Text: William Doyle Hull II, “Part I, Chapter II,” A Canon of the Critical Works of Edgar Allan Poe (1941) , pp. 67-76


[page 67:]


[[VOLUME I: AUGUST, 1834 - NOVEMBER, 1835.]]

JANUARY, 1835.

The first of the four January reviews, * THE LAST DAYS OF POMPEII, is Tucker’s.(1) The remaining three, VISITS AND SKETCHES. By MRS. JAMIESON, POEMS. BY WILLIAM CULLEN BRYANT. LITTELL’S MUSEUM OF FOREIGN LITERATURE, SCIENCE AND ARTS, No. 151, seem to be Heath’s. Only one of these requires discussion.

William Cullen Bryant. Published in ‘Godey’s Lady’s Book‘, April, 1846. Bryant had been briefly reviewed in the ’Southern Literary Messenger,’ January, 1835, and, at more length, in the same magazine, January, 1837, and also in ‘Burton’s Gentleman’s Magazine,’ May, 1840.(2)

Unwilling to disregard Professor Woodberry’s authority, Harrison prints the notice, pointing out that “there is no evidence for this, nor for, Poe’s connection with the Messenger at this early date.”(3) No one since has given it to Poe. [page 68:] Mr. Campbell asserts that; “The article in question . . . is less simple and forthright than is usual with Poe, and is more florid in style.”(1) Certainly Poe never wrote:

As the elegant china cup from which we sip the fragrant imperial, imparts to it a finer flavor, so the pure white paper and excellent typography of the volume before us, will give a richer lustre to the gems of Sir. Bryant’s genius. (H, VIII, 1). (SLM, I, 250).

It may be significant, moreover, that there is no similarity between this and the three later Bryant reviews, which have passages practically identical with one another in phraseology; the tone and point of view of this notice is quite unlike those of the others. That the first is Poe’s is untenable; Heath, I think, is the author.(2)




This is Poe’s first contribution to the Messenger. [page 69:] Of external evidence there is nothing but a flattering reference to Dr. Bird as “the author of ‘Calavar.‘”(1) Of external-internal evidence there is a satisfying amount. In the review of The Infidel, June, 1835:

The second effort of the author of Calavar, gives us no reason for revoking the favorable opinion which we expressed of his powers as a writer of fictitious narrative, in noticing the first (H, VIII, 32). (SLM, I, 582).

This article is built upon a comparison of its subject with Calavar.

“The Infidel” is proved to be Poe’s by external evidence.

In the critique of Hawks of Hawk-Hollow, December, 1835, Calavar is referred to six times:

Of this last mentioned work, and of the Infidel, we have already given our opinion, although not altogether as fully as we could have desired. . . . (H, VIII, 63). (SLM, II, 43).

It [Hawks, etc.] is inferior, as a whole to the Infidel, and vastly inferior to Calavar (H, VIII, 73). (SLM, II, 46).

To this opinion Poe gives expression some six years later in “Autography:”

Calavar being, we think, by far the best of them (Bird’s works) , and beyond doubt one of the best of American novels (H, XV, 203-204). (GM, XIX, 233). [page 70:]

With this last opinion compare a statement in the Calavar review:

It is certainly the very best American novel, excepting, perhaps one or two of Mr. Cooper’s which we have ever read. . . . (SLM, I, 315).

That the reviews of these three Bird novels are by one critic is past doubt, and that this critic is Poe cannot be denied. The authenticity of the reviews of The Infidel and Hawks of Hawk-Hollow has never been questioned; were there no external evidence, the internal is overwhelmingly conclusive.

So is it with “Calavar, ” The initial sentence, beginning with the old jibe, “Who reads an American book?” points to Poe; for no American writer was more infuriated than. he by the prejudice against American authors, and no American writer more insistently battled with the pose which preferred: an inferior European author to a superior American.(1) When the critic finds fault with the depiction of “female character, ” with the “invention and arrangement of his story, ” when he censures Bird for drawing too heavy a “draft upon the reader’s credulity, ” when he finds the boon indicative of great capacity and prophesies for the author first rank in historical romance on this side of the Atlantic,” “if he follows up this first effort by corresponding success,” when he refers to Scott and compares the author in hand with Cooper; one [page 71:] recognizes a different sort of criticism in the Messenger. In style, as well as in attitude and method, there is quite a break from the previous reviews of Heath and Tucker. one sentence especially is typically Poesque:

. . . . if Sir Walter Scott himself were living, he would have the candor and the honor to acknowledge that ‘Calavar’ was vastly superior to some five or six of the last litter of his own great genius . . . . (SLM, I, 315).

