Text: Sieve, “Edgar A. Poe's Addenda to His ‘Eureka,’ with Comments,” Methodist Review (New York, NY and Cincinnati, OH), vol. XII, no. 1, January 1896, pp. 9-18

THESE extracts relate to, and constitute a part of, a letter written on February 29, 1848, by Edgar A. Poe to a correspondent still living in one of the States of our Union. Since Professor Stringham, of the California State University, has seen fit to publicly comment upon the matter embraced in these extracts, without having given aclear, comprehensive idea of the text of Poe's Addenda (refer to Mr. George E. Woodberry's Life of Poe), it seems but fair to all parties concerned, including such portion of the public as may have read the professor's strictures, that the lack be now supplied by a publication of the hitherto unpublished Addenda.

In the letter referred to Poe writes to his correspondent:

“I presume you have seen some newspaper notices of my late lecture upon the Universe. You could have gleaned, however, no idea of what the lecture was, from what the papers said it was. All praised it as far as I have yet seen, and all absurdly misrepresented it. . . . To eke out achance of your understanding what I really did say, I add a loose summary of my propositions and results.

. . . . . . . .

“By the by, lest you infer that myviews, in detail, are the same with those advanced in the Nebular Hypothesis, I venture to offer a few addenda, the substance of which was [page 10:] penned, though never printed, several years ago, under the head of

“ ‘A PREDICTION.’

“As soon as the beginning of the next century, it will be entered in the books that the Sun was originally condensed at once (not gradually, according to the supposition of Laplace) to his smallest size; that, thus condensed, he rotated on an axis; that this axis of rotation was not the centre of his figure, so that he not only rotated, but revolved in an elliptical orbit (the rotation and revolution are one, but I separate them for convenience of illustration); that, thus formed, and thus revolving, he was on fire and sent into space his substance in vapor, this vapor reaching farthest on the side of the larger (equatorial) hemisphere, partly on account of the largeness, but principally because the force of the fire was greater here; that, in due time, this vapor, not necessarily carried then to the place now occupied by Neptune, condensed into that planet; that Neptune took, as a matter of course, the same figure which the Sun had, which figure made his rotation a revolution in an elliptical orbit; that, in consequence of such revolution — in consequence of his being carried backward at each of the daily revolutions — the velocity of his annual revolution is not so great as it would be if it depended solely upon the Sun's velocity of rotation (Kepler's third law); that his figure, by influencing his rotation — the heavier half, as it turns downward toward the Sun, gains an impetus sufficient to carry it past the direct line of attraction, and thus, to throw outward the centre of gravity — gave him power to save himself from falling to the Sun; that he received, through a series of ages, the Sun's heat, which penetrated to his centre, causing volcanoes eventually, and thus throwing off vapor, and which evaporated substances upon his surface, till finally his moons and his gaseous ring (if it is true that he has a ring) were produced ; that these moons took elliptical forms, rotated and revolved, ‘both under one,’ were kept in their monthly orbits by the centrifugal force acquired in their daily orbits, and required alonger time to make their monthly revolutions, than they wouldhave required, if they had had no daily revolutions.

“I have said enough, without referring to the other planets, to give you an inkling of my hypothesis, which is all I intended [page 11:] to do. I did not design to offer any evidence of its reasonable- ness; since I have not, in fact, any collected, excepting as it is flitting, in the shape of a shadow, to and fro within my brain.

“You perceive that Ihold to the idea that our moon must rotate upon her axis oftener than she revolves round her primary, the same being the case with the moons accompanying Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus.

—————

“Since the penning, a closer analysis of the matter contained has led me to modify somewhat my opinion as to the origin of the satellites — that is, I hold now that these came,not from vapor sent off in volcanic eruptions and by simple diffusion under the solar rays,but from rings ofit which were left in the inter-planetary spaces, after the precipitation of the primaries. There is no insuperable obstacle in the way of the conception that meteoric stones and ‘ shooting stars’ have their source in matter which has gone off from volcanoes and by common evaporation ; but it is hardly supposable that a sufficient quantity could be produced thus, to make a body so large as, bycentrif- ugal force resulting from rotation, to withstand the absorptive power of its parent's rotation. The event implied may take place not until the planets have become flaming suns — from an accumulation oftheir own Sun's caloric, reaching from centre to surface, which shall in the lonesome latter days melt all the ‘elements’ and dissipate the solidfoundations out as a scroll.

