempered conversationalists.

History records another distant relative with whom
Robert Sands had something in common, this time literary
interest. George Sandys, who came to Virginia in 1621 as one
of the colony's administrators, produced "the first strictly
literary work" in America.4 In 1626, he translated Ovid's

Metamogphoses into verse. Nearly two centuries later, Robert

 

C. Sands was to share his interest in the classics. In fact,
Verplanck claims that when it came to classical studies, "he
had few equals, probably in our country no superior" ("Memoir,"
pp. 27-28). And like the earlier Sandys, Robert's favorite
mode of poetry was the imitation or translation.

Coincidental resemblances to distant relatives aside,

Robert Sand's immediate ancestors came to New York from Reading,

England, via Plymc‘;
island. The first
Sausil622-l695),
1640.6 Being a sea
tine here; instead
became a captain.
Hutchinson; in 164;:
the notorious Anti;
his wife Sarah to y
con after coming tl
mm Purchase 31c
hing King Philip'

:ent; consequently r

to defend the Engle

Luat his QIEat-grea

~35ia ‘
(1820).

 

 

 

18

England, via Plymouth Plantation, Block Island, and Long
Island. The first ancestor to reach the New World was James
Sands (1622-1695), who probably5 came to New England about
1640.6 Being a seaman, James never stayed for any length of
time here; instead he continued his marine career and soon
became a captain. James was briefly a follower of Anne
Hutchinson: in 1642, he was engaged in building a house for
the notorious Antinomian.7 In 1658, Captain James Sands brought
his wife Sarah to Plymouth and settled down there, but she died
soon after coming to New England. Two years later, James
helped purchase Block Island from the Indians and moved there.
During King Philip's War (1675-76), the 300 Indians who had
been allowed to remain on the island threatened the settle-
ment: consequently, Captain Sands raised a militia company
to defend the Englishmen on the island. Little did he know
that his great-great—great-grandson would romanticize the
Indians engaged in King Philip's War with his poem Yamoyden
(1820). Captain James married a Rhode Island girl named
Anne Walker and raised six children before his death in 1695.

Three of Captain James's sons, John (1649-1712), James
(1673-1631), and Samuel (1680-1730), bought the northern part
of Cow Neck, Long Island, in 1696. This area, directly across
the Sound from New Rochelle, consequently became known as
Sands Point. John followed his father's trade, and became
a sea captain, carrying on trade between Virginia and New
York. He is remembered most for bringing some young locust

trees from Virginia which, in the course of time, spread and

19
produced a valuable stand of timber along the Northern part of
Long Island. "The house he built and in which he and his
wife, Sybil, lived is [today] probably one of the best pre-
served on the island."9 His son, John II (1684-1763), and
his grandson, John III (1709-1760), were both farmers on
Sands Point.

Comfort Sands, the father of the subject of this biog-
raphy, was the fourth son of John Sands III and was born at
Sands Point on 21 February 1748. Comfort attended school
until he was twelve years old, a good education for that
time. He went to New York in May of 1762 to work as a clerk

for his brother Cornwell.10

This marked the beginning of a
remarkably successful career as a New York merchant, a career
which exemplifies the business opportunities to be found in
New York prior to the Revolution.

New York in 1762 was still a small town, still influenced
by the Dutch who had lost control a century earlier. The
homes of the wealthy clustered about the Bowling Green and
The Battery at the southern tip of Manhattan Island. To the
north and east lay the homes of the poor. The city limits
were less than a mile from the battery. Even then the city
was cosmopolitan, a characteristic which it has never lost.
Besides the Dutch, Samuel Eliot Morison says, "There were
already enough Irish in New York to celebrate St. Patrick's
Day, enough Jews to maintain a synagogue, enough Scots to
support a Presbyterian church, and enough Germans to maintain

four churches with services in their language."11

In 1763 Comfor
m ran a store in
Front Street on th‘
chants were the one
irport taxes, Comfc
politics. In 1765
in a British ship
dean from Peck Sli]
store in Peck Slip
articles taxed und«
effective in helpi:

As soon as he
Iarried Sarah DOng
3’93“, this marria<

win.
..on reached matur

'w'eal s . ,
t..y famllleS O

 

20

In 1763 Comfort Sands went to work for Joseph Drake,
who ran a store in Peck Slip, one of the docks that lined
Front Street on the East River. Because the waterfront mer—
chants were the ones most threatened by Britain's various
import taxes, Comfort Sands soon got involved in waterfront
politics. In 1765 he helped burn ten bales of stamped paper
in a British ship lying in Burling Slip, just a few blocks
down from Peck Slip. In 1769, shortly after opening his own
store in Peck Slip, he joined the association boycotting
articles taxed under the Townshend Act. Their action was
effective in helping to get the act repealed in 1770.

As soon as he had established his own business, he
married Sarah Dodge on 3 June 1769. During the next twenty
years, this marriage produced fifteen children, eight of
whom reached maturity. Most of these children married into
wealthy families or joined banking houses which still exist.
Comfort's descendants are now to be traced among the Prime,
Ward, Hoffman, Jay, Coster, Ray, and other prominent New York
families.

As the Revolution approached, Comfort Sands served on most
of the important revolutionary committees and was elected to
New York's Provincial Congress in November of 1775. During
the war, Comfort Sands was Auditor General of the new state.
Because the British controlled New York, his family was con-
stantly on the move, living wherever personal business, state
business, or federal business led them: Philadelphia, Roches-

ter, Schawangunk (N.Y.), Poughkeepsie, and finally New Rochelle.

Comfort Sands
cause and devoted Y
the var. Towards l
of his brothers , Pi
of Philadelphia and
agreement to supply
helped win the war,
and the Sands broth
irtnrse these men a
received partial rd
years of litigatio
attempting to get

But While he
Camrt Sands, lik

l" "S SiIEWd and luC

.iO-Jrish . n15
bC

a .
ta discountHe and

 

21

Comfort Sands believed whole-heartedly in the American
cause and devoted his fortune, talents, and ships to help win
the war. Towards the end of the war (1782), Comfort and two
of his brothers, Richardson and Joshua, joined Robert Morris
of Philadelphia and William Livingston of New Jersey in an
agreement to supply the American army. Their timely support
helped win the war, but drained the fortunes of Robert Morris
and the Sands brothers.12 The new government refused to re-
imburse these men after the war. Comfort Sands finally
received partial reimbursement for his investment after twenty
years of litigation.13 In 1888 his descendants were still
attempting to get some of his claims paid.l4

But while he lost most of his capital during the war,
Comfort Sands, like so many of those early New York merchants
was shrewd and lucky. "Every interest he touched seemed to
flourish."15 He bought up many soldiers' pay certificates
at a discount, and, after the war, he and his brother Joshua
cashed these in for a fine profit and invested in real estate.
Around 1785 they bought 160 acres at the point where the
ferry docked in Brooklyn. They subdivided the property into
lots which they advertised widely; however it was not until
1801, when the United States purchased land in Brooklyn for
a navy-yard, that the lots began to sell.16

In 1794, Comfort Sands partially retired as a merchant
and lived from his investments while he served as President
of the Chamber of Commerce for the next four years. In the

same year, he began building a house, planned by his wife,

at 26 Pine Street.
Itvas probably, 11'
street full of "Che
light colored bric}
Verplanck described
'Reniniscences of E
to live in the bone
it was finished.
TWO Years late
married 36‘l’ear-ol:
9f English ancestr;

P k ‘
.rencn great-grand.“

1311‘

.1y for years, i

Y
sand and having i

tes with Cornelia' s

 

 

 

22
at 26 Pine Street, on a lot which ran through to Cedar street.
It was probably, like the homes nearby, a town house on a
street full of "cheerful-looking two—story buildings of
light colored brick or wood painted white or yellow," as
Verplanck described the neighborhood in a Talisman essay,
"Reminiscences of New York." But Sarah Dodge Sands was never
to live in the house, for she died on 24 January 1795, before
it was finished.

Two years later, Comfort Sands, then 49 years old,
married 36-year-old Cornelia Lott. The Lotts were basically
of English ancestry; Cornelia, however, was named after her
French great-grandmother. Comfort Sands had known the Lott
family for years, having at one time been a neighbor on Long
Island and having served on several revolutionary war commit-
tee with Cornelia's father, Abraham P. Lott.

The new house on Pine Street, of which Cornelia became
mistress, was probably the most beautiful house on the street,
at least it was the most expensive according to the "List of
Houses and Lots valued atetQOOO and over in 1799."17 Though
Cornelia inherited a ready-made family, she naturally longed
for childrenof her own. Her prolific husband soon satisfied
this wish, and the year 1799 found the new Mrs. Sands with
child. She decided to have her firstborn at her parents'
home in Flatbush, near Brooklyn. As a result, Robert Charles
Sands was born at Flatbush, 11 May 1799. Soon thereafter,
the new baby was brought to the Sands home at 26 Pine Street

in the city.

New York C

New York City
alarge town of 60.
anile or so of the
describes it as "pd
on Bleecker Street
vaulted done of th
ing city--it had (3
decade and would a
decade of the nine
05 the City, young

1501? Which to watc

 

23
New York City_during Sands's childhood

New York City at the turn of the century was still only
a large town of 60,000, with most of the people living within
a mile or so of the Battery. A recent historian of the city
describes it as "part rustic, part urban. Blackberries grew
on Bleecker Street, and a glass chandelier dangled from the
vaulted dome of the Park Theatre."18 It was a lively, grow-
ing city--it had doubled its population in the previous
decade and would add as many people in the next, the first
decade of the nineteenth century. From his home in the heart
of the city, young Bob Sands had a perfect vantage point
from which to watch this decade of growth.

Sands spent the first ten years of his life in the house
on Pine Street. The next street down, Wall Street, was the
center of fashion, while William Street, which intersected
Pine Street at the nearest corner, was "the shopping-centre."19
From the windows of the family home, Sands could see and hear
the chimney sweeps, milkmen, bellmen, and bakers. He could
see black women peddling mint, strawberries, radishes, and
steaming hot yams. Adding to the collage of sights and sounds
were the hot-corn girls wandering "barefoot and shawl-wrapped
through the streets, with cedar baskets in the crooks of
their arms, crying in sing-song voices, 'Hot corn! Hot corn!
Here's your lily-white corn! All you that's got money--poor
me that's got none! Come buy my lily-white corn and let me
go home!’"20

Most of the streets these people crowded were narrow

and crooked and f0:
Broadway, only a bi
street lined with ;
constant problem w:
waged constant war
were unsightly, ma;
was argued that the

The Sands horn:T

 

Green, was near th
clustered around t
of the most famous
This house, locate
ton's headquarters I
bi Sands's half-sis
Price, one of the <
te

tsone of the ar

1‘
"*ldn b‘eViI'lS, n

 

24
and crooked and followed former footpaths. In contrast,
Broadway, only a block and a half away, was a straight, broad

21

street lined with poplars. In all streets there was a

constant problem with pigs. Even though the Evening Post

 

waged constant war against them and "everyone admitted they
were unsightly, malodorous, and kept the walks filthy," it
was argued that they were helpful as scavangers.22
The Sands home, located only four blocks from Bowling
Green, was near the best homes in the city which were still
clustered around the Battery. Sands most likely visited one
of the most famous of these old homes, the Kennedy mansion.
This house, located at 1 Broadway, had been General Washing—
ton's headquarters during the Revolution, but was now occupied
by Sands's half-sister, Cornelia Sands Prime, wife of Nathaniel
Prime, one of the city's richest men.23~ Here Sands probably
met some of the aristocracy of the city which, according to
Allan Nevins, "prided itself upon substantial virtues and
substantial possessions--solid mahogany, thick cut glass, heavy
solid silver sets, old and pure wines, and old customs."24
These peOple had all made their money in mercantile
pursuits and were proud to be businessmen. The European wars
and revolutions had stimulated American commerce, and when the
Barbary pirates were finally put down in 1805, nothing re-
mained to hinder their trade. In 1806, one-fourth of the
total American exports left from New York City. Business

and trade completely dominated its life. As one early travel-

ler, John Lambert, said, every "thought, work, look, and action

of the multitude 5
Young Bob Sands we
life around him; a
range of knowledge
Kendall Taft, an a
that Sands "found
York life."26 yo
Place where much
1887, at the age
crowd that watche
501' Albany.

With the tu;
FederaliSts in b

son

b-ECame Pre S i

is 4
{Asiators wer E

5nd I _
ans 3 first d:

a fact which Dr

 

25
of the multitude seemed to be absorbed by commerce."25
Young Bob Sands was probably very much fascinated by the busy
life around him; at least his later writings reveal a wide
range of knowledge about life and a keen observation of people.
Kendall Taft, an authority on Knickerbocker writers, comments
that Sands "found literary material in the spectacle of New
York life."26 Young Bob most likely visited the market
place where much trade was still carried on in Dutch, and in
1807, at the age of eight, he probably was part of the excited
crowd that watched the first steamboat, the Clermont, set out
for Albany.

With the turn of the century, Republicans replaced the
Federalists in both the state and national elections: Jeffer-
son became President, George Clinton governor, and enough
legislators were elected to have a Republican majority.
Sands's first decade was thus dominated by the Republicans,

a fact which probably influenced his later Republican loyalty.
Other politically related events probably fascinated him as

a child. For example, the Hamilton-Burr duel took place

when Sands was five, so perhaps some of his earliest recol-
lections were of the Hamilton funeral, which was one of the
largest New York City had ever seen. Bob was probably also
among the crowd of curious boys who watched the construction
of various defensive works such as Castle Williams on Gover—
nors Island and the Southwest Battery at the tip of Manhattan,
which were built after the British attempted to blockade the

harbor in 1806. After the passage of the Embargo Act late

 

26
in 1807, he probably heard a good deal of political discus-
sion among the businessmen that gathered in the Sands house-
hold, discussion that was bound to temper his republican
principles.

At the turn of the century, New York and Philadelphia
carried on a constant feud about which was the better city.
One German visitor is quoted as saying, "If Philadelphia
should become extinct, everybody in New York would rejoice,
and vice versa. New York is the vilest of cities, write the
Philadelphia journalists. In New York they speak no better
of Philadelphia."27 Competition between the two cities was
especially keen in the area of book publishing. Early in the
nineteenth century New York began to take the lead away
from Philadelphia. Since seventy per cent of the books
published were pirated from England, it was inevitable that
America's commercial capital would become its publishing
capital as well. And where the publishers are, writers
soon gather.

New York authors often gathered in groups, "drawn to each
other by similar intellectual or social tastes."28 There
was a certain gregariousness about New York authors, and
Sands grew up to become one of the most gregarious. But
while Sands was still a child, the most famous group was the

one writing the Salmagundi essays: Washington and William

 

Irving and James K. Paulding. After Washington Irving's
return from Europe in 1806, he lived at the corner of William

and Anne Streets, just four blocks up from Pine Street. It

 

as there he wrote

Saltagundi , and th

 
 
 
  
   
 

'an assiduous read-
ccording to his 5
teens likely that ‘
the young author w.
then the talk of it

One of the pi
in the reading roc
new-corner from Eng

ion
ml, Eastburn est

tfic w"
. 0.11119 scale, '1

W a flne (301181
a»;

S 11017.9 ‘ '1

 

27
was there he wrote the "Letters of Jonathan Oldstyle,"

Salmagundi, and the Historygof New York.29 Since Sands was

 

 

"an assiduous reader of works in the English language,"
according to his school mate Frederick De Peyster,3o it
seems likely that Bob sought out Irving's home to watch for

the young author who was suspected of writing Salmaqundi,

 

then the talk of the town.

One of the places New York authors liked to gather was
in the reading rooms of publishers like James Eastburn, a
new-comer from England. Shortly after coming to America in
1803, Eastburn established the "first reading-room on a
becoming scale, in this country."31 He published the American
editions of the Edinburgh and London quarterly Reviews, and
had a fine collection of old and rare books. His shOp was at
the corner of Pine and Broadway, just a block and a half from

Sands's home. It was perhaps here that Sands read Gulliver's

 

Travels, an unforgettable boyhood experience which he men-

tions in one of his Neologist essays.32 It was here perhaps

 

Sands met James and Manton Eastburn, the publisher's two
sons, who were two years older and two years younger than
Sands, respectively. In college, the Eastburn brothers were
to become two of his closest friends.

Sands was a precocious child. According to his friend
William Cullen Bryant, "Young Sands was noted in early life
for his quickness of intellect and his facility in acquiring
knowledge."33 Cornelia Lott Sands had been raised in a home

dominated by fine taste and culture and had been given a

28
good education. She taught Bob to read at a young age and
guided him in his early studies. Gulian C. Verplanck gave
Mrs. Sands credit for "exciting in him an ardent thirst for

"34 Sands seems never to have

knowledge and love of reading.
lost this intellectual curiousity inspired in him by his moth-
er.

At the age of seven, Sands began attending Mr. Rose's
Latin school in Brooklyn. If it seems strange that young
Bob Sands would be sent all the way over to Brooklyn to go
to school, remember the investment of his father and uncle
in that community. Joshua Sands had built a fine home on
the Brooklyn property, and young Bob Sands probably stayed
with his cousins in Brooklyn during the worst of the winter
weather.

In 1809, Comfort Sands moved his family to Newark, New
Jersey, at that time a beautiful and quiet village. Though
no reason for the move is recorded, his motives are predictable:
the embargo had all but ruined trade in New York City, so
there was little necessity in maintaining a house and office
in downtown New York. Also, many of the social elite were
finding the resort areas of New Jersey, such as Hoboken and
Newark, pleasant places to live, and the new steam ferries
to New Jersey ports made commuting to the city quite easy.
Fortunately for young Bob Sands, Newark had an excellent
teacher, a Mr. Findlay. At a time when instruction in the
classics was generally poor in America, Findlay was an

exception. Later Sands gratefully praised him for instilling

 

29
in him a deep love of classical literature, especially
Virgil's Aeneid, which he turned to as a source of inspiration
and refreshment the rest of his life. Findlay also gave
Sands a thorough grounding in the classical languages during
the three years he tutored him.

Early in 1812, The Sands family moved back to New York
City, where they lived on North Moore Street, only one
block from Hudson Square (later St. John's Park), "the most
elegant building spot . . . in the whole city."35 The reason
for the move back to New York may have been so that Sands
could be near Columbia College; at any rate, the new home
was within half a mile of the college. During 1812, Rev.
Melancthon Whelpley, who was later pastor of the Presbyterian
church in Wall Street, prepared Sands for college entrance.
The quality of education Sands received from his three tutors
is indicated by the fact that he was able to skip his Fresh-
man year. He entered Columbia as a sophomore in October of
1812.

In summary, it seems that Sands might have inherited his
lively, gregarious personality, great intelligence, and love
and interest in culture and the arts. His environment helped
shape these aspects of his character. First, the secure
financial position of his family made a good education
possible. His living in New York City during one of its
more exciting decades was itself an education. Thus, even
though he was just thirteen, Sands was well prepared for

college and for any profession he might choose.

 

CHAPTER II

THE AMATEUR LITTERATEUR: SANDS AT COLLEGE

Columbia College

 

Sands could not have attended Columbia College at a
worse time. In 1812, when Sands entered as a sophomore,
Columbia was just beginning to recover from its academic
nadir: "During Bishop Moore's regime," says university
historian Horace Coon, "the college sank to its lowest level
in numbers, reputation, and resources."1

The trustees, perplexed by inefficiency and lack of
discipline in the college, took matters into their own hands
in 1810 and set up guidelines regulating admission and
studies. No student was accepted unless he had a sound
understanding of Greek and Latin. The curriculum was thor-
oughly revised and organized into four distinct levels or
classes. "Progression" was instituted, which meant "a grada-
tion of exercises, from easier and shorter, to more difficult
and ample, according to the power of performance."2 Progres-
sion also meant that "on no account ought students in the
more advanced classes, to spend their time in those elementary
studies which occupy beginners." Thus Sands could enter the
sophomore class after a private examination.

Bishop Moore was pressured into resigning the next year,

30

31
1811, and Dr. John M. Mason, the leader for reform in the
trustees' committee on changes, became provost. Dr. Mason
greatly improved the academic quality of Columbia, but he
was a poor administrator. The institution failed to get the
financial support it needed. During Sands's junior year
(1814), the trustees complained to the state legislature
that "Columbia presents a spectacle mortifying to its friends
[and] humiliating to the city."3 Specifically, an unfinished
new wing of the college was in ruins, there was no place for
a library, and the library itself was "the subject of ignomin-
ious comparison." Scientific laboratory equipment was worn
out and there was no money for the chemistry professor's
salary.

Some of these problems were undoubtedly caused by the War
of 1812, which completely halted shipping, the city's main
industry. Many stores were boarded up, and many peOple fled
the city: the streets were strangely quiet. The war kept
the city in constant turmoil over the threat of invasion by
the British. New Yorkers were naturally more concerned about
fortifying the city than supporting Columbia college.

Though Sands's three years at Columbia coincided exactly
with the three years of war and the depressing state of
Columbia, these distractions seemed not to hamper his educa-
tion.

Classical languages and literature were then the key-
stones of Columbia's curriculum. This suited Sands, who had

a life-long interest in the classics and earned a reputation

 

32
as one of America's best classical scholars. Dr. Mason
stressed teaching the classics "not merely as the authorities
of language, but as models of thought and style."4 His
method was evidently successful with Sands, for classical
allusions and phrases permeated his speech and writing. An
anonymous critic said after his death that his classical
"knowledge had a strong influence not only in enriching his
conversation . . . but in affording an abundance of illustra-
tion which he used with discrimination and taste in his
writings."5 Besides the classics, Sands studied English
composition and literature, speech (declamation), history,
geography, ethics, philos0phy, mathematics(algebra and trig-
onometry), natural science, astronomy, and psychology
("analysis of intellectual powers").

Sands apparently did well in this whole range of subjects,
even science and math. Bryant points out that "He mastered
the various branches of mathematics, taught at Columbia College,
with the same ease and the same readiness of comprehension as
his favorite classics, and the success with which he pursued
them, is a proof rather of a capacity than an inclination
for acquiring them."6 At the end of his junior year, the
Faculty of Arts awarded him "the book" at the commencement
exercises. The reward of~a book was another of Dr. Mason's
innovations for academic improvement at Columbia. A special
examination for honors was held once a year and t0p students
received "books of definite value to be 'conferred in the

In7

most public and impressive manner. At his own graduation

 

33

the next year, he delivered the valedictory address, another
honor.8

As Bryant suggests, Sands attained these honors as much
by natural genius as by scholarly diligence. As a boy of
about fourteen, he probably found it difficult to stick to the
books when so much was going on outside: "I am no scholar,"
he reflected later, "perseverance was never one of my virtues."9
We can almost picture him looking out of a window in one of
the study rooms on the upper floor of the college building
which stood on a hill two blocks from the busy Hudson River:
"The student's clouded eyeballs roam, / Bent idly on the
ponderous tome."10 ,Sands was probably writing from personal
experience when he penned these lines for the introduction to

his juvenile, verse romance The Bridal of Vaumond.

 

The Peithologian Society»

Fortunately we have a fair picture of Sands while at
college through the records and publications of the Peitholo-
gian Society, a cultural fraternity sponsored by Columbia.

In a time when there were no athletic programs, student
government organization, or Greek letter fraternities, student
extra-curriculur activities centered in the college literary
societies. The Peithologian Society had been formed in 1806,
four years after its only rival, the Philolexian Society.

Each society had a room in the college, and these soon became
the centers of student life. Their rivalry was a chief source
of school spirit. The History of Columbia University notes

with interest "that the color of the Philolexian Society was

 

34
white and the color of the Peithologian blue, and that the
two together make the 'Colors of Columbia, the dashing
White and Blue'" (p. 93).
The Peithologians, whose "principle object [was] the
improvement of its members in Oratory, Debate, and Composi-

tion, met every Friday evening.11 Members had to be
"Students of Arts in Columbia College" and without any connec-
tion, past or present, with the Philolexian Society. Students
receiving a B.A. degree were awarded honorary membership and
thereafter paid no dues. The members were divided into four

groups or "classes,' the plan being that at each meeting,

the members of one class shall deliver orations,

original or selected; those of another shall hand in

essays, and the two remaining classes shall debate,

one on the affirmative and the other on the negative

of the question selected. The order shall be

arranged so that every class shall perform each of

the above duties once in four weeks.12
Besides the usual offices of president, vice-president,
secretary, and treasurer, two or three critics were elected
semi-annually. The critics evaluated the essays handed in,
and judged the debates and orations. They were thus responsi-
ble for the intellectual quality maintained by the club,
which in turn determined how well the club met its principal
objective.

Sands's popularity is indicated by the many offices he

held during his three years as a Peithologian. He was
elected secretary at the first election after his initiation,

and from then on held either the office of vice-president or

president; except for one term during his junior year, he was

35
a critic. It was possible to be critic while holding another
office.

Besides the obvious leadership Opportunities and prac-
tice in criticism, the Peithologian Society was important to
Sands for the friendships he developed there. Serving as
secretary while Sands was president was John Neilson, Jr.,
whose father was a prominent New York physician and whose
mother was a Bleecker, an old Knickerbocker family. Although
he was four months older than Sands, he was two years behind
him in college. Neilson's quiet, gentle manner, refined taste
and sense of humor appealed to Sands, and Neilson became one
of his closest and most enduring friends.

But even more congenial to his spirit was James Wallis
Eastburn, son of the New York publisher.13 Though two years
older than Sands, he was a year behind him in college. East-
burn served as secretary of the Peithologians while Sands
was vice-president, but more importantly, they served together
for a year and a half as critics. This provided opportunity
for the two to work out their critical ideas and aesthetic
theories, an important element for their future collaboration.
They were good for each other: Eastburn was naturally timid
and reserved, while Sands had a good bit of fire and was
somewhat of an exhibitionist. On any project they approached,
Sands provided the passion and drive, while Eastburn kept
things on a steady, even keel. Jane Tiquin sums up this balance
well: "His [Sands's] imagination was easily fired but his

nature was so impulsive and vacillating that he needed a

II

36

quieting, steadying influence to carry anything through to
successful conclusion. This influence Eastburn supplied."l4
As Sands himself put it, Eastburn's "example checked my
wider range" (Quoted by Verplanck, "Memoir," p. 4). Later in
his career, Bryant was to take Eastburn's place as a steadying
influence.

Sands's collaboration with Eastburn began in their second

year at college with The Moralist, a literary periodical

 

sponsored by the Peithologian Society and probably published
by Eastburn's father. The title was inspired by the eight-
eenth-century essayists, whom the Peithologians strove to
imitate. The Moralist, however, shared the fate of several
other periodicals of the time--only one number was published,
of which there is no extant copy.

The next year (1815), Sands and Eastburn tried again,
this time publishing for the Peithologians a periodical

entitled Academic Recreations. The name and purpose borrowed

 

the part of their weekly program which followed the orations,
essays, and debate. As the "Constitution and Bylaws" defined
it: "The Academic Recreations shall consist of original
essays and communications from the members, and shall be pure-
ly literary, to the exclusion of politics and personality"
(p. 15) .

The introductory article, probably written by Sands,
summed up the purpose: "We neither look for emolument nor
fame. Enough will it be if our feeble efforts can contribute

to amuse, though for a moment, to expand the bud of youthful

37

talent, to improve in matter and in mind, in head and in
heart."15 As with other of Sands's early literary efforts
and even the Peithologian Society itself, this publishing
project was a conscious effort to improve his compositional
skills. Sands already seems interested in becoming an author.
Six numbers of the periodical, each a 48 page duodecimo,
were published by James Eastburn, Sr., from February through
July, 1815. The project apparently died with Sands's gradu-
ation 1 August 1815.

Contributions were anonymous, identified only by an ini-
tial or a Latin pseudonym. Verplanck says Sands "contributed

a large proportion both in prose and verse: ("Memoir, p. 5).
With one exception, the only initial found in both the prose

and poetry sections of the magazine is "X." Presumably, then,
the signature "X" stands for Sands. If this is so, then Sands

contributed nine of the thirty-five articles found in the six

issues of Academic Recreations. His greatest single effort

 

was a five-part essay on "The Origin, Progress and Perfection
of Romantic Fiction both in Prose and Verse." This survey

is largely literary history and contains virtually nothing of
critical importance. His other articles were "On the Contem-
plation of the Beauties of Nature," and "Female Talent, with
a few remarks on the influence of females in society." Be-
sides the introductory essay, the only other thing Sands pro-
bably wrote was "Petition of the Carrier," a humorous note
concerning the request for new shoes by the carrier who de-

livered the magazine to customers--an obviously facetious,

38
tongue-in-cheek reference to the magazines small number of
subscribers and an early example of Sands's peculiar brand
of humor.

The final quarter of each issue was devoted to "Original
Poetry." The six issues contain sixteen poems, half of them
by "X" or Sands. Most of them are mediocre productions, but
they do give an early indication of Sands's poetic interests:
nature poems and romantic narratives about remote or legen-
dary lands or people. Nearly all of Sands's later poetry
falls into these same two categories.

Typical of the verse romances is "Athlin and Anna, or
the Legend of the Isles," supposedly "a fragment of a Scottish
Tale," obviously inspired by Sir Walter Scott. Scott's great
popularity and influence in America were becoming obvious in
1815. Sands was already looking toward the Indian as a source
of material, as indicated by "Athula: an Indian Tale."

The other poems are unremarkable nineteenth—century
nature poems, even down to the titles: "Evening Hymn," "Ode
to Music," and "Sunset." The best of these, the "Evening
Hymn," begins with a familiar ring:

Hail to the evening star on high:
Hail to the shades of night descending.

Hail to the tints of yonder sky,

With the dim, sombrous landscape blending.

The bird has sought his mossy nest,

The woods scarce feel the breeze's motion;
All nature owns the reign of rest,
Lulled by the murmur of the ocean. (P. 238)

The simple abab rime-scheme seems appropriate for a poet in

his apprenticeship. Phrases like "mossy nest" reflect the

39
reluctance among American poets to give up eighteenth-century
diction for Wordsworth's ideas of simplicity. In this respect
the poem is typical of much early American poetry which
wrapped Romantic ideas in neo-classic diction.16

The youth of the authors is readily apparent throughout

Academic Recreations; nearly everything smacks of the composi-

 

tion class. Verplanck, usually hyperbolic in his praise, dis-
creetly sums up the project of the Peithologians: it "did

credit to their scholarship and taste" ("Memoir, p. 5).
Yet we have to admire this sincere attempt at self-improve-
ment. Columbia University, it should be noted, still prizes

Academic Recreations as the first printed student periodical

 

at Columbia.

Sands received his B.A. degree from Columbia on 1 August
1815. At the same time he was given "a diploma of Honorary
Membership" by the Peithologians, whose records show that
Sands regularly attended their meetings for the next three
years and took an active part in the society. He frequently
participated in the weekly debates and won an average of two
out of three times. Manton Eastburn, James Eastburn's younger
brother and a good friend of Sands, was president for part
of the time Sands attended meetings of the society, and this
fact may account, in part, for his continued participation.
In 1816 and 1817, Sands delivered an oration at the public
celebration or "Exhibition of the Society" which was held
every April. In 1818, Sands reported his activities to James

Eastburn:

40

I have written a prologue, epilogue and three ora-
tions for the Exhibition of the Society, . . . which
as Manton and the other honorary members have given
themselves very great airs, is likely to be very
disgraceful to the Society. I wrote a fiery declam-
ation on the Sublime for one youth; and he speaks

it so softly that one would think it was on the

strength of milk and water--and another on absurdi-

ties, which the orator delivers like a Methodist

sermon.

About the same time, Sands did some other ghost writing,
largely sermons "written in an animated and perhaps florid
style." Verplanck reports that they "were much admired, when
delivered in the pulpit with good emphasis and discretion, to
congregations who little suspected to whom they were indebted
for their edification. One of them,at least, has been printed

under the name of the clergyman by whom it was delivered"

("Memoir, p. 7).

One of the addresses which Sands delivered before the
Peithologians, they later saw fit to publish. This was a
memorial given "on the occasion of the death of their fellow-
member James S. Watkins, M.D."18 Dr. Watkins died of tuber-
culosis, which he contracted from nursing his father who died
shortly before him. At an extra meeting of the society, Sands
was "unanimously elected to deliver a funeral oration" which
"medical students [were] allowed to attend."19 In style, the
address has a great deal of rhetorical flourish which the
Peithologians would admire, but in content, Sands chose a
rather mature, non-sentimental approach. Manton Eastburn
headed the committee which decided to have the address

printed at an expense to the members of $14.12%. Sands's

name was attached to this publication of his speech, and thus

41
in 1817, his name appeared in print for the first time.

Sands continued to attend the meetings of the Peitholo-
gian Society until the middle of 1818, at which time two of
his best friends, Manton Eastburn and John Neilson, graduated
and left the society. By this time, Sands was himself heavily
involved with several publishing and literary projects. In
the same year, 1818, Sands also received the M.A. degree
from Columbia, an honor bestowed after three years on those
alumni with good records and with potential for future suc-
cess.20 With new students taking the places of Sands and his
old friends and with Sands having received the highest degree
Columbia offered, he severed most of his connections with his

alma mater.

Law vs. Literature

 

Sometime during Sands's sixteenth year, probably around
the time of his graduation in August, he was fitted for glasses.
He had been near-sighted since childhood, and most likely the
heavy eyestrain involved with his college studies caused his
myopic condition to worsen. Only those who have been near-
sighted from childhood and who can recall the astounding, new
world that opens up to them with their first pair of glasses
can understand Sands's feeling as he saw details like the
stars for the first time. That first view of the stars, he
recalled, "filled him with the sublimest emotions."21
It was a good thing Sands had his eyesight corrected,

because he went directly from the volumes of classics to the

fine print of law books. Soon after his graduation in 1815,

42
Sands began the study of law with David B. Ogden, a distin-
'guished New York lawyer.

According to Verplanck, "He entered upon his new course
of study with an ardour and lively curiosity not very common
among young law students, who have ever been 'smit with the
love of sacred song,‘ or familiar with the delights of ele-

gant literature" ("Memoir,' p. 5). Apparently Sands was
intellectually challenged by the subtle complexities of law.
He learned to reverence common law and called those advocating
codification and reform of the law heretics. In a light-
hearted essay on the subject written after his admission to
the bar, he alleged that if Jeremy Bentham and other reformers
had "been born under the Old Testament dispensation, and
raised in the Land of Promise, they would have been equally
uproarious for codifying the moral law, and appointing a
committee to revise Deuteronomy and Leviticus" ("Memoir,"
p. 6). His love of legal studies was eloquently stated in a
letter to James Eastburn:
I am now making an abstract of Coke upon Little-

ton and do actually feel as much interested in it, as

I once was in the Fatal Revenge, on Henry IV. Cer-

tainly . . . there is no study in which those two

grand faculties of intellect reason and memory are

so much exercised, as law. Venerable name! Petti-

foggers have trod in its temple and sullied its Parian

marble, and villains have wove their filmy cobwebs

around its walls, but the statues of Cicero and

Hortensius, of Montesquieu, Coke, Hale, Black-

stone, and Hamilton and thousand others, are towering

in all their dignity and still the mighty fabric

rears its majeStic head, the prOp and the glory of
the earth.22

But we have here, in the first sentence of the above

«quotation, a hint of a struggle going on in Sands's mind

43
during the winter of 1816-1817, his second year of law. It
appears that he was trying to do too many things at once.
Besides studying law, he attempted to keep up with his classi-
cal studies, write poetry, do a good bit of "light reading,"
and play an active part in the Peithologian Society as an
honorary member. On top of it all, his "natural complexion"
or "mental inertia" caused him to do none of them justice.
Speaking of writing, he told Eastburn, "All the ardour of
composition fails. My pen drops from my hand, I throw the
papers off one side--fly to something else--and this is
generally soon abandoned."23 Further on in the letter he
reports: "I have determined upon an intellectual regenera-
tion." Then he announces a corollary to his reform: "I have
almost made a determination to give up Poetry. For I am con—
vinced that to produce any thing worthy of posterity of any
size, all the powers of the mind and all the attention must
be devoted to it."

Apparently he was deciding to narrow his field of inter-
ests; thus, at least temporarily, he decided to give up
literature for law. It was during the same winter that the
following verses--which resemble William Blackstone's "Law-
yer's Farewell to his Muse,"--were written:

Farewell, delusive dreams! I ask now

The wreath that Crowns the immortal poet's brow,
Bought with a lingering pang of hOpe deferred,
While glad success in his cold urn interred,
Wakes not her taper's trembling brilliancy,

Till on his vision bursts eternity!

Far other prospects Open on me now,

Wild wastes and mountains bleak with rugged brow,--
A mazy path that time hath ever strewed

44

With tangled weeds, and many a bramble rude;

Where patient toil alone the end can win,

This journey ever seeming to begin.

But, oh! how glorious is the meed obtained,

By honest labour and by virtue gained.

Who would not mount to live in deathless fame,

And link his own with Tully's honored name;

A prouder boast than conquered armies tell,

Or vanquish'd realms, a Victor's praise that swell.24

Apparently the reason for choosing law over literature was
to have fame while he lived instead of after his death.

His promise to avoid poetry did not last long, for he
enthusiastically announced to Eastburn a month or two later
that he had "finished two parts of the 'Bridal of Vaumond.'"25
However this winter of his discontent is interesting in light
of his final decision to give up law in favor of literature--
for him, the two apparently never could exist together. Much
the same thing had happened a decade earlier to that first

Knickerbocker author, Washington Irving.

The Bridal of Vaumond
The Bridal of Vaumond, which Sands mentioned to Eastburn,
was a verse romance Sands had begun four years earlier in
college. This gothic tale is in the irregular measure of
Scott's Layjof the Last Minstrel. Sands described his Faus-
tian hero to Eastburn as,

A man gifted by nature with all the exquisites of
ugliness, crookedness and corporeal & mental deform-
ity, the object of feminine aversion, masculine con—
tempt, and loathed even by his own parents, [who]
was tempted by friends in a repining mood and made

a compact with them, the conditions of which were
ex pgrte diaboli, that his infernal highness should
give the wretch beauty, rank, riches, honour etc.
and ex altera parte, that the wretch should own no
other master, join in no holy right, &c and finally
resign his body & soul to the devil.26

 

 

45

The poem is divided into three parts, each of which con-
tains four scenes. A proem in Spenserian stanza sets the
scene in twelfth-century Sicily:

O'er her green hills and plains with glory clad,

Mid dark forests of hergiant mound,

Where ruin marches in the vineyard glad

And his dire steps since nature's birth resound,

A rhymer wander'd; --he survey'd each bound,

Till his tir'd eyes in weary slumbers close--

Yet still the mountain's [Aetna's] roar re-echo'd round,
Still fleeting visions wake in his repose:

And there this wilder'd dream, yet all connected rose. (P. 14)
The sleeping "rhymer" dreams of Vaumond, whose compact with
the evil spirits of Mt. Aetna is reiterated in scene I. In
the next scene, the beautiful Isabel in her castle dreams
of her lover, a young nobleman named Lodowick. At the tourna-
ment, which is the topic of the third scene, Lodowick and a
mysterious black knight "tilt it long and furiously." Vaumond,
wearing "armour forged by immortal hands" wins and claims
Isabel as his reward.

In Part II, the reluctant Isabel is given an "infernal
decoction" by Vaumond at a banquet. Suddenly she has an
"uncontroulable passion" for Vaumond, much to the concern of
Lodowick who is dancing with her. Gages are thrown down and
a single combat arranged. Lodowick tries a secret interview
with Isabel, but is rejected. He returns to his castle, where
he is seized, spirited away, and thrown into a dungeon.

The dungeon, Part III reveals, is in the bowels of Mt.
Aetna. After an earthquake, Lodowick escapes his dungeon

and frantically searches for a way out of the mountain. He

crosses a patch of boiling lava (described as "bubbling hell")

46
on a bridge that collapses as soon as he gets Off. Finally
he stumbles upon "The mountain spirits' trysting place:"
And there was Of flame a crawling ring
Their giddy circuiting;
All around it snakes were hissing
Slimy folds in fold caressing;
Lizards dragg'd their naseous mire
Creeping countless round the fire;
Living members there he spied,
Sever'd from corses putrified
And these around the circle leapt;
But from the liquid trunk corrupt,
Where loathing worm no longer supt,
A myriad slimy insects crept. (Pp. 119-20)
This description of the evil spirits of Mt. Aetna reflects
Sands's style throughout the poem, a style which is a credit-
able schoolboy imitation Of Milton's grand, Latinate style.
Sands's letters to Eastburn about this time show that he was
much impressed with Milton's work, especially the shorter
poems.27
Lodowick finds Vaumond consulting with the above-described
evil spirits. He screams with rage and suddenly finds him-
self free, outside of Mt. Aetna. Lodowick then travels
through Sicily, which gives Sands more Opportunity to exercise
his descriptive powers. Lodowick recuperates with a peasant
‘who tells how a fiend caused he and his wife to have a mis-
shapen son:
The child grew up of dwarfish size,
Huge feet, crook'd legs, and goggle eyes,
With low-bent back and monstrous head,--
Such was the fruit Of the marriage bed. (P. 135)
Lodowick takes the peasant with him as he travels on.

Meanwhile Vaumond, who can not take part in a religious

ceremony, arranges an occult wedding. Another earthquake (an

47

easy way out of plotting difficulties) breaks up the wedding
and Lodowick saves Isabel. In the final scene, Lodowick and
vaumond again meet in tournament. After a furious battle,
Lodowick wins by finding a cross which he swings at Vaumond.
This breaks the spell and turns Vaumond back into the hideous
creature he was originally:

Ha! --where that harness'd champion now?--

An elf, all wrinkled, crook'd, and gray,

Crouching beneath the cross upstarted--

That mighty form hath passed away,

Andlike unreal light departed! (P. 167)
He dies soon after being struck by the cross. Vaumond is, of
course, the misshapen son of the peasant.

The plot was much better in its conception, as outlined
in a letter to Eastburn, than in its execution. The basic
conflict is not convincing or compelling: consequently,
there is little suspense or interest. The line of the action
is hard to follow: lack of background information on setting
and character relationships, a constant use of other names and
titles for the principal characters, and the abundant classi—
cal allusions bewilder the reader. The foggy plot is further
clouded with the peasant subplot and another involving a
page who is really a former girlfriend of Vaumond. It is
hard to believe Ms. Tiquin's charge that Bridal is "a rather
transparent and faulty imitation" of The Three Brothers, an
1803 novel by Joshua Pickersgill.28 Had Sands been borrowing
a plot, it seems he could have avoided some of the confusion
‘which exists in Bridal.

More likely,_the inspiration came from Matthew G. Lewis's

48

drama One O'clock (a recasting of his Opera Wood Demon),

 

which was published in New York in 1813, near the end Of
Sands's first year in college. Lewis's work was based on
Pickergill's twist of the Faustian theme--a hunchback selling
his soul to the Devil in exchange for beauty. Sands Obviously
read Lewis's drama, for, in a footnote, he admits borrowing
from him the idea of swinging a cross at the devil's disciple
to break the spell and transform him back into a hunchback.
Sands heavily documented all his sources in 11 pages of notes
at the end of the poem. But other than the basic idea, nothing
else seems to have been borrowed.

Apparently Sands was intrigued by the device of a hunch—
back selling his soul for beauty, but he saw in it only poten—
tial for the plot of a romance, not the weighty theological
and philOSOphical implications which appealed to Lord Byron.
That great Romantic had long been attracted to it, possibly
because his lame foot caused him to feel an affinity with the
hero, and he began to explore the implications of such a
Faustian deal in his dramatic fragment, "The Deformed Trans-
formed" (1824). Sands, never deeply philOSOphical, made
nothing of the larger implications of such a bargain as the
hunchback made with the Devil.

In college, Sands began writing what probably was intended
to be a lengthy poem with several subplots, but abandoned the
whole thing after several thousand lines. Early in 1817,
during a winter Of loneliness because of Eastburn's absence

and boredom and despair over doing nothing creative, Sands

49
again took up the poem. He revised the plot and finished
writing the poem during the spring and summer. Part of the
plotting problem came from not reworking the first part of the
poem thoroughly enough to make it match his new conception Of
the plot.

James Eastburn, away at school in Bristol, Rhode Island,
encouraged Sands by letter to finish the poem. He evidently
continued his encouragement when the two were together during
the summer vacation of 1817. In the "Introductory Epistle"
to Part III, which is Obviously dedicated to Eastburn, Sands
claimed that if the last part of Bridal was better than the
first, it was because Eastburn had not been present when the
poem was begun:

Thou wert not near when first the chords I woo'd;

My heart retir'd in its own solitude . . .

[And] droop'd until thy presence cheer'd the bard,

Thyself its inspiration and its guard. (Bridal, p. 105)
When Sands's "heart retir'd in its own solitude" very little
could be produced. He depended for inspiration on the en-
couragement and approval of others and collaboration with
someone else, whether it be just the sharing of ideas or the
actual division of labor.

Not only did Eastburn encourage Sands to complete the
poem, but he probably also arranged with his father to have
it published. Sands finished the poem at the end of the sum-
xner and the 186 page duodecimo was published by James East—
burn, Sr., in September, 1817.

Though the plot is weak and the reader is left with the

impression that Sands finished the poem only because he had

50

started it, Sands did produce some fine verse. Much of it,
to be sure, is as pedestrian as one might expect from a
fourteen-year Old in college, but there are several sparkling
passages, usually descriptive in nature. But the best poetry
is found in the introductory epistles which precede each of
three parts. The first one is probably directed to Washing-
ton Irving, to whom "This Romance is Respectfully Inscribed
by the Author." There was no apparent connection between
Sands and Irving, who was in Europe at this time. Sands never
directly mentions Irving,29 but most likely he shared the
then current Opinion that Irving was America's best author.
Sands, coming from a similar background and hoping for a
comparable career, most likely felt an affinity with the famous
Knickerbocker; and, of course, if he could gain the recogni-
tion of the country's greatest author, so much the better.
Irving was later kind enough to say the work "shewed great
poetical promise."30 But generally relations between Sands
and Irving were as cold as they were between Irving and most
of the other New York authors.31

That it "displays . . . considerable talent for versifi-
cation" was about the nicest thing the anonymous reviewer
for the Analectic Magazine could say about Bridal. In an
otherwise scathing review, Sands is taken to task for imitat-
ing Scott and Byron. The reviewer, obviously one of the early
advocates for a national literature, not only dislikes imi-
tating non-American authors, but also the using of foreign

materials:

51

For addicted as our reading population is to the

laudable custom of admiring every thing which has

crossed the Atlantic, still it has sometimes

exhibited a little nausea at finding the same kind

of dish served up by American cooks, without altera—

tion Of a single ingredient; and that when so bound-

less a variety of home materials was before them.32
The critic then Offers an explanation for the Obvious superi-
ority of the introductory poems:

The introductory epistles, where he speaks after his

own manner, and does not servilely copy foreign poetry,

are the best part of the book, and in one of them he

exhibits very respectable powers of description. . . .

He is evidently capable of appreciating and repre-

senting our natural scenery: all that is wanting

is to give it a moral interest (p. 124).
Sands evidently took this advice to heart; henceforth he sel-
dom used foreign material, and he became one of America's
foremost proponents of a national literature. Furthermore,
he "never referred to this early publication in conversation,
but with apparent dislike," according to Verplanck ("Memoir,"
p. 8). The review cut Sands to the quick, and, while it
only dampened his enthusiasm for poetry slightly, it was an
important determinant of Sands's philosophy Of literary
criticism: he always avoided harsh criticism of new authors.

Other reviewers found things to like about the poem.
Bryant sums up most of them when he praises "the facility of
versification, the brilliancy of many of the conceptions,

"33

and the daring wildness Of imagery. The English paid it

high tribute in Blackwood's Magazine by calling it one Of
the three "finest transatlantic poetic compositions we have

"34

seen. But Irving's casual comment, that it "shewed great

poetical promise," probably best sums up the importance Of

52
the poem. Readers of Bridal, then and now, find it an
interesting but second-rate romance, but the quality of verse
does give an indication of better poetry tO come. And Irving
and other readers were correct, for Sands and Eastburn began
Yamoyden, their most important poem, immediately after the
publication of The Bridal of Vaumond. It thus was an important

part of Sands's literary apprenticeship.

CHAPTER III

THE ESSAYIST:

BROTHER BOB AND THE LITERARY CONFEDERACY

The gregariousness which was typical of neo—classic
artists and intellectuals manifested itself best in the clubs
they formed for aesthetic and social purposes. The Scottish
critics and philOSOphers had the Poker Club, later the Select
Society, and the Friday Club. In London, authors and artists
gathered around Samuel Johnson. In Philadelphia, Benjamin
Franklin helped start the Junto, a club devoted to singing,
wine-drinking, and self-improvement.

New York had its Drone, Calliopean, and Friendly Clubs.
The usual New York club, explains literary historian Eleanor
Scott, "aimed at promoting friendship and good conversation,
intellectual development, literary cultivation through fre-
quent meetings devoted to debate and oratory, reading aloud,
original compositions in poetry and prose, all presided over
by the keen and candid critic."l

The Literary Confederacy, a club formed by Sands and
three other friends soon after their graduation from college,
‘was patterned after the New York literary clubs. The Literary
(Confederacy met weekly to socialize and exchange essays or

other original compositions. These they recorded in a

53

54

manuscript periodical called The Aeronaut. The thirteen

 

volumes of Aeronaut papers supplied material for two series
of newspaper essays, for dozens of contributions to the
Literary Journal, and for their own periodical of satire, St,
Tammany's Magazine. The activities of the Confederates were

recorded in a journal called Aeronautica. The Literary Con-

 

federacy allowed Sands to continue a form of collaboration
which he had been introduced to and grown fond of among the
Peithologians.2

Organization and Membership,
of the Literary Confederacy

 

The Literary Confederacy grew out of an organization
formed during the winter of 1815-1816 for "the purpose of
improvement in literary acquirements."3 This group, which
was probably called Societas Athenieusis, never really got
going, "owing to the want of cordial agreement amongst some
of the members and an evident indifference to the interests
of the institution." Only four members were present at its
last meeting--Richard R. Ward, Robert C. Sands, Samuel W.
Greene and James W. Eastburn--and their conversation centered
on a method for improving their literary abilities. "The
idea of a periodical essay was started, and unanimously
adopted; and Mr. J. W. Eastburn was requested to furnish a
name, and to write the introductory paper."

Eastburn chose the name Aeronaut for their periodical.
He explained the meaning of the name in the first article

contributed to the Aeronaut which was read on 18 May 1816.4

55

Eastburn evidently thought the chariot of Icarus (Aeronaut),
soaring an even distance between Earth and sun, typified what
they wanted to do in their essays:

We wish only to follow the sublime aspirations of
those who in their invention Of their airy car,
thought to travel over every region, & trace every
sea. The aeronaut can only catch a glimpse as he
passes along of what is beneath. This we desire to
do; to match a few rays of the scenes we may behold,
and be enabled to make a portrait of them, faint
indeed, but sufficient for our purpose. The Aero-
naut is confined by no limits. . . . Nothing external
is concealed from his Observation. Nothing superfi—
cial can escape his notice. (Aeronaut, I, 8)

(The modern air traveler probably better understands what they
‘were striving for than they themselves did. Eastburn con-
'tinued to elaborate on their metaphoric title and purpose:

We mean not to pretend to take deep & inside views

of things; but to skim over the surface, & make use of

what we may happen to behold. If we cannot instruct

others, we will at least strive to amuse them; and

if we fail even in that, we shall have the satis—

faction Of reflecting that such was our intention.

(Aeronaut, I, 8)

The plan was to meet once a week to hear an essay by one
(of the four members. Then the author of the article was to
transcribe his contribution in the Aeronaut MS. During the
last of May and through June and July of 1816, members
:entered essays in the manuscript periodical once a week or
rnore often. By the end of July eighteen papers filled the
:first 300 page manuscript book. Eastburn quite accurately
(assessed its value the next year in his "Succinct Account . .
(Df the Literary Confederacy":

The first volume may be considered as on some accounts

the least interesting of the whole work. It was not

likely that a few inexperienced young men should at
once adopt the requisite style and manner of essayists.

56
Their subjects at that time were quaint, and their
style, perhaps more heavy, than afterwards. . . .
But at the same time, the first volume will always be
regarded by the association with interest, as it
shows the germ and promise Of the future, and dates
the progress of their minds.

From August until the following May (1817) the Literary
Confederacy met only once a month due to summer vacations and
James Eastburn's absence during the winter. Upon Eastburn's
return in May from Rhode Island Seminary, the Confederates
took stock of their situation. Samuel Greene, New York
businessman and former Columbian, had never contributed to
the Aeronaut, and, "as his business precluded the regularity
of his attendance," he was drOpped from membership.5 East-
burn's brother, Manton, was chosen in Green's place in order
to keep the original number of four, which the Confederates
seemed to like.

The only non-Columbian and non-Peithlogian was Richard
Ray Ward (1795-1893), the oldest member of the group. He was
a lineal descendant of Roger Williams and his father had dis-
tinguished himself as a Lieutenant-Colonel during the Revolu-
tion. Raised and schooled in Rhode Island, Ward came to New
‘York in 1816 to begin a law practice. Sands probably met
laim in connection with his own law studies. Although a law-
jyer by profession, Ward was an antiquarian in his Spare time.
lie was a close friend of New York artists and authors, but
Inever produced anything of literary value. Sands, the East-
ljurn brothers, and Ward, then, made up the membership of the

(Jonfederacy from 1817 to 1819, which proved to be the most

productive period for the club.

57

In 1819 Dr. John Neilson, Jr., took the place of James
Eastburn after Eastburn's death. In college Neilson had been
a friend of Sands and the Eastburns. Soon after Eastburn's
death the Confederacy lost its purely literary character;
however they met regularly on a social basis at least until
1830. Frederick DePeyster, quasi-historian of the Confederates,
says that "half a century later [the original compact of
friendship] was in full vigor between the two surviving mem-
bers, BishOp [Manton] Eastburn and Mr. Ward."6

In 1823 the members drew up legal articles outlining the
"principles and Objects" of the Literary Confederacy, thus
making Official what had formerly been a gentlemen's agree-

7 In the first article they agreed to "reserve a friendly

ment.
communion in all the vicissitudes of life and endeavour, by
all proper means, to advance our mutual and individual
interests." To accomplish this, they agreed to "candidly
advise each other on every subject according to our best
judgment and receive calmly the advice of each other." Natu-
rally they were to "support the character and good fame of
each other" and be loyal. It is the second article Of their
agreement however, that makes their endeavour Of interest to
.American literary history:

That we will, jointly and severally, so far as is

consistent with our several avocations and duties,

labour to promote the cause of learning and literature

in the United States, according to those convictions

and ideas we have always jointly entertained on the

subject.

The whole idea of the Confederacy was to improve their writing

‘by practice and eventually produce something that would improve

58
the state Of literature in America.

By-laws provided for the Operation Of the Confederacy:
"Whenever any two or more of the members shall be within two
miles of each other, for any length Of time exceeding one
week, they shall meet together." A paper was to be read at
each meeting. Meetings and papers were rotated among the
four so that each member would entertain and contribute a
paper once a month. The papers were to be constructively
criticized by the group as a whole and then transcribed into
the manuscript book by the author. Detailed minutes of the
meeting were to be taken and recorded by the host in Agrgf
nautica. The Oldest member was to be chairman; thus, Ward,
who outlived all the other members, was the one and only
chairman. New members were to be admitted only upon the
occasion of the death of an original member..

The members of the Confederacy come alive in Aeronautica,

 

the record of their weekly meetings. Unfortunately, only the
minutes from 1822 through 1829 survive, the period after most
of their writing and publishing had been done; however these
provide a fascinating, intimate account of New York life and
letters in the 1820's.

Sands's account of the 28 December 1821 meeting illustrates
well the casual good times which characterized the confederates'
activities:

It being understood that the meeting was to be
held at Brother Manton's this evening, the fraternity
accordingly all punctually assembled there, but to
their great astonishment it appeared that Manton had

gone to dine at Mr. Hallidays, without giving due
notice of the same--so growling all the way at Brother

59

Manton, they repaired to Brother Bob's [Sands's]
Office, where fortunately there chanced to be a
good fire. The worthy Chairman [Ward] having taken
his seat, business was entered upon by each of the
Brother's smoking a segar. This being concluded,
the conduct of Brother Eastburn was then commented
upon, and after a long and patient discussion in
which Brother Eastburn was treated with all brotherly
kindness and affection, it was unanimously resolved
that he had behaved in a very ungenteel manner
towards the Brothers, and that on the succeeding
evening a severe reprimand should be administered to
him by the Chairman.

Brother Ward then read to the Confederates a
very remarkable dream, or vision, which he had
experienced a few nights before: and in which the
future destinies Of the Confederates were traced in
a wonderful manner. This piece was in Ward's best
style and gave great satisfaction to all his auditors.
Brothers Sands and Neilson also read several interest-
ing and amusing pieces, which I [Sands] have now
forgotten.

After the regular business of the Society was
concluded, a committee was appointed to determine
in what manner the Confederates should spend the
remainder Of the evening; and after mature delibera-
tion it was settled that they should repair to a
certain house in Nassau Pt. for the purpose Of eating
buck wheat cakes & drinking coffee. The Brothers
accordingly came to this said house, where they were
entertained in a sumptuous manner by the lady Of the
house, & two pretty little girls her daughers. The
coffee was exquisite, the fried ham delightful, and
the pancakes beyond compare. During the repast we were
entertained by the innocent prattle of the little
girls, who waited on us like a pair of Jebes. And
Brother Ward the Jupiter of our party found his
bowels of benevolence so moved by the pancakes, and
the charming children, that he made each of them a
present of a quarter Of a dollar, over and above
the cost Of the supper. The Brothers, then, after a
short walk, by the way of settling the vivies, repaired
each to his proper habitation in a sober & sedate
manner. (Aeronautica, pp. 1-5)

Sands appears to be the only one still taking the orig-

:inal commitment to literary production seriously in 1822.

21 June 1822: After the reading of the minutes of
the preceding evening, brother Sands produced a
comico-serious poem, the subject of which the present
writer [Eastburn] has some how or other just at this
moment forgotten-~but which, being in Spenserian

60

measure, had an admirable effect--and was allowed by
all except its author, to be very fine--and one of
his Chefs-d'ouvre--Brother Sands proceeded, in the
absence of other entertainment, to make a motion; and
his motion was, that brother John should be appointed
a committee to review a recent play of Mg“; Noah
Esqr, entitled, "The Grecian Captives"--for that it
displayed most gross, palpable, and intolerable
ignorance of dramatic laws, and even common school
mythology. (Aeronautica, pp. 64-65)

All productions and activities were supposed to be kept
secret and Sands explained why in the minutes for the meeting
on 28 June 1822:

There is a most delicious sensation occasioned
by the reflection that we have many things reserved for
our own peculiar enjoyment & withheld from the com-
moners' 5. are rare productions containing the very
quintessance of wit & humor which the World would tremble
with delight to receive locked in our strong box
await our decision of their fate & spread out their
charms for no other eyes than ours. A fine manu-
script is to me [Sands] like a mistress whose devo-
tion I would preserve but the moment it is thrown
Open to the world it becomes little better than a
mere Wanton exciting & satisfying the desires of all
who choose to approch her. (Aeronautica, p. 68)

 

During July of 1822, all the members were away from the
city on vacation. At the meeting on July 26, Sands, always
3prone to exaggerate,

. . . gave a description of his voyage up the
North river through the Highlands. He had also been
on tOp of the Kaats—kill mountains, & painted as
vividly the beauties of their scenery, & the sublime
effect of the sun's rising as seen from their tOp,
that the Confederates, one and all, swore by Gog & Magog
that they would go there in a body one of these days.
Although they were too polite Openly to question
Brother Sands veracity, the Confeds., whose loftiest
aspirations, had never carried them higher than the
tOp of Mount H0pe, & which they had hitherto con-
sidered as one Of the highest mountains in the known
world, were a little staggered when Brother S. told
them that the Kaats-kill mountains were twenty times as
high. (Aeronautica, pp. 72-73)

 

On 16 August 1822, the Confederates met at Sands's Office

61
because

Br. Sands had been confined to the House the
preceding 24 hours in consequence of a bruise re-
ceived by being thrown out Of a waggon on his re-
turn from a visit to Eastburn's family in Weehawken.
The fruits of Sands's confinement were translations
in serio-comic prose from one of Metestasios plays,
which Br Neilson who knows a little Of Italian & Br
Ward who knows nothing of it pronounced to be
excellent. The verdict of the Brs was confirmed by
Mr. Payne a gentleman well versed in the language
of the modern Romans. (Aeronautica, pp. 78-79.

 

Sands attended meetings more regularly than any other Con-
federate but he was absent on 13 December 1822 because he
”had fallen into bad company & went with them to the theatre
preferring the cunning Mr. Matthews to the sprightly Dr. Neil-

son, the serious Dr. Manton & the sober Dr. Ward" (Aeronautica,

 

p. 106).

With the exception of a single entry, there is nearly a
six year break in the journal after the 5 February 1824 meet-
ing. Sands writing on 27 November 1829 explained, in words
that startle and amuse his biographer, that there were meet-
ings during that period:

Let not however the reader of this imperishable
volume who with patient toil & industry may chance
to decipher these chronicles, some two or three
thousand years hence, by the aid maybe, of antique
dictionary & lexicon, suppose that for these last
seven years, the ties which once bound the brothers
so closely together have become loosened or that
they have had no pleasant meetings, no noches
ambrosian as Blackwood says, during this Iong inter-
val. On the contrary, the Brs. have met full oft
during this period--sometimes in the sultry dog days,
sometimes in the piercing cold Of winter, frequently
with pinched noses & thrilling fingers but always
with warm hearts & a hearty welcome. (Aeronautica,
n.p.)

 

In Spite Of what Sands says, there does seem to have been a

62
loosening of the ties. The light, tongue-inrcheek tone of

the above Aeronautica extracts seems to indicate that the

 

original, highly serious purposes Of self-improvement and
literary production had given away to mere friendly social-
izing. Sands was the only person regularly reading something
new and original, and he may have written these without the
inspiration of the Confederates. In other words, the group
had lost its spirit of collaboration. They were no longer
all working toward a common goal, a publishing project.

Another factor that indicates a loosening Of ties, was
the increasing absence of Manton Eastburn from meetings. As
his pastoral duties increased, he evidently found less and
less opportunity to meet with the Confederates. A "survey
of absences" on 25 July 1823 showed that in a year he had been
absent nineteen times, almost three times as much as the next
most delinquent member. Less than six weeks before the last
meeting recorded, Sands wrote: "After much conversation [with
ward] it was considered that the state of our Institution was
upon the decline and that [Brothers] Manton & John were in
fault" (Aeronautica, p. 161).

Furthermore, Sands found, about 1824, a new set of
friends with which to collaborate: Bryant and Verplanck.
.Although this friendship was in the early stages of develOp-
Inent in 1824, it soon provided the opportunities for colla-
boration that Sands was beginning to miss among the Con-
federates. Also, Sands, being as gregarious as he was, pro-

bably found more to his liking the environment of the Bread

63

and Cheese Club and the Sketch Club, in both of which he was
a charter member. The Old bond of friendship continued among
the Confederates, especially between Sands and Neilson, but
by 1824 the Literary Confederacy had ceased to function
actively.

