... in ‘funny’ criticism (if you wish any such) Flaccus will convey a tolerable idea of my style ... In ‘Graham’ you will find these.(3)

Writing him [Graham] a short time ago I congratulated him upon having engaged you as editor again. I recognized your hand in some of the editorial matter (critical)(2) and missed it in the rest. But I thought it would do no harm to assume the fact, as it would at least give him a hint. He tells me I am mistaken & I am sorry for it.(3)

The criticism on Rogers is not mine — although, when it appeared I observed a similarity to my ordinary manner.(1)

It has always been sufficiently(2) well understood that ‘The Author of Ahasuerus’ is Mr. Robert Tyler, the sone [[son]] of the President; and this understanding, while it has given currency to his poems, has stood very much in the way of a fair appreciation of the poet. By the enemies of the administration, the announcement of ‘Ahasuerus’ was the signal, we are really ashamed to say, for every variety of prospective squib, and, by its friends, we are also very much ashamed to say, for every variety of prospective puff ... there was really no attempt at purely literary criticism in the case ... (GM, XXIII, 319).

... —— —— ... who has brought more odium upon the Administration than any fellow of (equal littleness) in its ranks, and who has been more indefatigably busy in both open and secret vilification of Robert Tyler than any individual, little or big, in America.(3)

These allegorical subjects are faulty in themselves, and it is high time that they were discarded. The best allegory is [page 389:] a silly conceit, so far as the allegory itself is concerned, and is only tolerable when so subjected to an upper current of obvious or natural meaning, that the moral may be dispensed with at pleasure — the poem being still good, per se, when the moral or allegory, is neglected. When this latter is made to form an under-current — that is to say when an occasionally suggested meaning arises from the obvious one — then, and then only, will a true taste endure the allegorical ...The only apology which can be suggested is, that the poem is intended rather less as a poem than as a philosophical essay inverse; but, then, there should be no such anomalies as philosophical essays in verse ... (GM, XXIII, 319-20).

We do not mean to say that a didactic moral may not be well made to under-current of a poetical thesis; but it can never be well put so obtrusively forth ... (GM, XX, 190; H, XI, 68).

It has an under and an upper current of meaning: in other words, it is an allegory. But the poet's sense of fitness (which under no circumstances of mere conventional opinion, could be more than half subdued) has so far softened this allegory as to keep it, generally, well subject to the ostensible narrative (GM, XXIII, 138; H, XI, 250).

We have no hesitation in saying that this position of the design of the romance — the portion which conveys an undercurrent of meaning — does not appertain to the higher regions of ideality. Although in this case, the plan is essentially distinct from Allegory, yet it has too close an affinity to that most indefensible species of writing — a species whose gross demerits we cannot new pause to examine...that objectionable under-current of meaning ... (BGM, V, 172-3; H, X, 37).

These, we say, are the chief defects of the poem, and they are defects of a minor kind. The merits are, first, a certain nobility and dignity of tone pervading every rage, and betokening lofty aspiration and chivalry of heart in the poet; secondly, a rich and imaginative sense of the beautiful, with a capacity for its expression (GM, XXIII, 320).

The words ‘edited by J. Fenimore Cooper’ in the title-page of this volume, have, no doubt, a suspicious appearance. It has been the fashion, of late days, for authors to speak of themselves, modestly, as editors of even original works. We all remember the magnificent ‘Recollections of a Chaperon ‘edited‘’ by Lady Dacre(1) — and then (a case more in point just now) there was the ‘Narrative of Sir Edward Seaward‘, edited by Miss Porter —— a work of deeper interest, and of a far more vraisemblant character than even ‘Robinson Crusoe’ upon which it is modeled. The merit of origniality [[originality]] is, of course, De Foe's, and Miss Porter is but an imitator at best; but, setting aside all reference to the credit due to the respective authors, and regarding only the two books, we should have no hesitation in saying that ’Sir Edward Seaward's Narrative’ is, in every respect, superior to ‘Robinson Crusoe's. In the same manner, ‘Arthur Gordon Pym‘ — another series of sea-adventures purporting to be edited only by Mr. Poe, was in, reality his own composition — the suppositous [[suppositious]] hero having existed in imagination alone. Bearing these, and other similar works in mind, the reader will naturally be induced to suspect Mr. Cooper, who professes to edit ‘Ned Myers‘, of having, in fact, composed it himself ... The narrative is strictly true ... his reflections and comments — perhaps neither profound nor philosophical — but striking and deeply entertaining from their freshness, naturalness, and naivete (sic). We have not read a book more to our taste for some years... but, after all, its chief charm lies in the detail of the every-day matters — of the homelinesses —— of the seafaring existence. If we mistake not, it will be the most popular book of the season. We can only recommend it, cordially, to our readers — as it is not of a character to call for any thing in the way of critical comment (GM, XXIV, 46).

We have only to regret, just now, that the later period at which we received the volume, and the great length to which Mr. Poe has been seduced into a notice of ‘Orion’ will preclude an extended notice ... (GM, XXXIV, 142; H, XI, 243).

