to be successfully imitated--whom have we had who, even if he were a
master of structural effects, could be a second Poe? Looking at the
matter in another way, Poe's style is not his own at all. There is
nothing "personal" about it in the petty sense of that term. Rather we
feel that, in the case of this author, universality has been attained.
It was Poe's good fortune to be himself in style, as often in content,
on a plane of universal appeal. But in some general characteristics of
his style his work can be, not perhaps imitated, but emulated. Greater
vividness, deft impressionism, brevity that strikes instantly to a
telling effect--all these an author may have without imitating any
one's style but rather imitating excellence. Poe's "imitators" who
have amounted to anything have not tried to imitate him but to vie
with him. They are striving after perfectionism. Of course the sort of
good style in which Poe indulged is not the kind of style--or the
varieties of style--suited for all purposes, but for the purposes to
which it is adapted it may well be called supreme.

Then as a poet his work is almost or quite as excellent in a somewhat
more restricted range. In verse he is probably the best artist in
American letters. Here his sole pursuit was beauty, both of form and
thought; he is vivid and apt, intensely lyrical but without much range
of thought. He has deep intuitions but no comprehensive grasp of life.

His criticism is, on the whole, the least important part of his work.
He had a few good and brilliant ideas which came at just the right
time to make a stir in the world, and these his logical mind and
telling style enabled him to present to the best advantage. As a
critic he is neither broad-minded, learned, nor comprehensive. Nor is
he, except in the few ideas referred to, deep. He is, however,
limitedly original--perhaps intensely original within his narrow