The heyday of the Confederates was between 1817 and 1821
during which time they filled thirteen volumes of their manu-

script periodical The Aeronaut, out of which they published

 

two series of newspaper essays, a magazine, and dozens of
contributions to other magazines. The thirteen volumes con—
tain 278 articles, usually running about 1500 words each.
Brother Bob, as Sands was known tO the Confederates, wrote
107 numbers and collaborated with other nembers on eighteen
Inore; thus Sands was responsible for nearly half of the
literary output of the Confederacy.8 The next most produc-
tive member was James Eastburn, who wrote or collaborated
on seventy articles before his death in 1819.

The main literary purpose Of the Confederates was to
improve themselves as essayists, which they prOposed to do
by imitating the great eighteenth-century English essayists:
"We are striving to catch a spark of that etherial flame
‘which plays around the departed glories of our illustrious
Inodels [Johnson, Addison, and Steele]. We are setting out
upon a career Of mental improvement, and why should we not
ibe permitted to indulge in the amusement afforded us by
writing a periodical essay?"9

In spite of their original intention, the articles varied

64
widely in literary type as well as in subject matter. There
were short stories like Sands's excellent "The Dervishe's
Ring,"10 essays with titles like "On Women" and "On Friend-

ship,‘ and articles on literary Opinions and criticism, such
as James Eastburn's "The Influence of Scenery." Sands was
responsible for most Of the classical studies, which com-
bined literary history and translations of representative
poems. Original poems by James Eastburn and Sands added
variety to the collection. Letters, supposedly written to
the Aeronauts by various eccentrics, were pOpular among the
Confederates. Many of these were by Sands and were full of
his humor and satire. Ward and Sands, the lawyers of the
group, contributed essays on history and law, dealing with
such subjects as how the aborigines got to North America, the
pros and cons of the new state constitution, and prison
reform. Finally, there were serious, philOSOphical essays
like Sands's "State of Nature."

'The Aeronaut thus provided a reservoir from which the
(zonfederacy could draw for its publishing projects. Each
Inember could choose, with the approval of the other members,
'which Of his works would be published. Over half of the

contents of the Aeronaut were eventually published.

"The Neologist"

 

James Eastburn in "A Succinct Account of the Origin and
Progress of the Literary Confederacy," (1817) explains how
the first publishing project came about:

One or two friends of the members having seen their

65

productions, suggested the propriety Of making them
public. When proposed to the society, no Opposi-
tion was found to arise; and it was at length
determined to make a proposal to Theodore Dwight
Esq., editor Of the New York Daily Advertiser, to
publish the papers of the association in his journal.
He cheerfully accepted the proposal, and the whole
matter was soon settled through the medium of a
gentleman who agreed to act as the agent of the
society.

Theodore Dwight, brother of the Hartford Wit, Timothy, and

newly elected editor of the Daily_Advertiser, agreed to

 

publish two essays a week, Wednesday and Saturday. Dwight
also agreed to "make no alterations in them [the articles

contributed] whatever, but print them according to manu-

t."12

scrip In case the Confederates should ever want to

collect their papers and publish them elsewhere, it was
agreed that they should be considered proprietors Of the
copyright. The last article of the agreement provided for
the cloak-and-dagger type anonymity that Sands so much
enjoyed:
That an entire secrecy concerning the authors should
be observed, and that they should not have personal
communication even with the editor, who was to remain
alike ignorant of their names; and also, that the
manuscripts should be preserved from the inspection
Of any body unconnected with the newspaper Office,
and returned to the authors, and that the medium of
communication itself should be concealed.13

The term Neologist was chosen for the series, which

 

according to James Eastburn, signified "either the wisdom or

 

discourse Of young men or a new essayist."l4 However, in the

 

first number of "The Neologist" which was published, in the

‘New York Daily_Advertiser on Saturday, 28 June 1817, Eastburn

 

refused to explain the name: "Of the very name we have adOpted

 

66

for our paper, we shall Offer no explanation." Furthermore,
in his introductory essay, Eastburn refused to "sketch any
plan Of our undertaking," which he considered "too common and
too glaring a fault in writers of periodical essays." He
promised only that the essays would "be confined to no par—
ticular subject within the range of general literature [and]
that all polemical discussions, and party politics [would]
be excluded . . . ."15

Sands wrote the next number of "The Neologist," which
appeared the following Wednesday, 2 July 1817. It is in
Inany ways typical of all the numbers in the series. For one
thing, it was taken verbatim from the Aeronaut as were nearly
all of "The Neologist" essays, and, like them, it has an
epigraph which sums up the subject: some Latin from Horace
precedes an Old proverb, "When you have nothing to say, say
nothing." The essay itself is on silence. Sands begins with
a little, light-hearted satire on the prOpensity of women to
gossip. Silence he says, "never found a place in the canons
of the female world, being directly contrary to the nature,
design and influence of gynecocracy." The young bachelor,
however, excluded the pretty girls: "How sweet is nonsense
on a ruby lip! How it can give to insipidity flavour, and
extract the venom from the sting of slander!"

This brief passage illustrates two characteristics of
Sands's style. First, when he wanted to be light-hearted or
humorous, he Often combined poetic diction ("ruby lips") and

startling, learned words like gynecocracy; although Latinate

67
diction was a common stylistic feature of the early nineteenth
century, Sands used it excessively when having fun, which was
most Of the time. In serious discussions, Sands used a rela-
tively plain, simple prose style when compared to most essay-
ists of his day. He could overwhelm the reader with learned
vocabulary when trying to be amusing or satiric, but when he
had a point to make, his prose is generally clear and simple.

A Knickerbocker review of Sands's Writings, most likely by

 

the magazine's editor, Lewis Gaylord Clark, verifies this:
"A prominent feature in the prose style of Mr. Sands, is its
beautiful simplicity."16

Second, Sands generally tried to make serious tOpics
Inore palatable by using humor, satire, wit, light-hearted
fun or any combination thereof. In this particular instance,
Sands hoped to gain interest and establish rapport with the
audience, much as today's speaker might begin with a joke or
anecdote.

Getting into the heart of the essay, Sands says that
silence can sometimes be more sublime and expressive than
any number Of words. Than he shows the problems Of talking
when one has nothing to say: for one thing, it may lead to
backbiting and defamation. Next he qualifies his admonitions
on silence: "Let us be understood. By silence, we do not
:mean to convey the idea of want of courtesy. Humanity dic-
tates some kind of response to every courteous interrogatory."

The solution to the whole problem is to gain a wide body of

knowledge through study and experience so that you will have

68
something worth saying when the time comes to talk. Though
his ideas are not necessarily original, Sands successfully
accomplishes the twin goals of the essayist: instruction and
entertainment.

The essay on silence, or when to talk and when not to
talk, was the first of nineteen essays Sands published in the
Neologist series. These essays range from trivial topics,
such as the essay on inanimate Objects as exemplified by the
common shirt which "is our bosom companion from our infancy,"
to serious literary discussions on allegory, satire, ballads,
and drama. The latter are not only inherently interesting
for what they say, but as early indications Of Sands's
developing critical theory.

In a perceptive essay on allegory, Sands startles the
reader with a blunt Opening: "Of all the orders of fiction,
the pure allegory is least capable of exciting interest

(Neologist #60, 21 January 1818). This, as he goes on to ex-

 

plain, is because allegory by its nature appeals more to the
Inind than the emotions. In his essay on drama, Sands quite
accurately assesses the quality of drama in the early nine-
teenth century: "the drama seems, at the present day, to be

at its lowest ebb" (Neologist #94, 20 May 1818). He blames

 

the audience's love of the spectacular and bombast; he recom-

Inends more realism and a return to the natural. He ends with

a patriotic pitch for a drama worthy of the new nation-—another

indication Of Sands's concern for a national literature. Most

literary historians would agree with Sands; Alexander Cowie

69
calls the drama of this period "meager."l7

One of the most important essays in the Neologist series
is Sands's discussion of "Ballad Poetry and Critics." Here
he evaluates the literary giants of his day, Scott and Byron,
in terms Of elite vs. pOpular literature.18 The critics, he
says, can complain all they like; the people like ballad
poetry and the authors will give them what they want:

A tacit compact appears to have been entered into,

between the mass, who read for pleasure, and the few,

who read to abuse. The former are contented to be

amused, and to take the critic's word, for the

illigitimacy of their taste, and of its object; the

latter, taking up the tale from each other, in

regular subordination . . . chaunt over and over

again the same doleful story . . . Of the depravity

of the public who choose to be entertained in their

own way. (Neologist #67, 14 February 1818)
In other words, "The author, owning to the jurisdiction of
no tribunal, but that by whose approbation or indifference he
Inust stand or fall, laughs at the whole succession Of review-
ers . . . ." While Sands never endorses popular literature,
he does indicate a possible value in it. "The taste of the
times has produced it, and confirmed its growth. We can con-
‘veniently imagine no reason why moral instruction cannot be
conveyed, sentiment expressed and genuine poetry given birth
to, as well in this lower order Of the epic, as in any other
species of the art."

Satire, which Sands called "a useful medicine," (Neolo-
gist #33, 18 October 1817) was used by Sands for other pur-
poses in two essays on the Forum, a popular New York debating

society. He used the same florid style in satire as he did

in humor:

70

The renowned city of Gotham has been illuminated
during the gloominess of last winter by a new
constellation of worthies. A firm Of mental Black-
smiths have wrought for the good of their benighted
countrymen, straitened their eccentricities on

the anvil of disputation, and erected conductors,

to direct to a prOper point, the hallucinations of
mankind. All this they have done cheap and in the
newest style imaginable. (Neologist #6, 17 July 1817)

 

After giving a few advantages of debating societies, Sands
begins to list disadvantages: "the tendancy Of public dis-
putation to inflate vanity and increase self sufficiency,"
and the bad moral training resulting from a willingness to
take any side of an issue that comes along. This leaves a
man's mind "in a state of vacillation." Sands, who was him-
self debating regularly at this time in the Peithologian
Society, argued more from peronal pique than from any intel-
lectual or moral conviction about the danger of disputation.
Mbre likely the satire was a publicity stunt, as least it had
the effect of drawing large public notice to the series.
After this attack on the Forum, a lively debate was carried
on between the Forum and the Literary Confederacy in the
newspapers. James Eastburn summed up the affair in his
"Succinct Account . . . of the Literary Confederacy":

The Forumtsatire] drew forth an animated invective

from one of the offended fraternity, which Mr.

Dwight refused to publish, and which, when shorn

of its violent abuse, was ermitted to appear in the

Commercial Advertiser [sic]. It was equally devoid of

wit as of candour; and the author Of the production

instead of injuring the Neologist, only blasoned

forth his own infamy.
The result of the stir, whether intended or not, was fortunate

for the brothers of the Confederacy, because other papers

began running the series. Verplanck says the Neologist series

71
was "very widely circulated and republished in the newspapers
of the day" ("Memoir", p. 9); however, only its republication
in the Boston Commercial Gazette can be verified.

Besides the nineteen essays and two numbers of satire,
Sands wrote or helped write fifteen other numbers containing
everything from short stories to humorous poems. Altogether
Sands had a hand in thirty-six of the ninety-five numbers Of
the Neologist series; in other words, he was responsible for
38% of the articles. Twenty-eight were entirely by Sands.
.James Eastburn, the next most prolific contributor, wrote or
helped write thirty numbers. None of the miscellaneous
fifteen articles deserve much notice except as early attempts
at the literary forms Sands was later to practice with much
more skill.

For example, Sands published two short stories, each in
two parts. Strangely enough for the advocate of national
literature, both stories are set in the Mediterranean area.
{The first, a "Narrative of Conloffe," introduces a middle-
eastern philosopher who abhors greed. He stumbles across a
'valuable treasure which in turn ruins his life, causing him
'to rob, rape, and murder. He finally comes to his senses
and.destroys the treasure. Far from a notable story, it is
most likely an adaptation or translation of something Sands
found in his reading.

"The Story of an Athenian Pedagogue, Hippecons," on the
«other hand, is a much better story, full of Sands's good

runnor, wit, and big words (Latinate diction). An Athenian

72
teacher marries a gossip who loses him his pupils and ruins
his life. Perplexed by what to do about her, he decides to
consult the Delphian Oracle:

On this wise expedition he set out, with much secret
satisfaction at the brilliance Of the idea he had
started. His poverty was his protection on the
journey; and the casual gratuities of the travelling
merchants, enabled him to reach the country of the
Crisseans. This people were then pursuing that
nefarious system Of depredation, which afterwards
carried them to the commission of sacrilege, and to
plunder with undistinguishing rapine; and which
drew on them, in the end, the vengeance of the
Amphictyons, and with it, the total extermination

Of their race. (Neologist #87, 25 April 1818)

Sands left the story unfinished. However, the following
‘verses, entitled "Lament Of Hippecons," sum up the story:

I was wry mouthed and bandy legged,
But no man's charity I begged.

I didn't care for Nobody.

Nobody, didn't care for me.

None I injur'd, none I pleas'd,

None cried gen_§27-—, when I sneez'd.

I fell into a vagary

And took a woman five feet high;

For three days and nights, mg_§if
No one was so blest as I;

She was kind and I was pleas'd,

She cried §EE.§27"I when I sneez'd.

But motley yarn is spun by Fate,

And this I found and rued too late;

I us'd to ship, but now I'm whipt,

And my halter can't be slipt,

Unless a hempen cord I tie,

Zen ng--, sing, and swing, and die.
(Neologist #87, 25 April 1818)

Humorous poetry of this type filled two numbers Sands
(contributed to the Neologist series. Often, humorous verse
tvas added to one of Sands's favorite types of composition,
‘the humorous, facetious letter, supposedly sent to the

(Zonfederates by eccentrics with names like Caleb Watchful,

73
Rachel Bagpipe, Solomon Grig, Bridget Simple and Lemuel Cera-
tor.19 These letters were the Confederacy's most common
vehicle for social satire; for example, Sara Misomusicon com-
plained about how her sensitive ears are bothered by peOple
playing music too loud at night. A few serious, original
poems, which will be considered in the next chapter, provided
‘variety for the Neologist series.

The series ended on 23 May 1818 with the ninety-fifth
number. NO explanation was given; however, the fact that Sands
‘wrote seven of the last nine numbers himself indicates that
COOPeration and interest in the project was dwindling. Another
possible reason may be the return Of James Eastburn to New
York with the Yamoyden manuscript that he and Sands had been
collaborating on at long distance--now they had a chance to
‘work over the details Of the poem together, a project Sands
‘would enjoy even more than the newspaper series. In the same
'week that the last Neologist essay was published, Sands ended
his six year connection with the Peithologian Society; per-
haps he realized he was spreading himself too thin and de-
cided to concentrate his efforts and talents on fewer pro-
jects.

Whatever the reason for the demise of the Neologist, the
amazing thing is that it lasted as long as it did. Rarely
did a newspaper series of essays last as long as the eleven
:months the Neologist spanned, and many New York magazines
failed to surpass that mark. The brothers of the Confederacy,

:most of whom were still teen-agers, deserve credit for a

74
sustained effort of generally excellent prose essays. Their
original purpose of pleasing and instructing their readers
‘while improving themselves as authors was ably met with

their first publishing project.

"The Amphilogist"

 

Nine months after publishing the last Neologist, the
Literary Confederacy began another series of essays in a

different newspaper, the New York Commercial Advertiser.

 

Sands, who wrote the first number, which appeared 27 February
1819, commented on other newspaper essays and the Neologist
in particular: "Among them Neologist stands most respectable
in point of size and age; and we are inclined to think it
rather dangerous, to deny him the palm in other respects; lest
‘we should bring his ghost upon us, in our infancy."20 From
his anonymity, Sands could afford to pat his own back. Not
being able to resist a little fun, Sands conjectures on the
lneaning of "Neologist": "NO one was ever able to ascertain,
'whether his title meant 'the wisdom of children,‘ 'the wisdom
of mush-rooms,‘ or 'new wisdom.‘ We think he combined a little
of all these qualities; not denying him wisdom, however." In
closing, Sands hints that the series might have ended because
the public, whose tastes were inclined toward satire, grew
tired of semi-formal essays: the Neologist "kept firing all
his shot, over the heads of the multitude, though they prayed
him to make an occasional discharge upon some of their num-
ber, to afford merriment for the rest. He gave up the ghost,

it would seem, in a fit of spleen . . . .

75

The title of the new series was "The Amphilogist," which
probably meant nothing more than essayist number two, in
reference to this being the second series of essays pro-
duced by the Confederacy. The publishing arrangements and
format were the same as the previous series. Two essays
were published each week, one on Wednesday, the other on
Saturday. One and one-half columns was the standard length.
Essays began with an epigraph and ended with an initial
representing the member who wrote the number. Sands used the
initial "H" for this series.

However, the new series was quite different in content.
The sc0pe of the series was briefly stated in the first
number: "We intend to treat of all subjects in all styles,
compatible with grammar, sense and decency; from general
politics to classical criticism; from moral essays to
familiar disquisitions on living manners." Sands could just
as well have said that these would be the four main categories,
for this sums up the fifty-one numbers of the series. In
spite of what Sands had said about "firing all his shot over
the head of the multitude," this series was much more schol-
arly and serious than its predecessor. The Neologist had
offered a broad range of literary types and topics--short
stories, humor, original poetry-~along with the essay. The
Amphilogist Offered only essays.

The major ingredient of the new series was what Sands
called "classical criticism." Exactly half of Sands's twenty-

eight contributions belong to this category. In a typical

 

76
number Sands would take a little known classical author like
Mimnermus (a sixth-century b.c. Greek) and quickly sketch the
historical setting and the man's biography; the balance Of
the article would be made up of samples of this author's
poetry which Sands had translated into English verse.

The approach is Obviously simplistic; the main aim seems
to be to popularize the classics. Sands, one of the country's
best classical scholars, regretted the general population's
lack of interest in our literary heritage, as did Mrs. Trol-
lope a decade later: "Another Obvious cause of inferiority
in the national literature is the very slight acquaintance
with the best models of composition . . . . I think I run no
risk of contradiction, when I say that an extremely small
proportion of the higher classes in America possess this
familiar acquaintance with the classics."21 In "Amphilogist:
NO. XLIV," Sands commented on "the sad state of literature"
in the country and criticized "the dearth Of intelligence."
One of the avowed purposes Of the Literary Confederacy was
"to promote the cause of learning and literature in the
United States."22 He felt that explaining and popularizing
the classics was one way of preparing the people for a
respectable national literature.

The translated poetry was the most important part of
each number. According to Sands, some Of these authors had
never before been translated into English, and were therefore
inaccessible. The New York Literary Journal praised Sands for

his translations when they published some of his "classical

77
criticism": "We cannot but Observe here how much more vivid
and accurate a conception we are enabled to form of the mas-
terly genius Of the ancients when it is embodied and brought
before us in our vernacular tongue, and especially when em-
bellished . . . with all the allurements Of poetic imagery
and melodious rhyme."23 It is beyond the sc0pe of this paper
to judge the merits of Sands's translations; contemporary
opinion, however, highly esteemed them, as the Literary

Journal's comment implies.

 

The most ambitious endeavour in the area of "classical

criticism" was the translation Of Aeschylus' Prometheus

 

'Vinctus, on which Manton Eastburn and Sands collaborated.
This full-length Greek drama was published in six numbers of

the Amphilogist, along with "remarks on the character Of

 

,Aeschylus." Some of the other classical poets featured were
Sappho, Alcaeus, Steischorus, and Simonides.

With Simonides, for example, Sands gave a brief biography,
categorizing him as one of the nine Greek lyric poets. Then
he translated a satire on Woman which Addison, according to
Sands, had done a bad job with in Spectator #209:

The soul of changeful woman, fated
To plague or bless us, was created
Of different elements by heav'n
Ere her substantial form was giv'n.
She in whose workmanship combine
The ingredients of the bristly swine,
She is a slut; her house behold,
There all things on the floor are roll'd;
Sordid and thick with dirt decry 'er.
Her draggled coats no waters bless,
And fat she waxes in her grease.
(Amphilogist #47, 2 October 1819)

‘Not only did Sands recast it in the modern vernacular, he

78
usually chose subject matter that would catch the attention
of the readers. Sands wisely follows this poem with another
from Simonides beginning, "Heaven sends no greater blessing
to man / Than a fond and virtuous woman."

The other nine essays Sands contributed to the Amphilo-
gist series, often contain translations of classical poetry
or classical allusions. These essays are on modesty, the
pleasure of memory, the origin of the American Indians,
Fourth Of July holidays, and justice. The last introduces
a long series of essays by Brother Ward of the Confederacy
on controversial points Of the new state constitution and
prison reform. Ward's essays constitute a major part, nearly
one-fourth, of the series.

Four Of Sands's contributions are satirical. The most
'unusual is a two part verse drama called, in its original
.Aeronaut form, "Apotheosis of the Literati of New York: Pro-
gress Of Criticism." The setting is a cavern in the middle
of a swamp. Ignorance is on a throne supported by Criticism
and Oblivion. The setting reminds one of "The Fall of
iHyperion," even though Keats's masterpiece was not finished
llntil two months later. Although the drama has no literary
‘value, it shows Sands develOping some firm ideas on the nature
and purpose of criticism. Criticism is personified as a
(dwarf, masked, wearing a hairshirt, deformed, and goggle—eyed.
lat one point the critics explain their origin and calling:

Poor broken back'd lawyers, without any fees,

Our stomachs were empty, our cheeks lean and hollow
But, now we're as fat and as sleek as you please

79
We are judges and try all suits of Apollo.
We issue all process by Ignorance bid,
For we don't know nothing, and always did.24
Sands soon grew tired of composing the verse drama, and finishes
the satire by quickly giving a summary of the speech Of
Criticism "stript of its slang"--another example of Sands fail-
ing to execute what he originally planned.
He characterizes his day as "the era of sham criticism."
The critics' "pleasure arises from detecting real or imaginary
error, and giving full flow to all the peccant humours of the
system. No repast is grateful, without the prickles and hot
sauce of criticism. Everybody is now qualified to censure,

‘which is the whole of the art" (Amphilggist #37, 21 July 1819).

 

Like most New Yorkers, Sands was against harsh criticism. He
preferred constructive criticism by qualified judges. To
stimulate a national literature, he believed every literary
work with any promise at all ought to be encouraged by the
critics.

In the other satirical piece, Sands dreams he wakes up
Rip Van Winkle-fashiOn in early twentieth-century New York
City. In the first part Sands criticizes various aspects Of
the city, such as City Hall, which he says had been replaced
in 1899 because the original, early nineteenth-century
builders, believing the city would never expand any further
north, had left the back Of the building rough stone.

In the second part he muses on the mutability of reputa-
tion, especially among authors. Sands explains why the

average author failed to build a lasting reputation:

 

 

80

Classical literature, he maintained, was no essential
part of Belles Lettres; he trusted to his own creative
energies, Operating on the crude and indigested

chaos of light reading to produce some permanent
memorial of himself; he realized even in his own time
that Of Nothing, Nothing can come; he died; and be-
hold he is forgotten! (Amphilogist #14, 14 April 1819)

 

washington Irving, Joseph Dennie, and Joel Barlow are the
only authors whose reputations have survived the century.
This is effective satire, and Sands quite accurately predicts
that those authors most pOpular with their contemporaries,
‘would fail to achieve lasting reputations. Ironically, Sands
himself so Often wrote to please "the mob," as he called the
public, that he has been one of those forgotten.

But there is very little satire in the Amphilogist series,
and Sands explains why in the last number:

Our essays have been extremely desultory, yet much

less diversified than we originally intended. We

meant to have mingled satire on living follies and

vices, and a greater prOportion of numbers on living

manners, with the serious essays which we have

mostly adhered. But in the first place, there is

little or no subject for satire in our manners; which

is not common to all generations, and has not been

the theme of moralists, till it has become stale.

(Amphilogist #51, 17 November 1819)

This, of course, was a frequent complaint of early American
‘writers. Sands goes on to say that New Yorkers have vices,
but that they need to be corrected by legislation rather than
satire. He further implies that satire is incompatible with
democracy. For example, a democracy allows for almost any-
thing to be worn; therefore dress cannot be satirized.

The Amphilogist ceased on 17 November 1819. In the

last number Sands announced, "We have completed the number

of papers which we contemplated publishing at the commencement

81
Of our course." Conjecture as to why the series was dropped
is probably fruitless; however we do know that the close of
the year 1819 was a dark period in the Literary Confederacy.
James Eastburn, who had been sickly, grew weaker during
November. Plans were made for he and Manton to sail for the
Carribean islands in hopes of recovering his health. With
the Eastburn brothers gone and with the black cloud Of James's
illness hanging over the Confederacy, Sands could hardly
carry on the series alone. He had done the majority of the
‘work as it was, contributing fifty-five percent Of the total
series.25 Besides this, Sands was studying for his bar exams
--he was admitted to the bar the following year. In the last
number of the Amphilogist he also complained Of "less time
to devote to writing." The combination of these circumstances
probably caused the series to end.

Lack Of readers or public interest seems not to have
been a problem, for Sands modestly remarks in the last number
of the series that "The approbation of the wise and good . . .
‘was all we hOped; and we dare to state, that we have not
hoped in vain." A decade later, the early literary historian
Samuel L. Knapp applauded the series saying it "gave their
authors a high rank in the literary world."26

If indeed the young authors had earned some reputation
among the New York literati, then part of their two-fold ob-
jective had been met: to improve themselves as authors and
to improve the intellectual-literary climate in the United

States. The Amphilogist series shows definite improvement

82
and maturation of style and the approbation Of others con-
firms this progress. As far as improving the country's
literary reputation goes, the next couple of years (1820-
1821) saw the first signs of an important American literature
‘with the success of COOper and Irving. While the Amphilogist
series cannot accept credit for this budding of new talent,
it Obviously is part of the ferment for a national literature
‘which was brewing at this time and which eventually led, in
the next two decades, to important literary productions. For
Sands and his companions, the series had provided practice in
writing and a reputation as promising writers; together these
generated a sense of confidence and enthusiasm for other

literary projects.

The Literary_Journal

James Eastburn died on his trip to the Carribean. To
compensate for this severe loss, the Literary Confederacy
almost immediately elected John Neilson, Jr. to take his place.
Meetings were held more regularly, minutes were kept more
conscientiously, and another publishing venture was under-
taken. During the winter of 1820-1821, Over thirty items
signed "L. C." appeared in the New York Literary Journal, an
undistinguished, year-old, monthly periodical. The Literary
Journal had been almost entirely derivative during its first
year, mainly reprinting articles from other journals. However,
‘with the original contributions submitted by the Confederacy,
the Literary Journal, in its second year, according to

‘Verplanck "received great increase of reputation."27

83

As one might expect from the Confederates, the contribu-
tions were varied. These was an essay on classical literary
history similar to those in the Amphilogist series. There
were translations of classical poetry as well as Italian and
French verse. There were two serious, original poems and one
humorous-satirical poem. Several essays and several book
reviews and a short story made up the bulk of items published.

Sands's share in this project of collaboration is hard
to determine since all the articles were signed "L. C." and
since only about half of the items can be tranced to the Con-
federacy's manuscript periodical Aeronaut. But from what can
be determined, Sands was responsible for one-third of the
total contributions, and perhaps had a hand in as many as
half.

In the short story "Salem Witchcraft," Sands used Ameri-
can material for the first time. He also improved his narra—
tive capabilities in this well-told story in which he had some
rollicking good fun at the expense of the Puritans. Lewis
Gaylord Clark loved the story and reprinted most of it a
quarter-century later in a series of articles on Sands in
the Knickerbocker Magazine, where he dubbed Sands "another
Salmagundi."28 And indeed, Sands's humor and satire is
(directly in the tradition of Irving and Paulding.

The story is about Faithful Handy, a schoolteacher, who
(comes to Salem during the witchcraft panic with a letter of
.introduction to Deliverance Hobbes.29 Sands's description

(of Mrs. Hobbes's daughter reflects the tone Of the whole

84

story:
Her head, shaped like a broad-axe, was garnished with
a tuft of red wool which 'streamed like a meteor to
the troubled air' . . . . Her green eyes were set
deep in her head, and seemed affected, like the grass,
by the hot weather. A huge hawked nose covered half
her face. Her ears were set like a dogs in the back
of her head; and her broad concave cheeks were rivelled
with seams, stigmatized with scars, and riddled with
small pox. Thin skinny lips, and a Bavarian poke of
the chin, completed the nomenclature of her charms;
and the rest Of her person tallied with her face.
Such was the dragon that answered in a shrill voice
to the parson's inquiries, "Yes, Deliverance Hobbes

lives here; and I am her daughter Beautiful!"30
After meeting the Hobbes family, Faithful could only moan:
"The Lord deliver me from Deliverance Hobbes, and the Gorgon,
her beautiful daughter."

The story's complication is based on the well-worn plot-
ting device of misunderstood marriage intentions. Beautiful
Hobbes thinks the teacher has fallen for her charms, only to
find he has fallen for another. Consequently, Beautiful
goes into a fit and charges that her competitor has bewitched
her, the perfect solution in Salem in 1692.

Sands's first published short story is one of his
Jbetter ones. The plot, implausible as it might be, is fully
<developed--Sands does not abruptly end the action as he did
in later stories where he seems not to have had the time or
fortitude to finish them. The characters are such gross
exaggerations that the piece verges on burlesque, but Sands
is careful not to cross that line--the characters always
delight, never disgust the reader. These exaggerated charac-

terizations were a chief ingredient of Sands's humor and were

to become a trademark of most of his short stories.

85

In two of the poems by Sands, he still appears to hold
rather conservative critical views. In "The Poetical Charac-
ter" he warns against highly-imaginative, or overly imagina-
tive, literature:

In fiction's devious wilds the heart misled
TO dull reality ungrateful turns;
Substantial earth's fair plains untempting spread
And day's blest beams with light unlovely burns.
Most likely, Sands had the superficial romances of the early
nineteenth century in mind.

In another poem, "Daniel Rook," he exhibits uneasiness
over Wordsworthian ideas of commonness in diction and subject
matter. The poem was published as part of a letter to the
editor and was reported to have come from an Old almanac;
thus we have the first good example of a literary hoax which
Sands loved immensely and which soon came to be a favorite
device. The brief letter eXplained the poem:

The three last numbers of Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine
contain three cantos of an epic poem, called Daniel
O'Rourke. The story, of which this is a new version,
is very old . . . . It may have been from the pen
of Mr. Wordsworth, as it has much of the character-
istic simplicity of Betty Foy, Goody Blake, and
Harry Gill.3
The action begins when an eagle "very large and very strong"
came along and flew Daniel to the moon:
Said the eagle, Daniel bold,
Of that there horn you must take hold;
SO the simple Daniel did
Just as the monstrous eagle bid.
Then away the eagle flew,
Leaving Daniel looking blue;
Now I'm sure, said Daniel bold,

Hanging here I shall take cold.

Then the man in the moon came out,

86

Picked his teeth, and looked about;

Mr. Daniel Rook, said he,

Good morning: what do you want with me?

Said Daniel, how is your wife to-day?

She is in a family way;

I fear we shan't have room enough,

SO I beg, Daniel, you'd be Off.

I can't said Daniel-~You must, said he--

I won't, said Daniel, it can't be--

Very well, said the man in the moon,

We shall see that very soon.

In he went, and out he strode,

With a crowbar died with blood;

Sure and certain aim he took,

Knocked Off the horn and Daniel Rook . . . .
Daniel then tried tO decide whether to land on dry land or in
the lake.

The poem is amusing enough, in itself, but takes on added
significance as a parody of Wordsworth: "It may have been
from the pen of Mr. Wordsworth . . . . " "Daniel Rook" is
obviously not Sands's usual poetic style; it is especially
atypical of his humorous verse where much Of the humor depends
on the incongruity between florid diction and a common situa-
tion. The simple plot and simple hero are also probably
part of the parody of Wordsworth. Sands was willing to accept
:most of Wordsworth's ideas, but he found simplicity of dic-
tion hard to accept at first. He loved the classic-inspired
diction popular a century earlier. His later association
with Bryant eventually brought him to endorse simple diction,
even in poetry.

Contributions by the Literary Confederacy to the New

York Literary Journal ceased in April Of 1821, as suddenly

as they had begun nine months earlier. Most likely the

87
activities of the Confederacy were temporarily suspended
during the months Of summer vacations and other activities,
at least this was the pattern that emerged in the later period

of the Confederacy (after James Eastburn's death).

St. Tammanpragazine
"Here is another Magazine-~which is nothing to be
‘wondered at," said the publisher's introduction in a new
magazine which appeared in New York on November 9, 1821. By
the fall of 1821, the Confederates were ready for another
publishing project; this time they decided to invest their
talents in a periodical of their own, which they called St.

Tammany Magazine. The small, sixteen-page magazine sold for

 

twelve and one-half cents and appeared weekly--for five
*weeks. As Bryant commented, it was "a periodical which had
not even the ordinary fortune of lasting to the end of the
year."32

In the eighty collected pages of this "sort of mock-
magazine," as Verplanck called it, the Confederates published
some of their lighter, more humorous, pieces. Sands was
again the leader, and Verplanck's description of his contri-
butions characterizes the entire magazine: "Here he gave
the reins to his most extravagant and happiest humour, in-
dulging in parody, burlesque, and grotesque satire, thrown
Off in the gayest mood and with the greatest rapidity, but
as good-natured as satire and parody could well be."

The parody was evident from the very first page. After

saying in the first paragraph that he "is as much in the dark

88
as the reader" about the proposed contents of the magazine,
Sands, pretending to be the publisher, says:
With this, all preface might be considered as
despatched; and why, after so luminous an explana-
tion, the publisher should cudgel his brains to no pur-
pose, he cannot imagine; except, that as this ig a
magazine, it must have an introduction. "Omne
magazinum debet habere praefationem," says Cicero,
in his epistle to Atticus, in relation to a quarterly
journal which the latter was about commencing; and
such high authority ought not to be neglected at this
late day. War without a declaration, dinner without
grace, or a new theatre without a prologue, would
be full as uncivilized, as a new magazine with a
precursive dissertation on all things in general
and nothing in particular.

The wide range Of contents found in contemporary maga-
zinespermitted the Confederates a broad field Of material to
parody. "Stanzas on a Dead Kitten," supposedly by "S. Of
New Jersey," allowed for a burlesque Of sentimental poetry
‘written by female authors. "The Tweaked Nose," by Geoffrey
Crayon, Gent.--an obvious imitation Of Irving's "The Broken
Heart"--was one of the best parodies. Lewis Gaylord Clark
felt "the resemblance to the original [was] admirably pre-
served."35 Short stories, essays, reviews, literary notices,
obituaries--all were parodied by the Confederates.

One of Sands's best parodies was a poem named "The
Ocean Of Nonsense," which criticized that flamboyant writer
John Neal, whom, Lewis Gaylord Clark maintained, "Sands held
in due estimation."36 In the poem, Neal's imagination is
portrayed as the "beau ideal of all jack-asses." This ass
takes Neal to the sites of his most famous works. Visiting

the locale of "Battle of Niagra" (1818), Neal humbly muses:

Then eagle! then stars! and then rainbows! and all

89

That I saw at Niagra's tumbling fall,
Where I sung so divinely of them and their glories
While mewed in vile durance, and kept by tories.

The deluded Neal begins to think the ass he rides is an eagle:

"Whence com'st thou," I cried, "and goest whither?"
As I gently detained him by his tail—feather.

He replied, "Mr. N---! Mr. N---, let me loose!

I am not an eagle, but only a goose!--

Your Optics are weak, and the weather is hazy--
And excuse the remark, but I think you are crazy."

The ridicule and criticism are obvious and deserved, but this

is about as harsh as Sands ever got in St. Tammany.

 

Sands also parodied Neal's collaborator, Paul Allen, a

Philadelphia writer. St. Tammany printed what it claimed was

 

an early "poetical analysis" or outline of Paul Allen's narra-
tive poem, E222! which was largely revised by John Neal be-
fore its publication in 1821. Sands's Opinion was that

"Ne'er since the ark was set afloat / Was such a curious

poem wrote."

It was with efforts like these that Sands established
himself as a humorist and Knickerbocker wit. It was with
efforts like this that Sands became one of the most popular
literary figures of his day. Unfortunately, it was efforts
like this which caused Sands's reputation to fade as fast as
Paul Allen's. Today this poem is only slightly amusing be-
cause Of the Obscurity Of Paul Allen's EEEE°

But parody is really a form of imitation, and imitation
had been the device long used by the Confederates to improve
their compositional skills. One soon gets the feeling from

reading St. Tammany that the purpose of its parody was not

 

so much to ridicule or to criticize as it was to provide a

90
a mask behind which the Confederates could hide as they Offered
their efforts to the public. Richard Ray Ward, for example,
contributed a good Revolutionary War story which parodied
nothing as well as a serious essay on the "Abolition of the
Punishment of Death." Sands made some sincere observations
on Lord Byron's Don Juan, specifically the third canto. He
called the hymn or "heroic song" in this canto "one of the
very finest things, of its kind, of modern poetry. It is
full of vigour, Of thought and of expression: a fine classi-
cal feeling pervades the whole, and the conclusion is per-
fectly magnificent."37 The feeling here is genuine.

After St. Tammany Magazine folded, the Literary Con-
federacy undertook no further publishing projects as a group;
however, they individually contributed to several New York
magazines. By 1822 the productive phase of the Confederacy
was past, and the organization served mainly social purposes
for the next decade. In the six years since its organization,
though, it had turned out a surprisingly large quantity of
literature. The quality was uneven, but what they published
was as good as anything else being published in the news-
papers and journals of New York City.

To Sands the Confederacy Offered both an opportunity
to publish and the encouragement to practice a wide variety
Of literature, almost every form of which he was later to
practice professionally. It also firmly established Sands
in the pattern of collaborative writing. Like his previous

experience with The Bridal of Vaumond, the Literary

91
Confederacy served as an apprenticeship for a person seeking

to become one Of America's first professional authors.

CHAPTER IV

THE POET: YAMOYDEN AND OTHER POETRY

Production of Yamoyden

 

"Across the foaming waste of waves I came,/ Changed in

my country, but in soul the same,"1 wrote James Eastburn in
a versified letter to Sands, late in October of 1816, referring
to his leaving New York City in order to attend an Episcopalian
seminary under the direction of Rev. A. V. Griswold of Bristol,
Rhode Island. Eastburn's absence caused a period of dormancy
in the newly formed Literary Confederacy, but eventually
proved to be Of great importance to the literary reputation
of Sands. Eastburn and Sands had become close friends at
Columbia; therefore in the series of verse letters they ex-
changed during the winter Of 1816-1817, Eastburn felt free
to Offer a good deal of pious advice to Sands. For example:

Oh! may she [Devotion] bless and sanctify thy soul,

Chase every doubt, and beams of glory roll!

Oh! May'st thou feel what 'tis to wing on high

The hymn of praise amid the breezy sky!
Sands contemplated the advice seriously and did his best to
"feel what 'tis to wing on high / The hymn of praise" by
versifying several Psalms which he exchanged with Eastburn.

But Sands was not by nature religious. Verplanck put it

nicely in the one sentence paragraph he devoted to Sands's

religion when he said Sands "reverenced religion" ("Memoir",

92

93
p. 29). Sands regulated his life by respectable, moral
principles, but he never sought refuge, pleasure, or escape
in religion.

In response to Eastburn's decision to enter the ministry
and his consequent urging of Sands to think more seriously
about religion, Sands soberly investigated his values and
the world's possible sources of pleasure in a verse letter
to Eastburn:

0, where shall he, on life's wide voyage driven,

But just begun his march from earth to heaven. . .

Where shall he seek that fleeting rainbow hue

The glorious tints to purest pleasure true!

(Letter, 12 December 1816)

He first reviews some of the worldly sources of pleasure,
such as drinking and "The smile that plays around the wanton's
lip." But he decides these pleasures are not meant for him:
"let me turn from scenes like these afar, / TO hold my course
beneath a milder star!" The "milder star" is, of course,
literature:’ "Art's magic aid awakes the glowing blaze, / And
gilds deformity with glorious rays." He says that Eastburn
may have been called by God, but he personally will stay with
the muses:

The nine of Heav'n proclaim the loveliest way;

Still let me love to linger on the page,

The golden gleanings of each rolling age.
Eastburn came back strongly pious: "Oh wilt not thou accept
the proffered grace, / And seek above thy home and resting
place?" (Letter, 14 January 1817).

Sands could see no conflict between literature and

religion and wondered why Eastburn could not study religion

94

as well as write poetry: "But sleeps in sacred shades the
cherished lyre / That erst had glow'd with all a prOphet's
fire?" (Letter, 22 November 1816). Eastburn replied that he
was tempted to write poetry:

Oh! could my trembling hand but dare to trace

The scenes that smile around in bloom and grace,

Then might I, borne on Fancy's brightest wing

The glowing beauties of Bristowa sing,

Point thee to yonder hill where sad on high

Arose the Indian hero's funeral cry;

From HOPE'S proud summit snatch the glowing scene,

Of lands of bliss and Ocean's distant green,

Of bleating flocks by every verdant plain,

And snow-white canvass floating on the main.

(Letter, 26 November 1816)

Eastburn here refers to the scenery around Bristol, specifi-
cally, nearby Mt. HOpe and the view from its summit. The
Indian hero mentioned is the Wampanoag Indian chief who had
led an Indian uprising around 1675, known later as King
Philip's War. Mt. Hope had been Philip's hideout and it
was near there that Philip was fatally shot by one of his
own Indian allies. Eastburn recognized material for poetry
in the story of Philip, but did not feel capable Of attempting
it himself:

But Oh! in vain my hand the theme would try,

Confus'd and weak, the strains on air would die;

Some mightier minstrel must the task assume,

And paint their scenes in all their native bloom.
Sands may have interpreted this as an invitation to colla-
boration; at any rate, Eastburn had suggested a topic bound
to interest the proponent of a national literature. However,
no further mention of the poetical possibilities Of Philip

is mentioned in the verse letters of 1816-1817.

Eastburn returned to New York City during the seminary's

 

95

summer recess in 1817, evidently still enthused over the pro-
jected poem about Philip. He sought out information in the
library of the Peithologian Society, of which he was an
honorary member, and eventually bought their copy Of William
Hubbard's Narrative Of the Troubles with the Indians in New-
England.2

After what Sands called "a hasty glance into a few pages

of Hubbard's Narrative," and apparently with little other

 

research, the two friends drew up a plot based on the events
surrounding Philip's last battle. For the protagonist they
chose one Of Philip's allies, a Nipnet chief whom they called
Yamoyden. Inserting a fictional character into an historical
event allowed them to romanticize the whole story. A love
story involving Yamoyden and his formerly Puritan wife
heightens the tragic end of Philip and his warriors in the
battle of Mt. Hope. Because Yamoyden's wife was a Puritan,
it also allowed them to show both sides of the controversy.
As the summer of 1817 drew to a close, Eastburn had to
return to the seminary at Bristol. Before leaving New York
City, he and Sands drew up an elaborate plan for working on
the poem while they were apart. According to the plan, East-
burn would write the first half of a canto while Sands was
writing the last half. Eastburn was also to write those
passages demanding description of the area, while Sands was
to specialize in the Indian lore. As individual parts were
finished, they were to be exchanged through the mail.

Though the original idea was Eastburn's, Sands figured

96
largely in the planning of the tale, even changing aspects
of the plot once they were into the composition of the poem.
For example, one letter to Eastburn says,
Dear Jim
I send you another 100 lines concluding the first
canto. I have thought it best not to tell Philips
plan [to trick the hesitant Yamoyden into joining
him] in it. lst Because it weakens the concatenation
of the story; 2nd The treachery of Philip should break
upon the reader, when it does upon Yamoyden, or they
can not sympathise together.
A few weeks later he vigorously insisted that the action cover
at least forty-eight hours: "But hold--there is no moral or
poetical necessity to confine the poem to 24 hours."4 Evi-
dently, Eastburn was a believer in the classical unities.
The total amount of verse was to be shared quite equally;
although, Eastburn ended up doing more than he had originally
planned. Sands early fell behind his schedule because of his

many activities in New York, principally the inauguration Of

the Amphilogist series in the Commercial Advertiser which

 

began in February of 1818. About the time negotiations for
this series must have been taking place, Sands wrote:

I wish you would takaall the third Canto entirely

to yourself[.] You can describe the effects Of the
Psalm singing--and enter more in the Spirit of the
Times . . . because you are on the spot. . . . Be-
sides, you have got far ahead; now if you will do this,
I will immediately end the 2nd Canto and then both
ends will meet. Answer me immediately. I promise

to lose no more time--5

It was also Eastburn's task to collate their separate contri—
butions and copy the poem into a manuscript book.
Eastburn finished his seminary course by the summer Of

1818 and returned to New York with the nearly completed poem

97

of 4500 lines. While Eastburn studied to take orders, Sands
went over the collated poem which he now saw for the first
time. He finished the last part of the sixth canto and made
numerous suggestions for revision. After Eastburn was ordained
in October,6 he began transcribing a fair copy of the poem,
incorporating in it many of Sands's revisions. He finished
the first two cantos and began the third before he left for
Virginia to take charge of the Onancock congregation in Acco-
mack county, Virginia. "The labours of his ministry" wrote
Sands in the "Advertisement" to Yamoyden, “left him no time,
even for his most delightful amusement [poetry]. He had made
no further progress in the correction of the work, when he
returned to this city, in July, 1819."7

Eastburn returned to New York City because of ill health,
which "was then so much impaired," according to Sands, "that
writing of any kind was too great a labour." Strict rest
failed to improve his condition, which was probably con-
sumption. Upon his doctor's recommendation, he made arrange-
ments to spend the winter in the milder climate of the Vir-
gin Islands. On 29 November 1819, Sands and Richard Ray Ward
bid farewell to their fellow Literary Confederates, the East-
burn brothers, as they sailed for Santa Cruz (St. Croix). The
ailing young minister carried the Yamoyden MSS with him, hop-
ing to finish the second copy while recuperating; however,
he was much weaker than he knew. Four days later he died
and was buried at sea.

Though Eastburn's death was not uneXpected or surprising,

98
nevertheless, the news must have come as a profound shock to
Sands. The extent Of his_grief over the loss of his best
friend will probably never be known, for Sands masked his
public expression of grief in the form of an elegy, "Monody
on the Rev. J. W. Eastburn" (Aeronaut, XII, 6). One of the
most personal statements in the poem refers to their intellec-
tual kinship:
Mourn ye, whom friendship's silver chain
Link'd with his soul in bonds refin'd;
That early had striv'n to burst in vain,--
The sacred sympathy of mind. (Writings, II, 338)
The Yamoyden MSS were returned to Sands by Manton East-
burn early in 1820 along with a large quantity Of Eastburn's
poetry. It was hOped by the family, the Literary Confederates,
and other friends that Yamoyden might be published as a
memorial to Eastburn and that the rest Of the poetry might
eventually see print as well.8

Sands, still smarting from the criticism of his Bridal

of Vaumond two years earlier, hesitated to offer any more of

 

his work to the public. Besides the Yamoyden MSS Obviously
needed much work.

Encouragement to publish Yamoyden came largely from
Samuel Farmer Jarvis, a Professor of Biblical Criticism at
the (Episcopal) General Theological Seminary in New York.

Jarvis, "whose talents and learning," Sands explained, are
universally respected in this community,"9 was at that time
working on a discourse on the religion of the North American
Indian tribes. Sands, therefore, highly respected Jarvis's

favorable comments on his and Eastburn's Indian poem. The

99

poem was dedicated to Jarvis, and, according to Sands, it
owed "its publication in a great measure to the favourable
impression expressed by him Of its merits" (Writings, I, 162).

During 1820, then, Sands extensively revised and re-
arranged the poem for publication. The plot had been hastily
planned but Sands could do little with it at this stage, so
he left it pretty much as originally written. The basic con-
flict involves Yamoyden, an Indian who accepts Christianity
and marries the daughter of a New England Puritan. When the
Indian uprising known as King Philip's War breaks out in 1675,
he is torn between his Indian allegiance and his Christian
Obligations.

Canto I gives the historical background to the uprising,
beginning with the Pequot Massacre (1637), where hundreds
of Indians "were slain, / On Mystic's banks, in one red night,"10
and ending with the savage attack by the New England colonists
in December of 1675 which wiped out most of the Indian alliance
that had been formed by Philip. As the story Opens, it is the
next spring (1676) and Philip and his few remaining followers
are gathered at his hideout on Mt. Hope, near Bristol, R.I.
Philip wants his braves to follow him into battle again.
Another chief, Agamoun, urges the Indians to be realistic:
"The Spirit smiles not on our race" (I xxviii). He suggests
‘moving westward. Philip is incensed, calls Agamoun a traitor,
then shoots him. Agamoun's brother, Ahauton, vows revenge--
the explanation for many of the story's coincidences. As

the scene closes, Philip contemplates the next battle and

100
realizes he needs the aid of the Nipnet chief Yamoyden, who
has married a white girl and settled down in a cabin, and
has thus far ignored the plight Of the Indians. To regain
his allegiance, Philip plots to kill Yamoyden's wife and son
and to make it look as if the Puritans have done it in revenge
for her elOping with an Indian.

Yamoyden and his wife, Nora, are safe in their island
hideaway as Canto II Opens. The history of their courtship
and marriage precedes Yamoyden's testimony of how much Nora's
love and religion has come to mean to him. He interrupts
this domestic tranquillity, however, by telling Nora he must
meet with Philip. As he leaves, the baby cries and Nora sings
"The Green Isle of Lovers," one of Sands most often antholo-
gized poems. Suddenly, four Indians burst into their cabin
and kidnap the wife and child. One of the Indians is Ahauton,
brother of the warrior slain by Philip. He has warned the
English Of Philip's plan and the alerted Puritans ambush the
kidnappers. Nora is rescued, but one of the Indians escapes
with her child.

Canto III shows the Puritans preparing for battle with
Philip. They sing hymns, then listen to a sermon showing how
Providence has favored them. Old Fitzgerald, who turns
out to be Nora's father, then tells his life story, a recital
of woes climaxed by his daughter elOping with an Indian. As
he ends his story, Nora is brought into camp by her rescuers.
A rather cold reconciliation warms when Fitzgerald hears that

Nora's child is to be offered as a sacrifice by the Indians.

101
He slips out Of camp, vowing to save the child.

Yamoyden's child is to be sacrificed as part of the night
long Indian ceremony which is the subject of Canto IV. The
diabolical program begins with songs and prOphecies by several
Indian oracles. Then a fire is built for the sacrifice, and
a satanic Indian priestess appears. The naked old hag has
sunken "yellow eyeballs bright with hate," and strange tattoes
on her breast (IV, XV). She begins an incantation to all
evil spirits and is about to throw the child in the flames
when Fitzgerald dashes in and grabs his grandson. His appear-
ance is accompanied with a terrific blast Of thunder, light-
ning and rain which crowns the ceremony.

Meanwhile, in Canto V, Yamoyden returns to his cabin
and is stunned to find it empty. As Philip planned, Yamoyden
thinks the Puritans have kidnapped Nora and, consequently,
decides to join Philip's band of warriors. During the same
night, Philip's sleep is disturbed by several foreboding
dreams, one of which augurs his death. As the canto closes,
Yamoyden offers his help to Philip's cause.

It is that same, eventful, stormy night as Canto VI opens.
Nora slips out of the Puritan camp and tries to find her way
back to her cabin and Yamoyden. The storm that came when
her child was saved causes her to become lost. She runs into
Ahauton, and he promises to guide her to her child and hus-
band. They reach Mt. Hope about sunrise. Nora, left alone,
sees the ambush set up by the Puritans and their Indian allies.

The battle begins and Nora, hearing Yamoyden's cry, speeds

102
down the mountain to find him. On her way she sees her former
guide, Ahauton, kill Philip in revenge for his brother's
death. The story climaxes as she spots her father being
threatened by an Indian with a tomahawk:

And, o'er her father's white hairs swung,
As high a murderous axe was hung,

She saw Yamo den stay

The lifted arm; alas! too late

To break the blow, impelled by fate!

Averted from the old man's head,

On his own faithful breast it fell! (VI, xxiii)
iNora, broken-hearted, dies with Yamoyden. Fitzgerald pro-
Inises to care for their child as he mourns over the embracing
pair.

The first thing Sands did when he decided to edit the
poem for publication was to thoroughly research the history
of King Philip's War in order to remove as many errors as

possible "in point of matter or expression,‘ as he explained

in the "Advertisement." He recorded much of his research in
the abundant, comprehensive notes accompanying the poem.11
By so doing, Sands showed his fellow writers not only that
the Indian could be used for the purposes Of literary romance,
but also where information might be found.

Next Sands began the arduous task of revising and re-
writing the poem. Statistics on Canto I give us a good idea
of how much Sands reworked. Originally, the first canto was
just over 600 lines--about 60% by Eastburn, 40% by Sands.
Eastburn, as he often did, had used more words to write his

portion. Of the original 600 lines, only 350 lines were used

in the final version. This means Sands completely rewrote

 

103
about 250 of the original 600 lines. Furthermore, he added
nearly 300 new lines to make the final version 930 lines long.
Or in other words, Canto I, as printed, had 62% new lines.
And this refers only to lines changed entirely. About 20%
of the 350 original lines printed contained changes ranging
from a single word to a whole phrase. Sands showed no par—
tiality to the lines he had written, but reworked them as
carefully as he did Eastburn's portion.

Many of the new lines added by Sands were used to summarize
the history Of the Indians, particularly the events leading
up to King Philip's War. At about the point in the fair
copy MS where Sands had pencilled in "allude to the wars of
the Pequot Nipnets," he inserted 250 new lines Of historical
background which he supported with pages of extensive notes.
He also revised and added to Philip's address to the council
by adding historical material explaining why the Indians had
to fight one more battle even though the Odds against them
‘were overwhelming.

Though Sands offers little explanation for adding the
historical information resulting from his research, two
reasons are likely. The first is didactic--this was part
of the movement to let Americans know they had their own
traditions and heritage. Second, this interest in the past
was part of the whole romantic pattern of thought which
Americans were just beginning to reflect.

While the historical material added little to the poem,

other additions did much to improve the plot. Sands expanded

104
the scene where Philip killed Agamoun for his disagreement
in council, thus providing the motivation for his brother's
[going to the whites with news of where Philip was hiding.

Individual wording changes were made for a variety Of
reasons. For example, in order to make a stronger, bolder
line, he made such changes as "My contrymen, ye see me die!"
to "Brothers! behold a warrior die!" (I, xxxi). The line
was most likely changed to improve the logic--the Indians were
not nationalistic and therefore would have had no concept Of
"country." But besides being more forceful and dramatic the
alliteration made the line more poetic. Alliteration was
one of Sands's favorite poetic devices, and he Often seemed
to revise lines just to add alliteration. For example, a
few lines after the above correction, he changed "Is the
deep loan of hate!" to "Is the large legacy of hate!" Like-
wise, in stanza xxi, "Erie's tide" became "torpid tide."
There were times, however, when Sands gave up alliteration
in order to improve the rhythm, as in stanza xxi where he
changed "glorious grave" to "hallowed grave" in order to keep
the line strictly iambic.

Many of the dictional changes were, in fact, made to
improve either the rhythm or rime. The haste with which the
poem was originally composed resulted in many errors of
versification. Though Sands disliked detailed revision, he
appears to have worked hard at correcting such errors, and
he was a skilled craftsman when it came to versification.

Bryant explains why: Sands had "an ear for poetic measure

 

 

a

m

 

105

cultivated by a study of the ancient classics, by the reading
of the Old poets of our own language, and by an examination
of the rules of versification adopted in the various modern
languages."12

Sands, like other Knickerbocker poets, still clung to
and admired the eighteenth-century poetic diction, and several
of the revisions seem to be nothing more than attempts to
preserve that style. For example, "lurking wile" was changed
to "mazy wile" (I, xvii). Likewise, "green irrigious channels"
became the "pebbly channels" (I,xxv). An extract chosen at
random illustrates the type of small changes Sands made
throughout the poem. The original words are given in brackets,
Sands's substitutions are underlined:

Her spoiler's dusky brow she scanned,

Yet struggling from his ruthless hand

Her wailin [screaming] child to tear,--

As one wouId mark the madman's eye,

When a fearful [awful] precipice was nigh,

And he had grasped him there.

She met [read] his glances, stern [fierce] and keen,

Such might the hungry wolf's have been,

Whose spoils [skin] now swathed [girt] him round;

[at this point he omitted two lines of original text]

And in his front all bare and bleak,

And in his high, scar-riven [iron] cheek
NO line Of mercy found. (II, xix)

 

Changes like those involving fearful, met, and stern

 

probably resulted from an effort to be more precise in mean-
ing. The Indian referred to in this passage turns out to be
iNora's saviour; therefore §t§£2_would be a more accurate

adjective to describe his looks than would fierce. The other

changes, however, like many Sands made, were probably meant

1.11,.”

 

 

106

to make the lines sound more poetic: scar-riven somehow
seems more poetic, in the eighteenth-century sense of that
special language reserved for poetry, than the mundane word
£523. In making the poem more poetic, Sands was only giving
his audience what they wanted. He apparently knew their
taste well. In an illuminating aside to Eastburn, Sands said
in reference to the poetry Of Yamoyden: "we must tickle the
present age a little."13

Canto II, which begins with Yamoyden and Nora in their
hut and ends with Nora being kidnapped and rescued, was
originally written and then revised on much the same propor-
tion and order as the first canto. Sands rewrote and con-
densed the long introductory-descriptive passage which had
been composed by Eastburn. A major change was the replac—
ing of the pious dialogue between Nora and Yamoyden. Eastburn,
the energetic, young seminarian, was anxious to show the power
Of Christianity on this Indian chief; therefore the dialogue
he created between the Indian and his Christian wife smabks
of a gospel meeting and even ends with a hymn. Sands re-
tained the Christian flavor, but made their conversation
briefer, more restrained and consequently more effective. He
also make Yamoyden's decision to join Philip in battle more
of a patriotic, historically imperative decision than a com-
plete rejection of his wife and Christianity, which is the
feeling one gets from Eastburn's original version. Sands
also took the Opportunity as editor to insert two beautiful

poems of his, which he has Nora sing: "Sleep, child Of

 

 

 

 

A
It
.
a
.
.

 

107
love!" (II, vii) and "The Green Isle Of Lovers" (II, xvi).
It is also interesting to note that in this canto, Sands made
considerably fewer changes in his half (the last half) of the
poem than he did in Eastburn's.

No changes were made in the first seven stanzas of
Canto III, the longest stretch of poetry left untouched by
Sands. These were the last verses transcribed by Eastburn
before his death, and Sands apparently was too sentimental
to touchthem.14 However in the remaining eighty per—cent
of the canto which deals with the Puritans in camp, Sands
Inade many major additions and did so much rewriting that this
is the most revised of the six cantos. The reason was a
difference of emphasis: when it came to historical romance,
such as Yamoyden was, Sands emphasized the historical while
Eastburn favored the romance or poetic aspect. In other
words, what Sands ruthlessly condensed in Canto III was
lengthy nature descriptions, sentimental details of how
Fitzgerald killed his brother and lost his wife, and the
touching reunion of Fitzgerald and Nora. What he added was
a lengthy Puritan sermon relating their history, beginning
with their persecution in England and running through their
stormy voyages and struggles for existence in the New World.

Sands's other major addition to Canto III was in Fitz-
gerald's telling of how Yamoyden won the heart of Nora. The
courtship was obviously borrowed from Shakespeare's Othello:

And Nora listening long would sit,

By words and signs while he expressed
Creation's wonders in the west;

108

Or told of foughten field; or showed
Through woods and wolds the hunter's road. (III, xxviii)

In other words, Fitzgerald says, "by fiendish craft he won
her heart" (III, xxviii). Sands explained his additions to
this part of the poem in a note:
I have added three long stanzas, narrating the manner
in which the daughter was won and carried off by the

Indian. The ideas are probably borrowed from the
wooing of Othello. How should they not be?

(Writings, I, 365)

With all his rewriting, additions, and condensation, Sands
changed about eighty—five percent of the last four-fifths of
Canto III. ‘

In Canto IV, which deals with the Indians' diabolical
rites, Sands not only continued to revise and add new mater-
ial, but also did some rearranging. "The PrOphecy" section,
which originally was placed in the middle of the rites, was
moved nearer to the beginning of the Canto, so as not to
interrupt the sacrificial ceremony. Sands also revised "The
Prophecy" to make it more historically accurate. He also
revised "The Song of the Pow-wahs," who were participants in
the ceremony, to make it seem more like an Indian chant. He
accomplished this by making the lines three feet long instead
of four and by tying the stanazs together with repeated
phrases. Sands further enhanced this canto by addinghis
poem "To the Manitto of Dreams." Finally, Sands condensed
Eastburn's narrative details of how the pyre was made and
lighted and how the sacrifice Of Yamoyden's child was pre-
pared for and interrupted. Sands's condensation here makes

the events of that highly eventful night hard to follow, and

 

 

 

109
only by reading the original do all the implications of the
action become obvious.

"The burthen of the 5th Canto" fell on Sands,15 which
may be why he did less revising here than in previous sec-
tions. At any rate, the actual rewriting is minimal, and the
main difference between the original manuscript and the
printed version are in the many additions by Sands. The most
noticeable revision of the canto shows the kind Of careful
consideration Sands gave to his task. He was not just edit-
ing a friend's poem for the press; he was restudying and re-
‘writing the entire poem. At the point near the beginning of
the canto where Yamoyden returns to find his hut empty. Sands
pencilled in the original, "alter all this." He had been dis-
satisfied with this section from the first time he had
read Eastburn's version. He suggested in a letter to his
collaborator: "that the religious consolation Yamoyden
draws in line 132 is too premature, being almost instan-
taneously spoken, after realising his loss."16 Sands was
probably referring to the following lines which Yamoyden
uttered upon finding his wife and child kidnapped:

. . . yet from above
There comes a voice Of grace and love,
That bids my wearied spirit rise
To Join them in my Father's skies! (Original MS)
Sands's eloquent elucidation of his concept Of Yamoyden's
reaction shows him to be a perceptive student of human nature:
As to Yamoyden's feelings. He had just suffered the
severest compound of privations which the heart can
feel or the imagination conceive. Now I believe,

that any heart commonly organised, would vacillate
on such an occasion, at first, either between fury

110

and despair, or yield entirely to one or the

other. . . . A moral regeneration may command

the actions, and a scriptural regeneration alter

the tone of the heart; but it is in the power Of

neither to controul the sudden effects of unforseen,

revengeful, irreparable calamity. . . .