That this review belongs in the Poe canon is indisputable.

MARCH, 1835.




These three notices are all, I am convinced from Heath’s pen.

APRIL, 1835.

Of the April number B. B. Minor writes: “The critical notices have some internal evidence that Mr. Poe may have had a hand in them.”(1) This issue was the last under Heath’s direction. Long ago he had wearied of his salary-less duties; it seems likely that by April he was giving White very little help. Four letters to Tucker show White begging for contributions — articles, reviews; sending proofs to be read; asking for advice.(2) On May 5, 1835, White wrote Tucker: [page 72:]

When I last addressed you(1) I was in immediate want of copy. A few days afterwards a supply came in —— any of which, however, should have been laid by, if I had had a launch from your work-shop.(2)

The Messenger, during its first volume, was noted for the lateness of its appearance; it is quite likely that it was for the April number that White was soliciting material. As far as we know, Poe had no regular agreement with White. It was just recently, however, that Kennedy had made his recommendation, and White was regularly publishing Poe’s tales. It is quite possible, even probable, that White, pressed for copy and pleased with the review of Calavar, sent Poe a box of books, as he so often did to Tucker, asking for a group of notices. The “supply of copy” may have come from Poe in Baltimore.

It is not wise, however, to be too dogmatic about these April notices without evidence. Sparhawk became with the May number White’s assistant. It is a possibility that he might have been called upon to help with the April number. The first review is his. It may be significant, however, that none of the day reviews are his, while two of them are Poe’s.


A review of the second number appeared in July, 1835: White wrote Lucian minor that all of the reviews for this [page 73:] issue were by Sparhawk.(1) this second notice begins:

We hailed with pleasure the appearance of the first number of the Crayon Miscellany, but we knew not what a feast was preparing for us in the second (H, VIII, 40). (SLM, I, 646).

This sentence continues a figure of speech found in the first line of the earlier review:

A book from the pen of Washington Irvine, is a morceau, which will always be eagerly sought after by literary epicures (SLM, I, 456).

The tone of these two reviews is identical, lush in comparison with Poe’s notice of the third installment in the December, 1835, Messenger. Thus, since the first two notices of the Miscellany series are by the sane writer, and the second is definitely by Sparhawk, the first notice in the April, 1835, issue is Sparhawk’s.


This has much internal evidence pointing to Poe. It opens with an attack on American reviews for “their tardiness in noticing the publications of the day, ” pointing out that “the design of these periodicals (is) to direct the taste of the public in every department of science and literature, ” and that, therefore, “they should endeavor to keep pace with the stream of publication.” The reviewer concludes:

Thus to lag behind the march of current literature, deprives the criticisms of the reviewer of much of their value and weight (SLM, I, 457). [page 74:]

This constitutes a fair statement of one phase of Poe’s theory about the purpose of and the need for adequate criticism.

The author quotes an attack on Coleridge(1) from a Baltimore newspaper; Sparhawk, or anyone else in Richmond would have had free access to Baltimore papers; but Poe was living in Baltimore, again, thirty-four of the eight lines of the notice are on Coleridge, always a favorite with Poe. Here one finds:

‘What stronger proof do we want,’ says the journalist(2) ‘of that confusion of thought and mysticism with which he has been charged?’ We think far stronger proofs are necessary to support the accusation. That but few comprehend the metaphysical treatises of Coleridge, is owing to the simple fact, that few are so thoroughly versed in psychological knowledge as to maintain a position in the van of the science, the post universally seceded to Coleridge by the learned in ethics (SLM, I, 457).

