William Enfield

Standard Name: Enfield, William

Connections

Connections Author name Excerpt
Literary responses Eliza Fenwick
Secresy had six reviews in 1795; EF wrote much later that they blamed the principles but commended the style & Imagination.
Paul, Lissa. Eliza Fenwick, Early Modern Feminist. University of Delaware Press, 2019.
71
The Critical Review was put off by the title but then moved to...
Literary responses Clara Reeve
The Critical Review (which assumed the author to be male) defined his intention as to interest the imagination . . . by going into the marvellous, without transgressing the bounds of credibility.
qtd. in
Critical Review. W. Simpkin and R. Marshall, 5 series.
44 (1777): 154
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 Joanna Baillie
Very few copies sold.
Baillie, Joanna. “Introduction”. The Selected Poems of Joanna Baillie, 1762-1851, edited by Jennifer Breen, Manchester University Press, 1999, pp. 1-25.
3
The single review, recalled by JB as significant, was by the Rev. William Enfield , who wrote in the Monthly Review of November 1791, that the poems were simple, unexaggerated,...
Literary responses Anna Maria Porter
The Critical Review welcomed the first volume, but said this young genius was worthy of, or needed, further cultivation. When volume two rapidly followed, the journal felt that it was premature. It complained that the...
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].
qtd. in
Garside, Peter et al., editors. The English Novel 1770-1829. Oxford University Press, 2000, 2 vols.
1: 819
Literary responses Anne Plumptre
Antoinette was well reviewed. The Critical hailed a novel which neither endangered its readers' morals nor bored them with constant moralising. It dropped hints about the author's identity which amounted to puffing, saying it believed...
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 Jane West
The Critical Review cited West's preface approvingly and noted that she had fulfilled the intentions there set out. William Enfield in the Monthly Review professed himself delighted to see fictional talent successfully employed to efface...
Literary responses Sarah Pearson
The Critical Review reported that this book was written upon the same plan with the Adventures of a Guinea, which the writer has ingeniously imitated.
Critical Review. W. Simpkin and R. Marshall, 5 series.
(October 1794): 99
(The reference is to Charles Johnstone 's...
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, 5 series.
50 (1780): 168
It approved the novel's morally didactic tone, its style, characters, and narrative, but warned that it...
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 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 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...

Timeline

No timeline events available.

Texts

No bibliographical results available.