Our hero was an Indian, whose 'ruling passion' is re-

venge. He was a new convert moreover; and as his feelings

of devotion were warmer, they were more easily diverted

from their channel, by such a strong barrier or

impediment.17

The disagreement between the collaborators over Yamoyden's
reaction to his loss also caused a difference in the plotting.
Eastburn originally had Yamoyden react piously, complete with
prayer, until he meets another Indian who answers his inquiry
about Nora by saying that both mother and child were slain
"and the English knives were found beside" (Original MS, V,
xi). This causes Yamoyden to turn his back on Christianity
and his wife and cast his lot with the Indians. Such infor-
mation, of course, would contradict the original conception
of the plot, unless the Indian were lying, for both mother
and child were to be alive in the last canto. Sands pre-
ferred having Yamoyden think his wife had gone back to the
Puritans and nothing was left for him to do but join the
Indians. Or as he explained it to Eastburn, "I made him go
off at an angle of 45 degrees, to wit between love and hate,
religion and revenge, in despair, which, as he took leave
for the last time of his cottage was modified by bland and
mournful recollections, but finally carried him to battle

and to death."18

And this is exactly what Sands did when he
got to this point in the manuscript; he finally had a chance

to "alter all this" as he had indicated he wanted to do by

lll
his note in the original MS.

At the beginning of Canto VI, the canto in which Nora
travels to Mt. Hope and views the battle, Sands wrote in the
original or first collated version of the poem, "Remember to
bring Ahauton in this canto, explain how he appeared in Canto
2nd, and make him known as shooting Philip." He explained
in the "Advertisement" to the poem that this "alteration
was always contemplated by Mr. Eastburn, who had made the
heroine perform the journay alone" (Writings, I, 165). Thus
the major revision in Canto VI involved this change in plot
which required revising or replacing about half the lines.
Some of the lines added by Sands were considered by critics

19 In Canto VI, Sands also

as the best lines in the poem.
cut out a good deal of Eastburn's lengthy description of the
setting, and the saving Of Fitzgerald's life by Yamoyden.

In summary then, the question is not who wrote what, as
it normally is with collaborated works. Instead, because
Sands edited the work entirely himself, the question is how
Inuch did he change the poem while preparing it for publication.
'The answer is Obvious--he made vast changes. He condensed,
he revised, he rewrote, he reorganized, and he made major addi-
tions to the manuscript Eastburn had collated. Basically,
Sands's revisions greatly improved the poem by condensing it,
polishing the versification, and tightening the plot. The
additional historical material, however, only slows the poem

down and gets in the way Of the plot. If his contributions

could be stated in fractions, then Sands is responsible for

 

112

at least three-fourths of the poem. Verplanck was correct in
including it in Sands's Writings, and the‘American_guarterlyy
Review was correct in saying, "In justice to both, who are
now removed from this world's jealousy, it may be stated,
that much the greater part of the work belongs to Sands."20

Sands finished revising Yamoyden late in 1820; the "Ad-
vertisement" which precedes the poem is dated November 20,
1820. The poem was published soon thereafter, just about one
year after Eastburn's death. Sands tried to remain anonymous,
probably because he was insecure and still smarting from the
harsh reception Of his previous poem The Bridal of Vaumond
and because this was meant to be a memorial to Eastburn.
The title page indicated it was "by the late Rev. James Wallis
Eastburn, A.M. and his Friend." Throughout the "Advertise-

ment" and notes, Sands claims to be only the editor; neverthe—

less, the final product was largely his.

Criticism of Yamoyden

 

In spite of Sands's vast rewriting of Yamoyden, the poem
remained a second-rate production. Philadelphia's Literary
Gazette was fair in its evaluation: "The poem does not, we
think, possess any just claims to eminence, but is respectable."21
Nevertheless, the poem was widely and enthusiastically hailed
across America and was even given honorable mention in Britain.
Why did a mediocre poem cause such a stir? Partly because it
was one of the first hopeful signs in America's search for a
national literature. The Literature and Science Repository

for example, thought Yamoyden was "the answer to the taunting

 

113
question, 'who reads an American poem?'" [sic]22 C. S. Van

Winkle, editor of the New York Literary Journal was even

 

'

inspired to write a poem, "On Reading Yamoyden,‘ which began:

Neglected Poesy, that slept erewhile;
Now wakes her numbers in Yamoyden's lay.23

In other words, Yamoyden was enthusiastically welcomed as
an effort towards erecting a national poetical character, of
which, as yet, we have not much to boast."24

The critical acceptance of Yamoyden, therefore, is best
understood in terms Of America's concern for a national
literature. After the Revolutionary War and political in-
dependence, American intellectuals called for "the immediate
creation Of a native, indigenous, original American art."25
Many efforts were made by groups like the Hartford Wits and
others, but little of importance was produced. Americans still
considered England culturally superior. After the War of 1812,
however, Americans developed a sense of pride and a confidence
in their own superiority, and the campaign for a national
literature was stepped up. Sir Walter Scott's popular his-
torical romances showed that a country's history could be
used for literature. His success caused American critics

to call not only for American authors, but also for litera-

ture using American material. In 1815, the North American

 

Review, for example, "began to campaign for Americanism in
poetry."26
The result of this new inspiration and encouragement was

an outburst of literature between 1820 and 1821 that seemed

an almost direct answer to Sidney Smith's notorious question

114
about who reads an American book. Within that time Cooper

published The Spy, Irving issued his essays in The Sketch Book,

 

Catherine M. Sedgwick wrote her New England Tale, R.H. Dana,

 

Sr., produced The Idle Man, and James G. Percival and William

 

Cullen Bryant published volumes of poems. The very first
manifestation of this new outbreak of literary endeavor,
however, was Yamoyden. To many it seemed a direct answer to
the great cry for an American romance.

Yamoyden was well received, for one thing, because it

‘was by Americans. The Literature and Science Repository

 

felt that "numberless Offences should escape unwhipt from
literary justice, rather than that one instance of native
genius should pass from before us, without the praise for
‘which it has toiled."27 Not only was it by Americans, it
‘was by young men of eighteen and twenty years of age, a fact
which according to the Americap_guarterly Review made the
poem "a phenomenon in the history of literature." The way
these two young men handled untried material "is something
:more than we could have had reason to expect even from more
practised hands, and evinces a precocity of mind which places
the writers beside those who, like Pope, have outstripped
their race by the vigor of their early productions."28 Other
journals found it equally as easy to attribute the faults of
the poem to the youth Of the collaborators.29

Critics unanimously agreed that the most important aspect
of the poem was the use made of the Indian as a source for

.American romance. A discussion of theirsuccess in using

115
indigenous material made up a large part of the major review

J. G. Palfrey wrote for the North American Review, a review

 

Bryant called "one of the most eloquent and delightful
articles of literary criticism, that has ever appeared in
this country."30 Palfrey, owner and editor of the North

American Review and leader Of its campaign for a national

 

literature, felt that "the distinguishing beauty" of the
poem was

. . . the very happy use which the writers have

made of their reading in the antiquities of the

Indians. Whatever in their customs or superstitions

fell within the scope of the plot, is seized on with

an admirab%i tact, and made available for the purposes

Of poetry.
Palfrey began his eloquent dissertation on the literary po—
tential of the Indian and the Puritan by saying: "We are
glad that somebody has at last found out the unequalled fit-
ness of our early history for the purposes of a work of fic—
tion" (NAR, XII, 480). New England not only provided the
heroism of the Puritans and the pathos of the Indians, it
also contained great natural scenery; the poet must remem-
ber "that compared with some of ours, Scottish rivers are
but brooks, and Scottish forests mere thickets . . ." (NAR,
XII, 484).

Dr. Palfrey felt the strength of the poem was the fourth
canto, in which "use is made with great felicity of the cus-
toms, rites and superstitions of the Indians" (NAR, XII, 472).
He especially liked the diabolical rites Of the Indians:

a pyre is lighted, and the rites begin, which are
described with a prodigious aptness for the terri-

ble. We do not remember any thing finer of the
semi-infernal sort, except Shakespeare's witches.

 

 
 
 

 

")

uh-
. v!

 

 

116

We are at a loss how to praise this part of the

poem sufficiently to satisfy ourselves, without

seeming extravagant. We think we see in it proof

of an imagination equal to a story of the class of

the Vampire or the Monk, which should make these

horrible fictions seem almost nursery tales.

(NAR, XII, 474)

Palfrey prophetically summarized the importance of the Indian
to future American literature: "Whoever in this country first
attains the rank Of a first rate writer Of fiction, we ven-
ture to predict will lay his scene here. The wide field is

ripe for the harvest, and scarce a sickle yet has touched

it" (NAR, XII, 484-85). The New York Literary Journal summed

 

up the importance of Yamoyden by using the same metaphor:
"From its Offering so many advantages to the writer of imagina-
tion, the history Of the Indians will, hereafter, undoubtedly
form the classic lore of American literature; and we welcome
the poem [Yamoyden] as the first fruits of an abundant har-
vest."32

But what Sands and Eastburn had done was more than just
choose a native subject to write about; they had written a
poem indigenous in every aspect: "It is thoroughly and

,peculiarly national," the Knickerbocker recalled in 1834.

 

"The thoughts, the similes, the expressions, are all drawn
from the peOple under description, or from the soil on which

"33 In other words, the collaborators had

the scene is laid.
been successful 3:: making the style apprOpriate to the sub—
ject matter.

The style or poetry was another thing often praised by

contemporary critics. The literate English physician, Dr.

117

Nathan Drake, for example, admired the poetry in general and
the "Prophecy" (Canto IV) in particular: "In grandeur of
imagery, and sublimity of sentiment, in a rich and sonorous
flow of versification, and in a spirit-stirring enthusiasm in
the cause of freedom, it exhibits much which has claim to very
distinguished and almost unqualified approbation."34 The
fourth Canto's versification was admired by others, as was
Sands's "Proem," which Dr. Palfrey called "at once modest
and manly" (NAR, XII, 467). "The Green Isle of Lovers"
(Canto I) was called "as melodious versification as belongs
to the best of Moore's."35

But while many critics admired the poetry, they also
pointed out that the versification was in imitation of the

style of Scott and Byron. The Literary Gazette is typical:

 

"The versification of this poem is modelled on the plan of
walter Scott's metrical romances, but in the style the authors
appear rather to have studied the energetic manner of Lord
Byron" (pg, I, 52). The obvious imitation of Scott and Byron
provoked a comment on imitation from nearly every critic, but
surprisingly enough, most were unwilling to condemn it. The
.Americar_ggarterly Review even defended them: "They not
only consulted their ease, but, perhaps, adopted a wise and
prudent course, in adhering to the pOpular form for their
poem, especially as they had attempted so much that was novel
and untried" (AQR, XV, 408). In other words they were inno-
vative enough in attempting a new subject matter without also

trying a new form. American critical opinion at this time

 

118
was uncertain about the issue Of imitation of the British,
which it later condemned.36
Another thing often admired in the poem was what the

Literary Gazette called "a respectable share of learning"

 

(pg, I, 52). John Paul Pritchard has pointed out that wide
reading was one thing New York critics held as a criteria for
authors.37 Verplanck, a typical New York critic, praised the
language of the poem which he felt was "enriched by an evi-
dent familiarity with Comus, and the minor poems Of Milton"
(Writings, I, 13). Verplanck also praised the poem for being
"rich throughout with historical and antiquarian knowledge
of Indian history and tradition" (Writings, I, 13).

But in spite of their enthusiastic welcome of Yamoyden,
critics were not blind to its faults, the most Obvious of

which was its plot. The American_guarterly Review, in per-

 

haps the finest and most perceptive review of Yamoyden, com-
plained about "a want of pervading interest in the story;

that connexion and dependence of parts which are necessary

in every attempt of the kind, to awaken and retain the feel-
ings of the reader" (AQR, XV, 407). This review pointed
specifically to the long passages of description: "in Yamoy-
den, where the incidents are few, we feel that they are a bur-
den in many cases upon the fable" (AQR, XV, 407). Dr. Palfrey
predicted that if the poem were going to be popular, then it
"must depend on something besides the attraction of the story.
The incidents are neither sufficient for a poem of its length,

nor are they artfully disposed" (NAR, XII, 477). Palfrey,

119
like most of the other critics, excused the collaborator's
poor plot on the basis Of the circumstances under which it
was written.

These criticisms are accurate assessments of what re-
mained a weakness in the poem even after Sands so thoroughly
reworked the entire manuscript. Most of the problem stemmed
from the original, hasty outlining of the plot, and part of
the weak plot resulted from the collaboration. However, al-
most everything said of the faults of the Yamoyden plot could
also have been said about the plot Of Sands's Bridal of Vau-
392g. Creating a viable plot was something Sands had diffi-
culty doing. Both Yamoyden and Vaumond were plotted well
originally, and in the letters to Eastburn, most of Sands's
comments are in connection with the develOpment of the plot.
However, when it came to putting the plans into words or
verse, the plot usually became disjointed. This weakness
also showed up later, to a lesser degree, in Sands's short
stories. Plotting was a low priority item; other things were
:more important. Like Irving, Sands probably considered the
plot mainly a framework on which to display his style, his
beautiful descriptions, his great command of language, and
his rich portrayal of emotions.

The characters of the poem were poorly drawn, and this
too was noted by the critics: "Yamoyden comes so Obscurely
before the mind of the reader, that he excites little sym-
pathy, and Philip, treacherous in his bravery, still less"

(AQR, XV, 410). The plot is obviously meant to glorify the

120
Indian, especially the problems faced by Philip, but because
of his treachery to Yamoyden, we are left disliking Philip,
an irony which strains the plot badly.

The intended glorification of the Indian, Palfrey eSpe—
cially disliked. It was all right to use the Indian as material
for literature, but to glorify him at the expense of the Puri-
tans he felt was misusing the material. Palfrey complains:
"in this particular instancelking Philip's War], where the
contest was equally on both sides for existence, it strikes
us as no better than sentimentality to represent them [the
Puritans] as remorseless oppressors, and the other part as
cruelly wronged" (NAR, XII, 486). As far as he was concerned,
"The writers have gone out of their way to throw a gauntlet
to New England" (NAR, XII, 488). In view Of traditional
Knickerbocker antipathy toward New Englanders and things
New England, such criticism of the Puritans was probably
intentional.

American poetry in 1820 attracted little attention in
England; if the English read anything American, it was usu-
ally Our essays or fiction.38 Therefore the amount of British
comment on Yamoyden is surprising. The Investigator gave it
"long and extravagant praise,"~according to W. B. Cairns
(p. 170). Then in 1822, Nathan Drake, M.D., devoted two
essays to the poem in his collection of essays, Evenings ip
Autumn. Though he did not know Sands's identity, he obviously
was impressed with his share of the poem, especially the

proem. In the same year (1822), Samuel Kettell's‘Specimens

 

121

of the American Poets was published in England and was widely

 

reviewed by the British press. Only the best passages Of

Yamoyden were anthologized in Specimens, and this should be

 

kept in mind when noticing the British comments on the poem,
which ranged from "without one gleam of originality"39 to
"Far beyond what the generality of American writers have yet
attained command of."40 All in all, British criticism was
fair and accurate, especially the remarks by John Neal in

Blackwood's Edinburgh Maggzine: Yamoyden does contain "a

 

deal Of newspaper trash," but it also has some "passages of

singular beauty,‘ some excellent poetry.41
Not only the American critics liked Yamoyden, but also
the American reading public. No records exist to indicate
the degree or length of its popularity, but we do know that
four years after its publication it was "at the height of its

brief vogue, according to Bryant's biographer, H. H. Peck-
ham.42 Verplanck says the poem gave Sands "great literary
reputation throughout the United States" (Writings, I, 13).

The fine review it received in the North American Review

 

helped to establish his reputation. As a result, Verplanck
tells us, "He became personally known to many distinguished
literary men, and in a visit to Boston, in particular, received
many and most flattering attentions" (Writings, I, 13). In
the same year Yamoyden was published, Sands was admitted to

the bar. The nation-wide reputation received from the poem
most likely was another reason to dampen his enthusiasm for

law and turn him in the direction Of a literary career.

 

122

Sands‘s success with Yamoyden helped to Open up a new
source for literary material, and in the next two decades
scores of novels, romances, narrative poems, and plays were
written about Indians. Van Wyck Brooks, for one, holds
Yamoyden responsible for having "started a fashion for Indian
stories and plays. Indeed, by 1830, ten years after it was
published, and largely owing to the example of this lively
poem, almost sixty plays appeared with Indian characters and
Indian themes."43 In the two decades after Yamoyden, Indian
themes were used by many of America's better known authors:
James Finimore Cooper, James K. Pauling, John Greenleaf
Whittier, W. G. Simms, and R. M. Bird. Likewise, the Indian
was a favorite theme of the now little remembered, but
popular authors Of the day: Lydia H. Sigourney, James McHenry,
P. W. Sproat, Lydia M. Child, Sarah Josepha Hale, John Augus-
tus Stone, Timothy Flint, William Joseph Snelling, James
Hall, John P. Kennedy, C. F. Hoffman, and Seba Smith.44
.Most of the second group wrote for the literary annuals or
giftbooks which were in great vogue between 1825 and 1860.
Indian stories, lyrics, and engravings were standard fare in
these popular anthologies.

This circumstantial evidence only implies that Yamoyden
'was influential in turning attention toward the Indian as a
literary source. However, there is a documented case which
shows that the popularity of Yamoyden influenced an author to
attempt an Indian novel, and that is the case of Lydia Maria

Francis (Child). One Sunday morning in 1824, Miss Francis,

 

I
I
‘ fII!‘ ’]
i‘: :3“ 1‘"

A

"New 0; V
‘:l"‘ g

21?. are 'w'!

its 3.132-
—
,4,

that. “u

H)
- r- v
we;

"3' '1"!

In». “A.

11's}. with

V ',

.Ilon

. T
1.. 5‘. ‘
J

a '
- ‘r“:f'
CHM

k‘ u‘

;
‘ In-“

4 $246!

at its h

123
who browsing through her brother's study, came across Palfrey's
review of Yamoyden, full of extracts from the poem. That after-

noon she wrote the first chapter Of Hobomok, a Tale of Early

 

Times (1824).45 Like Yamoyden, Hobomok is about an Indian

 

chief who marries a white wife.
Albert Keiser, an authority on the Indian in American

literature, implies that COOper wrote The Wept of Wish-ton—

 

'fli§p_with its setting of King Philip's War, as a result of
the favorable reception of Yamoyden and its imitators.46
Another interesting piece Of circumstantial evidence involves
the Bread and Cheese Club and its founder, Cooper. Sands was

a member during the time (1822) when Yamoyden's reputation was

 

at its highest. Cooper started using the Indian the very

next year in The Pioneers, and three years later he published

 

his first novel to use Indian material extensively, The Last

of the Mohicans (1826). It is almost certain that COOper

 

read Yamoyden, for he used quotations from the poem as epi-
graphs in at least one novel.47

Therefore, besides being one Of the best romances pro-
duced up to that time and being one of the first hOpeful
signs of a national literature, Yamoyden is important for
helping to open up what proved to be one of the most useful
sources of material for American literature. Furthermore,
Sands's work should be recognized as the precursor of what
became the first genuinely American vogue in our literature--

the Indian tale.

 

124

‘"Papantzin"

Since boyhood, Sands had known Latin, Greek and French.
After 1820 and the publication Of Yamoyden, he began prepar—
ing himself for a career as an author by learning the other
romance languages and studying their literature. First he
learned Italian, and then he translated or made imitations of
Politian (15th C.) and Monti and Metastasio (18th C.). About
1824 he "acquired the Spanish language" along with William
Cullen Bryant, who became interested in the language while
living with a Spanish family before moving his own family
to New York. As Sands and Bryant learned the language, they
tried translating Spanish poems, several of which they published
in their New York Review of which they were co-editors in
1826.43

Bryant and Sands also became acquainted with several
Spanish intellectuals who were living at that time in New
York City, one of whom was M. Cubi, who Bryant and Sands met
at Carvills' bookstore.49 Cubi became a frequent and amusing
visitor to Bryant's Office at the Evening Post. In August of
1826, while filling the editor's chair at the Pp§r_for the
vacationing Bryant, Sands reported on a recent encounter with
Cubi he knew the editor would enjoy:

M. Cubi has been to see me a great deal. I like him
very much. I asked him what was the meaning of hicella.
He says it is a very antiquated word and means "fEVOEFT
'Complexion' & made some attempts at a metaphysical

definition of the appearance of a person as abstracted
from the person, in which he got swamped.50

Sands is having fun here, but the conversation reflects his

 

 

 

 

125
keen interest in language. He was beginning to achieve quite
a reputation as a linguist--Verplanck considered him the best
in the country ("Memoir," pp. 27-28). Consequently, when a
group of publishers needed a life of Cortez they asked Sands
to prepare one. Sands did wide research into the Spanish
sources and wrote the requested biography, which was then
translated into Spanish.51

While doing research on the history of Mexico, Sands
ran across the legend of Papantzin, which had been recorded
by the Abbe Calvigero. The following year (1829), as Sands
was writing for the second number of the Talisman, he remembered
the legend and used it in a poem, which is probably his best
piece Of verse.

The 436-line, blank verse poem opens by describing
‘Mexico "at its tOpmost pride" under Montezuma. One evening
his sister, the princess Papantzin, is quietly musing when she
suddenly has a vision: "It seemed she stood / In an illimitable
plain" (11. 34-35). She wanders on this plain until she
comes to the inky waves of a river. As she contemplates swim-
Ining across, "A vision stayed her purpose" (1. 62). She finds
a young man beside her who is described in angelic terms:
"From either shoulder mantled o'er his front / Wings dropping
feathery silver" (11. 87-88). The darkness of the scene is
interrupted by a gleam of light which falls on "stately barks"
which are coming down the river. These ships, with the cross
emblazoned on their sails, bring the Spanish conquerors. The

"angel-leader" then says,

126
Princess, God wills
That thou shouldst live, to testify on earth
What changes are to come. (11. 34—36)

The white and bearded men whose grim array

Swept o'er *thy sight, are those who are to come,

And with strong arms and wisdom stronger far,

Strange beasts obedient to their masters' touch,

And engines hurling death, with Fate to aid,

Shall wrest the sceptre from the Azteques line,

And lay their temples flat. (11. 202-08)
All this is because of the Mexican's "Prodigious cruelty and
waste of life" (1. 181).

In the last half of the poem, the visionary messenger
explains how the story of Christianity corresponds to the
Mexican legends. Such a comparision allows Sands to work into
the story many of the fascinating legends discovered in his
research. The result is a brief study in comparative reli—
gion. For example, he shows how similar the story of the birth
of Mexitili, the founder of the Mexican culture, was to Jesus
Christ's.

After the heavenly messenger leaves, Princess Papantzin
awakes to find herself "in darkness and solitude" (l. 303).
From the costly robes, the mask on her face, and the ceremonial
jewelry around her neck and arms, she realizes she has been
buried. She throws Off the burial trappings and struggles
out Of the tomb. The beautiful scene which meets her eyes
is marred by the "dread gong" which

. . . announced a victim's heart
Torn from his breast, and each triumphant clang,
A mangled corse, down the great temple's stairs
Hurled headlong . . . . (11. 405-08)

She is especially sad because this is a part of her burial

"rites and royal Obsequies." The prOphecy, of course, came

 

127
true: Mexico was conquered, Papantzin was converted and
given a Christian burial when she died.

At first glance, "Papantzin" seems to be vastly different
from Yamoyden; however, they are in most respects quite
similar. Sands exchanged tetrameter couplets for blank
verse, which probably indicates a lessening of Scott's
influence. The poetic style, on the other hand, remains
the same. The influence of eighteenth-century poetic diction
is not so obvious, yet Sands is still a long way from Words-
‘worthian diction. Sands again appealed to pOpular taste
by including gothic descriptions of the barbarious, bloody,
:Mexican customs. Also, his placing the setting in a distant
country and his telling of ancient legends would appeal to
the popular, romantic taste for the remote. His use Of
legends resembles that of the earlier poem as does his use
of native words, a habit which irked some critics of
Yamoyden. For example, in "Papantzin" he refers to what is
evidently a humming-bird as, "The frequent huitzilin" (1.
383). Likewise, he calls the mocking-bird, "timaCentzontli."

Abundant concrete imagery and descriptions caused the
Americaprguarterly Review to say that this poem "furnishes
the best testimony of Sands' descriptive powers . . . . The
verse is easy flowing, the language itself felicitous and
forcible."52 What makes "Papantzin" much more effective
than Yamoyden is its brevity--it is just one—tenth the
length Of the earlier poem. Sands Obviously had much‘

better control of his material in the smaller poem.

 

128

The major difference in the two poems seems to to be in
Sands's choice of content. It appears that Sands here turned
his back on the campaign for a national literature. Sands,
however, was not so much deserting the advocates for an
American literature as he was expanding his ideas of what
American literature should be. Sands apparently feared that
in rejecting things English in order to write about America
we might become provincial. By his example after writing
Yamoyden, he advocated taking the whole New World as the
province of American literature. He himself turned away from
the Old World to find his subjects in the New World. The
many Latin American items in the Talisman series indicate
this, as does the essay on the Eskimoes of Greenland which he
was working on at the time of his death. In that essay he
presented the history and legends of these people and put
some of their legends into verse just as he did with the

Indian lore in Yamoyden and Mexican legends in "Papantzin".

Translated verse

 

"Papantzin" illustrates how Sands would come across
either an idea or a poem while studying another language or
literature and would translate that idea or poem into an
English poem. For example, he studied Hebrew and versified
psalms, under Eastburn's rather pious influence. During
Eastburn's first winter (1816-1817) at the Bristol, R. I.,
Seminary, he Often exhorted Sands to "seek the dearest bliss
"53

that heav'n / To trembling, pale mortality has given.

Sands responded by studying the Bible in its original Hebrew

 

129
and by versifying at least five psalms in the first three
months of 1817,54 before he got involved with finishing his

juvenile romance The Bridal of Vaumond.

 

Like all other translators, versifiers, paraphrasers,
and modernizers of the Psalms, Sands found it nearly impossi-
ble to capture their power in English verse. He blushed at
his efforts:

My vanity cannot inflate itself so far as to form a
favourable Opinion of their merits. I never yet
however have seen many specimens that pleased me . . . .
Moderns would vainly attempt to prolong one echo,
however feeble, of those strains which the light

of eternity alone could kindle and which it has
absorbed in itself. . . . There is a grandeur in

the notes of the Sweet Singer of Israel that has

ever disdained filtration. It cannot be softened into
that melody which meets the ear[,] it cannot be
controuled by rhyme. It rather seems like the music
of the Spheres as high and as mysterious--55

After two months further practice, Sands playfully criticized
his continued failure:

I send you a versification of Psalm XLVI for which I
solicit King David's pardon and your indulgence--"Stern-
hold & HOpkins had great qualms"-—but the misfortune

is that I have no qualms at all. I cut and slash

and when the connexion is not apparent, I have a
surprising faculty of making a candle shine through a
two bushel basket. This you have no doubt perceived.

My versification is very much like one of these cloudy,
moonshiny nights, when you can just see the ground
sufficiently to step down a bank of some half dozen feet,
and break your neck at the bottom; as I have almost done
a few nights ago, walking out of town, in silent
contemplation.

I am all that may be imagined &c
Robt C Sands
Besides being an accurate assessment of his success in
versifying Psalms, these two letters provide a glimpse of the

two sides Of Sands's character: his serious, contemplative

 

 

130
side, usually expressed in such high-flown language that it
almost seems a mask behind which to hide the seriousness of
his feelings; and his light-hearted, almost waggish side,
full of humor and personal references. The line, "I am all
that may be imagined," is a tempting one for a biographer.
It is easy to imagine what an enjoyable companion this
witty, self-effacing man was.

The only Psalm versified by Sands that ever saw print
was "Psalm CXXXVII," written 15 November 1821 and published
by Verplanck in Sands's Writings (1834). This effort exceeded
those contained in letters to Eastburn. For one thing, he
used pentameter couplets, rather than the tetrameter couplets
of the earlier translations. Also, it was written after
Yamoyden, which had apparently sharpened his poetic powers.
Exactly what Sands did with a Psalm can be seen by comparing
the beginning of his version with that of the King James
‘Version:

Where mid Babel's proud gardens and palaces glide

The waves of Euphrates, we sat by the tide;

Our harps on the willows hung mournful above,

And we wept as we thought on the land of our love!

For our masters came by, and a song they desired,

And mirth from the exile the spoiler required;

With mockery they bade us awake at their nod,

TO please his blasphemers, the hymns of our God.
The seventeenth-century scholars translated it thus:

1. By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea,

we wept, when we remembered Zion.

2. We hanged our harps upon the willows in the midst

thereof.

3. For there they that carried us away captive

required of us a song; and they that wasted us

required of us mirth, saying, Sing us one of Zion.
(Psalm 137: 1-3)

131
Sands had not noticeably improved David's song.

Classical literature surpassed all others as a source
of inspiration for Sands, and much of his miscellaneous
poetry consisted of translations of ancient authors. Many of
his contributions to the Literary Confederacy were selections

from the Greeks. A letter to James Eastburn in 1819 illus-

trates the kind of devotion the Confederates had to the Greek E
Classics: E
We read Herodotus ( in whose style of digression--as '
we are all creatures of imitation--this epistle is
composed), from one to half-past two every day, as a

change from poetry. We shall finish Clio this week,
then we shall probably attack Aeschylus again. I
believe I wrote you that we had finished the trans—
lation of Prometheus. I am now translating the
Orestes of Euripedes.56
The letter goes on to explain why he admires Aeschylus and
Euripedes and why he dislikes SOphocles.
Among the Latin authors, Horace was Sands's favorite.
He once told Eastburn that "with Horace only for a companion,
I could never be quite isolated, quite lonely, in the far-
thest corner of the earth."57 His translation-imitations
of Horace are probably the best of his classical endeavors,
at least Verplanck thought so when he compiled Sands's
Writings. Sands's translation of Horace's Epode II, entitled
"Pleasures of a Country Life," begins thus:
Happy the man, remote from toil and care,
As in the golden age men were;
Who ploughs his native field with his own team,
And hath no debts of which to dream!

Sands originally published this and six other translations of

Horace in the Atlantic magazine, which he originated and edited.

 

 

132
Sands translated French and Italian poems as he learned
modern languages in the latter part of his life. "The Butter-
fly," translated from the French of De La Martine, is probably
the best of Sands's lyrics:

Born with the spring, and with the roses dying,

Through the clear sky on Zephyr's pinion sailing,
On the young floweret's Opening bosom lying,

Perfume and light and the blue air inhaling,
Shaking the thin dust from its wings, and fleeing,

And fading like a breath in boundless heaven,--
Such is the butterfly's enchanted being;

How like desire, to which no rest is given,
Which still uneasy, rifling every treasure,
Returns at last above to seek for purer pleasure.58

On at least one occasion, Sands used English literature
as the basis for a poem. The prefatory note to "Sleep"

explains that he had used "such parts" of Burton's Anatomy_

 

of Melanchory" as seemed to the writer fit for versification.

 

Other ideas are introduced, probably not more original,"
confessed the note.59

"Not . . . original" is true of most of Sands's poetry.
At least half of Sands's minor poetry consisted of collabora-
tions: he versified Psalms with Eastburn, translated the
classics with the rest of the Literary Confederacy, and
imitated poems in modern languages, sometimes, with William

Cullen Bryant.

Other Original Poetry
The small amount of truly original poetry written by
Sands falls into three categories: occasional verse, humor-
ous verse, and serious poetry. Some of the occasional verse

was written for the giftbooks and contained suitable subjects--

133
lovers and ladies. However, Sands's giftbook contributions
far exceed the usual drivel found in those annual, sentimen-
tal honeypots. Sands slipped enough of his wit and humor
into these efforts to make them palatable. One example is
"Preface to an Album," written for the first Talisman (1828),
a giftbook edited by Sands. Here he rhapsodizes about facing
the snowy white, blank pages of a new album:
Oh! and alas! while (Hi this volume's brink,
Still a white sea, I stand, and meditate
Upon the many coloured kinds of ink,
Whose tortuous currents here must permeate,--
When on the torture of those brains I think,
Whose oozings here must be incorporate,--
Upon the geese that must the quills supply,

And those that must commit the poetry,--
I sorrow, that all fair things must decay . . . .

60
Typical giftbook sentiments, but containing a note Of humor
through the inflated diction and unusual images.

Sands could hardly have lived in the nineteenth century
and have been a poet and a friend of Bryant's without writing
nature poetry. Interestingly enough, the first good nature
poems written by Sands were done for the Atlantic magazine
which brought Sands and Bryant together. Sands's "Wild
Geese" hardly reflects Bryant's "To a Waterfowl," however:

Wild geese! wild geese! I love you well,

For Of the festive board ye tell:

Of gravies rich, and sauces savoury,

And tables set out in all their bravery.

Of soup, of turtle, and dumplings Of dough,

Scenes where the starved soul long to go!
This ought to be classified with the humorous poetry, of course;
Sands's nature poems were generally quite serious, reflective

descriptions of the Hudson River and landscape around

Weehawken and Hoboken, New Jersey.

134
His poem "Weehawken" was not only one of his best efforts,

but was easily his most popular piece. It was anthologized
at least four times after his death by such editors as Gris-
wold, C. F. Hoffman, and Longfellow. Its first verses describe
the setting; then Sands says,

Yet should the stranger ask, what lore

Of by-gone days, this winding shore,

Yon cliffs and fir-clad steeps could tell,

If vocal made by Fancy's spell,--

The varying legend might rehearse

Fit themes for high, romantic verse.

O'er yon rough heights and moss-clad sod
Oft hath the stalworth warrior trod; . . .

When the great strife for Freedom rose

Here scouted oft her friends and foes,

Alternate, through the changeful war,

and beacon-fires flashed bright and far;

And here, when Freedom's strife was won,

Fell, in sad feud, her favoured son;--
The rest of the poem describes the last sights Hamilton saw
as he fell in that fatal duel with Aaron Burr. The promoter
of a national literature does not miss the chance to provide
American landscape with tradition and historical association.

Another popular nature poem, one in which he criticized

contemporary authors for not writing about America, was
published by The New York Mirror in an essay, by Sands, on
"Hoboken." Robert W. Weir's well-known painting Of Hoboken,
as engraved by A. B. Durand, accompanied the poem, which be-
gan:

Let Willis tell, in glittering prose,

Of Paris and its tempting shows;

Let Irving, while his fancy glows,

Praise Spain, renowned--romantic!
Let COOper write, until it palls,

Of Venice, and her marble walls,
Her dungeons, bridges, and canals,

 

ll

135
Enough to make one frantic!. . .

For me--who never saw the sun

His course o'er other regions run. . . .
Better I love the river's side,

Where Hudson's sounding waters glide . . . .61

Cooper had published a Venetian romance, The Bravo, the year

 

before, and Irving had just written Conquest of Granada and

The Alhambra.

 

Sands promoted a national literature every chance he got.
Even in the prefatory verse he wrote for John J. Bailey's
romantic drama on the fourth century massacre at Thessalonica,
Greece, he slipped in a plea to use indigenous material.
Right in the middle of "Prologue to Waldimar, a Tragedy,"
we find: "Yet, our New World the muse's pencil needs!"62
He ended the poem by saying that at least we can be proud
that Bailey is an American. Sands was fond of the theater
and attended it often, but this is as close as he got to
writing anything for the stage.

Sands's second category of original poetry, humorous
verse, mainly contains satirical literary criticism like
"The Ocean of Nonsense," "The Deluge," and "Noah, a Poem.

By Paul Allen," which were originally published in the

Literary Confederacy's St. Tammapy magazine.63 But Sands

 

also wrote several humorous poems that have no critical inten-
tion, the most representative Of which is "A Monody Made on
the Late Mr. Samuel Patch, by an Admirer of the Bathos."

The subtitle contains a play on words which becomes more
evident when the circumstances of Patch's death are understood.

During the 1820's, Sam Patch of Passaic, New Jersey,

136
fascinated crowds throughout New York and New Jersey with his
leaps from great heights. Such publicity was given his leaps
that he soon became a legend. Sands may have been one of the
five hundred Spectators on the shore at Hoboken when Sam Patch
jumped ninety feet into the Hudson River from a platform
erected on the masthead of a sloop.64 In October of 1829,
Patch made his highest jump over Niagra Falls, an event
widely heralded in the newspapers, including Sands's Commer- :

cial Advertiser. A month later Patch attempted a 125 foot

 

 

leap into the Genesee Falls at Rochester, New York. His body
sagged half way down, and "he struck the water obliquely with
arms and legs extended."65 Witnesses reported that Patch had
been drinking, and they presumed he passed out before reach-
ing the water. Sands eloquently explained the cause of Patch's

tragedy in these words:

The fiend that from the infernal rivers stole
Hell-draughts for man, ‘too much tormented him,
With nerves unstrung, but steadfast in his soul,
He stood upon the salient current's brim;
His head was giddy, and his sight was dim;
And then he knew this leap would be his last,--
Saw air, and earth, and water wildly swim,
With eyes of many multitudes, dense and vast,
That stared in mockery; none a look of kindness cast.

(Writings, II, 351)
Sands spoke the truth in the subtitle when he called himself

"an Admirer of the Bathos." In fact, much of his humor can

be classified as bathos, or the ludicrous attempt to be serious
and achieve dignity and pathos for a trivial or insignificant
subject. In "Monody" he sprinkles in a liberal dose of
classical allusion which also has the effect of bathos. Since

bathos is Often defined in terms of a "sudden drop" (from the

137
exalted to the commonplace), its use in the title of a poem
(about Sam Patch takes on another meaning.

"To American poets and rhymesters of the 1830's, search-
ing for native themes, the heroics, tragedy, and seriocomic
aspects of the Last Leap proved magnetic."66 Sands was only
one Of the many poets that helped create the Sam Patch legend,
'which lasted through most of the nineteenth century. His
poem was far better than most of the poems about Sam Patch

and was popular for years after his death. Unfortunately,

 

this is probably the poem most generally associated with
67

Sands.
The other most often remembered Sands's poem, "The Dead
of 1832," falls into the third category of his original
poetry, his serious poems. "The Dead Of 1832" is not a
first-rate poem and is probably remembered only because of the
ironic fact that two weeks after it was published in his
(Commercial Advertiser, Sands himself joined the illustrious
list of people who died in 1832: Goethe, Scott, Crabbe,
Champollion, Spurzheim, and Jeremy Bentham. The poem ends by
saying
They go--and with them is a crowd,
For human rights who THOUGHT AND DID,
We rear to them no temples proud,
Each hath his mental pyramid.
Little did Sands know when" he wrote this, that he would be
one of the crowd that went with them. Unfortunately, his
fame or "mental pyramid" has deteriorated and disappeared

much more quickly than the others mentioned in the poem.

A better poem was written on the occasion of Eastburn's

138
cieath. "Monody to the Memory of the Rev. J. W. Eastburn" is

a finely wrought elegy full of strong feeling expressed with
reserve and impersonal generalization.

The "Monody" contains obvious echoes of Milton's
Lycidas: compare, for example, the eighth line of Lycidas--
"For Lycidas is dead, dead ere his prime"--with the second
line of the following, rather typical, sample from the
"Monody":

O silent shell! thy chords are riven!

That heart lies cold before its prime!
Mute are those lips, that might have given
One deathless descant to our clime!

No laurel Chaplet twines he now;
He sweeps a harp of heavenly tone,

And plucks the amaranth for his brow
That springs beside the eternal throne.

(Writings, II, 338)
Like Milton, Sands consigned his departed friend to heaven.
Milton's poetry had Often influenced Sands. Sands once
confessed to Eastburn: "for language, I find most assistance

from Milton's smaller pieces--Comus, Lycidas, Il Penseroso

 

 

&c which as poetry, I prefer to the Paradise Lost; with the
exception of a few parts.68 While writing Yamoyden, Sands
recommended Milton to Eastburn: "It does not follow by any
means that the language used by Milton is inapplicable to a
tale of the wards of Philip."69 And in the poem, details of
the Indian's pow-wow parallel those in Satan's Council.

Sands built most of the "Monody" around a clever adapta—
tion of the biblical prophet Isaiah's call from God:

"Proclaim," the Eternal Spirit said,
"Glad tidings to the meek in heart,

 

139
Bind up the wounds that earth has made,
And bid the enfranchis'd slave depart.
Tell the poor captive, chain'd by sin,
'Thy bars are burst, and thou art free!

The year of glory shall begin,
The spring of beauty dawns for thee!'"

(Writings, II, 337)

The poem then shows point by point how Eastburn had answered
this call through his ministry. And, like Milton, though
more mildly and indirectly, Sands criticizes the contemporary
religious situation: ". . . moss o'erspreads / The temples
once devote to god." The loss Of a promising young minister,
however, remains secondary to Sands's disappointment over
losing a potentially great poet, a close friend and kindred

spirit.

Summary

All in all, Sands was not a great poet, and he would
be the first to admit it. He loved poetry, and he was a
student of versification, or as Bryant says, he "had an
ear for poetic measure cultivated by a study" of classical,
English, and European literature.70 His serious verse is
occasionally affecting, Often energetic, and usually witty.
His descriptive powers were great, and he often won praise
from his contempories for his talents in this area. In fact,
he defined poetry in terms of affecting descriptions: "I
know no other definition Of poetry, than that it conveys
beautiful or sublime pictures to the mind--and am often
tempted to exclude from that title, half the Didactic poetry

”"71

in the Language. Sands here anticipates by thirty years

Edgar Allan Poe's "heresy of the didactic" in The Poetic

 

‘5“? 3“. 7"

l-‘JA uh . '4

a
!
1

 

140
Principle. And much like Poe, Sands regarded the music of
jpoetry, "the melody and rhyme" as he called it, as the
essence of poetry, not just the "drapery of thought." Con-
sequently Sands's poetry lacks that depth Of thought, that
'universality, that genius, which gives a poet a lasting
reputation. Unlike Poe's innovative poetry, Sands's was
dated in content and style, and therefore of less influence
or appeal to succeeding generations.

He was capable of great poetry, but the distraction of
other interests and projects kept him from becoming an
important poet. Most of his poetry bears the marks of hasty
composition. He once wrote Eastburn: "I have almost made
a determination to give up Poetry. For I am convinced that
to produce any thing worthy of posterity of any size, all
the powers of the mind and all the attention must be devoted

n72

to it. . . . Such a determination however is rare. He

obviously lacked the determination. "A Sonnet on Sonnets,"
published in the New York Mirror of 16 October 1830 epito-
mizes his lack of seriousness about poetry:

When a memory takes a retrospective gaze
Upon the bright effusions of my brain,
She cannot find--I note the fact with pain--
Mid all that heterogeneous mass Of lays,
A single SONNET! This might blight a fame
Greater--if greater can be--than the one
Which now rewards the muses' favourite son--
I mean myself--and gilds his deathless name.
This must not be, and So I'll write one now.
Let's see-~it must comprise just fourteen lines,
Dull flat and heavy-~this at least combines
The requisites alluded to, I trow;
Two more complete it--now the bard entwines
The pp plus ultra garland round his laurelled brows!

 

Hastily composed, just for the fun of it, yet witty and

 

141
clever--the sonnet is typical of Sands's attitude toward
poetry. It was one of his favorite things in life, but it
remained a hobby and never became a serious avocation or
vocation. His poetry was popular in his day, but his con-
temporaries admired him more for his stories and essays,

where he found looser reins on his erudite wit.

!n
v"

 

 

..
u,

 

-'*.I

u
up“

 

k»

 

CHAPTER V
THE CRITIC: SANDS EDITS LITERARY JOURNALS

Coming of Agg

The comfortable Sands home at 94 Leonard St., just west
cm bustling Broadway and only four blocks south of Hudson
Square, the city's most fashionable address, was most likely
the scene of a party on 11 May 1820. Not only was this Sands's
twenty-first birthday, but he had also been admitted to the
bar the day before. For five years Sands had studied law in
the Office of David B. Ogden, a prominent New York attorney.
Now that he had passed the bar exams, family and friends
celebrated.

The fledgling lawyer was confident and excited about the
prospects of his new career. Consequently, he turned down an
invitation made by Dr. Mason, a friend and former president
of Columbia, to fill the chair of Belles Lettres at Dickenson
College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. Instead he set up an office
at 184 Fulton St., just one block from City Hall. New York,
in 1820, was crowded and bristling with commercial activity.
Immigrants from other states and EurOpe had helped to double
the population in the two decades of Sands's life. The city
limits were constantly being pushed northward, and rows of

red brick houses stood where there had been marshes a few

142

143
years earlier. Sands, realizing the limitless Opportunities
offered by his native city, was confident of a successful

1 As Dr. Neilson, a Literary Confederate, once

career in law.
said concerning Sands and his profession, "Bob is of a san-
guine temperament & is always counting his chickens before
they are hatched."2

The high hOpes were deflated, however, by his first
experience before a jury. NO details of the case remain,
but Verplanck reports that "His first attempt as an advocate,
without being a failure, fell far short of his own proposed
standard and expectations" ("Memoir," p. 14). As a result,
Sands evidently became disheartened and gradually withdrew
from the legal profession. He maintained an office for the
next seven years (at five different addresses), but he never
again took a case of any consequence before the court. To
support himself, he took care of just enough minor matters
(wills and petty disputes) such as the one which interrupted
a meeting of the Literary Confederacy: "a messenger arrived
in a great hurry for B. Sands to go over into the Bowery, &
help a poor devil of a printer out of some difficulties into
which he had fallen."3

Verplanck was puzzled over Sands's lack of success at
law and enumerated reasons why he should have succeeded: (l)
he needed the income; (2) he liked the study of law; (3) he
was industrious; (4) he had the best legal training; (5) he
‘was eloquent; and (6) he was a shrewd judge of character

and (7) a tireless investigator. Verplanck finally decided

 

 

144
that "nothing but a resolute will appears to have been want-
ing to have secured him a highly respectable standing at the
bar."4
Verplanck seems to have forgotten that Sands had always
been uneasy about Splitting his interests between law and

literature. When he first decided to study law, he wrote:

""T[

Farewell, delusive dreams! I ask not now ;

The wreath that crowns the immortal poet's brow. ’
("Memoir," p. 16)

However, Sands was never really able to say "farewell" to

literature.

!
i
!
|
l
I
F'

Since the age of fifteen he had been involved in some
literary project each year. One <>f the first things he did
after being admitted to the bar was to edit Yamoyden. The
fame resulting from America's enthusiastic acceptance of that
poem must have coincided closely with his disappointing first
taste of law. Suddenly literature seemed much more appealing.
It was about this time (1820) that he began a program of
rereading and widening his acquaintance with the classical
poets and authors of other literatures.5 During the next
year, 1821, the Literary Confederacy published the St. Tammany

.Magazine; then during 1822 and 1823 they contributed a good

 

dea1.to’the New York Literary Journal. Certainly, the variety
of literary projects he attacked with relish indicates that
he did not lack a "resolute will." Rather, he personally
found literature more rewarding than law. In retrospect, it
almost seems as if Sands decided to prepare himself during

these years for a career as a writer while he supported himself

 

145

with law.

During the seven years Sands maintained a law office,
his daily" routine of life was made up of three ingredients:
law, literature, and socializing. These ingredients are
illustrated in the "Journal of a Day" written by Sands and
read to the Literary Confederates in 1822. Accounts of a
day's activities were pOpular among the Confederates in the
final years of their productivity. Sands wrote;

Read Mr. Burke's speech on conciliation with America

until half-past one. Mended the fire, made castles,

and looked at Saint Paul's to see what o'clock it

was. Finished the speech, which I take to compre-

hand as much wit, eloquence, and argument, as any

parliamentary harrangue that was ever made in the

House, or written for the newspapers. . . . Read

four pages of Thucydides . . . . Having a particular

aversion to the speeches in Thucydides, because the

Greek is so bloody hard, left off reading at six,

and went to tea.
Disappointed at not finding any of the Literary Confederates
present upon his return from tea, Sands amused himself by
drawing a pen-and-ink sketch of his room, which Lewis Gay-
lord Clark claims "evinces no small skill in pictorial
delineation."6

Most of Sands's socializing and writing and studying
of literature was done with the Literary Confederates. The
nature of their association is reflected in one of the most

fascinating extant accounts of Sands, found in Dr. John

iNeilson's "Journal of a Day":

April 18. “1822 Was roused this morning at about
a quarter past Six, by a person who knocked at the
street door & afterwards departed. As we are in the
habit, John Campbell, Bob Sands, & myself, of meeting
early each morning at Bobs office to read & digest

 

 

.
"“M-
-~.

‘1
.g“

‘A
1ng c
"L ‘
:p; y
‘1'“ t‘a

146

a certain portion of Cornelius Tacitus; I concluded

that this had been John Campbell who had stopped for

me on his way thither. When I arrived at this said

office, however, I found nobody there but Bob, who

told me that it was he who had called for me, to

tell me that he was engaged to eat breakfast at

Sam Wards; & that he should not have time to read

with us that morning. I thought it was very sagacious

in Bob to wake me from my sleep, merely to inform me

that there was no occasion for my getting up. But

I kept my reflections to myself.
The John Campbell mentioned was a lawyer and sometimes a part-
ner of Sands. Though Sands never mentions him during this
period, there are frequent references indicating that they
were good friends. Neilson continues:

Just as the clock struck seven, & we were leaving the

office, up comes John Campbell. Bob stated the cir-

cumstances of the case, & put John in a good humour

by telling him that he was going to be busy all the

morning making somebody's will for which he eXpected

to get atleast fifty dollars.
Before separating, Sands reminded Neilson of their engagement
that afternoon to take Manton Eastburn and his wife, Sands's
sister Julia, and Samuel Glover and his two daughters to
meet Dr. Samuel L. Mitchell and to see his collection of
curiosities. That afternoon, Neilson dutifully went to the
college of Physicians and Surgeons and introduced the guests
to Dr. Mitchell, who showed them "his curiosities in a very
fascinating manner, putting on a huge bullrush hat from the
river Amason [sic] which made him out a curious figure" (p. 285).
It began to "rain like blazes" and Neilson said, "I began to
wish Bob to the devil . . . for thus lugging me into a scrape,
& then shirking me" (p. 290). Later, "when I asked Bob why
he had not come to the Doctor's, & told him that we had all

been there, [he] flatly told me [he] did not believe me, &

 

 

A
\\

q
a

l)‘-
",4... M

l
'3. AM
m w
ruin-V“

1*.
ad

.
5M
y F
uni

-
(I-
(In

E
r

g
n
v

I
n"
.1;

|
nu

n a.
o"

(.1
(I,
I

'5‘."

~l'.

{Lu-

147
offered to bet me half a dollar on the same" (p. 281).

That evening, Literary Confederate Richard Ward showed
up in Sands's office where Neilson was visiting. Ward and
Sands invited Neilson to go out with them for the evening.
Neilson replied:

I told them I could not very well, as I had taken

a dose of salts about an hour since . . . & besides

that I wanted shaving & had my old coat on; they be-

came more urgent in their solicitations, & told me

by the way of inducement that they were going to

Harry Wards where there were two pretty girls, & that

I need not mind my old coat. (P. 293)
Neilson ended up walking as far as the hospital with them.
The sketch is written from Neilson's victimized-friend point
of view, thus coloring some of the facts; nevertheless, it
gives us a glimpse of Sands's personality.

The reference to the "two pretty girls" indicates, as
do several other references, that Sands enjoyed women and
was a favorite among them. Sands never married and perhaps
never would have, but his death at the early age of 33 pre-
cludes our ever knowing. Verplanck implies that Sands never
married because of his deep attachment to his family. He
was the last and youngest son of elderly parents and felt an
obligation to care for them. He moved back home after giving
up his residence and law office in Manhattan.

Another reason why Sands never married is perhaps to be
found in the facetious Aeronaut letter to Robert Walsh, the
Philadelphia critic thoroughly despised by Sands. The letter

refers to one of the Literary Confederates, quite obviously

Sands:

148
He looks for an ideal which we fear he will never see
realized. He expects to unite his destinies with a
woman economical without parsimony, intellectual without
affectation, and beautiful without vanity. He has
lately formed his conceptions of her person from something
he saw in your paper. He insists on the lady having
"English head, neck and bust; French waist; Dutch hips;
American legs and arms; and Spanish feet and hands."
There may also be an element of truth in a newspaper note
published after Sands's death:
Price of a Broken Heart.--The late Robert C. Sands sued
for damages in a case of breach of promise of marriage.
He was offered two hundred pounds to heal his broken
heart. "Two hundred! he exclaimed; "two hundred for

ruined hopes, a blasted life! Two hundred for all
this? No--never! Make it three hundred, and it's a

bargain!"
While typical of Sands's sense of humor, not a shred of evi-
dence exists to substantiate this alleged love affair. It
sounds more like an inside joke popular among lawyers. If
Sands did suffer a broken heart, he certainly never showed
any of the symptoms pOpular in the fiction of his day.

Sands's best and closest friends were in the Literary
Confederacy; however, he had a wide circle of friends from
every social level. Verplanck calls Sands "Social in his
temperament," and claims "he enjoyed the acquaintance and
high esteem of the elite of the scholars, and men of talents
of all classes, and especially the artists of New-York and
its vicinity" (PMemoir," p. 26).

Just a few doors down Fulton street from Sands's first
office was the Shakespeare Tavern, a massive, low, old-
fashioned building which was, according to historian W. H.
Bayles, "the resort of actors, poets and critics, as well as

the rendezvous of the wits and literary men of the period."10

149

Every account of the tavern, which was the equivalent of the
London coffeehouses, lists Sands as one of the frequent, pro-
minent visitors. Some of the men Sands met there over a
quiet supper and excellent wine were James K. Paulding, Willis
Gaylord Clark, James G. Percival, and Fitz-Greene Halleck,
all Knickerbocker authors. And it was most likely here that
Sands became acquainted with William L. Stone, the editor of
the Commercial Advertiser and his future employer. It was
here that Sands deepened his friendship with Gulian C.
Verplanck.

Verplanck, once described as uncompanionable, cold, and
"too much of a frog to appreciate the Knickerbocker spirit,"ll
seems an unlikely friend for the warm, convivial, gregarious
Sands. However, Sands had earlier chosen a steady, somewhat
pious intellectual for his closest friend, James Eastburn.
The fledgling Knickerbocker author would naturally have
appreciated the war of words between Verplanck and Mayor De-
Witt Clinton which culminated with the masterful satire, 833k;

tail Bards (1819). But he probably did not meet Verplanck

 

until the early 1820's when Verplanck taught at General
Theological Seminary in New York City. Sands had friends
among the faculty, especially Professor Jarvis to whom he
dedicated Yamoyden, so Sands most likely cultivated a friend-
ship with Verplanck during this period before the professor
was elected to the U. S. House of Representatives in 1824.
Verplanck and Sands had much in common. Both were law—

yers who favored literature as their avocation. They shared

150
the same cultural interests and found friends among the New
York artists. Both campaigned for a national literature.
Both were intellectuals and classical scholars who admired each
other's erudition. Yet the nature of their friendship is
difficult to trace. Sands's letters to Verplanck range in
tone from proper and business-like to friendly, witty, and
light-hearted, but an undefinable reserve is usually present.
The letters indicate a public friendship-~the two enjoyed
writing together and discussing New York political activities--
not a private relationship in which personal ideas, aspirations,
and feelings are shared. A maturity and reserve lurks be-
tween the lines of their correspondence. Perhaps this occurs
rmturally when writing to a congressman; nevertheless, there
is a difference in tone from the letters of the obviously
kindred spirits of Eastburn and Sands. Yet when the friends
of Sands looked for a suitable biographer after his death,
they immediately and unanimously turned to Verplanck as the
one who knew him best, or "on account of your intimacy with
him" as Bryant put it in a letter to Verplanck (24 December
1832, NYPL).

The casual meetings of New York literati at the Shakespare
Tavern were organized into a club soon after James Fenimore
COOper came to town in 1822. The thirty-five members of the
Bread and Cheese Club included most of the leading professional
men, statesmen, lawyers, physicians, and writers of New York
City. Sands was probably a charter member of this organiza-

tion devoted to stimulating conversation and good food. The

151
convivial times had there reflect the spirit of Knickerbocker
literature. Literary critic Nelson F. Adkins calls the
Club "a happy symbol of all that was youthful and bouyant
in this school-—of the spirit in literature of hearty good
fellowship which made New York during these years the literary
center of America."12 In this respect, Sands is a representa-
tive Knickerbocker, because he thoroughly personified this
"hearty good fellowship." He loved the social life which was
a prominent aspect of the New York City literary scene.

The Bread and Cheese Club began to disintegrate in 1827,
the year after Cooper left for Europe, and was completely dead
by 1831. Various reasons for the decline have been given,
such as the diversity of the membership and the formation
of the Sketch Club.l3 However Frederick DePeyster, who wrote
a brief sketch of Sands that remains unpublished, claims
the club's demise resulted from a duel between two members
of the Club. Sands had frequently urged DePeyster, a Columbia
classmate, to join, but, on the night he planned to become a
member, he was prevented from doing so by a last-minute
business matter. After that he had no further opportunity of
doing so because "of the breaking up of the club," as a result
of the duel. The New York Mirror of 1 December 1827 reported:

William G. Graham, extensively known as assistant editor
of the Enquirer, and a gentleman of splendid talents

and large acquirements, was shot dead, on Wednesday

last, in an affair of honour, (what a misapplication

of the term!) at Hoboken. The name of his antagonist,

as we understand, is Barton.

Sands also mentioned the duel in a letter to Verplanck a week

later. DePeyster claims "The melancholy result of this duel,

152
tended to abate the interest felt by the members in the
success of the club, and shortly afterwards it was broken
up.“14 Neither of the parties to the duel has ever been
listed as a Club member; however, in the later years of the
Club, membership changed so much that it is possible these men
were members and not listed. At any rate, the episode pro-
vides another plausible cause for the disintegration of the
Bread and Cheese Club. After its demise, the gregarious
Sands helped form its successor, the Sketch Club (see Chapter

VIII).

The Atlantic Magazine

 

The firstlint of the Atlantic Magazine, which according

 

to William Charvat was to become "the best New York critical
journal of the period,"15 came in the 5 December 1823 meeting
of the Literary Confederacy:

Talked about our literary prospects & impressed that

this must be a good time to start a magazine inasmuch

as there is nothing in the city at present which de-

serves the name. Came to no conclusion as the means

or plan of conducting one but agree that it ought to

be entirely original as to matter and thought that

we might easily find sufficient numbers of contribu-

tors and obtain a liberal patronage.
The minutes of the Confederacy make no further mention of the
magazine, but from this reference it appears that the magazine
was to be another project by the Confederacy, even though it
would be open to other contributors, and that it was a maga-
zine, not a review, a subtle but important distinction (maga-

zines contained more original, entertaining material).

The above-mentioned meeting was one of the last of the

153
Literary Confederacy, which quit meeting on a regular basis
about the time the Atlantic started. That there might be
some cause and effect relationship here is a tempting but
implausible thesis. Increased absences and a general lack
of interest are indicated in the minutes of the Confederacy
even before the plans for the Atlantic were mentioned.

After the suggestion at the December meeting, Sands
arranged to have a magazine published by the firm of Bliss and
White. Sands was to edit the new publication for a salary
of $500 and was given another $500 a year for expenses. Elam
Bliss, the senior partner of the publishing firm, was noted
for his eagerness to sponsor new publishing projects; but
while he was adventurous, he also bungled most of his affairs.
Sands later referred to him as "obfuscated," and Bryant com-
plained to R. H. Dana, Jr.: "Bliss is the most unenterprising
and unlucky of all publishers--his name is a proverb among the
trade for infelicity and ill-luck in the publishing line."l7
Part of Bliss's reputation was earned by his handling of the

Atlantic, which only managed to struggle through one year.

 

However in May of 1824, when the first issue appeared,
Sands and the publishers of the Atlantic were confident of
success. This is not to say that Sands walked into the ven-
ture with blind optimism. In fact, the "Conversation between
the Publishers and the Editor," which served as an introduc-
tion, quite candidly pointed out the "innumberable difficul-
ties in the way of our success."18 Each difficulty mentioned

by the editor was eloquently countered by the publishers.

154
In response to the editor's complaint that the market was
flooded with too many magazines and newspapers which left
"their readers neither taste to appreciate, nor time to peruse,
nor money to pay for literary publications," the publishers
said, "These are no alarming impediments to our success. Our
plan differs materially from that of any other contemporary
domestic journal; and your contributors must correct the public
appetite for reading advertisements, by furnishing them more
instructive or amusing matter" (Atlantic, I, 1-2).

The founding of magazines and reviews was one of the
main manifestations of early nineteenth-century literary
nationalism, and the improvement of American literature by
discreet criticism was one of the goals Sands mentions in the
introductory "Conversation":

We are asked, "Where is our literature?" and God knows,
we have little to exhibit, in reply to the sneering
interrogation. But instead of creating it, by regu-
lar labour and discreet encouragement, talent has
been wasted in virulent retorts on the inquirers,
and idle abuse of the productions of their country-
men. (P. 5)
Sands promises none of this type of critical review, which
causes the publishers to ask:
Pub. Do you mean to exclude reviews entirely?
Ed. By no means. I am only sick of the name and the
manner. We will notice works of genius or talent;
and endeavor to point out their excellencies,--per-
haps defects; taking care, however, not to run
against sna s, and eXpose our own conceit and ignorance,
under the notion of triumphant superiority, as some
of our predecessors have done before us, and some of
our contemporaries do now. Works that are good for
nothing we shall not notice at all; unless some of
us choose to indulge in harmless merriment, at the

expense of fair game. We live in an age of quackery;
and quacks of all kinds ought to be exposed. So

155
also we must not hesitate to repel all attacks upon
morality, or correct principle, when there is talent
enough to render them dangerous. (Pp. 5-6)
This is about as succinctly as Sands ever summed up his
critical philosophy: all criticism would be constructive;
poor productions would be put down through humor and ridi-
cule; and moral guidelines would be used.
As the dialogue continued, the publisher tries to
further define the magazine's prOposed content:
Pub. Then you will admit essays on all sub-
jects connected with general literature, manners,
and morals. Tales--
Ed. If they be not sentimental.
Pub. Satire--
Ed. If it be not personal.
Pub. Letters from your numerous correspondents--
Ed. Yes--we must immediately open a correspondence
with all great authors dead and alive. We will publish
posthumous works of some great geniuses who never
existed; and, of course, we shall be favored with
communications from some imaginary correspondents. The
last will be good contributors, as they will never ask
for compensation. (P. 6)
Readers of previous productions by the Literary Confederacy
knew that the letter to the editor was Sands's favorite form
of humor.
The dialogue closes by mentioning two other things that
could be expected in the new magazine:
Pub. You will also insert scientific communications.
Ed. If we can get them: they will make good ballast.
Pub. And poetry--

Ed. Yes, alas! we must have somquood poetry . . . .

156

As for magazine poetry, however, it is generally mere

810 s. I can make it myself, on a pinch, if it is

absolutely necessary to stop up a hiatus. My verses

fill up a gap, as well as Falstaff's soldiers did a

pit, full as well as any others of the same length.

(P. 6)

Reviews, essays, tales, satires, letters, and poetry, then,
was what readers could expect from the Atlantic, and the pro-
mise was made good to them in the course of the next year,
oftentimes from the pen of the editor himself who made
contributions in each category.

