Belgravia contained copious extracts from the longer poem of "Tamerlane," and of the nine "fugitive pieces," the six suppressed ones were given in extenso. In the "Tamerlane" extracts, as thus printed by Mr. Ingram, there were two textual misprints in the Preface, and five in the text; in the "Fugitive Pieces" there were at least five misprints, seriously affecting the sense. This assertion can easily be proved and cannot possibly be refuted. And now as to the claim to monopoly. Since the publication of his Belgravian article, shown to be valueless on account of its inaccuracy, nearly eight more years have elapsed, and until the announcement of the present venture, Mr. Ingram had made no attempt, and given no sign of his intention, to reissue the contents of Poe's 1827 booklet, either separately or in any other shape. His claim to monopoly, therefore, is just as unreasonable and absurd as I have already proved his claim to discovery to be.
"There are several palpable errata," as Mr. Ingram has remarked, "in Edgar Poe's first book" (and which therefore all the more should have had no fresh ones superadded). These I have thought it best to correct, wherever they are perfectly obvious (a list of them and of proposed conjectural emendations is appended), and I have also reduced the orthography and punctuation to a uniform standard. The present case
