Garside, Peter et al., editors. The English Novel 1770-1829. Oxford University Press.
1: 596-7
William Enfield
Standard Name: Enfield, William
Connections
| Connections Sort descending | Author name | Excerpt |
|---|---|---|
| Literary responses | Mary Robinson | MR
's daughter says the first edition sold out in a single day. Five more impressions followed. Reviewers were less keen. Though William Enfield
in the Monthly Review praised the novel's richness of language and... |
| Literary responses | Ann Gomersall | Again the Critical Review enjoyed AG
's humour, if not her plotting. It supposed her to be influenced by George Lillo
's bourgeois tragedy The London Merchant (having in mind, no doubt, the vindication of... |
| Literary responses | Susannah Gunning | SG
's new notoriety helped her popularity as a writer. The Gentleman's Magazine found Anecdotes to be the production of an elegant and accomplished mind, though it complained of printer's errors and errors in French... |
| Literary responses | Regina Maria Roche | The Critical Review thought that this novel, if possibly amusing, was definitely forgettable. |
| Literary responses | Anna Letitia Barbauld | This work was controversial. William Enfield
in the Monthly Review praised it and endorsed its opinions. McCarthy, William. Anna Letitia Barbauld, Voice of the Enlightenment. The Johns Hopkins University Press. 162-3 |
| Literary responses | Margaret Holford | This novel was somewhat condescendingly noticed in the Critical Review as artless, an interesting little story, related in a pleasing manner, though vulnerable to various criticisms. William Enfield
in the Monthly expressed indulgence towards... |
| Literary responses | Charlotte Smith | The Critical Review, reviewing this book, called CS
a sister-queen Fletcher, Loraine. Charlotte Smith: A Critical Biography. Macmillan. 141 Garside, Peter et al., editors. The English Novel 1770-1829. Oxford University Press. 1: 548 |
| 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 | 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 | |
| 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 | 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 |
Timeline
No timeline events available.
Texts
No bibliographical results available.