∞∞∞∞∞∞∞
INTRODUCTION
“What have we Americans accomplished in the way of satire?” Edgar Allan Poe asked in 1849 in his review of James Russell Lowell's “A Fable for Critics.”(1) Poe might have been asking for an appreciation of his own ate tempts at satire over the past seventeen years; but, if so, he was disappointed, for no one leaned forward to point a finger at him and shout, “Thou art the man!” Even today, after a hundred years of Poe scholarship, there ls no extended treatment of Poe as a writer in the genre of satire. This has been true in spite of the fact that scholars have recognized, at least since J. S. Wilson's article, “The Devil Was in It,”(2) that Poe wrote satirical pieces.
The failure to treat Poe as a satirist has not been a careless oversight. There are many obstructions to such treatment. Just the matter of identifying his satiric pieces is, in itself, a difficult problem, for Poe ranges from broadly satiric tales to Gothic tales touched [page 4:] but incidentally with satire. Any effort to draw a line of demarcation between his satire and his Gothic tales is further complicated by the fact that the key to Poe's early tales rests hidden in the lost pages of his plan for the Folio Club. One must be bold almost to the point of fool hardiness to try to determine Poe's satiric intentions in these tales when those intentions are tied to each tale's use in a unified plan of which we have only the most fragmentary outlines. And finally, to make identification difficult, there is Poe's practise of obscuring his allusions until their specific reference becomes ambiguous or too tenuous. to be ascertained with any degree of finality.
Nevertheless, in spite of these difficulties, some attempt to synthesize the knowledge we already have of Poe's satiric tales and to trace the primary patterns of his satire is a necessary step toward an eventual understanding of Poe as a satirist. Poe's satires form too large a portion of his flection to be disregarded. At least one third of the seventy stories attributed to Poe are satirical in nature. Too frequently these stories have been set aside as Poe's clumsy attempts at humor, completely disregarding Poe's own purpose in writing them. Therefore it is apparent that we cannot have a properly proportioned picture of Poe as a literary artist without taking this segment of his tales into account. To our picture of Poe as poet, Poe as critic, and Poe as writer of Gothic horror [page 5:] tales, we must add Poe as satirist. Yet, it is probably too much to hope that such a treatment as this can follow perspective in terms of his narrative art and in relationship to his Gothic tales, and in so doing further illuminates individual tales, then this study will have attained its primary goal.
A study of Poe's satirical pieces must be preceded by an examination of his own attitude toward satire and his concept of it. This we shall have to piece together from a consideration of his own earliest tales, the Folio Club tales, and from letters and reviews scattered through his writing career, for he never drew up a considered statement of the principles of satire, as he did of the tale and of poetry. He set down his principles of the short story, in his famous review of Hawthorne's Twice-told Tales, only after he had, himself, been writing stories for ten years.(1) He had been writing poetry twice that long before he wrote his considered doctrine of poetry in “The [page 6:] Poetic Principle.”(1) These principles, of the tales and of poetry, Poe had been working toward and expressing in various reviews, and his final formulations only amplified and did not contradict his partial statements in the reviews. In fact, he bodily transferred whole paragraphs from the reviews to the final formulations. Consequently, we should not be surprised that Poe's concept of satire crystalized equally slowly. He never set down a comparable formulation of this ideas about satire — if he had reached a final conception of it. However, since it seems to have been Poe's method to use a literary genre and then, later, to theorize upon its principles in terms of his own experience and practice, we are safe in placing together his views as they developed through various letters and reviews from 1835 to 1849.
