Talk:Virginia Eliza Clemm Poe

Pet name

i remember reading somewhere that poe called her "sis" as a nickname —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ian-Callihan (talk • contribs) 16:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

I had added this in, based on the suggestion, but it was recently removed. I reverted that removal but I wanted to add more later. It may take some time (I'm out of town away from my sources). But, just as justification, the fact that Poe called his wife "Sis" is a huge indication of the kind of relationship it is theorized they had. There are huge debates about the kind of "love" the two shared, noting that they never had children and never shared a bedroom. I will certainly expand on this but, in the meantime, please don't remove that source piece of information. As an aside, even without the discussion about their relationship, Virginia is only notable because of Poe so it is quite important to note what he called her, I would think. --Midnightdreary 16:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Poe's love for Virgina although uncovensinal was important part of his motives behind many of his works --Mdavies 965 (talk) 10:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC) Matthew Davies 14

Well, if you noticed the article has a much-expanded discussion of their relationship. You may also have noticed that you were responding to a post that was from eight months ago. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe people editing such major articles don't even know how to spell conventional.--74.131.91.57 (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Name

Okay, I've been keeping an eye out for Virginia's full name. I have yet to find any source that calls her "Virginia Eliza Clemm Poe." I'm proposing this article be moved to "Virginia Clemm Poe" unless someone can find a source that gives "Eliza" as her middle name. Thanks! --Midnightdreary 23:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Baltimore Poe Society does list her with Eliza as a middle name ([1]), and they are certainly a good enough source for me. Even so, I don't know if she is traditionally referred to as anything other than "Virginia Clemm" or "Virginia Poe." I'm still considering moving the article to "Virginia Poe," if only to make it easier to find but also because WP:COMMONNAME suggests that article titles should be common names (i.e. Bill Clinton instead of "William Jefferson Clinton") Opinions and comments welcome. --Midnightdreary 21:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Virginia vs. Edgar vs. Poe

I'm hoping I am avoiding ambiguity here, but the article currently refers to Virginia Eliza Clemm Poe as "Virginia" throughout, not by either of her last names. Her husband is referred to consistently as "Poe", except in the section which also mentions Neilson Poe. In that section, one is Edgar, the other is Neilson. I'm hoping this is a safe way to refer to them without being ambiguous or informal. Any thoughts? --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment. It seems that "Poe" should refer to the subject of the article and not to the subject's husband. At the very least they should be referred to by their first names to avoid ambiguity. I was initially very confused by mentions of "Poe's" alleged affair, for example. Additionally, it might strike some as a little sexist that the subject of the article gets referred to by her first name while her husband is defined by his surname. 24.255.34.200 (talk) 19:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

What are your thoughts on the suggestion to try "Poe" and "Mrs. Poe"? I hate to fall into what can be perceived as sexist but I'm hoping for a clean, simple solution to this minor issue. --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

I'm just going to go ahead and pass this. It's impeccably well-sourced. It's generally well-written. It's engaging and interesting. I see no significant problems with MoS or images (though I'm no expert in either). No problems with NPOV, edit wars, etc.

There is, of course, room for improvement. Some of the writing is sometimes a little awkward. There are a lot of short sentences. And in some ways if anything it's over-sourced: you keep tripping over footnotes. So sometimes it doesn't flow as well as it might: the over all effect is rather staccato. There are perhaps too many details. No doubt there's some over-compensation for what is, in the end, a rather short and relatively uneventful life!

I've made a bunch of copy-edits, and there are some questions hidden away in the text.

But this was a nice article to read. I do recommend you work on it further and submit it to FAC.

Congratulations! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 02:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review - the copy edits were quite helpful, too! I see what you mean about over-sourcing and the sort of staccato effect on some of the writing; I never thought of it that way. I'll wrap my head around this and see how much work I can do. You're right, though, It's hard to write a lot about someone who really lead such a simple life as Virginia! --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks to you for all your work on this article. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 03:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

A few comments from Awadewit

This was such an enjoyable article to read! Thanks! I just have a few suggestions:

• Before taking the article to FAC, you might want to copy edit it a bit more or have someone else copy edit it. There sentences are a bit choppy in places.

• The "Osgood/Ellet scandal" section seems a bit too detailed to me. Perhaps more summary style there?

