On June 13, 1835, White wrote Tucker:

And on November 5: “I have this day printed an edition of Eaton Stannard Barrett's Heroine. ...”(2) Confident, then, that he had fooled the world, although the book was printed in Richmond under the name of his son-in-law, Bernard, Mr. White told Poe what should be said about the novel. the young editor apparently submitted with good grace.

After many lines topping these in extravagance he continues:

In the midst of hyperboles, however, he gives a lust criticism of the book: [page 88:]

And concluding:

In the plot summary which follows is revealed the new editor; it is in the manner which “Norman Leslie,” “Paul Ulric,” and “Ups and Downs” made typical of Poe. I have no doubt that the review is his.

In August, 1835, Poe announced the republication of Tales of the Peerage: then he wrote: “The work is ostensibly edited by Lady Dacre, but there can be no doubt of her again; written it” (SLM, I, 715-716). In the December review the critic reproves [page 90:] her for having denied the authorship:

In the August notice, this review, and that of Rienzi in February, one finds expressed the same opinion of her tale, “Ellen Wareham.”(1) One phrase, in conjunction with the rest, is satisfactory evidence: “... that indispensable unity which has been rightly called the unity of effect...” (H, VIII, 75); (SLM, II, 47). The evidence warrants giving this definitely to Poe.

One finds here a complaint which Poe frequently made, and which on occasion even he gave cause for:

One finds also: “... and gives us [Americans] a rap over the knuckles for our overweening vanity, self-sufficient;, and testiness of temper” (H, VIII, 86). (SLM, II, 48). There is here a reference to Horne Tooke: [page 91:]

Poe refers to Horne Tooke in “Southey's Naval history” as a prose writer,(1) in, “Richardson's Dictionary‘‘(2) and in “Marginalia”(3) as a grammarian. In practically every phrase this review is unmistakably Poe.

Internal evidence is here convincing:

When he traces one of the retorts to “the Facetiae of Hierocles — not to mention innumerable editions of Joe Miller”(4) (H, VIII, 40); (SLM, II, 41), there is no rooms for doubt.

These two notices are brief, perfunctory, with much quotation: perfect examples of duty writing. They are Poe's I believe, and fairly typical of his routine work. The use of the dash in both of then points to Poe:

In “Southey's Naval History,” September, 1835, Poe wrote: “Why not say ... the Latin of Erasmus is better than the Latin of Buchanan...” (H, VIII, 49); (SLM, I, 780). In “Washingtonii Vita:”

Internal evidence leaves one convinced that this review is Poe's,

In reply to the suggestion that this work be used in schools, Poe says that only if the aim is to teach Latin as it might have been spoken in the nineteenth century would this plan be practical.

White wrote to Minor on November 23, 1835:

The object of the allusion is this sentence:

Here is proof conclusive — but unnecessary. Without it internal indications are of weight enough.

For “The Linwoods” there is evidence, external-internal, of a sort which is always decisive. Of this review eighty-nine [page 94:] lines appear later in “Literati,” under “Catherine V. Sedgwick,”(1) practically unaltered. Other passages are paraphrased: VIII, 95, 1.5 - IV, 208, 11.20-21; VIII, 85, 11.17-18 - XV, 109, 11.24-26; VIII, 95, 11.22-25 - XV, 109, 11.26-27; VIII, 95, 1.30 to 97, 1.3 - XV, 109, 1.27 to 111, 1.7; VIII, 98, 1.33 to 99, 1.24 - XV, 111, 1.10 to 112, 1.11; VIII, 100, 11. 13-17 - XV, 112, 11.12-17.(2)

In the Appendix to his edition of the poems Mr. J. H. Whitty prints two lines from a White-Minor letter dated December 25, 1835: “All the critical notices are from the pen of Poe — who, I rejoice to toll you, still keeps from the Bottle.”(3) Assuming that this letter referred to the December reviews adjudged his in the Cambridge History of American Literature bibliography,(4) five others, implying at the same time that he accepted the remaining notices as Poe's.(5) The December number, however, came out about November 26.(6) The December 25th letter contains a partial table of contents which shows that White was speaking of the January issue.(7) Since the evidence of this letter is the [page 95:] only basis Mr. Campbell offers for his attribution, one has no right to include the notices-op the Westminster, London Quarterly, and North American Reviews, of the American Almanac and English Annuals in his canon. These reviews are, nevertheless, certainly Poe's.

