Eighteenth-Century Women Writers and the Gendering of Critical Discourse Karen Gevirtz, Seton Hall University

Home , Elizabeth Griffith, The Female Quixote

Seton Hall University

From the SelectedWorks of Karen Bloom Gevirtz

Spring 2003

Ladies Reading and Writing: Eighteenth-Century Women Writers and the Gendering of Critical Discourse Karen Gevirtz, Seton Hall University

Available at: https://works.bepress.com/karen_gevirtz/2/ Modern Language Studies

Ladies Reading and Writing: Eighteenth-Century Women Writers and the Gendering of Critical Discourse Author(s): Karen Bloom Gevirtz Reviewed work(s): Source: Modern Language Studies, Vol. 33, No. 1/2 (Spring - Autumn, 2003), pp. 60-72 Published by: Modern Language Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3195308 . Accessed: 08/08/2012 09:30

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Modern Language Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Modern Language Studies.

http://www.jstor.org EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY WOMEN WRITERS h AND THE GENDERINGOF CRITICAL DISCOURSE KAREN BLOOM GEVIRTZ SETON HALL UNIVERSITY Modern Language Studies 33.1/33.2

Andthere is scarce a Poet, that our English tongue boasts of, who is more the Subject of the Ladies Reading. LEWISTHEOBALD, SHAKESPEARE RESTORED