Satire is necessarily affected by the imaginative framework in which it is made to server its author's unique purpose. Inasmuch as the first stories Poe published were originally intended for a proposed collection which he had planned to call The Tales of the Folio Club, and since a disproportionately large number of these stories were satiric tales with which we shall deal later, it seems only fitting that we should examine and — as far as possible — understand Poe's imaginative plan for these satiric tales [page 7:] before we attempt to reconstruct his concept of satire.(1)
The outline of Poe's plan, in his own words, was this:
I imagine a company of 17 persons who call themselves the Folio Club. They meet once a month at the house of one of the members, and, at a late dinner, each member reads aloud a short prose tale of his own composition. The votes are taken in regard to the merits of each tale. The author of the worst tale, for the month, forfeits the dinner & wine at the next meeting. The author of the best, is President at the next meeting. The seventeen tales which appeared in the Messr are supposed to be narrated by the seventeen members at one of these monthly meetings. As soon as (one) each tale is read — the other 16 members criticise it in turn — and these criticisms are intended as a burlesque upon criticism generally. The author of the tale adjudged to be the worst dermurs from the general judgment, seizes the seventeen M.SS. upon the table, and, rushing from the house, determines to appeal, by printing the whole, from the decision of the Club, to that of the public.(2)
Poe mentions, here, only that the criticism of the stories was to be a burlesque of criticism in general; but it seems probable, also, that this “Junto of Dunderheadism” whose intention was “to abolish Literature, subvert the Press, and overturn the Government of Nouns and Pronouns” was intended, also, as a burlesque of contemporary writers — perhaps, if we knew the whole plan, as a take-off on some [page 8:] particular literary group.(1) We do not have the whole plan, however, and our only chance of understanding Poe's purpose is by careful analysis in each story. Nevertheless, for the moment, we are not concerned with the purpose of the plan but with what it reveals of Poe's inclination toward satire. The principal fact we glean is that Poe planned to burlesque criticism. This willingness to burlesque is inconsequential except that it shows that Poe's mind was congenial to the use of satire.
Several of Poe's Folio tales were published in the Southern Literary Messenger, then under the control of Thomas White.(2) On April 30, 1835, in a letter to White, Poe defended the type of stories he was sending to the Southern Literary Messenger. The letter is one of Poe's best early statements of his literary aims.
The history of all Magazines shows plainly that those which have attained celebrity were indebted for it to articles similar in nature to Bernice — . . . . You ask me in what does this nature consist? In the ludicrous heightened into the grotesque: the fearful coloured into the horrible: the witty exaggerated into burlesque: the singular wrought out into the strange and mystical. . . . To be sure [page 9:] originality is an essential in these things — great attention must be pald to style, and much labour spent in their composition, or they will degenerate into the turgid or the absurd.(1)
A study of this letter makes it obvious that Poe was not haphazardly dashing off Gothic and farcical stories. His stories were to be “heightened” into the grotesque, “exaggerated” from the witty into the burlesque. The style was carefully selected and originality was to be essential. That some of these tales were to be satires is obvious from his conscious artistic choice of burlesque and grotesque as elements of his stories. Grotesque, burlesque, and invective have long been the tools of the satirist and Poe made use of them as such.
Poe was interested, too, in the use other writers made of invective and sarcasm. Seven months after his letter to White, Poe called Beverly Tucker's attention to a review which Poe felt had been annihilating. Tucker was a professor of law at William and Mary College and a contributor to the Southern Literary Messenger.
Did you ever see a critique in Blackwood's mag: upon an Epic Poem by a cockney tailor? Its chief witticilcms were aimed not at the poem, but at the goose and bandy legs of the author and the notice ended, after innumerable oddities in — “ha! ha! ha! — he! he! he! — hi! hi! hi! — ho! ho! ho! — ha! ha! ha!” Yet it was, without exception, the most annihilating and altogether, the most effective Review I remember to have read. . . .(2) [page 10:]
Poe was to borrow that laugh for several of his satiric stories, and his admiration for what he concelved to be its effect is indicative, a perhaps, that his weakness for billingsgate and invective served to keep his satire from gaining that more effective satiric element, irony.
It is difficult, now, to establish to what extent his contemporaries recognized Poe as a satirist. Evidently there were some who did; although the number could not have been large. John P. Kennedy, a close friend of Poe's and the author of Horse-Shoe Robinson, felt that Poe was getting undeserved credit as a satirist. He wrote Poe, on February 9, 1836, “Some of your bizarreries have been mistaken for satire — and sdmired too in that character. They deserved it, but you did not, for you did not intend them so.”(1) Poe's reply was a diplomatic one, for he eemed unwilling (understandably enough, for Kennedy had shown him many kindnesses) to make a categorical denlal of Kennedy's interpretation; but he left no doubt that he was, at least in some of the stories, writing satires.
You are nearly, but not altogether right in relation to the satire of some of my Tales, Most of them were intended for half banter, half satire — although I might not have fully acknowledged this to be their aim even to myself. “Lionizing” and “Loss of breath” were satires properly speaking — at least so meant — the one of the rage for Lions and the facility of becoming onethe other of the extravagancies of Blackwood.(2) [page 11:]
Another friend, James Kirke Paulding, saw more clearly than John P. Kennedy that the problem of Poe's satire was its obscurity. White had asked him to try to interest Harpers in republishing Poe's stories and Paulding's explanation to White as to why Harpers declined is a just criticism of Poe's tales.