In the “Westminster Review” one finds:

Of Lamb Poe here writes:

in a January critique Poe has: “In Miss Gould we recognize ... abandon of manner” (H, VIII, 135); (SLM, II, 115).

In the discussion of Article VI the reviewer points out an absurdity, a contradiction between this and the September issue.

In the September review of Southey's Naval History Poe Said that the North American Review had ventured to place Irving above Southey ‘in truly English ... prose’ (H, VIII, 49); (SLM, I, 78).

Then:

The December reviewer makes the same point.(1) A few lines below he attacks the statement that Coleridge “... shows an almost total want of precision and clearness of thought (SLM, II, 64). He thinks that Sigourney and Gould have not been fairly treated by the North American; it is possible that this feeling suggested his January review. Again, he ridicules Sartor Resartus,(2) a favorite prejudice with Poe. Two sentences are strongly suggestive in a period too early for imitation: “We think the whole paper exceedingly silly,” and “We think the whole critique a hum of the worst order, viz: a hum unintentional” (SLM, II, 64).

Again:

This review may be given Poe with an asterisk. [page 97:]

The twenty-four line notice, though brief, is character Poe in general tone, The difference between this and the notices of the earlier parts of the wore. has already been suggested. Isolated illustrations are here of less value than usual, for the notice is so tightly put together that the temper of the whole can scarcely be suggested by any part or parts:

Like “The Crayon Miscellany,” “Godwin's Necromancers” is a brief notice, and one which is revealed as Poe's more by the tone of the whole than any group of scattered quotations can demonstrate. However, in the absence of more tangible evidence, quotations must suffice.

In this notice one finds expression of Poets great admiration for Coleridge, as well as for Godwin.

This is another of those perfunctory notices. The address was published by White. This, however, is more peculiarly Poe's than the two noticed earlier this month. In the censure of the Reverend Gentleman for making apologies in prefixed correspondence one sees the new editor:

Mr. Jackson says:

Harrison, Minor, and Robertson give it to Poe. It is with Jackson that I agree. This sentence Poe would never have written “To such a material no human still could incommensurately great” (H, XVII, 115). (SLM, II, 66). There are three possibilities. [page 99:] White might have asked Minor, as he did on occasion, to edit the notice for him; this, however, is unlikely. The December number was out by November 26,(1) White wrote Minor on the 9th, 20th, 13th, and 14th of November, asking for the review, but there is no mention of a preliminary notice.(2) He might have asked Poe to dress it up for him, but the notice gives no evidence of having been touched by roe's hand. It is most probable that White alone is responsible for it. There is a verbal lining between the last line of the notice: “... we shall, perhaps, give also a few light personal reminiscences of Judge Marshall” (H, VIII, 115); (SLM, II, 66), and a sentence in the November 26, 1835, White-Minor letter: “I hope you have found time to progress with the Marshall Review — as also with my ‘light’ (unfortunate error) reminiscences.”(3) Anyone who has read many of White's letters will recognize him in this:

A White-Minor letter, Richmond, October 20, 1835, settles the question of this notice: [page 100:]

Here one need only quote:

Five of the fourteen lines of the notice are devoted to this ambiguity.

Seven are given over to a listing of the contents. The final sentence is typical of Poe's nicer manner: “Mrs. Hale has already attained a high rank among the female writers of America, and bids fair to attain a far higher” (H, VIII, 118); (SLM, II, 67). Poe often ended notices thus; he was particularly fond of the phrase “bids fair.”

Poe frequently urged this Horatian principle in his criticisms. [page 101:] This notice, I have no doubt, is his.

