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

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 nate cutting and slashing" just, granting it adduced against the Messenger, and second, is such charge ad duced at all ? Since the commencement of my editor ship in December last ninety-four books have been reviewed. In seventy-nine of these cases the commen dation has so largely predominated over the few sentences of censure that every reader would pronounce the notices highly laudatory. In seven instances, viz., in those of The Hawks of Hawk-Hollow, The Old World and the New, Spain Revisited, The Poems of Mrs. Sigourney, of Miss Gould, of Mrs. Ellet and of Halleck, praise slightly prevails. In five, viz., in those of Clinton Bradshaw, The Partisan, Elkswatawa, Lafitte, and the Poems of Drake, censure is greatly predominant ; while the only reviews decidedly and harshly condemnatory are those of [Source scan page 516] 460 APPENDIX. Norman Leslie, Paul Ulric, and Ups and Downs. The "Ups and Downs" alone is unexceptionably condemned. Of these facts you may satisfy yourself at any moment by reference. In such case the difficulty you will find, in classing these notices, as I have here done, according to the predominance of censure, or commendation, will afford you sufficient evidence that it cannot justly be called "indiscriminate." But this charge of indiscriminate "cutting and slash ing" has never been adduced — except in four instances, while the rigid justice and impartiality of our Journal has been lauded even ad nauseam, in more than four times four hundred. You should not, therefore, have assumed that the Messenger had obtained a reputation for this " cutting and slashing" — for the asserting a thing to be famous is a well known method of rendering it so. The four instances to which I allude are the Newbern Spectator, to which thing I replied in July, the Commer cial Advertiser, of Colonel Stone, whose Ups and Downs I had occasion (pardon me) to "use up," the New York Mirror, whose Editor's Norman Leslie did not please me, and the Philadelphia Gazette, which, being con ducted by one of the sub-editors of the Knickerbocker, thinks it is its duty to abuse all rival magazines. (r) I have only to add that the inaccuracy of your expression in the words : " The August number of the Southern Literary Messenger has been well received by most of the editorial corps who have noticed it," is of a mischievous tendency in regard to the Messenger. You have seen, I presume, no notices which have not been seen by myself — and you must be aware that there is not one, so far, which has not spoken in the highest terms of the August number. I cannot, however, bring my self to doubt that your remarks upon the whole were meant to do the Messenger a service and that you regard it with the most friendly feelings in the world. Respectfully, 'The Editor of the Messenger.