he canon of eighteenth-centuryShake- eighteenth-centuryfemale Shakespeare critics indi- speare criticsincludes some of the luminar- cates thatthey achieved mixed success duringthe ies of the age, includingSamuel Johnson period. CharlotteLennox's 1753 Shakespear Illus- and Alexander Pope, but it includes far tratedearned a tepid response at the timeof publi- fewer female critics. Nevertheless, as recovery cation. The two reviews that appeared in the effortsin the last thirtyyears have shown,women Gentleman's Magazine were both favorableand not onlynumbered among eighteenth-century read- both authoredby SamuelJohnson, and it sold well ers of Shakespeare,but also among eighteenth-cen- enough to warranta thirdvolume in the following turywriters about Shakespeare.Charlotte Lennox's year,but it nevermade it to a second editionor to Shakespear Illustrated(1753), ElizabethMontagu's any foreignlanguage editions. By decade's end, Essay on theGenius of Shakespeare (1769), and Eliz- ShakespearIllustrated had falleninto obscurity. abeth Griffith'sThe Morality of Shakespeare's Later female critics encountered relatively Drama Illustrated (1775) all appeared during greatersuccess. ElizabethGriffith's The Moralityof Shakespeare's triumphantrise to mass popularity, Shakespeare's Drama Illustrated (1775) garnered and theyexemplify both the ideas and methodsof more criticaland popular acclaim,but like Shake- theirtime as vividlyas the more famouscriticism of spear Illustrated,it did not achieve significanceor theirmale peers. Nevertheless,these worksdid not longevity.The CriticalReview called Griffith"ingen- achieve success similarto the male-authoredtexts ious" and her insights"judicious," but the reviewer which theyresembled. A comparisonof theirtech- did not seem to have read past thefirst essay (Rev.of nique and attitudesto theircritical and commercial Morality,Critical Review 203, 204). The Monthly success duringthe eighteenthcentury reveals that Reviewannounced that "Mrs. Griffith has performed theirsuccess inverselycorrelates with the degree to a veryacceptable serviceto the Public"and calmly whichthese textsused the dominantliterary strate- recommendedher "book of moraland oeconomical gies of Shakespearecriticism of the period.This cor- instruction"to "generaluse, especiallyto youngper- relation suggests that discursive techniques sons" (Rev. of Morality,Monthly Review 466). Grif- acceptable in the worksof men were not as accept- fith'swork disappeared fromcritical and popular able in the worksof women,even when those same consciousness afterthe second edition was pub- women authors produced highlysuccessful narra- lished in 1777. Of the three,Elizabeth Montagu did tivefiction with equally critical bents. This studyof the best withher 1769 Essay on the Writingsand these threeworks of Shakespearecriticism thus sug- Genius of Shakespeare. It was generallyapproved gests a reason for the difficultyin findingconven- and the CriticalReview announced that "'The age tional criticismby women, and supports recent has scarcelyproduced a morefair, judicious and clas- proposalsfor reading the female-authorednovel as a sical performanceof itskind than the Essay"'(Busse vehiclefor female-authored criticism. 69). SirJoshua Reynolds liked it; so did David Gar- It is no longera questionwhether women were rick,James Beattie, and JamesHarris (Busse 41-42; writingcriticism, although the numberof currently- Smithxxin). It wentto fiveeditions in Montagu'slife- knownfemale Shakespeare critics is certainlysmall. timeand a sixthafter her death. Italianand French What happened to make such women vanishfrom editionsalso appeared in 1776 (Busse 73). Neverthe- our understandingof the period for so long does less, afterthat sixth edition it did not appear in print remainan issue,as does the recognitionof theirpar- again and essentiallyhas vanishedfrom discussions ticularcontributions to differentcritical discourses. of eighteenth-centuryShakespeare criticism. As a group, the publicationrecord of these three It was not the ideas propoundedby femalecrit- rn ics thatresulted in these dismissals.Eighteenth-cen- minds, includingAdam Smith,lecture on Shake- turymale and femalecritics did not differsignificant- speare and hiswork. By 1767,two-thirds of the copy- lyin theirviews about Shakespeare;in fact,men and rightto Shakespeare's plays was worth ?1200 at women held manyof the same viewsabout the Bard auction and nationalistfervor was inseparablefrom and his work. During the early 1750s, when Char- Bardolatry(Belanger 18; Small 205). Montagu's lotte Lennox was writingShakespear Illustrated, Essay on the Writingsand Genius of Shakespeare commentatorson Shakespeare were still debating furiouslyrefuted Voltaire's scathing rejection of theplaywright's merits. The debate had begun in the Shakespeare's plays and Griffith'sThe Moralityof mid-seventeenthcentury, when MargaretCavendish Shakespeare's Drama Illustratedreinforced Mon- championedShakespeare against the criticismof her tagu's Essay. Both women joined the discussionof friendsand othersin herSociable Letters(129-131)1 Shakespeare by toeing the party line. Overall, Eliza Haywood complainsin The Female Spectator whether skeptical of Shakespeare's talents or (1745) that Shakespeare's comedies and tragedies awestruckby them,female critics did not differin could "be comparedto fineGardens full of the most opinion withthe male criticsof theirtime. It is not beautiful Flowers but choaked up with Weeds on the basis of theirideas, then,that these worksby throughthe too greatRichness of the Soil." She not these threewomen were dismissed. onlyprefers Otway's abridgment of Romeo andJuli- Nor was the disappearanceof theircriticism a et to the originalversion, but also arguesthat Otway resultof a lack of literarytalent. A look at theirother did not cut enough (163). Those proclaimingthe writingreveals competent authors at the veryleast, Bard's virtuesfelt the need to do so defensively. and certainlywomen who knewgood frombad when Peter Whalley'sAn Enquiry into the Learning of it came to literature.Montagu's contributions to Lyt- Shakespeare (1748) refutesthe criticalcontingent telton's philosophicalnarratives, Dialogues of the belittlingthe playwrightfor a lack of education,and Dead, were well-receivedin certaincircles. Elizabeth JosephWarton's five Adventurer essays (1753-1754) Griffithhad a fineliterary career as a novelistand play- insist upon Shakespeare's talents in depicting wright.3Charlotte Lennox wrote several successful human nature.Even the academic communitywas novels, including The Female Quixote. Positive stilllearning to embrace Shakespeare:the firstuni- reviewsof thisnovel appeared in the popularpress versitylectures on the Bard did not take place until fromnotables such as SamuelJohnson and Samuel the 1750s (Binns 20). Hence, although Charlotte Richardson;Henry Fielding even comparedit favor- Lennox'sskeptical approach in ShakespearIllustrat- ably to its predecessor,Cervantes' Don Quixote ed was moreacerbic than the timeusually produced, (Levin 279-280;Small 2, 13; Fielding160-161). The it was also generallyconsistent with an atmosphere worksold welland made Lennox'sliterary reputation. that still allowed negative assessments of Shake- Significantly,The Female Quixote's audience speare's drama. readilyapplauded itas a criticalwork. Fielding recog- Conversely,by the time thatMontagu and Grif- nizes that like Don Quixote, The Female Quixote fithcomposed theirworks in the 1760s and 1770s,it aimed at "notonly the Diversion,but the Instruction was nearlyimpossible to writeother than admiring- and Reformation"of readers, especially "young ly of Shakespeare and his productions.2Shake- Ladies,"and he notes thatLennox displays "all those speare's popularitywith audiences of all kinds had Vices and Follies in her Sex which are chieflypre- grownthroughout the period,encouraged by a com- dominantin our Days" (Fielding159, 161). Fielding's binationof popular pressure,cultural nationalism, reviewarticulates an idea familiarto eighteenth-cen- and increasingaccess to scholarlyeditions. The price turyreaders and writersalike: thatnarrative, includ- of a ticketbrought even the lower classes to per- ing narrativefiction, could be a vehicle forcritical formancesof Shakespeare's plays. Universityaudi- ideas. Critics like Henry Fielding and especially ences could listen to some of the century'sbest Shakespeare'scritics understood narrative and criti-