A comparison of the American Almanac notices in December, 1835, October, 1836, November, 1837, and January, 1839, reveals that the first two are by one person, the last two by another. The first two begin: “This is the seventh number of this invaluable work” (SLM, II, 68); “This is the eighth number of a work...” (SLM, II, 720); “The tenth number, or volume, of this capital work is on the counters ...” (SLM, V, 80). The first paragraph in each of the first two is devoted to an account of Worcester; the list of his works is identical except that the later review omits the second item. In the first:

in the second:

And in the next paragraph one finds: “... no ordinary talent and industry ...” (SLM, II, 720). The second paragraph in both discusses Worcester's work on the almanac, revealing that the astronomical department is by someone else. in the first [page 102:] notice this paragrph [[paragraph]] begins: “We know of no publication of the find more fully entitled to be called ‘A Repository of Useful Knowledge‘” (SLM, II, 68); the underlined words occur in the second notice. The third paragraphs of each, which list the contents of the Almanac, should be compared. In the October, notice one finds:

the underlined words occur in order in the December. The November, 1837, and the January, 1839, reviews are as obviously by one author, but a different one — Lucian Minor.(1)

In December the critic writes:

Article X of the October North American, which Poe reviewed in the December number, was a review of Worcester's Comprehensive Pronouncing and Explanatory Dictionary. In the august, 1835, notice of Worcester's Dictionary, the author is not mentioned at all.(2) Perhaps from the North American Poe got his information about Worcester; perhaps from there also came the incentive to review the Almanac. It had not been done before in the Messenger. At any rate, this bit of evidence suggests that [page 103:] both notices are from the same hand — and there is no doubt that Poe reviewed the North American. The first two notices, then, in the Messenger of the American Almanac may safely be attributed to Poe with an asterisk.

There is here evidence sufficient to allow the inclusion of the notice in the canon with an asterisk. After Poe had become a friend of the author, he wrote in “Autography;”(1)

In the December review:

In “Tortesa”(2) “... a true Flemish perception of truth” (H, X, 68; BGM, V, 117); in “Marginalia:”(3) “... the level of Flemish art” (H, XVI, 68; GLB, XXXI, 49). The essential criticism points in itself to Poe:

Five years later, feeling a need to speak favorably of the novel to Thomas, he wrote equivocally:

This brief notice is probably Poe's.

This is the way Poe wrote about engravings, which in such notices he stressed equally with the literary aspect. This of course proves nothing, but the whole is in the Poe tone; for example: “The literary portion of the work is but so so ...” (SLM, II, 68).

This has long been one of the most famous of the Poe reviews, as it is one of the most scathing. Were there no evidence of an external sort, the internal would be more than satisfying. The second sentence, however, supplies internal-external [page 105:] evidence:

In “Norman Leslie”:

Later in “Paul Ulric:”

To the overuse of these words Poe had objected in the eariler [[earlier]] reviews. There is no need here to give any example of style or attitude; that each line inevitably bears the mark of Poe is scarcely overstatement.

That the notice of Martin's Gazeteer is Tucker's is improbable.(2) It cannot be Minor's:

Outside of Poe, I know no eligible person except Tucker's colleague, Proffessor [[Professor]] Rogers, whom White frequently urged, though as far as I know without success, to contribute to the Messenger. Another sentence in the review eliminates [page 106:] him: “The report of Professor Rogers ... will shed much light ... (H, VIII, 213; SLM, 180). There is nothing particularly distinctive about the review; in the absence of negative evidence it may be given to Poe who was interested in such things.

This eight and a half line notice may, I think, be assigned to Poe without hesitation. Practically non-committal, as Poe well knew how to be on occasion, it begins: “This is an unpretending little duodecimo of about two hundred pages;” and has this sentence: “The story itself is interesting, but not very well put together, while the style might be amended in many respects” (SLM, II, 188).

This review may be definitely excluded from the canon. Although few scholars have ever considered it Poe's, there has been much confusion about it, “Mr. Campbell wrote in The Mind of Poe and Other Studies: [page 107:]

Mr. Campbell has followed Miss Alterton in an inexplicable error. In the letter referred to, Poe wrote somewhat ambiguously; “The Death of the Chief Justice, so far from rendering the Review useless, was the very thing to attract public notice to the Article;”(4) however, an earlier letter clarifies the matter: “I will do my best to please you in relation to Marshall's Washington if you will send it on.”(5) The February, 1836, review was of three orations on Marshall.