• I would delete the "Appearance" section and integrate any important quotations into the body of the article and the portrait information into the "Death" section. You might ask yourself why Edgar Allan Poe doesn't contain an "Appearance" section. :)

• It is difficult to write an article about a couple with the same last name and stick to the policy of referring to biographical subjects by their last name, however it is important to try and refer to "Virginia Poe" as either "Poe" or "Virginia Poe". Calling her "Virginia" is informal and, as historians have pointed out, as such tends to dismiss the value of women in the past. I'm encountering the same problem in the Mary Shelley article (she was married to Percy Bysshe Shelley). Critics used to refer to her as "Mary" and "Mrs. Shelley". One solution is to refer to "Virginia" or "Edgar" when there is a need to differentiate and "Poe" or "Virginia Poe" when referring to her.

I hope these suggestions are helpful and I look forward to seeing the article at FAC. Let me know when the featured topic is ready, too! Awadewit (talk) 18:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Buffalo buffalo (etc)

Hoffman's book is given such a silly title that I was pretty sure it was fictional. So I looked it up at the LoC.

Turns out it actually exists, but it was published in 1998.

I don't want to "fix" the year of publication: perhaps there was an earlier edition, to which somebody attached the ISBN of a later edition. -- Hoary (talk) 16:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it was first published in 1972 though it has been republished several times and is still in print. The title is a reference to the refrain in "The Bells": The bells, bells, bells, bells, bells, bells, bells.

Virginia, Edgar, and Frances

Though it seems strange that Virginia Clemm would permit hubby, Edgar Poe to be a close friend to Frances Sargent Osgood, but Frances was a "benefactor" to them both, and Virginia approved of their literary friendship. Frances had a popular reciting parlor in The Brooklyn Heights section of Brooklyn. It was a place where Poe could hob nob with the literary elite of his day. Frances Sargent Osgood's maiden name was Frances S. Locke, a descent of "The Locke Family of New England" that were related to famed individuals, Dr. John Locke and Rev. Jonathan Edwards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aedwardmoch (talk • contribs) 18:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed changes

OK, let me explain why I made the edits I did. If you choose to ignore them, OK, but there are times when I get so fed up with the vast multitude of misconceptions and errors about Poe and his wife that get repeated over and over and over again, that I sometimes blow a gasket and feel I have to get my two cents in somehow.

First of all, you got Virginia's birthdate wrong. If you'll check Quinn's bio, he prints the church records that say she was born August 15. You really must change that, at the very least.

I changed the phrase "alleged amorous improprieties," because, while there was certainly negative gossip surrounding Poe--particularly regarding the business about Elizabeth Ellet's letters--there is no contemporary record of what, exactly, it was. English, Briggs, and Lewis Gaylord Clark, for example, accused Poe of practically everything under the sun EXCEPT adultery.

The lady Poe allegedly had a romance with in Baltimore in the early 1830s was not named Mary Devereaux. That was a mistake someone made in the early 1900s, in an effort to identify her. The woman who was the subject of the 1889 "Poe's Mary" article has since (on the testimony of her granddaughter) been identified as Mary Starr Jennings. She had no relative named "Devereaux." (The "Poe's Mary" article itself is a very dubious story that shouldn't be repeated anywhere as unquestioned fact, but that's a whole other subject.)

When discussing Poe and Virginia's marriage, I think it would be fair for you to state that we simply don't know what their sex life (or lack of) may have been, but aside from their childlessness, there is no reason to belive it was not a "normal" one, at least until she took ill. Even the claim they waited two years to consummate the marriage is questionable. As Poe biographer William Bittner commented, considering they were already living together as brother and sister, there really was no reason for Poe and Virginia to marry unless they wanted to go to bed together.

My statement that the earliest known manuscript version of the Valentine poem for Osgood is in Virginia's handwriting is simple fact. There is a digital image of the manuscript available online. Please take a look at it, and then at an image of her poem to Edgar. Identical writing. They are both even written on the same floral-embossed stationary. That's not speculation; it's the truth, and, I think, a rather interesting mystery.