“The sun forms, in rotating, a vortex in the ether surrounding him. The planets have their orbits lying within this vortex at different distances from its centre; so that their liabilities to be absorbed by it are, other things being equal, inversely just according to those distances, since length, not surface, is the measure of the absorptive power along the lines, marking the orbits. Each planet overcomes its liability — that is, keeps in its orbit — through a counter-vortex generated by its own rotation. The force of such counter-vortex is measured by multiplying together the producing planet's density and rotary velocity; which velocity depends, not upon the length of the planet's equatorial circumference, but upon the distance through which agiven point of the equator is carried during a rotary period.

“Then, if Venus and Mercury, for example, have now the same orbits in which they commenced their revolutions — the [page 12:] orbit of the former 68 million miles, and that of the latter *37 million miles from the centre of the Sun's vortex — ; if the diameter of Venus is 23 times the diameter, and her density is the same with the density of Mercury; and if the rotary velocity of the equator of Venus is 1,000 miles per hour; that of Mercury's equator is 1,900 miles per hour, making the diameter of his orbit of rotation 14,500 miles — nearly 5 times that of himself. But I pass this point, without farther examination. Whether there is or is not a difference in the relative conditions of the different planets sufficient to cause such diversity in the extents of their peripheries of rotation as is indicated, still each planet is to be considered to have, other things equal, a vortical resistance bearing the same proportion inversely to that of every other planet which its distance from the centre of the solar vortex bears to the distance of every other from the same; so that, ifit be removed inward or outward from its position, it will increase or diminish that resistance accordingly, by adding to or subtracting from its speed of rotation.

“Then, Mercury, at the distance of Venus, would rotate in an orbit only 37/68 as broad as the one in which he does rotate; so his centrifugal force, in that position, would be only 37/68 as great as it is in his own position; so his capability, while there, of resisting the forward pressure of the Sun's vortex, which prevents him from passing his full (circle) distance behind his centre of rotation and thus adds to his velocity in his annual orbit, would be but what it is in his own place. But that forward pressure is only as great at the distance of Venus as it is at that of Mercury. Then Mercury, with his own rotary speed in the annual orbit of Venus,would move in this orbit but as fast as Venus moves in it; while Venus, with her rotary speed in Mercury's annual orbit, would move 68/37 as fast as she moves in her own-that is, 68/37 of 68/37 as fast as Mercury would move in the same (annual orbit of Venus); it follows that the square root of 68/37 is the measure of the velocity of Mercury in his own annual orbit with his own rotary speed, compared with that of Venus in her annual orbit with her own rotary speed — in accordance with fact.

“Such is my explanation of Kepler's first and third laws, which laws cannot be explained on the principle of Newton's theory. [page 13:]

“Two planets gathered from portions of the Sun's vapor into one orbit would rotate through the same ellipse with velocities proportional to their densities — that is, the denser planet would rotate the more swiftly; since, in condensing, it would have descended further toward the Sun. For example, suppose the Earth and Jupiter to be the two planets in one orbit. The diameter of the former is (in round numbers) 8,000 miles; period of rotation, 24 hours. The diameter of the latter, 88,000 miles; period, 9 1/2 hours. The ring of vapor out of which the Earth was formed was of a certain (perpendicular) width; that out of which Jupiter was formed was of a certain greater width. In condensing, the springs of ether lying among the particles (these springshaving been latentbefore the condensation began) were let out, the number of them along any given radial line being the number of spaces among all the couples of the particles constituting the line. If the two condensations had gone on in simple diametric proportions, Jupiter would have put forth only 11 times as many springs as the Earth did, and his velocity would have been but11 times her velocity. But the fact that the falling downward of her particles was completed when they had got so far that 24 hours were required for her equator to make its rotary circuit, while that of his particles continued till but about 2/5 of her period was occupied by his equator in effecting its revolution, shows that his springs were increased above hers in still another ratio of 2 1/2, making, in the case, his velocity and his vortical force (2 1/2 × 11=) 27 times her velocity and force.

“Then the planets’ densities are inversely as their rotary periods, and their rotary velocities and degrees of centrifugal force are, other things being equal, directly as their densities.

