The Complete Works of Edgar Allan Poe - Edgar Allan Poe [1514]
Yours Ever,
Jno. Tomlin.
Edgar A. Poe, Esquire.
P. S. Return Wilmer’s letter.
John Tomlin to Edgar Allan Poe — February 23, 1844
Jackson, Tennessee, February 23, 1844.
Dear Sir, — I have had no letter from you, since I sent you the libellous letter of A. L. Wilmer. Did you inflict on him a chastisement equal to the injury he designed, by the publication of such scandals? Previous to the reception of that letter, I had entertained a good opinion of the “Quacks of Helicon” man, and it had been brought about in a great measure by your Review of the Book. In his former letters, he not only spoke kindly of you, but seemed disposed to become your advocate, against the litterateures of Philadelphia. I hope that you will forgive him, and that he will go, and “Sin no more.”
Your Review of “Orion” in the February, or March No. of “Graham’s” I have read with much pleasure. The article is one of great ability. I know of no writer whose success in life would give me more sincere pleasure than that of yourself.
Hoping soon to hear from you, I remain ever
Your Friend,
Jno. Tomlin.
E. A. Poe, Esq.
TOWNSEND, JOHN KIRK
Edgar Allan Poe to John Kirk Townsend — March 9, 1843
Fuller’s Hotel
Thursday Morning, March 9, ‘43
Dr. Sir,
I have the honor to inclose two letters and the bearer will deliver a case containing an air gun. In a day or two I will do myself the pleasure of calling,
With High Respect yr. ob. st
Edgar A. Poe.
TUCKER, JUDGE NATHANIEL BEVERLEY
Edgar Allan Poe to Nathaniel Beverley Tucker — December 1, 1835
Richmond Dec: 1. 35.
Dear Sir,
Mr White was so kind as to read me some portions of your letter to himself, dated Nov 29, and I feel impelled, as much by gratitude for your many friendly expressions of interest in my behalf, as by a desire to make some little explanations, to answer, personally, the passages alluded to.
And firstly — in relation to your own verses. That they are not poetry I will not allow, even when judging them by your own rules. A very cursory perusal enabled me, when I first saw them, to point out many instances of the (Greek Text:) xxxxxxx (:Greek text) you mention. Had I the lines before me now I would particularize them. But is there not a more lofty species of originality than originality of individual thoughts or individual passages? I doubt very much whether a composition may not even be full of original things, and still be pure imitation as a whole. On the other hand I have seen writings, devoid of any new thought, and frequently destitute of any new expression — writings which I could not help considering as full of creative power. But I have no wish to refine, and I dare say you have little desire that I should do so. What is, or is not, poetry must not be told in a mere epistle. I sincerely think your lines excellent.
The distinction you make between levity, and wit or humour (that which produces a smile) I perfectly understand; but that levity is unbecoming the chair of the critic, must be taken, I think, cum grano salis. Moreover — are you sure Jeffrey was never jocular or frivolous in his critical opinions? I think I can call to mind some instances of the purest grotesque in his Reviews — downright horse-laughter. Did you ever see a critique in Blackwood’s Mag: upon an Epic Poem by a cockney tailor? Its chief witticisms were aimed not at the poem, but at the goose, and bandy legs of the author, and the notice ended, after innumerable oddities in — “ha! ha! ha! — he! he! he! — hi! hi! hi! — ho! ho! ho! — hu! hu! hu”! Yet it was, without exception, the most annihilating, and altogether the most effective Review I remember to have read. Of course I do not mean to palliate such indecency. The reviewer should have been horsewhipped. Still I cannot help thinking levity here was indispensable. Indeed how otherwise the subject could have been treated I do not perceive. To treat a tailor’s Epic seriously, (and such an Epic too!) would have defeated the ends of the critic, in weakening his own authority by making himself