In all fairness, I think you should make it clear that the claim that Virginia encouraged Poe's friendship with Fanny Osgood rests only on Osgood's testimony--given only after both the Poes were dead and not available for either confirmation or refutation. There is nothing that backs up her claim. I'd file that statement under the category of, "She WOULD say that, wouldn't she?"

In the interests of accuracy, I think it's always important to note sources. The source for the whole "Ellet got Osgood to demand that Poe return her letters" story is Sarah Helen Whitman. She gave this story thirty years after the fact, citing Anne Lynch as her source. (Lynch herself, when asked, denied knowing anything about the tale.) SHW, I have found, is a generally highly unreliable source, and as there is no corroboration for this extremely strange story (if Osgood wanted her letters back, why didn't she quietly ask Poe herself, rather than stage a public scene over it?) I think it should be retold with certain qualifiers.

Griswold, years later, claimed that Sam Osgood had threatened to sue Ellet. We have no other contemporary evidence for this. (Griswold himself is hardly Mister Reliable.) I find it hard to believe Sam would want his wife's alleged indiscretions aired in a court of law. Griswold himself doesn't state what such a lawsuit might have been about. (By the way, the Osgoods were never estranged. This is a misconception started by Thomas Mabbott, who imagined an 1845 separation based on a poem she published in Dec. 1844, chiding an unnamed "you" for preferring the company of others to herself. That's all his evidence! Sam traveled a lot because of the nature of his work, but there is nothing to indicate a rift in their marriage--certainly not at the time she knew Poe. In fact, I have a copy of a letter she wrote her husband in May 1845--right during the period she was publicly gushing over Poe--where she addresses Sam as "My darling love," and coos to him throughout in the most lovey-dovey way imaginable. Please, I beg you, put that particular bit of fiction to rest.)

The letter Poe wrote about Virginia's illness ("Each time I felt all the agonies...") was not written to John Ingram. It was written to George W. Eveleth. Ingram merely published the letter in his biography. That is another inarguable error in your article.

The notion that Virginia had "violet eyes" and a "bad complexion" comes only from that bizarre "Poe's Mary" article. (That article, as I indicated above, deserves a complete smackdown all its own, but space forbids.) You yourself go on to describe her eyes as "dark," then as "hazel."

Those stories about Virginia clasping Poe's and Mary Starr's hands together, and showing Mrs. Shew letters written by the second Mrs. Allan--you really should make it clear that these claims are uncorroborated and, (as many Poe biographers admit) extremely dubious.

The idea that Poe "attempted to woo" Osgood is another debatable point. All the evidence suggests she pursued an acquaintance with him. You really shouldn't fall into the common error among Poe biographers--namely, presenting supposition as fact.

That about wraps it up. I have my problems with you relying so heavily on Silverman's rather juvenile attempts to make all of Poe's fiction autobiographical, but I suppose that's a relatively minor point. Please consider everything I have said here, because it is all factual. Which is more than can be said for the majority of things published about Poe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apoeundine (talk • contribs) 14:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a chance to read this massive comment but, sincerely, thank you for being willing to engage in discussion. First, however, be careful with the term "you"; this comment is addressed to everyone on Wikipedia, including established editors, newbies, and visitors. If you are addressing to me personally, consider writing to me personally. Otherwise, bear in mind that this article (this whole Wikipedia project) is a compound of "yous." Anyway, like you, I spend much of my time re-working misconceptions of Poe and trying to humanize him rather than stereotype him. The first comment I have (not having read the full comment) is about Virginia's birthdate. I don't have the Quinn book any more but Sova's Poe book verifies the August 22 date of birth. I'll check other spots.

As a sidenote, I also disagree with most of Silverman's pseudo-psychoanalytical discussions on Poe. Nevertheless, please consider the following policies: WP:NPOV (which prevents us from editorializing or providing value assessments), WP:OR (which prevents us from making our own personal conclusions), as well as WP:V and WP:RS (which require us to cite any and all information to verifiable published sources). Mostly, I'm just making sure you're aware of the policy constraints of this project. They take some getting used to. I'll respond more carefully to your comments when I get a free moment - please don't be discouraged in the meantime; I look forward to collaborating to further improve this article. --Midnightdreary (talk) 19:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Odd sentence

In the Biography (as it is today), the first sentence of Early Life seems odd to me: "Virginia Eliza Clemm was born on August 15, 1822[1] and named after an older sister who had died as an infant[2] only ten days earlier.[3]" I don't mean to stir up the previous discussion, but does this also seems to say that her mother had multiple births within an unusually short period of time.Jace1 (talk) 19:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean here. The child was an older sister who happened to die just a few days before Virginia Eliza was born. It doesn't say anything about how much older she was or how recently her own birth was (and I don't know offhand). --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Consumation

"Some biographers have suggested that the couple's relationship was more like that between brother and sister than like husband and wife in that they never consummated their marriage."