The publication of the White-Minor letters revealed Lucian Minor as the author. On November 9, 1835, White wrote him;

For some reason Minor did not respond promptly, White wrote him many times through November and December, supplicating in this vein:

White received the review by December 24;(2) but he was unable to get it in the January number, for he had kept open only our pages.

Further evidence of a decisive nature is given in a letter from Poe to Lucian Minor:

There is, in connection with this review, another point to be cleared up. On November 9, 1835, White wrote Minor: [page 109:]

And on the next day:

In February White wrote Tucker: “See my own slight remiscences (sic) touching the Chief Justice — pencil marked.”(3)

There are, in the review, thirty-seven lines which may definitely be traced to White. Nine and a half lines are as White wrote them, in quotations; the rest, apparently, is paraphrased. The passage has:

To Tucker, White wrote in November, 1834:

The passage quoted above and this, from the review:

explain the clause of the December notice:

and assigns the earlier notice to White.

The first seventeen lines of “Emilia Harrington” are a paraphrase and elaboration of lines twenty-three to thirty-three(1) of “Robinson Crusoe.”(2) Then following:

one finds nineteen lines quoted exactly, in quotation marks, from the earlier review. In “Autography” (3) Poe mentions neither the novel nor the notice, but he expresses an identical point of view:

In the notice he writes:

In the review of Slidell's Spain Revisited May, 1836, one finds:

In the February review is this:

In “Autography:”(2)

This evidence is conclusive in itself; one unmistakable passage, however, may be quoted:

Of Conti Poe writes:

In “Hawks of Hawk-Hollow” he had written: “... that most perfect, pure, and radiant gem of fictitious literature, the Bride of Lammermuir ...” (H, VIII, 64; SLM, II, 43). This is the first reference in the Messenger reviews to this novel; the third is found in “Rienzi,” also in the February, 1836, number, but printed after “Conti.” There is another in a Broadway Journal review.(2) The review of memorials, October, 1836, begins:

here: “His name, however, is familiar to all readers of English [page 113:] Annuals” (H, VIII, 229; SLM, II, 195).(1) There:

here:

In both these reviews the general opinion of Mr. Chorley is identical. All bf this constitutes proof enough; it is corroborated by a discussion of the question: “When shall the artist assume his proper situation in society — in a society of thinking beings?” (H, VIII, 230; SLM, II, 195), a paragraph on the man of genius and his capacity for adaptation (H, VIII, 231; SLM, II, 195), and by one on the Kunstromanen (H, VIII, 233; SLM, III, 195).

“These are two neat little volumes devoted to a theme of rich interest” (H, VIII, 238; SLM, II, 196): This, the first sentence of the “Noble Deeds of Women,” identifies it in tone with “Rose-Hill.” As in the “Young Wife's Book,” January, 1836, he complains: “There is nothing in the title-page or in the body of the book indicative of its derivation” (H, VIII, 238; SLM, II, 196). It may be significant that the only quotation is [page 114:] a letter of Mrs. Sigourney, “a document well deserving preservation.” There are only twenty-two lines of actual writing, yet the flavor is decided enough to suggest Poe.

In a notice, reprinted from the Richmond Compiler, in the Supplement of the April, 1336, Messenger, there is a sentence which may be accepted as true, since Poe let it by without comment: “The Review of ‘Rienzi,‘” too, the last novel of Bulwer, is written in Mr. Poe's best style ...” (SLM, II, 345). The references in this review to “Ellen Wareham” and to the Bride of Lammermuir have been linked to other Poe reviews in the paragraphs on “Lady Dacre's Tales” and “Hawks.” One finds here, moreover, the first expression of an idea which was to recur often:

An unpublished Poe letter to Carey and Hart is described as “asking for Bulwer's ‘Rienzi’ to be reviewed in the Southern Literary Messenger.”(1) In further support of the external evidence cite: above, this sentence may be quoted, with the statement that the whole critique is in the tone of the [page 115:] laurel-awarding Poe:

The notice of Dr. Roget's Physiology is Poe's, despite one sentence which is the very antithesis of an attitude found in the December review of Carroll's address:

Indeed, this sort of personal tone is not typical of Poe the Reviewer. One wonders, also, at phrases like “an exuberance of material” (H, VIII, 210; SLM, II, 203). Aside from these, however, there is nothing out of accord with the manner Poe usually adopted for reviews of a technical nature.