Only two reviews can definitely be attributed to Sands;
although he most likely was the author of six or seven others.19
As he promised, the serious reviews make only positive comments
on the value of the book or lecture. The review of Ira Hill's
Theory of the World is one which exposes quackery through
humor. Hill theorized that heat in the center of the earth,
pushed up land areas above the sea. Sands calls Hill un-
patriotic for having America be the last land area to appear.
He blames Hill for the nation's sectional problems because his
theory has the middle and northern states rising after the
South. The review ends by saying:

Every idea is original, every illustration apposite,
every argument unanswerable. But praise is super-
fluous. The author will make his own way, and after
having formed two continents with such apparent ease,

it will be hard indeed if he does not stand his own

ground. (Atlantic, I, 48)

Sands's moral judgments of literature are illustrated,

as might be exPected, in a review of Lord Byron. Speaking of

his "The Deformed Transformed," Sands says,

I do not, however, uphold the propriety of writing
such books . . . . It is therefore hoped that many,

157

even of those who are capable of relishing fine
poetry, will not read this drama. The moral sense
very soon becomes dull, by the familiarity of the
mind with images and sentiments, at first strange
and revolting. (Atlantic, I,65)

 

Other specific critical ideas of Sands will be examined in
Section IV of this chapter.

One of the most noteworthy items Sands wrote for his own
magazine was an essay on "Domestic Literature," which was
published in the second issue. The essay is a vigorous
rebuttal of an article, "Modern Literature," by Thatcher Payne
in the first issue. In his essay, Payne sounds like a con-
servative critic who dislikes the new, romantic, or what he
calls "modern," trend in literature; however, he feels that
national associations are too few to produce any literature
yet:

It is the magic of association that fits everything
for the poet's hand and at this moment, and it will
perhaps be the case for years to come, more poetry is
to be made out of the humblest hillock upon the sur—
face of the long inhabited regions of the other con-

tinent, than out of the whole American chain of Apalaches,
Alleganies [sic] , and Andes. (Atlantic, I, 22)

 

Sands was willing to concede that our national associations
'were few, but, he says, "I insist that the local associations

are many, and of deep interest" (Writings, I, 104).

 

A main point of contention was over the Indian, of whom,

Payne says, "nothing can be made." The author of Yamoyden

 

was, of course, quick to disagree:

The creative faculty is wanting; not the materials

to be wrought upon. If scenes of unparalleled tor-
ture and indefatigable endurance, perservering
vengeance, and unfailing friendship, hair-breadth
escapes, and sudden ambush,--if the horrors of gloomy
forests and unexplored caverns, tenanted by the most

158
terrible banditti,--if faith in wild predictions, and
entire submission of the soul to the power of ancient
legends and visionary prophecies, are useful to the
poet or romancer, here they may be found in abundance
and endless variety. (Writings, 1,107)
Sands feels the Indians might well be material for an epic.
Their mythology and metaphoric speech, he believes, are pure
poetry.

Sands also disagrees with Payne's statement "that of tra-
ditionary history we have hardly any that is of a romantic
character" (Atlantic, I, 21). In defense, Sands recommends
that Payne read what Palfrey, in his review of Yamoyden, had
said about New England as a fertile source for romance.

Sands also points out how Irving and Cooper had used New York
history for romance.

Why Sands allowed such an uncharacteristic article in
the first number of his new magazine can only be conjectured.
Perhaps it was something Bliss and White had arranged to
have written for the inaugural issue; at least it was written
Specifically for the first issue. Perhaps Sands put in an
opposing view in order to be objective. Most likely he put
it in with the intention of giving it a strong answer. It
was probably an effort by Sands to stir up some controversy
and thereby arouse interest in the new journal. Sands had
effectively aroused just such a controversy with his criticism
of The Forum at the beginning of his Neologist series of
essays.

Payne and Sands, however, agree on Payne's final point:

the necessity for a prospective author to gain a wide

159
knowledge of literature, past and present, English, American
and foreign. This, Payne hopes, will "awaken the curiosity
and excite the emulation of the few among us, who are, or
may become, aspirants to similar distinctions" (Atlantic, I, 23).
This was quite obviously the course Sands would pursue in the
Atlantic, which includes articles on Greek, Italian, Spanish,
Latin American, German, Arabian, Egyptian, and French litera-
ture and culture.
A good example of how Sands introduced Americans to

foreign literature is his "The Caio Gracco of Monti,‘ in the
Atlantic's fifth number. Vincenzo Monti was a contemporary
Italian dramatist, and his "Caio Gracco" was about twenty
years old. Sands briefly introduced Monti, then paraphrases
the drama, inserting translations of key passages. His only
criticial comment is that Monti observes the unities and
draws consistent characters. The main purpose was to put into
the hands of Americans the works of one of the best contem-
porary.dramatists. The fact that Sands wrote this eleven
page (printed) paraphrase, which contained nearly 400 lines
of translation, in a single evening, was, as Verplanck says,
"a remarkable example of the facility of Mr. Sands in composi-
tion" (Writings, I, 138).

This effort to broaden the Americans' literary heritage
prompted Sands to publish in the Atlantic six of his imitations
of Horace and one translation from the poetry of Jean de

Gresset, the eighteenth-century French poet. Nearly all of

the rest of Sands's poetry in the Atlantic was humorous. Sands

160
intended that a magazine should entertain as well as instruct,
and he did his best with "The Elegy on Henry Slender," "Wild
Geese," and "Michael Hildesheim," a versified tale about a
man who found it impossible to quit swearing.

Sands's favorite vehicle of humor was the letter to the
editor from some fictitious country bumpkin. One of the best
examples of this genre is found in the fourth issue of the
Atlantic. In "A Letter from Orange County," Rip Van Boskerk
reports that his life was one of contentment until he was
placed on the building committee for a new church. Since then,
all the talk of "symmetry, and proportion, and effects, or . . .
pedestals, and cornices, and pediments, and basements and
columns," has gotten him "clean addled." Since the Atlantic
had mentioned architecture in an article on the fine arts, Rip
wants the editor to advise him on the best type of church to
build. This light-hearted satire on the Dutch love of creature
comforts and lack of esthetic good taste was popular among the
Knickerbockers and was a common ingredient of their humorous
writings.

Sands wrote a short story for almost every issue of the
Atlantic he edited.20 The best was called variously "A Story
from a Correspondent in Virginia" when it was published in the
Atlantic, "The Man Who Burnt John Rogers" when Verplanck
included it in Sands's Writings, and The Executioner when it
was illegally republished by William Beastall in Philadelphia.
This romanticégothic tale, set during one of Sir Walter Ra-

leigh's voyages to America, remained popular in anthologies

161
until 1889.21 It is the psychological study of the effects
of a guilty conscience, and is thus of literary interest as
a predecessor of similar studies by Hawthorne, Poe, and Mel-
ville. The unnamed protagonist is quite obviously suffering
physical and mental torture over some hidden secret, and is
therefore shunned by the ship's passengers and crew: "this
wretched exile found himself the focal object of aversion,
hatred, and disgust" (Writings, II, 31).

One young man named Rogers, however, befriended him and
drew his Oppressing story from him. During the days of Bloody
Mary in England, the protagonist had thrived on watching the
executions of Protestants and even took part in one by light-
ing the fire to burn a kind parson named John Rogers. The
face of the preacher and his distressed family haunted him
from that moment on. He was going to America to try to escape
reminders of his moral, but not illegal, transgression.

The story is left unresolved. One naturally expects
there to be some connection between the John Rogers who was
burned and the Rogers who befriends the distraught executioner
on Raleigh's ship. However, the story abruptly ends with
the editorial note, "Here there is a large defect in the
manuscript." It is left ambiguous as to whether the defect
‘was in the manuscript from the Virginia correspondent or in
the manuscript from which the correspondent had taken his
information. The whole idea that the story is being taken from
an old manuscript is not mentioned in the beginning, and prob-

ably is used in the end to finish a story of which Sands had

162
no clear conception. In other words, the tale has its
affecting parts, but there seems to have been no overall
plan for it. The portrait of a man suffering from a guilty
conscience is well drawn. The attempt by the crew to throw
the protagonist overboard during a storm obviously parallels
the Biblical story of Jonah, but for no apparent purpose. And
the story of his life is compelling. But the overall impres-
sion is disappointing, especially in light of the obvious
possibilities for the resolution of the plot.

The American Quarterly_Review critic may have had this
story in mind when he said of Sands's prose fiction: "He
does not arrange well the materials Of his story. We admire
each particular part, but are dissatisfied with the general
effect" (XV, 419). We are left with1he impression that Sands
had to meet a deadline before he had time to finish the story.
We know from Verplanck that most of his works were hastily
composed, and this seems to have been one of them. But per—
haps it is unfair to judge this tale by criteria developed
since Sands wrote. In a time when the short story was still
considered just an abbreviated novel and was often more of a
vehicle to display fine writing than some unified impression,
"The Man Who Burnt John Rogers" stands out as a powerful
story. As Frank Luther Mott says, "it is a notable tale for
the times."22

"Joseph," another of Sands's Atlantic stories, has a more
unified but duller plot which is saved only by flashes of

Sands's wit and humor. The most important thing about the

163
story is the fine picture it gives of Sands, only slightly
disguised as the narrator, during the disastrous Yellow
Fever epidemic of 1822. Sands, like most 'New Yorkers, fled
the quarantined lower city to find temporary quarters in
Greenwich Village. As narrator of "Joseph," he drew a graphic
picture of the life of a refugee in Greenwich:

To get a miserable breakfast, in a negro's
cellar, at eight a.m. for which four shillings
were demanded; to saunter about,--in dry weather,
through dust and horses and cars and stages, and their
drivers, in wet weather, through mud and water, and
swine and men--until noon; when in the midSt of the
crowd, I must stretch my neck and strain my eyes, in
order to read the anxiously expected "Report of the
Board of Health," affixed, like the laws of Caligula,
to a lofty pillar, and written in a cramped and almost
illegible hand; to waste three hours more in listless
inaction, waiting for the dinner bell of Sykes or
Niblo; then to squeeze one's self between two fat,
hungry citizens, regardless of every one's wants but
their own; . . . to rise from the table, despairing
of dinner, and pay for what has not been eaten; to
waste the interval between dinner and supper in walking
ten miles to find a friend; . . . and then, to sum up
all, to throw yourself with eternal thanks for good
fortune, on a straw pallet, in a wretched garret,
sufficiently heated to roast turkies' eggs, where
you toss and tumble until morning, when you arise
to a repitition of the self-same pleasant recrea-
tion: These are a few of the comforts which were
enjoyed by myself, during the months of July and
August, 1822; and by other tenants of Greenwich
Village, for a much longer time. (Atlantic, I, 264)

The rest of the story deals with how he finally sought refuge
with friends in a country mansion, only to hire a servant
who brought in Yellow Fever from the city.

The wide variety of material Sands wrote for his own
magazine is indicative of the Atlantic's contents, which
ranged from commentary on current events to new, original

literature; from extracts of popular books or collections of

164
letters of letters to reviews of books and cultural events.
Its contents were not unlike that of its namesake of a cen-
tury and a half later.

Even though the Atlantic's articles were anonymous, some
important contributors can be determined. Naturally, the
Literary Confederacy, out of whose meetings the idea for the
magazine came, was well represented. Stories by Neilson and
poetry by Manton Eastburn can be identified, and most likely
Ward wrote some of the articles on law. However, Confederate
participation was not as great as the first issue, nearly
half of which was written by them, seemed to forecast. Other
contributors were Dr. James DeKay (brother-in-law of Joseph
Rodman Drake), Dr. David Hosack and Dr. L. M. Peixotto (all
'well-known New York physicians), William Sampson (an eminent
lawyer), the poets Halleck and Bryant, and professor Henry
J.. Anderson. Most of the above were members of the Bread
and Cheese Club, which evidently proved to be an ideal place
to solicit contributions.

In spite of the help from contributors, Sands still had
to write a large share of the 80 pages a month himself. This
he did on tOp of all the editorial work. Meanwhile, sub-
scribers to the magazine never ran more than a few hundred
at the most. In October of 1824, Sands sought help from Henry
Anderson, a professor of mathematics and astronomy at Columbia.
In November, when the first issue of Volume II was published,
Anderson was listed as co-editor of the slightly enlarged

magazine. Thereafter, contributions by Sands quickly

165
diminished, and early in 1825 he completely faded out of the
picture, evidently discouraged with the difficulties of maga-
zine journalism in the young country.

The second and last volume of the Atlantic, which was
edited mostly by Anderson, differs noticeably from the first
volume. In the hands of Anderson, the tone of the magazine
became more serious, original literature was kept to a
minimum, and most of the space was devoted to book reviews,
primarily of English and American literature. There was less
of a cosmopolitan interest than when Sands ran the magazine;
originally the magazine was characterized by a wide variety
of subject matter from many different countries.

Although Sands seems to have grown discouraged with the
magazine business almost too quickly, he still deserves
credit for sensing the need in New York for a journal of
literature and criticism and for starting what proved to be
an excellent journal. He also helped set the tone for New

York criticism (see section IV of this chapter).

The New—York Review and Athenaeum Magazine

One of the people who watched the precarious existence
of the Atlantic most closely was William Cullen Bryant. The
up-state Massachusetts lawyer had come to New York in April
of 1824, seeking a position as an editor. While there, he
met Sands in the home of his host, Robert Sedgwick. Bryant
mentioned the dinner party in a letter to his wife back in
Great Barrington:

I dined yesterday at Mr. Robert Sedgwick's in company

166

of authors--Mr. Cooper, the novelist; Mr. Halleck,

the author of 'Fanny'; Mr. Sands, author of 'Yamoyden';

Mr. Johnson, the reporter (of the Court of Appeals),

and some other literary gentlemen. Mr. Cooper

engrossed the whole conversation, and seems a little

giddyzgith the great success his works have met

with.
Out of this meeting grew an intimate friendship between Sands
and Bryant, who had much in common with each other. Their love
of literature had caused disenchantment with law, and both
were attempting to combine their vocation and avocation in
a career of editorial writing. Bryant, like Sands, had woven
Indian legends into his verse, and both were strong advocates
of a national literature which used native subjects and
settings.

Bryant returned to Massachusetts without finding work as
an editor; meanwhile he closely followed the fortunes of
Sands's new magazine, even contributing a poem or two.
Naturally Bryant was interested when Henry Sedgwick told him
that Bliss and White were looking for a competent editor
to replace Sands and help Anderson. Sedgwick wrote Bryant:
"I should think it likely, by remodeling the Atlantic, con-

necting it in some way with the 'Atheneum,‘ & adding your
name as one of the Editors, a great circulation might be
obtained."24 Bryant came to New York the following month to
investigate the situation.

He found that the Atlantic was beginning to revive
under the direction of Anderson, largely due to a new interest

in literature sparked by the newly formed Athenaeum. He also

found that the Athenaeum was considering establishing a journal

167
of their own which would combine the functions of a literary
review and a magazine--Sands's original plan for the Atlantic.
Henry and Robert Sedgwick and Verplanck were urging the
Athenaeum to do so and to make Bryant one of the editors of
the new magazine. The plan Henry Sedgwick had originally
mentioned was finally worked out: the Athenaeum agreed to
take over the Atlantic and change its name to the New York

Review and Athenaeum Mggazine. They would keep Anderson on

 

as editor and hire Bryant to help him.

Bryant returned to Great Barrington much pleased at the
prospect of becoming an editor in New York. By the end of
.March he had worked out a prospectus and come back to New
York to promote the new magazine. The April issue of the
Atlantic completed volume II. By the end of May, the first

(June) issue of the New York Review was ready to be distribu-

 

ted to six hundred subscribers. Though neither magazine men-
tioned it, the fact that both magazines had the same editor
and publisher made it obvious that the New York Review was
intended to be the successor of the Atlantic.

Sands was evidently connected with the new magazine in
some minor capacity at first, most likely handling editorial
and circulation duties, as suggested by William Cullen
Bryant II.25 Sands gradually replaced Professor Anderson,
whose contributions dwindled after the first few issues to an
occasional notice of some work in his field. Evidently there
was some question at the end of the first six months as to

whether or not Sands had replaced Anderson, for a note at the

168

end of the December 1825 issue says: "The subscribers to the
New-York Review and Athenaeum Magazine are informed that the
Senior Editor [Anderson] of the Journal still continues to
conduct it, in conjunction with his former Associate" (NYE,
II, 83). From that time on, however, Sands contributed up to
one-fourth of each issue, or about the same amount of material F“
as Bryant. Two months later (February, 1826), Sands was '

evidently handling enough of the editorial work that he could

insert, unbeknowns to the senior editors, an essay which (

 

slyly and cleverly attacked the pompous dissertations of

,I‘-w;‘.’3.‘¢_‘ .-

political scientists. This attack embarassed Anderson and
Bryant when they found it in print, and the next month they
printed a signed apology:

It has been found necessary to state to the readers

of the New York Review and Atheneum Magazine, that

the article in the last number, entitled, "An Apology

for an Essay," was inserted without the knowledge of

the responsible editors, who, it is well known, have

always entertained a high Opinion of the importance

of those studies against which the pleasantry of the

article appears to be directed. H.J.A.

W.C.B. (P. 324)

By the end of the first year of publication, it appears that
Sands had completely displaced Anderson as a co-editor.

Although Anderson had the title of senior editor,
Bryant held the reins and did most of the editorial work;
as a result, the tone and format of the magazine remained
consistent. The first half, or "review" portion, of the eighty-
four pages were devoted to reviews of new publications, while

the last half, the "athenaeum" or "magazine" part, offered

poetry and fiction interspersed with notices and articles

169
on opera and the fine arts. The two parts were distinctly
divided by separate title pages and different formats.

Among the reviews, there was a nice balance between
American and foreign titles. Sands and Bryant were not going
to let their interest in promoting a national literature lower
their level of taste; therefore, we find reviews on Byron,
Scott, Thomas Moore,end lesser English writers among those on
such Americans as Paulding, Cooper, Percival, Hillhouse,
Catherine Sedgwick, Lydia Sigourney, Daniel Webster, and
Edward Everett. Travel narratives and accounts of exploration
found a place among the reviews. Also, booksinfforeign
languages were reviewed by the editors, who, between them,
understood most of the modern European languages.

The eight reviews by Sands reflect the diversity of new
publications which were noticed by the Review. He dealt
fairly with biographies on Richard Henry Lee and John Paul
Jones, praising the first and damning the latter. Biographies
of famous Americans were compatible with his espousal of‘a
national literature: "The past presents to him [an American]
on its roll of renown, a list of statesmen, soldiers, and
philosophers, on the wealth of whose fame other nations might
have quietly reposed for centuries (NYE, II, 24).

Sands reviewed at least ten books of original poetry and
two translations. His poetry criticism is sound and apprecia—

tive, but sometimes uneven, and he generally uses a chatty,

familiar, slightly satirical tone: "But here is our old friend

Doctor M'Henry come again, twaddling in heroics about the

 

 

170
Pleasures of Friendship. . . . What will he do next? . . .
Bye-the-bye, the Doctor has got out a new novel lately, as we
have understood" (NYE, II, 132). Reviewing Byron's ngkg,
he suggests that readers need not let the man's life spoil
their enjoyment of his work: "Because the genius of an indi-
vidual has made his name familiar in men's mouths as household
words, are his domestic miseries, his private habits, to be
subjected to the scrutiny of each unit in the universal
rabble?" (N33, II, 330)

In reviewing The Last of the Mohicans, he points out that
if Cooper had one weakness, it was in his treatment of female
characters. Then he accurately summarizes the narrative
action: "There is power, and a fearful interest in these
descriptions, which, it needs no prophet to predict, will
excite the feelings, and entrance the attention of generations
that are to come long after our own" (NYE, II, 292). Sands
also reviewed A New & Improved Spanish Grammar, which he
recommends as a basis for studying Spanish, a language he
felt was vital in View of America's commercial and political
ties to Latin America.

Sands's most interesting review is on Mornings at Bow-
Street, an English compilation of humorous newspaper reports
about criminals being arraigned, or, as Sands describes them,

. . .those who have been out a-larking, after the

solemn noon of night; who have been fatigued by their

peripatetic exercises; who have, perhaps, stimulated
a little beyond the measure of prudence, and have
been compelled to invoke 'nature's sweet restorer,

balmy sleep,‘ in an attitude almost anyhow--on a
bench, or in a dark corner--what an awkward squad

171

they compose! They have been very naughty, and we
ought to be sorry and ashamed for them. But they
cut such a droll figure, from crown to toe, that we
feel, for the moment, as if it were more natural

to laugh than to shed tears. (Writings, II, 311)

He then goes on, with high-flown diction and classical allu-
sions, to summarize some of the situations reported by the
newspaper. He ends on a serious note, explaining why America
has no literature of this type:

But we are too patriotic not to be willing to ascribe the
dullness of our own police literature to another cause
than the obtuseness of our reporters. We would fain
believe that the morality of our nation is too strong
to approve and cultivate, as yet, this habit [bf] turning
the solemn drama of Justice into a farce. We hope
it may long continue to be the case . . . .

(Writiggs, II, 315)

 

 

To the "Athenaeum" or original literature section of the
magazine, Sands contributed only four verse translations and
the controversial "Apology for an Essay," which satirized
political writers. Three of the poems were translated from
the Spanish verse of Lope de Vega and have little merit.

The fourth poem, a translation of Politan's verse (fifteenth-
century Italian), is a pastoral piece which Sands called
"The Garden of Venus." The stanza describing and personify-
ing the spring flowers typifies this fragment of heroic
verse:
Dawn rears fresh violets still, with tender care,
Of white, of yellow, and of purple dies;
Sad Hyacinthus shows his legend there;
Narcissus in the lymph of his image spies;
In vestal robe, with purple border fair,
Pale Clytic to the sun still turns her eyes

Adonis of his woes the tale resumes;
Crocus his three tongues shows: Acanthus joyous blooms.

(Writings, I, 160)

 

 

4“

u.-

,..
o

A.

.o‘

 

172

The temptation to comment on the poem is stifled by Sands's
warning in the letter which preceded the verses: "If you are
disposed to criticise my verses, I advise you to try your own
hands at a translation of the original, before you express
any unqualified sentence of condemnation" (Writings, I, 156).

The poetry published in the Athenaeum section included
some of the best work of Bryant, Longfellow, Halleck, Dana
(Sr.), Willis, and George Bancroft. In fact, Parke Godwin

claimed the New York Review far surpassed all its competitors

 

in this department}.7 Contributors to other sections of the
journal included such prominent New Yorkers as Verplanck,
Henry Sedgwick, Professor James Renwick, Anthony Bleecker,
and J. K. Paulding.

The Review's "notices" of the fine arts, which included
a sympathetic essay on the controversial founding of the
National Academy; made it the first American journal to show
an interest in art, according to art and literary historian,
James T. Callow.26 Both Bryant and Sands had close friends
among the rebellious artist who formed the National Academy
and both had a deep appreciation of art. Their journalistic
interest in art was one of the things that helped arouse support
for America's struggling artists. The operatic notices were
done largely by Anderson, the son-in-law of Lorenzo da Ponte,
the distinguished Venetian and professor of Italian, who helped
bring the first Italian Opera Troupe to New York in 1825.

But in spite of the wide variety of excellent material

written by some of the nation's best authors, the Review never

173
_got off the ground. By the end of the first year of publishing
it was in financial trouble. Subscriptions, the only source
of income in the days before magazine advertising, never
reached much more than a thousand and were difficult to collect,
due to the same world-wide financial crisis that ruined Sir
walter Scott. Furthermore, its sponsor, the New York Athenaeum,
was in decline again and soon lost interest in the magazine.
There were also justifiable complaints that the magazine was
too serious and offered too little amusement.

Bryant responded to these problems by arranging a merger

‘with Boston's U. S. Literarngazette. According to the

 

agreement reached with James G. Carter, the Review's staff
‘would become the New York branch of the Gazette in July of
1826. Anderson was to withdraw entirely, leaving Bryant as
the New York editor and Sands as his assistant. In October

the name would be changed to The U. S. Review and Literary

 

Gazette. Actually, Bryant's duties with the new magazine
never amounted to any more than recruiting reviewers for books
published in New York and heading the department called
Original Poetry. Sands had no editorial duties with the new
magazine, but did contribute at least two translations of
French verse and two brief critical notices.28

Bryant and Sands's share in the new magazine was hardly
sufficient to keep them busy and well paid. Therefore, when

Bryant was asked to take over the‘EveninggPost in June, he

 

jumped at the chance and began what turned out to be a career

that lasted nearly half a century. Sands, who appears to

174
have worked closely with Bryant in whatever he did during
this period, temporarily ran the Post during the late summer
of 1826 while Bryant was on vacation. This fact, which has
been unnoted by historians of the Post and biographers of
Bryant, is substantiated by a delightful letter from Sands
to Bryant during the latter's absence from the city:
I sat down to answer your letter in the office

of the Post, SE length; but being interrupted seven-

teen times for two successive days, I gave it up in

despair. . . .

I have not found it unpleasant to officiate as

your successor, though it occupies much more time

than I had anticipated. There has been a great

want of elasticity in the air, and a disagreeable

closeness, worse than intense heat, which has made

metfeel sgmetimes as if my brains were stewed and

seething. 9 '
As a result of his connection with the Evening Post, Sands
was offered a share in the paper at the same time Bryant was
made one of its prpprietors, in 1827. He nearly decided to
join Bryant as an assistant, but finally declined in favor
of a similar position at the New York Commerical Advertiser.

Thus Sands, like Bryant, finally found a stable vocation

from which he could practice his avocation, literature.
After realizing that law and literature were not compatible,
Sands had tried to marry his vocation and avocation by
starting, editing, and writing critical journals, but like
others who had gone that route before him, he found the
magazine business, at best, a precarious source of income.
Determined to write in an age and country that supported few

professional authors, Sands finally had to rely on journalism

for financial support.

 

175

Sands's'Philosophy of Literary Criticism
Literary criticism in New York has often been considered
timid and sterile; however, Kendall B. Taft claims it is
probably more extensive and influential than usual thought.31
William Charvat, authoritative historian of early American
literary criticism, lists both Bryant and Sands among the ten

most important American critics and editors of the period

and states that the Atlantic and Review pretty much set the

 

tone for Knickerbocker literary criticism.

In assessing Sands's critical position, we could examine
the total content and critical stance of both magazines, since,
as editor or co-editor, he would be responsible for the views
therein. However, because of Sands's on-again-off-again
involvement in the two journals, it is safer to use only the
reviews and articles written by Sands to illustrate his
ideas on literature.

One of the most surprising elements in the criticism of
the worldly, witty founder of the Atlantic is his ubiquitous
morality. In the Atlantic's introductory article, the
editor pledged himself "to repel all attacks upon morality,
or correct principle, when there is talent enough to render
them dangerous" (I, 6). In the next two years Sands was
always certain to point out the moral worth of the work being
reviewed. Of the novel Redwood, Sands comments: "the vein
of pure moral feeling which runs through it, and the instruc-
tive lesson it is designed to teach, demand for the authoress

[Catherine M. Sedgwick] no common place among writers of this

 

176
class" (Atlantic, 1, 239). Reviewing nine collections of
"Recent Poetry" (NYE, II, 181-94), he spoke of the moral
quality of nearly every one.

The poetry of Lord Byron, which Sands loved and knew
thoroughly, tested his convictions that the critic's duty
was to repress anything immoral. Generally he condemned
Byron's work as morally worthless. For instance, he "hOped
that many, even those who [were] capable of relishing fine
poetry," would not read Byron's "The Deformed Transformed."

He explains why: "The moral sense very soon becomes dull,

 

by the familiarity of the mind with images and sentiments,

at first strange and revolting" (Atlantic, I, 65). Reviewing
a book which tried to excuse Byron's moral character because
he was a genius, Sands has to disagree: "though mankind are
willing to forget the frailties of those who have left them

a rich intellectual legacy, it is vain to endeavor to make
them excuse moral, on the ground of mental obliquity. And

so it should be . . ." (Atlantic, II, 98). One of Sands's
best reviews was a long one on Byron in the New York Review,
in which he calls Don Juan "an exceedingly imprOper book"
(II, 329). In this review, however, Sands does his best to
justify Byron's work. "Don Juan" he thinks is useful because
"it proves the boundless capabilities of the English language,
in its present state, for every variety of metre, every tone
of feeling in poetry; its fertility of rhyme; and its elasti-
city, if we may so speak, in adapting its syllables to the

fancy or necessity of the composer" (II, 329). Sands also

177
excuses Byron as a victim of circumstances and says his pri-
vate life should be none of our business. Sands finally
asserts that Byron is the greatest poet of the nineteenth
century (none in the eighteenth century come near him) and
ranks him with Spenser, Shakespeare and Milton.
Sands gave his definition of poetry in a review on Byron.

He says the thing that distinguishes poetry from prose is

"w-m-

"a certain measure, necessarily leading to a certain inver-
sion of phraseolOgY: the use of certain words in a peculiar

sense, and the coinage of others, by which every language soon

 

cmmes to possess a distinct poetical dialect" (Atlantic, II,
102). The stylistic devices mentioned here coupled with Sands's
earlier comment on the effect of poetry--"that it conveys
beautiful or sublime pictures to the mind"33--pretty much

sums up his idea of poetry. Unlike other Knickerbocker
critics, Sands was as much or more concerned with poetic
techniques as with the subject matter of poetry. Poetry should
use imaginative 1anguage--"the moment description becomes
technically accurate, it ceases to be poetry at a11"(Atlantic,
II, 103), yet he criticizes the imagination "running riot"
(NYE, II, 183). He censures Edward C. Pinkney because "he is
too much on the stretch for metaphor, and wings his flight

to too remote regions in his quest" (NYE, II, 190).

Both the Atlantic and Review advocated Wordsworthian

 

ideas of simplicity in diction, which is only reasonable when
one considers that Bryant was one of Wordsworth's first

American disciples. Sands's strongest statement on the

178
subject is found in his essay on "Domestic Literature":

The ornate, overloaded, obviously artificial, and

often dissolute style of the lighter literature of

the day, with its endless redundance, useless verbiage,
and unmeaning allusions, affords no precedent for our
primitial classics. It ought not to, and it is pleasant
to observe that it does not, suit the genius of our
nation; for those writers who have been most success-
ful among ourselves have been most distinguished for
cultivated simplicity. The affected parade of superfi-
cial acquirements, and the actual possession of sound
and general knowledge, are not easily confounded.
(Writings, I, 112-l3)

___' {abab-2m

Sands is referring to prose here, but he had come to feel the

same way about poetic diction.

 

 

1

Sands's comments on poetry often reflect the Scottish L
cmmmon sense school of criticism, especially Archibald Alison's
ideas on association as the basis of poetry. Sands called
Byron's poetry great because it "awakened . . . a thousand
associations" (NYE, II, 329). The Atlantic and Review were
among the first American journals to accept Alison's principle
of association, which eventually provided the transition
between classical and romantic ideas of literature. The
principle of association requires that the poet have a wide
range of experience. Sands also believed a poet "who would
acquire any permanent celebrity" must have "a liberal acquain-
tance with the past history and present state of the literary

world" (Writings, I, 112). In his reviews, Sands often

 

rued American poets' lack of classical background.

The Atlantic and Review were among the first New York

 

journals to establish any critical position on the novel, an
area pretty much neglected before 1825.34 Broadly stated,

their position demanded realism and probability.

179
Sands, in his reviews, calls for unified, realistic
plots. In a critically effeCtive understatement, he proposes

that James McHenry'S‘O'Halloran must "have been composed . . .

 

at the type fount. The plot seems to be made as it goes
along; which is indeed the most natural way; and the same in
'which events usually turn up in the world we live in. The
only objection we can perceive to this mode of doing business,
is, that it may sometimes give rise to inconsistencies in
character or incident" (Atlantic, I, 210). He criticizes the
plot of Hobomok as unnatural, improbable and unsatisfactory.
.Miss Sedgwick's Redwood, he feels, is a better novel because
in its incidents "we recognize what we all have seen and
heard and observed" (Atlantic, I, 236).

In his most important review of a piece of fiction,

Sands asks of COOper's Last of the Mohicans: "are there not

 

some things unaccounted for, and many pushed beyond the verge
of probability?" (NYE, II, 291) One thing Sands feels is
particularly improbable is the motivation for having two young
girls travel through such hostile country: "Filial piety had
urged these maidens to penetrate the wilderness, to visit a
father whom they adored; but the motive is scarcely sufficient
to justify their leaving the safer quarters of Webb, for a
beseiged and ill—provided fortress" (NYE, II, 289). But Sands
treats his colleague gently and lets him off the hook: "In

a high wrought romance, we have no right to find fault with
the extraordinary nature of circumstances, which, however

startling and unexpected, are possible" (II, 291).

”c-

. l-
.-

 

 

 

 

3’4

'5‘

 

 

1.

'!

180

When it came to characterization, Sands took a firmer
stand on realism and probability. Like most of his contem-
poraries, he was aware of the Aristotelian distinction be-
tween possibility and probability.35 He disliked a large
number of characters in a plot36 and wanted all characters
to be realistic and fully drawn. He liked Mohegan [Chingach-
gook] in CoOper's Pioneers and felt he was "drawn by one
who observes accurately, and describes what he sees faith-
fully" (writings, 1,105). On the other hand, Sands calls
characters like the singing master in Mohicans "bores" because
they "stick too close to their own peculiarity, with want of
variety, which we do not find even in real bores; and which
is sometimes tiresome, and by no means ingenious" (NYE, II,
289). Sands also demanded that characters talk like real
peOple.37 Someone looking for realistic character portrayal
would naturally dislike the women in COOper's novels: "If
he fails any where, it is in the management of his female
personages" (NYE, II, 292).

Naturally, the advocate of literary nationalism had high
praise for an author who used American material. In "Domes-
tic Literature" he declared that American writers should
devote themselves to subjects of domestic interest. Sands

probably wrote the review on The Witch of New England which

 

says, "The author of this story has borrowed materials from
the annals of New England, and has furnished additional proof
of their peculiar fitness for the purposes of a writer of

fiction" (Atlantic, I, 392). Of course, Sands was particularly

181
delighted with Cooper's use of the Indian and American material:
The Last of the MOhicans "has proved the capabilities of our
history and varying manners, for all the purposes of high
or pleasing fiction" (NYE, II, 292).
Part of Sands's program for promoting an American litera-
ture included an attempt to arouse public support and interest

in our literature. Sands most likely wrote the Atlantic

 

“h . i} .13",

essay on "Public Spirit," which reflected

P'._

. . . the longing desire that public spirit may spring
up among us, and spread itself, like other blessings
of freedom, over our city. Then may the Goddess of
Commerce, with her benignant smile, cheer the labours
of the artist, and crown his works with golden rewards;
and then may stately public edifices, magnificent and
tasteful, be reared amidst us, proudly attesting the
blessings of wealth. (Atlantic, I, 185)

it“

 

l‘—.-‘

 

All in all, Sands probably did as much as any American to
create an indigenous literature and esthetic appreciation.
Sands's method of literary criticism was gentle. He
believed one of the ways to establish a national literature
was to carefully nurture every new literary prospect. He
quite fairly points out the defects of a work, but spends more
time landing the good points and the effort made by an author.
He opened a review of nine books of poetry with a mock-heroic
invocation which not only sums up his method of criticism
but provides a delightful glimpse of Sands's humor and
personality:
Phoebus Apollo! Look down, not upon a poet, but upon
a distressed reviewer, who has dared to summon for
inspection, a small platoon of thy votaries. May he
handle their laurels tenderly; and discompose no single

Chaplet, in endeavoring to ascertain whether it be
real or artificial! May he crack no chords of any

 

a...

‘Q

 

 

.‘i

 

'v

‘v

‘s

 

 

182

individual lyre, in examining whether it be strung
after the fashion of thine own! He bears no malice
against the tuneful tribe; for their strains have made
many an hour glide away happily, and innocently, and
unregretted.‘ He knows the morbid (or rather the sacred)
sensibility of the bard; for he committed poetry once,
and was cut up delightfully. The dog of a reviewer
who worried him, did his business in a workmanlike
manner; but, unfortunately, showed so much abominable
ignorance, as to make his brutal castigation ineffectual
in the way of improvement.

Fate never wounds so deep the generous heart,

As when a blockhead's venom points the dart.

(NYE, II, 181)

Evidently, as a result of the harsh review of his Bridal of

 

Vaumond, Sands determined that criticism should be gentle,
judicial and constructive. And this was the course he followed

as reviewer for the Atlantic and New York Review. In cases

 

where other reviewers might have thought harsh criticism was
warranted, Sands used satire. Paul Allen and James McHenry
were two victims of Sands's satire, which is always good
natured and seldom attacks the person, but rather what they
stand for or produce. It was on this basis that Sands
criticized Byron's satire on the "English Bards." Attacks
on people, Sands felt, were despicable and soon out of date.38
Though Sands only worked as a literary critic for two years,
the quality and nature of his criticism provided precedent
and set the direction for later New York magazines.39 His
constructive analysis encouraged and pointed the way for
America's fledgling literature during its first and most
impressionable decade. His judicial, gentle, and moralistic
criticism set the tone for Knickerbocker criticism during the

next decade.

CHAPTER VI

THE JOURNALIST: SANDS FINDS SECURE EMPLOYMENT

When Colonel William L. Stone, editor of the New York

Commercial Advertiser, offered the unemployed, former editor

 

of the Atlantic and New York Review the position of assistant

 

editor at a "liberal salary," Sands immediately accepted.l
He left his virtually non-existent legal career, moved out
of his office and residence at 35 Cedar Street, and went to
live with his aging parents in Hoboken. For the next six
years, he commuted to New York daily via the Hoboken ferry.
These changes marked the beginning of a new phase in
his career. With secure employment, he played an even more
active part in the social affairs of the New York literati
and artists where he was loved for his congeniality, wit, and
humor. He continued his love affair with literature, but
with a slight change in attitude: literature became more a
pleasant diversion than a serious avocation. Literary pro-
jects were just as plentiful, but more and more they reflected
Sands's joy at creating something with convivial associates
and for the approval and enjoyment of others. Though still
an advocate of a national literature, he seemed to become
less concerned himself about producing important literature.

Between 1827 and 1832 Sands earned the reputation of a

183

 

.
u!

.t-

  

 

.-

 

4'

.1

184
Knickerbocker wit. This might have been Sands's life style
for many years, as it was Bryant's, had notdeath cut him off
in 1832.

It was not unusual at this time for aspiring writers to
turn to journalism for financial security (few in the country
actually made a living from magazine publication or writing
books.2) Newspapers were much more in demand than books or
magazines, especially in a commercial center like New York
City. Francis Trollope was partially correct in blaming news-

papers for the poor quality of belles-lettres among the Ameri-

 

cans: "Where newspapers are the principle vehicles of the
wit and wisdom of a people the higher graces of composi-
tion can hardly be looked for." She probably had writers
like Sands in mind when she said, "That there are many among
them who can write well, is most certain; but it is at least
equally so, that they have little encouragement to exercise
the power in any manner more dignified than becoming the editor
of a newspaper or a magazine."3

Historian Allan Nevins calls journalism in New York at
this time (1827) "stagnant and undistinguished."4 Even the

city's two best papers the Commercial Advertiser and the

 

Evening Post, both evening papers, were primarily mercantile
sheets containing little more than shipping notices and
advertisements.

The Commercial Advertiser, the first New York daily of

 

any permanence, was originally called the Minerva when Noah

Webster started it in 1793. Stone, a successful publisher

185
and editor in Albany, New York came to New York City in 1820
to run this evening daily. He most likely met Sands at the
Bread and Cheese club where they were both members. He evi-
dently made Sands quite an attractive offer in order to entice

Sands to join the Commercial Advertiser, for concurrently,

 

Sands was offered a position and a share of the EveninggPost

 

at the same time Bryant was made editor and partner in that

paper. Sands, who had been editor of the Evening Post while

 

Bryant was on vacation (August-October, 1826), "entertained
it [the Eggg's offer] favorably at first, but finally declined
it."5 Sands would have enjoyed working with this good friend,
but Stone probably offered more money.

There has been some disagreement over Sands's official
position with the paper. Many sources, including The Oxford
Companion to American Literature, list Sands as the editor of

the Commercial Advertiser; on the other hand, Stone's son,

 

an historian of New York journalism, asserts that Sands was
"for some years a regular contributor to the paper, though
not . . . holding the position of associate editor."6 Sands's

friends and the Commercial Advertiser itself make it clear

 

that Sands was an assistant editor. Sands's obituary began:

"It has become our painful duty to announce the sudden death

of Robert C. Sands, Esq. engaged for a few years past as an
Assistant in the editor-ship of this Journal" (NYEE, Dec. 17,
1832). Sands was probably one of several assistants in charge
of various sections of the paper. Another assistant, apparently

of the same rank as Sands, was John Inman, brother of artist

186
Henry Inman.

Just when Sands joined the staff of the Commercial

 

Advertiser is uncertain; most likely it was about the middle

 

of February, 1827, when quite a few book reviews began to
appear. In fact, these reviews may have been Sands's first
assignments. At any rate, there seems to have been a good
deal more attention paid to literature, the fine arts, and
cultural affairs after February of 1827. It is a safe assump-
tion that Sands was involved in this new emphasis, perhaps

in charge of this section.

Due to the traditional anonymity of journalism, it is
difficult to determine what Sands wrote for the paper. Most
likely he wrote many of the reviews, which are really more
notices than reviews. The brief criticism to be found in the
notices or reviews of new books is fair, usually encouraging
and patriotic, and aims to arouse enthusiasm for American
literary productions. A sampling shows a NYQE_critic (most
likely Sands) lamenting that the British recognized the worth
of Charles Brockden Brown before the Americans did: "Indeed,
we ought to have led the way" (NYQE,30 Mar. 1827).

Sands's concern for a national literature shows through

in the review of Catharine Maria Sedgwick's HOpe Leslie

 

which applauds her use of historical incidents, names, and
manners. The reviewer claims the Puritan era is an almost
exhaustless source and "we hOpe, for the amusement and
instruction of our countrymen, the character of our own litera-

ture, and the illustration of our past annals, that she does

187

not intend to abandon it" (NYCA, 11 July 1827). The criticism

I

of Cooper's unrealistic coincidences in Red Rover sounds

 

exactly like Sands: "the account of the mysterious relation—

ships of consanguinity between the several personages is

(to us at least) utterly unintelligible" (NYSE, 15 Jan. 1828).
Sands almost certainly wrote the notice of Irving's

Life of Columbus, which mentions Mr. Rich's catalogue and

 

collection of rare Spanish documents. The comments were

by an authority on colonial Spanish manuscripts, and Sands
was at the same time corresponding with Verplanck about Mr.
Rich's catalogue and doing research in the same area. The

gist of the article is that the Life of Columbus will raise

 

Irving's reputation because "it is more worthy stuff than the

Sketch Book" (NYCA, 1 Apr. 182m. Such a remark reflects the

 

high priority Knickerbocker authors gave to biography. And
the comment on a biography raising an author's reputation
takes on added significance coming from a man beginning to
write a similar biography; perhaps Sands hoped the Cortez
biography might enhance his own reputation.

Mixed in among these legitimate reviews, Sandsfrequently
inserted a review of a non-existent novel, complete with
long extracts. Verplanck explains: "It was his sport to
excite public curiosity by giving extracts highly spiced with
fashionable allusions and satire, 'from the forthecoming
novel;' which novel in truth, was, and is yet to be written"
("Memoir," p. 17). These fake reviews sometimes aimed at

correcting a literary fault and were generally written in a

188
satirical tone. The following extract from a non-existant
novel criticizes the affectation by novelists and others
who think all knowledge consists of an acquaintance with foreign
languages:

Miss Grimes was a little embarrassee, and not a little
mortifiee that her mamma had so soon removed her from
Mademoiselle de la Jambonne, before she had acquired

a clear conception of the nice difference between the
modern cognate dialects of the ancient Roman tongue.
She was also a little emue when she anticipated the
various feelings with which the marked attentions of
Colonel Stanhope might be viewed and spoken of by the
brilliant circle around her. But she was tout a fait
discomboblificata, when she beheld an elegant —
calvaIier observing the tete a tete with a peculiar
expression of his neckloth, which indicated he was
digoute with the interruption, etc. etc.7

 

 

In this extract, Sands even went so far as to make up a word

which sounded French--discomboblificata-—from the English

 

slang term, discombobulated.

 

Sands loved this kind of mischievious word play. He
often drew unsuspecting readers into a controversy over
classical minutia involving Greek or Latin words or topics
and then overwhelmed them with authorities made up by himself.
One instance involved a discussion via letters to the editor
by some recent college graduates about the material of the
Grecian crown of victory, a tOpic stirred up by American
sympathy for the revolution in Greece. These men exhausted
their college learning and quoted all the classical authorities
in the printed debate. Sands finally ended the controversy
with a well-written essay, full of quotations in Greek, all
made up by himself. The graduates, overwhelmed with the mas-

sive evidence against them,dr0pped the subject. Another

189
series of letters debated the meaning of the Latin sig—
nature of a letter written to the Commercial Advertiser.

Two of the best of examples of Sands's learned spoofing
have been preserved by Verplanck in the collection of Sands's
Writings. The first was a letter from a John Brown to the
editors of the Commercial Advertiser, written by Sands "in
conjunction with several of his literary friends" (Writings,
II, 292, n.). Among_the friends most likely were Bryant, who
usually had a hand in this type of fun, and Verplanck, who
is implicated by the line saying these facts "were communica-
ted to me by a member of Congress, who will not volunteer his
name; but if called upon by the prOper authority, will state
all he knows about it" (Writings, II, 293). The letter
begins by poking some fun at the content of daily newspapers:

. . . I shall be gratified with your present inser-

tion of my article, although you should have to leave

out some terrible accidents, horrible massacres, and

dreadful specimens of human depravity and elemental
carelessness until the next day. Let Mr. Smith's barn
be burnt, insured or uninsured; Mr. Brown's house be
stricken with thunder and lightning, killing two

canary birds, a guinea-pig, and a Muscovy goose, value

$7 89%. Let Mr. Johnson be assaulted and battered to

any amount his attorney chooses to estimate in his writ,
and Mr. Jackson be slandered to any extent, beyond his
namesake the general, Mr. Clay, or any other great

man; but put in my article by all means, because

there is no time to lose. (NYCA, 4 Aug. 1827)

One gets the feeling that the new assistant editor found
journalism too serious and too trivial for his rampaging
sense of humor and love of life. This may account for his
brightening up the paper with intellectual fun.

The John Brown letter then gets down to the problem at

hand: "The solemn conviction of my mature judgment is, that

190
the motto devised for the ticket at the next ensuing commence-
ment of Columbia College, is, to say the least of it, very
suspicious Latin indeed--and highly dangerous to the literary
character of the institution" (NYEE, 4 Aug. 1827). The
offending Latin quotation is followed by nine different
translations by some well known authors including Cooper,
Byron, Wordsworth, and Coleridge, none of whom would have
recognized the lines of verse with which they were credited--
and less well known authors like Lionel Lingo, N.Y.H.L.S.F.L.-
P.S.N.Y. and one of the counsellors of the American Academy
of Languages. Cooper, for example, "who was formerly
attached to the navy, where, as his masterly descriptions of
naval maneuvers show, he had all his eyes open, promptly
furnished the following version:

This is the path; though rough and full of rubbers,
Climb up, my lands, and don't be lazy lubbers."

The letter concludes with a Dutch version of the quotation

which is worthy of Irving's History of New York; in fact the

 

whole letter is much in the tradition of the strain of satire
which began with that book.

A similar letter three weeks later by John Smith, an
alleged cousin of John Brown, eXplained why Brown had written
his letter: "He wants to be president of a college in Kentucky,
'where the terms are, five hundred dollars a year salary, and
grass enough for a young cow" (NYEE, 27 Aug. 1827). The most
interesting thing about this letter is the pitch Sands makes
for the gift book he was beginning to prepare: "My communica-

tion may seem too long delayed, though I intended to keep it

191
till next New-Year's, for Doctor Bliss's Souvenir. I have other
things, however, of a more generally interesting nature, to
put into that work" (NYEE, 27 Aug. 1827). Thus the letters
were probably written by Sands in collaboration with Bryant
and Verplanck for the gift book they were writing that summer.
As that took shape, the letters were not needed and so were

published by the Commercial Advertiser.

 

A second John Smith letter, and the second letter Ver-
planck published in Sands's writings, appeared in the Evening
EQEE early in 1829, and was written primarily by Sands and
Bryant with help in the translations by Columbia professors
Anderson, Paine and Da Ponte. The fictitious Smith reported
on and analyzed a French inscription found over the door of
a gambling house by giving Enlgish versions as well as trans-
lations from nine other languages. Several of the clumsy
English renditions of the verse were supposed to have been done

by Editor Stone of the Commercial Advertiser, which allowed

 

for some well-tempered ridicule of his poetry.

This was only the first of several "learned Jeu d'esPirit,"
as Bryant was fond of calling them,aimed at Stone. And this
public teasing of Editor Stone by Editor Bryant was only a
surface signal of the deeper rift between the two, caused
largely by politics: Stone was an ardent opponent of Jack-

sonian democrats, while the Evening Post under Bryant gradu-

 

ally became an organ for the Jacksonians. Sands was a National
Republican at heart, but was never very partisan. (Today he

would probably register as an Independent.) He admired some

192
of Jackson's programs, but was too much of an aristocrat to
like Jackson personally or to approve of the glorification
of the common man. Sitting on the political fence, he
managed to get along well with both sides.

He often joined Bryant in needling Stone, not out of
malice towards his employer, but out of sheer delight with
intellectual controversy. For example, Stone on one occa-
sion pointed out a mistake in the Latin of one of Sands's

jeu d'espirit, published in the Post. Sands and Bryant in a

 

collaborated reply told Stone to "consult the work entitled

Vivorum Illustrium Reliquiae" where he would "find that the

 

words, as we have quoted them were addressed by Pope Alexander

VI to his son Caesar Borgia" (Evening Post, 5 Feb. 1829).

 

Such a book, of course, did not exist. A few days later Bryant
gleefully wrote to Verplanck: "He [Stone] has not been able
as yet, I believe, to find the 'Vivorum Illustrium Reliquiae,‘
though he says Da Ponte has a great many queer old Latin books,
and he has an indistinct remembrance of a work that has
Vivorum clarorum on the title page!"8

Controversies between the two papers were all right as
long as they stayed friendly, but when a serious dispute
arose, Sands was put in a ticklish position by having his best
friend the editor of a rival paper. The most embarrassing
dispute for Sands was when Bryant ambushed and attempted to
horse whip Stone on Broadway. It all began the first of

April, 1831, with a story by the'Commeréial‘Advertiser on a

 

testimonal dinner put on by the National Republicans for Senator

193

Tristram Burgess of Rhode Island. The Commercial printed the

 

full text of the Senator's speech, which prompted a jocose

editorial from Bryant. The Commercial alSo printed a toast

 

made at the dinner which accused the Post of "stupidity and
vulgarity," but failed to name the proposer of the toast.

Sands evidently wrote this article, but Bryant thoughtStone

had done it. Stone denied writing the article, but Bryant
would not believe him. Matters quickly became heated. In

an exchange of editorials Stone called Bryant names which would
blister "the forehead of William C. Bryant if a blister [could]
be raised on brass."9 At this, Bryant took the law into his
own hands and attacked Stone with a horse whip.

Why Sands chose to remain silent about his part in the
fracase will never be known, but most likely he was afraid
to jeopardize a valuable friendship. On the other hand,

Stone never betrayed Sands to Bryant, an indication of some
loyalty between the two men.

The only hint that Sands might have written the offending
story is a note by Stone's son, William L. Stone Jr., written
sixty years later:

A few years since, shortly before Mr. Bryant's death,
the writer [Stone, Jr.] discovered among his father's

(Colonel Stone's) papers the true circumstances under

which the objectionable article which led to the
encounter was written. Not wishing that Colonel Stone--
though long dead--should be unjustly blamed for what

he did not write, he wrote to Mr. Bryant the true state
of the case, showing that his (Bryant's) friend Sands
was the author of the article in question, at the same
time submitting his proofs.

According to the younger Stone, Bryant accepted the explana-

tion as being very possible. But Stone has been known to err

194
in facts and is obviously trying to make his father and Bryant
look good by providing a scapegoat; however the whole affair
is so characteristic of Sands that it seems quite plausible.
If there is any truth to the accusation by Stone, it makes
Sands responsible for one of the most violent incidents in
America's journalistic history.

Most of Sands's journalism was less explosive. He prob-
ably wrote a great many dull and factual stories and editorials,
but his authorship of these can seldom be substantiated. One
can, however, see Sands at work in the many humorous essays
and editorials which lightened the dreary columns of advertise-
ments and shipping notices. Sands's palatable combination of
wit, humor, and learning crOps up time and again in the pages

of the Commercial Advertiser between 1827 and 1832. The

 

learned spoofing or jeu d'esprit mentioned above are typical.

 

Sands also may have had a hand in a series of essays called
"Touchstone" which began in mid 1827 and closely resembled
the Literary Confederacy's newspaper series of a decade
earlier. One humorous essay most likely penned by Sands
asserted that Orpheus was an American:

He lived, we believe, in the musical town of Taunton,

and married the daughter of a respectable fish-monger, in
the poetical island of Nantucket. Her name was Hepzi-
bah, not Eurydice; and she died honestly at home, instead
of being bit by a serpent while flying from Aristaeus,

or any other heathen. The story of Orpheus' going

to the internal regions, stOpping the wheel of Ixion,
melting the furies, and all that, merely arose from the
fact Of his having once sailed through Hell Gate to New-
York, to play at great ball given by Governor Van

Dorn, which commenced at 1 o'clock P.M., and broke up

at sundown, in season to have the cows milked by the

fair dancers.

195
Sands concluded the essay by repeating his thesis:

Orpheus was a full blooded Yankee. But the same spirit

of jealousy which prompted the arrogant question: --"who
reads an American Book?" Would induce our unyielding
rivals to ask likewise: -—"Who dances to an American

Fiddler." (NYCA, 23 Jan. 1828)
Sidney Smith's sneering question evidently still rankled
Americans eight years later.

One editorial Sands wrote was probably done while Stone
was on summer vacation in August of 1828. It has some fun
with the presidential campaign and that pOpular jumper, Sam
Patch. The editorial begins by twitting all the people going
over to the Jackson camp, but centers on some alleged cor-
respondence between Mr. Clay and Sam Patch. In one letter,
Clay told Sam:

You will make two or three jumps from the Patterson
rocks, to keep public attention directed towards you.
In the mean time, make the little boys in the factories
at Paterson, kick up a row-—say it is a Jackson riot;
and get the Commercial Advertiser to denounce it as
such. After this, Mr. Sam Patch, you will go to Jersey
City, or to Hoboken, and jump there. (NYCA, 8 August
1828)

While this implies criticism of the Commercial's partisan

 

reporting of the news, the editorial ends characteristically
by telling how some Adams men supposedly stopped the whole
scheme.

Sands spent a good deal of his time reading other news-
papers and journals to find interesting material for his own
paper. This was common procedure at that time. Original
newswriting was at a minimum. There were no wire services,
so news from other places was gleaned from other papers. This

was no doubt a tedious duty to someone of Sands's exuberant

196
temperament, who wearily used it once as an excuse for not
having read a certain book, saying he would read it "some
day when I have not been reading newspapers."11

The only verifiable pieces of original journalism done
by Sands are two stories on Francis Wright, the controversial
feminist, who lectured in New York City during January of
1829. Sands's first story is, even today, a good piece of
interpretive reporting. Due to the nature of the tOpic
(a public performance) Sands acted as a critic, giving his
impressions and reactions to the lecture as well as an objec-
tive and detailed report using concrete, simple diction, and
a good lead. Sands was quite impressed by Miss Wright's
first performance: "We went like the most of those we met,
out of pure curiosity; and received too much gratification
from the charms of the speaker's manner, to quarrel with
much of her matter" (NYEE, 5 January 1829).

But in Sands's report of the second lecture, the tone
had turned from awe to impatience. Perhaps Sands was offended
by Miss Wright's increasing boldness. The second lecture was
on equal education for girls, whereas the first night it
was on the abstract topic of "Knowledge." He reported that
the first night she had dressed in dark colors and stood
behind the podium. The second night she stood beside a table
in "full view," wearing a white dress with a pink bodice.'
Sands said, with a touch of satire in his voice, "We note
these peculiarities of costume, both for the purpose of grati—

fying general curiosity, and for that of informing such

197

ladies as wish to harangue in public, on secular tOpics, in
what sort of regimentals they should indue themselves."
(NYCA, 6 Jan. 1829). Then Sands gave his reaction to the
second lecture:

Miss Wright's delivery was as good on this occasion,

as on Saturday evening; but to us it had lost the

charm of novelty; and the incongruity and inpro-

priety of the exhibition was more striking. Her dis-

course was a rigmarole, which . . . was unworthy of

the actual intellect of the speaker; unless she had

formed a very contemptuous opinion of her hearers. . . .

She seemed to want to make the world a universal

soup house. She wanted girls to be instructed as

boys are. (NYCA, 6 Jan. 1829)
Sands was not only impatient with her ideas, but his fascina-
tion at seeing a woman lecture had faded. New things intrigued
him deeply, but as soon as he had taken their measure, he
lost interest in them. This may explain why most of his works
are better in their conception than in their execution. He
had great fun writing certain short stories, but suddenly
the whole plot is wound up in a hurried couple of paragraphs.
Sands had enjoyed Miss Wright at first, but he soon "turned
her over to Stone,"12 whose reports on succeeding lectures
were harsher than Sands's had been. In fact, on January 20
the Commercial Advertiser had to justify its criticism of
Miss Wright by saying that anyone who performs in public is
Open to criticism whether they be women or not. Yet there
were many who enjoyed the Sands-Stone reports on Miss Wright.
Hundreds of requests for back issues prompted the following

notice:

Our office has been thronged for the last week, by
applicants for the papers containing our notices of

198
Miss Wright's Lectures. If we had printed a thousand
c0pies extra, all would have been taken up. We regret
to say, however, that all the c0pies we have been able
to muster, have been disposed of. (NYCA, 17 Jan. 1829).
This kind of popular response speaks well of Sands's journal-

istic skills.

Sands's contributions to the Commercial Advertiser,

 

whether they were satiric, humorous, witty, learned, or serious,

earned for their author a popularity and reputation as a

wit. The learned spoofing eSpecially, like the letters of

John Smith and John Brown, was well received. Sands wrote

Verplanck: "in relation to our friend John Smith . . . it

seems to have tickled some of the Philadelphia editors,"

which indicates that Sands's reputation was not confined to

New York City.13 The Americangguarterly Review admired the

same letters "for their erudite whimsicality" and saw "a

merit which should preserve them from the oblivion destined

for the ephemeral effusions with which they [were] connected."14
Unfortunately for Sands, the popularity gained as a

Knickerbocker wit was based upon dated, topical, ephemeral

subjects which were soon forgotten. Sands has since become

a victim of thatgreat irony of literary history: some of

the authors most pOpular in their own day are never heard of

again, while some of those who suffer abuse in their lifetime

obtain a permanent reputation in future generations.

CHAPTER VII

THE BIOGRAPHER:

THE LIVES OF CORTES AND JOHN PAUL JONES

Twice during his life, Sands turned from literature and
journalism to the quasi-literary field of biography. Why he
did so is pretty much a matter of conjecture. The only veri-
fiable reason is that he was asked to do so. Both biographies
were written at the request of someone, a fact which fits well
into the collaborative pattern of Sands's literary endeavors.
Most of the things he wrote were at the request or suggestion
or expectation of someone else. He relied on others for the
spark of an idea, which he would then become excited about and
kindle until it was either a cozy, comfortable, enjoyable fire
or, as sometimes happened, just a fire to prove he could kindle
a fire from a spark. The requests to write the biographies of
Cortes and John Paul Jones sparked the latter kind of fire.
Sands was initially excited about both projects, but ended up
writing them in great haste just to fulfill his obligation.
Thus they lack the full involvement of the author with his sub-
ject that produces important insights and pleasing style and
raises biography to the level of great literature.

These requests for Sands to become a biographer were

accompanied by certain contractual agreements which presumably

199

200

were financially rewarding. Sands had a modest, steady
income from the Commercial Advertiser, but this was hardly
sufficient to finance the social life of a Knickerbocker Wit.
He apparently did need extra money about the same time he
was in the biography business, for in the only extant
reference to his personal finances he mentions to Verplanck
that he is trying to sell some lots in Washington, D. C. He
wants "to get any money for them that they will sell for."1

Another reason Sands may have turned to biography is
that it was a pOpular form of Knickerbocker literature.
According to one estimate,nearly half the prose works of this

2

period were devoted to history and biography. In fact, Sands

probably deserves credit for helping start this literary
trend,since he was one of the first Knickerbockers to write
biography. Nearly every Knickerbocker after Sands wrote up
the life of someone: Irving and Paulding both did Washington,
COOper did naval heroes, Colonel Stone told the story of the
Indian chief, Red Jacket, Theodore Sedgwick wrote on William
Livingston, Henry Wheaton told the History of the Northmen,
and the list seems endless. Besides the general romantic
interest in the past, the primary motivation for biography
‘was patriotic. It was all part of the attempt to build an

American heritage.

"Historical Notice of Hernan Cortes"
Early in 1828, the year after Sands turned from literary
criticism to journalism as a more certain source of income,

Sands was asked to write a biography of Cortes. He explained

201
the situation in a letter to Congressman Verplanck, then in
Washington for the first session of the 20th Congress:

White Gallagher & White of this City are republish-
ing for the market of Mexico, the letters of Cortes
to Charles Vth. . . I have undertaken to write a
biographical notice of the Conquistador, with such
reflexions on his character and career as may be
summarily suggested by the accounts of conflicting
historians and the state of his age. . . . I have
barely two months to write the notice in, which must
be translated into Spanish in that time. If I find
I can make any thing useful or interesting out of the
subject, I will not throw away the chips, but make
an English life of Cortes of it.

Sands attacked the project with characteristic vigor.
He read not only the English accounts of Cortes, but also
the Spanish biographies and histories dealing with the
conquest of Mexico. Sands had recently studied the Spanish
language and had quite obviously mastered it. His correspond—
ence with Verplanck indicates his thorough research:

I am very much troubled for want of books. I have
read Robertson & Clavigero together, and am getting
through De Solis. I want Guevara, Bernal Dias del
Castillo, and Herrera; the two former especially, as
the latter is only a compiler. I found the second
and third letters of Cortes in the N. Y. Library,
edited by an old fool of an Archbishop in Mexico,

in 1770. The Archbishop's notes and commentaries

are of no value. . . .4 You will do me a great kind-
ness if you can put me in the way of finding them.5

Sands eventually found the books he needed at the New York
Historical Society, but he ran into the same problems a
modern scholar has when it comes to using rare books. This
elicited sharp criticism of the Society:

In the collection of the Historical Society there

are some [books], which I have found, but cannot get

out without committing a trespass, or telling a

w0pper, until that miserable affair takes place,

which is denominated a meeting of the Society. Why
cannot some two or three dozen decent individuals

202

originate a new Historical Society;--cooperate with

the creditors of the present dirty & insolvent one,

to force sale of the things;--and buy all that is

actually worth having, as strictly belong to a

Historical Library?6
One of the books the impetuous scholar found at the Society
library was an eye-witness account of the conquest of Mexico
by one of Cortes's lieutenants, Bernal Diaz del Castillo, who,
as Sands said, "left a plain and unvarnished narrative"
(Writings, I, 26). He relied heavily on Diaz who he felt
gave as objective an account as anyone.