In a June, 1836, review of Coleridge’s Letters Poe wrote:

They [publishers] would be rendering an important service [if they did an American edition of the Biographia Literaria] to the cause of psychological science in America, by introducing a work of great scope and power in itself, and well calculated to do away with the generally received impression here entertained of the mysticism of the writer (H, IX, 52). (SLM, II , 453).

In the April, 1835, notice: one finds:

. . . no man who ever lived thought more distinctly even when thinking wrong,(3) or more t ma felt and comprehended the power of the niceties of words (SLM, I , 457). [page 75:]

In a review of Godwin’s Necromancers, December, 1835, Poe declared:

No English writer, with whom we have any acquantance [[acquaintance]], with the single exception of Coleridge, has a fuller appreciation of the value of words; and hone is more nicely discriminative between closely-approximating meanings (H, XVIII, 93). (SLM, II, 65).

When Poe reviewed 9runnens of Nassau in April, 1836, he wrote:

A review of this work which appeared a year ago in the North American, first incited us to read it. . . . . .

and in the next paragraph:

The ‘bubbles’ are blown into being by a gentleman . . . sentenced. . . . to drink the mineral waters of Nassau. (H, VIII, 319). (SLM, II, 339).

The third article in the April, 1835, North American was “Mineral Springs of Nassau.” The reference in the 1836 review to the April, 1835, North American does not prove that Poe did the 1835 review; but the exactness of his recollecting seems significant.

There is, however, an objection: the method of this review is not that of later Poe reviews of periodicals. Here the contents are listed together, and then discussed or mentioned. This is the method of the July, 1835, notice of the North American, which is Sparkawk’s.(1) Poe, in the December notices of periodicals discusses the reviews article by article.(2) This objection is not unsurmountable. It is possible that [page 76:] in July Sparhawk adopted Poe’s method in the April review, and that in December Poe discared [[discarded]] his earlier procedure for one more conducive to orderliness. There is not sufficient ground, perhaps, to attribute this notice to Poe with an asterisk; however, I am convinced that it is his.


Of the ten articles only one is chosen for discussion — “Coleridge’s Table Talk“ — to which ten of the thirty-two lines are devoted. One sentence, which at first glance seems unlike Poe’s stylistically, is very much like him in content:

They bear the impress of Coleridge’s mind, will be read with interest by all classes, and probably do more to make the general reader acquainted with him and his opinions, than all else that has been written (SLM, I, 458).

The style, however, maybe paralleled by a sentence in “Mephistoles in England,” September, 1835, which White gives to Poe:(1)

It is replete with imagination of the most etherial [[ethereal]] kind — is written with a glow and melody of language altogether inimitable —— and bears upon every sentence the impress of genius, (H, VIII, 42-43). (SLM, I, 777).

Sparhawk had either recently read or was much interested in the Table Talk, for he uses three lines from it as filler in the May number (SLM, I, 481). The last nine lines of the review contain a statement of appreciaton [[appreciation]] for Mr. Foster’s “excellent American edition of the London, Edinburgh, and Westminster Reviews.” In July Sparhawk noticed several articles of this April edition; but this is indicative of little. It seems probable that, if Poe [page 77:] noticed the North American Review, he also reviewed the London Quarterly Review.

One of the other notices is definitely Poe’s.

The remaining fourteen are rather brief: Your are three lines or less in length; five, six or less; four, sixteen or less; and one, thirty-two. In character they are much like the August, 1835, notices, which are definitely Poe’s.

It seems to me that theyare all Poets but they must be assigned with varying degrees of definiteness, dependent on the strength of the evidence offered by the particular notice in each case.


Drew was an extraordinary man, whose works, especially his theological ones, have gained him no little celebrity. It now appears that he had much to do with the writings attributed to Dr. Coke (SLM, I, 458).

This is probably Poe’s.

5. “The Life of the Emperor Napoleon, ”

. . . . in some we are sorry to see that he seems to be governed by a spirit of captiousness: And tive cannot but object to the tone of his strictures upon Sir Walter Scott (SLM, I, 458).

This, as well as the next, is Poe’s, I think.