They (Harpers) have finally (the volume of stories) for the following reasons: . . . most especially they object that there is a degree of obscurity in their application, which will prevent ordinary readers from comprehending their drift, and consequently from enjoying the fine satire they convey. It requires a degree of famillarity with various kinds of knowledge whichh they do not possess, to enable them to relish the joke: the dish is too refined for them to banquet on. . . . I hope Mr. Poe will pardon me if the interest I feel in his success should prompt me to take this occasion suggest to him to apply his fine humor, and his extensive acquirements, to more familiar subjects of satire; to the faults and foibles of our own people, their peculiarities of hablts and manners, and above all to the ridiculous affectatlions and exe ra vaganecies of the fashionable English Literature of the day. . . . For satire to be relished, it is necesy that it should be leveled at something with which readers are familiar.(1)
The “obscurity in their application” which Paulding recognized this early has remained an impediment not only to the understanding of the “ordinary readers” but also to every student of Poe. In part, as we have seen, this obscurity might have disappeared had Poe ever published the Folio tales in their entirety. Yet it is doubtful whether that alone would have been sufficient. Merrill F. Helser, in [page 12:] his dissertation on early American satirists, concludes from their obscurity, and from Poe's fondness for hoaxes, that Poe intentionally erased the clues whereby his satires could be understood.(1) If Poe deliberately obscured his satiric references we have no evidence that it was a conscious, secondary act. More likely Poe's creative faculty accepted specific objects for his satire and then so mixed them and so adulterated them with miscellaneous bits of satire that it is repeatedly impossible to determine what the original objects of satire were.
It is not, however, until we study Poe's reviews that we make any marked progress in piecing together his views of satire. Poe's position as critic made it inevitable that he would be called upon, in August, 1841, to review such an important contemporary satire as L. A. Wilmer's The Quacks of Helicon. It is natural, too, that his study of this satire should stimulate him to express his own theories of satire. The Quacks of Helicon itself he praised; although he admitted it had its defects. He disliked its imitation of the satires of Dryden and Pope. The reference to Dryden and Pope indicates that Poe had, at least, a reading acquaintance with these two eighteenth century satirists. This “servility,” Poe feels, had led [page 13:] Wilmer into using false rhymes, gross obscenity, and “indiscriminate censure.”(1) “We cannot deny, it is true, that the satiric model of the days in question is insusceptible of improvement, and that the modern author who deviates therefrom must necessarily sacrifice something of merit at the shrine of originality.”(2) Obviously Poe felt that the modern satirist's only opportunity for literary success was to originate his own satiric manner, even though he sacrificed quality for it.
Poe's commendation of Wilmer is interesting, too, for it shows that Poe was aware of the dearth of good satire in America in his own day.
A satire, professedly such, at the present day, and especially by an American writer, is a welcome novelty indeed. We have really done very little in the line upon this side of the Atlantic — nothing certainly of importance — Trumbull's clumsy poem and Halleck's Croakers” to the contrary notwithstanding. Some things we have produced, to be sure, which were excellent in the way of burlesque, without intending a syllable that was not utterly solemn and serious. . . although in short, we are no satirists ourselves, there can be no question that we answer sufficiently well as subjects for satire.(3)
This paragraph laid down the basis of Poe's later reviews of satires. He added his individual concept of satire to : it, but, in the main, the idea that little good satire had been written, that some writers blundered into satire, and [page 14:] that Americans served well as subjects for satire, furnished the starting point for the later reviews. It is strange that Poe, having admittedly written satires which his later remarks show he still valued, left no opening for an appreciation of his own satire. Such modesty was not characteristic of him. This omission was corrected in his next review of a current satire, where he did leave room to include himself, if anyone wished, as a satirist.
By the time the foregoing review was published (1841) Poe had written over a dozen tales which satirized a wide variety of subjects. It is not probable that any of the tales he published after 1841 were among those he had originally intended for his projected Tales of the Folio Club, but of this we can not be sure. In September of the same year Poe published his “Never Bet the Devil Your Head.”(1) The story, which is a burlesque of the “moral” tale and a satire of the Transcendentalists, will be fully discussed in the chapter on the New England literati. Joseph Evans Snodgrass, a minor poet who frequently corresponded with him, seems to have been convinced that Poe was quarreling with The Dial, the literary organ of the Transcendentalists. Poe denies this. “My slaps at it (The Dial) were only in ‘a general way.’ The tale in [page 15:] in question is a mere Extravaganza levelled at no one in particular, but hitting right & left at things in general.”(1) Poe admits, by inference, that he was writing a satire, though not exclusively against The Dial. A close reading of the story reveals that Poe was more “particular” in his satire than he wished to admit; but we do get the idea that Poe preferred to load his satire in a blunderbus — bringing down what game he could — rather than depend on the success of a single, high-powered shot.
