All of the July reviews may be assigned to Poe with confidence, despite the fact that there is external evidence for only a few. The method of the “House of Lords” is one Poe often uses; an introductory paragraph — general facts about the author and the background of the book, a comparison with some earlier work; and a chapter by chapter discussion. Two passages will place this review:

Mrs. Sigourney wrote Poe, June 11, 1836:

This must have reached Poe Just at the time when he was looking for things to review for the July issue. The notice begins:

“For a multiplicity of error an this head (faculty of Memory) Leibnitz and Locke are responsible” (H, IX, 65; SLM, II, 505) : so thought Poe.

this was only four or five months after the probable awakening of Poe's interest in this subject. The evidence seems strong enough to allow the notice to be given Poe with an asterisk,

In the November, 1841, review of Guy Fawkes in Graham's,

Poe wrote:

In the July review of The Doctor:

Nothing more need be pointed out, save that the whole is characteristic of Poe.

The method of “Raumer's England” is that of “The house of Lords,” a usual one with Poe: a paragraph of general information and introduction, one on the author and his earlier works, one on the translator, and then a general survey of the book in hand. The point of view here manifested reveals Poe. The whole is in the style he adopts in writing of social and political questions. Several passages are indicative:

In “Memoirs“of an American Lady” one finds again the attitude toward anecdotes and memoirs as important material for history which has been pointed out several times. There is a verbal echo of a sentence in “Peregrination, ” June, 1836. Here: “The book, moreover, is full of good things...” (H, IX, 70; SLM, II, 511); there: “This epistle is full of ... all good things” (H, IX, 37; SLM, II, 442).

This notice has the method of the “House of Lords” and “Raumer's England.” One recognizes here Poe's penchant for ferreting out sources:

This French work is discussed briefly in “Marginalia.”(1) There [page 142:] is here, also, another instance of his distinctive use of the adverb “sufficiently:” “These latter, are, for the most part, well conceived — some are sufficiently outré” (H, IX, 72; SLM, II, 513).

On May 25, 1835, White wrote Tucker:

It is not likely that these “Poems” are the Erato reviewed in July, 1836; it is less likely that Tucker would submit fifteen months late a notice which he was not asked to do. The notice is inevitably Poe's. One need only read these sentences:

The twenty-eight line notice of Life on the Lakes contains a criticism of a sort that will be observed Inter in the review of Skimmings, October, 1836:

One other sentence, in particular, should be noted: [page 143:]

In the notice of Russia and the Russians twenty-two of the thirty-two lines are devoted to a comparison of it and Raumer's England, reviewed by Pop in this number. It is evident that both reviews are from the same pen.

This supplement consists of notices of the Messenger gathered from Magazines all over the country. One column concerns us here. Poe quotes a criticism from the Newbern Spectator, a criticism of his critical attitude in general and of his captiousness about Lieutenant Slidell's grammar, in the May review of Spain Revisited, in particular. Half of Poe's reply is devoted to a defence of his attack on a certain sentence in the review which the Spectator has singled out. The other half is an adducing of evidence that his criticisms have been well received by the authors of the books reviewed. Specifically he mentions Halleck, Drake, Slidell, Anthon, Paulding, Mrs. Sigourney, and Walsh. For each of the reviews of these authors there is sufficient proof outside this column that they are definitely Poe's — excepting only “Walsh's Didactics.” This seems, then, conclusive enough to warrant the inclusion of that also in the canon with an asterisk. [page 144:]

The small volume was the Poems of 1831; the passages are revised and corrected slightly. [page 145:]

This long collection Of literary curiosities, much in the manner of the later “Marginalia,” “Literary Small Talk,” and “Suggestions, ” is not signed: there can be no doubt, however, that Poe is the author. One finds here odd bits of knowledge which Poe used over and over again in his later works.(1)

Again, in August all the reviews may safely be given to Poe. The notice of Dewey's The Old World and the New begins by taking issue with the author's statement “that his volumes are not offered to the public as an itinerary.” They are, says the reviewer, strictly an itinerary of the most “scrupulous accuracy;”

The whole review is typical of Poe.