In the Critical Notices, August, 1835:(1)

This shows that Poe was informed about there treatises, one of which Roget's Physiology is, at least six months before the review in question was written; it also reveals the probable source of the detailed two column discussion of the history of and flaws in this series of works. In later years he showed continued interest in it.(2) In the 1ight of this evidence, the [page 116:] review may, I think, be given to Poe.

In his remarks on Matthew Carey in “Autography,” February, 1836.(1) Poe has nothing but six lines on his handwriting. In no other one of the “Autography” articles of this month does he treat a person he has reviewed without giving some characteristic of style or general temper. it is true that Carey is the only one of these reviewed in February, and that the “Autography” was written by October 1, 1835;(2) but there is a possibility that Poe revised or added to the article after October. This supposition is given some support by the fact that not until November, if the ordinary course of events prevailed, did the Messenger secure the autographs of Miss Sedgwick and Judge Story. There are, however, too many loose ends in this argument to deduce that Poe had read nothing by Carey; nevertheless, on the basis of internal evidence, I hesitate to give the review of Carey's Autobiography to Poe.

Although this again reminds one of White, that it is his is unlikely. In a letter to Tucker, the one in which he culled attention to his “slight remiscences (sic)” of Marshall, White wrote; “What with sickness, cold weather and provocation, I have been scarcely able to get along in my office affairs at all.”(1) Nor is it likely that it is Tucker's, for White would probably have mentioned it. Minor is another possibility: there are no known letters covering this period. Most probably, however, the review was sent in by some, now at least, unknown contributor; the fact that this review is headed simply “Carey's Autobiography,” while the other February reviews reprint all the matter from the title pages, may support this suggestion. Although one is not justified, perhaps, in dogmatically taking it from Poe, its authenticity must be strongly questioned. I have not included it in the canon.

A version of Autography Poe had written in the late summer of 1835. On September 29, White wrote him:

On October 1st, sending some advance sheets of the Messenger to Minor, White wrote:

The February, 1836 “Autography” has a brief nondescript section on Cooper. Apparently Poe revised the article. Poe claims this “Autography” as well as that in the Messenger of August, 1836, in the introduction to the November, 1841, Graham's chapter.

Here one finds:

There exists even more evidence. On April 4, 1836, White wrote Tucker:

In this review Poe presents the points of Mr. Bancroft's “Aspersions” and “Insinuations” about the loyalty of Virginia, and the points of rebuttal in Tucker's June, 1835, Bancroft review. The interview must have taken place; for, in an April editorial, “The Loyalty of Virginia,” Poe(2) recognizes an injustice done to Bancroft, rights it, and attacks Dr. hawks for misinterpreting Bancroft.

In an article on roe's interest in phrenology, Mr. Hungerford points out that, before the review of Mrs. Miles’ Phrenology, Poe had manifested no interest in the science; in the next two months(3) he makes use of apparently new-found knowledge upon which he capitalizes for the rest of his life.(4) The style points to Poe; the interest decidedly does. [page 120:]

As in the “Young wife's Book,” January, 1836, and “Noble Deeds,” February, 1836, in “Mahmoud” Poe vents irritation at the lack of information on the title-page,. indulging in a passing hit at the variable and expansive meaning of the word “published.” He concludes;

The notice of The Tea Party stresses the vast importance of frequently laying “reminiscences such as the present before the public,” referring back, to the idea advanced in the review [page 121:] of Rienzi, February, 1836, that dates are not history, that it is the impression of the spirit that matters. Beginning in the tone of “Rose-Hill” and “Noble Deeds,” its hidden claws are less so:

This is Poe.

