Garside, Peter et al., editors. The English Novel 1770-1829. Oxford University Press.
1: 375
William Enfield
Standard Name: Enfield, William
Connections
| Connections Sort ascending | Author name | Excerpt |
|---|---|---|
| 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. |
| 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 | 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... |
| Literary responses | Maria Susanna Cooper | The Critical Review welcomed this novel because it was not the work of a mercenary (throwing light on the continued prejudice against writing as a trade or profession), and said it was well calculated to... |
| Literary responses | Eliza Parsons | The Critical Review treated this work with respect while placing it firmly in an inferior category: strictly moral and generally pleasing . . . . We wish our circulating libraries were always so well supplied... |
| Literary responses | Lady Mary Walker | Again, the two leading journals endorsed LMW
's project. Enfield
in the Monthly thought the work well designed to answer its laudable purpose of instruction, and the Critical Review used the book as a peg... |
| Literary responses | Maria Susanna Cooper | The Critical Review announced that MSChas executed her task with taste and judgement. Garside, Peter et al., editors. The English Novel 1770-1829. Oxford University Press. 1: 237 |
| Literary responses | Eliza Parsons | William Enfield
wrote in the Monthly Review that this book must stand or fall by its moral merit. He found the first volume better than the second, and the language natural, but never elegant and... |
| Literary responses | Lady Mary Walker | This time the Critical Review seems not to have recognised the same hand in this narrative, with several letters interspersed as in LMW
's earlier works. While it approved the characters, the knowledge exhibited, and... |
Timeline
No timeline events available.
Texts
No bibliographical results available.