Poe wrote that Richardson's Dictionary was worked out “upon the principles of Horne Tooke, the greatest of philosophical grammarians” (H, IX, 105; SLM, II, 583). Three other references [page 146:] to Tooke were noted in the discussion of the notice of the Edinburgh Review, for December, 1835. the last paragraph but one of the August notice cites and effectively, insidiously, tears down a criticism of the work in the North American Review, The last paragraph is characteristic of Poe, when he is reviewing certain kinds of things:

On May 17, 1845, in the Broadway Journal, there appeared a review, “Old English Poetry — The Book of Gems. Edited by S. C. Hall,” which examination shows to have been rewritten from the August, 1836, review of the Book of Gems. The first column and a half of the earlier review are omitted in the later, XII, 139, 11.5-25, from IX, 94, 11.1-20. XII, 139, 1.25 to 140, 1.6, from IX, 95, 1.33 to 96, 1.8. XII, 140, 11.7-9, from IX, 94, 11.28-30. XII, 140, 1.9 to 141, 1.6 from IX, 94, 1.50 to 95, 1.31. XII, 141, 1.7 to 146, 1.7, from IX, 96, 11.13-21, and 96, 1.24 to and 101, 1.1 to 103, 1.19.(2) The majority of these lines are unchanged. Again, in the August, 1836, review Poe writes: [page 147:]

Compare the review of Drake, in April, 1836 (H, VIII, 292-303).

This statement, found in the January, 1837, notice of Reynold's Address,(1) establishes the August review, “The South Sea Expedition,” as Poe's. Were there any doubt, for which I think there is no basis, as to the references of the “we,” a comparison of the two reviews would be convincing.

In this number are two tomahawking review — reviews only less caustic than those of Norman Leslie and Paul Ulric — reviews of the sort that went for to establish Poe's reputation. There is no need here to put on parade internal evidence, though it itself it is overwhelmingly convincing; there exists satisfactory evidence of an external sort. “Lafitte” begins:

In “Autography,” Graham's Magazine, November, 1841, Poe expressed succinctly the opinion of Mr. Ingrahm as a novelist [page 148:] which he develops here.(1) In the next installment of “Autography,” one month later, he wrote:

In the Lafitte review Poe writes:

This notice has been discussed under another head.(2)

After the discussions of the February and May reviews of Slidell, it is necessary to quote only the first sentence of “A year in Spain:”

This notice rollicks along in Poe's best manner. Two sentences will be sufficiently suggestive:

This review has already been given to Poe.(1)

When one observes that Draper's Lecture was printed by White, one knows what to expect of the notice. Consisting of only ten lines, it begins equivocally:

What follows is calculated to warm the hearts of both White and Draper. This sort of thing Poe did on occasion.

In the “Autography” appearing in Graham's, November, 1841, Poe wrote, speaking of Lieber's works:

The notice of Lieber's Memorial has:

This evidence is conclusive. [page 150:]

Aside from the first two sentences in the notice of The History of Texas, there is little to afford ground for speculation; these are, however, suggestive:

And there is no reason for suspecting that it is not Poe's.

In the “Autography” article in the August, 1836, Messenger, Poe wrote in the person of Joseph A. B. C. D. &c. Miller:

Aside from the two line announcement in August, 1835, of the republication in the Liverpool Journal of Pencillings, there is no other review of Willis in the Messenger, of this period, except the August, 1836, “Inklings of Adventure.” In this seven column review, Poe does “do him justice.” Pointing out his faults — affectations, invariable disregard for “totality of effect,” little feeling for incident; he likewise points out his merits — a style of delicacy, force, grace, and beauty, unsurpassable in its ray; a gift for sentiment and badinage; sufficient scholarship; great command of language and an inimitable turn for figurative expression. [page 151:]

Here is a typical sentence:

Again this article is not signed. There is no lack of evidence, however; evidence which there is no need here to present.(1)

There has been some confusion arising from a statement in a letter Poe wrote on September 2, 1836, in reply to certain, charges made by the Richmond Courier and Daily Compiler: “Since the commencement of my editorship in December last ninety-four books have been reviewed” (H, VIII, xiii). He then proceeds to point out that in only five cases has censure been “greatly predominant,” and only three are “harshly condemnatory;” while in seventy-nine “commendation has ... largely predominated,” and in seven, “praise slightly prevails” (H, VIII, xiii-xiv). All of the seventeen which Poe mentions specifically are indubitably his; but Harrison interpreted this statement to mean that Poe admitted the writing of ninety-four reviews from December, 1835, [page 152:] through August, 1836.

