McCarthy, William. Anna Letitia Barbauld, Voice of the Enlightenment. The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2008.
162-3
William Enfield
Standard Name: Enfield, William
Connections
| Connections Sort descending | Author name | Excerpt |
|---|---|---|
| Literary responses | Anna Letitia Barbauld | This work was controversial. William Enfield
in the Monthly Review praised it and endorsed its opinions. |
| 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, 2000, 2 vols. 1: 576 |
| Literary responses | Eliza Parsons | The Critical Review sounded somewhat divided in its judgement. It commended this work's general good sense and tendency, and found the incidents, in the first volume at any rate, probable, interesting, and affecting, and interspersed... |
| Literary responses | Charlotte Smith | The Critical Review, reviewing this book, called CS
a sister-queen qtd. in Fletcher, Loraine. Charlotte Smith: A Critical Biography. Macmillan, 1998. 141 Garside, Peter et al., editors. The English Novel 1770-1829. Oxford University Press, 2000, 2 vols. 1: 548 |
| Literary responses | Phebe Gibbes | The Critical Review thought it mediocre circulating-library fare (though the closing scenes were better than the rest), while William Enfield
in the Monthly Review praised this now lost work for its easy and agreeable style... |
| Literary responses | Anna Maria Bennett | |
| 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 | Phebe Gibbes | Conservative reviewers were offended. The Critical sneered at Maria (presented, it says, as far too wise for a young lady), who remains single , that she may have more time, we suppose, to write improbable... |
| 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, 2000, 2 vols. 1: 375 |
| 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 | Phebe Gibbes | This novel aroused much interest. One letter was reprinted almost entire, without attribution, on 2 July 1789 in the Aberdeen Magazine as a Picture of the Mode of living at Calcutta. In a letter from... |
| 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. qtd. in Garside, Peter et al., editors. The English Novel 1770-1829. Oxford University Press, 2000, 2 vols. 1: 666 |
| 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, 2000, 2 vols. 1: 626-7 |
| Literary responses | Ann Gomersall | Both the Monthly Review and Critical Review liked what they saw as Eleonora's simple plot, good morality, and Yorkshire humour. The Critical wished the author for the future the success which she so well... |
| 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... |
Timeline
No timeline events available.
Texts
No bibliographical results available.