6. “Celebrated Trials:”

Such a book as this was much wanted . . . (it) seems fitted to supply the deficiency to a considerable extent. . . . The contents of the work are highly interesting, but we cannot withhold our censure of their arrangement. . . . As future volumes of this work are partly promised, it is to be hoped that in then this fault will be amended. (SLM, I, 458). [page 78:]


For this notice there is external-internal evidence. In the August, 1835, notice of Visits, by the sane author:

Our readers will remember Doctor Reed as the author of No Fiction and Martha, both of which publications were favorably noticed in a former number of the Messenger (SLM, I, 714).

Martha is compared with No Fiction in the last line of the April notice. The August notices are definitely Poe’s.(1) The fact that over the space of three or four months Poe remembered so brief a notice is significant. This may be given Poe with an asterisk.

8. “Memoirs of Celebrated Women of all Countries:”

These memoirs are amusing, and so far we can recommend them highly, but no farther . . . they bear upon their face, in a certain pervading air of rompnce, sufficient evidence of their own inauthenticity. There is a sad mistake too in the title of the work. These are not memoirs of celebrated women in all countries; they are merely 1zadame Junot’s celebrate omen in a few particular regions. The greater part of them have no pretensions to celebrity (SLM, I, 458).

This, I feel, is Poe’s, as well as the next two.

9. “Influence, a Moral Tale:”

It is pleasing tale addressed to the young, to serious parents, and to friends — and it pretends to be nothing more. Its style too is unobjectionable. If the work develops in the author no extraordinary capabilities, it is, we think, because there was no intention of developing them (SLM, I, 458-459).


These lines will be read in spite of all that a too fastidious taste may say to tje contrary. We see no very good reason vhy they should not be (SLM, I, 459).


This notice is defintely [[definitely]] Poe’s. On May 30, 1835, he wrote White from Baltimore:(1)

I read the article in the Compiler relating to the ‘Confessions of a Poet’ but there is no necessity of giving it a reply. The book is silly enough of itself, without the aid of any controversy concerning it. . . . I have read it through from beginning to end and was very much amused at it. My opinion of it is pretty much the opinion of the press at large.

(?) 12. “The Language of Flowers” is typical of Poe’s gallanterie:

This is a book which will find favor in the eyes of the ladies, and thus, par consequence, in the eyes of the gentlemen (SLM, I , 459).

This notice is probably his, as are the two following, equally brief.


has been republished by Harpers. Its character is well established (SLM, I, 459).


This book is very much praised and we think justly. It is full of exquisite descriptions of that region of romance the Scottish highlands, and has a manner of its own (SLM, I, 459). [page 80:]


. . . . the subject managed in that masterly style which we look for in Lockhart. We have heard objections urged to the antique nature of this tale — ill-mannered sneers, and by men who should know better . . . (SLM, I, 459).

This end the three remaining notices seem to me to bear the same touch — and that the touch of Poe.


We see no reason why Col. Crockett should not be permitted to expose himself as he pleases, and to be as much laughed at as he thinks proper — but works of this kind have had their day, and have fortunately lost their attractions. We think this work especially censurable for the frequent vulgarity of its language (SLM, I, 459).


We have looked at this book attentively — for we, confess it was impossible to read it. A glance over one or two pages will be sufficient to convince any reasonable person that it is mere jumble of absurdities, The gentleman should not have thrust his name (if it be not a nom de guerre) into the title page (SLM, I, 459).

18. “A Winter in the West:”

This is a work of great sprightliness, and is replete with instruction and amusement. His observations on life in the backwoods are sensible, and we should imagine correct, and his details in relation to Michigan particularly interest us. The adventures of the road are told with great vivacity, and although there are no thrilling scenes or surprising incidents in the book, it cannot be read with indifference (SLM, I, 459).

May, 1835.


Harrison and Robertson attribute to Poe this review. A [page 71:] White-Tucker letter of June 13, 1835, shows that Tucker is the author. White wrote:

The Review of the Italian novel assuring an editorial appearance did not call for eulogy from us. . . It is, in my opinion, of good a Review as you have penned for the Messenger. . . .(1)


In the May 30, 1835, letter to Mr. White, Poe has a paragraph on this review. Expecting Mr. Kennedy’s novel to be on sale in Richmond when the May Messenger came out, he “thought it useless to make such extracts from the book” as he wished.

