The majority of the work remained in manuscript form as the "New Life of Edgar Allan Poe" until 1952, when it was edited and published by the American academic Richard Beale Davis.

Critics praised Richard Beale Davis's abilities in editing the Chivers manuscript, but disagreed on whether the general reader would find his notes to be a help or a hindrance.

[4]: 15 In January and February 1903, George Edward Woodberry published two articles in The Century Magazine titled "The Poe-Chivers Papers: The First Authentic Account of One of Poe's Most Interesting Friendships", which contained excerpts from Chivers's manuscript collection.

[14][15][16] According to Davis, the "New Life of Edgar Allan Poe" manuscripts were in a state of disorganisation when he consulted them: The writing appears on several kinds of paper.

[4]: 18 Chivers' Life of Poe, as edited by Richard Beale Davis, is split into twelve sections with an introduction and explanatory notes by the editor.

He republishes a poem by R. S. Nichols titled "The Dead Year" and explains that he does not intend to ignore Poe's struggles with alcohol or cover up his vices.

At several points, he directly responds to critics of Poe, including Phillip Pendleton Cooke and Griswold: he attacks the latter's memoir and insults his general intellect.

Chivers continues this section with a further account of meeting Poe in New York City alongside magazine editor Lewis Gaylord Clark.

[4]: 1 Writing together in The Journal of Southern History, Lois Ferry Parks and Emma Chase praised and criticised what they referred to as Davis's "splendid job of editing".

[20] Arthur H. Quinn at the University of Pennsylvania wrote in American Literature that the book contains several factual errors relating to Poe's early life, but dismisses this as "not by any means Chivers's fault".

He discussed how misunderstandings in Chivers's writing create a "distrust of his evidence", giving the example of Poe's letter to George Washington Eveleth concerning the cause of his drinking.

Quinn questioned the need to publish the manuscripts at all and suggested doing so may revive scandals related to the relationship between Poe and Frances Sargent Osgood.

[21] Los Angeles Times literary critic Paul Jordan-Smith referred to it as "a bad biography", but suggested it would help students understand views contemporary to Poe.

[22] University of Virginia professor Armistead C. Gordon Jr. said that Chivers's biography was "a patchwork of inconsistencies, vague theorizing, and patronizing connection".