This, the first of the two remaining January reviews is by Judge Upshaw. White wrote Tucker on January 19: “Your Rev. of Bulwer will follow Judge Upshaw's of the Partisan”;(1) and on February 7: “... about my admitting Judge Upshaw's Review into the Messenger.”(2)

The White-Tucker letter quoted above reveals the authorship of this review. On December, 27 White send Tucker a copy of the play, requesting a review of it.(3) [page 171:]

From a letter from Poe to Mrs. Hale, dated October 20, 1837, in which he refers to himself as “Editor of the Messenger,”(1) Mr. Killis Campbell drew two conclusions:

On this ground he attributed to Poe, conjecturally, several reviews in the third volume. Some twenty-four years later he was forced, at the hands of Miss Mary E. Philips, to a public rescension. This lady asserted that the letter was misdated; as evidence she! pointed out the fact

Mr. Campbell's revocation appeared in The Mind of Poe in 1933:

but, in true Galilean fashion, he adds a footnote, suggesting that Poe's reference might be to a second edition, perhaps then in process of compilation and revision, an edition which appeared in 1839.(5) [page 172:]

However, this letter is quite obviously misdated, Mrs, Hale had supposed that Simms was the editor of the Messenger. In the July Supplement of the Messenger, 1836, one finds:

It seems rather unlikely that this mistake could have persisted, with a woman in editorial circles until October, 1837. In the letter Poe wrote:

compare with this an editorial note in the September, 1836, Messenger:

Again, in the letter:

Mrs. Hale was included in the “Autography” which appeared in the Messenger in August, 1836.(4) Thus, in relation to the third volume, this letter can offer no evidence at all. [page 173:]

Nevertheless, with Mr. Campbell I feel that several of the reviews in 1837 after January bear “the peculiar stamp of Poe's critical work.”(1) Poe left Richmond for New York probably in February, 1837, certainly before the middle of March. Three years later he wrote William Poe that after leaving the Messenger he

Dr. Hawks, the editor of the Review, denied that Poe had been connected with it.(3)

On December 27, 1836, White wrote Tucker; “If he [Poe] chooses to write as a contributor, I will pay him Well.”(4) In his notice at the end of the January, 1837, Messenger, White promised;

but on January 31:

Among those “unpublished manuscripts” there may have been some reviews. It is difficult, however, in all cases to find when the reviewed works were published. It also seems plausible that Poe, while seeking work elsewhere,(1) or even after he had found employment, eight have submitted reviews to in such a case that worthy gentleman might have swallowed his prejudice; for, except for Tucker, he had very little help it the editorial department. In February there are only two reviews, in March, none; in April, three; May, four; June, two; July, three; August, one; September, two; October, one; November, three; and December, three. White might gave welcomed even a review from Poe; it is even possible that he awed Poe for reviews. Conjecturing circumstances, however, on a basis of the scattered statements of a very effusive hypochondriac is indicative of nothing but a certain amount of ingenuity. The whole situation is too obscure. It is the reviews themselves which must offer the evidence. In the discussion of these, however, it must be remembered that here the danger of imitation is perhaps greater than before.

This is the first of the reviews which Campbell considered “Probably from his pen.”(1) Minor and Jackson likewise consider Marco a tale written by Mrs. Ellet.(2) It is clearly, however, a review by Mrs. Ellet of an Italian novel.(3) The Bibliotheca Americana does not list it among her works. Opening with a discussion or the rise or the historical novel in Italy, it continues, with frequent translated passages, to tell the story of Marco Visconti. At the end she asks:

This, another of Campbell's attributions,(4) is most probably Tucker's. It is not as tightly organized and clearly developed as Poets critiques usually are; this opinion may be confirmed by comparison with other Tucker reviews; “Henrietta Temple,” 1837,(5) “Tulrumble and Oliver Twist,” May, 1837,(6) [page 176:] etc. A triple parallelism might be cited in this April review:

in “Bulwer's the Duchess,” January, 1837;(1)

and in “Henrietta Temple;”

There is nothing in this review of Nick of the Woods to link it in any way with the earlier Bird reviews of Poe.

These, the remaining notices for this month, the two “Critical Notices, in April of Gleanings in Europe and of Minor Morals for Young People, Campbell suggests, May be Poe's.(2) The first has:

The second has: “We can hardly call this a good book; though it certainly has some good things in it” (SLM, III, 272). It gives expression to some religious tenets not Poe's. These two notices are a patent imitation of Poe; both are after the Poe tone; and both have a decidedly false ring. Tucker would again be my candidate: aside from, circumstantial evidence, in several of the reviews of this period he seems to have been striving, with little success, to catch Poe's tomahawking style.

These two reviews are given to Tucker by several letters.(1)

This review, unnoticed by Campbell, may be given to Poe unconditionally. The method is his: the first paragraph is a comparison of Miss Sedgwick and Miss Edgeworth; the second is on the earlier reviews of her works; the third, a summary of this work; the fourth is on vraisemblance, simplicity, and this novel's merits; the last, on errors in grammar and usage. [page 178:]

In the “Literati”(1) one finds:

in this review:

Miss Sedgwick beyond all question, is the Edgeworth of America (SLM, III, 331).

