Text: Richard P. Benton, “The Study of Poe --- Past and Present,” New Approaches on Poe, 1970, p. 3

[page 3:]

The history of Poe criticism has been curious, tortuous, and devious largely because he was misunderstood by his contemporaries. At home, only his Maine medical friend, George Eveleth, and the Provincetown poetess to whom he became engaged, Sarah Helen Whitman, seemed to value his art. Abroad, only the Frenchmen, E.-D. Forgues and Charles Baudelaire, showed appreciation. Griswold's personal attack, moreover, not only for a century delayed effective interpretation and evaluation but also created an image which admirers, emphasizing biographical research, felt compelled to destroy — at least until the appearance of A. H. Quinn's volume in 1941. Others — notably Harrison, Campbell, and Mabbott — directed their energies to preparing texts and discussing influences and sources, producing a scholarship that was valuable but not too illuminating of Poe's artistry. Braddy, Wagenknecht, and Pollin have continued that necessary tradition.

A few explorers of the aesthetic dimension appeared in the 1920's — Valéry, C. Alphonso Smith, D. H. Lawrence, Floyd Stovall, and the poet W. C. Williams, who was the first to recognize Poe's significance in the American context. Of all these, the most important was Lawrence. During the ‘30’s and ‘40’s Poe study was perverted either by the mad demon of psychoanalysis (Bonaparte and Lanvrière) or by the sightless demon of prejudice (Huxley and Winters) — the one-eyed king in this realm of the blind being T. S. Eliot. In the ‘50’s appeared critical pioneers like Tate, Davidson, Beebe, Whipple, Patrick Quinn, Hubbel, Levin, Jean-Paul Weber, Roppolo, and, above all, Richard Wilbur, who, like Tate, was a poet and critic. Inspired by the excursion of Lawrence, they began to see in Poe's work complexity, variety, unity, and meaning in depth, assessing his artistry and steering criticism in the right direction.

During the ‘60’s the critical approach was continued by Kaplan, Mooney, Sanford, Gargano, Rans, Thompson, Ricardou, San Juan, Kanjo, and Holman. I diffidently mention my own studies. Kaplan introduced a new reading of Pym. Mooney viewed Poe's Gothic wasteland, noting his serio-comic stance. Sanford illuminated Poe's relation to the American continent. Gargano separated the artist from his narrators, revealing unsuspected constructive skill. Stovall threw the spotlight on Poe's conscious artistry. Taking cues from Davidson, Rans and San Juan saw cosmology as the unifying principle of Poe's work. I attempted to demonstrate that as a parodist and a hoaxer Poe addressed different audiences simultaneously. Thompson probed Poe's irony. Ricardou produced exciting structuralist reading. Holman disclosed satire in Eureka. Analyzing “The Imp of the Perverse,” Kanjo exposed the “dark comedy of art and death” haunting Poe's consciousness.

What will the ‘70’s reveal? I hope a fuller understanding of Poe's art and greatness, which, though defying complete assessment, still can challenge perceptive readers as the studies in the following symposium will evince. I am grateful to the contributors for their memorable cooperation.