—————

“Two planets, revolving in one orbit, in rotating would approach the Sun, therefore enlarge their rotary ellipsis, therefore accelerate their rotary velocities, therefore increase their powers ofwithstanding the influence of the solar vortex, inversely according to the products of their diameters into their densities — that is, the smaller and less dense planet, having to resist an amount of influence equal to that resisted by the other, would multiply the number of its resisting springs by the ratios of the other's diameter and density to the diameter and density of itself. [page 14:] Thus the Earth, in Jupiter's orbit, would have to rotate in an ellipse 27 times as broad as herself, in order to make her power correspond with his.

“Then, the breadths, in a perpendicular direction, of the rotary ellipses of the planets in their several orbits are inversely as the products obtained by multiplying together the bodies’ densities, diameters, and distances from the centre of the solar vortex. Thus, the product of Jupiter's density, diameter, and distance being(2) times 11times 5 =) 140 times the product of theEarth's density, diameter, and distance, the breadth of the latter's ellipse is about 1,120,000 miles; this, upon the foundation, of course, that Jupiter's ellipse coincides precisely with his own equatorial diameter. It will be observed that that process, in its last analysis, presents the point that rotary speed (hence that vortical force) is in exact inverse proportion to distance. Then, since the movement in orbit is a part of the rotary movement — being the rate at which the centre of the rotary ellipse is carried along the line marking the orbit — and since that centre and the planet's centre are not identical, the former being the point around which the latter revolves, causing, by the act, a relative loss of time in the inverse ratio of the square root of distance as I have shown, back; the speed in orbit is inversely accord- ing to the square root of distance. Demonstration — The Earth's orbital period contains 3654 of her rotary periods. During these periods, her equator passes through adistance of (1,120,000×22×3651=) about 1,286 million miles ; and the centre of her rotary ellipse, through a distance of (95,000,000×2× 2=) about 597 million miles. Jupiter's orbital period has (3651x 21×12 years=) about 10,957 of his rotary periods, during which his equator courses (688,000× 22× 10,957=) about 3,050 million miles; and the centre of his rotary ellipse, about the same number of miles (490,000,000×2× 2). Dividing this distance by 12 (3050000000/12) gives the length of Jupiter's double journey during one of the Earth's orbital periods=254 million miles. Relative velocities in ellipse (1 ) 5 plus to 1, which is inversely as the distances; and relative velocities in orbit (597/254) 2 plus to 1, inversely as the square roots of the distances.

—————

“The Sun's period of rotation being 25 days, his density is only of that of a planet having a period of 24 hours — that [page 15:] of Mercury, for instance. Hence Mercury has, for the purpose now in view, virtually, a diameter equal to a little more than 1/12 of that of the Sun (888 =35,520 ; 3000-11.84 ;35520-11.848) — say, 75,000 miles.

“Here we have a conception of the planet in the mid-stage, so to speak, of its condensation — after the breaking up of the vaporous ring which was to produce it, and just at the taking on of the globular form. But before the arrival at this stage, the figure was that of a truck the vertical diam- eter of which is identifiable in the periphery of the globe (75,000×2=) 236 thousand miles. Halfwaydown this diame- ter the body settled into its (original) orbit rather, would have settled, had it been the only one,besides its parent, in the Solar System-an orbit distant from the Sun's equator (2360000=) 118,000 miles; and from the centre of the solar vortex (118,000+880) 562 thousand miles. To this are to be added, successively, the lengths of the semidiameters of the truck of Venus, of the Earth, and so on outward.

“Then, the planets’ original distances — rather, speaking strictly, the widths from the common centre to the outer limits of their rings of vapor — are pointed at. From them, as foundations, the present distances inay be deduced. A simple outline of the process to the deduction is this: Neptune took his orbit first; then Uranus took his. The effect of the coming into closer conjunction of the two bodies was such as would be produced by bringing each so much nearer the centre of the solar vortex. Each enlarged its rotary ellipse and increased its rotary velocity in the ratio of the decrease of distance. Asecondary result the final consequence — of the enlargement and the increase was the propulsion of each outward, the square root of the relative decrease being the measure of the length through which each was sent. The primary result, of course, was the drawing of each inward; and it is fairly presumable that there were oscillations inward and outward, outward and inward, during several successive periods of rotation. It is probable — at any rate, not glaringly improbable — that, in the oscillations across the remnants of the rings of vapor (supposing that these were not completely gathered into the composition of the bodies),portions of the vapor were whirled into satellites,which followed inthe last passage outward. [page 16:]

