Edgar Allan Poe to Richmond Courier — 1836-09-02

Edgar Allan Poe to Richmond Courier — 1836-09-02 Historical printed letter from James A. Harrison, Life and Letters of Edgar Allan Poe, volume II (1903), appendix. Catalog identity RCL-159. This is Poe’s letter to the Richmond Courier and Daily Compiler defending his editorial criticism. It is unrelated to letters to Nancy Richmond; the supplied CSV’s importance note was misleading. The local PDF preserves the selected source pages unchanged. Searchable text is unreviewed repository OCR and retains recognition errors and historical editorial notes. This is a historical printed witness, not an autograph manuscript or a modern critical text. [Source scan page 514] 458 APPENDIX. POE TO THE "RICHMOND COURIER AND DAILY COMPILER." SEPTEMBER 2, 1836. WHILE Poe was editor of the Southern Literary Messengery he wrote a letter to the Richmond Courier and Daily Compiler, which may be regarded as a general answer to his critics. It is valuable also as furnishing insight into Poe's methods, and furnishing definite data in regard to the work done by him on the Messenger. The letter is as follows : — Sept. 2, 1836. To the Editor of the Compiler: DEAR SIR : In a late paragraph respecting the Southern Literary Messenger, you did injustice to that Magazine, and perhaps your words, if unanswered, may even do it an injury. As any such wrong is far from your thoughts you will, of course, allow the Editor of the Messenger the privilege of reply. The reputation of a young Journal, occupying a conspicuous post in the eye of the public, should be watched, by those who preside over its interest, with a jealous attention, and those interests defended when necessary and when possible. But it is not often possible. Custom debars a Magazine from answering in its own pages (except in rare cases) contemporary mis representations and attacks. Against these it has seldom, therefore, any means of defence — the best of reasons why it should avail itself of the few, which, through courtesy, fall to its lot. I mean this as an apology for troubling you to-day. (a) Your notice of the Messenger would generally be regarded as complimentary, especially as to myself. I would, however, prefer justice to compliment, and the good name of the Magazine to any personal considera- [Source scan page 515] APPENDIX. 459 tion. The concluding sentence of your paragraph runs thus : "The criticisms are pithy and often highly judi cious, but the editors must remember that it is almost as injurious to obtain a character for regular cutting and slashing as for indiscriminate laudation." The italics are my own. I had supposed you aware of the fact that the Messenger had but one editor — it is not right that others should be saddled with demerits which belong only to myself. (£) But this is not the point to which I especially ob ject. You assume that the Messenger has obtained a character for regular " cutting and slashing," or if you do not mean to assume this every one will suppose that you do — which, in effect, is the same. Were the assump tion just I would be silent and set immediately about amending my editorial course. You are not sufficiently decided, I think, in saying that a career of " regular cut ting and slashing is almost as bad as one of indiscriminate laudation." It is infinitely worse. It is horrible. The laudation may proceed from — philanthropy, if you please, but the " indiscriminate cutting and slashing," only from the vilest passions of our nature. But I wish briefly to examine two points — first, is the charge of "indiscrimi