Sands carefully collated all the facts and tried to

determine the most likely version of each incident. His
thoroughness and the fact that he went back to the earliest

original accounts made the biography important. As the Ameri-

can Quarterlngeview says:

 

This work is not a mere compilation from English

historians. Sands derived his materials from the

very fountain head, industriously searching into

and collating the accounts of the old Spanish

authorities; and this was the more necessary, inas-

much as Mexico has been not only a mine of wealth,

but of the most extravagant fiction.7

Sands planned only "to give a brief outline of the life

of Cortes." He estimated that it would "not be more than
30, 40 or 50 pages at most."8 It turned out to be a hundred
or more pages in both the English and Spanish versions. He
finished the biography on June 29th, 1828, about three months
late.

Sands's manuscript was immediately translated by the

Spanish scholar, Manuel Dominguez, whose translation of The

 

Vicar of Wakefield two years earlier the New YOrk Review had

203
pronounced excellent. Sands's biography was called "Noticia
historica de Hernan Cortes, conquistador de Mejico" and
served as a preface to the three letters of Cortes printed in

Historia de Mejico: Cortes, Marquis del Vallo de Oaxaca (New

 

York, 1828). "A large edition was printed and extensively

circulated in Mexico, South America, and the Spanish West

Indies,‘ notes Verplanck (Writings, I, 2). The English

 

version was not printed until after Sands's death, when Ver-

planck collected and edited Sands's Writings. "Thus," Ver-

 

planck says, "his work had the singular fortune of being
read throughout Spanish America, in another language, while
it was totally unknown in its own country and native tongue"

(Writings, I, 20).

 

When analyzing the "Historical Notice of Hernan Cortes,"
one has to keep in mind that it was a preface, a fact which
dictated the form and content of the "Notice." Cortes wrote
three letters to Charles V of Spain between 1520 and 1524.
In these letters, which were more like reports or even white
papers, Cortes reported and defended his procedures during
the conquest of Mexico. Sands's intention was to let the
letters speak for themselves; his preface would merely fill
in necessary background information. Or as he put it:

. . . besides the necessity of connecting these

letters together so as to make them intelligible,

by supplying references to the preceding and
intermediate links in the chain of events, it is
proper that the reader should have some means of
estimating the real character of the man [Cortes] . . .

It would be also proper, that he who reads these

letters should have an opportunity of ascertaining

their truth, by comparing, throughout, the testimony
of contemporary narrators . . . . (Writings, I, 3)

204

Sands gave only supplemental information about Cortes and the
conquest which would be helpful to the reader of the letters.

He began by sketching the early years of Cortes, up to
the time he embarked for the New World. Logically, Sands
next gave a brief history of the exploration, settlement,
and politics of the New World from 1492 until Cortes sailed
for Mexico in 1518. Though Sands seldom editorialized, he
did make a few comments on the nature of colonization. He
defended the colonial conquerors on the basis of survival of
the fittest: "It was in the necessary course of things,

that the strong should prevail against the weak" (Writings,

 

I, 6). Throughout the biography, he defended the brutal
subjugation of the natives by the Spaniards, a partiality which
has disturbed its many American readers.9 However, Sands's
defense of the conquerors does not so much indicate a militant
or brutal side of Sands, but more likely shows that he

learned well the principles of rhetoric. Sands was writing

for a Spanish (Latin-American) audience, and this fact was

ever before him as he explained the conquest of Mexico.

The sympathy of newly independent Americans with the
Latin American revolutions and wars for independence during
the 1820's probably prompted this comment on the nature of
colonization:

. . . all history proves that the feelings of mother

countries for their colonies, are not maternal, but
those of a step—mother; and the event has hitherto
uniformly shown, that our incipient jealousy was not
without foundation. The branch will fall off when

the tree can no longer support its weight. Gratitude
is not hereditary; and colonies will not long

205

consent to be taxed for the benefit of what is to
them a foreign country. (Writings, I, 25)

The summary of New World exploration ended with the account
of the first two expeditions to Mexico before Cortes, which
were lead by Hernandez de Cordova and Juan de Grijalva.

A large part of the middle of the "Notice" summarizes
the history of Mexico, beginning with the southward migration
of the Tolteques around 550 a.d. The Tolteques settled near
the present site of Mexico City along with two other groups,
the Chichimecos and the Acolhua, who came during the next two
centuries. The Acolhua consisted of seven tribes, the most
important of which was the Mexican. Sands traced Mexican
history up to the time Montezuma ascended the throne in 1508.
The account is complicated by intermarriages between tribes,
intertribal warfare, and four to six syllable names for
which Sands insisted using the original (Indian) spellings,
all of which make this section extremely difficult to
comprehend.

The spelling of words according to the original language
rather than English style had long been a habit of Sands, or
as the American Monthleragazine called it, "an affectation."10
Verplanck had complained about archaisms in Yamoyden, such as
spelling Connecticut, Quunihticut. The American Quarterly
Review said Sands may have used the unanglicized forms be-
cause the "Notice" was "merely for the use of the Spanish
reader."11 The American Monthly magazine suspected a different
reason: "We suppose, from the laughter-loving character of

the man, that real literary frolic may have been at the

206

bottom of this."12 Judging from some of Sands's newspaper
"literary frolics" this may have seemed true, but more likely
it came from his scrupulousness in research: the conqueror
of Mexico spelled his name Cortes, so why change it to Cortez
just because most of the English historians had done so? For
the same reason, why not leave Montezuma's name as it was in
the original documents--Motenczoma? When it came to research
and scholarship, Sands was a stickler for detail.

The last half of the "Notice" traces the early stages
of Cortes's expediton. Cortes is pictured as an honest, pious,
courageous soldier, who is inexorably drawn into conquering
Mexico for God and country. Coincidences and circumstances
snowball, opening up for the Spaniard unimagined wealth and
power. He gains footholds and sees evidences of possible
wealth and comes to feel it is his duty to finish the task,
in spite of official demands that he return. He operates by
ingratiating himself with leaders of small, dissident factions
and tribes. On the other hand, Montezuma is made to look
like a vacillating, weak king, unable to control the diverse
elements of his kingdom and unwilling to take decisive action.
Sands's account of the conquest fades out just as the narra-
tive approaches the climax. The siege and battle for Mexico
City is told in the letters of Cortes, so Sands quickly
skips over this and winds up his biography of the conqueror
by relating the main events of the last years of Cortes, who
died, like Columbus, virtually stripped of honor.

The name of Cortes has often been associated with great

207
cruelty. Ten years earlier, in 1818, the name had this
connotation for Sands when he wrote the "Story of a Dogkiller,"
whose name was Cortes, for the Literary Confederacy's

Aeronaut. This dogkiller was "not unworthy of his great

 

name sake: for he was notorious for his savage delight in
torturing animals, his bold ferocity, licentiousness and blas-
phemy" (X, 10). In his bioqraphy of Cortes, however, whether
due to the intended audience or to contrary evidence, Sands
carefully excuses his severity toward the poor idolators of
Mexico by saying this cruelty was necessary under the cir-
cumstances and, furthermore, that it was considered acceptable
at that time. Sands explains its necessity under the cir-
cumstances:

The severity of his discipline was required from his

perilous position; and if he had not treated the

rebellious or treacherous chiefs who had become

subjects of Spain with the same rigour, his own

soldiers would not have submitted to the sternness of
his rule. (Writings, I, 85)

 

In other words, in this kind of ticklish situation Cortes had
to rule with an iron hand or things could easily have gotten
out of hand. Sands also shows that Cortes was no more cruel
than other Christian conquerors, from the crusaders to the
New England Puritans. At the end of the biography, Sands
commented on why he had attempted to ameliorate the reputa-
tion of Cortes:

It has not been sought in this Notice to justify

his actions; but simply to offer what may be sug-

gested in palliation of some of them. Heroes have

all had their foibles and their vices; and so

essential does a certain portion of them seem in

the composition of their character, that they are
gratuitously given to them by all the great epic

208
poets. Try Cortes by a comparison with other great
conquerors, and it will appear that while few of them
have rivalled his exploits, many have left darker stains
on their reputation, admitting of no palliation.
Thus Sands ends his apology and biOgraphy of Cortes.

Bryant called Sands's work "unquestionably the best
biographical account of Cortes in the English 1anguage--per-
haps the best that has been written."13 Less biased reviewers
judged the biography more fairly, yet pretty much agreed that
it was "entitled to the highest praise."l4 They admired his
thorough research, accurancy of detail, and graceful, objec-
tive style. They disliked the afore-mentioned archaisms,
the skipping of material narrated by Cortes, and the pallia—
tion of the conquistador's reputation. These are quite
obviously the most glaring faults of the biography, especially
when judged by today's standards of historiography.

While it is not classic historical writing, it is well
written. A vivid portrait of Cortes is painted, and a good

deal of complicated background information is logically

organized and clearly presented. The Knickerbocker reviewer

 

accurately summarizes Sands's style:

The language. . . is throughout simple, chaste, and
subdued; the incidental reflections, when introduced,
are in point, and in many places he narrates events
with a terseness and brevity which is more effective
than the most laboured diffusion. His subject never
betrays him into extravagance of language, or even
enthusiasm of sentiment; he is uniformly grave and
correct, and sums up the character of Cortes with
singular temperance and ability. (III, 166).

For a decade, or until William H. Prescott published his
History of the Canuest' f Mexico in 1843, Sands's "Notice,"

once it was published in English in his Writings, was the

209
best American life of Cortes. But more important to Sands
than the post-mortem reputation of his biography, was the
vast source of material discovered in his research. Besides
a good deal of miscellaneous facts and material which he
later used, Sands turned material from his research into his
best original poem, "The Dream of Papantzin," and one of his

best pieces of short fiction, "Boyuca."

John Paul Jones

 

Two years later, in 1830, the fast-talking niece of John
Paul Jones engaged Sands to write a biography of the famous
admiral. Miss Jeanette Taylor had come to America from
Scotland to press for the claims owed to her uncle by the
U. S. Government. The biography was part of her campaign.
She turned over to Sands many of Jones's papers, some of
which had never been used or seen before. Some of these
original letters and documents left with Sands soon vanished
and have never been traced. Thus Sands's work is important
for preserving original material not found elsewhere as well
as being what Don Seitz, Jones's bibliographer, calls "the
first complete and authentic biography" of Jones.15

Sands had long been interested in Jones, which probably
explains as well as anything why he accepted Miss Taylor's
request. As a boy, Sands most likely heard stories about
how Comfort Sands in 1785 had supported a scheme by Jones
and John Ledyard (a Sands family relativelG) to establish

fur factories on the north-west coast of America and trade

with the Orient. Young Bob Sands had been intrigued by

210

cartoon-like pictures of Jones on tavern signs and in chil-
dren's books such as the "shilling pamphlet, exhibited in the
windows of the New York retail bookstores, in which was a
frontispiece, representing Paul Jones as large as the frigate
he bestrode, shooting a Lieutenant Grubb with a horse-pistol,
more grand in its dimensions than any piece of artillery
introduced into the picture."17 At age 13, Bob had probably
been awed by the magnificent banquet for 500 men given at the
City Hotel to honor the naval victories of Admirals Jones,
Decatur, and Hull. Twelve years later, as editor of the
Atlantic, he showed his continuing fascination by publishing
two Jones letters which he thoughtwould "be found interesting."18
As a critic, he reviewed any newly published literature dealing
with Jones.19

But besides any personal interest Sands might have in
John Paul Jones, he also felt the country needed a good
biography of one of its most important heroes. In the preface
to ggggg, he pointed out that

there was no single work of a proper and satisfactory

character, from which Americans might gather for

themselves what is to be known of the private and

public life of one, who must or ever be chronicled

as among the first in courage and ability, as well as

in point of time, of the heroes who have made the

stars and stripes respected upon the ocean (Egggg, 7).
Worse than the fact that no good biography existed were the

many erroneous tales and rumors that had been circulated about

the captain of the BonhOmme Richard. Because of these, Sands

 

said, "it is evident that an unvarnished and full account of

the rear admiral's life ought to be circulated, in regions

,,.

c.-

0"

tr.

 

'0!

p.

 

211
where such fabulous and monstrous legends obtain, in this age
of light, admission into public prints"'(gggg§, 4).

In spite of the popular interest in Jones, it was more
than thirty years after his death (1792) before any factual
assessment of his life had been undertaken. Not until John
Henry Sherburne, Register of the U. 8. Navy, happened to dis-
cover a packet of Jones letters in a bake shop window and
published them (1825) with a jumble of other documents, was
any attempt made to discover the facts of the admiral's

life. In the New York Review, Sands called Sherburne's work

 

"a dull collection of disjointed documents" (I, 457), and
promised to correct Sherburne's many omissions: "This we
must defer until some future period, and we do so with less
reluctance, as we hope then to have it in our power to have
access to some valuable manuscripts, with the existence of
which, it would seem, the editor of the work before us is
entirely unacquainted" (NYE, II, 455). From this it appears
that Sands had some tenative arrangement to use Miss Taylor's
documents on Jones nearly four years before he actually
received the manuscripts in early 1830.

In the meantime, Miss Taylor turned over the long dis-
regarded papers of the famous admiral to the Scottish Sir
John Malcom. By early 1830, Sir Malcom had prepared a biog-
raphy based on Jones's journals and correspondence which was
published in Edinburgh. Malcom's biography was the best on
Jones that had yet appeared, but it was decidedly British

and thus, "uncongenial to the feelings and intellectual

212
associations of the people of this country," as Sands pointed
out. "His remarks of a political character are often
ridiculous in fact, and always unphilOSOphical in spirit"
(Jones, 7). As a result, Sands devoted considerable energy
to correcting Malcom's prejudices and justifying Jones's
actions as patriotic. Sands also discounted the Malcom biog-
raphy because it omitted much of the text of important docu-
ments and letters. Also, Malcom had given many of Jones's
remarks out of context and had translated badly those docu—
ments in French. Thus, when the precise and scholarly Sands
was given a chance to use the same documents Malcom had used,
he readily accepted the chance to set the record straight for
Americans.

Sands tackled the new assignment with characteristic
gusto and planned to write a first-rate, original biography.
But as publishing details were worked out and subscriptions
were sold, it became apparent that Miss Taylor wanted all
rights to the book; therefore Sands decided to merely edit
the primary sources she had given him. He eXplained his pre-
dicament in a delightful letter to his friend Verplanck in
Washington:

I find no reason to take any pains with Paul Jones,

and shall upset the English duodecimo [Malcom's
biography] into an American Octavo without worrying my-
self any further about it, though I had some idea at
first of making a new book of it. Paul Jones' niece

is a more terrific live woman than the ghost of her

uncle the Admiral would be. She talks like a steam-
engine, and threatened the other day to come and
board over at Hoboken; but I scared her out of that.

She had the inflammatory rhuematism, but I am sorry

to say she has been recovering lately. I mean to
discharge her & her defunct uncle, as soon

 

 

 

.

213

as possible, and wish to have some more elegant
employment and amusement.20

"To discharge" his obligation quickly, he decided to write
only enough to tie the letters and various documents together;
consequently, Sands referred to himself again and again as
only a compiler.

As it turned out, however, he put a good deal more of
himself into the work than he originally intended, or as
Verplanck put it: "In spite of the author's own intention,
there will be found, scattered throughout the volume, in-
genious though rapid investigations of doubtful or disputed
facts, and some passages of animated and patriotic eloquence"
("Memoir," p. 24). In fact, a tally of the amount
of material from primary sources and the amount of narrative
and commentary by Sands shows he contributed about half of
the main part of the biography. Counting all the material
in the book, which includes the seventy page "Journal of the
Campaign of the Liman" and appendices, Sands was responsible
for about one-third of the total. So while Sands did just
tie the Jones documents together, there is much more of him
in the biography than he was willing to admit. Technically
he was merely a compiler, but he was a compiler with a good
deal to say.

Claiming to be only the compiler often provided an easy
excuse for not doing more research into the subject. In
connection with a character sketch of M. Le Ray de Chaumont,
for example, Sands avoids having to be critical by saying,

"it would be improper in a mere compilation of this nature,

214
to draw inferences affecting the character of persons who
are dead" (ggggg, 142). Commenting on the mix-up and delay
of paying the crews of the squadron with Jones when he cap-
tured the Serapis, he sighs with relief: "Happily for the.
compiler, it is unnecessary to eXplore the reasons, or their
merits, for these distinctions, or enter into calculations of
dollars and cents" (ggggg, 255). Also, as a compiler, he
could escape judgment on his work. He closed the preface
by saying, "This work had no literary pretensions; and cannot
legitimately come, as a literary production, under the examina-
tion of critics" (ggggg, 8).

Sands worked on the Jones biography throughout the sum-
mer of 1830 and finished the book late in September (the
preface is dated September 23). It was published later the
same year, without Sands's name, as Life and Correspondence
of John Paul Jones, including his Narrative of the Campaign

of the Liman, from Original Letters and Manuscripts in the

 

Possession of Miss Janette Taylor. DeSpite the fact that the
project was hastily done, it turned out rather well. Sands
may have merely strung letters together, yet he produced a
readable, fascinating account of Jones's life.

The most obvious fault in the book is its lack of
objectivity, but Sands can be excused for this on two counts:
first, he relied heavily on Jones's letters which are naturally
biased in favor of the egocentric admiral, and, second, he
wanted to make Jones look like a patriot, interested more in

the good of his country than in any financial gain. The

215
biography was commissioned, after all, to ameliorate Jones's
reputation. The justification for Jones's raid on Whitehaven,
the English port in which he had grown up, is typical of
Sands's defense of Jones and provides a good example of the
editor's florid prose:
It would be a piece of supererogation to offer any
vindication of Jones, for doing his adopted country
such good service, by the retaliatory descent upon
Whitehaven. It was one which he alone could prOperly
execute, from his thorough acquaintance with the
localities. The sentimental disgust of those who cen-
sured him for availing himself of that very knowledge,
and of 'stifling his early associations,‘ is natural
enough. But war is not waged upon sentimental princi-
ples. A notion prevailed at that time that Jones'
vessel was a privateer. He was in command of a United
States vessel of war, fully commissioned; and if in
performing his duty to the utmost, he conquered the
repugnance he might have felt at making a hostile
entry among the scenes of his infancy, the merit of
his victories is but the more enhanced when he is
considered as an officer (Jones, 88).
Thus Sands directly answers British criticism of Jones by such
people as Sir Malcom. Elsewhere, he defends Jones on much
the same basis as he did Cortes, by saying he was only human:
"We are much mistaken if it will not appear, that in most
cases where he was petulant, it was scarcely in human nature
to be otherwise" (Jones, 97).
Theoretically, Sands believed in simplicity of style.
He advocated this in his critical journals and tried to prac-
tice it in most of his writing. His sentence structure is
usually short and simple. But his scholarly propensities
and wish to be intellectually impressive sometimes caused him

to use the Latinate three or four syllable word where he

could have used one or two syllables. Also his training in

216
the classics and poetry often show up in his diction, as
when he refers to Jones's boyhood on the Scottish coast:
"His daily intercourse with seamen here, tended of course to
strengthen and confirm his nascent passion" (ggggg, p. 14).
It can not just be "love of the sea," it has to be "nascent
passion." And in the section dealing with Jones's service
to the Russian navy, he again is scrupulous in using the
unanglicized Russian and Turkish names for men, places, and
naval terms.

The Jones biography by Sands was undoubtedly the best
account Americans had of the father of their navy, and it
remained the best account of Jones for eleven years, or
until Alexander Slidell Mackenzie published The Life of John

Paul Jones (1841). Sands's biography will always be important

 

to Jones' scholarship because it containsthe only recording
of material which has since disappeared. But as far as the
literary career of Sands goes, it has almost no importance.
Published without his name, it did nothing to enhance his
reputation. In the two years he lived after its publication,
he made no use of the material in any other way; chances

are he would have made nothing of it had he lived longer.

It has the distinction of being the longest production
by Sands (555 pages), yet reflects his impetuousity. Once
again Sands failed to carry out his first intention. Instead
of a valuable, new study of the Admiral which he had originally
contemplated, we have a hastily prepared patchwork of letters,

finished only out of obligation to the subscribers and Miss

217
Taylor. Once again the idea outshone the execution. Once

again Sands's reach exceeded his grasp.

CHAPTER VIII

THE KNICKERBOCKER WIT:

SHORT STORIES AND THE SKETCH CLUB

Collaboration on The Talisman

 

Several months after joining the Commercial Advertiser,
Sands "became accidently engaged"1 in a publishing project
that proved to be the most rewarding of his abbreviated life:

EEG Talisman increased Sands's reputation as a Knickerbocker

 

wit; brought him better money than any previous literary ven-
ture; and above all, allowed him to indulge his collaborative
propensity to the fullest. Verplanck said Sands never in-
tended to edit anything like the pOpular gift books with
their reputation as repositories of inferior literature.
Literary annuals, or gift books as they have since been
known, were annual collections of didactic or sentimental
poetry, essays, stories, and engravings, all beautifully
bound. They reached America in 1825, after having proved
popular in Germany, France, and England. For two years Elam
Bliss, the publisher of the by then (1827) defunct Atlantic

and New York Review, had enviously watched the success of

 

The Atlantic SouVenir, published by those enterprising Phila-
delphia publishers, Carey and Lea. Bliss repeatedly urged

his former editor to begin an annual in New York City, but

218

219
Sands declined.

Meanwhile the friendship between Sands and Bryant had
deepened and expanded to include Congressman Verplanck. During
the summer of 1827 the three writers spent a great deal of
time together, and, in the course of one conversation, they
expressed regret that collaborative miscellanies of the type
written in the eighteenth century by Pope, Swift, and others
(the Scriblerus papers, for example) had passed out of favor.
These miscellanies "had the advantage," the trio decided,
"over our ordinary magazines, of being more select and dis-
tinctive in the characters and subjects, and yet did not impose
upon the authors the toil or responsibility of a regular and

separate work" ("Memoir,' p. 20). Bryant, free from any
extra-professional publishing project now that the United

States Review and Literary Gazette had folded, proposed that

 

the three of them "publish a little volume of their own
miscellanies, in humble imitation of the English wits of the

last century" ("Memoir,' pp. 20-21). Sands remembered
Bliss's desire to publish a gift book and recommended combin-
ing their idea of a miscellany with the format and decoration
of the literary annuals.

Much of the work, especially the more humorous pieces,
was done in collaboration, as described in the sketch of
Bryant and Verplanck visiting Sands (see the Introduction).
"This joint-stock authorship," as Verplanck calls it, was

"not the simply putting together in one whole, parts prepared

separately, nor the correcting and enriching by a second

220
hand the rough materials of the first author, but the literally

writing in company" ("Memoir,' p. 22).
When it came to collaboration, the talents of the three
authors complemented each other nicely. Verplanck, a des-
cendant of one of the oldest Dutch families and an antiquarian
by avocation, was full of anecdotes of past and present New
Yorkers. Sands, who wrote faster than his two companions,
usually composed the stories as the others dictated. He would
become so excited and enthused about the story that he would
pour forth a steady stream of ridiculous details, humorous
twistings of the plot, and big words. Verplanck says that in
these composing sessions "his talent for ludicrous descrip-
tion and character and incident, rioted and revelled, so that
it generally became more the business of his coadjutor to
chasten and sober his thick-coming fancies, than to furnish
any thing like an equal contingent of thought or invention"
("Memoir," p. 22). It is for this reason that Verplanck

included most of the stories written in this manner in

Sands's Writings. He felt they belonged more to Sands than

 

any one else; Sands's exuberance dominated the collaboration.
The steadier and more sober Bryant acted as referee or editor,
deciding which detail should be included and which was too
ludicrous or in poor taste.

Not all the pieces in the Talisman were written jointly,

 

but even original compositions were sometimes built around an
idea suggested by another member of the trio. Sands, when

planning the third Talisman (1830), wrote to Verplanck, who

221

was in Washington for the Congressional session: "If you
can suggest any [subject] that you think I can handle prof—
itably, I wish you would, [as (manuscript tornX] I have now
long evenings in which I want either occupation or amusement."2

Because of the short time they had in which to gather
material for the first volume, previously published works
were dusted off and revised. Thus Bryant's "The Death of

Flowers" was reworked and printed in the Talisman as "The

 

Close of Autumn." This may also be why a poem each by

Samuel F. B. Morse and Dr. John Neilson was allowed in the
triumvirate's miscellany. Of course, both Morse and Neilson
furnished a picture for the book, and publishing one of their
poems may have been just part of their reward.

All the Talisman's literary content was attributed to

 

Francis Herbert, a fictional character like the previous
century's Issac Bickerstaff and Martinus Scriblerus. Francis
Herbert was a man of the world: he spoke nearly every
language, he had been everywhere, he knew everybody worth
knowing, he had tried everything, he could do anything and
knew everything. By creating such a talented person, the
editors could claim that the extremely varied contents of
the annual were the product of this one remarkable man. As
William Cullen Bryant II has said, the editors gave Francis
Herbert "a hypothetical personality urbane enough to compre-
hend their varied talents, and pompous enough to allow
their poking sly fun at their creature" (p. 129). Using the

cover of an invented character, a dignified Congressman and

222
two of New York's leading journalists could indulge their
wit, satire and learning freely.
If all this sounds like the three New Yorkers who had

written under pen-names in Salmagundi twenty years earlier,

 

it is no mere coincident. Bryant wrote to Jared Sparks that

the Talisman was "meant to be such a thing as the Sketch

 

Book would be if published in that shape [a literary annual],
or rather like the Salmagundi, for that written by three, or
like the Scriblerus papers put into a neat little volume

and embellished with plates."3 But even more than the two

above-mentioned works by Irving, the Talisman resembles a

 

loosely constructed novel like Bracebridge Hall. All the
stories are tied together because Francis Herbert is the
first person narrator of each and is often a participant in

the action. Thus the Talisman has a unity that most gift books

 

‘with their miscellaneous collection of letterpress lack.

Each story or poem in the book adds another dimension
to the character of Francis Herbert which Sands began to
paint in the Preface to the first volume. There Herbert
eXplains that he is not an author, but has always kept
journals and written poetry. He even claims that some of his
poetry has been published in the works of other peOple,
obviously an attempt to eXplain why some of Bryant's already
published poetry was to be found in the Talisman.

Herbert's foibles begin to show as he explains the title
of the book. He claims that he does not believe in astronomy

or magic, yet he has been careful to do everything about this

223

book according to the most favorable position of the stars.
Thus he feels it should have some magic or be a talisman
like Othello's handkerchief, and the line from Othello is
quoted as the motto for the title page: "there's magic in
the web of it. . . / To lose or give't away were such perdi-
tion."

The Preface closes with a choice bit of irony that is
pure Sands:

I detest all quackery, and the examples of great men

do not sanctify it in my eyes. The trick of Junius

and Walter Scott to attract the public attention to

their writing by making their real names a subject

of mystery, always disgusted me. I therefore sub-

scribe my name without reserve. Francis Herbert.

Many were satisfied in believing that the Talisman was indeed

 

written by Mr. Herbert; in fact, historians of New York City
have been known to quote Francis Herbert as an authority on
the city because of his "Reminiscences of New York" in the

Talisman for 1829 and 1830.4

 

Among the nation's critics and reviewers, it seems to
have been a poorly kept secret that Herbert was actually
three New Yorkers, but guesses as to who they were ranged
widely. Bryant was generally presumed to be one of them
because of his republished poems, and this led to the specu-
lation as to which of his friends were involved. Verplanck
and Sands were sometimes mentioned as possible collaborators,
but reviewers more often guessed Halleck and Paulding.

Sands, of course, loved this kind of intrigue and he

egged the critics on. After the 1829 Talisman, a note in

 

the Commercial Advertiser entitled "Guessing" quoted a New

 

224
England paper who guessed the authors to be Bryant, Paulding,
and Halleck, to which Sands replied: "A pretty editor for
a Yankee this! His readers will disown him, if he does not
ggg§§_right oftener than once in three" (NYEE, 2 Jan. 1829).
Reviewers who discovered the true identity of the trio
inclined to play along with the pseudonym game. In one of

the best reviews of a Talisman, William Cox described their

 

personalities and looks, but never named the authors; of
course, the literarati of New York would know who Cox was
describing. His description of Sands is probably the best
extant:

a man of slim and graceful prOportions, with a mild

and courteous expression of countenance. . . more
calculated for the haunts of men, and the meridian of
noise, smoke, and newspapers, yet perhaps better

adapted to walk with an observant eye through the

din and turmoil, than mix in them himself; a humorist,
who can get "a jest out of a nutshell;" a scholar who
has more hard words and less pedantry in his compositions,
than any writer extant; and a keen observer of absurdity
in every variety of shape and degree; one who displays

a laudable inveteracy against pertness and pretension,
arrogance, affectation, and flippancy, and possesses
both the will and the power to render them contemptible;
whose humor is broad, but never Vulgar, and one reason
of ghich is, that the writer is never afraid of being
so.

Sands was pleased with the thumbnail sketch of himself, but
most surprised with the timing of the unsolicited review
which was printed three months before the 1830 Talisman was
released. Verplanck reports that "On inquiring for the name
of his good—natured and able critic, Sands was surprised to
learn that he was a young journeyman printer in the office,
the compositor who had himself set up the whole of the manu-

script, and who knew the book only in that way" ("Memoir,"

225
p. 23). After this Cox became a regular contributor to the
Mirror and three years later published his own witty mis-

cellany,'Crayon‘Sketches.

 

The reason Cox's unsolicited review so surprised Sands

was that each Talisman was accompanied by a carefully

 

organized publicity campaign, planned by Sands with the help
of Bryant. During December of 1827, their letters to Ver-

planck, who was back in Washington for a session of Congress,
were full of plans for publicizing the first issue. Thatcher
Payne was given an advanced c0py in order to write an article

for the North American Review. Jared Sparks, the editor, was

 

"much pleased" with Payne's article, but since it would come

out weeks after the Talisman had been published, Sands

 

wondered whether the notice "might be better smothered; as it
is only casting pearls before swine, to bury it in the quar-
terly dulness of that exemplary journal, when it can do no
good."6 Dr. John Neilson wrote up a review which Sands sent

via Verplanck for use in the Southern Review. Of this,

 

Bryant wrote: "It is pretty well done, but owes I suspect
all the touches of liveliness that are to be found in it to
the active fancy of our friend who forwarded it."7

Bliss received the 1828 Talisman from the printer on

 

Friday, 14 December 1827. Sands told him "to put them away
until [he and Bryant] had made all the organs of public

opinion wind one general and simultaneous blast and roar of
admiration."8 In the next two weeks Sands waged a thorough

publicity campaign, which Bryant summarized for Verplanck:

226

The work was quite cordially noticed in the Courier.
I did what I could for it in the Post--Stone puffed
it in the Commercial, Maxwell in the Journal of
Commerce, Morris in the Mirror--and besides this
Dwight spoke of it as favorably as could be expected
from him--and the Statesman said something about it
in thE—Eame article in which it noticed the Token.
The Albion gave a notice of it which I did not see,
and the extracts from it. . . . You think that Noah
did not blow the horn loud enough--two gentlemen of
your acquaintance [Sands and Bryant] thought so too
and therefore furnished him with another article on
the subject which appeared last Monday. On the whole
if the Talisman should not succeed [sic. it must be
because puffing does not help a book on.

The Talisman was a success, though it is hard to deter-

 

mine whether it was because of the puffing or because of its
own merits--it was the first gift book published in New York
and proved to be one of the best of the American annuals.lo
Sands called the New York sales "decidedly good, for the
price asked."11 More importantly to its success as a gift
book, it was "on the whole a favorite with the ladies,"

according to Bryant.12

About the only person who did not like the Talisman--

 

besides Sands's father who fell asleep reading it and "slept
four hours beyond his normal time" the next morning and be-
sides "Mr. Vermilyea, who was obliged to read proof, and [was]
confined to his bed for two days, in consequence"13 —-was
Robert Walsh, the Philadelphia critic who was often at odds
with New York literati. Sands particularly disliked him and
several times considered trying to destroy him in print. In
the middle of the publicity campaign for the 1828 Talisman,
Sands complained to Verplanck:

What shall we do with Mr. Walsh? His remarks on the
Talisman are in perfect accordance with the whole of

227

his miserable literary diplomacy. We shall embrace
every opportunity of having him described in Noah's
paper, as he truly is, a hack of Mr. Carey, hired
to puff only his own bookseller's publications, in-
cludin his own magazine [the Americaniguartergz
Review .

Basically, what Sands disliked about Walsh was his critical
dishonesty, his "damning with faint praise" everything not
printed in Philadelphia or England. Besides this, he felt
Walsh had no critical acumen. He related two examples to
Verplanck:

He always deals in general and flippant assertations,
which there is no means of bringing him to an issue
upon. While Cooper's novels were published here, he
spoke of them in that equivocal tone, which is the
lightest laud any American writer can extort from
him, unless he (Walsh) is paid for it: Now that
Carey and Lea are the publishers, he deals in extrav-
agant panegyric, which, I almost believe, would make
Cooper himself sick. Dr. McHengy is the only individual
whom Walsh has gratuitously puffed; and I cannot
account for it on any other principle . . . than that
he is as crooked and ugly in body, as Walsh is in
mind, and that they have a common sympathy in con-
ceit.

 

This was pretty harsh and uncharacteristic criticism from
the well-tempered collaborator. He went ahead to outline a
series of satirical articles on Walsh to be published in

M. M. Noah's Enggirer. He warned Verplanck about what to
expect:

I want to hold him up as a man of nasty mind, and
superficial education, and mean temperament; . . .

who has been a laborious drudge in the collection

of documents, which he had neither the ink to
criticise, nor the credit to embalm. . . . But
chiefly I wish to dwell on his abominable manner of
damning with faint praise, or trying to do so, every—
thing published out of the City of Philadelphia, which
had never had any literary men, or literary character
for some thirty years.

But Sands's.good—nature recovered and the Cortes biography

 

228
diverted him. A month later he told Verplanck, "I took a
small crack at Walsh, but begin to despise the subject too
heartily to proceed."16 Sands was not vindictive by nature.

At the first sign of success for the 1828 Talisman, Sands

 

started promoting another. He turned his attention first
to subjects for illustration; otherwise, getting the artwork
might throw them "too far into the bowels of the year,
again."17 The artists of the newly formed National Academy
all wanted to help with the book and even planned to hold a
competition to decide who would illustrate New York's only
gift book.

Sands, also anxious to keep alive the collaboration that
had produced the previous Talisman, wrote to Verplanck in
the doldrums of the winter: "I cannot forget the individuality
of Mr. Herbert's trinity, the 'tria juncta in uno,‘ still
floats:hnmy mind, not as a reminiscence but a present idea."18
He shortly became preoccupied with the Cortes biography, but
when Bliss announced near the end of March that he had "made
himself whole," both Bryant and Sands urged Verplanck to join

them in plans for another Talisman.19 Verplanck was apparently

 

too busy with congressional matters and put off doing anything
about the gift book until the summer.

In New York Sands and Bryant went ahead with plans for
their letterpress and the art work. Sands wrote "The Dream
of Princess Papatzin" from which H. J. Morton drew a sketch
that Peter Maverick engraved. Neilson made a sketch of the

landscape around Weehawken to accompany Sands's poem of the

229
same name. The rest of the artwork was done by Robert W.
Weir and Henry Inman, who evidently won the National
Academy's contest. Stories were planned around characters
used in the first volume, and the charming Mr. Herbert was
kept to provide continuity and to stimulate sales of the re-

maining 1828 Talisman. They reasoned that readers who enjoyed

 

the second volume would buy the first.

The Preface to the 1829 Talisman indicates that many un-

 

solicited contributions had descended upon the editors.
Francis Herbert explains that these were rejected because
this is no ordinary gift book. However, works by three out-
siders did get in. One was a well told story about "The
Little Old Man of Coblentz," written by John Inman, Sands's
friend and associate at the Commercial Advertiser. Another
was a sonnet by Bryant's brother, John Howard Bryant. These
were both peOple the editors could not comfortably turn
down. The third non-regular contributor was Fitz-Greene
Halleck whose poem "Red Jacket" described the Indian chief
‘who fascinated New Yorkers during his visit to the city in
1828. Wier, who had made the best portrait of the chief,
allowed his painting to be engraved for the Talisman. Sands
knew public opinion well enough to know this pOpular subject
‘would help sales. Otherwise the 1829 Talisman was again the
product of the most famous Knickerbocker trio since the Irvings
and Paulding wrote Salmagundi.

In spite of the early start, the book came out late. It

‘was already December 2 when Sands wrote: "Bryant has finished

230
the Talisman very finely, and brought Mr. H. up, like a good
horse,without flagging at the end of his career."20 He was
referring to the final selection, "Reminiscences of New York,"
a collaboration by Bryant and Verplanck. In fact the book
barely got out in time for Christmas, being released December
24, 1828. This, of course, caused problems for the advertis-
ing campaign. Sands was unable to get articles in the major
quarterlies, and barely managed to get notices in most of the
New York papers.

Sands used the Commercial Advertiser to run a series of

 

preliminary notices of the Talisman from the middle of

 

December until its publication. On December 17 he explained:

Mr. Herbert having probably made a voyage to India
and back since he gave us the first number of 3E3
Talisman, he is rather late with the second. It will
be published, however, in a few days. Mean time we
are enabled to give a "Simple Tale," from the forth-
coming pages in anticipation.

 

Sands himself had written the "Simple Tale" and it was one
of his best. Two days later there was a long, front—page
review of the rest of the book, which also pointed out how
gift books contributed to a national literature: "They serve
to concentrate talent and encourage effort." It is well
known that literary annuals provided one of the few opportuni-
ties of publication for American authors, including Hawthorne,
Emerson, and Longfellow.

Bliss and Sands were so confident of the success of the

second Talisman, which the public generally agreed was better

 

than the first, that they began to plan a third volume before

the second even went on sale. Sands laid the prOposition

231

before Verplanck in a letter:

Dr. Bliss wishes to publish another Talisman. He

proposes to print an edition of 5000 to pay an

artist for superintending the engravers &c and take

all the trouble from the writers & to pay Mr. Herbert

$1200 or $1500 if he can have manuscript by the first

of July or August. He says he can afford to do so,

and make a profit, if we will agree to this prOposi-

tion. Bryant assents to it, and I am disposed to.21
In other words, Bliss was going the route of other gift
books, viz. making them bigger and better every year. Con-
sequently he planned a bigger printing and promised to pay
the editors more. The picture department would also be ex-
panded and put under the management of John Neilson, thus
freeing the original threesome to concentrate on the letter-
press. Above all, it had to be finished by mid-summer so
that it could be a stronger competitor on the holiday gift
market. Verplanck agreed to the prOposal in January, and
the Talisman for 1830 was under way.

By February 1, Neilson had made arrangements to have
twelve paintings engraved for the book, twice as many embellish-
ments as in previous editions. The time consuming engraving
process meant the artwork had to be in hand before the letter-
press was composed. This usually caused problems for writers
who then had to fashion their products around the pictures
and thus produced horribly trite poems or didactic essays.
Sands, Bryant, and Verplanck, however, avoided this by making
only passing reference to the painting before letting their
imaginations soar in whatever direction they chose.

Art historian James T. Callow has documented "at least

seven instances [in the Talisman series] of letterpress

232
composed to match pictures."22 Five of these are Bryant's
and, while not his best poems, they are many times better
than the usual gift book letterpress written for a picture.
Sands relates one incident when the artist and writer took
the inspiration from a common source: "I have been hammering
at old Aeschilus [sic], to see what I could make of the rais-
ing of the Ghost of Darius by the Magi, as Inman thinks he can

make a good picture of it, a la Martin."23

 

Even though the editorial triumvirate had more space [

 

to fill, they must have met their August 1 deadline, for the

FIT}.-

1830 Talisman was issued on November 10, 1829. The work was
well reviewed, but there does not seem to have been quite the
concerted advertising campaign that accompanied previous
editions. Sales were no better than previous years, which was
disappointing since such a large printing had been ordered.
Bliss was worried, but by the end of year he had hopes of
breaking even. Good sales in March raised his spirits to the
place where he wanted to try a fourth edition, but Sands,
Bryant, and Verplanck decided not to continue. The original
excitement and amusement had worn off; production of this much
letterpress yearly had become drudgery. Above all, it had
lost its original character. It was no longer a quaint
miscellany in the old style but a full-blown gift book. Asher
B. Durand and other New York artists wanted Francis Herbert

to write for a Landscape Annual they were publishing, but to
this the collaborators also said no. "Mr. Herbert," Verplanck

reports, "was suffered to die a natural death, as many better

233
men of the same unreal family had done before him, from the
time of Issac Bickerstaff downwards," ("Memoir," p. 21).
Actually the decision to drop the Talisman was made
shortly after the release of the third volume. During
December Sands negotiated with several publishers, including
their Philadelphia rival, Henry C. Carey, to have all three

Talismans published in a single volume. Sands asked $2000.

 

for the c0pyright. Carey received the idea favorably at
first, but then turned it down. It was finally decided to
let Bliss publish the miscellany, which he failed to get
around to until after Sands's death. In 1833 he issued
Miscellanies First Published under the Name of the Talisman,
using the name of the three authors instead of the pseudonym.
Thus it became the first publication to carry Sands's name
since his juvenile Bridal of Vaumond.

While negotiations for selling the Talisman were going
on, news reached New York of "the most impudent literary
larceny that was ever committed," as Sands put it. An English-
man by the name of Jones, a foreign correspondent for the
Commercial Advertiser, published a book called Tales of an
Indian Camp. Sands says:

As I was casting my eyes over the three volumes, I
thought I saw something which looked like stolen
goods, and a few rags and tatters of my own property.

But great was my surprise, when "The Cascade of

Melsingah" [written by Bryant for the 1828 Talisman]

tumbled before my sight. Knowing that the name and

the tradition originated both with Francis Herbert,

I proceeded to examine the legend and found that it

was cribbed bodily, with a few literal alterations

and additions for the worse, from Brother Bryant.
He was somewhat indignant when I showed him his own

matter thus appropriated and improved.24

 

234
As it turned out, Mr. Jones had also plagiarized material
written by Verplanck. At the same time, Verplanck had just
renewed his friendship with Washington Irving who was then
in England, so he took care of "the piratical depredation on
Mr. Herbert's prOperty" by asking Irving "to have this
literary pirate taken up and pilloried by his friend Campbell
or some other officer of the London central police."25 Irving
cooperated, but without copyright laws little could be done.
The next year Verplanck helped push improved copyright legis-
lation through Congress, and one can not help but wonder if
this incident caused him to redouble his efforts to get the
bill passed.

The combined letterpress of the three Talisman volumes
was comprised of 23 essays or sketches, 33 poems including
eight translations, and 12 short stories. The essays and
sketches were first-person accounts relating the ideas and
activities of Francis Herbert and thus resembled those in

Irving's Sketch Book. The Talisman content was balanced and

 

resembled the ratio found in most other gift books.
Verplanck wrote less than Bryant and Sands, yet he col-
laborated on and suggested many of the works credited solely
to them. The three men each contributed to all three cate-
gories. Sands wrote more sketches and short stories and
Bryant wrote the most poetry (nearly two-thirds of it, 19
out of 33). Taking into consideration the extensive colla-
boration, which makes it impossible to determine how much

credit each author deserves, each writer was responsible for

235

about one-third of the total letterpress. Verplanck estimated
that "about one-fourth was entirely from Sands's pen, and
about as much or more was his joint work with one or other
of his friends ("Memoir," p. 21). This estimate seems com-
patible with the fraction of one-third estimated to be Sands's
share of the total effort.

But while the quantity and proportion of letterpress
were the same as other gift books, its quality was markedly
superior. Written by three professional authors, the letter-
press was naturally better than that of the ordinary gift
book which accepted contributions from any and every amateur.
Besides the unity brought to the book by the single narrator,
Francis Herbert, it was witty and full of humor with a certain
masculine appeal. Other gift books were blatantly sentimental
and were aimed rather exclusively at the female audience.

American gift books also tended to be patriotic, prefer-
ring stories and pictures with American subjects. One would
naturally expect the Talisman to be just as patriotic, since
all three collaborators were known exponents of a national
literature. Surprisingly, at least one-third of the letter-
press is non-American and three-fourths of the 25 engravings
are of foreign subjects. In fact, reviewers even remarked
about the lack of "patriotic incident."26 There were tales
of India, Persia, Greece, and Cuba. There were essays on
Spanish, Provencal, and Greek poetry. And there were trans-
lations from half a dozen languages. One-fourth of the 1829

Talisman, for example, was devoted to articles and poems on

 

236
Spanish culture; this accounted for nearly two-thirds of
Bryant's individual share for that year. Naturally Sands, who
was working on the Cortes biography at the same time, shared
Bryant's interest, and wrote "The Dream of the Princess
Papantzin." Articles on Greece are easily accounted for by
intense sympathy and interest Americans were showing in the

Greek War for Independence; the Commercial Advertiser was

 

one of the main organs for promoting the various relief
efforts carried out by the citizens of New York. Commentary
and translations of Classical Greek literature were consis-
tent with Sands's perpetual interest in promoting classical
scholarship.

The editors evidently came to feel that a word of explan-
ation was necessary to justify their large non-American
content; therefore in the "Preface" to the last Talisman,
Francis Herbert says:

When I have attempted to describe what I have seen of
foreign regions, and their manners and customs, I have
done so with simple home-bred feelings; and that in
delineating foreign objects, whether accurately or
erroneously, I have still described them as they
appeared to an American eye, eXpressing only those
associated ideas naturally suggested to me as a
native of this happy country (1830 Talisman, p. vi).
Sands's ideas on a national literature were Catholic, not
provincial. He wanted American authors to write richly and
variedly and originally, instead of mimicking the style and
subject of British authors.
The embellishments were probably the most important item

in a gift book, which was more often bought for its looks

than what it said, and the artwork in the Talisman was the

 

237
best to be found in gift books at that time. The authorita-
tive gift book historian, Ralph Thompson, says the Talisman
embellishments "probably represent the best work of their
sort then obtainable in America."27 America's artists, like
her authors, were migrating to New York; paintings by these

artists were used for the Talisman's embellishments. Henry

 

Inman contributed six paintings, Robert W. Weir five, John
Neilson, Jr. three, T. S. Cummings two, Samuel F. B. Morse,
two, and Thomas Cole, J. L. Morton, and H. J. Morton each
contributed one. Due to the small (4" x 6") size of the
annual, the engravings, done mostly by A. B. Durand, G. W.
Hatch, and Peter Maverick, are of little significance in

the history of American art. The engravings coupled with the
beautifully embossed leather covers and the fine quality,
ragged-edge paper made the Talisman a beautiful literary
annual, especially the 1830 edition which won first prize in
the book awards given by the American Institute of the City
of New York.

All the artists that contributed pictures or designs to
the Talisman belonged to the Sketch Club, as did Sands,
Bryant, and Verplanck. Some historians have tried to show
a connection between the Sketch Club and the Talisman, saying
either that the book was a product of the club or that the
club grew out of the collaboration on the book. It appears,
however, that the book was pretty much the creation of three
men who just happened to belong to the Sketch Club, and who,

'when looking for artwork, went to their club friends. The

 

5r

238
"production of an annual," which is mentioned as one of the
purposes of the club in the 1829 revision of the constitu-
tion more likely refers to The American'Landscape (1830), a

collection of engravings in the form of a gift book.

The Sketch Club

 

The Sketch Club, of which Sands was a charter member, :
owed its origin more to the breaking up of Cooper's Lunch or
Bread and Cheese Club than to any collaboration on the

Talisman by the artists and authors. In its heyday, the

I. ‘n'l‘a'.

Bread and Cheese Club had included most of the artists, authors, g

 

intellectuals, and professional men of the city. With Cooper
out of the country, it began to break up in the summer of
1827; however Sands wrote to Verplanck as late as December
of 1828 that he and Bryant were going to a meeting to try to
save "the old lunch," which was "in danger of going to the
dogs."28

In a meeting of artists belonging to the National Academy
of Design, C. C. Ingham proposed a new club for artists and
their friends. All in attendance agreed, and thus the Sketch

29 The Club's main purpose was social; however,

Club was born.
only light refreshments were allowed by the host, who was

a different member each week. The second purpose was to
improve artistic talent, so the host was to provide paper
and pencils for sketching during the first hour. Non-artists
worked on impromptu compositions. A third aim of the club

'was the above-mentioned "production of an annual." This may

have been another reason why non-artists were included in

239
the Sketch Club.

The_gregarious young journalist from Hoboken thoroughly
enjoyed his associations in the Sketch Club. Sometimes the
club went on excursions, a favorite spot being the Sands home
in Hoboken. Sometimes they planned exhibitions, or showed
or read their own works. Sometimes they watched demonstra-
tions of phrenology or a magic show. But always there was
a good deal Of singing and lively conversation, which was
to be expected "where so many of the speechegifted race
were gathered together." At meetings there "was quite a
hubbub, but then it was none of your fierce, braggadocio,
hurly burly hubbubs," wrote William Emerson the club's
secretary, "but a peaceful, social, laughing, chatting
hubbub."3o

The meeting held 13 February 1829 was typical. Because
it was "a most abominable night, prolific only in wind, snow,
coughs, colds and frozen ears," attendance was light.

For such as did come, however, there was some philo-
sophy and plenty of fun. Grave discussions upon the
nature and Operations of clouds between Messrs. Cole

and Ingham; stories from Messrs. Cole, Ingham, Sands,

and Henry and John Inman; lots of laughter from Mr.

Cummings. Sandwiches, prime and well attended to;
crackers and cheese rather neglected. Wine, mulled,

and in naturablis, abundant; also porter. No drawing,

but of corks. ("Minutes for 1829")

Much of the time, however, the group did draw. It was the
host's decision as to the subject. Bryant, at the meeting in
his house 24 April 1829, asked the artists to portray "the

discomfiture of a party of pleasure, upon an island which

was overflowed by the tide, their boat having thought

240
proper to travel off without leave or license" (“Minutes for
1829"). More often they tried to illustrate literary topics,
like Celadon and Amelia from James Thomsen's "Seasons."
While the artists sketched, the writers tried extemperaneous
versification, usually on the same subject the artists were

working on. Sands apparently lead out in these enterprises,

 

for he invariably wrote the first stanzas. For example, at F] T
the meeting on 4 February 1830, Bryant, Sands, and John a
Inman (secretary), wrote on "The Sublime". Sands began F
Sands: Ye everlasting hills that tower sublime - ”j
Grand as eternity and old as time 1_J

The greatest objects to be seen in nature--

Sec: Your glories in my soul are deeply graven
Since that blest day when first in old New Haven
I learned your qualities and nomenclature.

Bryant: Ye piles of granite, basalt & grey wacke [soacke?]
That bear the umbrageous forests on your back
And carry clouds and tempests on your forehead.

Sands: Gypsum & slate, asbestos, pudding stone,
Whoever fall your flinty ribs upon
Are very likely to come off with soreheads--

But as usual, the sublime soon degenerated into the ridiculous:
Sands: Oh Chimborazo, Pyrenees and Alps

That into heaven thrust up y? daring scalps
Cloud kissing Pyramids--Ye Breasts of Isis.

 

Sands: And oh ye great volcanos spitting coal
Pumping Earths entrails from the lowest hole
Vesuvius [,] Stromboli & might Etna--

Sec: If twixt two of you I could raise a wedding
And be permitted to behold the bedding
I'd pay the eXpense of yr jaunt to Gretna.
("Minutes for 1830")
A little of this doggerel goes a long way, to be sure, but
it does show another side to one of America's leading poets,

the reserved William Cullen Bryant. Of Sands, such trivia

 

241
can be expected when he is having fun. Some of Bryant's
biographers accuse Sands of tainting Bryant's muse by this
kind of collaboration during their years together. The above
poem is below the quality of John Keats's and James Leigh
Hunt's poems on the grasshopper and the cricket, but it does
show a certain skill in rhyming, because each member had to
match the sound given by the preceding person, then furnish ]
a new sound for the next verse.

At times the verses were coarse, which surprises no one F

 

who remembers these were stag parties. The ground rules 1

Ir

were sometimes so difficult that nothing coherent was pro-
duced, as when a topic was known by all, but the person
whose turn it was to contribute a stanza knew only the rime
of the preceding line and nothing about its content. Another
pretty tough assignment was in the form of "a penance [which]
was imposed on Mr. Sands, Dr. Nielson and the Secretary (John
Inman), for certain contempts. Their task was to construct
doggrell [sic] verses, each verse to contain the word "Ex-
tract" and Extract to be the subject. Their united labors
produced the following sublime effusion:
Sands
Many elegant Extracts there be
Such as Syrup of Sassaparilla:
‘ Inman
A sort of shrub or tree
That is found in the Isles of Manilla.
'Inman
Now though Extracts are potent, they say
There's no faith in the word of a woman;
"sands

That the Extracts she makes, every way
Are doubtful, is unknown to no man.

 

242

Dr. Neilson went for a different meaning of extract:
'Neilson
Extracting a grinder they say
May be done with both profit and pleasure;
'Sands
But yet there's the devil to pay
If your gum-bone is cracked beyond measure.
The only thing poetic about these lines is that they are
F7 -".
arranged with rimes. With an eye on the future, and perhaps, I T

a slight twinge of conscience, Sands closed by saying:

 

Sands A
Whenever these lines shall be heard : 'g
They can only be taken in one sense 5 J

Sands 1

That is they are very ridiculous
SO let us sing, glory to gibberish—- ("Minutes for 1830")

This was nonsense and Sands knew it, as his closing lines
show. Yet all this practice in collaboration must have

paid off when the more serious collaboration on the Talisman

 

took place.
Meetings of the Sketch Club were announced in the news-

paper in a single line like the one appearing in Evening Post

 

(14 January, 1830): "S.C., H.I. 49 Vesey Street." This

meant that the Sketch Club would be held that evening at

 

Henry Inman's house on Vesey Street. These cryptic announce-
ments amused Sands, and he tried to stir up some public
controversy with letters to the editor of the New York
Standard, insinuating that the coded line summoned together

a gambling club. When a curiosity was sufficiently aroused,

Sands wrote another letter to the Standard, saying:

 

We. S.C.'s are not gamblers, and we entertain as
virtuous and laudable a horror of such iniquities

 

243
as any sort of our fellow countrymen. How should it
be otherwise? Are we not Sober Citizens and Sincere
Christians? Do we not Sleep Coundly, Sing Cheerfully,
Separate Coberly, Speak Censibly, Suffer Courageously
and Sup Comfortably? You seem to think we Shuffle
Cards, too; but upon the Spotless Character of an
S.C. it is not so; and the man who says it utters
a Scandalous Calumny.

Since you manifest so much anxiety on the subject,
however, I will tell you the honest truth; we are, in
fact, a Secret Combination of Sworn Conspirators; and
Social Conviviality is but a Simulated Cover for the
Sacred Cerecy of our Solemn Cabal.

Your Sensible Correspondent, S.C.31
One can easily imagine the delight this sort of fun brought
Sands and the other members.

Sands, whose address in the 1830 roster is listed as
"fugitive--Com. Adv.," sometimes had to entertain the club
at a hotel. On one such occassion, April 3rd, 1829, Sands
planned to host a meeting of the club at the American Hotel;
however there was a mix-up in reservations for a room. "The
long and short of the matter was that to put an end to the
controversy Mr. Sands put himself at the head of the club,
and forthwith absconded to Washington Hall. . . but without
beat of drum" ("Minutes for 1829"). This was obviously a
tense and embarrassing moment,but Sands seems to have been
the master of every situation.

In nicer weather the club was welcome at the Sands home
in Hoboken where, on 13 June 1829, for instance, they were
"patronized by Miss Sands [with] Tea and Toast" ("Minutes
for 1829"). Sands's sister Julia has been called by New
York City historian J. G. Wilson, "the only lady member" of

the Sketch Club;32 however, there is no such evidence in the

club records.

 

 

244

In April of 1830, James Hillhouse broke the rule against

simple entertaining by throwing Open the doors of his dining
room for an elegant supper. An uproar resulted, but, as
T. S. Cummings recorded, "It was decided that the supper

should be eaten, but that it should be eaten 'standing'.

 

'Sitting down' to supper, it was said, was prohibited by

 

'The rules.‘ The distinction was a very nice one; so was

 

the supper" (p. 111). Members of the club agreed, however,
that things had gotten out of hand and that they appeared to
be going the route of the Bread and Cheese club. Therefore
no more meetings were held until 17 December 1830, at which
time the Old Sketch Club was abolished and a new one formed,
with all old members except Hillhouse considered members of
the new club. Meetings were to be held in the council room
of the National Academy and refreshments were to be kept
minimal. Besides becoming more Spartan, the club also seems
to have become more serious at that time. There was less

frivolity and more attempts at self improvement. This may

be why Sands, who did request to remain a member, quit coming

for two years. Not until 28 September 1832 does Sands's
name again appear in the minutes, at which time the "Sketch

Club met by invitation of Mr. Sands at his residence in

Hoboken."33 They started meeting at the homes of the members

again in 1832 and some of the old spirit was breathed back
into the club.
In the two years Sands was absent from the club, there

were several proposals that the club publish an annual, but

 

r? .v» --u '15 -ecu‘-._r-.

L...

245
nothing ever came of it. However, soon after rejoining the
club, the "Minutes" record that
Mr. Sands then proceeded to address the chair in
favor of the execution of some literary work by the
club, to be published by the artists of our number.
It is needless to enlarge upon the eloquence of the Speech,
or the singular impressiveness Of the orator's manner.
Suffice it to say; that there was but one mind on the
subject.
With a veteran editor sponsoring such a project, it most
likely would have been accomplished. Unfortunately, Sands

died unexpectedly eleven days later, and nothing ever became

of the proposal.

 

At the meeting three weeks later, 27 December 1832,
The following resolution was unanimously adOpted
at the suggestion of Brother Ward;
Resolved-—That the club have heard with grief of
the death of their late valued brother Robert C. Sands,
Esq. whose genius, moral worth, & social qualities
they ever held in high estimation, & that, in testi-
mony of their respect for his memory, this resolution
be entered in the minutes. ("Minutes for 1830-1833")
The using of the word "brother" is reminiscent of the Literary
Confederacy days, and it should be noted that both Neilson
and Ward were members of the Sketch Club. In Sand's social-
literary activites, the Sketch Club had taken the place of
the Literary Confederacy. Actually the Sketch Club combined

the Literary Confederates with his new collaborators, Bryant

and Verplanck, who were also members Of the Sketch Club.

Tales of Glauber Spa

 

During the two year period Sands absented himself from
the Sketch Club, his activities are more difficult to trace.

He continued his work at the Commercial'Advertiser and

 

246

contributed a few articles to journals such as the New York
Mirror. His greatest literary effort was in the production
of a two volume miscellany called Tales Of Glauber Spa which
he wrote with four other Knickerbocker authors. A rough
sketch of his work on this project can be pieced together
from his letters.

Shortly after the constituent identities which made up
Francis Herbert decided to publish no more miscellanies in the
gift book format and agreed to let Bliss publish the three

Talisman volumes in a single edition, Sands agreed to write

 

the biography of John Paul Jones for the admiral's agressive
niece, Janette Taylor. This SOD—plus page book kept Sands
busy from spring, throughout the summer, and into the fall

of 1830. When he did manage to get together with Bryant

and Verplanck there was probably a certain relief at not

being under the pressure to finish another Talisman. It was
agreed, however, that Francis Herbert ought to publish another
volume of miscellaneous literature in the future.

Little seems to have been done on the project during
the winter of 1830-1831; although, Sands did write to Ver—
planck, in Washington, about it:

I sincerely wish, if you have any appropriate notions

for Francis Herbert to work upon, you would give them
to me. I am not well and rather low in spirits-- I
have no inclination for regular study in the evenings,
and read miscellaneously, to no great profit. I am

alone; which I would notbe, if you would suggest some

idea which might be worked up for our projected volume.34

‘When the trio got together again during the summer of 1831,

no more writing was done, but firm plans for publishing a

 

247

miscellany were made upon Verplanck's suggestion to do so.
Sands took their plans to the publishing house of the Harper
brothers, who, according to Sands, were "tickled with it"
and thought they could "make it sell."35

The idea of the new series was to have Francis Herbert
act as a patron of the arts and publish a volume of what he
thought was the best in American literature every six months.
This would allow Sands, Verplanck, and Bryant to publish
what they wanted and include other well known contributors.
Like the gift book idea which was borrowed from England,
"The idea of this sort of partnership in story-telling," as

the New York Mirror explained, "seems to have been caught

 

from the recent fashion of England and France, in the Club
Book and the Sister's Budget, of the one country, and was

followed by the Livre des Cent et Un, of the other."36

 

Many authors had already come to dislike the idea of
gift books because they were seldom read. They had soon
become nothing more than a status symbol which indicated you
had a friend interested enough in you to buy a rather expen-
sive momento. It was also a Sign that you had some culture.
Therefore the books soon became a necessary part of Victorian
interior decorating--each prOper parlor had to have a round
table, usually marble tOpped, upon which was agift book.
Sands mentioned a typical instance to Verplanck in connection
‘with the Sketch Club's A. B. Durand's landscape book for which
Bryant had done the letterpress: "The Miss Dennings. . .

pronounce the description of Fort Putnam to be one of the

 

If

248

best productions of the age. This is now one of the things
they have in their heads; and they have put the book at one
end Of the room, with flowers at the other, to correspond."37
So liking the idea of a book by several authors, but wanting
at the same time to have their work read, (not just used to
balance a flower arrangement) authors around 1830 began to
favor a type of gift book without the engravings and fancy
production.

Sands explained his and James K. Paulding's idea for the
format like this: "Francis Herbert being a patron of litera-
ture offered a reward for the best story &c. Ten, or whatever
the number might be, were sent in, and as many judges were
appointed to decide upon them. Each judge having his own
opinion of their several merits, Mr. Herbert determined to
publish them all."38 Bryant got his assistant at the BREE!
William Leggett, and long-time family friend, Catherine
Maria Sedgwick, to help with the project; Sands contacted
Paulding, who evidently helped set up plans for the series,

which was to be called The Hexade, because of the six authors

 

involved.