“Saturn's ring (I have no allusion to the rings now existing), as well as that of each of the other planets after him, while it was gradually being cast off from the Sun's equator, was carried along in the track of its next predecessor, the distance here being the full quotient (not the square root of the quotient) found in dividing by the breadth to its own periphery that to the periphery of the other. Thus, reckoning for Uranus a breadth of 17 million, and for Saturn one of 14 million, miles, the latter (still in his vaporous state) was conducted outward (through a sort of capillary attraction) 14 as far as the former (after condensation) was driven by means of the vortical influence of Neptune. The new body and the two older bodies interchanged forces, and another advance outward (of all three) was made. Combining all of the asteroids into one of the Nine Great Powers, there were eight stages of the general movement away from the centre; and, granting that we have, exact, the diameters and the rotary periods (i. e., the densities) of all the participants in the movement, the measurement of each stage, by itself, and of all the stages together, can be calculated exactly.”

Having now given Poe's “ Addenda” transcribed from the letter referred to, we in turn will venture to do a little proving upon those assumptions-for-criticisms of Professor Stringham, which we cite, substantially in full, as follows:

“Poe's purely scientific speculations are mainly contained in the unpublished ‘Addenda’ to a report of a lecture on ‘The Universe,’ sent to a correspondent. . . . They exhibit, once more, Poe's tenacity of mind — the sleuthhound persistence of intellectual pursuit; but, like his metaphysics, they represent a waste of power. They are, moreover, characterized by extraordinary errors. Some of the data are quite imaginative, it being impossible to determine what are the facts. Some of

them are quite wrong. The density of Jupiter, for example, in a long and important calculation, is constantly reckoned as two and a half; whereas it is only something more than one fifth; and the densities of the planets are described as being inversely as their rotary periods; whereas in any table of the elements of the solar system some wide departures from this rule are observable. [page 17:]

“Again, it is stated that Kepler's first and third laws ‘ cannot be explained upon the principle of Newton's theory;’ but in fact they follow by mathematical deduction from it. Poe's own explanation of them is merely a play upon figures.

“A striking instance of fundamental ignorance of astronomical science is his statement, at various places, that the planets rotate (on their own axes) in elliptical orbits, and the reference he frequently makes to the breadth of their orbits (the breadth of their paths through space), agreeably to this supposition. Such a theory is incompatible with the Newtonian law of gravitation, according to which any revolution in an elliptical orbit implies a source of attraction at the focus of the ellipse. . . . To make the proper rotations of the planets themselves take place about a focus, which would be merely a point moving in an elliptical orbit about the sun, would be to give them an arbitrary motion, with no force to produce it.”

This complaint from Professor Stringham presents three distinct items, two of which can be met by plain, easy arithmetical ciphering; while the other horn of the dilemma may be knocked off through logical reasoning from presumably approved premises. Before commencing our surgery we will propound two or three direct questions at the professor. Is not the “table,” to which you call attention, that old one, measuring compactness in precise accordance with Newton's rule for fixing gravitating tendency — that is, by finding the ratios of distances from the centers of gravity (the phrase being, here, convertible into centers of density!)? Did not the table record Mercury as the closest-grained; Venus, next; Earth, third; so on, outward? Have not you (judges in the case) already taken wide “departures” with respect to the three planets named? If you have discarded one part of the regulation, what feasible ground have you for holding to any other part ?

The undisputed premises of which we spoke are, that the planets were originally diffused particles, and that these began to fall together — in other words, took a step toward a rotary movement. Every particle put forth a spring of velocity. The sum of the springs indicates the number of the pieces deposited within a given compass and the narrowing of the spaces among them. Condensation and speed of descent go abreast. Swift rotation necessarily means correspondingly near contact. [page 18:]

As to the mathematical deduction of Kepler's two laws from the Newtonian code, this code declares that gravity is multiplied in exact proportion to the square of decrease in distance; that the same drawing force is (was) the cause of the planetary revolutions about the source of itself. Then by inference which cannot truthfully be gainsaid these revolutions must be hastened in complete union with the application of the enlarged power- that is, orbital velocities are obliged to be accelerated by square; “whereas “ Kepler demonstrates that the augmentation is gauged by the square root.