In 1841 Poe wrote another criticism involving a distinction which was to be incorporated into his concept of satire. Park Benjamin, an editor, writer, and lecturer of the eighteen-forties, was noted for his sharp, cutting wit. Poe commented on Benjamin's literary style thus:
As a prose writer, his style is lucid, terse, and pungent. He is often witty, often cuttingly sarcastic, but seldom humorous.(2)
By 1849 Poe was to conclude that sarcasm without humor disqualified one for writing satire. Had he reached that o el conclusion as early as 1841 Probably not; although he must have been considering the possibility if we may judge from the juxtaposition of sarcasm and humor.
Four years later, March 15, 1845, Poe reviewed Park Benjamin's satire, “Infatuation.”(3) In this review [page 16:] Poe drew heavily on his earlier review of Wilmer's satire, but there are additions and alterations which are significant.
In prose satire done at random in our newspapers and other journals, we have been by no means, as a people, deficient; but in verse we are scarcely so much satirists, as subjects of satire. We have had, to be sure, Trumbull ‘s clumsy “McFingal,” Halleck's “Croakers,” the “Vision of Rubeta,” with its sequel, and one or two other similar things, inclusive of a late volume of poems by William Ellery Channing, which we take to have been intended either for satire or burlesque, on the ground that it is impossible to comprehend them as anything else. But beyond these works (each of which has its peculiar merits and defects, we have really nothing to show a foreigner as a specimen of our satirical abilities done in verse. . . .
It seems to us, however, that we, here in America, have refused to encourage satire — not because what satire we have has touched us too personally — but because what we have had has been too despicably namby-pamby to touch anybody at all. . . . Let any vigorous, original, and fearless man of genius in America set himself to the task of composing a satire and there will be no longer any complaints of the American deficiency in this respect nor any need of transcendental reasons to account for it.(1)
Poe now, as he had not in his earlier review of Wilmer's satire, distinguishes between verse and prose satire. America, he says, is the equal of other countries in prose satire but not in verse satire. It is not a happenstance that Poe's own satires were in prose. This may well have been a veiled bid for recognition. Furthermore, where before Poe had charged “imitation,” he now charged “namby-pambyism.” American-nurtured satire was too weak. But most interesting of all is his appeal for an original, [page 17:] fearless man of genius to supply the deficiency in verse satire. Could Poe himself have planned to write a verse satire?(1) Probably his principle that the province of poetry was Beauty would have precluded such a plan, but the nature of his plea leaves the door open for speculation, since he certainly conceived of himself as just such a man.(2)
We have suggested that Poe may have had his own satires in mind when he wrote that America was inferior to none in prose satires. This is, in part, upheld by the criticism he made of Evert Duyckinck because Duyckinck's selection of Poe's tales did not represent Poe's “mind in its various phases.”(3)
In writing these Tales one by one, at long intervals, I have kept. the book-unity always in mind — that is, each has been composed with reference to its effect as part of a whole. In this view, one of my chief aims has been the widest diversity of subject, thought, & especially tone & manner of handling. Were all my tales now before me in a large volume and as compositions of another — the merit which would principally arrest my attention would be the wide diversity and variety. You will be surprised to hear me say that (omitting one or two of my first efforts) I do not consider any one of my stories better than another. There is a vast variety of kinds and, in degree of [page 18:] value, these kinds vary — but each tale is equally good of its kind. The loftiest kind is that of the highest imagination — and, for this reason only, “Ligeia” may be called my best tale.(1)
If Poe believed that each story was equally good of its kind then he must have felt that his satires should rank as high, among other satires, as his Gothic stories did among stories of their kind (though this has not been the usual evaluation of the stories). Also, the high opinion Poe seems to have had for all of his stories would go to disprove the contention that some were dashed off as hack work and were not meant to be taken seriously. We must realize, too, that Poe seems to have experimented in an attempt to get a wide variety of “manners” and “tones” in his fiction. It will be well to keep this in mind when we turn to a discussion of specific tales, for it explains, in part, why some of the satires do not completely jell; and why we find elements of the Gothic In his satiric tales and blts of satire in his Gothic tales.