Articles Modern Language Studies 33.1/33.2 cism as intersecting,mutually reinforcing discours- tions of the plays' beauties because, he argues, es. As MauriceMorgann puts it in 'An Essay on the "GENERALcriticism is on all subjects useless and DramaticCharacter of SirJohn Falstaff" (1777), "The unentertaining;but is more thancommonly absurd argumentitself, like the tales of our Novelists,is a withrespect to SHAKESPEARE,who mustbe accom- vehicleonly; theirs, as theyprofess, of moral instruc- panied step bystep, and scene by scene, in his grad- tion;and mine of criticalamusement" (225). ual developements[sic] of charactersand passions, Eighteenth-century Shakespeare criticism and whose finalfeatures must be singlypointed out, employeddevices both fromwhat we have come to ifwe would do compleatjustice to hisgenuine beau- considernarrative and fromwhat we have come to ties" (II: 276). Criticsthroughout the centuryhung considerdiscourse, that is, criticalprose. PeterWhal- evaluationsof the playsupon theirdramatic events. ley'sEnquiry into theLearning of Shakespeare,for Writingon The Tempest,Griffith explains that "Pros- example,is a dialogue. Male and femalecritics also pero, havingthus got his enemieswithin his power, wrote their criticismas if speaking to someone, on theirrepentance, generously forgives them their oftenaddressing a "reader"or a specificperson and crueltyand injustice,recovers his dukedom once employinga livelydialogic voice. Whalley'sdialogue again, and the marriageof the lovers confirmsan opens withan apologyto "the Reader"for his work allianceon both sides" (3). ThroughoutThe Morali- (vii), but thisaddress could be aggressiveas well as tyof Shakespeare'sPlays, she givesthe background apologetic. "There, you read it," Lewis Theobald and events of the play before examiningmoral announces amidsta sea of "I's and "we"s meant to momentschronologically, commenting as she goes. forcethe reader to accept Theobald's assumptions Even ifshe omitsthe "Fable,"which she does when as his or her own (97). This self-consciousness she can findno moralin the plot,she stilluses the appears most famouslyin Laurence Sterne's Tris- eventsof the playto shape her criticism. tram Shandy, on which eighteenth-centuryShake- Less generous sentimentsfound expressionin speare critics drew. "Shades of Burgersdicius!" restatingthe play's events, as well. Accordingto exclaimsRichard Farmer at one point in his 1767 Theobald, "Polonius, (an officious,impertinent old "Essayon the Learningof Shakespeare"(152), and Courtier,)priding himself in the Discoverywhich he Morganncomplains that he "cannotforesee the tem- supposes he has made of the Cause of HAMLETs per of the reader,nor whetherhe be contentto go Madness, is so fullof the Meritof it, thathe can't along withme in these kind of observations,"later contenthimself to deliverit in a plainand easy Man- mentioningTristram Shandy directly(230, 274). ner,but fallsinto an affectedjingling Sort of Orato- Griffithalso relies on Sterne from time to time, ry"(64). Eventhe generally gentle Montagu uses tart observingfor instance that "Sterne's comparison of retellingsto expressopinion. "Galba addresses to his the jester and thejestee, to the mortgagerand niece, who is in love with Otho, the fine speech mortgageeis an excellentand just allusion"(96). whichthe historiansupposes him to have made to This understandingof narrativeand criticism's Piso when he adopted him,"she explains."The love- abilityto overlapis significantfor a numberof rea- sicklady, tired of an harangue,the purportof which sons. Historically,ityielded criticism with a highnar- is unfavorableto her love, and being besides no rativecontent. Morgann weaves examplesfrom and politician,answers the emperor,that she does not allusions to novels into the commentary,such as understandstate affairs,"and she continuesin this when he approvesCandide or mentions"the Histo- vein forsome time(Montagu 63-64). Although Mon- ryof Miss Betsy,"the "Storyof MissLucy," and the tagu applies narrative for critical purposes to "tale of Mr.Twankum" (253). Griffithdraws on the Corneille's plays, which Voltaire elevated above epistolary narrativeLetters between Henry and Shakespeare's, the technique is the same. The Frances to support her argument (453). Joseph retellingof theplay serves as a criticalvehicle for the Wartonmerges recapitulations of plot withdescrip- author. rn) This