As to the breadths of elliptical rotary orbits, let the professor start the earth upon her course about the sun. Her center coincides with a point of the approximately even — unswitched — curve of her average orbit. He insists that such position is kept, always — that the height from that center to the equatorial periphery of her figure will be forever that from the pivot to the circle of rotation. Well, she advances along the orbit at the rate, say, of 67,000 miles per hour. Take notice that this is the measure of the center's progress. Of course, since the axial turning (also forward) continues, the circumference has to go a little faster. Surely the critic will need no farther guidance by us to enable him to deduce mathematically (by a “play upon figures”?) the inevitable fact that each rotation will be performed in fewer than twenty-three minutes, hence that there will be more than 23,000 “days” in a single “year” (reckoning radius of orbit 93,000,000 miles).

By consulting some of the recent issues of the London periodical entitled Nature Professor Stringham will discover that the self same ill-begotten elliptical monster, exorcised by him from the “Addenda,” has been offered in attempted elucidation of the lifting of latitude, discussions of which he no doubt has read. Our closing advice to him is that he construct a machine consisting of an unbalanced wheel upon an axle ; that he ascend with it in a balloon; set it revolving, withdraw the axle, letting it down whirling. Will — can — it describe any other than elliptical figures? Furthermore, is it possible for him to even imagine (intelligently) the formation of a perfect sphere, such as his plan provides for, out of atoms hanging loose and huddling indiscriminately in space?

[[Footnotes]]

[The following footnote appears at the bottom of page 9:]

* Being Extracts from Siftings, by Sieve. Copyrighted in 1889, but not hitherto published.

[[The following appears as editorial, pp. 111-115:]]

For several years a revival of interest in the singular genius of Edgar Allan Poe and its strange products has been noticeable both in America and Europe, particularly in France. For the purpose of obtaining money to start a monthly magazine which he was ambitious to establish, Poe, who by reason of his irregularities and intemperance was chronically impecunious, delivered at the Society Library in New York city on February 9, 1848, a lecture on the cosmogony of the universe. One who heard it says: “It was a stormy night, and there were not more than sixty persons present. . . . His lecture was a rhapsody of the most intense brilliancy. He appeared inspired, and his inspiration affected the scant audience almost painfully. His eyes seemed to glow like those of his own Raven, and he kept us entranced for two hours and a half.” This lecture appears in his published works under the title of “Eureka, a Prose Poem,” filling one hundred duodecimo pages. Its brief Preface is:

To the few who love me and whom I love to those who feel rather than to those who think-to the dreamers and those who put faith in dreams as in the only realities — I offer this Book of Truths, not in its character of Truth-Teller, but for the Beauty that abounds in its Truth; constituting it true. To these I present the composition as an Art- Product alone: — let us say as a Romance; or, if I be not urging too lofty a claim, as a Poem. What I here propound is true: — therefore it cannot die: — or if by any means it be now trodden down so that it die, it will “rise again to the Life Everlasting.” Nevertheless it is as a Poem only that I wish this work to be judged after I am dead.

As to the motive of “Eureka,” he says at the beginning of the essay: “I design to speak of the Physical, Metaphysical, and Mathematical — of the Material and Spiritual Universe: — of its Essence, its Origin, its Creation, its Present Condition and its [page 112:] Destiny. I shall be so rash, moreover, as to challenge the conclusions, and thus, in effect, to question the sagacity, of many of the greatest and most justly reverenced of men.”

Remarking that “whatever the mathematicians may assert, there is, in this world at least, no such thing as demonstration,” he states his general proposition thus: “In the Original Unity of the First Thing lies the Secondary Cause of All Things, with the Germ of their Inevitable Annihilation.” To illustrate and illuminate this proposition he takes a comprehensive survey of the universe, meaning by “universe” “the utmost conceivable expanse of space, with all things, spiritual and material, that can be imagined to exist within the compass of that expanse.” And this makes up his “Eureka,” of which Mr. R. W. Griswold, whom Poe appointed his literary executor, writes:

To the composition of the work he brought his subtlest and highest capacities, in their most perfect development. Denying that the arcana of the universe can be explored by induction, but informing his imagination with the various results of science, he entered with unhesitating boldness, though with no guide but the divinest instinct that sense of beauty in which our great Edwards recognizes the flowering of all truth — into the sea of speculation, and there built up of according laws and their phenomena, as under the influence of a scientific inspiration, his theory of nature. I will not attempt the difficult task of condensing his propositions; to be apprehended they must be studied in his own terse and simple language; but in this we have a summary of that which he regards as fundamental:

“The law which we call Gravity,” he says, “exists on account of matter having been radiated, at its origin, atomically, into a limited sphere of space, from one individual, unconditional, irrelative, and absolute Particle Proper, by the sole process in which it was possible to satisfy at the same time the two conditions, radiation and equable distribution throughout the sphere — that is to say, by a force varying in direct proportion with the squares of the distances between the radiated atoms, respectively, and the particular center of radiation.”