I fully intended to have given the work a thorough review, and examine It in detail, Ill health alone prevented me from so doing . . . I have therefore, not done anything like justice to the book. . . .(2)


This review has long been accepted as Poe’s.

We cite a few, from among the many passages which we have noted, as specimens of undignified, unfeminine and unscholarlike phraseology. . . (H, VIII, 24). (SLM, I, 525).

this sentence introduces a, column and a fourth of strictures on language and usage. Several words she overuses; several she uses inexactly or incorrectly. She seems to be “uniting the slang of the boarding school and the green room” (H, VIII, 24; SLM, I, 526). As Poe did frequently in later reviews, this reviewer later uses one of these words in quotation marks: [page 82:]

“But we have ‘daudled’ so long on the way. . . .” (H, VIII, 28).

Poe is recognized again in this:

And here we cannot refrain from the utterance of a remark which has frequently occurred to us . . . we think that too much sensitiveness is felt by our countrymen, at the unfavorable opinions expressed by foreigners, in regard to our social, political, and moral condition — and that the press, as the organ of public sentiment, is prone to work itself into a superfluous frenzy of indignation, at what are generally, considered ‘foreign libels’ upon us (H, VIII, 25). (SLM, I, 526).

He continues in this vein for a half column. In this critique the attitude to feminism again points to Poe:

A female, and a young one too, cannot speak with the self-confidence which marks this book, without jarring somewhat upon American nations of the retiring delicacy of the female character (H, VIII, 30). (SLM, I, 530).

Here the reviewer writes:

The defects of the work are not confined to the exhibition of prejudices and the expression, of unjust opinion: the style and language is often coarse, we might say vulgar; and her more impassioned exclamations are often characterized by a vehemence which is very like profanity . . . (H, VIII, 22). (SLM, I, 525.)

In the December, 1835, notice of the Edinburgh Review, Poe wrote that Article V

defends her from the ridiculous accusation of vulgarity (there is positively not an iota of vulgarity in the composition of Fanny Kemble). (H, VIII, 86). (SLM, II, 48).

This apparent contradiction is, I think, on examination no contradiction; in any case, it is the sort of thing Poe might do: his charge was not of vulgarity, but of coarseness. Moreover, six months can easily change one’s perspective. Even in the absence of any conclusive evidence, except internal, there can be no doubt as to the authenticity of this review. [page 83:]

June, 1835


The June 7, 1836, Poe-Bird letter ends: “I will trust to the chivalric spirit of him who wrote the ‘Infidel) for a reply.“’ In the discussion of “Calavar” it has already been shown that the three Bird reviews are from one pen. The statement was also made that the “Infidel” was built upon a comparison of its subject with Calavar; the latter is referred to eight times. As in “Calavar” Poe here praises inventive fertility, force in description of natural scenery and of scenes of action:

Indeed it is in descriptions of battles, that we think the author excels, and is transcendently superior to any modern writer, ., Another point of excellence in our author, is the manner in which he paints to us the vastness of a barbar:Lan multitude. His descriptions of myriads, appeal to the sense with a graphic effect . . .We think the InfUiel?fully equal to its predecessor, and in some respects superior. The principal female character is drawn with far greater vigor, than marked the heroine of Calavar, although the prominent features in the sketch oT-the -mpassioned Mon ianaza are of a masculine kind . . . we think it problematical whether the author is capable of success in a purely feminine picture of female character (H, VIII, 32-34). (SLM, I, 582-3).

He concludes with an objection to the use of

‘working’ in describing the convulsions of the countenance, under the influence of strong passions:. . . Although Sir Walter Scott is authority for the use of the word in this manner, we have always considered it a decided inelegance. But such blemishes cannot seriously detract from the enduring excellence of the work. (H, VIII, 36-37). (SLM, I, 585). [page 84:]

In a letter from Baltimore, July 26, 1835, Poe wrote White;

Look over Hans Phaal, and the Literary Notices by me in No. 10, and see if you have not miscalculated the sum due me. There are 34 columns in all.