mockingnarration of dramaticevents was The use of narrative,therefore, is not what honed razor-sharpby Lennox in Shakespear Illus- trippedup Shakespeare's female critics.Rather, it trated,where she used narrativesections primarily was discourse that did them in. The more closely to expressdisbelief and contempt.In her hands the femalecritics adhered to criticism'sdiscursive con- originalsources forShakespeare's plots appear with ventions,the more forcefultheir critical and com- all the accoutrementsof entertainment,including mercial rejection. It is more than a question of dialogue and an omniscientnarrator who allows the authorialgender; it is also thatgender's relationship storyto progresswithout comment, thereby tacitly with a given literaryform. Susan Sniader Lanser endorsingit. Recountingthe storyin the source for pointsout thatthe use of literaryconvention is not Measure for Measure, Lennox includes Lodovico's simplyan authorialchoice. It is a partof a dynamic (Claudio's) longspeech to his sisterEpitia (Isabella), among authors,audiences, and texts"produced in in whichhe declares,"I have erredI confess;you by and by the relationsof power" thatgoverns these your superiorWisdom may correctmy Errors"(I: entities'connection, a "conjunction,"as Lanserputs 10). Shakespeare'sstories, however, are only sum- it, "of social and rhetoricalproperties" (6, 5). As a maries,usually presented without even quotations resultof these "relationsof power,"women and men fromthe play.For the same scene in Measure for do notalways use thesame literarydevices to achieve Measure, Lennoxmerely reports that Isabella "goes the same literaryaffects, because, Lanserargues, not to the Prisonand acquaintsClaudio withher ill Suc- all "formsof voice have been availableto women"at cess; theYouth, fond of Life, intreats her to save him, anygiven historical moment (15). In particular,criti- and complywith the Deputy's Request: She, after cal discourse,according to Lanserand EvelynTorton reproachinghim severely for his Baseness,quits him Beck,maintains a traditionalvocabulary involving an in greatRage" (I: 22). Byabridging the story,Lennox "underlyingethos of power,battle, possession, and impliesthat it does not have sufficientmerit to war- control"inappropriate to women critics'conception rantor even to enable the extensivenarrative of the of theirtask, which is about "illumination,co-cre- originalsource. ation,and partnership" (Lanser and Beck 86-97). This Likeother critics such as Theobald,Lennox also vocabulary of conquest and possession keeps uses characterizationto express opinions. Adjec- women out of genres traditionallyassociated with tives,for example, indicate a judgment:"the stupid criticismand theory.4From a morehistorical perspec- Son of his second Wife,""a ridiculousdispute," "the tive,Laura Runge's examination of eighteenth-centu- counterfeitFriar" (I: 156, I: 157, I: 23). Sometimes ry female criticsreveals that women developed a the commentaryis more overt, particularlyin varietyof strategiesfor coping withchanging pres- descriptionsof an episode. "The injured Princess, sures in the criticalmarketplace, which included the however,"Lennox reports,"is impatientto be on difficultyof reconcilingthe mid-century"version of Horseback,she whipsout of the Palace in a Minute, femininity"with criticism's "fundamental activities of and passes invisibly,we cannot help supposing, learningand judgment"(Runge 122). thoughthere is no Inchantmentin the Case, though In the case of eighteenth-centuryShakespeare the midstof herAttendants and Guards,and gallops criticismit was the independent,authorial stance away to meet her Husband" (I: 161). The low dic- requisitefor Shakespeare critics that was the stick- tion--"whips,""in a Minute"-combines with the ing point forthese femaleauthors. Ellen Gardiner incredulous tone-"we cannot help supposing," points out that women could establish "powerful "passes invisibly"-toundermine the acceptability of authorialsubjectivities as critics"(148). Neverthe- thispart of Cymbeline.Female critics,like male crit- less, the authorialstance in Shakespeare criticism, ics, thusemploy narrative devices to evaluateShake- whichsignaled the credibilityof the ideas contained speare's plays and consequentlyto evaluate the within the text, proved problematic for female culturalassumptions of value attachedto them. authors.As SimonJarvis notes, Shakespeare'seigh-