Poe was thoroughly persuaded that he had discovered the great secret; that the propositions of “Eureka” were true; and he was wont to talk of the subject with a sublime and electrical enthusiasm which they cannot have forgotten who were familiar with him at the period of its publication. He felt that an author known solely by his adventures in the lighter literature, throwing down the gauntlet to professors of science, could not expect absolute fairness, and he had no hope but in discussions led by wisdom and candor. Meeting me, he said, “Have you read ‘ Eureka?” I answered, “ Not yet; “ I have just glanced at the notice of it by Willis, who thinks it contains no more fact than fantasy, and I am sorry to see — sorry if it be true — suggests that it corresponds in tone with that gathering of sham and obsolete hypotheses addressed to fanciful tyros, the Vestiges of Creation; and our good and really wise friend Bush . . . thinks that, while you may have guessed very shrewdly, it would not be difficult to suggest many difficulties in the way of your doctrine.” “It is by no means in genuous,” he replied, “ to hint that there are such difficulties, and yet to leave them unsuggested. I challenge the investigation of every point in the book. I deny that there are [page 113:] any difficulties which I have not met and overthrown. Injustice is done me by the application of the word ‘guess.’ I have assumed nothing, and proved all.”

Mr. Griswold's own opinion of “Eureka” is given by him as follows: “I could not help but think it immeasurably superior as an illustration of genius to the Vestiges of Creation; and as I admired the poem (except the miserable attempt at humor in what purports to be a letter found in a bottle floating on the Mare Tenebrarum) so I regretted its pantheism, which is not necessary to its main design.”

To some of the criticisms of objectors Poe made answer in the following characteristic letter to the editor of the Literary World, Mr. C. F. Hoffman:

Dear Sir: In your paper of July 29 I find some comments on ‘Eureka,’ a late book of my own . . . I feel that I might safely claim the right, which every author has, of replying to his critic tone for tone that is to say, of answering your correspondent, flippancy by flippancy and sneer by sneer — but, in the first place, I do not wish to disgrace the World; and in the second, I feel that I should never be done sneering, in the present instance, were I once to begin. Lamartine blames Voltaire for the use which he made of (ruse) misrepresentation, in his attacks on the priesthood; but our young students of Theology do not seem to be aware that in defense, or in what they fancy to be defense, of Christianity, there is anything wrong in such gentlemanly peccadilloes as the deliberate perversion of an author's text — to say nothing of the minor indecora of reviewing a book without reading it and without having the faintest suspicion of what it is about.

You will understand that it is merely the misrepresentations of the critique in question to which I claim the privilege of reply. . . The first misrepresentation is contained in this sentence: “This letter is a keen burlesque on the Aristotelian or Baconian method of ascertaining truth, both of which the writer ridicules and despises, and pours forth his rhapsodical ecstasies in a glorification of the third mode — the noble art of guessing.” What I really say is this: That there is no absolute certainty either in the Aristotelian or Baconian process — that, for this reason, neither philosophy is so profound as it fancies itself and that neither has aright to sneer at that seemingly imaginative process called intuition (by which the great Kepler attained his laws); since intuition, after all, is but the conviction arising from those inductions, or deductions, of which the processes are so shadowy as to escape our consciousness, elude our reason, or defy our capacity of expression. The second misrepresentation runs thus: “The developments of electricity