“Hans Phaal” fills thirty-one columns; there must be three columns of Literary Notices. Two of the three long reviews are Tucker’s;(2) the other, “The Infidel, ” is Poe’s. Actually there are six columns and three fifths of another in this review, but without the quotations there are only two and two thirds.


Of the six remaining short notices this is the one which makes up the other third of a column. there is internal evidence pointing to Poe.

She is a lively and piquante sayer of droll and satirical things; and has a way of showing off à peindre the little weak points in our national manners (SLM, I, 595).

Eight of the eighteen lines concern The Gift, which was to appear in the tall, here he says of it;

It will be splendidly embellished, and in literary matter, cannot fail of equalling any similar publication (SLM, I, 595).

In August Poe again announced The Gift, and in September he noticed it.(3) The August has:

This annual will have few, perhaps no rivals any where. [page 85:] Its embellishments are of the very highest order of excellence; and a galaxy of talent has been enlisted in its, behalf (SLM, I, 716).


Never had Annual a brighter galaxy of illustrious literary names(1) . . . The embellishments are not all of a high order of excellence (H, VIII, 50). (SLM, I, 780).

The June and the September notices single out Mrs. Kemble:

It will also have the aid of Fanny Kemble’s fine countenance, and very spirited pen (SLM, I, 595) :

. . . . the portrait of Fanny Kemble . . . is one of the finest things In the, world . . . and the countenance is beaming all over with Intelligence (H, VIII, 50-51). (SLM, I, 780).

The rest, other notices, may safely be attributed to Sparhawk.

JULY, 1835.

Of the seven critical items in the July issue, Harrison gives to Poe three: “The Crayon Miscellany No. II, ” “The Conquest of Florida, ” and “Foreign Reviews” (“American Republications of Foreign Quarterlies, ” (SLM, I, 651) , the last of which he does not print; Robertson puts in his canon the first two. However, on August 18, 1835, White wrote Minor that all the reviews for this number were by Sparhawk.(2) There is no contradictory evidence.

AUGUST, 1835.

“All the Critical and Literary Notices, by Mr. Poe, ”(3) White informed Minor concerning number 12, August, 1835. [page 86:]s Filling four and two thirds columns, the forty-one notices are, as Harrison says in his bibliography, a “running commentary on current literary events.”


“Critical Notices, all by Poe, ”(1) White wrote Minor again in reference to the September issue, No contrary evidence exists. Under separate heading, twenty-seven pages before the critical Notices, there is a long essay-review of Stories About General Warren. By a Lady of Boston. Two White-Minor letters, both from Richmond, prove it to be the work of Lucian Minor. August 31, 1835:

I really and truly thank you for the Review . . . I wish it had reached me on week earlier so that it might have enriched my 12th number. I shall take care that you are not known as its author;(2)

and September 21, 1835:

The article respecting General Warren is admirably written, it is in truth worth a score it professes to review.(3)

White evidently did not consider this “article” a critical notice; in any case, in writing to Minor, there was no need to be over circumspect.




[The following footnotes appear at the bottom of page 67:]

1.  “I would take occasion here to say, that as a general rule, I am opposed to the practice of taking whole chapters when noticing works. In the present case in particular, I do believe you can do more service to the Letters and to the Messenger by avoiding that too common course” (White-Tucker, Richmond, January 29, 1835. Copy in UVL). This review quotes the entire third chapter of the novel; neither of the other three has any quotation.

2.  Stedman and Woodberry, The Works of Edgar Allan Poe, VI, 324.

3.  H, VIII, vii, n.

[The following footnotes appear at the bottom of page 68:]

1.  Killis Campbell, The Mind of Poe, 214.

2.  “Mr. Heath is the author of all the Reviews. . . :” White-Tucker, Richmond, November 11, 1834. copy in UVL.

3.  See White-Tucker, Richmond, January 20, February 5, 10, 19, and May 14, 1835 (Copies in UVL) ; “Editorial Remarks, ” SLM, I, 322. Minor gives them to Tucker.