During January and February of 1832 the collaborating
authors went to work on stories which were to be done by the
first of March. AS press time drew near, it became more
and more obvious that Verplanck, still in Washington, was
not going to contribute anything. Bryant and Sands panicked
and sent a flurry of appeals to their old collaborator. Sands

even sounded irritated: "you must not, after originating

_%

 

hr '-

249

"39

the project leave me and them. A few days later Bryant

urged, "I hOpe you will find time ere long to do something
for the book. Your name we must have, if you cannotgive us
a long article give us a short one, and if you cannot give
us a story let us have something else. Beside, if the rest

of us are not on the look out Paulding will fill the whole

book."40

But Verplanck never came through with a contribution, so

 

the whole concept was modified. Francis Herbert was dropped

from the picture, and plans for a series were scratched. A

 

new framework for the stories was provided by Sands's intro-
duction, which told the woeful tale of Mr. Sharon Clapp. For
many years Mr. Clapp had contentedly run his farm near Sheep's
Neck in up-state New York. But once his daughters returned
from finishing school his idyllic life was upset forever.

They first demanded he build a new house, since the old one
was in "bad taste." Then they made the acquaintance of a
young doctor who analyzed the water of their spring and

found "It had saline and gaseous properties, and was made out

of different kinds of stuff, in which there was plenty of

 

oxhides and gin, as far as I can understand it, with a good
deal of sulphur and soda."41 Soon people came from all over
to drink the waters of the spa. Clapp's house was enlarged
and he himself was run out to make room for more boarders.
It soon became a favorite Spot of "Congress-peOple and
‘Nullyflyers," but they all cleared out when one of Clapp's

servants died of Cholera. He was left bankrupt, so he

 

250

combed the house to see what the guests had left that might
be of value: "on looking about the rooms, and at the various
rubbish which had been left, I found, in one where the reading-
party used to meet by themselves, a great pile Of papers,
making, I should say, many quires of foolscap" (Egg, I, 19).
He thought they might bring some money, so he sent them "To
the Misters Harpers, at their store in New-York City." 3 a

The "Advertisement" by the Harpers carried on with the
fictional source of the manuscripts. Trying to determine F

who wrote them, they 1i 1

 

1' z.

. . . submitted the whole to a select committee of five

gentlemen, distinguished in private for their critical

acumen. Their report was a singular one; inasmuch

as each one unequivocally condemned, as un-typeworthy,

four-fifths of the whole; but the single and separate

fifths which separately pleased each of them, and on

which each bestowed high commendations (no two of

them agreeing), made up the entire fardel which Mr.

Clapp wished to dispose of. (TGS, I, 5)
Since the committee offered no clues about the authorship of
the manuscripts, the publishers did a bit of detective work
and inspected the register and books kept at the spa. There
they discovered the names of "Miss Sedgwick, Messrs. Paulding,
Bryant, Sands, and Leggett" (TGS, I, 5). Thus was fulfilled
one of the wishes of the Harper brothers which Sands had
earlier explained to Verplanck: "The Harpers will, I suppose,
want the names alluded to in the introduction. If so it
Should be done quaintly, and a la F. H. [Francis Herbert]."42

Immediately after the line hinting who the authors

were, came the following sentence: "The name of G. C. Ver-

planck had been written, but a line was drawn through it, as

 

 

251
if the entry had been made by mistake." This loaded line is

best explained by Bryant's letter to Verplanck, warning that

"The authors of the 'Book' are suitably vexed and disappointed

that you Should write nothing for it-—and there are loud

threats of lugging your name into the preface or some other

"43

part of the book, en revanche. It can only be conjectured

 

that the reason Verplanck changed his mind about contributing
to the book was that he was just too involved with his work
in Washington. At any rate, the book was published in June
(1832) without further reference to Verplanck.

Bryant was responsible for two of the eight stories in
the collection. His first, "The Skeleton's Cave," describes
three people stranded for three days in a cave when a storm
caused a huge rock to cover the entrance temporarily. In
"Medfield" the protagonist promises his dying wife he will

reform and be more gentle. After her death he feels a grip

on his arm, restraining him when he is tempted to do something

cruel.
Catherine Sedgwick contributed a gothic-sentimental tale

about the court of Charlemagne, "Le Bossu." Hers is a fairly

good story, but Miss Sedgwick does not seem at home on foreign

soil. The setting of "The Block House," William Legget's
story, is the Ohio River. A suave, mysterious stranger drops
into town and promptly falls in love with the local paragon
of beauty, virtue, and money. Her former suitor, a rascally
riverman named Ned Overton, provides the third part of the

eternal triangle. This one ends violently but happily. Even

 

 

252
though this story is strictly sentimental, poorly plotted,,
and full of stock characters, including a Yankee peddler, it
is a well told, captivating tale.
"Selim: The Benefactor of Mankind," by James K. Pauld-
ing, is a middle Eastern tale of a man who is so concerned

with helping others that he ruins himself, destroys his

 

family, and hurts most of those with whom he comes in con- giM]
tact. The result is a bad combination of blatent moralizing ;
and travel narrative. Paulding redeemed himself with "Childe

Roeliffe's Pilgrimage," a humorous satire on the American . "j
newly rich. The story also stresses the superiority of genuine 4

American values over shallow foreign manners, half a century
before Henry James. It moves along quickly with enough wit
and humor to keep it sparkling. Except for the standard
nineteenth-century digressions to describe the wonders of
the American landscape, it is a good tale.

Besides the introduction about poor Sharon Clapp and the
woes of Glauber Spa, Sands contributed two stories: "Mr.

Green" and "Boyuca."

Sands's Short Fiction
The seven short stories Sands wrote for the Talisman
series and for Tales Of Glauber Spa are among his best
literary efforts and increased his reputation as a Knicker-
bocker Wit. They are also among the best short stories
written in America between Irving and Hawthorne. Thus they
are an important span in the bridge between the essay and the

shOrt story which began with Irving's Sketch Book (1819-1820).

 

253

It was only ten years after the Sketch Book that Hawthorne

 

published his first Short story; in that decade Sands and
other practitioners of short fiction helped shape this new
genre.

"Mr. De Viellecour and His Neighbours," published in the

first Talisman, was undoubtedly Sands's most pOpular story

 

and one of his best. Sands matter-of—factly mentioned its
pOpularity when he wrote to Verplanck that "the prevailing
opinion among competent judges, [is] that the second volume

Of the Talisman is better than the first, always excepting

 

the story of Mr. De Viellecour."44 The Southern Review also
thought it was "the best story in the volume."45
Much of the success of the story is because of the
sympathetic characterization of the title character. Mr.
De Viellecour is a friend of Francis Herbert and he appears
in several other episodes of the Talisman series along with
Mr. Herbert. Adam Adrian De Viellecour is a bachelor country
gentleman of French extraction living near New Rochelle, New
York. His farm is a horticulturalist's dream, his manners
are impeccable:
His habitual temperance, gayety of disposition, and
innocence of life, had been rewarded with a healthy
and vigorous old age. His light and slender figure
was unbent by years; his step firm and active; and the
smoothe, boyish ruddiness of his cheek, and the quick
Sparkle of his black eye, contrasted oddly enough with
his gray hairs, Sharp features, and wrinkled brow;
while the brisk vivacity of his manner formed just as
whimsical an incongruity with the elaborate formality
of his politeness. (Writings, II, 116.)
Life for Mr. De Viellecour is a medley of good deeds and good

living until a literal peck of trouble settles near his farm.

 

 

254
These Yankee invaders are led by the indomitable Aunt
Peck and include the ego-maniac Plutarch Peck, her nephew,
and Abishag Peck, her daughter. The aggressive Miss Peck".
"Exactly five feet, eleven inches, and eleven lines high,
when unhosed, unbuskined, and unbonneted"--considers herself

an authority on folk medicine. Completing the Peck household

 

 

is an exconvict masquerading as a nobleman incognito, named gflfi]

Terence Mountjoy. Sands described him as "real, pure, natural, 1

unlicked, unlettered, unequivocal, unadorned, unadulterated,

unsophisticated, unaccommodated humbug," (Writings, II, 125). .
Sands painted his characters with detailed, nearly iii}

Dickensian strokes, so that they almost become caricatures.
Consequently, he had to insert the following defense of his
realism:

Gentle Reader! If these outlines are coarse, they are
graphic. If the portrait is vulgar, the original is
one of God's creatures, and none of mine. I know, and
I love, nay, where it is unaffected, I adore, the
fastidiousness of this exquisite age. But if we are
to paint only beautiful forms, I wish the Harrisburgh
Convention would contrive some protection against

time and the elements, and the perpetuation of those
ugly family likenesses, which do so play the mischief
with the line of beauty. (Writings, II, 122-23).

 

Mr. De Viellecour's tragic flaw is poor penmanship; con-
sequently a routine thank-you note "became transformed in the
eyes of the fond fair [Abishag Peck] and her kindred into a
fervent tender of 'heart and hand.'" Miss Peck, of course,
jumps at the chance and answers in the first of many letters
that completely bewilder the French gentleman.

Character revealing letters were Sands's forte, and he

is superlative here. Uncle Epaphroditus X. Peck's erudite,

255

florid style characterizes him as a pseudo-intellectual.
Terence had planned to marry Miss Peck, so he challenges Mr.
De Viellecour to a duel in a revealing letter:

Sir,

To come to the point, without making any daytoor, and,

as we military men say, to make a riglar dayployay

at once, soor le shom, youre no better than a neegur,

and therefore I ask you for the satisfaction of a
gintleman. (Writings, II, 137)

 

Miss Adelle Huggins, a waif who the kind Old man had set up
in the millinery business, feels she has been jilted; she
calls him a "False and perfidious yet still too fassenating

man," and threatens to "commit sooicide!" (Writings, II, 142-

 

43). Sands's development of her background and character is
an enjoyable digression, but an obvious flaw in the develop-
ment of the plot. Mr. De Viellecour is next hit with a

$5000 breach of promise suit from a lawyer friend who thought
Mr. De Viellecour would marry his daughter.

Overwhelmed by this uproar, Mr. De Viellecour abruptly
and quietly disappears from New Rochelle until the trouble
has quieted down. Subplots have Plutarch Peck being sent to
the state legislature for the remainder of someone's term
and Terence Mountjoy being arrested for having robbed a
Canadian officer and winding up in Sing Sing. The rest of the
Pecks flee to the West to avoid creditors.

The story was pOpular because Sands managed to satirize
types of people everyone knew. The critic for the American

QuarterlyAReview admitted that the story throws "some of our

 

domestic manners and social personages in striking: though

 

256
amusing lights." The characters "are not such caricatures,
but that their originals may be found in every village in
our country."46 Plutarch Peck, who edited the "Cataract of
Freedom" among his other activities, was a common target
of satire in the days of universal suffrage. In fact there
is a striking resemblance between him and COOper's editor,

Steadfast Dodge, of a decade later (Home as Found, 1838).

 

The types satirized by Sands pretty much reflect the
increasing importance and glorification of common peeple
during the period of Jacksonian democracy: the aggressive
Yankee, the stuff—shirt preacher, the know-it-all editor
become state legislator, and the upstart businessman, and the
litigious lawyer. Like COOper and Irving who were disappointed
‘with home as found when they returned from Europe, Sands's
sympathy quite obviously lies with the urbane, aristocracic,
long established inhabitants of New York. When the upstart
commoners become too much for Mr. De Viellecour he quietly
handles the situation with dignity by taking his sword and
Bible and leaving the insurgents to destroy each other.
Apparently Sands hoped that through satire or time, the upf
start commoners would disappear as they did for Mr. De Vielle-
cour.

The representative types were modelled on originals
‘widely known in New York City, thus increasing the effective-
ness of the humor and satire. Two especially, the milliner
and the watchmaker, were so well known that Sands had to

end his story with the following apology: “As I have made

 

 

 

257

very free use of the names of certain individuals in this story,
let me, with my parting bow, beg their pardon if they are
offended and do them all the services in my power" (Writings,
II, 157). There was also an editor near New York who, like
Plutarch, was jealous for the rights of the peOple, and who
was forced to flee to Ohio for similar reasons. Evidently
this zealot managed to get elected to Congress while Verplanck
was in office. Sands told his friend, "I always knew that
Wright was Plutarch Peck, but did not like to mention it,
because the family is litigious?"4'7

The con-man Terence may also have had an original, but
most of the gossip Sands shared with Verplanck about the man
must have been invented. For example, shortly before the

first Talisman was released, Sands reported:

 

Terence has actually got out of the State Prison; and
has applied for an injunction to prevent the publica-
tion of the Talisman. He now calls himself Earl of
Tipperary; which title he got by reason of a bog's
Swimming out of the County Connaught into the County
of Ulster, one day, (with a castle and two pigs on
it, belonging to his maternal aunt,) where it staid.
He accuses you of having found 2&3 trunk, and carried
off his title deeds and jewels.

During the 1827 elections, Sands reported "that Terence voted
the Jackson ticket twice, in every ward, on one day; making
28 times; and at each time he drank a pint of beer, which

amounts to three gallons and a half."49

Congressman Verplanck, who had furnished some of the
characters and incidents of "Mr. De Viellecour and His Neigh-
bors," supplied Sands with the material for a satire on Washing-

ton society, which was printed in two parts in the 1829 and

 

 

 

258

1830 Talisman. In order to provide a unity in the annuals,

 

some of Mr. De Viellecour's neighbors, namely Plutarch Peck
and Terence Mountjoy, reappear in Washington.

The setting for both the "Scenes at Washington" is a
boarding house, which gives Sands and Verplanck a nice cross
section of the Washington pOpulation to satirize. Besides
the Congressmen, there are bustling businessmen in Washing-
ton to lobby for interests back home, unemployed French
sculptors hOping for work on the Capitol, third-rate poets,
harebrained clergymen, fortune hunters (both male and female),
faded Southern Belles, and phoney foreigners.

Miss Violet Lilly-—the leading lady of "Scenes at
Washington, I"--is one of the female fortune hunters. Miss
Lilly, one of Sands's greatest creations, is "a strapping,
able-bodied woman, with a well fed person, and red cheeks,"
weighing two hundred fifty pounds. Her dress epitomizes her
personality:

She wore a turban, with a very complicated fold, and

set somewhat awry, with a huge artificial rose stuck

in front of it. The upper part of her portly bust

was a little too ostentatiously exposed; and her
masculine red arms did not appear to much advantage
through their gauze integuments, which were confined

at the wrists with monstrous bracelets, set with

imitation cornelian cameos of a fat Brutus and a

lean Cassius. Her girdle was fastened in front with a

massive shining clasp of Berlin ware, on which was

the ill-favoured effigy of Oliver Cromwell. All over

her bust hung a variety of chains, attached to watches,

quizzing glasses, and other paraphernalia. Her full
person was invested in white, so as to lose none of

the effect produced on the beholder by its ample
dimensions. (Writings, II, 162-63)

 

fIhis amazon created a spectacle wherever she went by quoting

IFrench and English verse to illustrate each comment and by

 

 

 

259
eating and drinking everything within reach.

The self-manufactured rumor that Miss Lily is an heiress
attracts three other fortune hunters: a verbose congressman,
Colonel Mansfield; a poet named Halfmoon; and a Paraguayan
diplomat, Don Pedro. The three pursue Miss Lily and her for-
tune at a Washington party, which provides another venue for
Sands's satire on Washington types. The most easily recog-
nizable person at the party is Davy Crockett, whom Sands
describes as "a raw-boned, manly, bold, blunt, sagacious, and
withall superb-looking speciman of the hunter state of
civilization. He had his arms akimbo, with no lady hanging

on either" (Writings, II, 175). Colonel Mansfield finally

 

wins the hand of Miss Lily after impressing her with a six
hour harrangue in Congress in favor of paving Tennessee
Avenue. Sands's report of the Speech contains some of his
best satire; the New York Mirror calls it "glorious."50

Colonel Mansfield and Miss Lily hurriedly marry and head
for New York with Don Pedro as escort. There poetic justice
catches up with them. The newlyweds both find they were mis-
taken in thinking the other had a fortune. Mansfield turns
out to be Plutarch Peck, who skipped town without paying his
bills in the story about "Mr. De Viellecour." In a lively
finale, the high costable marches in, snatches the black
wig off Don Pedro's head, and takes the red—headed Terence,
con-man Of the earlier story, back to Sing—Sing.

The choice satire and vivid characterizations of this

story are marred by ridiculous and unrealistic incidences.

T..t.~'i5-'m n”
A .
\r

 

n

 

 

260
Sands's rampaging humor and love of the ludicrous plainly carry
him too far in some spots, as when the clumsy dancing of Miss
Lily sets off chain-reaction accidents that nearly cause
the destruction ofaihouse. Sands thumbs his nose at the
fastidiousness of his age and claims to be picturing things
as they were; but he goes beyond the limits of probability and
strains the limits of possibility, thus damaging the credi-
bility of his realistic rationale. Overstatement and
exaggeration are big weapons for the satirist, but their

overuse causes satire to degenerate into farce. Sands

 

apologizes for and explains his extravagance at the end of
the story: "The characters of this story are a little fan-
tastic, and I must also own, a little coarse; but it was
precisely because they were out of the beaten track of
society, that they struck me as worthy of commemoration"

(Writings, II, 207).

 

The story is also weak in its plot. Besides attempting
to satirize too many aspects of Washington society, it is too
long, actually two stories in one: the part set in Washing-
ton is primarily satire, the New York segment provides
poetic justice and, with its surprise ending, ties the story
to "Mr. De Viellecour."

Most of the story's saving pleasure derives from Sands's
masterful use of the language. Part of the humor in the
story, as usual, comes from "the happy and curious phraseology
employed in describing the most common occurence," as the

New York Mirror put it.51 The sheriff serving the warrant

 

261

on Mr. Mansfield, for example,
fumbled under a bilious looking, weather-beaten,
tavern-stained plaid cloak, and the breast of a body
coat of no colour at all, until he had hauled out a
vast greasy pocket-book, whose original and existing
hues were equally unimaginable and unascertainable.
From this he produced an oblong piece of paper, and
said, "I've got a warrant agin you, squire." (Writings,
II, 202)

His characterizations are unforgettable, and his rendering

of dialogue shows an ear for the individual nuances of speech.

Sands handled "Scenes at Washington II“ better. Though
longer, its plot is more unified. The satire is aimed at
fewer subjects-—the decoration of the House of Representatives,
the Sunday praching services then being held in the House
chamber, and the problems of congressmen who are constantly
pestered by quacks and eccentrics.

The story Opens with several such pests arriving to
plague the distinguished Congressman Moreton. One is a rather
ostentatious but seedy looking minister with big plans for
a national university with himself as president. The other,
a female fortune hunter named Mrs.Montagu, wants Congress to
establish a seminary under her direction for young ladies and
has brought two samples of her "finishing" with her. Miss
Ann Fin, reputed heiress of a land speculator, is "some six
feet two, with a figure all alike." Her companion, but

antithesis in looks, is Miss Adelgitha Longchild, who is just

over four feet and is "chuncky" (Writings, II, 221). Her

 

father is supposedly a banker. Mr. Moreton shows the saga-
city which put him in congress by telling each party the

other has a fortune. The rest of the plot hinges on mistaken

Pmfimu amflxj

f

262
identities and fortune hunters marrying penniless fortune
hunters.
Most of the action outside the boarding house takes place
in the House chamber which Sands criticizes as "utterly
unfit for any earthly purpose to which it can ever be applied;
where peOple can neither see nor hear one another. . . uncom-

fortable to sit in, unhealthy to stay in, and dangerous to

 

legislate in, alike for the peOple and the law-makers" (Writ—

i
ings, II, 225). These sentiments are most likely Verplanck's. }
Sands also has fun with the prolix parsons who preached in the i
chamber on Sundays. E

Although the surprise denouement depends heavily on
coincidence, the plot is much more probable and the satire
more in check than the previous story on Washington. Much of
the humor again comes from the exaggerated portraits and from
the inflated diction, expecially from the verbose legislators
and humbug lobbyists. One congressman, finding that Dr.
Perkins, who wants to start a national university, is really
named Firkins, says, "Firkins is certainly an improvement; it
is more euphonic and sonorous, and suggests divers pleasing
bucolical and pastoral associations" (Writings, II, 257).
Sands excelled at making a character reveal his true nature
as soon as he opened his mouth.

The theme of both stories, which Sands comments on at
the end of each a la Francis Herbert, is humility and modesty.

Sands hated vanity and "those who parade their sensibilities

and eccentricities before the public eye, or claim exemption

263
from the approved forms of society and the rules of pru-
dence, on the score of genius and originality." He much pre-
ferred "plain good sense, straight forward conduct, quiet
modesty, every-day economy and prudence, and those other un-
pretending humble virtues, in man or woman-~but most in womanh-

which makes life's daily burdens light, and its ways pleasant

 

and easy" (Writings, 11, 207-08). A better summary of Sands's : T
personality is hard to find.

Though each story ends with an obvious moral, Sands

K 35‘-“ ."U" .1 A K

insists that his stories were "not written according to the

 

If

Edgeworth pattern, regularly cut out to the measure of some

given morality" (Writings, II, 206). His only aim was to

 

draw characters true to life. If he succeeded, then "The
instruction to be derived from them is, of course, of the
same sort with that which may be drawn from the observation

of life itself" (Writings, II, 207).

 

One of Sands's best and most pOpular stories was "A
Simple Tale," and it is good precisely because it is so
simple. It is short and beautifully told; humor and satire
are used as seasoning, not the main flavor. The setting is
a New York village "pleasant enough to behold, as you ride
or walk through it, but abominably unpleasant to remain in
on account of the unconquerable propensity of its inhabitants
for scandal and tittle-tattle, which prevails to a degree

infectious even among decent peOple" (writings, II, 44).

 

A plain, little old man and his equally ordinary wife

(the Tompkins) come to this village to board with Widow

 

264
Wilkins. The couple is congenial but not_gregarious and
inclined only to brief answers; consequently the town is
extremely aggitated "to ascertain who they were, where they
came from, what they had in view, and whither they were

going next" (Writings, II, 45). Rumors about Mr. Tompkins»

 

range from his being a man from Alabama who had been hanged
but resuscitated months before, to his being Napoleon him-
self in disguise. Some villagers believe them to be counter-
feiters, since they never receive any mail or have any deal-
ings with the bank yet manage to have just the right funds for
everything. The Tompkins both die after being the central
object of the town's curiosity for five years, leaving just
enough money (to the penny) to bury them. No one is ever
able to ascertain any more than that they had travelled
widely.

Sands ends the story by saying "It can possess no inter-
est save from the mystery which hangs over its subjects; no
pathos, except from their loneliness on earth" (Writings, II,
61). In tone the whole tale reminds one strongly of an Irving
sketch, very lightly and nicely done, with a little less
sentimentality, perhaps. It reminded contemporary critics

'more of Laurence Sterne. The American Monthly_Magazine felt

 

it was something like "Sterne might have written. . . in his
younger days, and need not have been ashamed to own it at

any period of his life."52 And like Corporal Trim's history
of the king of Bohemia and his seven castles, you know little

more at the end of the story than you did at the beginning,

 

 

265
except a man and his wife lived and died in a nosey little
town. The overly curious and rumor-mongers are effectively
dealt with, and we are left feeling we have actually known Mr.
and Mrs. Tompkins, even though we know no more about them than
the townsfolk. Sands created here, without the help of his fel-

low collaborators, a beautiful tale for the 1829 Talisman.

 

The story most typical of the Knickerbocker strain of
humor and satire is "Mr. Green," written for Tales of Glauber
§p§i The satire here is better handled; it manages not to
degenerate into burlesque. It is more humorous than ludi—
crous. Furthermore, Sands seems better in control of the
satire because, unlike his exposure of Washington Society, it
is aimed at objects he is better acquainted with, thus it is
more pointed and effective.

Mr. Green, the title character, is the most nonchalant
person on earth, "totally indifferent" (his phrase) about
everything. He always wears green, because he is indifferent
about colors. When asked why he is drinking terrible coffee,
he replies that he is indifferent to the taste of what he
drinks. Mr. Green is to inherit his father's fortune by
carrying out the following stipulations: travel around the
world, then marry one of his cousin's three beautiful daugh-
ters within a certain time. At the time of the story he is
back in New York after his travel. He is indifferent about
marriage, and thus tarries around New York where he meets

some local authors, attends literary parties, and finally

 

266
gets involved in a duel, which he is indifferent about, over
a girl he is indifferent about. He kills his opponent and
has to flee the country. Meanwhile the time expires and
his father's fortune is divided among other members of the
family.

Much of the humor again comes from Sands's inflated
diction in describing trivial things: "he arose with a
resolute effort, and indued himself drowsily in his morning
vestimental gear." A wonderful description of early morning
New York street life is brightened by the diction. A pair of
lovers were still strolling the streets when,

A dingy wench, whose early rising certified to by

the Society for the supply of good and useful ser-
vants, dissolved the dream, and adjourned the interest-
ing meeting, by discharging into a cross-gutter, from
behind an iron—railed area, a quantity of liquid
miscellanies, which lubricated their soles, and gave

them an immediate idea of separation. (TGS, II, 108)

A major theme of the story is Sands's dislike of the

equanimity of Mr. Green. The author's opinion of an indifferent

attitude is probably given by the suitor of one of the cousin's

daughters, who rhetorically asks:

Is not the moss on those old rocks newer and brighter?
The power that governs all the economy of creation is
not indifferent even to the falling of a sparrow.

How can man be so, who is but a little lower than the
angels, and for whose companion WOMAN was made? Nature
teaches us to love, and to love in the proper season,
after her own examples. (TGS, II, 124)

He goes on to list examples from nature which prove that
things are not all the same and that man must be perceptive
enough to appreciate these differences.

An obvious target of Sands's satire in the story is his

PMs;

 

267
old nemesis, the Philadelphia editor and critic, Robert
Walsh. Mr. Green, passing the time with certain New York
literati in a coffee house, unthinkingly joins the conversa-
tion: "'What i§_poetry?' said Mr. Green, yawning" (TGS, II,
132). Robert Walsh, only thinly disguised as "Mr. Green-
Bice--one of the most distinguished poets and literary
characters alive" proceeds to tell Mr. Green that the stuff
just quoted is not poetry: "why the poor fellow that made
it doesn't understand how to count his fingers. Hg belongs
to the Lake school of poetry!" (Egg, II, 132,134)

Mr. Green is, of course, indifferent to the Lake school,
but the poet goes on to explain: "It is a school, sir, in
‘which the prosody of the language is scarificed." He then
quotes some verse, for which he asks Mr. Green to "mark the

regularity of the rhythm-~the tum—ti, tum-ti, the flowing and

 

majestic and classical tum-ti, which pervades it" (TGS, II,
134-35).
Sands had said nearly the same thing several years
earlier in a letter to Verplanck:
Walsh's idea of poetry is exhibited in this paradigm.
Tum ti, tum ti,--tum ti, tum ti, tum ti;
Tum ti tum, titum,--ti tum, ti tum ti!
And he sincerely believes his two pets, old Mr. Tappan
and James McHenry to be the most classical poets of
this country. He is a very poor devil.
Clearly, Sands was a disciple of Wordsworth's more natural

rhythms in poetry while Walsh held out for classical regularity.

He was one of those "who consider metrical harmony as identical

 

 

268

with monotony," as Verplanck put it ("Memoir,' p. 23).

Mr. Green, who is "really indifferent about it," con-
tinually knocks the wind out of Mr. Bice's sails, who finally
exclaims in exasperation, "Do you really not_know, Mr. Green,
that the friends of Wordsworth, Southey, Coleridge, Shelley
and the whole tribe of intellectual poets have never succeeded
in making any of their works pOpular?" (TGS, II, 137) Mr.
Green responds by blowing "a volume of smoke right up into
what the fancy call the 'smellers' of Mr. Bice, which made
him sneeze, according to no rhythmus, tum—ti, or Lake school
that ever was heard of, or attempted to be defined" (TGS,

II, 138). Mr. Green's action symbolizes Sands's contempt for
Robert Walsh and his critical theories.

Sands deals only briefly with the literary soiree and the
ensuing duel, though both appear in a ridiculous light. He
complains that the former is hard to satirize because "there
are 22 broad outlines which mark them always distinctly,"
because "the phases of such circles change as to their minor
characteristics with the changes of fashion" (TGS, II, 139).
The latter, a fruitful topic for satire, Sands Openly admits
has to be skipped over lightly because he is running out of
space. The story ends abruptly, which is characteristic
of Sands, especially in the humorous stories where only the
page limits of the assignment cause him to stOp the fun.

The story of Mr. Green was a favorite in England as well

as in America. The AtheneaUm said it had found "few so

 

amusing as our transatlantic philOSOpher and the London

' :1’.l 3": J' =WI2I' ‘r—

 

269

Literarngazette mentioned "Mr. Green" as among their favorites

 

in Tales of Glauber Spa.54 The New York Mirror loved the

 

 

story's "pungent drollery," but especially appreciated the
satire on Robert Walsh, "whose works are believed to excel

all of his day in the readiness with which they are forgotten."55

The least popular story by Sands and his least character-
istic, was "The German's Story," published in the 1830 s
Talisman. It was preceded, as many of the stories under the

pseudonym of Francis Herbert were, by an introductory essay.

 

1T -
2.

"Mr. De Viellecour and his Neighbors" had been appropriately
introduced by "Thoughts on Hand—Writing." "Association,"

which precedes "The German's Story,‘ ruminates on the theory
of association espoused by the eighteenth-century Scottish
critics. Mr. Herbert then remembers a time when he discussed
associations with a German visiting a Kaatskill, mountain-top
resort. Gnu; German had told a story about having "been

suddenly perplexed by a strange sensation that what was pass-

ing at the identical moment happened before" (Writings, II,

 

20). The German had then offered Mr. Herbert a manuscript
containing the story.

"The German's Story" recounts a two-minute daydream in
which an earlier traumatic experience is most vividly recalled
and relived. The experience which he relives had happened
just before he was to marry a beautiful girl who, with her
cousin, swindled him out of a large note he held from her
father. As he relives the earlier experience, he determines

not to be taken advantage of again, so, as he recounts it,

270
"I aimed a blow at the vanishing shadow [the cousin], as my
own wife, my dear Aretine, entered with a candle, which she
had left the room to seek" two minutes earlier (Writings, II,
28). The daydream is over.

The lack of humor, wit, and satire, all of which have
been replaced by sentiment in this romantic, almost gothic
tale, makes this most uncharacteristic. Perhaps Sands was
trying to imitate Irving's sketches more closely or perhaps
he was trying to satisfy the tastes of his lady readers more

than usual. It may also be that he intended the piece to

be satiric, that what he was really doing here was making
fun of the romantic tales which were common fare in gift
books. Perhaps he was groaning as much when he wrote the
following lines as we are when we read them:

I only felt, strong as the consciousness of my own
existence, that we loved. I saw my own miniature
in each of those wondrous orbs; and did they not Open
into her heart?

"Beatrice!"--I murmured.

"Hierome!"--she whispered.

"Why is not to-morrow, the day after to-morrow?"

(Writings, II, 23-23)

 

 

This hardly reflects the masculine tone that usually pervaded

the Talisman, and one can not help but feel Sands was writing

 

‘with tongue in cheek when he wrote "The German's Story."

Another uncharacteristic tale by Sands, but one generally
considered his best by his contemporaries, was "Boyuca," his
only serious contribution to the Tales of Glauber‘Spa.
"Boyuca" imaginatively recreates Ponce de Leon's search for
the fountain of youth, or Boyuca. Sands followed the

historical record, even footnoting his sources, which

 

271
incidentally were much the same as those used by Irving for

his account of Ponce de Leon (History of. . . Columbus, 1828).

 

Sands had probably come across the story in his research for
the Cortes biography.

"Boyuca" Opens with a long, philOSOphical discussion
between Ponce de Leon and his lieutenant, Don Perez, about
the advantage of finding a fountain of youth. The skeptical
Perez points out that it could cause over—population and
would not insure success in life. Most likely it would only
prolong the sorrows of life. To this, Ponce de Leon replies:

"I still sigh for the fountain of life" (Writings, II, 75).

 

Their debate, which fills most of the story's first of six
chapters, makes for a sluggish beginning; however, it likely
reflects the element in the story which most interested
Sands: what would be the consequences of discovering a
fountain of youth?

The question is dealt with further in the second chapter,
which fills in the background of their guide, an old Indian
‘woman. When she claims to have seen Bimini (another name for
the fountain), the young lieutenant playfully says, "She
certainly has not tried it herself." He then asks her why
she refused to drink of the magic fountain and conjectures
that she "must have been a good-looking girl a hundred years

ago" (Writings, II, 76). This light-hearted teasing is the

 

only humor in an otherwise serious story. The Indian's-reply
ends the fun. She explains that she looks forward to death

and the opportunity to join all her friends who have already

r—i—L—‘_im

 

 

 

272
gone to their version of the happy hunting ground. The rest
of the story maintains a somber, eerie tone and implies that
the search for the fountain displeases whatever supernatural
force it is that governs the world.

The satirical stories show Sands to be an accomplished
creator of character; here he proves he can produce a setting
and atmosphere as effective as Poe's. He masterfully creates
an atmosphere of terror, as the eXplorers hack their way
through the jungle. They first encounter a red tiger which
one soldier suggests is "Satanas himself." The tiger foams
at the mouth and is "quaintly streaked. . . with black and

fallow stripes [and] spots that looked like eyes" (Writings,

 

II, 86).
As the adventurers near their goal, nature threatens
ominously. They notice:

that the sun was of a dusky red hue; and that a dimness
had come over the pure depths of ether. Dull was the
light in which they beheld the haughty and superb, but
baleful manchineel [poisonous trOpical tree], uplifting
its stubborn and symmetrical limbs, and exhibiting
among the dark foiliage its golden but poisonous apples,
like the King of Terrors, masked and clothed in purple;
or some trunk that, from the nature of the crevice from
which it had forced itself in its infant wantonness, had
grown along the surface with its sinuous and massive
folds, even like the "leviathan, that crooked serpent"
of the prOphet Isaiah! . . .

They were soon mounting or scrambling over oddly
piled and inconveniently angular fragments of stone,
covered with the common, perplexing, tough, and deceit-
ful net-work of vines; and not without shuddering they
saw, in the tangled and wide interstices beneath, coiled
snakes that thrust up their crests, with revengefully red
eyes, and hissed as they seemed unfolding their slimy
convolutions; or flat-headed gray lizards, whose gripe
[sic] they dreaded as being fatal. (Writings, II, 92-94)

 

In context, these details create an effective atmosphere of

gothic terror.

r f. «I “flunk“ «TIJE‘I‘I’
F

a_ I"!
1|; ‘ rf
. F

 

 

273
The fountain itself lay at the base of an old volcano,
which seems to be coming to life, judging from the trembling
earth. Just as the eXplorers are about to dip from the
fountain, a small hurricane strikes, tearing up everything in
its path and causing a landslide which obliterates the long

sought for pool. The old Indian woman is killed and the

.av-AI‘. M. _ ,,

n-‘ i

Spaniards retreat in disappointment.

5.4, ._ [.m-

Sands's interest in the tOpic of what discovery of the
fountain would have meant surfaces again near the end of the

story when he digresses from the action,

FFF: ma -

. . . to guess what were the feelings of a hitherto—
disappointed, but still superbly ambitious adventurer,
when the "amereeta cup" was thus, possibly, within
his immediate grasp. Is it not to be feared that
judgment yielded to imagination--and faith-built
hopes of spiritual happiness, to dreams of earthly
fruition? (Writings, II, 90)

 

Sands imagines that Ponce de Leon dreamed of "wealth, pomp,
and splendour; . . . pleasure. . . progeny [and] glory"

(Writings, II, 90). The ramifications of immortality on this

 

earth intrigued Sands much as it still fascinates science
fiction writers today. Or, to put it another way, Ponce de
Leon was to Sands what Dr. Faustus was to Marlowe. How would

a person react to endless youth? What dreams would it ful-
fill? Would the gift improve mankind? To the last question
Sands decided, no. At the end of the story he calls Ponce de
Leon's quest of the fountain an "unholy dream," and hints that
his quest of Boyuca will be realized only in heaven, as is best.

The American'QuarterlyLReview called the story "the

 

:most.perfect of his [Sands's] works of prose fiction," probably

274

because it was well constructed and nicely finished, some-

thing Sands often failed to do.56 Perhaps the plot is better

because it was based on historical fact. However, Sands lifts

from the historical record just the most dramatic incident
and avoids getting bogged down in background information or
conclusions. The characters in the story never come to life
and remain nothing more than wooden figures out of a history
book; Sands was here more interested in ideas than peOple.
Throughout "Boyuca" there is a certain seriousness and
dignity which puts this in sharp contrast with his other
stories. Sands worried about the gravity of the story as
he was writing it. He told Verplanck, "I cannot make it a
'story,‘ and I know not whether it will be readable or not,
being entirely grave in its character. I must find matter

for mirth in another. . . ."57 He found "matter for mirth,"

of course, in "Mr. Green." Sands was apparently uncomfortable

with a serious, dramatic tale; his genius preferred humor

and satire.

The seven stories mentioned above and the stories he

wrote earlier for the Atlantic were well received among the

 

readers of his day. The stories about Mr. De Viellecour and

Washington social life were the favorites in the Talisman

series. Mary Russel Mitford, an English essayist and editor,

thought they were among the best in America at the time and

included them in her Stories of American Life (London, 1830).

American critics applauded his efforts. The Knickerbocker

Magazine said of Sands, "no author in our living literature

 

 

lflh’ 5:...“ v.__
s

m—
I all! I - . at“! cannula.
; l

 

 

275

has given the lighter species of fiction greater attractions,

'58 Bryant called his

or higher or more delicate finish.‘
short fiction "among the best of his writings," and another

Knickerbocker critic said that from them "we can form the

 

best estimate of his talents and peculiar genius."59

Today Sands's short stories strike us as quaint when
judged by our sophisticated taste, yet there is much in them
to admire and enjoy. The plots lack unity and evenness in
their development. They are built on stock devices like
mistaken identity or a misunderstood word, yet Sands tells
the story with such zest that we hardly mind.

The objects of his satire are pretty much lost in the

oblivion of the past, yet his themes have universal appeal.

We still enjoy seeing humbugs and con-men exposed, the aggres-

sive and obstreperous person put down, and consuming ambition

contained.

Sands's greatest talent and most important contribution
to the develOpment of the short story was his ability to
paint vivid characters and settings. We can actually feel

the oppressive and ominous ambience of the jungles in

"Boyuca." We can see the pleasant, snug farm of Mr. De Vielle-

cour. Sands's carefully drawn settings always enhance the
effectiveness of the story. Likewise, the characters are
vividly drawn, often with such damning or exaggerated detail

that they are unforgettable. He was especially skillful in

using speeches, conversation, or letters to reveal character.

Both the strengths and weaknesses of his short stories

FHA—r

MAI; Hire-r: .91

W’

 

276
were the result of a personality trait best described as
exuberance. Composition excited Sands and he characteristically
tackled each literary project with gusto. If he were describ-
ing the setting he would do it with as many vivid details as
possible. If he were creating characters, he again used
every device to make this person unforgettable. Because of
his exaggeration of certain details, many of his characters i

become caricatures, but this was compatible with the aims of

 

satire. As objects of criticism they were meant to illus-

 

trate not only individuals but types.

| J
1

I".

It was in plotting that this exuberance most often got
out of hand and caused problems. He would start writing with
the germ of an idea or plot, but as his richly inventive
mind became inflammed, it started generating more and more
humorous incidents until the plot was soon out of control.
This uncontrolled inventiveness usually led to digressions
from the plot and to winding up the plot much more quickly

than the reader is ready for. The American Quarterly Review

 

spoke metaphorically of this problem in connection with "The

Simple Tale" and "Mr. De Viellecour":

There is a fullness and ease in these humorous stories
that confirm us in the opinion, that such were the
most ready productions of Sands' pen. His wit flows
almost without thought. It appears to us while we
read, as the stream,

"That runs, and as it runs, for ever will run on;"

And, when we reach the end of the tale, there is a sense
of abruptness and dissatisfaction that generates the
belief, that the author has consulted the prescribed
limits,--thequantum suff. of a tale for an annual,
rather than the inclination and powers of his‘genius.60

277
In other words, only the predetermined page limits of the
story caused Sands to quit inventing and conclude the story.
Much the same thing happened with a story's humor or
satire: once started, he just got carried away. A critic

for the American Monthly Magazine complained that:

 

The principal fault of his prose compositions is,
throughout, an exaggeration of whatever may be the
characteristic vein of each article. The humor is
far fetched, and the paintings of scenes, which are
intended to be more than usually vivid, sometimes
fantastic and overwrought.61
Of course, writing in association with others intensified
this problem. His original compositions are often more re-
strained, but when collaborating, his exuberant creativity
intensified.

If death had not abruptly ended his career, experience
and maturity would probably have brought his exuberance under
control. Most likely, he would have mastered the short
story form, and, like Hawthorne, might have gone from writing
short stories for gift books to writing novels. The novel,
at least, would seem to be a form more compatible to his un-

bounded inventiveness. One cannot help but feel that in writ-

ing for the Talisman and Tales of Glauber Spa that Sands was

 

 

serving an apprenticeship which could have led to a career
as a novelist had death not intervened.

He certainly had the prerequisites to be a great writer
of fiction: he was acutely perceptive and had a talent for
pointing out the ludicrous; he was witty; he had a brilliant
mind richly stored with a variety of learning; he had an

unquenchable sense of humor; he had a national pride unmarred

 

 

278
by vanity; he was a master of English diction; and above all,

he loved to write. A Knickerbocker critic said his short

 

stories "evenice talent of such high and rare excellence, that
we may fairly presume. . . he might have commanded abundant
success in any walk of fiction."60 One only wishes he had had

the chance to try.

 

 

 

CHAPTER IX

"THE DEAD OF 1832":

SANDS'S DEATH AND REPUTATION

On 30 November 1832, the Commercial Advertiser published
a poem celebrating the many important men who had died so far
that year: Goethe, Scott, Champollion, Bentham, and others.
The poem reminded readers that death is no respecter ofpmmsons.
Oh Time and Death! with certain pace,
Though still unequal, hurrying on,
O'erturning in your awful race,
The cot, the palace, and the throne!
Little did Sands realize that two weeks after writing these
Opening lines he too would be overturned by death, as were
the other men celebrated in the poem. At the time of writing,
there was no indication that Sands would be one of "The Dead
of 1832." He had had a productive and enjoyable year, with
no sign of any sickness or physical problem.

Back in May (1832), all the material for Tales of the

Glauber Spa had been turned over to the publisher, and Bryant

 

had headed for Illinois to visit his brother. Soon after
his return to New York in June, the City's worst cholera
(epidemic broke out. By mid-July there were nearly one
Ihundred deaths a day reported by the Board of Health. As a
:result, nearly half of the city's quarter million inhabitants

279

 

 

 

280
fled the city.1 Bryant, who had contemplated moving back in
May, moved his family into the house next door to the Comfort
Sands home in Hoboken, New Jersey. Thus began a period of what
could have been an even more intimate friendship and rewarding
collaboration between the two.

Besides working for the Commercial Advertiser, Sands kept

 

busy during the summer with occasional articles for magazines.

For the New York Mirror he wrote an essay on Hoboken to accom-

 

pany an engraving of Weir's painting of the well known

Hoboken walk. The editors claimed to be much pleased with

 

the article and chided Sands in print for not writing more
often: "Although one of our most accomplished writers, he is
quite Sparing of his compositions, and we received the annexed
as an especial favor."2
In the essay Sands combined a genuine reverence for the

beauty of the place with satire on the way people had eXploited
it:

There is at present a superb promenade along the margin

of the river, under the high banks and magnesia rocks

which overlook it, of more than a mile in length, on

which it is intended to lay rails, for the edification

of our domestic cockneys and others, who might not

else have a chance of seeing a locomotive in Opera-

tions, and who may be whisked to the Elysian Fields

before they will find time to comb their whiskers,

or count the seconds.
He concluded with some original poetry that again combined
a love for the river scenery with criticism of those who
search the world over looking for something better.

In September, as the cholera epidemic subsided, young

William Gilmore Simms arrived in New York and soon became

 

281
friends with Sands and Bryant. Simms's first meeting with
Sands is probably referred to in the obituary of Sands written

by T. S. Fay for his New York Mirror:

 

We remember well, on a rich and mellow afternoon . . .
we passed over with a friend [probably Simms] to the
shores of Hoboken, to visit him whose benevolent
heart and amiable manners made him as universally

an object of affection, as his highly cultivated
mind, his offerings to the muses, and his general

and well known ability as a writer rendered him one
of curiosity and interest. Our companion was a
stranger to the scene as well as to the man whom we
were about to meet, and if this hasty sketch meet

his eyes, he will find no difficulty in recalling the
unusual gratification he derived from both. . . .

Fay reiterates the beauties of the Hoboken landscape, then,
recalls the meeting with Sands:
In the midst of our admiration of this fine mood of
nature, the subject of these observations [Sands]
joined us, and with him, as our guide, we threaded the
winding labyrinths of the place--enjoyed the fine
prospects--visited the interesting parts, and so well
beguiled the time, that the broad heavens were full
of large, trembling stars, and the moon was hanging
beautifully over the city, ere we turned our steps
homeward. At such a time as this, Mr. Sands unfolded
his true mind, so that the gager might behold the
rich things treasured within.

One of the "things" on his mind that Sands probably
shared with Simms was the large potential for imaginative
literature to be found in Indian lore. Sands was the first
to show the possibilities of using Indian history in Yamoyden
(1820), and since then COOper and others had been turning out
works nearly every year based on the Indian and the frontier.
It is known that Simms began writing novels as a result of

his visit to New York, and three years later wrote The

Yemassee, his first of many novels dealing with the Indian.

 

It is possible that Sands turned Simms in a direction he

"' \l'..

 

 

282
himself might have gone, had he lived.

In November, Tales of Glauber Spa was released. About

 

the same time Sands began working on an article for his young
friend Charles Fenno Hoffman's new periodical, the Knicker-

bocker Magazine. Sands agreed to write an essay on "Poetry

 

of the Esquimaux" (Eskimo). He intended it to be entertain—
ing, even humorous; nevertheless, he did thorough research
on Icelandic literature and culture. The article purports g

to be a review of a book of Esquimaux poetry collected by

 

Dr. Thorlief Glum Skallagrimston. From this typiCal Knicker— . }
bocker appelation, one can imagine the string of ludicrous
credentials Sands gave Dr. S. The rest of the review gave
samples of Esquimaux poetry, most of which was written by
Sands. Bryant helped by writing "The Artic Lover to His
Mistress." Sands started writing some poetry, such as the
following verse which was intended as part of an introduc-
tion to a heroic poem about the ancient settlement of Green-
land by the Esquimaux:
Wonderful are thy doings, Witch of Cold!
The frozen gossamer web that cuts the skin,
The hoar frost piled fantastic on the old
Substantial hills, the sea that boils within
And steams from all its waters manifold,
Until the frost-smoke clears, and first the thin
And then the solid ice spreads, white and strong,
These are thy works-—to thee I wake the song.6
But he was temporarily stalled until he could get some more
information on the culture of Greenland.
On Saturday, December 15, he procured David Crantz's

comprehensive history of Greenland and immediately sat down

to study it thoroughly. He read intensely for several hours

 

283
Saturday night, and again on Sunday. About four o'clock in
the afternoon, he sat down to compose some more verse
based on Greenland mythology. It is one of those haunting
coincidences of history that he wrote in pencil only the
following line: "Oh think not my spirit among you abides."
Before he could think of another line, he grew dizzy and felt
pressure in his head. He staggared across his study, opened
the door, but fainted on the threshhold. Bryant was called
from next door to help the by then revived Sands to his bed.
It was soon apparent that he had suffered an apoplectic
stroke. His right side was paralyzed, and as he raised his
powerless right arm with his left, he shed tears, Bryant
records.7 A few minutes later Sands went into a coma from
which he never recovered. He died peacefully about 8 p.m.,
December 16.8 He was thirty three years old.

Cause of death was given as apoplexy. Modern medicine
would probably say he had an aneurysm which caused a hemorrhage
of the brain and consequent paralysis. William Dunlap claimed
in his diary that Sands was "a victim of intemperance."9
Aneurysms are often caused by diseases like syphillis, but
there is no other evidence that Sands suffered from any social
disease. Dunlap could have meant drinking and Sands did love
to drink, but again there is no evidence that he did any
excessive drinking. The only intemperance Sands was probably
guilty of was intellectual.

The funeral, held on Tuesday, December 18, brought

together "a numerous crowd, comprising much of the talent and

 

{1" .-

284
learning of the city; and a more impressive moment than that
which consigned to the earth one so universally beloved, can
scarcely be imagined. There assembled men of various parties
and characters--but there were no animosities to be sacri-
ficed--no wrongs to be forgotten—-no one came to forgive over
the dead, the unkindness he would have resented against the
living." T. S. Fay goes on to quote in his obituary notice
what was probably part of the eulogy read at the grave by
that old Literary Confederate, Reverend Manton Eastburn:

"He who was laid in his last sleeping-place, was remembered

 

in every bosom only as one gentle and kind-—one whose voice
had been heard with pleasure--whose lips breathed no slanders—-
whose pen dropped no gall--who was just, not insolent--and
superior, without being presuming."9
Sands was evidently buried in the small graveyard given

by the Stevens family to the people of Hoboken. His friends

erected a small (6') obelisk of white marble. In 1867, his

 

remains, along with those of his father and mother, were
moved to their present location in the hoboken Cemetery, New
Durham, New Jersey.10 Today his obelisk stands flanked by
two tombstones belonging to his parents and his aunts but
otherwise alone in a yet unused portion of the cemetery. As
one anonymous visitor put it, "There is something shocking
in the loneliness of the place,-+genius should repose in the
full congregation of the dead, and his epitaph should be

all

written for all to read. The neglect of Sands's grave

epitomizes the obscurity of his contributions to the literature

 

285
of the nation.

Sands's friends, many of whom felt his works had never
been justly appreciated by the public, feared that now he
was headed for obscurity; consequently, plans for the publi-
cation of his works were immediately set in motion. His

obituary in the Commercial Advertiser, most likely written

 

by his friend and colleague John Inman within hours of his
death, suggested a collection of his works: "Yet it is
hoped, that some one of his literary friends will do for him
what he did for his friend Eastburn-~wreathe a garland to hang
upon his tomb."12
Within a week of Sands's funeral, Bryant, writing for
the two remaining active Literary Confederates, Richard Ray
Ward and John Neilson, informed Congressman Verplanck in
Washington that,
Mr. Sands's friends are desirous that a collection
should be made of such of his works as are most worthy
of preservation accompanied with some notice of his
life. They know of no person to whom they would so
willingly entrust the task of making the selection
and writing the memoir as yourself; and none whom, on
account of your intimacy with him and your respect
for his talent, they could with more propriety solicit
to undertake it.
Bryant planned "to publish the work by subscription for the
benefit of the family whom Mr. Sands's death has left in a
needy situation." Both men agreed "that something should be
done for the memory of our friend who during his life time
was not known as his talents and his writings deserved to

make him." Sands had written so many things anonymously or

under a pseudonym that many of the people who enjoyed his

 

 

286
work knew nothing of the author. The city's literati, how-
ever, knew Sands and missed him greatly. Bryant reported in
the same letter to Verplanck: "Mr. Sands's death has made
a great vacuum in the literary world here, and, numerous as
his friends were has occasioned a deeper and more general

feeling of regret than you would have imagined."

While Verplanck was making up his mind about undertaking

to edit Sands's works, Ward went ahead and made plans for
its production. He arranged for the Harpers to publish it
and circulated subscription lists. Bryant explained their
haste to Verplanck: "The subscription papers have been
issued this early in order to take advantage of the feeling
of regret produced by Mr. Sands's sudden death, which I
assure you is much more general than I had anticipated."14
Near the end of January, Verplanck agreed to write the
memoir if Bryant would help him gather material and informa-
tion. Bryant promised to do so and reported that the sub-
scriptions were pouring in. Of special interest to him was
the fact that "A subscription paper is circulating among the
ladies with great success."15 Later Ward sent subscription
agents to Boston and Philadelphia. By September 10 he had
received 1250 subscriptions, which was enough to satisfy the
Harpers who began publishing in two octavo volumes, The
Writings of Robert Charles Sands.l6
Verplanck's "Memoir" was based on an earlier "Memoir"

by Bryant published in the first number of the Knickerbocker

Magazine and on his own experiences with Sands. Verplanck's

 

L -‘OIT

 

 

287

biography is primarily valuable for its observations on Sands's
character and personality; he frequently erred in dates and
other biographical details. To accompany the "Memoir," he
selected what he considered Sands's more important "original
literary compositions and his poetical translations; and of
course excluding his writings on political subjects and Aflhm
passing events, and his numerous reviews and other publica- E

u

tions of a temporary character" ("Memoir, p. 30). Sands's 5

friend in the Sketch Club, Robert W. Weir, drew a portrait

 

of Sands from memory, and A. B. Durand engraved it for the
frontispiece of the Writings.

The Writings were released in February of 1834. Only
about six hundred of the 1250 copies printed were actually
purchased by the subscribers. The proceeds,according to
Julia Sands, were "barely sufficient to pay the expenses

of the whole Edition."17

The Harpers offered to buy the
remaining volumes and the rights to the book for two thousand
dollars. They then distributed the remaining books to book-
sellers throughout the country and found enough demand to
justify two more editions, in 1835 and 1836.

It was hOped by Sands's friends and the Knickerbocker
Magazine that his Writings would provide "the foundation on
which to base the solid superstructure of his fame."18 To
a certain extent the Writings did help preserve his reputation;
if scholars were forced to go to the original, obscure sources,

then probably even less attention would have been paid to

Sands. Nearly all biographical information extant is based

 

 

288

on Verplanck's "Memoir." Consequently the Writings did pro-

 

vide somewhat of a "foundation" for his fame.
But the same peOple who hOped Sands would not soon be
forgotten were amazingly perceptive in naming the obstacles

to a lasting reputation. The American Monthly Magazine

 

pointed out "two obstacles to his attaining to a very lofty
eminence; firstly, that his productions are, for the most part,
of that light and fugitive nature, which is more apt to engross
the pOpular eye for the moment, than to retain its fixed
attention during a longer space of years."19 Most of Sands's
satirical and humorous writings were effective and funny be-
cause they dealt with obvious exceptions to the social rule,
but when those exceptions passed, so did the interest in the
satire. A lasting reputation can seldom be made by topical

writing. The second obstacle the American Monthly Magazine

 

pointed to was the collaboration: "owing to his having almost
invariably written in connexion with others, it is hardly
possible to assign to him his proper share of credit" (pp. 2-

3). The newspaper essay series, Yamoyden, and Talisman are

 

 

cases in point--without the manuscripts for these best pro-
ducts of his genius, it is impossible to tell what he should
be credited with. It usually turned out that he was respon-
sible fOr the greatest portion of the works written in col—
laboration. But one can never confidently say Sands wrote
this, and thus his love of collaboration was another major
obstacle to the fame he so much desired.

Verplanck pointed out another problem with Sands's works

289

which would keep him from permanent fame: "All of his, too,

were composed with singular rapidity, and most of them published

without the opportunity of correction or revision" ("Memoir,"
p. 30). Sands wrote for sport, and he very seldom bothered

with rewriting or polishing a work, Yamgyden being about the

 

only exception. He could compose, prose or poetry, nearly as
fast as he could write and he enjoyed doing so, especially if
feedback from others was readily available. If it was good
and well accepted, he was pleased, if not, he had wasted but
little time on it.

Yet another obstacle to maintaining his pOpularity, a
subtle but interesting point, was mentioned by a critic for

the Knickerbocker Magazine: "Whatever fame he enjoyed in his

 

lifetime, and that was not little, was based more upon his
talents and acquirements, than upon the fleeting and varied
pieces of which he was author" (III, 162). In other words,
Sands was popular more for his personality, his spirit, his
zest, his keen mind, than for what he wrote. His fellows
judged his ability by what they knew he was capable of rather
than what he had actually produced. And the universal note
sounded in all the notices of his death was regret that he
should be so tragically cut off before he had produced any-

thing of lasting importance. Everyone presumed that someday

he would. This situation caused Kendall B. Taft, in his study

of Minor Knickerbockers, to applaude Sands not for what he

 

wrote, but for bringing "a quickening, vital force into

Knickerbocker letters."20 Sands was an important catalyst

 

 

 

 

290
which helped bring about the high-water mark of Knickerbocker

literature. Even at the time his Writings were published,

 

the Knickerbocker Magazine realized the high-water mark had

 

been passed:

We allude to the higher intellectual tone which dis-
tinguished its society a few years back in the time
of the early reputation of Sands. All the bright

memorials of mind or talent which New-York possesses, f‘r-m
belong to that period, when the high-raised appetite . I
for a graceful and fascinating literature, which the 3

rich indigenous wit and quaint excellence of the
memorable Salmagundi papers first created, was
fostered and excited by a number of powerful and
original writers belonging to the period, and vieing
with each other in a generous rivalry of soul. (III, 163). J}

 

I'm"

The period referred to was the time when Cooper, Irving,
Halleck, Drake, Bryant, Paulding, and Sands were all writing
in New York. The question is then asked, "What has broken up
that charm?" Thus when evaluating Sands, it should be

remembered that he was important to American literature as

 

much for his efforts to stimulate it as for what he produced.
Because of the obvious obstacles to fame, Sands's memory

slipped fast from the public mind. Just ten years after his

death, Lewis Gaylord Clark treated Sands as a novelty from

the past in a series of articles for the Knickerbocker

 

Magazine?1 Clark, of course, was referring to Sands's "Early
Writings," or those manuscripts belonging to the Literary
Confederacy, but he still presented Sands as something of an
unknown. Throughout the nineteenth century, various of
Sands's works found their way into anthologies of American

22

literature, but with the exception of one master's essay,

not one bit of scholarship has been done on Sands. He is

 

 

 

291
mentioned only in passing in studies of the groups of which
he was a member or in studies of other Knickerbocker
personalities.

Sands deserves better than this. Many of his productions
are still readable and entertaining, certainly on a par with
anything else produced in the country to that time. His
satiric humor, in poetry and prose, rivals that of the Connec-
ticut Wits and is nearly as engaging as Twain's. His biographies
are as fascinating, readable, and accurate as any produced in
early America. And, while not to the modern taste, his

romances pleased his contemporaries, Yamoyden most likely

 

being one of the best romances before Cooper, certainly one

of the best in verse. His satire, though often dated, criti—
cizes such universal human foibles as pride, greed, and curios-
ity; his keep-to-the-middle-of—the-road philosophy is still
timely today. His characters are truly unforgettable and

show their creator to be a man of great imagination and a
careful observer of human nature. His descriptive powers

were uncanny. And his mental achievements and intellectual
excitement still inspire the scholar.

But equally as important as judging him by what he pro;
duced, is judging him by his efforts to stimulate a national
literature. From his college days on, Sands constantly and
strongly promoted a national literature. As a critic and
editor, he encouraged young writers and pointed to native
materials they could use. But he did more than talk. He

was willing to lead the way himself, often in new and untrod

 

 

 

 

 

292
ways. In Yamoyden he showed Americans that the Indian could
be a fine source for imaginative literature. He accepted any
new challenge he thought might enhance American letters: he
established critical journals; he published gift books and
miscellanies; he helped form the Literary Confederacy, the
Bread and Cheese Club, and the Sketch Club for the purposes
of stimulating literature. He practiced and encouraged the
short story in the publications he edited, and with his
humor on the one hand and his psychological-morbid interest
on the other, he anticipated the two primary branches of the
American short story. He led the way in exploring the
literature of South America, Mexico, Greenland, and other
non-European areas in order to show that Americans need not

be dependent on European literature. As the American Quar-

 

terlnyeview said, "He appears to have devoted the whole

 

of his literary labour to the exclusive object of the illustra-
tion of American history and American manners." He was
truly "a young pioneer in American literature."23
Therefore Sands must be enshrined with the other Knicker—
bockers who together produced a body of writing which first
demonstrated to the world America's ability to foster talent
and produce literature, and second, which provided a founda—
tion for the rest of American literature. Perhaps Sands's
contributions to American literature can best be compared to
the blossoms of a fruit tree—~1ight, beautiful, delicate, and

enjoyable, but only lasting for a short time--yet necessary

for the production of fruit.

 

 

bfl-I’u.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NOTES

 

 

NOTES

INTRODUCTION

lWilliam Cullen Bryant testified that Sands "was partic—
ularly kind to those whom fortune had placed in an inferior
station, and seemed to study to make up by the gentleness
and generosity of his conduct, for the inequalities of acci-
dent." "Memoir of the Late Robert C. Sands," Knickerbocker

 

 

Magazine, 1 (Jan. 1833), 55.

2These quotations are taken from the actual story Sands
wrote for the Talisman of 1828 and are found in the Writings
of Rgbert C. Sands (2 vols.; New York; Harpers, 1835), II,
114-58. Future references to this collection will use the
abbreviated title, Writings.

 

 

 

 

3This episode is a composite, imaginative reconstruction
based on actual biographical facts. The city of Hoboken as
dominated by Col. Stevens is a matter of historical record,
the best materials of which are in the New York Public Library,
Local History and Genealogy Section (vertical files). Ver-
planck's "Memoir" in the Writings of Robert C. Sands mentions
"their rambles and excursIOns together'(p. 27). Description
of the Devil's Pulpit comes from Bryant's "The Legend of the
Devil's Pulpit," Talisman (1828). The Sands-Verplanck
correSpondence (NYHS) Indicates that the story of Mr. De-
Viellecour was based on actual acquaintances of the trio.
The walk and the writing in the house are taken from Julia
Sands's account to Bryant's biographer, Parke Godwin, as
recorded in A Biography of William Cullen Bryant (2 vols.;
New York: Appleton, 1883), I, 237-39.

 

 

4"Memoir," pp. 21-22. Since the "Memoir,' which Opens
the first volume, is paginated separately, future references
will be just to the "Memoir," and not to the Writings of
Sands.

5The Literary History of the United States, ed. Robert
E. Spiller et al., 3rd ed., rev. (New York: Macmillan, 1963),
for example, makes no mention of Sands. Hereafter cited as
LHUS.

Gnms, p. 728.

 

 

293

 

 

 

294
CHAPTER I

1Benjamin F. Thompson, History of Long Island (New
York: Dodd, 1918), IV, 388.

 

2William Shakespeare, "Henry VIII," in The Complete
Works of William Shakespeare, ed. William A. Wright (Garden
City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1986T, p. 1336.

 

 

3Verplanck, "Memoir," pp. 26-27.
4LHUS, p. 40.

5I say "probably" because genealogical sources disagree
concerning the early dates of Capt. James Sands's life. I
have made a reasonable composite of the various sources.

6Thompson, IV, 390, reports that James Sands's brother
Henry "was admitted freeman of Boston [in] 1640."

7Temple Prime, Descent of Comfort Sands (New York: n.p.,
1892). This is the most thorough, and probably the most
accurate, genealogy of the Sands family.

 

8Thompson, IV, 391.

9W. Oakley Cagney, "Sands Family Gave Name to Point,"
Long Island Press, 14 June 1970, n.p.

10Most of this information comes from Prime, see Note 7.