As Campbell pointed out: “... Poe's statement ... does not fully warrant the inference made.”(1) Following his interpretation, however, Harrison made of it a finding method. There are in the Messenger for this period ninety-four reviews;(2) but Harrison does not solve his problem as simply as accepting them en masse. He has worked out a table of distribution, which, according to my canon at least, is full of errors. For December he lists twenty-three, which is the number I have given to Poe, excluding two, the notice of the Orations on Marshall and “Robinson's Practice,” both of which he includes. Omitting all of the periodical reviews except that of the Edinburgh Review, he makes up his twenty-three by listing the “Heroine” twice, including here “Latrobe's Rambler,” which did not appear until January, 1836, and by counting as two the notice of Story's and Binney's orations on Marshall. For January instead often he gets nine, through misdating “Latrobe's Rambler,” for the purposes of this tabulation, the trilogy review of Mrs. Sigourney, Miss Gould, and Mrs. Ellet must be counted separately;(2) this makes for January twelve reviews. For February Harrison counts all eleven of the reviews, although he expresses doubt about the [page 153:] “Marshall” and does rot include the “Autobiography” in his not both of these I have omitted, giving me for this month, nine. Including all the reviews, his numbers for March (five), July (nine), and August (thirteen), tally with mine. Failing to count the Drake-Halleck review as two,(1) but including the Tucker review of Paulding's Slavery, he has three for April. In May he includes the review, signed “Q” of Mellen's Poems to make seven; here I have six. In June he has eight, whereas dropping the review of Maury's Navigation gives me seven. Adding these figures, Harrison gets eighty-eight reviews, to which he adds three, apparently gotten from the Sigourney-Gould-Ellet and the Drake-Halleck reviews, to which he adds three editorials, finally getting the desired ninety-four.(2) The number of reviews in my canon for this period is, counting the January and April reviews as Poe did, eighty-seven; or, counting those five as two, eight-four. Of those I have omitted, the two reviews of the Orations on Marshall, “Paulding's Slavery,” “Mellen's Poems” are definitely not Poe's; and though there is no decisive external evidence in retards to “Carey's “Autobiography,” the internal is satisfactory. Poe's statement, then, is a natural generality; it is impossible to manipulate figure skillfully enough to get ninety-four Poe reviews from December, 1835 [page 154:] through August, 1836. It should be noted again, however, that all of the reviews which he mentions specifically are his.

As Harrison and Campbell point out,(1) “Philothea,” the first review in the September number, Poe used again, almost without change, in the Broadway Journal, May 31, 1845, in “Literati,” in Godey's Lady's Book, September, 1846, Poe gave briefly the opinion of the book which he had expanded in the review:

In the review he writes:

Thus, in the first sentence, “Sheppard Lee” is linked with “Philothea.” After a brief introduction, and a lengthy, but [page 155:] witty resumé, the critic enters into a long; discussion of the philosophy of this sort of novel, and of the success and failure of Dr. Bird. The first part: of the review are strongly suggestive; as to the last, there can, I think, be no doubt that Poe is the critic. One passage will serve for illustration:

Here is the secret of “Hans Phaal,” of Arthur Gordon Pym, and of all Poe's wonder stories.

Two like expressions of Chorley's musical abilities have already been quoted.(1) In the review of Hazlitt's Remains Poe writes: [page 156:]

This parallelism cannot be in itself conclusive, but there is support in the review:

The review begins:

Then follows a resume o’ the plot in the “Leslie” and “Ulric” style. The last sentence:

The whole thing is done in Poe's most mordant, most amusing manner.

Poe says here;

The reviewer then explains that he is referring to the “too frequent use of primitive meanings, and the origination of words at will, to suit the purposes of the moment” (H, IX, 159; SLM, II, 717).

This is Poe in tone and attitude and practice.

Three memoirs are reviewed this month, obviously by Poe, The method of the five column and a half review of Wraxall's Memoirs is characteristic; first, the conditions back of the [page 158:] delayed publication; then, general comments, a listing of the chief characters, and a retelling of certain anecdotes and scandals, of Wraxall he writes:

This notice has been shown to be Poe's in the discussion of the December, 1835, notice of the Almanac for 1836.

This notice has been shown to be, in my opinion, Poe's in the discussion of the May, 1836, notice of an earlier number of the same work.

On October 17, 1836, T. R. Dew, president of William and Mary, wrote Poe:

He then gives some information which Foe had evidently requested as material for a notice of the address. Such a notice appears in the October, issue. It will be worthwhile to compare carefully certain parts of the review and the facts sent Poe by letter. Aside from its value as evidence, this comparison may be suggestive of the way in which Poe got all sorts of information which he springs on this readers in the reviews. Dew made six points, which Poe rearranged thus: 6, 2, 5, 4, 3, 1. The order here is that of the letter.

Dew:

Poe:

Poe:

Dew:

Poe:

Dew:

Poe:

Dew:

Poe:

Dew:

Poe:

Parallels to the reference in “Memorials of Mrs. Hemans” to Chorley as a musician hale already been noted. Because of the method which the reviewer gives warning of having adopted, it would be useless to present evidence quotations:

The whole is peculiarly in a Poe-tone: he is writing of a lady poet. There is only one more piece of tangible evidence.