and the formation of stars and suns, luminous and nonluminous, moons and planets, with their rings, etc., are deduced, very much according to the nebular theory of Laplace, from the principle propounded above.” Now the impression intended to be made here upon the reader's mind, by the “Student of Theology, “ is evidently that my theory may be all very well in its way, but that it is nothing but Laplace over again with some modifications that he (the “Student of Theology”) cannot regard as at all important. I have only to say that no gentleman can accuse me of the disingenuousness here implied; inasmuch as, having proceeded with my theory up to that point at which Laplace's theory meets it, I then give Laplace's theory in full, with the expression of my firm conviction of its absolute [page 114:] truth at all points. The ground covered by the great French astronomer compares with that covered by my theory, as a bubble compares with the ocean on which it floats; nor has he the slightest allusion to “the principle propounded above,” the principle of Unity being the source of all things — the principle of Gravity being merely the Reaction of the Divine Act which irradiated all things from Unity. In fact, no point of my theory has been even so much as alluded to by Laplace. . . . The third misrepresentation lies in a footnote, where the critic says: “Further than this, Mr. Poe's claim that he can account for the existence of all organized beings — man included — merely from those principles on which the origin and present appearance of suns and worlds are explained, must be set down as mere bold assertion, without a particle of evidence. In other words, we should term it arrant fudge.” The perversion at this point is involved in a willful misapplication of the word “principles.” I say “willful,” because, at page 63, I am particularly careful to distinguish between the principles proper, Attraction and Repulsion, and those merely resultant sub-principles which control the universe in detail. To these sub-principles, swayed by the immediate spiritual influence of Deity, I leave, without examination, all that which the “Student of Theology” so roundly asserts I account for on the principles which account for the constitution of suns, etc.

In the third column of his “review” the critic says: “He asserts that each soul is its own God — its own Creator.” What I do assert is that “each soul is, in part, its own God — its own Creator.” Just below the critic says: “After all these contradictory propoundings concerning God we would remind him of what he lays down on page 28 — ‘of this Godhead in itself he alone is not imbecile, he alone is not impious who propounds nothing’ — : a man who thus conclusively convicts himself of imbecility and impiety needs no further refutation.” Now the sentence, as I wrote it, and as I find it printed on that very page which the critic refers to and which must have been lying before him while he quoted my words, runs thus: “Of this Godhead, in itself, he alone is not imbecile, etc., who propounds nothing.” By the italics, as the critic well knew, I design to distinguish between the two possibilities — that of a knowledge of God through his works and that of a knowledge of him in his essential nature. The Godhead, in itself, is distinguished from the Godhead observed in its effects. But our critic is zealous. Moreover, being a divine, he is honest — ingenuous. It is his duty to pervert my meaning by omitting my italics — just as, in the sentence previously quoted, it was his Christian duty to falsify my argument by leaving out the two words, “in part,” upon which turns the whole force — indeed, the whole intelligibility of my proposition.

Were these “misrepresentations” (is that the name for them?) made for any less serious a purpose than that of branding my book as “impious” and myself as a “pantheist,” a “polytheist,” a Pagan, or a God knows what (and indeed I care very little so it be not a “Student of Theology”) I would have permitted their dis- honesty to pass unnoticed, through pure contempt for the boyishness — for the turn-down-shirt-collar-ness of their tone; but, as it is you, you will pardon me, Mr. Editor, that I have been compelled to expose a “critic,” who, courageously preserving his own anonymosity, takes advantage of my absence from the city to misrepresent and thus vilify me by name.

EDGAR A. POE.

Fordham, September 20, 1848.

We have printed thus much concerning Poe's “ Eureka” in order that our readers may better understand the first article in [page 115:] this number of the Review as well as our reason for publishing it; although, of course, no one can fully comprehend that article except by reading it in connection with the “Eureka,” of which it is in reality an extension and continuation. That no scientific or practical worth was ever attached to Poe's “Eureka” by anybody but himself hardly requires to be stated. Its only value is as the gravest undertaking of a strange and unnatural genius, the most surprising freak of an acute and brilliant but unbalanced mind. He spent most of the year 1848 perfecting this “last and grandest effort of his genius,” expounding it to occasional visitors at his poverty-stricken home in Fordham with feverish intensity, amazing splendor of diction, and entire positiveness of belief. Twenty days after Poe delivered “Eureka” as a lecture in New York city he wrote the letter which is referred to in the first article of our present number and which contained Poe's Addenda — “A PREDICTION” — that constitutes the greater part of that article. The latter portion of the article is made up of comments bythe person to whom Poe wrote the letter — comments on Professor Stringham's criticisms upon Poe's Addenda. In the Addenda there is, of course, no value different from, or other than, that which belongs to the “Eureka,” to which it is a supplement. The Review presents it as a literary curiosity, unpublished until now, apropos of the Poe revival and made the more interesting by the near approach of “the beginning of the next century,” by which time Poe expected, as he wrote in his “Prediction,” that his theory would be accepted by scientists and put into their books.