Addendum to Poe Newsletter (1968-1970)

The intent of these brief notes is to provide relevant updates or supplemental details, when warranted, to the information given in the original article. These notes are not part of the articles published by Poe Studies / Dark Romanticism, and are not authorized by the editoral staff of that journal. Instead, these notes are provided by the Poe Society, which should be cited as author.

Volume I, number 1 (April 1968):

Robbins, J. Albert - “The State of Poe Studies”

Since the publication of this article, several books well-fitting as responses to the author’s requests have appeared. These include:

• Thomas Ollive Mabbott’s 3-volume edition of Poe’s Poems (1969) and Tales & Sketches (1978)
• Dwight Thomas and David K. Jackson’s The Poe Log (1987)
• and several biographies, of varying quality and usefulness.

Benton, Richard P. - “Poe’s ‘The System of Dr. Tarr and Prof. Fether ’: Dickens or Willis?”

In 1998, Burton Pollin issued a volume covering Poe’s nonfictional prose from the Southern Literary Messenger. (Burton Pollin and Joseph V. Ridgely, eds., The Collected Writings of Edgar Allan Poe, Volume 5 - Writings in the Southern Literary Messenger, New York: The Gordian press, 1997). Pollin does not include the 1843 review of Dickens ’ American Notes noted in Benton’s article, which lends support to his contention that the review is not by Poe. In fact, the review is not even mentioned in Pollin and Ridgely’s notes.

 

Volume II, number 3 (October 1969):

Harriet R. Holman - “Hog, Bacon, Ram, and Other ’savans” in Eureka­”

In footnote 7 to this article, the author comments “A mocking letter included by Harrison (Works, XVII, 329-330), dated February 1849, purportedly accompanied the tale when Poe sent it to Godey (not admitted to the checklist by Ostron, Letters, II, 618-625).” The letter mentioned is actually the introductory note printed in Godey’s Lady’s Book and reprinted in Works­, at the beginning of the story. Although the note has the form of a letter, it is clearly part of the fiction and Ostrom was correct to omit it from the cannon of true letters.