Mr. Lowell is, in some measure, infected with the poetical conventionalities of the day — those upon which Mr. Poe has discanted in speaking of Mr. Horne's epic (GM, XXIV, 142; H, XI, 244).

In the January number of this magazine, the receipt of this work was mentioned, and it was hinted that, at some future period, it should be made the subject of review. We proceed now to fulfill the promise (GM, XIV, 136; H, XI, 249).

... and we propose, in a future number, to give it a careful examination ... We must read and review ‘Orion‘ — that is certain — (GM, XXIV, 46).

It was advertised to be sold for a farthing; and for a farthing it was sold. Three large editions were disposed of at this price. ‘A rush of buyers’ says a letter now lying before us, ‘almost carried the publisher off his feet’. The public fell into an especial ecstasy, and bought poetry in its sleep — a thing it seldom does awake — and now the poet brings out his fourth edition for a shilling (which the public buys too, because it is not yet wide awake) and promises a fifth for half a crown in a few days (GM, XXIV, 46);

‘Orion’ was orignially [[originally]] advertised to be sold for a farthing; and, at this price, three large editions were actually sold. The fourth edition (a specimen of which now lies before us) was issued at a shilling, and also sold. A fifth is promised at half a crown; this likewise, with even a sixth at a crown, may be disposed of — partly through the intrinsic merit of the work itself — but, chiefly, through the ingenious novelty of the original price (GM, XXIV, 136; H, XI, 250).

It is a mistake to suppose that a good song-writer is necessarily a good poet. It is, perhaps, equally a mistake to suppose that a good poet will write a good song. And this follows from the difference between the true poem and the true song. In the one imagination and sustained power are indispensable; in the other, little more is demanded than fancy, earnestness, unity and appropriateness of diction. The most voluminous song-writers in the English language have been incapable of composing long poems; and though, all the great master poets of the tongue have been the authors of songs, and of exquisite ones too, they seem to have written them, not because they were poets, but because, for the time they had ceased to be poets. [page 393:]

This may, at first, appear paradoxical. But, when the sense in which we use the term poet is considered, the truth of our remark will be apparent. So far forth as a poet has the power of concentrating himself on the one single idea to be evolved in the song — of going at once to the theme — of maintaining its unity throughout, and of fusing the words, as it were, with the sentiment or passion, so far forth he is capable of writing the song. But, as his peculiar mental discipline best fits him for another field, it is only occasionally that he essays the song, and not always that he succeeds. On the ether hand, the mere song-writer can never be a poet, for he is destitute of the loftier qualities requisite in that walk ... The merit of these ballads consists in their unity, simplicity, fancy, and earnestness, as also in the delicacy of the sentiment, and the skill with which it is evolved. Many of the comic pieces, which we can call no better name than that of divertisements [[divertissements]], are excellent in their way; but such trifles have not the slightest claim to more than a passing; word, since almost every educated man, with the least sense of the ridiculous, can throw them off with ease (GM, XXIV, 47).

... Mr. Percival is, perhaps, the most careless versifier and inartistical poet in. America. As imitations, therefore, these classic melodies deserve high praise, and some them are good even as poems; but generally the measures are unfitted to our language, and though they may please a scholar, can never be popular. The songs are from Spanish and Italian measures, most of which have been long introduced into our Poetry: they do not, therefore, strike the ear as strange or foreign, qualities, which, we are prepared to prove, are fatal to a song ... Here we see his prodigal fancy, his command of language, his versatility, his enthusiasm, his love of nature. Here, too, we see his faults — crowded imagery, immature conceptions, haste and slovenliness, for we can call it nothing less (GM, XXIV, 47-8).

I shall look with much anxiety for your promised volume. Mill it include your ‘Year's Life‘, and other poems already published? I hope that it may; for these have not yet been fairly placed ‘before the eye of the world. I am seeking an opportunity to do you justice in a review, and may find it in ‘Graham’ when your book appears. No poet in America has done so much. I have maintained this upon all occasions. ... You say that your long, poem(1) has taught you a useful lesson, — ‘that you are unfit to write a narrative — unless in dramatic form’. It is not that you are unfit for the task — but the task for you — for any poet. Poetry must eschew narrative ... (2)

The notice of Lowell's ‘Brittany’ is mine. You will see that it was merely a preparatory notice — I had designed speaking in full, but something prevented me.(4)

Graham, I see, has a portrait of Judge Conrad...The biography (by a friend of yours) does no more than justice.(1)

Their leading trait, however, is what the Germans call ‘movement‘, and Coleridge in his ‘Biogiaphia Literaria‘, ‘motion’ ... In ideality alone they seem to us deficient; or rather the man, throughout, appears to predominate over what Kent would term ‘the poet of pure reason’ ... the genius of an author — and very especially of the dramatic author — should be left totally untrammeled ... Indeed, to convey any idea of a drama by extract, is very nearly as difficult a task as that of the skolastikos in Hierocles (GM, XXIV, 242).