ArArticles Modern Language Studies 33.1/33.2 teenth-centuryeditors had to balance not just Walsh point out, by the demonstrationof the edi- "intellectuallabor" itselfbut theirrepresentation as tors' acumen. Eighteenth-centurycritics were very editors in the text (15). Furthercomplicating this aware of thisrelationship between editing and valu- need to do the work and to representit in certain ing: as Lewis Theobald puts it, "I have always ways is the position of the author of Shakespeare thought,that whenever a Gentlemanand a Scholar criticism,which not onlyindicated a larger,ideolog- turnsEditor of anyBook, he at the same Timecom- ical understandingof what Shakespeare criticism mences Critickupon hisAuthor" (v). was supposed to accomplish,but also changed over Women as well as men understoodthe impor- time.According to MarcusWalsh, the conventional tance of creatingan authoritativestance for present- criticalstance shiftedfrom a seventeenth-century ing their ideas, and how the demonstrationof emphasis on the editor's aestheticsensibility to an criticalacumen and the competitionto present eighteenth-centuryemphasis on the author'smean- authoritativecommentary became increasinglycen- ing, uncovered or revealed by the perceptivebut tralto thework of Shakespeare criticism. At the most secondarily-importanteditor (23). This "authorial basic level, male and femaleauthors ostentatiously orientation,"as Walsh calls it, is not withoutthe displaytheir educational credentials. They allude to "responsibilityof interpretivejudgment," however, classicalmythology and show offtheir linguistic abil- so although the editor ostensiblyengages in "an ities, casually interjectingphrases in foreignlan- attemptto reconstructthe author's intendedread- guages both ancient and modern. Montagu uses ing,"he or she also engages in an attemptto pres- Frenchand Latin;Theobald uses Latin,Greek, and ent his opinion of the author's intent.That means Anglo-Saxon.Lennox clubs othercritics with her flu- that the presentationof the commentator'sown ency in Italian.In one instanceshe pointsout that authorityis crucialto the success of the otherwise "Cinthio calls her a Cittadina, which Mr. Rymer seeminglyobjective criticism: as Walshnotes, eigh- translatesa simple Citizen;but the Italians by that teenth-centuryeditors in particularmade decisions Phrase mean a Womanof Quality"(I: 132). She fol- that"constantly emerged out of,and were the sub- lows this observationwith an entireparagraph of ject of,interpretive discussion" (15, 16, 23-24). examples of correctlytranslated Italian class-names The commercialelements of Shakespearecriti- to underscoreRymer's ineptitude (I: 132). cism also contributedto the need foran authorita- Intellectualprowess was as importantas linguis- tive authorial stance. The role of editing in the tic prowess."It is not to be doubted but Shakespear eighteenthcentury's creation of "the Bard" cannot followedHollingshed in the Facts which compose be overstated.Because editions ranged greatlyin this Play,as well as in manyof his other historical cost and were thereforeaffordable to a varietyof Plays,"Lennox notes withassurance. "In the History classes, the aestheticpromoted by anygiven editor, of Macbeth,where he foundHollingshed's Chroni- not to mentionthe celebratoryaesthetic created by cle deficient,he probablyconsulted Bellendon, who the sheer numberof editors,reached an increasing- translatedBoetius in 1541" (I: 273). Montagu's ly sizable population (Dash 268; Franklin,Shake- sources includeVoltaire, Homer, Sir Thomas More, speare Domesticated26). The choices as well as the Corneille, Boileau, Euripides, Lucan, Horace, commentaryin these textsgreatly contributed to the Aeschylus,Alexander Pope, and Aristotle.In one perception of the Bard, since editing decisions paragraphalone, Farmerquotes or mentionsDray- shape a textand consequentlyinfluence its interpre- ton, Digges,Suckling, Denham, Milton,and Dryden tationand valuationby the reader. Controlof the (156). Criticsalso demonstratedfamiliarity with con- editiontherefore was inextricablylinked not simply temporarydiscussions of significantissues such as withan interpretationof the textat hand, but with sympathyand sentiment,the roleof morality in liter- an interpretationof the author's cultural position, an ature,or the Aristotelianunities in drama.Morgann interpretationmade more credible, as Jarvisand even puts