11The Oxford History of the American People (New York:
Oxford, 1965), p. 176.

12Arthur Sands, "Records of the Sands Family," Vertical
File, New York Historical Society, henceforth NYHS.

13This interesting battle with Congress can be traced in
letters and documents found in the William L. Clements Library,
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. The Continental
Congress approved the claim but dispersed before it could be
paid. When Congress was formed it made a law refusing pay-
ment to parties that owed money to the government. A part-
ner of Sands, Duer, owed money and evidently would not pay,
so Comfort Sands was caught. By a special act, Congress
finally paid most of his claims in 1802.

.14"The Death of Julia Sands," New York Commercial
Advertiser, 10 December, 1888, n.p.

 

15Peter Ross,‘A‘History_of'Long Island (New York: Lewis,
1905), I, 98.

 

 

 

 

ACE
T 'l.-i"."-".A!':)

‘. - . ‘ 1'.“ 2‘, 7“”;3‘: ‘noeqmodT 9‘ fl-tul
" ' ‘ .935 ."I .(8121 .thG tiioY

V [T'Z‘VT _4->1n)i' ‘.-~§,9(;{89151‘a “tilt“
. " ,~ . y lambda §é£1fll 30 aizov
.111 . .{T'TL .‘(s u. .13.:

v'; '. .vionel " ‘xmsiqnvc

.0: .q .m'

 

‘ ' ‘ '- . 29‘: "vidsdoxq' ya 12
‘ . ‘ ' ~ =,; : r ;.. .::v“ is radii lebs 9d: gainssnnn'
'1' ' ‘7 ~ - ' .. . "r 'v ' 'm ‘ a ”(isnoass‘x I obt- syr-
" "" ' ful.» ,5er .VI ”to.
."“ ' via": 7. View??? {39331123 an" Y1“.
, ' 'je .1 ‘ ‘1' 9. _:.T‘._.7'.’7.'.: :; .9!!!qu .1
~ . .. -: * " 7" 49"" 43d" a]: mid? .cserr

'"v? ~*wv 3K1 In 29315959: .ISIXUODr

.‘ct .VI .aoOQIul!‘

, 'gff-rzF" 1'19"" .vgenpsa ”I150 LNG
.fj.:“( .OVii «mm hi @3on _ 1 mg

'7 e. .'~.I".‘. 16"“ ”was :‘Icit‘rr total aid: 10 ildlo“

5'; " ~ ‘2) ' ’ ' as”? is firm: mi: ’7': grist}! M033 fi‘l
‘-—4‘ > ~OH 0 sq “ > .5103?!)

. v ‘|i.’i‘{-"1".' (nu-"jinn. air'. F :Mlj :0 any" ‘97:" .BMM $3M
' 3”".«1 n: ‘16:?(519: {191502 Janitzoitlfl 11.7 «It ~911"
'2}. 17935211 9.! .759 see-1mm) $1134 at: .951 midaswal I ,
"(1&1th zjnnvc-fg .1 .F. 'U W 9": .i Dunc} 23m , Mi
[siaeniirtofi 9th“ .‘X.:r"{"li" . xcdzfi rmA ._nsp.trlonl
ed bison j: axolsd boa-rsqaffi Sud minis 9113 ~
vgsq pal-what 451 a sham .11 benno'i saw 339
' ~ disc; A .iusmnzeve p orb o: venom bewo ind: '
, .751; ion bfuow \Ijnebivs Ems venom bswo .1900
‘ ass-19:20:) .30: 1.51090}: 3 ya .iripuco 35w a»
.808): at minis aid 30 a . '

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  

Inla'xsmo'.) 3(on we“ ".2565! stint. 10
.q.rz .888! new

  

'-_? 711‘ r .01“ who! vol} haunt moi in 1103-13 A‘,‘

295

16The Memorial History_of the City of New York, ed. James
G. Wilson (New York: N.Y. History, 1893), III, 15.

 

l7Wilson (see note 16), III, 150-52, lists the house at
af2500.

18Edward R. Ellis, The Epic of New York City (New York:
Coward-McMann, 1966), pp. 193-94.

 

19Van Wyck Brooks, The World of Washington Irving_(New
York: Dutton, 1944), p. 27.

 

20Ellis, p. 194. Most of the details in this paragraph
are borrowed from Ellis.

21Brooks, p. 27.

22Allan Nevins, The Evening Post: A Century of Journal—
ism (New York: Russell & Russell, 1968), p. 65.

 

23Rufus R. Wilson, New York: Old and New (Philadelphia:
Lippincott, 1902), II, 59.

 

24Nevins, p. 64.

25Travels through Canada, and the United States (London:
Craddock and Jay, 18I4L II, 64.

 

26Taft, Minor Knickerbockers (New York: American Book,
1947), p. xix n.

 

2731113, p. 193.
28Taft, p. xxvi.

29Pierre Irving, The Life and Letters of Washington
Irving (New York: Putnam, 1864), I, 209.

 

30De Peyster, "Introduction: Sketch of the Life of
Robert Sands," Aeronaut MS, NYHS.

31John W. Francis, "Reminiscences of Printers, Authors,
and Booksellers in New York," International Magazine, 5 (Feb.
1852), 263.

 

32"Neologist No. LXII," New York Daily Advertiser, 28
January 1818, n.p.

 

33Bryant, "Memoir," Knickerbocker Magazine, 1 (1833), 49.

 

34Verplanck, "Memoir," p. 3.

35Quoted by I. Stokes, New York Past and Present (New
York: Plantin, 1939): p. 76.

 

 

 

 

 

296
CHAPTER II

1Coon, Columbia: Colossus on the Hudson (New York:
Dutton, 1947Y7’p. 60.

 

2From the Trustee's Committee as reported in A History
of Columbia University (New York: Macmillan, 1904), p. 90.

 

 

3Coon, p. 65.
4Verplanck, "Memoir," p. 4.

5"Life and Writings of Robert C. Sands," American
Quarter1y_Review, 15 (1834), 403.

6Bryant, "Memoir," Knickerbocker, l (1833), 50.

 

7A History of Columbia University, p. 91.

 

8Sands probably graduated at the head of his class, but
the records for 1815 are curiously missing from Columbia
University's Columbiana Collection "due to irregularities
caused by the war," according to the librarian there.

9Letter, Sands (henceforth RCS) to James Eastburn
(henceforth JWE), 20 April 1817, NYHS.

loSands, The Bridal of Vaumond (New York: Eastburn,
1817), p. 9.

 

11Constitution and Bylaws of the Columbian Peitholpgian

Societ (New York: Gray, 1861), Columbiana Collection, Colum-

bia University.

12Constitution, see note 11.

 

13See above, p. 27.

l4Tiquin, "The Life and Works of Robert Charles Sands"
(unpublished masters thesis, Columbia University, 1936),
p. 22.

15[Sands,] "Address, Introductory," Academic Recreations,

l (1815), 3, Columbiana Collection, Columbia University.

161'm thinking particularly of Freneau and Bryant, but
the problem was greater among lesser poets of their time.

17Letter, RCS to JWE, 23 April 1818, NYHS.

1‘8Anaddress delivered June l3,‘18l71 before the

Columbia Peithologian Society of Columbia College, on the

 

Immu-

 

 

 

 

 

297

occasion of the death of their fellow-member James S. Watkins,
M.D. (New York: Paul, 1817).

 

19"Minutes of the Columbian Peithologian Society,
1817—1819," Columbiana MS, Columbia University.

20Columbia University Alumni Register, 1754-1931 (New
York: Committee on General Catalog, 1932), p. 763.

21Verplanck, "Memoir," p. 27.

22Letter, RCS to JWE, 26 January 1817, NYHS.

23Letter, RCS to JWE, 5 January 1817, NYHS.

24Letter, RCS to JWE, 16 February 1817, NYHS.
25Letter, RCS to JWE, 21 March 1817, NYHS.

26Letter, RCS to JWE, 21 March 1817, NYHS.

27See Sands's Letter to Eastburn, 23 April 1818, NYHS.

28Tiquin, p. 10. The only known copy of Pickersgill's
The Three Brothers is in the Bodelian Library at Oxford, so
most likely Ms. Tiquin did not compare the Bridal with it.
More likely she is basing her remarks on Verplanck's vague
statement of possible influence: "I know not whether both
of these poems [Bridal and Byron's "The Deformed Trans-
formed" which was advertized as being based on "The Three
Brothers"] do not owe their origin to Pickersgill's spirited
Romance of the Three Brothers" ("Memoir," p. 7). According
to a synopsis of the plot of The Three Brothers, the only
thing the two stories have in common is the transformation of
a hunchback.

 

 

29While Sands never publicly commented on Irving, he
probably shared his colleagues admiration. Irving was praised
by another Literary Confederate in Aeronaut IX, and by Pro-
fessor Anderson in the Atlantic, II (Nov. 1824), 59ff.

30Irving, in a letter to his London publisher John
Murray, quoted in Washington Irving and the House of Murray,
ed. Harris McClary (Knoxville: Univ. of Tenn., 1969), p. 34.

 

31Stanley T. Williams, The Life of Washington Irving
(New York: Oxford, 1935), II, 32.

 

32"Review of the Bridal of Vaumond," Analectic Magazine,
11 (Feb. 1818), 121.

 

33Bryant, "Memoir," Knickerbocker, l (1833), 51.

 

 

 

 

 

 

298

34"On the State of Learning in the United States of
America," Blackwood's Magazine, 4 (1819), 647.

 

CHAPTER III

lScott, "Early Literary Clubs in New York City," AL,
5 (1933), 16.

25 #1,.
ee p. 36. f Mr

3[James Eastburn,] "A Succinct Account of the Origin
and Progress of the Literary Confederacy" (New York, 1817),
MS of the NYHS. This is the only mention of the preceding
organization. Succeeding unidentified quotations on the early
history of the Literary Confederacy are taken from Eastburn's
"Account." No editing of MS material has been done--each is
reproduced as nearly as is possible to do in type.

 

I'm

4It is interesting to note that Columbia University
Library's Rare Book and Manuscript Division classified
Aeronaut and Aeronautica in the science section under aero-
nautics, an easily understandable error.

5Eastburn, "Account."

6De Peyster, "Aeronaut," unpublished anthology of poems,
NYHS.

7A rough draft of this document is among the Aeronaut
MSS collected by Frederick DePeyster, NYHS.

8Sands had part in 125 articles out of the 278, or 45%
of the total.

9Eastburn, Aeronaut MS, I, 6.

10Lewis Leary and Charles Bennett plan to publish "The
Dervishe's Ring" in an anthology of American short stories
before Washington Irving, according to a letter from Bennet
to me on 2 August 1970.

11Some have implied this agent was Verplanck, one critic
even called Verplanck one of the Literary Confederates, but
Verplanck was still in Europe during the summer of 1817.

12Eastburn, "Account."
l3Eastburn, "Account."

l4Eastburn, "Account."

 

 

 

 

 

299

15References to "The Neologist" essays are taken from the
Commercial Advertiser for 1817-1818 found at the New York
HiStorical Society and the University of Chicago Library
(biweekly, country edition). Further references will cite
the number of the essay and the date printed--newspapers at
that time were not paginated.

 

16"Literary Notices," Knickerbocker Magazine, 3 (1834):

 

385.

l7LHUS, p. 91.

18By elite literature, I mean that literature which is
motivated or inSpired by a creative urge for self-expression
and evaluated by the usual critical standards; by pOpular
literature I mean that "low-brow" literature which is
generally ignored by the academic world, which is impossible
to analyze by ordinary literary, critical standards, which is
generally motivated or inspired by financial profit or the
law of supply and demand, and which meets the literary needs
of the mass pOpulation. For example, T. 8. Eliot wrote elite
literature, Rod McKuen writes popular literature.

19Notice the initials of the last two are B.S. and L.C.
(Literary Confederacy). Incidentally, while on the subject,
the initials used by the four members of the Confederacy are
N. E. W. S. Perhaps a case could be made that as their
initials represented the four points of the compass, so the
four came from different walks of life: ministry, law,
medicine, and literature.

20"The Amphilogist: No. I," New York Commercial Adver-
tiser, 1819, NYHS. Further reference to this series will?
give the number of the essay and the date it appeared (no
pagination).

21Frances Trollope, The Domestic Manners of the Ameri-
cans (New York: Vintage, 1919), p. 312.

 

22See above, p. 5.

23"Greek Hymns," New York Literarngournal, 3 (1820), 269.

 

24Aeronaut MS., X, 97; later published in Amphilogist
#33, 3 July 1819.

25Sands had a hand in twenty-eight of the fifty-one
articles; sixteen of the twenty-eight Sands wrote by himself,
the other twelve he wrote with the Eastburn brothers.

26Knapp, as quoted probably by T. S. Pay, in "Robert C.
Sands," New York Mirror, 10 (29 Dec. 1832), 206.

 

27Verplanck, "Memoir," p. 16.

 

 

 

 

300

28Clark, "Early Writings of Robert C. Sands," Knicker-
bocker Magazine, 21 (1843), 69.

 

29Cotton Mather mentioned a Deliverance Hobbs, a con-
fessed witch in his account of "The Trial of Bridget Bishop,"
The Wonders of the Invisible World (London, 1693).

30

 

Clark,see note 28.

31The text used is that found in Sands's Writings, II,
253-55. It was originally in the Literary Journal, 4 (1821),
276-780

 

32Bryant, "Memoir," Knickerbocker, l (1833), 52.
33Verplanck, "Memoir,“ p. 17.
34Sands, ["Preface,"] St. Tammany Magazine, 1 (1821), l.

The only extant c0py is in the rare book room of the New York
Public Library.

 

35c1ark, p. 185.
36Clark, p. 186.

37Sands, "Lord Byron," St. TammanyaMagazine, 1 (1821),

 

42.

CHAPTER IV

1Letter, James Eastburn (henceforth JWE) to Robert
Sands (henceforth RCS), 30 October 1816, Aeronaut Collection.
There are six verse letters in this collection, three by
Sands and three by Eastburn. Future references will merely
cite the date of the letter.

2He paid 75¢ for the book on 2 August 1817. This trans-
action is recorded in the "Minutes of the Columbian Peitho-
1ogian Society," Columbiana Collection, Columbia University.

3Letter, RCS to JWE, 11 January 1818, NYHS.

4Letter, RCS to JWE, 25 January 1818, NYHS.

5Letter, RCS to JWE, 11 January 1818, NYHS.

6James Eastburn was ordained 20 October 1818 as a deacon
of the Protestant Episcopal Church; the ceremony performed

by Rev. John Henry Hobart, Bishop of the Diocese of New York.

7Sands, Writings, I, 164.

 

 

 

 

 
  
 
   
   
 
  

00!

92:11: gr« marten as m?”
.ea .(eux)

a H‘s-rrv‘ww s sanctified m
,. .' f: 'r v n'T" it) ”moses luv“
. ("-‘ “‘L ~;.T,-.-a.1) me 91:11:31“!

\

.“' :‘n‘rfir "‘ ‘ri’ H‘r f'nno") 215.43 aiwm I
H.911: 5r! ~‘2 1115519119 I“ m {S
‘1‘ 4":

..
.“ (”‘5 ‘ f weinbfl; ".110”' .Mr'
‘ -~.M-—-— ; . -.'.

0
A

5115' ,1» 1 _r- "L." "I

  
 
  
   
   
    
 
 
    
  
     
   
   
   

..
. .f .~.1_
\ pf"? I 1 I. . '1'"! L: i' '1'£'_1£"’."LI ;‘ .j?
_— ”~-- ————.—.~v ,-— .r,_______.
a. A - .
'-r av .7- _ _f -.~ n. r Irv} ‘ {.157 —; f3 ‘I‘T
- ' Fri" ‘2 ’ .,7 . . ' .1.
a “girl, . £16-. xxrzsmns'! ...-'3
~ -A ~‘ -~—‘ ”mo—.7..-

"FI HITHID

jiniofl oj ('TLT- fij‘xo‘l‘sonsi) n-wdSasl unis»

. who" tanner r MRI zqdojoh Of .(833 m
{d 991a: nowasIloo shit) at 2.193351 alnv
15151917! [Ltw asone'm'isx 91:13:11 .n'xvcbca! 1‘ 0.
3191391 «:3 3.

-an5’::! 3111'? .\‘[8[ JaupuA S no )(ood 9d: :03 0!?!
waddle? asidMUIoD art! 30 asiurxtfl“ 9d: a! ho ' '
.YI’IBIDVXIXU sldmvlof) .aouosuoa sand-rune 3!”

.aum .8181 yumut I! .m o:

_—-t—-m1—-—m‘filfiln_-n It.“

 

301

8Though Yamoyden was edited and published by Sands in
1820, the rest of the poetry remained unnoticed until 1877,
when Frederick De Peyster, an old classmate of Eastburn's,
came across several MSS of his poems in the library of Rev.
John J. Robertson, another of three surviving members of the
class of 1816. De Peyster was impressed by the poems and
consulted William Cullen Bryant who concurred with him.
De Peyster determined to publish the poems at his own expense,
but before he could, he ran across the Aeronaut MSS recently
(1878) acquired by Columbia University from Manton Eastburn's
estate. De Peyster then, encouraged by Bryant, expanded his
plans to include specimens from each of the Confederates and 1111
prepared a manuscript which only De Peyster's death prevented
from being published. Thus Eastburn's life and works still
remain a topic ripe for investigation.

9Sands, Writings, I, 165.

 

lo"Yamoyden,' I, iv, Writings, I, 177. Subsequent ref- ' ’9
erences to the poem will use only the Canto number and stanza ‘1 -J
number. All references will be taken from the poem as re- “ —
printed in Sands's Writings.

11The notes, in fine print, fill 70 pages, while the
poem itself, in larger type, fills 160 pages. To many, the
notes were of major importance. For example, the reviewer
for the Knickerbocker magazine feels they "say much for the
diligence and the extensive reading of Sands. They form, in
fact, a body of invaluable collectonea relative to aboriginal
history and manner, where the desultory inquirer will find all
the facts bearing upon the subject, which are scattered not
only through our scarce and early annalists, but through the
long roll of travellers and historians who have had occasion
to speak of them. "Robert C. Sands," Knickerbocker, III (1834),
174.

12

 

 

 

 

Bryant, "Memoir," Knickerbocker, l (1833), 53.

 

l3Letter, RCS to JWE, 11 January 1818, NYHS.
14Sands, Writings, I, 228.

15Letter, RCS to JWE, 28 February 1818, NYHS.
16Letter, RCS to JWE, 20 March 1818, NYHS.
17Letter, RCS to JWE, 20 March 1818, NYHS.
18Letter, RCS to JWE, 20 March 1818, NYHS.

19See "Life and Writings of Robert C. Sands,"‘American
Quarterly Review, 15 (1834), 400-25.

 

ZONSandS'"'AQR, 15 (1834), 400-25.

 

   
   
 
 

.‘M 53‘ .‘y' ‘ ‘
a in}? :
~ 1*? ‘7 t
31*». ..
; r r
3‘..." “‘_ _ .‘.\ ‘ [OE
\, ‘ .' f ..

a} 2.“;an "1. but? if'luq has 13091” .5“
.77 L‘" .' 111:, 5):.5‘1-t-nnu Iranians! m
.-‘»1p'+~n7 13 915mg 2:10 810 as .131.
.‘ ‘ 3 m _. If! at” n': angry: aid 30 1
’ "'. 21".: was: pryinfl‘tr‘rzr—z smut) 30 3963003
. . “9:." r trf? vi :'-~‘x°°<a‘x'_v- 1? saw 193!”
i. ' ‘7‘" 4"“ 'vurrtv’: "1."! rmtsv‘v 1.? {191100
‘ . v1 '17‘ ' fr: EN?! ' -“"‘ .>_rfu:1uc 03 M

‘.¥n‘\~: "t' :wrwvna' :u’ ?”CIDu 'rv ed bIQUD
‘ " 1" '1": :'“'“."m) s‘imnloD {d ‘
" -:'1':-;'r-: (11' .va9F12UO313 .219!” 1933191 ' 1

‘: -. *1: 9.1— a.m.} ensmtosqa 0531961
‘ r -' .. i'“-” " 11".?“1‘1 7" \{Vriri "tiff" iql'lb ‘
f . ‘ " ‘z‘mz '.' ii 9'7: .‘t;.r.:.r:.x':"1‘.£bolh1 7
. . .p .1, 1 .

. .. 1 mu 10"! 9:11: am,

.531 .1 an a”

3. ~ , , . mmww vi: .1 gnaw
' ~ . ”F 7911:; 'vns‘ f3 yfno e-“LI [11w moq “Ma

   
  
 
  
 
  
  
 
 

 

    
     
    
 
  
  

 

" r 'q :‘ { 311 1.1%: 2931151910! 119‘ “an!
-fi 313w a 'thmflf' liq
9 , n:"w .rara- ,‘ ;is% .t.:itc anti at until“
. r ' 1 w .an r] ’i“ ngft? .7323 199151 at“
.1 .. .f~ new? 10'1' .rormj'roqml tofu“
. ; :a' “Seal r—nirepsm ‘19
. . ‘r .o ~--" .- c? ’ro 9112.71.91 ‘Wianeixo

'xi-xxl. ‘3 "v-JFEm' =3n0'133110‘ eidsulsvni to
I- 37%“ [Hu- r m? v‘e 9‘13 sxsdw .m‘"

4171': Thrudfnws ~75 -’;~.'rr’.: ,-.:»s'rdua 9d: :qu0 an:
3.” 51.7101": 3W! .ife'rIrzrtns «'51:? has 51316:)! In
, » f-J_._3,"1':'DL" er.’ 2 w: orfw zrxsjitnj?i:d has 8101.1.“
vn~ ' ‘ .7 5:11 111 rnxacdlainrnw ".rE~n58 .3 319101" ‘ ‘

 

V ‘. .Ez": .(FCRH I .rsioodxsxcirm ".SIW'“,

H .ZH‘MI .8181 \f'IfiI-TIBL II .HWL o: 83
a ' .858 .1
. ‘ .mm: .8181 gamma 8: .m o: 395
334 ‘r 1 '_ 1 .2339! .3181 noun 0: an ad a
v ‘ J- 1 .83" .3191 noun 0: .m o: a!
V I .. :3," L ' _ .m .019: tion! as .m on:

~73: w "I «mam gar-Hr ~
:- ‘1 y "W"— .aqm Am}?

.8“. 6 (1‘8"?

302
21"Yamoyden," Literary Gazette, l (1821): 52-

22nYamoyden," Literature and Science Repository, 2 (1821)!
53.

23Literarngournal, 4 (1820), 270.

 

24"Yamoyden," Literary Gazette, 1 (1821), 53-

25Russel B. Nye, The Cultural Life of the New Nation,
1776-1830, The New American Nation Series (New York: Harper,
1960), p. 239.

26William Charvat, The Origins of American Critical
ThoughtL71810-l835, (Philadelphia: Univ. of Penn., 1936 ,
p. 66.

 

27"Yamoyden," LSR: 2 (1821)! 52°
28"SandSI" AQR' 15 (1834) p 404-050

 

3oBryant, "Memoir," Knickerbocker, l (1833), 51.

 

31Palfrey, North American Review, 12 (1821), 477.
32"Yamoyden," New York Literary Journal and Belles
_Letters Repository, 4 (1820), 101.

33"Literary Notices," Knickerbocker, 3 (1834): 174°

34Nathan Drake, M.D. Evenings in Autumn (2 vols.; London:
Longman, 1822), I, 280.

35"Yamoyden," LSR, 2 (1821), 62.

36Pritchard, Literary Wise Men of Gotham (Baton Rouge:
La.State Univ., 1963), p. 112.

37Pritchard, pp. 17-18.

38William B. Carins, British Criticism of American
Writingngl815-1833, University of Wisconsin Studies in
Language and Literature, #14 (Madison: Univ. of Wis., 1922),
p. 158.

 

39"Specimens of American Poets," Monthly Review Enlarged,
100 (1823), 28.

40"New Publications and Critical Remarks," Colburne's
New MonthlyiMagazine, 6 (1822), 260.

 

 

303

41John Neal, American Writers, ed F. L. Pattee (Durham,
N.C.: Duke, 1937), p. 89.

 

42Peckham, Gotham Yankee: A Biography of William Cullen
Bryant (New York: Vantage, 1950), p. 78.

43Brooks, The World of Washington Irving (New York:
Dutton, 1944), p.’l92.

 

44See Fred Lewis Pattee, First'Century of American Liter—
ature, 1770-1879 (New York: Cooper Square, 1966), pp. 358-597

 

 

45Albert Keiser, The Indian in American Literature
(New York: Oxford, 1923), p. 44.

 

46Keiser, p. 108.

47COOper quotes from Yamoyden in Wyandotte, and uses
other Sands poetry in Redskins and Jack Tier.

 

 

 

48See, for example, New York Review, for February 1826
(vol. II), which contains translations by both Bryant and
Sands. Sands also reviewed a Spanish grammar in the Reviewfs
May issue.

 

49William Cullen Bryant II, "Bryant: The Middle Years:
A Study in Cultural Fellowship" (unpublished Ph.D. disserta-
tion, Columbia University, 1954), p. 51.

50Letter, RCS to WCB, 27 August 1826, NYPL.

51For further information, see Chapter VII.

52"Sands," AQR, 15 (1834), 416-17.

 

53Verse letter, JWE to RCS, 19 January 1817, NYHS.

54Sands sent Psalms 29 and 50 to Eastburn in his letter
of 26 January 1817. Sands's letter on 25 March 1817 contained
Psalm 46. Frederick De Peyster found two others, Psalm 18
and 69, which De Peyster planned to publish with the writ-
ings of the Aeronauts. De Peyster also recorded versification
by Sands of Daniel III: 19-25 and Genesis II: 23-24.

55Letter, RCS to JWE, 26 January 1817, NYHS.

56Letter, RCS to JWE, 1819, recorded in Verplanck's
"Memoir," p. 10.

57Letter, RCS to JWE, 20 April 1817, NYHS.
58Writings, II, 372. This beautiful, brief poem was

later anthologized by Charles Fenno Hoffman in The New-York
’ Book of Poetry (New York: Dearborn, 1837), p. 254.

 

 

 

 

304
59Writings, II, 340.

61“Hoboken,"‘The‘New York Mirror. 10 (7 JU1Y 1832)! 1-

 

62Writings, II, 364. It is uncertain what the connection
was between Sands and Bailey. Even though A. H. Quinn,.A
History_of American Drama from the Beginning to the Civil War
(New York: Harper, 1943), calls the p1ay4“one of the best,“

"fine," and "distinguished," it only lasted four nights in
New York after it opened 1 November 1831 at the Park Theatre. r~war
Charles Kean played the title role. 2 g
5 3
63These poems are discussed in Chapter III of this paper, ‘
pp. 88-89.
64Most of my information of Sam Patch comes from Richard
M. Dorson, "The Wonderful Leaps of Sam Patch," American . ,4
Heritage, December, 1966, pp. 12-19. E .1

 

65Dorson, [note 64], p. 18.
66Dorson, p. 18.

67This is one of the few samples of Sands's work given
by Kendall B. Taft in Minor Knickerbockers (New York: Ameri-
can Book, 1947). It has also been anthologized many times--
see for example Griswold's The Poets_and Poetry of America
(Philadelphia: Parry and McMillan, 1858) and American Wit
and Humor (4 vols.; New York: Review of Reviews Co., 1909).

 

 

 

 

68Letter, RCS to JWE, 23 April 1818, NYHS.

69Letter, RCS to JWE, 23 April 1818, NYHS.

70Bryant, "Memoir," Knickerbocker, 1 (1833), 53.

 

71Letter, RCS to JWE, 23 April 1818, NYHS.

72Letter, RCS to JWE, 5 January 1817, NYHS.

CHAPTER V

lVerplanck, "Memoir," p. 14.

2Neilson, "Journal of a Day," Aeronaut MS. (19 April
1822), Columbia University Library.

3Aeronautica MS. II (11 October 1822), 96, Columbia.

 

 

305
4 .
Verplanck, "Mem01r," pp. 14-15.
5Bryant, "Memoir? Knickerbocker, l (1833), 52.
6This account is recorded by Lewis G. Clark from a
missing Aeronaut MS which he used for the article, "Early

Writings of Robert C. Sands," Knickerbocker Magazine, 21
(1843), 280.

 

 

7Neilson, "Journal," pp. 275-79.

8This letter is another of the items used by Lewis G.

Clark from the missing Aeronaut MS. See note 6. 'Knickerboc-
ker, 21 (1843), 278.

 

9An anonymous newspaper clipping found pasted to the
fly leaf of Michigan State University's copy of Sands's
Writings.

10Bayles, Old Taverns of New York (New York: Frank

 

llQuoted by Taft, p. ci.

12Adkins, "James Fenimore COOper and the Bread and Cheese
Club," Modern Language Notes, 47 (1932), 79.

13Markwardt, Albert H. "The Chronology and Personnel of
the Bread and Cheese Club," AL, 6 (1935), 389-99.

14De Peyster, Aeronaut MSS, NYHS.

15Charvat, The Origins of American Critical Thought
1810-1835 (Philadelphia: Univ. of Penn., 1936): P. 202.

16Aeronautica MSS, Columbia University Library, pp. 155-
56.

17Letter, Bryant to R. H. Dana, Jr., 2 October 1833,
Goddard-Roslyn Collection, NYPL.

18Sands, "Conversation," Atlantic, 1 (1824), 1.

 

19The Library of Congress's c0py of the Atlantic has
pencilled notations crediting Sands with "The Dr. McHenry
School of Romance," and "Redwood." Others probably by Sands
are "Theory of the World," "The Deformed Transformed," "Lec-
tures of Chancellor Kent," "The Fine Arts," "The Witch of
New England," "An Inquiry into the Moral Character of Lord
Byron." William Charvat also gives Sands credit for the
fine review of "The Poetical Works of William Wordsworth."

 

20Three short stories can definitely be attributed to

 

 

 

306

Sands: "Joseph" (I, 264—78), "The Man Who Burnt John

Rogers" (I, 452-63), and "Tristan the Grave" (II, 50-55,
234-40). Internal evidence and the fact that Sands wrote the
verse which is part of the story indicates that Sands also
wrote "Job Cook" (I, 174—79), "Paunch Hogabout" (I, 339-51),
and "Henry Slender" (I, 378-86).

21At that time it was published in A Library of American
Literature, ed. Edmund C. Stedman and Ellen Hutchinson (ll
vols.; New York: Webster, 1889), V, 482-92.

 

 

22Mott, A History of American Magazines, 1741-1850
(New York: Harvard, 1930): p. 334.

 

23Quoted in Parke Godwin's, A Biography of William Cullen

 

Bryant (2 vols.; New York: Appleton, 1883), I, 189.

24Letter, Henry Sedgwick to W. C. Bryant, 25 January
1825, Berg Collection, NYPL.

25Bryant II, "Bryant: The Middle Years: A Study in
Cultural Fellowship" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Colum-
bia University, 1954), p. 18. I am indebted to Professor
Bryant for many of my details regarding the New York Review.

 

26Callow, Kindred Spirits: Knickerbocker Writers and
American Artists, 1807-1855 (Chapel Hill: Univ. of North
Carolina, 196717pp.93-94.

27

 

 

Godwin, I, 22.

28Poems: "The Stars," USR, 1 (March, 1827), 445-49;
and "The Butterfly," Egg, 2 TJEly, 1827), 302. Reviews:
"Almack's; A Novel," N33, 1 (April, 1827), 64-66; and "Paul
Jones; a Romance," USE, 1 (April, 1927), 66-68.

29Letter, RCS to WCB, 27 August 1826, Manuscript Divi-
sion, NYPL.

30John Bigelow records Bryant's "Reminiscences of the
'Evening Post'" in William Cullen Bryant (Boston: Houghton,
Mifflin, 1890), p. 325.

 

31Taft, p. xliv.

32Charvat, pp. 6, 202.

33Letter, RCS to JWE, 23 April 1818, NYHS.
34See Pritchard, p. 123 ff.

35Charvat, p. 144.

36See Sands's review of Almack‘s,'USR, 2 (1827), 65.

 

 

—.w-.

307

37Sands was "dissatisfied with some of the conversa-
tions" of C. M. Sedgwick's Redwood, Atlantic, 1 (1824), 236.

38

 

NYR, 2 (1826), 329.

39See the many examples provided in the studies by
Pritchard and Charvat.

CHAPTER VI

lVerplanck, "Memoir,' p. 17.

2Eleanor B. Scott, "Literary Tendencies, and Activities
in New York, 1789-1840" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Uni~
versity of Wisconsin, 1925): p. 56.

 

3Trollope, The Domestic Manners of the Americans (New
York: Vintage Books, 1949), p. 311. -

4"The Newspapers of New York State, 1783-1900," History
of the State of New York, ed. A. C. Flick (10 vols.; New York:
Columbia Univ., 1934), IX, 279.

5Bigelow, Bryant, p. 325.

6Wm. L. Stone, II. "Newspapers and Magazines," The
Memorial History_of the City of New York, ed. James G.
Wilson (4 vols.; New York: Cooke, 1892-1893), IV, 142.

7This extract from an undetermined newspaper is quoted
by Lewis G. Clark, "Early Writings of Robert C. Sands,"
Knickerbocker Magazine, 21 (1843), 279.

8Quoted by Bryant II, "Bryant: The Middle Years" (Diss.
Columbia University, 1954).

9See the account of the incident by Charles H. Brown,
William Cullen Bryant (New York: Scribners, 1971), p. 186.

10Stone II, IV, 149, n.

l1Letter, RCS to Gov, 30 December 1830, NYHS.
12Letter, RCS to GCV,ll January 1829, NYHS.
l3Letter, RCS to ch, 1 February 1829, NYHS.

l4"Sands," AQR: 15 (1834)! 415'

 

 

 

 

 

 

.am 9:31 yumt. 11 .voa o: m

x 1 .2m .9418: qua-ma I v30 0: I“

    
  
   
        
  
   
   
    
       
        
            
   
   
     
  
  
  
   
   

\‘OE

1 ’ I IVLC'J' 3'7 :1“ JmOR ".IW miliiim”.
‘rzwteil E .iilsl‘fifi. .boowgfl a'iom

W
.est . mu) 0

Hf L' "wave ”1"; It" naiwhrmq aslqmsx. Y‘-
.31.qu

"’ WETWD

.TI .3 "fixiomen" \

.721;qf{ a fix? .“fi?,_ (rqf yIStsfiJ" .33038 .C
-quT .‘;"1_;"!'»‘f‘5312¢ ’“ '.or*.'z~'.£h.~:rtu) "’WBI-QITI .‘ .
..W .n .resel (alumna-b

) 2...“).7'1'32'; ifs! ' 2:31:15? :1i389m( %*
‘A‘ L .177. .q .(QH’L .

31:12.5”: "\ “1"”? ' 3“": | 5;: «d? :{30‘1' we;' 10 3399"”?
3.7”: "93‘ 1. 211W 17f) "2 " T'T .3 .A .159 ltoY "
."'.'C (.I .

~r siafifi reg mum.

“T-EI" r19 {N'IH 19M“ .1)". ‘wm ,‘
.7‘ 97"”67 .51.“ ‘ r1.1 W911 ‘10 {11" 9d: ‘9 C ‘ " ‘
.‘2i "~‘1’(898140876490391301? we '1. ‘f

.1» ' . '.
‘1 \anL;

 

1‘53“."

.-..~+oup at uaqsqenefi benjmsrtebru n5 M33 Wu WY“ .2 a,"
" «Jar .2 3:10.105! +0 apa: 31w "1315'!“ alumni, _ —
.(‘TS .{Et-SE) IS amt

.aaiO'I "wise? elbbm st”? #:1151338" .11 3mm 14
‘ .(4291 .231. '

.mvoze .3 25135st yd insteioni 911:: 30 mm;
.38.! .q .(EVP! .ezerzdi'me :JltoY mm 3;, .- L

, .on .951 .VI .138
.am .0011 19mm or. was a: sh

308

CHAPTER VII

1Letter, RCS to GCV, 2 December 1828, NYHS.

2Scott, Eleanor B. 'Literary Tendencies and Activities
in New York, 1789-1840 (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Uni-
versity of Wisconsin, 1925), p. 220.

 

 

3Letter, RCS to GCV, 10 February 1828, NYHS.

4In an interesting digression, Sands gives the Arch-
bish0p credit for a plausible eXplanation of where the inhabi-
tants of Mexico came from: "I beg the Archbishop's pardon
for calling him an old fool, ut su ra, for he gives the most
philosophical solution of the peopllng of American I ever read,
and throws Carver, Judge Bondinot and Washington Irving, to
say nothing of the learned explorers of the subject, completely
into the shade. I translate him literally for your edifi-
cation, as it is easier to do so than to copyhis obsolete
orthography. 'There is no use,‘ quoth the Most Illustrious
Lord Don Francisco Antonio Lorensana, 'there is no use' says
he, 'in fatiguing yourself about the ancestors' (of these
people:). . . 'For, from the tower of Babel, people straggled
all over the world. And clear up to the North Pole, no end
has been found to land in this America. Wherefore, at this
day, it is a useless question, how they came by sea; because
by land they might come from other parts of the world. And
nobody can assert the contrary, because the end of New Spain
has never been found at the North.'" Letter, RCS to GCV,
10 February 1828, NYHS.

5Letter, RCS to GCV, 10 February 1828, NYHS.

6Letter, RCS to GCV, 2 March 1828, NYHS. Of course,
the NYHS still does not allow rare books to be taken out,
but they are most helpful in finding and letting you use the
tremendous resources they have and to which this paper is
heavily indebted. Sands may not have complained so bitterly
had the NYHS been equipped with Xerox and microfilm facilities
as it is now.

7«Sands," 593, 15 (1834). 416-
8Letter, RCS to ch, 2 March 1828, NYHS.

9See for example, "Sands," AQE, 15 (1334): 415-
10"Writings of Robert C. Sands," AME, 3 (1834), 4-
11"Sands," A23, 15 (1834): 415-

12"Sands," 3 (1834), 4.

 

 

 

 

. IIV lilIIID

  
 
  
 
 
  
     
  
 
 
    
   
   
 
   
  
 
  
 
 
  
   
   
   
  
  
    

.223“ .tvfir reernec S .VDO as can .

.»':'I :7 4”. 1W}: :‘ I;’_,‘J_l.‘.II- ‘4. IISVJ iii ' am
- -.- ~ 74*?- .r qum max-MI

.05: .4 .(E 91.nlaaool‘

‘

, lyj V'33j¢}3(3ff :f' wh€ I” :mo?‘ BEES 00"

. . #us Jr .[oo‘ bio as Iii

.3“ T 14.}:4w. "o ~".{osq 9d} 30 nottnioo I .
¢"wv 0' n"'1 ’n onibna. nprE .1ow139

19 {Dicks Kansas! 9d: lo

-E“Ebe 705/ "o‘ wfifivlffr mil sfislaflslfi I

’ "' L * ' A? Oh of

.1 / . 4 f . 3, '— 4-- .' -. l-‘I‘ ,-—
. , -. . , .. a
-

W. m;
I.

CHALJJRUEfT Raw“ 2': Vuouv '.eau on 3i oxsdw'
'52 ‘gfn 7 " iOHJ' .RUSPfléIOJ oiqunA 09. 1
can”: 3w} 'wx~iasvnn vflfi iwcim irsa3uoy 9n

- L‘-:< ’~»n€ Ln wave: adj n03! .101'

3' 7 .‘iw? vJ"~T PK: 0: jg vrslo bn” .blzow

iii 1: H,.-.u.~q .sm~?zs .m; ailJ at was! 03 filllflk'
, n.41 :54: ~* ..., fen” 3d .,.r.+=sup assists I'ti
,n’ .leor yfj Lo 2136" xo*+o an“? omoo idqlfl '
'2 If an, a z '9;r539d ..Xrtanou 9J1 ’14 '. ‘
If», p 25‘ .lijjoi "' .d31o1 9d: 36 have! IfiI‘ LI
BHYM .831; “ ‘

.HWYW .RCSF yieuzdsi 01 .vva o: 82! r': p
7‘ §W3§-I
.sarnos ‘7 .TF?” 8985 d“25M S .V30 03 83' ‘3‘

‘tuo mafia: 33 03 aiood 935: wells :00 8905 _ ,
3d:t 92H L0{ pni+tsl bus pa «iani hi Inlqlad 3.0.2”

2i wsqaq aim: dui.w oi hat awed ysdj 399! v
{i zsjjid 02.53nisiqmno svsd Jon yam aha-a -
91311193. mliiouoim bns xo3sx d31w bowafl’.

.31: .(:£31) :1 .3595 "aims!" «1.2;. 7'
.5 .uun c .55 .ahaaa .9 noun: a

 
 

   

309

13Bryant, "Memoir," Knickerbocker, l (1833), 53.

 

14"Literary Notices," Knickerbocker, 3 (1834), 166-

 

15Seitz, Paul'Jones. .‘g with a Complete Bibliography
(New York: Dutton, 1917), p. 222.

16Robert Sands's uncle, Richardson Sands, married
Lucretia Ledyard, daughter of John Ledyard, according to
Martha J. Lamb, History of the City of New York (2 vols.;
New York: Barnes, 1877-1880), I, 412.

17Sands, in preface to biography of Jones (New York:
Fanshaw, 1830), p. 3. See also Sands's reVIew, "Paul Jones:
A Romance," U.S. Review, 1 (April, 1827), 66-68.

 

18Atlantic, 1 (August, 1824), 318.

19In the NYR (I, 445-58) he reviewed Sherburne's biog-
raphy of Jones and in the U.S. Review he reviewed Allen
Cunningham's Paul Jones: A Romance (I, 66-68).

 

20Letter, RCS to ch, 11 May 1830, NYHS.

CHAPTER VIII

1As Verplanck puts it in his "Memoir," p. 20.

2Letter, RCS to GCV, 11 January 1829, NYHS.

3Quoted in Bryant II, p. 120, from a Bryant letter to
Jared Sparks, 16 November 1827, Harvard Col. Library.

4See, for example, "The Talisman MDCCCXXIX," The Critic,
l (1828), 113-16. One historian who quotes Herbert is
William L. Stone II, The Centenniel History of New York City,
(New York: Cooke, 1876), IV, 203 ff.

 

5Cox, "The Talisman for 1830," The New York Mirror, 7

 

6Letter, RCS to GCV, 7 December 1827, NYHS.

7Letter, WCB to GCV, 28 December 1827, Berg Collection,
NYPL .

8Letter, RCS to GCV, 14 December 1827, NYHS.

9
NYPL,

Letter, WCB to GCV, 28 December 1827, Berg Collection,

 

 

 
       
 

3. ‘ j‘
27‘ L
‘x’.a
‘u‘u"’ 002
3' 3»

u 5i KUI‘ r .m _irodzgéglnfi "(sh-II“
“" ‘('"u ' F on :aflozrfi "‘asolfiol III

 

' . ‘." -' 7’ .. .4 ,
ink . '113' -.“ f»3w' "  ‘~;190&& n: 9:»aisaq n! ...IIIR‘
fi“ . -~f j.“ . ; :‘<\gsl 0836 591 .C .q .CO‘II"
‘u - ,‘T~ ‘ 5* ‘ ,{**qf) I ‘wwivsfi .figg' A
‘ 't' 3? CM . 725.;JIA) I ..
m » ‘r-w- ‘. a. 0-“ ("5“;5‘3 I) Lmorw- ‘1';-
7 ,: a u jz" ,4 valva? ,?.J :n+ a: hnT IIIIE“ 3
‘ ! . 5‘? -‘- ‘ “T“ ~.'u-!£*TO"' A 129563 I2§ I.
F), .' “1‘35 767-” AL ‘19?) of. 39.. ‘m

 

 

  
  
 
   
  

.1, » , L.-
z , .
" . '7 " . twin-.7924" 2:}: '
.11”? PS8! jxcwnsf
‘ » a: tefijni 3"5V*3 F n0?% .OSI .q ,7! insqafl it
. 151111 .fou h1£v3sfi ‘?XEI zsdmavoami; .

w ‘*if}19 adT "XIX1DDDGN namefIfiT QflT' .alqflllfi
" ‘ Q 4 aT'EzadtaF ehjonr 03w animojaid sna ‘
‘vdtfl 310? wem'fio $303211 I91nn93a93 9dr .1!
‘ .§§ {UK .31 ‘15T81 .

 

Y ‘10131M fin? wan 9d? "‘0£8£ xoi nsmltllf

 

‘17“ i .ae-oe , ’
.' I V { u"":
f“ 1 .anvu .TSBI Iodanoec Y ‘VDO a: !§!37‘. f
" ‘ ~ g. ‘ ::'!-. '
fix‘ ; ‘noisoolloa gm ,rsu xedmooo a: .vao 03.13! : .
, 7‘ . ‘; .m .391 m u was os~
‘.‘ . .

,maouoo nu J2“ m a .m «w

    

 

310

10Giftbook historian Ralph Thompson calls Talisman
"in some ways the best of American gift books, and on all
counts one of the most interesting." He also says "The
literary and artistic quality of The Talisman was clearly
high." American Literary Annuals and GiftbOOks, 1825-1865
(New York: Wilson,—1936), pp. 56,59.

 

llLetter, RCS to GCV, 10 February 1828, NYHS.

12Letter, WCB to GCV, 28 December 1827, Berg Collec-
tion, NYPL.

13Letter, RCS to GCV, 14 December 1827, NYHS.

14Letter, RCS to GCV, 23 December 1827, NYHS.

15Letter, RSS to GCV, 15 January 1828, NYHS.

16Letter, RCS to GCV, 12 February 1828, NYHS.

17Letter, RCS to GCV, 14 December 1827, NYHS.

l8Letter, RCS to GCV, 15 January 1828, NYHS.

l9Letters, RCS to GCV, 25 March 1828, NYHS; WCB to GCV,
24 March 1828, Berg Collection, NYPL.

20Letter, RCS to GCV, 2 December 1828, NYHS.
21Letter, RCS to GCV, 18 December 1828, NYHS.

22Callow, Kindred Spirits (Chapel Hill: Univ. of North
Carolina, 1967), p. 181.

 

23Letter, RCS to GCV, 11 January 1829, NYHS.

24Letter, RCS to GCV, 27 December 1829, NYHS.

25Letter, GCV to WCB, 30 December 1829, Bryant-Godwin
Collection, NYPL.

265ee the North American Review, 29 (April, 1829), 488.

 

27Thompson, p. 63. [See note 10]
28Letter, RCS to GCV, 2 December 1828, NYHS.

29T. S. Cummings, Historic Annals of_the National Aca-
demy of Design (Philadelphia: Childs, 18675, p. 110.

 

30Emerson, quoted in Callow's Kindred Spirits, p. 28.

 

31Quoted from John Durand, Prehistoric Notes of the
Century Club (New York: Century Club, 1882), p. 10.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
  
  

*fifif”

:-?4

:‘P-

\s‘g'j; 01E

rT"9

3 \ ~ fiIF TII‘S.VVTflVrH'dql££ nBIIOflI£I

': f v > 'n? ,2'-:j w‘fp anoixamA 30 39.6 :1:

‘ :N _ me ‘x' .[r :ali”.ur:i:iaet!91'nl 3m ,
ab ’ ' V :nw iErT 9d? 30 yfilsup ol’lfit“

f“ ‘85—?;- 1b 2~r»_ as aIsuanA I ‘

f?:‘-‘ ‘ "" .7?-.r. .gq.
n.- ' (His? r-r [woo
i - . ‘Z ‘felnuroéC 1’;
. “_— _: (r- me ._r_ "rm 03 at»: .mfl“
~ 2‘ , ‘ hr.
~ ‘ , » .7 L? ..v: 03 eon , _ flyw‘fi.
‘ 1 ".r PI .VUD oi 383 .Ilfl"¢’&

. \ ' 'TEUVFn7 Ii ‘V38 03 833 (SQO’QJ’!
~‘i . ‘ ' : fiL' 9; .von c: 398 .‘ _,,,;",
L: T? .”FbflSC ;£ .VUW Oi EDI .IIIQIJ"

A“ r c; ‘ Ram?! 35 0:! 835! «Ml
' ' ‘ -3"=’|x :.’)';“L>‘).L.[03 D1“ ‘“u “.8
-"—.‘\

5% A , , ' _r '2'1'95m7 R: (V?!) o: 832 .1333“
' 1 99' r ';-:vtf1“'=w,1 91 .vzm on an: .M: .-
' “v ‘P .Vifi‘ :I'r'Y iced”; aiitfqhm
, : .q .(VOQ
.2=:»::< an \3 nurr 1: (ma 0: cm .Mh
" ‘ ?.H"’ .osa; “red'nsoerfi 2': «'0 o: 33! M

niwboO-quy~5 .

(‘4 L .Bfih .(essi

E . 38w

.Iixmfl)

azalmofig 3% 10 45% 3132mm an“.
a .q ‘ g. V I.

  
    
    

”SBI wedmeoec CL

.838: o:

H01 ajon 998] .E3

use; reamsaec : .voo o: aaiP.‘i

   
   
   

York
III,

York:

1833,

311

32Wilson, ed. The Memorial History of the City of New
(4 vols.; New York: N. Y. History Co., 1892-1893),
428 n. Also see Wilson, Bryant and His Friends (New
Fords, Howard & Hulbert, 1886): P. 400.

 

 

33"Minutes of the Sketch Club, 27 Dec. 1830 to 4 April
" also on microfilm at the Archives of American Art,

Detroit.

Nov.

34Letter, RCS to GCV, 30 December 1830, NYHS.
35Letter, RCS to Gov, 23 February 1832, NYHS.

36"Tales of Glauber Spa," New York Mirror: 10 (10
1832), 148.

 

37Letter, RCS to GCV, 30 December 1830, NYHS.
38Letter, RCS to GCV, 15 February 1832, NYHS.
39Letter, RCS to GCV, 23 February 1832, NYHS.
4oLetter, WCB to GCV, 28 February 1837, NYHS.

41Sands, Tales of Glauber Spa (2 vols.; New York:

 

Harpers, 1832), I, 8. Henceforth this work will be cited in
the text as TGS.

NYPL.

42Letter, RCS to GCV, 15 February 1832, NYHS.

43Letter, WCB to GCV, 30 March 1832, Berg Collection,

44Letter, RCS to GCV, 11 January 1829, NYHS.

45"The Talisman," Southern Review, 1 (Feb. 1828), 265.

 

46"Sands," A93, 15 (1834), 421.

47Letter, RCS to GCV, 25 March 1828, NYHS.
48Letter, RCS to GCV, 7 December 1827, NYHS.
49Letter, RCS to GCV, 14 December 1827, NYHS.
50"The Talisman,"‘_N_Y1\_d, 6 (13 Dec. 1828), 180.
51"The Talisman," NYE, p. 180.

52"Sands," Aug, 3 (1834), 7.

53Letter, RCS to GCV, 2 March 1828, NYHS.

 

 

 

 

Ff‘-r‘;:-.- 35,. erIPiHW J.
. " "7 ~' .m". vmviarl" a

"I ..("ni E .‘Xs'f‘: I .yeivefl nnmfduoe Hamlin

 
    
 
 
  

[If

 

an.
fl"

’ " ' H‘.’ 3 {‘1 ,tx’irlx'fi Mini? .9113 30
- . -, —' .',:.-r.. 9*: fis 0112101311! no ”£13,188“

‘:’ T'A‘J(T‘»‘""9'.: ‘1 ("TD 03 23!! .M '
r :19? 1:; .V’m o: 8:15 .msu'?

, , 3 V" 72'." Ham”; 1 W513 3'0 .01
.811 u on“

ans-G or 37",." m 838 cum"

(we: .ri’r‘ «.1 ass at!!!“

- ~ r: .3238 o‘ 338 unwed."
.' "an, 1’ "v73 93 can .60“.

13.71, r '10 eels!

i~ Q - * -- ‘:.~::: .zj’Ei‘E-‘DEF? .8 .1..(5:81

 

 

"u: r‘r'vi urn n' Iii”. M. 0-1 83' .M
a?
.9122: .?€ SI whims? It .‘Y'Jfi 0:! am QM
‘- if' (’1'

     
       
  
   

..rc: .0581) a: 'Hr'.
.‘YHYM .ECM dorm? 23' ,V’Aa 01 821;”
..'»;HW. .7381 'rndmsogfi v .1er on a“ "
.amv .YSZI Iadmmfi H ,vog o; m

.081 .{88-81 “21m 81) 3 .mm "mini

312

54"Tales of Glauber Spa," Athenaeum (London), 20 July
1833, p. 472; "Tales of Glauber Spa," Literary Gazette, 17
(1833), 549.

 

 

55"Tales of Glauber Spa," NYM: 10 (10 November 1832)'
151.

56"Sands," AQR, 15 (1834), 423.
S7Letter, RCS to GCV, 15 February 1832, NYHS.
58"Literary Notices," Knickerbocker, 3 (1834), 175.

59Bryant, "Memoir," Knickerbocker, l (1833), 53 and
"Literary Notices," Knickerbocker, 37(1834), 175.

 

 

 

60"Sands," AQR, p. 422.
61"Writings," AMM, 3 (1834), 7.

62"Literary Notices," Knickerbocker, 3 (1834), 175.

 

CHAPTER IX

1Edward R. Ellis, The Epic of New York City (New York:
Coward-McMann, 1966), pp. 239-40.

 

2"Hoboken," NYM, 10 (7 July 1832), n.p.
3"Hoboken," NYM, n.p.

4William P. Trent, William Gilmore Simms (New York:
Houghton Mifflin, 1892), pp. 69-70.

 

5Fay, "Robert C. Sands," NYM, lO (29 December 1832),
206.

6Bryant included the fragment Sands had written in his
article on Sands in the Knickerbocker Magazine, 1 (1833), 58.

 

7Bryant, "Memoir," Knickerbocker, l (1833), 54.

 

8Verplanck erroneously claims in his "Memoir" that
Sands died on Monday, 17 December 1832, but Sands's tombstone
and other records indicate it was December 16.

9Fay, p. 206.

10Prime, Descent of Comfort Sands and of His Children
(New York: n.p., 1892), pp. lOn. 27.

 

 

 

 

. 5?,“
L; i ¥ .
\: cu
‘ ~11“. .21: \(3-1136I1) nuasnadjfl " .sqt Indus“) h
“ ’ 32:15:”: web A ".sqg racing“! 30 ”I.“ t -
ii" ‘ ' ., :iéf 'i:u*:ae:\.-~:1 “11) {J ¥_‘___.’Ii ".sqe Iadntla ” W

. y A...“ .w
' .sgh ,(M‘QI) ex .53 NM“;

,‘ ~ 1 .'.‘”r‘I "‘nm'” 3er 81 (VD?) 03 am ..‘“:

7 1| \ , .» , ~_~t_:~;‘:‘._n_ 3.1.3.! ".2531305! 11310311!“

,(.. * : .g ..v-"I-fiioinll ”..Iromofl' ‘

I
r .~.. -“»""““"

.1:._‘_'Ir.‘r‘19;{:~kn>__ ".aaali’fl- ”31...!“
.29.- .q .595 am?”
-,,; .' ..'13281) E 933.}; uranium”

*1 «ail-4.9.18: "(aeolian 213mg
_’ 1
5“;
n“
,1 fifl‘fqflb
r; \
"t

3
HI
.3
U

“’4‘“: 05‘? .811121 .3 33“
.iz-«i—WQ .uc, {3321.WD

.13... .(L-‘FP': "111‘“. 7) 01 (MYK "M

.q.n .WJ flaw;

2110': we?!) 38.th aroml t2) Incj’IELW (3119!? .‘l ' '
- {TY-QB oqq ‘ (seal QM,“

.(SCRI redmsoecl or.) 0! .HYH ".ebnn-‘l .3 nodal?“

 

')

 
 

  
  
  
   
 
  

; air! at 09:31:33.; .45.: abuse :momplsxi ed: bebulafll V y
.88 ($181) I .enlxspsM zemdgiainx an: at. 3%'

.'-,‘ .36 g(£€81) I .‘Iafi '1.” ”..‘-31“.:
__ i . and: "Lionel!" aid [1 music 11380011933

, ‘ snodudno: a'ahnsa Jud .SEBI redness-'3 II .23.?
’ .31 19411-9090 m :1 sésotmfi ,

 
    
  
 

313

11From an unidentified clipping found in the front of
the Michigan State University Library's c0py of Sands's

Writings.

12"Obituary," New York Commercial Advertiser, 17
December 1832.

13
NYPL.

l4
NYPL.

 

Letter, WCB to GCV, 24 December 1832, Berg Collection,
Letter, WCB to GCV, 11 January 1833, Berg Collection,
15Letter, WCB to GCV, 25 January 1833, Berg Collection,

NYPL.

16Letter, WCB to GCV, 10 September 1833, Berg Collec-
tion, NYPL.

17Letter, Julia M. Sands to GCV, 14 January 1835, NYHS.

18"The Literary Reputation and Remains of Robert C.
Sands," Knickerbocker Magazine 3 (1834), 161.

 

19"Writings of Robert C. Sands," AMM, 3 (1834): 2-
20Taft, p. cv.

21Clark, "Early Writings of Robert C. Sands," Knicker—
bocker Magazine, 21 (Feb. and Mar. 1843), 184-87, 274-81;
22 (July and Aug. 1843), 69-76, 176-80.

22See Jane M. Tiquin, "The Life and Works of Robert
Charles Sands" (unpublished master's thesis, Columbia
University, 1936).

 

23.Sands," AQR, 15 (1834), 401-02, 418.

 

 

 

.)

5,
> “my

 

 

 

a obit? 'm

_ ,-
‘Aklf
/ .A” 1'
W-
\
) f‘ L
'r~
3‘:
‘
L I >.
.u
o
. Pl
3
- : ‘r n 1
. ‘.1
‘ .n — r-< I
; J’:‘. '.»I—‘

,1. '17 mi bnuo? pniqqilo 501313

‘g‘ir‘w.’ " :1.

{It

 
 

M-

{700 <'~mr*1id yjkaievtaa '

*znnfiffiggigzgmmog 110? we! '.t§ll3

’ .013“
.”3? \offlsoef FE (V33 03 '5' .il..‘l‘3 » '

"l' .1-‘_H ,‘s'T ’1 “."JO ()3 aw \m"dfi§

’ ‘3 ‘7 ’ f; abut? .“ siluL (IDISDJYL
‘5?Fro" ‘hh d'ijr+wnwl yrczojld odT..‘
'3; ‘:.f?‘\ ' ?€:.7L5V Xoioodzgigfiga 't‘hflia
,‘ W ” :LleT “ Ziedofl ?o 89n1311I.QI
.vo .q .jllgaf
J-vn r” “..o a-1.t—+‘1W v11!!!" .W*‘

3&5 .(fhff .35: has .49?) IS .
.ijrh.f .3x—va .(8881 .9U

33?; 9d”' ,nivpjT .I and! ..i"
it w‘ieierm benefiluqnn) ',
.(Otflfi'fi

   

.823 mum: .(3281) 6.1 .525 ".

 

      
 

‘ . F
. ...—WW

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Willem-gm,
K, m 1",!

 

 

D
,_
*4

T

l I

It!

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY_

A CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF THE
PUBLISHED WORKS OF ROBERT CHARLES SANDS

(Excluding Material Written as Editor of NY Commercial Advertiser)

 

From Academic Recreations. Vol. 1 (Feb.-July 1815). New York:
Eastburn, Kirk & Co., 1815. Columbiana Collection,
Columbia University.

 

 

POETRY
"Athlin and Anna, or the legend if the isles"
"Athula; an Indian tale"
"Cashmere"
"Evening Hymn"
"Ode to Music"
"Ode on the Invasion of Spain by the Moors, from
the Spanish"
"Hymn to Peace"
"Sunset"

PROSE
"Introductory Address"
"Petition of the Carrier"
"Essay on Female Talent"
"On the Contemplation of the Beauties of Nature"
"Essay on the Origin, Progress and Perfection of
Romantic Fiction"

 

An Address Delivered June 13, 1817, Before the Columbian
Peithologian Society cf Columbia College on the Death of
the felIow-member James S. Watkins, M.D. New York:
Abraham’PauI, 18I7.

 

 

 

The Bridal of Vaumond: A Metrical Romance. New York: James
Eastburn, 18171

 

From "The Neologist." A series of essays in the New York
Daily Advertiser, 28 June 1817-23 May 1818.

 

314

 

:3» J
“'1‘,
f .‘1 ~
41 '
\;\-' I...
‘ q" "
.0,
§ 15} 7 rummmsm
1' ' ‘
= r27, "1"‘Y9‘30J0'nofiflo A
'~ . '- "3 was an 8mm: nuaan
.’ _ “a ~z-- ,; x .eF 119-}:va 1.13931! million!)
, .. 7-.'7; ' .r .e:~:_:sexoex 3113 m1?
-.-- r~ I ,r 4:“: 24:11. ”Egg
1, .I'r'revinU :ldlnlob
_l
YRTIO1
“‘ r - . “F GI . ‘ .3. ea ‘rfim‘ has atidjl'
'E¢\ '3'r: Fife) nr :siuddl'
. "9:91.135?
,‘ “z"?v’i pntneml"
'3.‘ , ”oiauM 03 080'

' . _ 3 ... 5 .7 gt: -' «j --= 3.- ':,.I",."I"'flI 9d: no 950”
3.: I y ‘ "112185613 9“:

1 ”3359‘? o: mun“

"new

“cvorfihfl ytoioubOIQaI'

"ref-1n”: 9:53 10 {10131301.

"jflrsifT 915019”! no (5093'

“s"h-I 3o E’ichGH and “o acijsfqvejaoD Dd: IDP

1n 6013~93“e€ bug zeiwnovq .nipizfi ad: no ‘8‘...
"noiiufr‘? 9131138”!

HEICB'UJIO'J em ~10 398 T181 .EI smut beuv I
1 30 :‘L-tss-U 93:} no 9997105 9" o

I
; :i'xo'x' wEW .6.“_181’11:1735W .7’ estrus":

  

1

3 count. :nho‘l wail .oatmmfl [53173914 A

in? wall 9d: at «as. to sense a
.8101 W lit-(I81 snot. BS

   

LEE

315

BY SANDS
‘ "No. II" (July 2), on silence

"No. VI" (July l6), on The Forum, a debating
society, part 1

"No. VII" (July 19), on The Forum, part 2

"No. X" (July 30), humorous letter from Susanna
Nightshade

"No. XII" (Aug. 6), humorous letters from Bridget
Simple, et al.

"No. XVII" (Aug. 23), narrative of Conloffe, part 1

"No. XVIII" (Aug. 27), narrative of Conloffe, con-
cluded

"No. XX" (Sept. 3), humorous letters from Rachel
Bagpipe, et al.