This is not an essay but a table of brief comment, in the manner of “Pinakidia.” It is signed “P.” There can be no doubt that Poe is the author.

In the June, 1836, Supplement, Poe “rote; “Halleck, since our abuse of his book,:writes us thus...” (H, VIII, 338); here Poe also quoted from a letter; “Allow me to say that I think your article on Drake and Halleck one of the finest peices [[pieces]] of criticism ever published in this country” (H, VIII, 639). Poe drew on this double review of Drake and Halleck for material at least four times in after years. First in the critique “Alciphron,” in Burton's Gentlemen's Magazine, January, 1840: [page 122:]

On this page 11.31-33 parallel 11.4-6, in VIII, 293.(1) Prefaced by: “We shall be pardoned for repeating here, as nearly as we can remember them, some words for what we then said” (H, X, 63), and by a citation of to lines from the poem, found in VIII, 295, a long passage, X, 63, 1.33 to 65, 1, 13, is exactly copied from the earlier review, VIII, 1.33, 299 to 301, 1.17.

In a “Few Words About Brainard,” Graham's Magazine, February, 1842, Poe wrote:

The second footnote on page 21, continued to page 22, quotes a passage, found in VIII, 307, which Poe considered the “finest individual passage in the volume” (H, VIII, 307). The “Brainard‘’ article, like the “Alciphron,” is obviously from the pen that did the Drake critique.

In September, 1843, the eighth number of “Our Contributors‘’ appeared in Graham's Magazine — Fitz-Greene Halleck; in it Poe used much material, sometimes rewritten, from the first review. IX, 199, 11.8-11, slightly changed from VIII, 307, 11.2428. IX, 199, 11.13-26, exact with one sentence omitted and two [page 123:] phrases altered, from VIII, 309, 1.28 to 310, 1.11. IX, 199, 1.27 to 200, 1.4, written down from VIII, 308, 1.21 to 309, 1.2. IX, 200, 11.5-22 (4 of which retain only the thought) from VIII, 11.3-15 and 21-25. IX, 200, 1.28 to 201, 1.10 paraphrased from VIII, 314, 11.5-20 and 24-26. IX, 201, 1.11 to 202, 1.16, is often exact from VIII, 316, 1.8 to 318, 1.4. IX, 202, 1.27 to 203, 1.4, from VIII, 312, 1.32 to 313, 1.8, and 313, 1.12 to 314, 1.4 (the stanzas quoted are in different order). IX, 203, 11.508, rewritten from VIII, 310, 11.17-23. IX, 203, 1.23 to 204, 1.19, is a citation, most of which is found in VIII, 312, 11.1-14 and 311, 11.15-20.

Again, in the “Literati” article on Halleck,(1) Poe made use of the April, 1836, review. XV, 52, 1.18 to 53, 1.2, from VIII, 309, 1.26 to 310, 1, 16. Eleven of these lines are exact; the rest a close paraphrase. XV, 53, 11.4-5, from VIII, 308, 11.23-25. XV, 53, 11.7-11, from VIII, 309, 11.14-15 and 21-25, XV, 53, 11.17-22, from VIII, 310, 11.17-23. XV, 32, 11.22-26, from VIII, 312, 11.15-20. MV, 53, 11.27-32, from VIII, 313, 11.4-8 and 25-28. XV, 54, 11.2-5, from VIII, 313 11.17-20. XV, 54.1.26 to 55, 1.6, from VIII, 316, 11.3-16 and 317, 1.26 to 318, 1.4. The borrowings in the “Literati” are on the whole more close than those in the Graham's article.

On May 2, 1836, Poe wrote Tucker from Richmond:

In neither the February, the March, nor the May numbers is there an article on slavery. In the April there is nothing [[about slavery]] but a double review of Paulding's Slavery and Manly's The South Vindicated, a review which amounts to little more than an essay. It does, of course, come at the end of the number. It is of this, then, that Poe is writing. There are in it, however, two bedside scenes; it would seem either that there were originally three such examples, or that Poe succeeded in getting in “the very excellent passage.”