a monologue praisingShakespeare into rn Aristotle'smouth to emphasize Shakespeare'svalue recteditions of his works,"produced by a "superior- accordingto hallowedAristotelian principles (235). ityof talentsand learning"to her own (v). Her deft Men and women also use the same varietyof assumptionthat all the editionsare "correct"allows pronounsto establishcommand over the audience her to complimenther male colleaguesand sidestep thatcharacterizes much analytical and argumentative the criticaldisagreements predating her Essay, thus writing.Moving among the first-personsingular, the avoiding takingsides in the antagonisticworld of collective first-personplural, occasional direct Shakespearescholarship. addressesthe reader,and an Olympianthird-person General stances could give way to particular singularthat evokes a sense of omniscience,male stancesat anygiven moment in thecriticism. In a dis- and femaleauthors create the same sense of author- cussion of Othello,for example, CharlotteLennox ity.And, like the men,Lennox, Montagu, and Griffith accepts Thomas Rymer'sassessment that Shake- referto Shakespeareas "our Author"or "our Poet," speare misreadshuman nature, but adds thatRymer suggestingthat claims to Shakespearetranscend gen- omitteda characterwho supports this argument, der in theirnationalism (Warton II: 308; Montaguvi). Emilia(I: 129). Griffithopens her workwith a syco- Women also assumed the oppositional stance phanticdedication to Garrickand occasionallycon- characteristicof male-authoredShakespeare criti- tradictsother criticswith great deference:"Doctor cism.The need to positionone's own text'sauthori- Warburtonhas changed were to are, because, he ty as supreme resulted in a variety of critical says,the expression, in thetext, is false divinity."She relationshipsbetween the authorof any given text "tremble[s] at venturingto differfrom so learneda and all otherShakespeare critics. Establishing a posi- judge in mattersof theology"but wondersif there is tionwithin the communitythat involved the mutual a possiblealternative understanding (39-40n). recognitionof the author and other criticscon- Griffith'sability to disagreewith Warburton indi- tributedto a posture of authority,and male and cates an even more importantaspect to creating female criticsused a range of tones, occasionally authorityfor a text:the distinctionof opinion from even polite ones, to describe their colleagues. other critics'that makes one's own work original Althoughsuch venerationcan indicatea literarysub- and valuable.Her differingfrom Warburton in mat- missionof women to men, in Shakespearecriticism ters of theologyand interpretationexemplifies a thisposture becomes a conventionused to express quiet affirmationof her own authority;when she civilitybetween critics, regardless of gender.Farmer uses Johnson'sreading, for example, she adds that supports Thomas Hanmer over Samuel Johnson the "contextof the speech vouches the proprietyof onlyto conclude,"Sir Thomas Hanmeris right;yet it the alteration"(134n), validatinghis judgmentwith is no argumentfor his Author'sItalian knowledge" her own, ratherthan vice-versa. This ultimateasser- (195). Wartoncompliments Pope's sylphs in The tionof the author'sopinion over anyothers is relat- Rape of the Lock, but adds thatbecause Pope had ed to the more famous vein of Shakespeare read The Tempest,they are ultimatelyonly derivative, criticism,antipathy. Shakespeare scholars did not and Theobald, who consistentlyprefers Hughs's necessarilygrant each other equal legitimacyand readings over Pope's, still "wonder[s that] Mr. theirattacks on each other,particularly on the basis HUGHS,who insertedthis Passage in his Impression, ofscholarly training, are well known.'Nicholas Rowe and could not but see thatsomething was wanting, explainsthat 'As I have not propos'd to my selfto did not at the same time endeavour to supply it" enterinto a Largeand CompleatCriticism upon Mr. (WartonII: 136; Theobald 107-108).Montagu's Essay Shakespeare'sWorks, so I suppose it willneither be opens with a favorablediscussion of Alexander expectedthat I shouldtake notice of severe Remarks Pope's preface to his edition of Shakespeare and that have formerlybeen made upon him by Mr. continues by acknowledging"some of the most Rhymer."Nevertheless, he continues,"I mustcon- learnedand ingeniousof our critics"and their"cor- fess,I can't verywell see whatcould be the Reason

