of The Shining Pyramid and The Glorious Mystery by another publisher: prompted doubtless by an increasingly belligerent Machen.  Ultimately, if Knopt had full knowledge of all circumstances surrounding the issue, it is quite probable that this infamous and unnecessary altercation would have ever occurred.  The entire contents of this "open letter" are reproduced here:-

ALFRED A. KNOFP
INCORPORATED
730 FIFTH AVENUE
New York
April 22, 1924
To the Trade:
I feel that it is my duty to call to the attention of  every  bookseller   the  following  facts   in regard to certain piratical practices which do not yet seem to be quite dead in the United States.  Arthur Machen's works have come to be exclusively associated with The Borzoi - with the authorization, it is needless to remark, of Machen himself.  However, last year there appeared a collection of essays by him entitled THE SHINING PYRAMID, edited by Vincent Starrett and published by Covici-McGee.  These essays had appeared some time before in various English periodicals and were therefore uncopyrighted in the United States.  Mr. Machen was not consulted in any way about this book which was a deliberate piracy of his property. Now this same publisher and the same editor have brought out THE GLORIOUS MYSTERY, also in a pirated edition.  Mr. Machen has just written to us as follows:

I believe that these facts are worthy of your serious consideration.Yours faithfully,
(Signed) Alfred A. Knopf
President

12, Melina Place
London, N.W.8
May 17, 1924
Dear Starrett
I find it difficult to answer your letter. You do not seem to realize the fact that you are a pirate, and that, professing yourself my friend, you are occupied in picking my pocket.  Incidentally, or by the way, your last piece of work, "The Glorious Mystery", has smashed up a plan which Knopf and I were going to carry through in 1925.
I have been blessed for not protesting against piracy No. 1, "The Shining Pyramid".  I ought to have done so;but  you  have been of  great service to me, and I let it go at that.  I did not know that this was not so much a detached incident as the beginning of a career.
I sign my self for the last time to you.
Arthur Machen.

Having spent several years diligintly endeavouring to bring Machen's writings to a higher plane of public awareness in the United States, this bolt from the wide blue yonder must have stunned Starrett.  Machen  had previously written,   on 5th June  1923;   "My dear Starrett, The  "Shining Pyramid" has just come, and as you said it would be, it is a delightful surprise.  Your selection is an excellent one, and your prefact thoroughly discreet in every respect.  I hesitate over the use of "display true" on the title page, but I presume your publishers know their public.  Again a delightful surprise; and if it runs to a cheque ; why, that will be a delightful surprive too!"  It can safely  determined  from  this that  there   are no rampant undertones of literary piracy, quite the contrary in effect.  In June 1924, Starrett penned is eloquent reply:

"Dear Machen,
Apparently you believe that you have cause to be angry with me. I am of another opinion, but I shall not further annoy you by pressing the point. My admiration for your work, however, is still too great, and my affection for you as a friend has been of too sincere a kind, for me to allow you to continue under any such misapprehension, as your letter would indicate that you nurse. Apparently you believe – since you accuse me of "picking your pocket" – that I have published the volumes you describe as piracies for personal gain. Let me assure you that I have not had a penny from either, nor for anything I have ever written about you. In due time, when the royalties should have been forthcoming, you would have had – as you will still have – every penny that I could procure for you.
In the matter of the alleged "piracies", let me remind you that I have had from you, time and again, authorization over your signature to proceed with publication of your uncollected work as I saw fit.  At no time were these authorizations withdrawn, nor invalidated by so much as your expressed desire that I refrain from such publication.  I am sorry, of course, if publication of "The Glorious Mystery" interfered with any plan of yours - or indeed of Mr. Knopf's - but there was no priacy contemplated nor practiced.  A letter from you, at any time, expressing the wish, would have been sufficient to my collecting of your early pieces and still my too-admiring typewriter.
I regret that you found it necessary to write as you did in your last letter.  Had I been able to foresee this final chapter when I penned my first letter to you, back in 1914, I assure you that my admiration would  have remained forever a secret.
Sincerely,
 Vincent Starrett.

A dignified response to an ungrateful eccentric. It is patently obvious that when Machen secured Knopf as his American publisher, he basically wished to sever his ties with Vincent Starrett in no uncertain terms. Furthermore, he suffered what can only be described as selective amnesia, where it suited him and served his self-interest. Therefore, Arthur Machen displayed   greed   and  a    distinct  lack     of  gratitude, in almost equal measure.
The whole Machen affair probably reverberated throughout Starrett's life and, in a letter to Burton Rascoe, he wrote "as first the episode hurt me, then it made me violently angry, then it amused me..."

When Starrett and Covici produced their rebuttal, In Defense, it highlighted the correspondence and friendship between Arthur Machen and Vincent Starrett and outlined the details behind the publication of the two contentious volumes. Fundamentally, Starrett had Machen’s unrevoked consent to publish his writings and he also had permission to collect work from earlier periodicals, which were not copyri8ghted in the U.S.  The bulk of sympathy lay with Starrett/Covici and, over time, the affair petered out but the sour aftertaste lasted for quite a while.  The ultimate irony is that Knopf only became interest in Machen after reading Starrett's Arthur Machen - Novelist of Ecstacy and Sin, published by Walter M. Hill in 1981 .

Richard Le Gallienne

The whole unhappy affair is covered in much detail in Starrett vs. Machen, by Michael Murphy. The relevant quotations above are extractions from this fine and detailed work, supplementary information of which will be included in a detailed Bibliography.

Sensing an urgency for finality,  and  deciding that correspondence would prove fruitless, he made the decision to travel to London to sort matters out.  Always tottering on the brink of financial disaster, he had first to sell a sizeable portion of his book collection, and placing the remainder in storage, he spent six weeks at the home of Thomas Kennedy, a co-author on Estrays, consigning himself to a strict work regime.  After a brief visit to Richard Le Gailienne in New York, Starrett attended the funeral of Anatole France in Paris.  A jaunt to London resulted in his meeting with Machen, which resulted in a superficial peace but the real damage had already been done to their relationship.  He returned to Chicago where he rented rooms in an old apartment block.  In his absence Et Cetera was published and, due to an oversight on the part of his publisher in obtaining a release from Carl Van Vechten, this resulted in the two men falling out.  This situation persevered for some four decades, even though Starrett had offered an apology. 

         Haldane MacFall