“Brunnens of Nassau‘’ has already been mentioned in connection with the April, 1835, review of the North American. Poe noticed a later edition of this book in the Broadway Journal of October 4, 1845. In this shorter notice there is no reference to the first. Both, however, begin similarly. [page 125:] The first: “This ‘old man’ is the present governor of Canada” (H, VIII, 319; SLM, II, 339); the second: “The Old Bean is Sir Francis head” (BJ, II, 191). In the later, Poe quotes from the preface to the book. It will be of interest to compare the quotation with passages in the April, 1836, review.

The first as well as the last of these notices is Poe's. The tone of the whole may be illustrated by a few quotations:

That the review of Slidell's Spain Revisited and the one of An American In England are from the same hand, and that the February review is Poe's has already been satisfactorily demonstrated. To establish completely, then, the authenticity of the flay review, it is sufficient to point out a bit of external-internal evidence in corroboration. In the July, 1836, Supplement is printed a notice of the Messenger from the Newbern Spectator (H, VIII, 333-336; SLM, II, 517). Quoting a passage from that section of the Spain Revisited review which dealt with stylistic and grammatical faults, this paper attacks the Messenger for being captious and incorrect. Poe replies, in the Supplement (H, VIII, 336-339; SLM, II, 317-8), utterly effacing the Spectator's criticism. It should also be noted that one fifth of the review is devoted to censuring the dedicatory epistle; Poe had no patience “with this sort of affectation.”

The January, 1837, review of Anthon [[Anthon's]] Cicero begins: [page 127:]

“Anthon's Sallust” has: “That Mr. Anthon has done more for our classical literature than any man in the country will hardly be denied (SLM, II, 392). Again, in the January: “The work is gotten up in the same beautiful style as the Sallust” (H, IX, 267; SLM, III, 72); the first paragraph of the “Sallust” is devoted to high praise of the appearance of the book. As the January review is Poe's,(1) this may be given him without hesitation.

For the May review of Mrs. Trollope's Paris and Parisians there is so external evidence, save a reference in an October review(2) which suggests that Poe was familiar with the lady's works: “The manner of the narrative is singularly à la Trollope” (H, IX, 157; SLM, II, 732). The first paragraph sets forth a grievance ever present with Poe: “We have no patience with that atra-bilious set of hyper-patriots, who find fault [page 128:] with Mrs. Trollope's book of flumflummery (1) about the good people of the Union ... our national soreness of feeling prevented us, in the case of her work on America, from appreciating the real merits of the book” (H, IX, 17; SLM, II, 393-4). the method of presenting the contents of the book through a “brief account” of the “plates?’ is in accord with a marked interest of Poe. This review, I feel sure, is his.

White wrote Tucker, April 26, 1837:

It seems logical that the praise of which Paulding was proud would have been public praise — in a printed review. If this be so, this statement offers evidence as to the authorship of the review of Paulding's Washington — the only Paulding work reviewed in the Messenger during the Poe period, save for Tucker's of Slavery. However this may be, internal evidence points to Poe; there is no rival claimant who can fill half the requirements. The first two paragraphs are in Poe's careful, local-address-reviewing style. The second reveals an opinion that has been noticed before: [page 129:]

Except for one demurring;

— except for this, the praise, in regard to style is extravagant:

This was praise to be proud of. There follows a passage more peculiar to Poe:

A Paulding-Poe letter,(1) March 17, 1836, shows that Paulding has been trying to get published in New York a “Book” of Poe's. A review in this vein at this time would have been only politic. Under the circumstances, it may well be given to Poe. [page 130:]

For “Walsh's Didactics” there exists only internal evidence; it is, however, satisfactory. Mr. Hungerford has pointed out the interest this review reveals in phrenology.(1) Poe writes of the article on Phrenology in the Didactics:

Poe is again revealed in this:

In the October, 1836, notice of Cooper's Switzerland, one finds:

The method of the second review is comparison with the first; in style and point of view the two are identical. That they are from one pen is inescapable, and that pen is beyond doubt Poe's. In“Pinakidia”(1) after a statement about Switzerland Poe admits: “Mr. Cooper, the novelist, is our authority” (H, XV, 45-46).

