Read Edgar Allan Poe and the London Monster for Free Online Page B

if I would ever see my darling wife again. Just as I drifted toward nothingness, the veil was lifted and my eyes fluttered open.
    I was at once confused and relieved to discover that it was morning.
    27 Bury Street, London
8 May 1788
    Henry,
    I had expected that we would meet yesterday evening at the Westminster School of Eloquence as planned, but my hopes were in vain. I wonder if you have managed to secure us a tour for the summer season as you promised? I am increasingly concerned for the well-being of our daughter if our finances remain so precarious. Surely you understand that I cannot request aid from my father again. The fact that he has a new wife does little to aid my attempts to placate him.
    The disagreeable state of our personal affairs made the topic of the last night’s debate all the more pertinent: “Is the common saying true, that there is no medium in the marriage state, but that it must always be extremely happy or very miserable?” I was curious to hear your opinion on this subject. The audience was divided on the issue. Many argued that a medium between happiness and misery is the norm in marriage, that one cannot expect perfect happiness in a union, as man and woman are fallible creatures more often driven by emotion than reason. And one must not accept perfect misery, despite the ignominy of divorce. This last statement caused much controversy. Some in the audience declared that it was the duty of husband and wife to sustain the marriage state as they had forged a bond under the eyes of God; it was of littleconsequence if their characters were of conflicting humours and there was no joy in their union.
    The heated argument that ensued reminded me of the April debate at the Coachmakers’ Hall. The subject, if you remember, was whether jealousy in a husband or inconstancy in a wife is more destructive to matrimonial happiness. A woman who had written a novel entitled The Fair Inconstant had suggested the topic and the eventual consensus of the audience was that inconstancy in a wife is the more destructive. I suggested that the debate should be extended to inconstant husbands and jealous wives. You might remember that Mrs. Maria Smyth, an acquaintance from my youth who is now profitably married to Dr. William Smyth, claimed it was the jealousy of wives that caused inconstancy in husbands and, therefore, the subject was not worthy of debate.
    Mrs. Smyth was also present at last night’s debate, and it was quite clear from her limited contributions that her intellect has failed to improve at all. She made a point of humiliating me in front of her witless companions and dullard husband by commenting on your absence and then stating with mock commiseration that a stable marriage was requisite if a couple were to discuss the evening’s topic in public.
    I am still smarting from her slight and your broken promise. I trust I shall see you at the theatre tonight.
    Your Wife,
    Elizabeth
    27 Bury Street, London
13 May 1788
    Dear Elizabeth,
    It is hardly ideal for a husband and wife to be forced to spend so much time apart, and I am truly repentant for missing our assignation at the School of Eloquence, for I know how greatly you relish the opportunity to display your superior education. But my absence from home these last few days has been unavoidable as I have been working unrelentingly to secure us employment over the summer season and, thankfully , have succeeded. I cannot divulge the full details yet, but it is likely that we will spend the next few months, and perhaps longer, at the Theatre Royal in Margate. I hope this makes you feel a little more kindly towards me. And perhaps a smile will be brought to your face when I tell you of the indignity that befell Mrs. Smyth the evening following the debate at the School of Eloquence.
    She was walking in Fleet Street, on the way to an informal soiree at a friend’s house and claims that a thin, vulgar-looking man wearing a blue greatcoat