Here he meant in the sense of occupying an equivalent position; if she were more widely read in the South, she could do for the North what Miss Edgeworth did for Ireland. In the “Literati” he merely meant that she was no imitator of the Irish novelist. In the Linwoods review, December, Poe wrote: “Of American female writers we must consider-her the first” (H, VIII, 95; SLM, II, 57); here: “... our countrywoman has, in our Judgment, no equal on this side of the Atlantic” (SLM, III, 331), ‘tn the earlier: “It is full of deep natural interest, rivetting the attention” (H, VIII, 95; SLM, III, 57); here: “... trains of incident that rivet the attention” (SLM, III, 331).(2) There:

here: [page 179:]

The second paragraph begins:

In the second review here referred to, January, 1836, Poe singles out the three tales here recommended, adding that ‘The Eldest Sister,’ to which he gives the climactic position here, “is the best” (H, VIII, 162; SLM, II, 124).

The Linwoods Poe reviewed in the Messenger for December, 1835; and Tales and Sketches, for January, 1836. Both of these reviews have been shown to be Poe's beyond doubt. That of the Tales is really “brief,” occupying not quite a column. This is conclusive evidence in itself. There is no reasonable ground for supposing that another reviewer would either remember the earlier review or refer to them editorially, particularly in the intimate tone of the “we have briefly expressed.”

The whole review is full of Poeisms. Several may be selected: [page 180:]

Finally, there is a bit of internal-external evidence:

This reference, though not conclusive in itself, perhaps, is significant. The phrase — “and we design hereafter“ — makes one feel that this review was written while Poe was still [page 181:] editor, the novel came out in 1836; there was a second edition in 1837. Since he appears to have been really an admirer off Miss Sedgwick, it seems probable that Poe would have noticed the work as soon after its appearance as it was convenient. Than this I can go no further. I know no way of ascertaining in what month it appeared.

Here there is such a mass of supporting evidence, much of it of near conclusive value in itself, backed by the whole tone of the review, and detracted from by nothing except the obscurity of the situation in the editorial department, that the total result is as definite as it can be in the absence of positive external proof.

THOUGHTS ON POPULAR AND LIBERAL EDUCATION. BY CHARLES CALDWELL. [[list]]

There is nothing here to suggest Poe, and the ridicule of phrenology denies it to him. The author may be Tucker.

The leading criticism parallels even in phraseology that of the Bland's Chancery Report review. “Bland's;” “We cannot perceive any sufficient reason for the publication of this book” (SLM, II,73l); here:

“Bland's”; “Now the enormous multiplication of books in every branch of knowledge is one of the greatest evils of this age ...” (SLM, II, 731); here:

“Bland's” (continued from above):

here:

Except for the unlikely, I think, possibility of imitation, there is no difficulty in assigning Poe this review, for it is clearly by the reviewer of Bland's Chancery Reports. The concluding evaluation gives the tone of the whole article:

This, I think, is probably Poe's.

This may be Poe's. Its method is that of the December, 1835, review of the same periodical. it may be examined briefly.

The article which follows, on t:odern French Poetry, is but indifferent, and indeed quite insipid to out! taste.(1) Some of the translations, too, inserted in it, we see are, and others we suspect must be, poor copies of the originals (SLM, III, 400).

Poe made this sort of a statement in a later review treating translations.

That Poe was interested in this subject at this time is proved by the Anthon-Poe letter dated July 1, 1837, sending the translations of some Hebrew prophecies. That Poe, perhaps as early as this, had studied the subject, may be inferred from a sentence in the review of Stephens Arabia Petraea,(2) which lists the Laborde as one of the best known works on [page 184:] this country;

If these suppositions be not true, it is possible that the article in the North American interested Poe in the subject and incited the later review. The first and last sentences are perfect examples of Poe's art of equivocal commendation:

The only difficulty lies in the fact that Poe would probably not submit so brief a review; there is, of course, no possibility of its having been written before he left in February or early March.

The seventeen line notice of Motherwell's Poems in the August number, is indeed, as Mr. Campbell wrote when he suggested that it might be Poe's, “flimsy.”(1) Although it can definitely, I think, neither be desired or assigned Poe, it is much more probably not his. He had no fondness for White's pet word — effusions — which occurs here. This notice is like no particular other Poe reviews of poetry. [page 185:]

This reviews, also, Campbell suggests may be Poe's.(1) The reviewer has

Despite the “Now,” this sentence, as far as evidence goes, is, I think, of little value. There is much here pointing to Poe. Again there is a plea for creating an understanding between the

North and South through literature; there is a discussion of vraisemblance and life-likeness, both words found in the May review of Sedgwick. There are censured “inaccuracies of expression,” followed by:

But there are some things which seem unlike Poe. In the first place, the author's name is spelled “Sedgewick” throughout; in the May, 1837, and the earlier reviews, it has only one “e,” This, of course, may be the printer's fault. One finds: “... so forced our lungs to crow with gladness ... and anon brought our eyes so nearly to tears (SLM, III, 691). The [page 186:] conclusion also seems uncharacteristic:

Only with much questioning would I give this to Poe.