Is there any actual proof that they did not consumate their marriage. While I'm sure they probably did not seeing as how she so ill. It seems like the article is presenting it as fact and not a theory. Note I am not an expertThesniperremix (talk) 13:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you can read the article as presenting this as a fact. The line you quote ("Some biographers have suggested..."), clearly shows that it is speculative. I can't imagine exactly how someone would go about finding concrete evidence that a couple had sex in the 19th century. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I know. I was commenting on the way it is worded.

"Some biographers have suggested that the couple's relationship was more like that between brother and sister than like husband and wife in that they never consummated their marriage."

The "in" part makes it sound as if that is the reason the biographers believe their relationship to be like brother and sister, when I'm sure it has to do with something else.

Sorry if that sounds confusing.Thesniperremix (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Virginia referenced in Poe's works

currently, the article's last line regarding Virginia's influence on Poe and his writing reads:

"Poe's supposed insanity during his wife's illness may also be reflected in his first-person narratives "The Tell-Tale Heart", "The Black Cat", and "The Cask of Amontillado".[34]"

This seems unnecessary and very speculative. I realize that it is sourced but that doesn't mean that it adds any value to the article. I am well studied on most things "Poe" and this line confused even me. I suggest it be removed as it really adds no value to the article (which is about Virginia) and likely only contributes to reinforcing public misunderstanding of Poe's state of mind. And even if no one agrees with me on those points, it is still a very weak statement for the concluding thought of this article. MorbidAnatomy (talk) 22:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand your reasoning somewhat - though I don't think the line is meant to serve as a "conclusion" sort of thing. It is, however, a fairly common interpretation by laypeople re: Poe's works and his alleged insanity. You and I both know it's not true, but the article reflects what's common out there. With that said, however, I have no objection to its removal. --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Age of Poe when married

It says in the first line that Mr. Poe was 27 when he married. On the Edgar Allan Poe page, it says he was 26. --208.126.113.45 (talk) 00:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The right number should be 27 from the looks of it. The sentence in question for both "his and hers" articles cites the same source, Meyers 85. I'll try to jump back to the original source and see what's on the page. --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Poe was 26 at the time they filed for a marriage license, in September 1835. By the time they had a public ceremony, he was 27, but the article states that they had already been married by the time this took place. Ibadibam (talk) 03:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

As someone who was married recently, I have to point out that's not what a marriage license means. The article does not state they were already married before the ceremony. If you'll look again, there are words that make it doubtful like "may have" and "accounts are unclear". Yes, there is an unsubstantiated discussion that they were already married, but that is not proven. 27 is the correct number, which should be reflected in the lede, and which would make it accurate to the body of the article, where the number is cited to a reliable source. --Midnightdreary (talk) 11:17, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

As someone who recently filed a marriage certificate, I also know that there's typically a limited time in which to execute a marriage license. These days, it's usually 30-90 days, depending on the jurisdiction. Clemm and Poe filed for their license 237 days before their public ceremony, and 119 days before Poe turned 27. It seems unlikely they would have waited that long to execute the license. It would be great to get quotations from the two sources cited for this information. Until then, I've added a clarification to the text. Ibadibam (talk) 21:04, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

True, and I think it's difficult to make assumptions on the point because of the difference of time period. However, I think your clarification in the text works perfectly and hope it satisfies your concerns (for now). If I remember next time I'm near my Poe library, I'll find some quotes. Thank you for your collaboration and concern for this article. --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Sure thing. I've updated Edgar Allan Poe to match our consensus. Ibadibam (talk) 00:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