"No. XXIII" (Sept. 13), on origin of Greek gods

"No. XXIV" (Sept. 17), on Chaldean manuscripts and
the Babylonian peOple

"No. XXXIII" (Oct. 18), on satire vs. scandal

"No. XXXIV" (Oct. 22), on taking politics too ser-
iously

"No. XXXVIII" (Nov. 5), on parallels between
Greek and medieval warriors

"No. XLVII" (Dec. 6), on the forms of instruction

"No. L" (Dec. 17), humorous letter from
Gamaliel

"No. LVI" (Jan. 7), on trivial distractions

"No. LX" (Jan. 21), on allegory

"No. LXII" (Jan. 28), on the vanity of human
employments

"No. LXV" (Feb. 7), on definitions of love

"No. LXVII" (Feb. 14), on ballad poetry and critics

"No. LXXVII" (Mar. 21), a burlesque of criticism

"No. LXXXIII" (Apr. 11), on matrimony

"No. LXXXVII" (Apr. 25), the story of an Athenian
Pedagogue, Hippecons

"No. LXXXVIII" (Apr. 29), the story of Hippecons
concluded

"No. XCI" (May 9), on affection for inanimate
objects

"No. XCIII" (May 16), on fashion

"No. XCIV" (May 20), on drama

"No. XCV" (May 23), on the paradoxes of science

IN COLLABORATION WITH OTHER LITERARY CONFEDERATES

"No. XV" (Aug. 16), with James Eastburn, two
humorous letters on music

"No. XXVI" (Sept. 24), with James Eastburn, poetry
from correspondents

"No. XXVII" (Sept. 27), with Richard R. Ward, on
originality

"No. XXX" (Oct. 8), with James Eastburn, on
classical education

 

 

 

(«5%
A, f‘
{1.1, .
' I.
w'ruiia no .(8 tint) 'Il .OI’ .3
‘ . . . _ ~_1nq «4? no .(ax glut) 'IV .OIP I‘g
,‘xg: ? I sang .Ytoloo.
T'I;" . ‘ : "'- ‘ .“' 17“: '{T 110 \ (9L YIUIO) '1” 0"
:gr'- ,. . ‘w ‘ -. jv' snovnmud .lOt ylut) 'X .6.”
~§ f h‘ 955:1”an

. ‘ a“yrcquj .(3 .QUA) 'III .olP

,; ‘.. .Is 39 .slqmle

» A ~ . 1 » a my. .puA) "UV! .0!“

1* ' ‘ ‘ ‘ ;* ""jv1‘r' .(T‘ .pcfl) "IIIVX .0"

~ bebula

"V. ' >'v‘:»i»";vr! ‘(E Jigs?) "XX .0.’
.IF jw eqiqp‘fl

,. ' x '- 1 ‘(sr figs-'2) "Inn .on" "
' A (W mm?) 'vxxx .ou‘
. 9,8.31 Tsifiolvdna 9d:
-m’uv,' .*' (,2. ~ to ($n .499? 'IIIXXX .ol'
' ’ "f ' "C; a? (" .;~C) "VIXXX .OHI'
; vlauol
' ., I~-" ” 't‘u' 7' ,1'7‘ ,(7. 53“} ITIVXX)’ A)"
' F“;{’{” Irreifen Has 19913
p; p: ‘ N n" (.2. .(3: .arm "*IVJX .ot'
‘fig. : :C" Waf‘ ' Pvcjomufi ,(Vl .tvoO) ”J .0"
. "‘ lsilnMJa
-, - ; trivia—r m (r '1' u) ”IVJ lo"
-_-.w:¢{rr v (m; ._mn) "2.: .d'
: r '. ‘ ,’ 7‘” F” 2'3." f‘.‘ 3' J Pu") . ‘53.. .[ffiT-) “II“ on.
| V ' e¥1emvolqfll
L‘s/"L 1” 3721.3. 351 :12. .(. .Js't’) ”m .3:
w ?*‘"t Liv {:jeow ir'iei CW ‘(LI .404) 'IIVXJ .
-;~':;r~._v nr'wscdlrucf .8 ,(zg .‘zsN‘. "IIVXXJ .ou" .
vfiomifijfim 70 .(II 11F) "IIIXXXJ .qfl' '
f'rzmdrx an in Mn wta (res .zqm "11m .qi‘?
annoe suqih .su 955.1
Rwowcgq'H in '75”? 0/3 .(93 .IQA) III$XXXJ .é"

bohulonqo
ajnmiflani In} noifissiie no .(8 15M) '13! .

3.11:)‘53 qo ‘ (31 25M) "HIS: .ofi'
‘ smsxb no .(05 ysfl) “VI
‘ eonsiaa 30 eexobsxsq ed: an .(82 you) '1

  
  
  
  
   
  
   

:41, L”News(5318mm "warm mum H'rm not - '- ’

‘ - ,' ; ow: .nzudsasfi aemnt dilw .(BI .puA) 'V! .0.“
:§\‘ 7f- 9 Diana no 81$339! 30010!!! '
.. ‘ -, u mooq .mmdsua aunt. who .u: .392) “m
5; : §\ ( nebquasxxoo Ina:
"-:(~ ; V ‘ no .bznw .fi bzsdoln ditw .(YS .qua) ”II!!!

316
"The Neologist" series continued

"No. XXXII" (Oct. 15), with Manton Eastburn, on
the pleasures of home

"No. LI" (Dec. 20), with James Eastburn, on
exclamation marks

"No. LIV" (Dec. 31), with James Eastburn, on the
year 1817

From "The Amphilogist." A series of essaysin the New York
Commercial Advertiser, 27 February-l7 November 1819.

 

BY SANDS
"No. I" (Feb. 27), on purpose of the new series of
essays
"No. VI" (Mar. 17), on New York in 100 years,
part 1

"No. IX" (Mar. 27), on modesty

"No. XII" (Apr. 7), on Alcaeus, the Greek poet

"No. XIV" (Apr. 14), on New York in 100 years,
concluded

"No. XVIII" (May 1), on justice

"No. XXII" (May 15), on pleasures of memory

"No. XXV" (May 29), on the psychological benefits

of music

"No. XXVI" (June 2), on the origin of the Indians,
part 1

"No. XXIX" (June 19), on the origin of the Indians,
concluded

"No. XXXIII" (July 3), allegorical verse satire on
criticism, part 1
"No. XXXVII" (July 21), satire on criticism, part
2
"No. XLVII" (Oct. 2), on Simonides, the Greek poet
"No. XLVIII" (Oct. 13), on mediocrity
"No. LI" (Nov. 17), on ending the Amphilogist series

IN COLLABORATION WITH OTHER LITERARY CONFEDERATES

"No. IV" (Mar. 10), with James Eastburn, on Greek
poetry
"No. VII" (Mar. 24), with James Eastburn, on
Mimnermus, a Greek poet
"No. XIII" (Apr. 10), with James Eastburn, on the
origin of myths
"No. XIX" (May 5), with James and Manton Eastburn,
on Strada (Greek)
"No. XXI" (May 15), with Manton Eastburn,
Aeschylus's Prometheus, pt. 1
"No. XXIV" (May 26), with Manton Eastburn, Prometheus,
pt. 2
"No. XXVIII" (June 12) with Manton Eastburn,
‘Prometheus, pt. 3

 

 

 

 

    
 

.,
*1 : ~

[3,1 v

“1.1.11.1?

3‘s; . an.

. beunitnoo out. '3

..‘ ."‘:I;d.'*:?r..l ri..1.~'rtsE-S .in .(EI .300) "III“ .* (y
5 :mod ?vo 39100le

’_ '- rind-12.5.7. 89716-1, UL": .(OS .306) 'u .0,”

t " _ ‘ when atrium!” ...-

I‘ ' ’ ‘ “‘5 “flan ~' 5.9151 Min . (U .000) '71.! 0".

I . : 1 ‘ . . . .
.?- ‘ \‘IBI my
\“ 7 ~ ‘ .
i \ '1' 1 i" —> 3% 7?’T"i'€2".' in asi'xea f; Rial 1 I“. In"
H. - .. '77::er C.:’—\._r'rr.L-"z.i€'3. “7 .‘Iur‘3339 1‘ '

‘ m u

7"“ ' " ' ; " ' " x 'In :1.'-:>r.”".: .1? . (TS .659!) '1' ..I’
‘l ‘ . execs.

‘ .' . --'. " " ,1'1' '- rm . (TI .TSM) "IV .d'
' I dug

:3o5rv no (“I .1591) '1“ .u’

- IV :L :J’f-‘ .. .t’: no . {7 .Iqfi) "III .0.“

1 “ .. n? ‘.‘ ".st no .(LI. .va) "VIX .ol'
3 ‘ - babuloaoo

' ~- ,'J:.r_r[j m . (E '55.”) 'IIIV‘K .uf

.
wt Q7 ' ‘ L

73%,. "‘~“‘:; ' ‘ r“ 714:191-1 1"!) :r «’M) 'IIXX .w
|, . ..'. "‘:f*' 98:: an .923. 351’.) "mm .oll"
" -'-' . 01.80111 30 ’

.1 "V“. 1 me: "an- 3; " ”.in'r'ro art} no ‘ (S muff.) "IVXX .#
‘ ' I 3154

‘ p x in." 057.3 “1) tioj'to or!) no .(v‘l smut) "1130! .0.-
‘ ~ 1 bebulaaoo, -_

A 1 Jazmin-r 37:1”! Instr-pain .(E yiut.) "111m .'
i 1360 .matotal‘m '

)‘ffj ,w» '01 i-‘i‘T'J nr- 91in» ‘ (ES: glut.) "11%;.”

foot; 71391.“. on: .a-Fninomi? no ‘ (S .390) “IIVIK .fl'

Vrtizooibam no .(81 .330) ‘11!“ .Q.’

soir’rsp. 1319011.!qu ed: unlbna no .(U .vom) '13.“

aswmsnnwm ”mm- RHHTO arm norm fl
24.9912) no .. "zmdjasfi esmst. djiw .(01 an!) '1! 1"

' ’. ‘ ‘ no minding?! aomct dilw .(DS .12“) 'ffl %
1.01:) A

   
  
  
 
 

‘ ed: no windiest? smut. nib! .(Ol .iqA) “I!
‘ ' : «in: 30 “1:“.
"‘~ ( dumbest! mmw has amt. ndl;.m (2 2:8!) " .
1 ' 3 9': 1 1- ,1 _
"2‘. ~ mantras?! P8033514 who . (at) 31:1)” “(fl .
1 ' L BUS --

r t
‘W‘FWM

  

317
"The Amphilogist" series continued

"No. XXXII" (June 30) with Manton Eastburn,
'Prometheus, pt. 4

"No. XXXIV" (July 7) with Manton Eastburn, on the
origin of festivals

"No. XXXVI" (July 17), with Manton Eastburn,
Prometheus, pt. 5

"No. XXXVIII"_XJuly 28), with Manton Eastburn,
Prometheus, concluded

"No. XLI"7(Aug. 11), with James Eastburn, on
Steischorus (Greek poet)

 

 

From Literary Journal. 4 vol. (May 1819-Apr. 1821).

 

POETRY

*"Daniel Rook" in a letter to the editor, IV, 276-78.

"Greek Hymns," III, 269-73.

"Human Life," IV, 191-95.

"Moschus, No. II," IV, 119-23.

"The Poetical Character," III, 273-74. Reprinted
in Knickerbocker Magazine, 22 (July 1843), 75.

"SunsetTWIIII, 354.

 

PROSE
"Salem Witchcraft," III, 329-35; III, 417-20;
IV, 17-270
"Salmagundi," IV, 109-13.
COLLABORATION

"Remarks on the Estelle of Florian," with Manton
Eastburn, III, 405-08.

With James Eastburn. Yamoyden, A Tale of the Wars of King
Phillip: in Six Cantos. New York: James EaStburn,
1820.

 

From St. Tammany Magazine. 1 vol. (9 Nov.-l7 Dec. 1821).
New York: James Eastburn, 1821. Rare Book Room, NYPL.

 

POETRY
*"The Deluge," pp.8-9.
*"Noah," p. 54.
*"The Ocean of Nonsense," p. 35.

 

*Reprinted by Verplanck in The WritingS'of Robert Charles

 

’Sands (2 vols.; New York: Harpers, 1834).

 

in...»
1

 

 

 

   
      

VIE

neunijnoo 891100"80

(0F. 9mm) '11“ .0!“

InjnsM fitiw
:" .3q

'qif? no: PM
am .(\I
E .iq

.., pr, ‘(gyg VIE“-
Johninnoc
"[1177 .(IL
(:1; ".7 31.92-33.73)

.;. ' ;’-..'[ ”nV‘ .Iov

; jj'v'":rr r _n

.i~ -"‘. ‘III
.19 IE
.i'*’. {r ‘VI

..L .~ Ar“ 7.-.,-
_ . ‘._ ‘1 T \ ' ... ,Al.‘
.

.EI-Qfii

‘

ih ".nsiroii JO
.80»?9A

'Ji? 3n 215W 9‘3 in QIsT i
‘.7~F**?3314§29M5Mfi :.2T-:oY weJ

.(iSSl

.090 VI*.VOH 9)
.JQYW

.Icv I
.moofi icon 515%

.1981

‘III- .
”‘IL
J‘ICFTE”‘

“ r?! ‘15: we 3119mm)! at

x n 9 byomsY
.aoinsfi xta at

"f of
“J,

‘3

13' I (Y \{IUY
plsvijae‘? 50 81 136
«([47‘) n

.a‘
.fsmsd
) If: .0!“

.eusd: ..
.135!” Egg .fl‘ "H

a utodoolm y " ‘

..‘I‘

I: . {55300; MB ~11

um!
" "100$! 15mm"
“ "smack! 100*
".9313! “will“
.oV. .audocol“
Mouse: 0112‘

TI! ” Joana!"

' 4§q33doi kw and."

.Tr “ti ‘VI

."1' " . thaws"

warm

aficfal 9d: no liitllfif
.IIT '

. 129633“

   
 

.61

 

 

318

St. Tammany series continued

 

PROSE
"Buonaparte, Byron, and Moore," p. 43.
"Lord Byron, Don Juan, and Thomas Davison,"
pp. 41—43.
["Preface,"] p. 1.

From The Atlantic Magazine. Ed. R. C. Sands and H. J. Ander-
son. 2 vols. (May l824-April 1825). New York: Bliss
and White, 1824-1825.

 

POETRY
*"Elegy on Henry Slender," I, 386.
*"Horace, Epode 2. (Pleasures of a Country Life),"
II, 71-72.
"Horace, Book I. Carm. 15 (The Prophecy of the
Destruction of Troy)," I, 17.
*"Horace, Book II. Carm. 3," I, 16.
"Horace, Book III. Carm. 6," I, 205.
"Horace, Book III. Carm. 13," I, 206.
"Horace, Book III. Carm. 18," I, 101.
*"Invocation," I, 31.
*"Noah, a poem. By Paul Allen," I, 120-25. Re-
printed from St. Tammany.
*"To a Lady, on the death of her daughter," I,
412-14.
"The Unknown Man," I, 277.
"Wild Geese," I, 387.

 

PROSE
*"The Caio Gracco of Monti," I, 321-32.
"Conversation between the Publisher and the
Editor," I, l-9.

"The Doctor M'Henry School of Romance," I, 210-14.

*"Domestic Literature," I, 130-38.

"An Inquiry into the Moral Character of Lord
Byron," II, 89-104.

"Joseph. A Narrative of Matters of Fact," I,
264-67.

*"Letter from Orange County," I, 280-83.

*"A Story from a Correspondent in Virginia," I,
452-63. Reprinted in Sands's Writings as "The
Man Who Burnt John Rogers."

"Redwood," I, 234-39.

 

*Reprinted by Verplanck in The Writing of Robert Charles

 

 

Sands (2 vols.; New York: Harpers, 1834).

 

 

    
 

 

81E

_ ‘\J hoaniiuoa ..‘Iflfi-

agl‘Ia ‘ _ IIII'
W

 

_.'4 ~ .‘u .: ” 5100" bus .nova .01
13; ' . V~»;“’fi r.sn:!T Ins .asu'u HOG .aou‘!
.;~‘- Eb- It “1'”
1i3.3 .1 -q [' 0W
' 't.“ J .“ "Hf, :3",,-,--.:g .5? .31-:1136 SM 011
'r.‘ ,7 . ,y i-(‘"'; 1;, 5-50 0" ‘
.LSBL-bial ‘03 6' III
.f I . . ".‘xgfln'L-nf", .f’trmii no (9011" .,.
H : .- ‘ w - ‘ fiTI'?"r£-'" .3 m’nr‘gfl .905“.
.ST—IT .II
;W-~r= I F‘ i' (~25? .2 Iocfi .sessol'

., |j‘ " ‘ {\frfif,’ 30 NC f 30011800
f, .hf ,f ' F .vvei .IT 1008 .OOOIGI"
. r _ I ' \I‘ . 1*? . 7‘” “005 .995“.

, . a .' 3:77. .Imx (sonar
L; , ‘ .If: .‘ .u: .“YEL (TIT {cos .iasxol’
Ex .fr (I ".nciioooval9‘
*' .‘L~”CT .’ ‘.,~‘F .»E“ "d .man a .6. ‘ ’
‘ .' u; :L". .38 31013 {39:31:}

 

u5> .F .‘I”:,<7 3’ 36 57~QF 733 no .Yst 3 CI”.
:r . 1—515 -
”(can nwonxnfl fill’
.73? ‘T ".sessa bill.
' a .

x.

1
, —‘
1
.—4

3 .SE-IQF .' ".ifino” 3o ouofi13 ntlD.0‘f“
. a”: h~n veflntfdu? 9H3 doevtsd notianlsVHOD'

.8»? .T".m31fl

.lf-qif .I ".9?fl5;33 JO {onfifit VTHQH'M 103apa_
.GE- Oil .1 '.e;ut 539311 at:

Lied in . jar 5!? str/ 9N3 cfnl Iqalupa!

.pnt 981".n611§

(I ". 357 To arejjsv o sVIjsxisM A

.58- 083 .T ”.(Sauoa 995530 ant! ,

I "‘Btflipjk' ni Jasbnnqeezxob 5 mos? qiudfl

;;‘, ed?" as agriixrw a 'abasa a1 beinkiqafl .837 '7' 2‘.: - '
1*; ".axspofl “don inzua ad! , '? ‘ 7' s
;v '7 .ee-ocx .1 '. ' ' ‘

  
  
    
   
  
  
 
 
  

319

From The New York Review and Atheneum Magazine. Ed. W. C.
Bryant, H. J. Anderson, and R. C. Sands. 2 vols. (June
1825-May 1826). New York: Bliss and White, 1825-1826.

 

POETRY
*"Garden of Venus," II, 476-77.
"Judith," II, 229.
"On the Death of Don Sebastian, King of Portugal,"
II, 229.
"The Uncertainty of Fortune," II, 228.

PROSE

"Apology for an Essay," II, 237-40.

"The Last of the Mohicans," II, 285-92.

"Letter 'To the Editors of the Atheneum Magazine,"
II, 475.

"Life and Character of . . . John Paul Jones,"
I, 455-58.

"Memoir of the Life of Richard Henry Lee," II, 23-31.

*"Mornings at Bow-Street," II, 340—47. Portions

later reprinted in Sands's Writings under
"Police Literature."

"A New and Improved Spanish Grammar," II, 429-34.

"Recent Poetry," II, 181-94.

"Review of the Original and Two English Transla-
tions of Verri's Roman Nights," II, 266-73.

"The Works of the Right Honorable Lord Byron,"
II, 325-39.

 

From The United States Review and Literary Gazette Ed. James
G. Carter and William C. Bryant.’2 vols. (Oct. 1826-
Sept. 1827). Boston: Harrison Gray, 1826-1827.

 

POETRY
*"The Butterfly," II, 302.
*"The Stars," I, 445-49.
"Translations from the Pastor Fido," II, 460-64.

PROSE
"Almack's; A Novel," II, 64-66.
"Paul Jones: A Romance," II, 66-68.

*"Noticia historica de Hernan Cortes, conquistador de Mejico."
Trans. Manuel Dominguez. Cortes (H.) Marguis del Vallo
de Oaxaca; Historia de Me ico. New York: ‘White,
Gallagher, and White, 1828. Pp. S-llO. English text
reprinted in Writings.

 

 

 

 

*Reprinted by Verplanck in The WritingS‘of'Robert Charles
Sands (2 vols., New York: Harpers, 1834).

 

ollav lab at oxen

33:01 6011911!

..' lqtc" 14.r VD“
......rt. ---...
. +7301..- ,,$' .‘J'J' S

    
 

91f

"7.1“ .II '.3m:9‘J 10 m.“
.93: .II '.‘3£ll¢’
‘F'.’_"‘]- r105 3’0 1‘3500 9!” mo‘
.95S .11
aujrmv 3., 7:115:an nq‘ -;_‘ ' "

‘1.

”.vyea? tn 10} 2901

‘4' sot'wm an: ”n jasJ 9 "0“

b3 9f: nT' 19630!“
.‘Y§ .II
. + ‘1c~+':r.';.~'.:!"_) has 931-1.
.93"?E§ ‘I
3v elk. ad: in xiv-air'
‘.j¢s1?{—dnu 15 apatIIII"

Wyn? xi Lejnlnqar 19151

‘-

.ovtjrr‘ill 933101“

- yum—1‘? F": "'z‘ijml bus m K.

>1” .T'. “3,3509 3am?

cu ;:e*r:w‘ an: 30 wolvifl'

.:8 HQ 2 iiisv 30 anal!

24 Bnr ;m?v9£ 391533
3‘fflJ‘_'I.’. "'5 ms;

"SQI-3§R« \-qsvfi noa%zxsx :nojzna

‘YCM ~-I“"r737 47'1’ :13 ‘0 Bijou O‘T'

.QE-ESE .13

     
   

. era ' «I'D

.soe .17 ",yiirsatal '*
an 2:; .I ".01338

.11 " 1'?" 1033 3 on: men} 2:101:31.”

.33~$3

.II

.OII— —e .qq

      
     
     

‘II "\Iwom A :I'WL
m

“(sonsmofl A :u

".oaits“ 9b 1065:21upaoo .333100 user.“ 05’.-
(.H) asiaoo .xeugntnaa

.00!

 

_r —_-r~- a—-

320

From The Talisman. 3 vols. (1828-1830). New York: Elam
Bliss, 1827, 1828, 1829. Reprinted as Miscellanies . . .
by Bryant, Verplanck, and Sands. New York: Elam Bliss,
1833.

 

 

 

FICTION
*"The German's Story," 1830, pp. 216-26.
*"Mr. DeViellecour and His Neighbors, A Tale,"
1828, pp. 45-113.
*"Scenes at Washington, No. l," 1829, pp. 77-152.
*"Scenes at Washington, No. 2," 1830, pp. 118-95.
*"A Simple Tale," 1829, pp. 224-52.

POETRY
*"Chorus in the Persae," 1830, pp. 57-61.
*"Dream of Papantzin," 1829, pp. 287-306.
*"Isaac; A Type of the Redeemer," 1828, pp. 145—66.
*"Preface to an Album" 1828, pp. 7-9.
*"Weehawken," 1829, pp. 221-23.

 

PROSE
*"Association," 1830, pp. 199-215.
*"The Beginning," 1830, pp. 1-4.
*"Ghosts on Stage," 1830, pp. 48-56.
"Preface," 1828, pp. iii-x.
*"Thoughts on Handwriting," 1828, pp. 28-44.

Life and Correspondence of John Paul Jones. Ed. Robert C.
Sands. New York: LD. Fanshaw , 1830.

 

From the New York Mirror.

 

*"Hoboken," 10 (7 July 1832), l.
"Verplanck's Address," 8 (23 Oct. 1830), 126-27.

From the New York Commercial Advertiser.

 

*"[Letter from] John Brown," 4 August, 1827.
*"The Dead of 1832," 30 November 1832.

From the New York Eveninngost

 

*"[Letter from] John Smith," January 1829.

 

*Reprinted by Verplanck in The Writings of Robert
Charles Sands (2 vols. New York: Harpers, 1834).

 

 

 

>'\“_
r. ‘
1?:
\‘r
‘\ ‘_.
\ 'V\

.\-
L f
HA
I. '

‘.
m 2',
.,‘>,
.\ “
a.
‘-
L'

.\
'2.

‘ \4
R I
"v:

5

,
.
...

 

  

MIC

~{' 191“] we? .(OFBI-BSBI) .alov C’
- 1‘ Lajnixqsfi .9:81 ‘3‘.‘

. . r." - tennsa fins (13331 v
.’:
. ‘ .' RIM. "(y-70:." 2mm“.
‘ 3: \-3r 'c-wm ii‘i _‘mg jamseilum of.
.EfI-Eb .qq .BSII
. - . r « .1 _wv \znjpnidasw is aiuptl"
. 1 _F .«K ‘cofipwifiasw is DORDOI"
w “I .r; \orax '.915T slqmla §'*'““‘
7’” , .‘7'r firs 33v" (...-1 {I} an. '.
.‘vg "2’ 7. .-‘PL ‘szfwrfu§ Io mansG“
4 ' 7 75,- , ”pry: A 9..., 911’? A :05.“"

"marg'IA ms <1 5553.3!"
.F3=ITS .¢q .FSEE ‘.nox ‘ ' 0

, t ,m. ‘>':;--.r ".nonstmo‘“
.iv’ ."r “5'7 “ uninnipsl 5d!'.
.nr—9 . u <ia. .«rnfi? no 33.6139“

.x i;} ..n .938! ".eoaiast'
.. ' ~ 97 '.pai*?7"fmsfl an aidpflbd!"

 

. . . '.' ..' d
. to.
3 P." g.

Kym.“ CM
£591 yiun V) 01 ' H
) R ".32st I' .

.1
+9"

'34

(
. S

r

; . TQ?§1")‘9VL:§ £5.12.er3 at”! .9

   

{ .VSHI .taUUUA b ".nwoufl ndot [flifi%"
.8081 126mm 0t ".SCBI'QO'

    
   

i
t ’ 1301 255” r _
H 1 .7
I .9!“ {:3qu “.1131. m ’
J

  
    
 

321
From Tales of Glauber 89a. 2 vols. New York: Harpers. 1832.

*"Boyuca"' II, 223-630
"Introduction," I, 7-19.
"Mr. Green," II, 103-52.

From undetermined sources, but reprinted in Sands's Writings:

POETRY

*"Good Night," II, 357.

*"Lay of the Last Fisherman," II, 283-85.

*"The Lover to the Tree on which he had carved the
name of his Mistress," II, 361—62.

*"A Monody made on the late Mr. Samuel Patch, by an
Admirer of the Bathos," II, 347-52.

*"Monody, To the Memory of the Rev. J. W. Eastburn,"
II, 336-39.

*"Parting," II, 344-46.

*"Prologue to Waldimar, A Tragedy," II, 363-65.

*"Psalm CXXXCII," II, 358.

*"Sleep," II, 340-43.

*"The Sun lookscnanaught, in his circuit, as great,
II, 356.

*"Written in the Album of a Young Lady," II, 359-60.

PROSE
*"The StrangeriJrWeehawk," II, 278-83.

 

*Reprinted by Verplanck in The Writings of Robert
Charles Sands (2 vols. New York: Harpers,91834).

 

 

 

 

 

 

.
\
"I
a
S
.
I
n .
_\
F: ~
.
‘4»
u
.‘N 1
m
"\ ~ \
L_'
Y
. ~

'19?

:JxoY

(.
T
\ c
,
,.
V '

     

.EB‘CS‘ ‘ 1‘.
.91’Y ‘I .‘ '~‘ _ ‘
.SE-FOI .Ir “.1... ,

'v'! 3::

OJ
“maxi-ms! 3.an .aso‘xuoa W.“

.77.? ,II ".3619!“ ’ I”,

‘\~;'13d2t? flab: 9d: 10 Q

m rm“: 1+ wave-I ‘
”‘caefifiwiu aid to am.“ ' m
‘fni «”3 u« 955m vbonal l"

”.*3%?¢€ adj lo wsuimhl

If: "fir-Urn?“ at” GT .YW'
.nr-afz ‘1!
.‘W:% .II "was”?!
’ arnrfbisd 03 supOlDlC'.
.‘ '.1TJXXXD mlali'. I

b-wi" .II "as“ '*

a
M I

,p \g‘pXWVfimMiOOI nufi ’

.335 ~13
5 iv *wfiiA 5d: at naéfildfl"

‘

" "I! :m’raUWrnii 199:15138 a!!!"

..t x .
'w a? G‘WO‘
.I.‘.r’~

 

322

PRINTED WORKS CITED

Adkins, Nelson F. "James Fenimore Cooper and the Bread and
Cheese Club." ‘Modern Language Notes, 47 (1932), 71-79.

 

Bayles, W. H. Old Taverns of New York. New York: Frank
Allaben genealogical company, 1915.

 

Bigelow, John. William Cullen Bryant. "American Men of
Letters." Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, and Co., 1890.

 

Brooks, Van Wyck. The World of Washington Irving. New
York: E. P. Dutton & Co., 1944.

Brown, Charles H. ’William Cullen Bryant. New York: Scrib-
ners, 1971.

 

[Bryant, William C.] "Memoir of the Late Robert C. Sands."
Knickerbocker Magazine, 1 (1833), 49-56.

 

Bryant II, William Cullen. "Bryant: The Middle Years: A
Study in Cultural Fellowship." Unpublished Ph.D. disser-
tation, Columbia University, 1954.

Cagney, W. Oakley. "Sands Family Gave Name to Point." Long
Island Press, 14 June 1970.

 

Cairns, William B. A History of American Literature. Rev.
ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1930.

 

. British Criticism of American Writings, 1815-1833,
University of Wisconsin—Studies in Language and Litera-
ture, #14. Madison: Univ. of Wis., 1922.

 

Callow, James T. Kindred Spirits: Knickerbocker Writers and
American Artists, 1807-1855. Chapel HiIl: The University
5? North CaroIina Press, I967.

 

Charvat, William. The Origins of American Critical Thought,
1810—1835. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Press, 1936.

 

[C1ark, Lewis G.] "Early Writings of Robert C. Sands."
Knickerbocker Magazine, 21 (Feb. and Mar. 1843), 184-87,
274-BI; 22 IJuly and Aug. 1843),69-76, 176-80.

 

 

 

""'f) 'zrrmw (MIMI!!!

' A, : ' . ‘. ‘ 'r.“‘<;\‘C _3 L-‘EL‘F‘JLHQ: asmst" .‘ “W
-" M: " I“ .' 'sw mzvnmr- "
. .‘ .. . .- ., , . y. 1.7 ..5.1 (new! -W% 9
r , -- -' -_i""V ‘m acute 51‘ J .I r,-
.‘ T '1 nrc'mo {53190 p “I

r _- Instill! :m‘u ..‘”3C

”10

 

‘ .1: 5'? “'fl . Tit-"3.1 no“
TC" rH m ‘ }.Hwi: ”.'nr4r'HQ

_ur .LwQJQ’LIL’ 35;“.‘315051' sdT . . ”V .m
.iié't .m-f a mason .q 3M

; '2 oil-p; wnur) :nsifiiw .H ”In“ .ml
.111: .02.-

r': '3 , “v1.7. .3511 "o 3’! :JtisH" [. I) q”)
~ ’ ‘(EEEU i "JILSSOSH 9

- rmv .[L :1117'571‘1 {IUD m1!£fl..fi "it"
71"“ . ' b r—, ’ !' 1"q1'li‘.q2flawo£[a:i 151031139 at 1”“ _
.3391 .yjlemvi"'.151dm169 and.“ 4,"

Ifflfr’, .inEr-fi' .3 ‘:H‘.‘!'-',’ BV’BQ yiimr‘f abnsa" .golwr.' ‘ _7
.0\nr SHDE ’1 ‘ ‘

.cc .31n35‘19HI coixstm 30 "10:21:14] A .8 -111"
.UE-‘JI .pasatfl \flfersvr'wii EVIOIXU ”£16!

,EEEI-EISL .apniji‘xw nsoizsml’ ‘10 Waioijk'xi) dlkll . . ,
' .,. . _. t 4 ..ruan on 3 1M3.--
.SSFI .acw '10 .vinU month“ .i .9 .V ,

 

 

 

    

   
 

 

 

”.ahtua .3 ms 20 amulfl yi'xd'
.u—ou .(uu .1.“ has .do‘!) 1: . 1: 1;.
‘00-.t1 ‘.“.' ‘(E..£ a? ' ~ 7

  
   

323

Columbia University Alumni Register, 1754-1931. New York:
Committee on General Catalogue, 1932.

 

Constitution and By-Laws of the Columbian Peithologian
Society. New York: John A. Gray, 1861.

Coon, Horace. Columbia: Colossus on the Hudson. New York:
E. P. Dutton & Co.,41947}

 

Cox, William. "The Talisman for 1830." New York Mirror, 8
(26 Sept. 1829), 94-95.

 

Cummings, Tho[ma]s S. Historic Annals of the National
Academy of Design. Philadelphia: George W. Childs,
1865.

 

 

"The Death of Julia Sands." New York Commercial Advertiser,
10 December, 1888.

 

Dorson, Richard M. "The Wonderful Leaps of Sam Patch."
American Heritage, December 1966, pp. 12-19.

 

Drake, Nathan, M.D. Evenings in Autumn.2 vols. London:
Longman, et al., 1822.

 

Durand, John. Prehistoric Notes of the Centurnylub. New
York: The Century Club, 1882.

 

Ellis, Edward Robb. The Epic of New York City. New York:
Coward-McMann, 1966.

 

[Fay, Theodore 8.] "Robert C. Sands." The New York Mirror,
10 (29 Dec. 1832), 206.

 

Francis, John W. "Reminiscences of Printers, Authors, and
Booksellers in New York." International Magazine, 5
(1852), 253-66.

 

Godwin, Parke. A Biography of William Cullen Bryant. 2 vols.
New York: D. Appleton andICo., 1883.

 

Historyyof Columbia University, 1754-1904. New York: The
Macmillan Co., 1904.

 

Irving, Pierre M. The Life and Letters of Washington Irving.
4 vols. New York: G. P. Putnam, 1864.

 

Keiser, Albert. 'The Indian in American Literature. New
York: Oxford Univer51ty Press, 1933.

 

Lamb, Martha J. 'History of the City of New York. 2 vols.
New York: Barnes, 1877—80.

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

    
 

\ ‘5? arr! i ‘ r933;
t ‘ ’ 7 Tiff
:‘ 1““7 1’ ;.{ '1 7 ‘7‘ . 3.1I-raLVL—Ll')
fig;- IVY an: 1')
.-v '.\_ ’
x.):: ‘
nztz ‘ w 1‘ r l 11:. _ 3“,
:35 t t-”
‘3; ‘7' < . ~ 'r-m ." ‘ ’-’_' " 53 IE- '1' rIa'l‘ 9111."
r.\ ' t t :0 .cessx
r. 1).: tr F 97’" 3:; ' A r ”7;“ " :‘((\3: HI
.: 'r or .=:’ A '__,.,j H" " “:'—T'1;II‘ ‘1‘“! "V‘
«.‘i ' . I'D“
- '. : H W " rni ‘. :E'rnsi’. SHUT. 36 I!“ all"
‘ '-‘fi- "” “ “‘7‘ .8881 Zldlflfl,‘ .
‘ Q‘aooar
. I. '
~f ‘. 'r “1:. w .r ’.I"7‘1‘r3;1':f.‘i L'IA'T" .M buds“ 3b.“
:‘ 1 ’ . ‘vv‘. trivimo'ra'l ,spszit‘xtl flab,”
L’ {, , «I
{A ”“ ’ ‘ 7’ , w5;"..1A ' PL rY'nr"‘9"‘ .0.” ‘fl" ‘m
L: :kx V -“'“- g 1 m: o
‘ " 3‘ -- ~ \ 1‘ 3. ‘m.ym
é; .“ ~ r. ".7" x 2“ Km ~t’tw'l' ritroiatdafl M Th“
’1‘ ‘ ‘ ’ "/‘ - ’ “ n'.
"a,“ ,‘ .girst Q A {—1) 131U3fl95 m IW
1 ‘7“ ,
t ‘ V 3 r r ’ 3 2 ‘ I
1 " t h' \' , ..‘ 1 ’f‘ VIP"! ‘r‘ r'J.”\" (9'11,ch
r .836! .nnsflnl-
tan? 1‘1"." 'czab at": ' .zfixur‘. CA :19tiofl" [ a 9 ’f'w
: .ans ,(StBI .506
‘ rt \.te'1cs.'f;mfi \rvngnix’l 3r: fiemrvoaknimfi"
' 3 ,qwixspsv ffififiijnfl191fl: IDY WSW fit 31":

aInv K

'3. ., ' ‘ ed?!

7¥§j ‘ . : . Vivxl no aida W 10 8151 ad
:3: ‘q B- {1
w. «R A

      

 

.3n5"7F malfuv mnklit" V
' ' .FFEI ,.n5 has no a;

324'on -

.czudsusstd nuclromn at noian 'sdr

  
 
 
      
 
  
    

3.0 Y “7.5.! t 5

O

.LOQI-LETL tezav an Inst:
."0‘ "v "

sitd sdT
I

'r . -

 

324

Lambert, John. Travels Through Canada and the United States.
London: Craddock and Joy, 1814.

"Life and Writings of Robert C. Sands." American Quarterly
Review, 15 (1834), 400-25.

The Literary History of the United States. Ed. Robert E.
speller et a1. 3rd’éd. rev. New York: Macmillan,
1963.

"Literary Notices." Knickerbocker Magazine, 3 (1834), 385-90.

"The Literary Reputation and Remains of Robert C. Sands."
Knickerbocker Magazine, 3 (1834), 161-76.

 

Marckwardt, Albert H. "The Chronology and Personnel of the
Bread and Cheese Club." AL, 6 (Jan. 1935), 389-99.

McClary, Ben Harris, ed. Washington Irving and the House of
Murra . Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press,
1969.

Morison, Samuel Eliot. The Oxford History of the American

PeOple.. New York: Oxford UniverSity Press,*1965.

Mott, Frank Luther. A Historygof American Magazines, 1741-
1850. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1938.

 

Nevins, Allan. The Evening Post: A Century of Journalism.
New York: Russell & Russell, 1968.

. "The Newspapers of New York State, 1783-1900."
History of the State of New York. 10 vols. Ed. A. C.
Flick. New York: Columbia Univ., 1934. IX, 279-80.

 

Neal, John. American Writers. Ed. F. L. Pattee. Durham,
N. C.: Duke Univ. Press, 1937.

 

"New Publications and Critical Remarks." Colburn's New Monthly
Magazine, 6 (1822), 260.

Nye, Russel B. The Cultural Life of the New Nation, 1776-1830.
"The New American Nation Series." New York: Harper
Torchbooks, 1960.

"On the State of Learning in the United States of America."
Blackwood's Magazine, 4 (1819), 641—49.

 

Palfrey, J. G. ["Review owaamoydenf]- North American
Review, 12 (1821), 466-887_—_—_

 

Pattee, Fred Lewis. ‘The First Century of American Literature,
"l770-1870. New York: Cooper Square Publishers, 1966.

 

 

 

h?
‘l-m‘

 

  

l . f‘
,7. €
5’ t-
:1. '
;; y
a
\
R .
.‘ x
' .. t.» 1' .r '1 .3911: . -. Q.‘ .3 119101 10
7‘5. ' M ____..-.,_ .81 —00b .(Ma
j: "
. i .
3‘ l :3». #3553? bejrnu mu 1
‘ _, ' ": w.- '-*. : F'i7?""‘-’ET’TF791 r
‘3‘ - ' J
. ” Iji‘fi " . ‘F-vpr" ‘J'BS'DOI'ISHDIHX ".IIOM”
r1“ .' " :t-ir‘ "r: F—‘nismeq war. noidndfl,‘
1 “’ZFM‘. f .snirspafl
V». o .

" “kw F. ‘711 : 4 'v ”soft-mot: 2’ GMT“ .1! jzstflfi ‘
, ‘ ‘:- .jr. ".dul", agenda bu “'1"

"‘Z‘Did ’afi'.’ ..'-9 ‘PIII‘H M m

. f _ .7
‘fa'trtarzaa,;{r” ‘T‘}F-~-~c~.~vT:.""‘.’.-T‘J wanna“

 

: ‘ '.‘:‘- F r or" " a T: F" 514717;“ SN." .1011! I“ i”
’ ' ‘ '" ' '3 -_ 'f‘;i."'::’:.7.'_n7' {:71fo ..é‘xoY M ..

." ‘ . ..ft.\f_. V, H'"“ILJ—:'T [ggs'g-(c- mi. :10 «'1': “‘8!!! A .MN m”
' ‘ ' - t 76775—3331 r“? .~-n~n‘t“*~rv-«m :apium .21

 

.‘3.rrv-Fr ‘w’, ’tlo. 'n'IUJ .19’ _. A : 230‘; pntaev‘d ”a”? W
"it” ‘ .9371 \-.:e'taufi" z

.OOOF-fa‘ffi .9351" .4th we'd 3o exeqsqewsn It!"
.3 ..'». .nimr 01 ..‘itmx' wan to 93533 an: it
“311-0Y5 .l-II .MQI . .va 51mm? :10

'1 ' .m-tw 7.1m beautsq‘ ..I .7 .53 .B'xefiixjfi as t?”
f‘:. 1 .VEel .aesxq .v . 9.

  
   

 
   
 
  
  
    

vidinoM was! a'n’mdLoD ".ei'mmefl nouns has I
r? .039 . (6‘8“- ) ...-

‘; . ; .ogu-afi maids?! wen = 10 a £510th
' .3 13. :.‘m w " .as 19 no -"""

Johann to ”3538 50:11:13 9d: a: min-3303'“
.Qb-IIB ‘(QIBJU ! .911sz '2 ...

 

.-
I
u
a
a
"J.’
.. m Tatar“ .

' i. l I turns (the! ”W90 but”!
E - l ‘ m [ 0"-33’ ;(ISB ‘

  
 
   
    
    
   

325

Peckham, H. H. Gotham Yankee: A Biography of William
Cullen Bryant. New York: Vantage Press, 1950.

 

Prime, Temple. Descent of Comfort Sands and of His Children.
2nd ed. New York: n.p., 1892.

Pritchard, John P. LiteraryyWise Men of Gotham: Criticism
in New York, 1815-1860. Baton Rouge: La. State
University Press,FI963.

 

 

"Review of the Bridal of Vaumond." Analectic Magazine, 11
(1818), 120-24.

 

Ross, Peter. A History of Long Island. 3 vols. New York:
The Lewis Publishing Co.,FI905.

 

Sands, Robert Charles. An Address Delivered June 13, 1817,
Before the Columbian Peithologian Society ofPColumbia
College on the OccaSion of the Death of their fellow-
member James S. Watkins, M.D. New York: Abraham'Paul,
1817.

 

 

 

. "Boyuca." Tales of Glauber-Spa. 2 vols. New
YOrk: Jo & Jo Harper, 1832. II, 223-63o

 

 

[ .] The Bridal of Vaumond; a metrical romance
. . . . New York: James Eastburn and Co., 1817T

 

 

. "Hoboken." The New York Mirror, 10 (7 July
1832), l.

 

 

. "Mr. Green." Tales of Glauber-Spa. 2 vols.
New York: J. & J. Harper, 1832. ‘II,—103-52.

 

 

. "Introduction." Tales of Glauber-Spg. 2 vols.
New York: J. & J. Harper, 1832: I, 7-19.

 

 

. [Ed.] Life and Correspondence of John Paul Jones.
New York: [D. Fanshaw printer,] 1830.

 

. The Writings of Robert C. Sands, in prose and
Verse, with a Memoir of the Author. 2nd ed. 2 vols.
New York: Harper & Bros., 1835.

 

Scott, Eleanor. "Early Literary Clubs in New York City."
Ag, 5 (Mar. 1933), 3-160

. "Literary Tendencies and Activities in New York
1789-1840." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University
of Wisconsin, 1925.

Seitz, Don C. “Paul JoneS'.'.‘. with a Complete Bibliography.
New York: E. P. Dutton and Co., 1917.

.W "IA ‘7
i
h. .4 '1-
o

 

 

 

   

 

      
 
  

‘ . veer“ 3:;53313‘7

, N“ o ,
_‘ :Vi -- 3 If . ..'. '
' H." " z" 7‘? " F-_' r: " . “’vmn'HBV '10 ’EbIS‘G W

.-§§ 091
.(m M
_'.[;*x f- ' ."'>:5T Jflf ' an “-.';0381fl w.”
‘ ‘_ 'vD—Tw} :75. F7133.”

4‘4"th

 

‘ .r '1 ~ fl “3:: .-.».1311 1 ml: .esfudt) ”on
y; 2.7 . FL: T373: . '1' 377-? ‘. 1-5 " as} MUIOD 0:11 I
.‘ ' 4' F 77‘38 ., - ”7773?: £575?) .
, ‘7 «7F: ’3“ ‘ "" 7'67 ".07“. 5W1
., F: . ~,x- ymffi 3.. .F-wl‘e'i' ".sowol’ o" ""‘F"-'"'
..'}...‘j‘. ",'*‘T""_"" '5’? _'§e~cF'Fr.F. ‘ .L 1 .t
V - _

-.- - "#1. F! '2 utotws- 3:» Ish'r‘za e t:
- ,1 -., -.-. .-.. ,.... ..---..r...¢..-._m._......
I.‘ -.fi . .w-- y-O,-.. ....» v
. F ‘ .- 2 . .-. . ... ._ r L ,_

{Fm— 33311"— Film-T 25.11“ ".59‘0‘“.

 

d"

   
    
  
 
 
 
    

.'r'5[f.‘~" Ti .5" -ttj;.-':1r..-'_: 3') aefzfl ".nss'10.1fl" ""5
..{81 F." .'7__ ”“381 .19qu .1”. 3 .13: 5‘_ '

. 7. . ("‘3 ... .f‘“; (4"39‘, 1

1'

. .rno 3321601331” .
flaunts?! .L a; pig"!

ennot £1.15? :1: iot ‘20 3 wry-”(30397109 bar: 911.1 [._-‘3
.1.“fo - (193:1.qu wsrierzsfl. fl? .

bins 53011111 .2?»st .3 Med 7 '10 2-111 .3
0 0V .5 $1": .30,d3§°fi 2 F? 'x .1 __I ”35‘“ '

.a : ..ao-xfl . that;

      
          
  
 

 

  

"‘ '

     
    
  
   

.i ‘F
u I ‘5.

".1313 2(an won n1 aanD YIBB: tJ YIM' , ‘

.3: a (sect: ' ""f,;_

l“vw>>

in? van .11 ”11171338 ban ”lambda? {Furor ‘7
1.11330va Nationals .5.“ Beds.” I 9 MA
.ES ' , ‘

326

"Specimens of American Poets." Monthly Review Enlarged, 100
(1823), 28.

Stokes, J. N. Phelps. New York Past and Present. New York:
Plantin, 1939.

 

Stone, William L. II. "Newspapers and Magazines." The Cen-
tennial History of New York City. Ed. J. G. Wilson.
New York: R. D. Cooke,*1876. IV, 142.

 

Taft, Kendall B. Minor Knickerbockers. New York: American
Book Company, 1947.

 

"Tales of Glauber Spa." Athenaeum (London), 20 July 1833,
p. 472.

 

"Tales of Glauber Spa." Literary Gazette (London), 17

 

 

"Tales of Glauber Spa." New York Mirror, 10 (10 Nov. 1832),
148-51.

 

"The Talisman." New York Mirror, 6 (13 December 1828), 180-81.

 

"The Talisman."' Southern Review, 1 (Feb. 1828), 262-71.

 

Thompson, Benjamin F. History of Long Island. 4 vols. New
York: Robert H. Dodd, 1918.

 

 

Thompson, Ralph. American Literary Annuals and Gift Books,
1825-1865. New York: The H. W. Wilson, Co., 1936.

 

 

Trent, William P. William Gilmore Simms. New York: Houghton
Mifflin and Co., 1892.

Trollope, Frances. The Domestic Manners of the Americans.
New York: Vintage Books, 1949.

Van Winkle, C. S. "On Reading Yamoyden.""Literar ‘Journal,
4 (1820), 270.

 

[Verplanck, Gulian C.] "Memoir of Robert C. Sands." The Writ-
ings of Robert Charles Sands. 2 vols. New York:
Harpers;*1835. I, 3-30.

Williams, Stanley T. The Life of Washington_Irving. 2 vols.
New York: Oxford University Press, T935.

Wilson, James Grant.“ Bryant‘and‘His Friends. New York:
Fords, Howard, & Hulbert, 1886.

' """" . Ed. 'The Memorial History of the City of New

“York. 4 vols. New York: N. Y. History Company,

 

  
 

......H-..r - -.-—-..

”255,, -. , :» walfljafi‘u‘x ".33904 ”3“»
_—.-+.O“—

, "r! "4.3!; 5‘? 7110‘! m)“

515 wwnqquwsM“
'11:") 1'10? wsh' 10
' TENT ‘9360

‘ , ' E:..°9-‘...:.:?:P_‘i main cl.- 1‘“
7433‘? «ms u

, ’ ' 11',,T‘:;17_,;;§ " . sq! mm W
.IY‘J‘

_Jf}: 7’: 71:37; 711" " . sqa Imia. 2 ‘
oat-fl | (£63; ‘”'

'4' ‘ ..-- ".me am. WM.
.1

.1’" . 1. r, C- 1351;; Lyra" wow firm-3i. - 9‘
12¢"
shy?) " .n's iwgijuoa “.mlw a.“

 

an .: . . an: ‘-;_;_1;‘:-j33‘1:.44521 .1 Match;
9.? 1 wind .‘i 1194” f
.. -21.: '.:l_--'l-‘"‘.-" j m; r 31533.53; 559?:st . ‘5
. ’" \ir’i M NH." .J .i' G.” :i‘xoY wow . '
- b
"" "5 ‘3" ’ .3;;ij’_5;;{g£-”_?3’__._{..mpi{11W A .11 . :
.§,ci ‘Ioama « ,.

A- x .t.

    
  
    
    
     

.".;s::?:'.t3rr.’. 02.1 ia__?:rsrtrs.s?£ éijaanpfl 9dr .W‘IW'
.fifi9: .gicoa spsjnlv :116!“

‘ {sn'wnt $151931; .nsizysms’f prx‘cbsofi no"

-:nw IE " .ebnsa .‘v J-xedafl 'to axioms)!"
21‘on wan .eiov S .ahasa I

.alov S .gnlvzl «gagnigeafl 10 93. J ed?
.- ‘a'asx’ YSIIB‘IQV at)

turn!“ . 9131: has in;
. ‘ 9

327

Wilson, Rufus Rockwell. New York: ’Old‘& New. 2 vols.
Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1902.

"Writings of Robert C. Sands." American Monthly Magazine,
3 (Mar. 1834), 1-8.

 

"Yamoyden." ‘Literarinazette, l (27 Jan. 1821), 51-53.

 

"Yamoyden." Literature and Science Repository, 2 (1821),
51-68 0

 

"Yamoyden." New York Literary Journal and Belles Lettres
Repository, 4 (Dec. 1820), I00509.

 

 

Manuscript Collections Consulted

The Aeronaut, a periodical paper by an Association of Gentle-
men . . . . New York, 1816-1822. Columbia Special
Collection, Columbia University.

 

Aeronautica: Minutes of the Literary Confederacy. Vol. 1:
1816-1820; Vol. 2: 1821-1829. Columbia Special
Collections, Columbia.University.

Bryant-Godwin Collection, New York Public Library.

Bryant-Verplanck Correspondence. Berg Collection of manu-
scripts, NYPL.

Century Association Manuscripts: "Minutes of the Sketch
Club 1829," and "Minutes of the Sketch Club 27 Dec.
1830 to 4 April 1833." On microfilm at the Detroit
Institute of Art.

De Peyster, Frederick. "Introduction: Sketch of the Life of
Robert Charles Sands," Aeronaut collection, New York
Historical Society.

[Eastburn, James W.] "A Succinct Account of the Origin and
Progress of the Literary Confederacy by a Member of the
Association." New York, 1817. Aeronaut Collection,
NYHS .

"Minutes of the Columbian Peithologian Society, 1817-1819,"
Columbiana MS, Columbia University.

Papers relating to the Aeronaut. COpies of poems from the
MS magazine Aeronaut and biographical sketches of the
contributors, James W. Eastburn, Manton Eastburn, John
[Neilson], Robert C. Sands, and Richard R. Ward, com-
piled by Frederic De Peyster (1877), NYHS.

 

 

 

 

Ithe RegiSter Of
Columbiaria

Sands , Arthur .
NYHS .

Sands , Robert ¢
Eastburn I

. T
1819. NY

. N
I§§7—1832
Tiquin, Jane D

Sands . "
1936 .

Peri

Academic Recr
0 o um
or :
tion, Cc

The Atlantic

NEW Yor
k Conn

\

328

The Register of the Columbian Peithologian Society 1806-1843,
Columbiana Collection, Columbia University.

Sands, Arthur. Records of the Sands Family. Vertical file,
NYHS.

Sands, Robert C. Six letters exchanged by him and James
Eastburn, 1815-1818, Verplanck Papers, Box 10, NYHS.

. Thirteen letters to James W. Eastburn, 1816-
1819. NYHS.

 

 

. Nineteen letters from Sands to G. C. Verplanck, re;

1827—1832, Verplanck Papers, NYHS. : 3

Tiquin, Jane Margaret. "The Life and Works of Robert Charles
Sands." Unpublished Masters Thesis, Columbia University,
1936.

 

Periodicals and Newspapers Consulted

Academic Recreations: by the Columbian peithologian society
of Columbia College. V01. 1 (Feb.-Mar. 1815). New
York: Eastburn, Kirk & Co., 1815. Columbiana Collec-
tion, Columbia University.

 

 

 

The Atlantic Magazine. Edited by Robert C. Sands. 2 vols.
TMay‘1824-Apr. I825). New York: E. Bliss & E. White,
1824-1825.

 

New York Commercial Advertiser, 1819, 1827-1832. NYHS.

 

New York Daily_Advertiser, 1817. NYHS.

 

New York Literarnyournal. Vols. 3 and 4 (1820-1821).

 

New York Mirror: A Weekly Gazette of Literature and the
Fine Arts. Vols. 8-II, (1830-1833).

 

The New York Review_and Atheneum Magazine. Ed. William C.
Bryant, Henry J. Anderson, and Robert C. Sands (2 vols.
June 1825-May 1826). New York: E. Bliss & E. White,
1825-1826. Berg Collection copy identifies authors
of articles with pencilled marginalia by William C.
Bryant, NYPL.

St. Tammany Magazine. 1 vol. (9 Nov.-l7 Dec. 1821. New
York: James Eastburn, 182D. Rare Book Room, NYPL.

 

The Talisman. Three annual volumes, 1828, 1829, 1830. New
York: Elam Bliss, 1827, 1828, 1829. Reprinted as

 

 

85C£

\\1 "~ ' : ““w'z-a .Iépoz~;3 -q qsidmuloo .dfijap

" ‘ .ufii2"2"7t wtdmuioO .ROISOOILQQ, ~
.’ ., .
"‘5" x - I" _ .. ijg‘u .' 7inva ;MH‘." .31!) ‘10 abacus w

.y.-‘:- W 1;; '- 'v: ‘c-pxsflzxzo :‘Isrvof. x18 .9 d 7
s ‘ . ' . ' '15:;3qt2s‘.’ .FIBI-EIII .

MGM“
r ." - arm 05‘ 1:39.49! neeiild'l‘ ‘I

‘V . . ~ 3 .
‘ .sm .
_\ 4" -‘ v.‘

nr 7‘! ”9+ Jnf (199391!!!

"' (’71 vi t-f'wsiquv .SCD

" I

>75. - ' ~ " ' , -‘ ' . - - Ir..-':1'i‘ .frg‘mp'xu! east .33191!
""'~":‘ ' ' 1 ~'. 5' :'g:;sw .vieiiduqan “...-ll

.3“:

 

 

  
   
   
     
 
   
   
  
  
 
 
  
  

r). h.‘ i I. -"‘,'Ir' ’3: ‘l1
‘ "" ‘ .j'“ * ‘ Trrrj on " ‘
it \. r ,2 1" I
I . !
‘ A A If! 3'15: n 1—
i 22512 3
'p ‘ .invx .EE8!«Y¢CE ‘9La: u.-rxau95_£gggggpllfl«iliifilai
. EHYW . TI TI IQFLZ’IWh “
‘ ? ricvx—osnx> u bns : .aicv Isuzuob z
‘ I, 91.2" hm: equsrofiiJ in 5:399:53) him” A
t, . (- " ».I-, ‘L.‘. .8 O
. w
I ‘1 .0 with?! .b’i . amiss-5M ; “3 In:
_ E .anv S) abnsa .3) :3 "I as am: ‘3'».
A ii .ed'ldw .3 a 231128 .3 :.-f:toY wav .(DSSI

clowns colujnobi yqoa 3013991103 919‘
.9 will”? yd silmkgm heinous: $11.1,
H.

I

    
   

”Nu M Wm .ucu

’r
.
a
.. .1 I
, 1
: :{fi'i
..'-..”
2._.i______...1

    
  

329

Miscellanies‘. . . by BryantL Verplanck, and Sands.
New York: Elam Bliss, 1833.

 

The United States Review and Literary Gazette. 2 vols. (Oct.
1826-Sept. 1827). Ed. James C. Carter and William C.
Bryant, Boston: Harrison Gray, 1826-1827.

 

General References
Bolwell, R. W. "Concerning the Study of Nationalism in Ameri-
Literature." AL, 10 (Jan. 1939), 405-16.

Bradley, William A. William Cullen Bryant. "English Men of
Letters." New York: The Macmillan Company, 1926.

 

Bryant, William Cullen. Prose Writings of William Cullen
Bryant. Ed. Parke GodWin. New YorkzD. Appleton and

Co., I889.

 

Eastburn, James W. Yamoyden, A Tale of the Wars of King
Philip: in Six Cantos. New York: James Eastburn, 1820.

 

 

Fox, Dixon Ryan. Yankees and Yorkers. New York: University
Press, 1940.

 

July, Robert W. The Essential New Yorker: Gulian Crommelin
Verplanck. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1951.

 

 

Lyman, Susan Elizabeth. The Story of New York: An Informal
History_of the City. New York: Crown Publishers, 1964.

 

 

McCloskey, John C. "The Campaign of the Periodicals After the
War of 1812 for National American Literature." PMLA, 50
(1935), 262-73.

Orians, G. Harrison. "The Romance Ferment after Waverley."
fig, 3 (Jan. 1932), 408-310

Peckham, Harry Houston. Gotham Yankee: A Biography of
William Cullen Bryant. New York} Vantage Press, 1950.

 

 

Spiller, Robert E. Fenimore Cooper: Critic of His Times.
New York; Minton, Balch & Co., 1931.

 

Tales of Glauber—Spa. 2 vols. New York: J. & J. Harper,
1832.

 

"The Talisman for MDCCCXXIX."‘ TheCritic. 1 (20 Dec. 1828),
113—160

 

 

1,-

v “2315,

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

  
    
    
  
    
  
 
    
 

j' ym m3}; has waivfll __.___,_~ .3.
r'}1 .3)" 129911... . 1
1S9 1— ’. F {($fo 11991111158 :nom .39“.
h: I.” ’ kw
:2“ ‘ "..1 3‘
.V
_ get r 'nyT 'n-xonaa ..‘... 1.“
, 2~m1 ’ 151-1‘9. 3.") nni;’1'190fl00".fl .1
f_ . "1 .2917.) 9; 1:115” “.53”.
w: 1' ,1 . w 119L111 r'ifi'LI i\' .A “1111. mm
"1 1 1‘ ' " ‘7 ’7’ fr‘1'717'1'73r-HF'10Y wan “.lm
1 1' “fi' 1- ‘_ _‘_.:.(1:!', 17'__A--'.=20“7 «191133 mill!" ‘W
7‘ " - ' ‘1 '19 - ‘ "' \1113 "."WEWT' 52.4159 JD! .
7. .es
: i ‘s‘. - ’ 11:1 V' .193"1)PLL'{ .0! cont. W
1*“ ~‘ [7 .‘"’:‘—'»1 1 mi- _ '- 9?. 1:17" .713193’5 x12 :11 3%”
‘ ‘ .‘J a it. J ‘1 2 ' . r 9_'1_;. in: aegfins‘! .W m
.;;‘ ' ' .1on .
' 3 5711-1 1211.2“: we? 1913252931 9.11” .W 3“ .11“;
_ '1 .-: :e-z‘éwv‘ 1'1": : . "l. 1". @5311! law ' " '
:7':oY 1.12:1: ‘9 ”7:0? 9' ET .disdsxif‘ RI“
-‘ ' " ’ 7‘71 :97.“ 14934 .v113 9:13 p
: 1? :1 “1". 3595:1011“? 211-Kr: ‘10 1111501119: 5dT" .3 MOI:
_ 7‘ .5127. " .91111: 1:1;‘1tJ am} 9111’ [sacrum to! cm
x. _.. .ct-sa: .1
.veftevsw 19331: 3115111159 9311511105! sd'l‘" .3001
.IE- so: .(seu “a“
‘1 d 5100:". 1:. :5- 9,1:- .5Y 19511100 .1103“
‘:: I .OEQI'O aao'fl 51953115. “1.: ~ ,
_11 ‘ :‘1 ‘ '7" ..' _
1 ' .1’ Jam? :13 3c 91:11:!) :W -1
“-. T" ' Li}! .1131 .. 8‘ 9’ .1503,
'9'? ,
”T: 1' .mp8 .t. a .6 who! a»! .alov S

   

“:19 Id?

3’9 «‘QI‘

«mg-1* '

l1:

  
 

330

"Memoir of the Late Robert C. Sands." New York Mirror, 11

(8 Feb.

1834),

249-51.

 

1A Republication of Verplanck's

"Memoir," Writings of R.C. Sands, I, 3—30.

Williams, Stanley T.
Literature.

 

 

Press ,

1955.

The Spanish Background of American

 

2 vols.

New Haven: Yale University

 

1r

9“" ‘ F
5

 

 

  

D€£

 
  
 
 
 

'. . -\ ' .31.: *-_1~; 3th 2129;"- ".afmr~8 .3 m
1 ‘ ' 1;: 1,4" “to n-rflJsoflduqafl A .1€~Q‘2 ...

V\. ' j .“717 .‘ «JLI'ZS’SE .13.}! :0 3%!“

 

 

 

 

‘V. t
7‘ " . 1.""rur11' sr‘v ’1'rr‘l‘1f‘if‘1fJ'T d?ifl%§ 9d? ..'
" 1"1?a‘I'-1"’; 1="r1. :'=f1‘-,'5N we. .a ov S
\
'1 . i inn-.51»: .

.H

'- 1 .1. 1v x 1

i
. ‘ i
i
.‘x. ‘1
.; ~ -11
7. 1
>3 1 . 5
1‘ a“ '..,1‘l

*. f ' a
\“ \ x 11H
‘-“ 1' 3‘ Wk"
.... 11}
l ‘9 ~21
'2‘ "1
. . ‘~ ‘4

  
   

m1 '15, -;>.';

1 .
_—»’.'~no .3. ‘

 

 

 

   

"'1111111111111111111111111111‘s