Poe's final summation of his ideas on satire came in 1849, the last year of his life, when he reviewed Lowell's A Fable for Critics. Plaglarizing from himself, Poe adopted the ideas expressed in his earlier reviews of satirical works in 1841 and 1845; but here, as before, it is the twist he gave to the previously expressed ideas that interests us. [page 19:]
What have we Americans accomplished in the way of Satire? . . . Park Benjamin has written a clever address, with the title “Infatuation,” and Holmes has an occasional scrap, piquant enough in its way-but we can think of nothing more that can be fairly called “satire.” Some matters we have produced, to be sure, which were excellent in the way of burlesque — (the “Poems” of William Ellery Channing, for example )without meaning a syllable that was not utterly solemn and serious. . . .
It seems to us that, in America, we have refused to enourage satire — not because what we have had touches us too nearly — but because it has been too pointless to touch us at all. Its namby-pambyism has arisen, in part, from the general want, among our men of letters, of that minute polish — of that skill in detailswhich, in combination with natural sarcastic power, satire, more than any other form of literature, so imperatively demands. In part, also, we may attribute our failure to the colonial sin of imitation. . . .
“The Vision” by Langston [[Laughton]] Osborn is bold enough . . . — and bitter enough, and witty enough, if we forget its pitiable punning on names — and long enough (Heaven knows) and well constructed and decently versified; but it falls in the principal element of all satire — sarcasm — because the intention to be sarcastic (as in the “English Bards and Scotch Reviewers,” and in all the more classical satires) is permitted to render itself manifest. The malevolence appears. The author is never very severe, because he is at no time particularly cool. We laugh not so much at his victims as at himself for letting them put him in such a passion. And where a deeper sentiment than mirth is excited — where it is pity or contempt that we are made to feel — the feeling is too often reflected; in its object, from the satirized to the satirist — with whom we sympathize in the discomfort of his animosity. Mr. Osborn has not many superiors in downright invective: but this is the awkward left arm of the satiric Muse. That satire alone is worth talking about which at least appears to be the genial, good-humored outpouring of irrepressible merriment.(1)
Here, as earlier, there is the complaint about namby-pambyism, the failure of Americans to write good satires, and [page 20:] imitation of English authors. Up to this point the article is merely a rehashing of old objections. Fortunately these points are not the only ones Poe makes. Satire, Poe tells us, demands a minute polish, a skill in details, all combined with a natural sarcastic power.(1) We are reminded of Poe's earlier remark, in his letter to White, in which he explained that the type of writing he was doing required that “great attention must be paid to style, and much labour spent in their composition.”(2)
The principle element of satire is sarcasm, Poe admits, but the sarcasm must be velled. Any malevolence on the author's part will shift the reader's attention from the object of the satire to the satirist, thus destroying the effect of the satire.(3) The vell of merriment behind which the intentions of the satirist are hidden seems, in Poe's case, to have obscured the object of his satire while leaving exposed the satirist and his intentions to be satiric.
Poe does not rule out the use of invective in satire but he feels that it is the least artistic way to satirize. The only satire, in Poe's mind, that is worthy of the name is that in which the reader is carried along [page 21:] by the flood of the author's merriment. Probably one would not be going astray to reverse the statement and say that Poe felt that satire which did not amuse was not good satire.
Certain limitations of Poe's theory of satire, as far as he expressed it, are obvious. There seems to have been no place in it for the inclusion of irony as one of the elements. Also, that a reader might wince at satire, as with the bitter irony of Swift, rather than be amused seems not to have occurred to Poe. Certainly his emphasis on “merriment” is largely responsible for his occasional reputation as a humorist, based on what he conceived as satiric tales. For some reason Poe felt that to be the object of a guffaw was the most annihilating blow one could receive and it seems to have been the principle purpose of his satire to excite such a cachinnation.
In short, Poe's concept of satire seems to accept satire only on its lower planes: the low burlesque, the grotesque, the name-calling and the punning, the cloaking of the satirist's intentions in laughter. Further, Poe seems to have had only the haziest of concepts of any satiric norm. He never hints at the idea that satire involves awakening people to an implicit ideal. To him, on satire was valuable only as a means of exposing another person to ridicule. It was an extension of the literary wars he waged as an editor. [page 22:]
It is not primarily the purpose of this dissertation to concern itself with showing how Poe's concept of satire, as we have here assembled it, evidenced itself in his stories. Rather, our interest is in a more complete understanding of the individual satires and of their relationship to one another and to Poe's other fiction. There is no desire to claim that his satiric tales are good satire, or that he was a great satirist in the tradition of Fielding and Swift, or to reverse the usual low opinion of these tales; instead, the desire is to clarify the current faulty understanding of their intention and their specific meaning and to emphasize that one third of Poe's talesthe least successful or least permanently interesting — were satires in intention, not just weak attempts at humor or faulty grotesques. We shall be able to point out, from time to time, how Poe's concept of satire affected, or was reflected in, his writing of satires.