I take the author to be J. F. Otis. The style and temper is that of his other pieces in the Messenger. this editorial footnote is interesting. We have seen that even since the beginning of volume II there have appeared as editorial reviews from Minor, Tucker, and White. White, one supposes is the explanation of these “deviations.”

From the review of Virginia Springs, August, 1836: [page 132:]

The August review is typical of Poe's cursory notice; beyond this fact and the reference to Peregrination, there is no characteristic suggesting Poe; however, the tone, style, and method of the June review constitute proof enough that both are his. The statement: “There is some mistake here or we are mistaken” (H, IX, 38; SLM, II, 447), introduces some corrections of the author's assertions about railway rates and expenses. here occurs the word “ycleped,” which Poe used in the December, 1835, review, “Washinotomii Vita” (H, VIII, 105; SLM, II, 53); one finds also a favorite word of Poe: “...not troubling much about his keeping ...” (H, IX, 37). Three illustrations more will suffice:

Just as certain am I that this thirty-two line notice is Poe's. In

one finds Poe's intolerance of “Hyper-patriot;” in “We object, particularly here to the use of the verb forms in the present tense” (H, IX, 23; SLM, II, 450), one recognizes his meticulous concern for strict correctness in grammar.

Thus writes Poe (for it is Poe — the attitude and phraseology are insistent) in “Recollections of Coleridge.” The fifty-five line notice ends with:

and with the appeal, already quoted in the discussion of the April, 1835, review of the North American Review, for an American publication of this work. A comparison with Poe 's opinions of Coleridge presented in earlier sections of this study makes it clear that this review is Poe's.

— this, the first sentence points to Poe, as does this:

Here Poe approached the work in hand, as he frequently did, by reference to an earlier work, followed by a brief comparison of the two. There occur here three words of which Poe was fond; stricture, animadvert, and animadversion. This review could be no one else's.

The June number contains a review of Maury's Navigation. Aware of Poe's natural bent in this direction, one is tempted to call it his with little deliberation. The first danger signal is the heading: like that of “Carey's Autobiography,” it is unique in its issue in not containing the full bibliographical matter of the title page. An examination of certain passages is worthwhile.

Involved, loose, weighted down with verbiage, this style is not Poe's; it is rather reminiscent of the “O”(1) who contributed the review of Mellen's poems in the May, 1836, issue. There is the same grim, breathless crowding of thought after thought into every sentence, Compare this passage from the Mellen review;

The “Mellen” reviewer uses “wrought” twice in a rather uncommon way: “highly wrought expectations,” and “too highly wrought ... in style” (SLM, II, 403); here one finds: “clearly wrought numerical examples” (H, IX, 49). The more passages should be compared. In the “Mellen:” [page 136:]

in the “Maury:”

The notice of Maury's Navigation is clearly not Poe's;(1) it is probably by the reviewer of Mellen's Poems, who may be J. F. Otis, a regular contributor to the messenger.(2)

Beginning with the bald statement: “This book is a public imposition” (H, IX, 24) and continuing to show that the whole of the duodecimo could be printed on fourteen Messenger pages, this review is one of the most merciless that Poe ever wrote. In the “Autography” of August, 1836, he wrote:

In the introduction to the “Autography” printed in Graham's Magazine, November, 1841: [page 137:]

The last sentence of the review:

Poe continued the feud in the December, 1841, “Autography,” Graham's Magazine (H, XV, 215).

Poe writes here:

He continues the comparison to conclude:

There is a parallel in “Marginalia.”(2) Here: “The Black Veil ... an act of stirring tragedy, and evincing lofty powers in the writer” (H, IX, 47; SLM, II, 458); there: “... ‘The Black Veil;” a [page 138:] strangely pathetic and richly imaginative production, replete with the loftiest tragic power” (H, XVI, 11; DR, XV, 487). This review will be discussed further under another hand.

There are only eighteen lines of writing here, for the other nine list the engravings. The writing is not distinctive on the whole. There is, however, occasionally a revealing sentence:

I have no doubt that Poe is the author.