Garside, Peter et al., editors. The English Novel 1770-1829. Oxford University Press.
1: 615
Connections Sort descending | Author name | Excerpt |
---|---|---|
Literary responses | Margaret Holford | William Enfield
, writing in the Monthly Review, found the narrative clumsily handled here, with the subplot hanging like a dead weight on the main story, and the characters, sentiments, and language alike unremarkable. Garside, Peter et al., editors. The English Novel 1770-1829. Oxford University Press. 1: 615 |
Literary responses | Charlotte Smith | Again the Analytical reviewer may have been Wollstonecraft
, and if so she was better pleased than before: another novel, written with her usual flow of language and happy discrimination of manners. . .... |
Literary responses | Anna Maria Bennett | |
Literary responses | Isabella Kelly | The Critical made a basic misjudgement of The Abbey of St. Asaph (seemingly paying more attention to title than to content): it listed all the appurtenances of the Radcliffe
an novel, with which it said... |
Literary responses | Charlotte Smith | Some reviewers (who saw the novel as domestic rather than political) were not enthusiastic; the Critical claimed in a lengthy notice to be disappointed in almost every respect with this performance, and deplored the example... |
Literary responses | Anna Maria Bennett | Enfield
in the Monthly found the novel excessive in various ways: in characters, incidents, length, and tolerance of juvenile indiscretions. Garside, Peter et al., editors. The English Novel 1770-1829. Oxford University Press. 1: 375 |
Literary responses | Anna Maria Mackenzie | William Enfield
in the Monthly Review deplored the injudicious rendering of the simple Bible story into meretricious ornaments of redundant metaphors and prosaic rhythmus [sic]. Garside, Peter et al., editors. The English Novel 1770-1829. Oxford University Press. 1: 819 |
Literary responses | Charlotte Smith | Again the Critical Review was lukewarm, while Enfield
in the Monthly praised the plot, characters, and CS
's digressive reflections. Garside, Peter et al., editors. The English Novel 1770-1829. Oxford University Press. 1: 626-7 |
Literary responses | Charlotte Smith | Reviewers were more approving than previously of CS
's politics, but began to complain of her accusatory fictionalising of the financial details of her own situation. Fletcher, Loraine. Charlotte Smith: A Critical Biography. Macmillan. 226 |
Literary responses | Anne Burke | The Critical Review, though it found the story very confused, nevertheless thought this novel had considerable merit, and found the style easy and correct. Garside, Peter et al., editors. The English Novel 1770-1829. Oxford University Press. 1: 666 |
Literary responses | Anna Maria Mackenzie | The Critical felt that this novel's power of raising feelings is but feeble, though at least such feelings would be on the side of virtue. William Enfield
in the Monthly was much more positive... |
Literary responses | Elizabeth Sophia Tomlins | William Enfield
in the Monthly Review praised the novel only faintly, although he admitted that the story was well told. Garside, Peter et al., editors. The English Novel 1770-1829. Oxford University Press. 1: 576 |
Literary responses | Mary Charlton | This novel, although it seems not to have been remembered in the course of MC
's later career, received three lengthy reviews in serious periodicals. William Enfield
in the Monthly, quoted above, said he... |
Literary responses | Margaret Minifie | The Critical belatedly noted: She is now no longer in partnership, but sets up for herself. Critical Review. W. Simpkin and R. Marshall. 50 (1780): 168 |
Literary responses | Lady Mary Walker | Reviewers were impressed. The Critical praised the author's great knowledge of the world and her soundness of judgement, both natural and acquired: Considered as a female writer, (we beg pardon of the ladies for this... |
No timeline events available.
No bibliographical results available.