[The following footnotes appear at the bottom of page 69:]

1.  Poe-Bird, Richmond, June 7, 1836, H, XVII, 35-36, reprinted from the New York Independent, April 25, 1901.

2.  GM, November, 1841.

[The following footnote appears at the bottom of page 70:]

1.  “A Few Words about Brainard, ” GM, February, 1842 (H, XI, 16) ridicules this query; compare also the introduction to the Drake-Halleck review, SLM, April, 1836 (H, VIII, 275).

[The following footnotes appear at the bottom of page 71:]

1.  B. B. Minor, op. cit. , 2.8.

2.  See White-Tucker, Richmond, January 5, February, March 3, April 2, 1835. Copies in UVL.

[The following footnotes appear at the bottom of page 72:]

1.  April 25, 1835.

2.  White-Tucker, Richmond, May 5, 1835. White-Tucker, Richmond, May 14, 1835, makes it clear that this lack refers to the April number. Copies in UVL.

[The following footnote appears at the bottom of page 73:]

1.  See White-Minor, Richmond, August 18, 1835. (PSLM, 97).

[The following footnotes appear at the bottom of page 74:]

1, Poe denounces a similar attack in the December, 1835, review of North American Review. SLM, II, 64.

2.  Note the use of this word, rather unusual at this time; Poe uses it occasionally.

3.  Compare Poe’s “Letter to B ——.” SLM, II, 501-503. In the left column on page 502 is a paragraph on errors of thought in the Biographic Literaria.

[The following footnotes appear at the bottom of page 75:]

1. See White-Minor, Richmond, August 18, 1835. PSLM, 92. White’s statement is supported in this case by internal evidence.

2. The notice of the Medical Review, November, 1836, has the same method as this April review.

[The following footnote appears at the bottom of page 76:]

1.  See White-Minor, Richmond, October 20, 1835. PSLM, 103.

[The following footnotes appear at the bottom of page 78:]

1.  See White-Minor, Richmond, September 8, 1835. PSLM, 98.

[The following footnote appears at the bottom of page 79:]

1.  Poe-White, Baltimore, May 30, 1835. H, XVII, 4-6. for complete change of opinion see “Literati, ” “Laughton Osborn, ” GLB, June, 1846. H, V, 45ff. Also “Marginalia, ” SLM, April, 1849 (a reprint of a paragraph from the June, 1846, “Literati,” H, VI, 142).

[The following footnotes appear at the bottom of page 81:]

1.  White-Tucker, Richmond, June 13, 1835. Copy in UVL.

2.  Poe-White, Baltimore, May 30, 1835. H, XVII, 5).

[The following footnote appears at the bottom of page 83:]

1.  Poe-Bird, Richmond, June 7, 1836. H, XVII, 36.

[The following footnotes appear at the bottom of page 84:]

1.  Poe-White, Baltimore, July 26,1835. H, XVII, 12.

2.  See White-Tucker, Richmond, January 29, February 5, March 19, April 9, May 5, May 14, June 16,1835 and December 27, 1836. Copies in UVL. Also Poe’s review of Hawks’ Ecclesiastical History, SLM, March, 1836. H, VIII, 243.

3.  All the notices of these two months are accredited to Poe in White-Minor letters, Richmond, September 8 and October 20,1935. PSLM, 98 and 103.

[The following footnotes appear at the bottom of page 85:]

1.  In June the reviewer lists as contributors Irving, Paulding, Sedgwick, “and a host of stella minores” (SLM, I, 595).

2.  White-Minor, Richmond, August 18, 1835. PSLM, 97.

3.  White-Minor, Richmond, September 8, 1835. PSLM, 98.

[The following footnotes appear at the bottom of page 86:]

1.  White-Minor, Richmond, October 20, 1835, PSLM, 103.

2.  White Minor, Richmond, August 31, 1835. TQHGM, XVII, 232.

3.  White-Minor, Richmond, September 21, 1835. PSLM, 100. See also White-Minor, Richmond, April 31 and May 15, 1835, TQHGM, XVII, 229-231.


[S:0 - CCWEAP, 1941] - Edgar Allan Poe Society of Baltimore - Articles - A Canon of the Critical Works of EAP (W. D. Hull) (Part ?, Chapter ?)