[The following footnotes appear at the bottom of page 3:]
1 James A. Harrison, The Complete Works of Edgar Allan Poe (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1902), XIII, 106.
2 James S. Wilson, “The Devil Was in It,” American Mercury, XXIV (October, 1931), pp. 214-20,
[The following footnote appears at the bottom of page 5:]
1 A. H. Quinn and E. H. O'Neill, The Complete Poems and Stories of Edgar Allan Poe (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1946, II, 946 ff.
[The following footnote appears at the bottom of page 6:]
1 Ibid., pp. 1021 ff.
[The following footnotes appear at the bottom of page 7:]
1 Arthur H. Quinn, Edgar Allan Poe: A Critical Biography (New York: D. Appleton-Century Company, 1942), 212, 745. Hereafter, for clarity, we shall refer in an abbreviated form to Professor Quinn's two separate works as: Quinn and O'Neill, Poems and Stories, and Quinn, Poe.
2 John W. Ostrom (ed.), The Letters of Edgar Allan Poe (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1948), I, 103-04. The number of Folio Club members seems to have grown, for originally Poe had listed eleven members.
[The following footnotes appear at the bottom of page 8:]
1 Harrison, op. cit., II, xxxvi. Just which of those tales he later published were to be included in the list of Folio tales has not been conclusively ascertained. For a discussion of this see J. S. Wilson, op. cit., 214 ff., and Quinn, Poe, 745-46.
2 “Bernice” and “Morella” had already been published and “Lionizing” had probably been submitted.
[The following footnotes appear at the bottom of page 9:]
1 Quinn, Poe, 210-12.
2 Ostrom, op. cit., I, 77.
[The following footnotes appear at the bottom of page 10:]
1 Quinn, Poe, pp. 240.
2 Ostrom, op. cit., I, 84.
[The following footnote appears at the bottom of page 11:]
1 Amos Le. Herold, James Kirke Pauldings Versatile American (New York: Columbia University Press, 1926), pp. 74-76.
[The following footnote appears at the bottom of page 12:]
1 Merrill F. Heiser, “Representative Early American Satirists” (Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Dept. of English, University of Wisconsin, 1947), p. 444.
[The following footnotes appear at the bottom of page 13:]
1 Quinn and O'Neill, Poems and Stories, II, 923.
2 Ibid., pp. 922-23.
3 Ibid., p. 922.
[The following footnote appears at the bottom of page 14:]
1 Quinn and O'Neill, Poems and Stories, I, 365.
[The following footnotes appear at the bottom of page 15:]
1 Ostrom, op. cit., I, 183.
2 Harrison, op. cit., XV, 183.
3 Harrison, ibid., XII, 107.
[The following footnote appears at the bottom of page 16:]
1 Ibid., pp. 107-09.
[The following footnotes appear at the bottom of page 17:]
1 A verse satire has been attributed to Poe by Oliver Leigh. See: Oliver Leigh, Edgar Allan Poe: The Man; The Master; The Martyr (Chicago: Frank M. Morris Co., 1906), pp. 18-44, However, Killis Campbell argues that the satire is not Poe's. See: Killis Campbell, The Mind of Poe and Other Studies (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1933), pp. 194-96.
2 Harrison, op. cit., XIV, 275.
3 Ostrom, op. cit., II, 328.
[The following footnote appears at the bottom of page 18:]
1 Ibid., pp. 328-29.
[The following footnote appears at the bottom of page 19:]
1 Harrison, op. cit., XIII, 165 ff.
[The following footnotes appear at the bottom of page 20:]
1 Ibid., p. 166
2 Quinn, Poe, p. 210. 3
3 Harrison, op. cit., XIII, 167-68.
∞∞∞∞∞∞∞
Notes:
None.
∞∞∞∞∞∞∞
[S:0 - WWJ51, 1951] - Edgar Allan Poe Society of Baltimore - Bookshelf - A Study of Edgar Allan Poe's Satiric Patterns (Whipple)