In this number there are three notices of more of less technical works. Harrison printed that of Dr. Haxall's Dissertation with this footnote: “Doubtfully; Poe's” (H, IX, 164). There is, I think, no contrary evidence of sufficient strength [page 162:] to exclude it from the canon, the nature of the notice leads one to wonder if it could be attributed to the reviewer of The Cavaliers of Virginia in the March, 1835, issue, who designated himself as a “medical man” (SLM, I, 386); however, there is nothing in style to support this suggestion, and the mere fact that the review is of a medical treatise and that it is worded in language somewhat technical is no indication that Poe did not write it. He tried to pose as a man of extensive learning in every field; and usually he succeeded in impressing his audience. Not only is there nothing here that roe could not have written (on the whole the notice is not distinctive), but there are two sentences which may point to him:

The second, though by no means of a sort peculiar to Poe alone, is rather typical of his ever-present interest in typographical details: “This Essay is embraced in a pamphlet, beautifully printed, of 108 pa:;esn (H, IX, 166; SLM, II, 725). The giving of the background of the medal won by this dissertation and the criticism that the treatise does not, “in the fullest extent” answer the question asked, is also like Poe. In the absence of any definitely negative evidence, this notice may be given [page 163:] to Poe — but with a question mark, for Mr. Harrison's footnote has not been satisfactorily answered.

The review begins:

In the preceding August, speaking of Willis’ affectations, Poe had written:

This parallel to the reference in this review to D1 Vernon has been noticed in the discussion of “Hawks, etc.” This review is quite similar in manner to that of Memorials; the cross-reference linking the two has support. Both, I are convinced, are Poe's.

As Harrison has noted(1) the October, 1836, review of J. Dalton's Peter Snook was incorporated in “Magazine Writing — Peter Snook.” in the Broadway Journal, June 7, 1845. After two and a half pages (in the Harrison edition) of introductory [page 164:] matter, plus a rewriting of the first paragraph of the earlier review to suit present needs, the whole Of the earlier is used with no change but occasional verbal alterations for better effect, and some new paragraph indentures. The last paragraph, however, is shortened. The first six lines are kept intact; six lines omitted. The next nine are altered slightly; the last seven omitted.

This one column notice cannot be denied to Poe. Even scattered quotations will make his authorship clear:

I have no doubt that Poe is the author.

There are no grounds for suspecting the legitimacy of the Bland's Chancery Reports notice, except the fact that it is a legal review — and among Poe's Virginia acquaintances were many lawyers from whom he could have secured any information he lacked, Sounded in the first line; “We cannot perceive any sufficient reason for the publication of this book” (SLM, II, 731), the theme suggests Poe. He continues:

The impression is strengthened when one reads:

The point of view of the whole seems scarcely that of one of the profession. An example of the “Scylla” should be noted: “... the getting up of the book is uncommonly good” (SLM, II, 732), and again Poe ends: “The paper, typography, and binding are all of the first order” (SLM, II, 732).

This is only a notice, introduced by a quotation setting forth the Prince's purpose, and concluded by a paragraph of general criticism, the last point of which is branded “Poe:”

A few lines from this notice will make clear enough the identity of its author:

Mr. Campbell includes in his canon none of the three November reviews, all of which must be given to Poe, That of [page 167:] the Medical Review again gives expression to an attitude strong in Poe:

Another example: “... except those captious and querulous praisers of time past, who abound in every age ...” (SLM, II, 786). A single reading is convincing enough that the review is Poe's. It and the October notice of Dr, Haxall's Dissertation offer reciprocal evidence: both contain internal indications of Poe, and both are facilely written in the medical lingo.

The twelve and a half lines of the notice of Lee's Address are utterly non-committal; they could have been written by anyone, However, they are quite consistent with the usual tone of Poe's perfunctory, eulogistic notices of local addresses. It may be given to Poe.

In the commentary on Tucker in “Autography,”(1) Poe wrote:

Tucker had a review in May, 1837, of Tulrumble and Oliver Twist;(2) and in September, 1837, one of the Pickwick Papers.(3) Poe is obviously referring to the latter. It is difficult to ascertain, however, which of his own reviews he is speaking of, the “Pickwick” in November, 1836, or the “Tottle” in June, 1836; the “previously” could refer quite as easily to arch as to January. There is only one gray of counting which will make either review anything like “eighteen months previously:” if one counts from September, 1837, the actual date of Tucker's Pickwick review, the June, 1836 review appeared fifteen months earlier. However that may be, both the June and the November reviews are indubitably from the same pen — and that pen is Poe's. The Pickwick notice begins: “In our June ‘Messenger’ we spoke at some length of the ‘Watkins Tottle and other Papers’ by Boz’ (H, IX, 265; SLM, II, 787). [page 169:] Only twenty-three line's long, the November is a sort of summation of the opinions advanced in the June. This later review is also linked with that of Peter Snook, October, 1836: “In his delineation of Cockney life, he is rivalled only by the author of ‘Peter Snook’ ...” (H, IX, 265; SLM, II, 787), In “Peter Snook” Poe wrote: “With the exception of Boz ... and, perhaps a couple of writers in Blackwood, he has no rivals in his particular line” (SLM, II, 727).