By the way, here's a link to Meyers, at the page where it discusses the wedding. It doesn't appear to cover Poe's obtaining the license at all. But on page 74 there's mention of a January 1836 letter from Poe to Kennedy where he states he wants to become Virginia's guardian, so it's possible Poe obtained the license on his own. We need a better source to verify the actual circumstances of the license. Ibadibam (talk) 01:00, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

The source for the marriage license is Silverman, 107: "Poe had... returned to Baltimore, where, on September 22, he and Virginia took out a marriage license, and perhaps were privately married. On this point the records are unclear, and later accounts differ..." though he notes that a marriage was likely. His endnote indicates his source as the Baltimore County Marriage Records, Maryland Hall of Records, Annapolis. --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

First cousins

There seems to be some dispute over the familial relationship of Mr. and Mrs. Poe; an editor known only by an IP address has altered that information twice now, and reverted my reversions of it. The only source offered is the family tree image on the page - an image which I created. The tree clearly shows that Poe's father was the sister of Virginia's mother. Further, the "first cousins" relationship is a well-known fact, backed up by multiple reliable sources including Kenneth Silverman's Poe biography (p. 82 in my edition), Jeffrey Meyers's biography of Poe (p. 59), and Scott Peeples's Edgar Allan Poe Revisited (p. 30). What's the dispute? --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Popular culture

Norwegian band Katzenjammer_(band) released a track called "Virginia Clemm" on their album Le_Pop. http://youtu.be/BMUW14QqCAc

Nature of relationship in lead

• "Some biographers have suggested that the couple's relationship was more like that between brother and sister than like husband and wife in that they may have never consummated their marriage."

This line needs to be balanced to represent the views of biographers like Arthur Hobson Quinn and William Bittner. Possibly: "Biographers disagree as to the nature of the couple's relationship." Or: "Some biographers have suggested that the couple's relationship was more like that between brother and sister, while others believe they were passionate lovers." KateWishing (talk) 14:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

That's a very good point. Certainly, if nothing else, the phrase "biographers disagree" is vital here. --Midnightdreary (talk) 19:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

"Biographers disagree as to the nature of the couple's relationship. Some suggest they were like brother and sister and never consummated the marriage, while others believe they were passionate lovers." Is that alright? KateWishing (talk) 21:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

"Passionate lovers" sounds a little too romance novel for my tastes. But curious to hear other thoughts. --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure how else to phrase that part. It could be left at: "Biographers disagree as to whether the couple's relationship was chaste." KateWishing (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest the following: "Biographers disagree as to the nature of the couple's relationship. Though some discuss the loving quality of their marriage, some biographers suggest they viewed one another more like a brother and sister." --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The second line is a bit ambiguous since normal sibling relationships are also loving. We could change "loving quality" to "romantic quality", or, if that's too affirmative, something like: "Some biographers suggest they viewed one another like a brother and sister, while others insist there was an element of romance." KateWishing (talk) 22:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I see what you mean but that suggestion doesn't seem accurate either ("an element of romance" is undeniable by any biographer). How about: "Biographers disagree as to the nature of the couple's relationship. Though their marriage was loving, some biographers suggest they viewed one another more like a brother and sister." My first thought was to remove the sex question but, it occurs to me, that really is the main issue of contention. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

That's fine. I'll implement it. KateWishing (talk) 15:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing up this point and for your collaboration. Best to you. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Citations to an unspecified "Sova"

There are numerous citations given with only the name "Sova" and a number, without specifying an actual work. The Edgar Allan Poe page has a reference to Dawn B. Sova's "Edgar Allan Poe, A to Z" (google indicates the same author also has a "Critical Companion to Edgar Allan Poe"). If someone can determine which work these footnotes are actually intended to cite, it should be added to the list of references. 207.237.196.6 (talk) 03:48, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Good catch. I have added the full citation. Incidentally, the two books "A to Z" and "Critical Companion" you reference are, in fact, the same book. --Midnightdreary (talk) 11:31, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Anachronism?

This statement hardly seems plausible:

The short story Ligeia, whose title character suffers a slow and lingering death, may also be inspired by Virginia.

The article states Virginia’s tuberculosis was first noted in 1842. Edgar published Ligeia in 1838. The claim should be removed. I realize it is cited, but I don’t think that justifies its inclusion. It’s speculation, at best, anyway. MorbidAnatomy (talk) 02:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)