rArticles Modern Language Studies 33.1/33.2 of his animadvertingwith so much Sharpness"(9). up the argumentafter Voltaire has startedit, thus In case his titledid not revealhis opinion of Pope's offeringher work as a nationalisticdefense of a great edition, Theobald hastens to evisceratethe poet, culturalicon ratherthan a work of independent, announcingof an earlyfault that "it is a Specimen intellectualacumen establishing a place bycriticizing only of the epidemical Corruption,if I may be male, Englishscholars. She achieved the greatest allowed to use thatPhrase, which runs thro'all the commercialand criticalapproval of these female work"(vii). This aggressive,self-aggrandizing rheto- Shakespearecritics. ric crosses gender lines. Griffith'stotalizing strate- At the otherend of the spectrumlies Lennox's gies sometimesgive way to a more precisetargeting work. Her Shakespear Illustratedis famousfor its mechanism:"The onlyeditor who has takennotice uncompromisingcritical egotism in assertingthe of [a phrase], is Theobald; but his commentis as justnessof itsown judgmentand the reprehensibili- obscureas the text"(320n). Usuallyconciliating with ty of everyoneelse's, includingShakespeare's. Just other critics, Montagu lavishes hard words on as Rymerhad sufferedat Rowe's hands,so he suffers Voltaire,who had denigratedShakespeare. Although at hers,as she blastshis understandingof Italian(I: she does credithim forhis acceptable views-"Mr. 132). LikeTheobald beforeher, she too is merciless Voltairehas the candour to own, this is a bad to Pope: Tragedy"(21) she has muchmore to sayon his poor Mr. in his Prefaceto his Edition of judgmentin particularand on Frenchtaste, culture, Pope, tells that 'Shake- and theaterin general."Fine dialogues of love, inter- Shakespear's Plays, us, Charactersare Nature and woven witha tale of incestand murder,would not spear's herself; thatit is a Sort of to call them so have been endured in any country,where tastehad Injury by distanta Name as of her.' not been absolutelyperverted," she insists(21). Copies Sometimes authors allude to another author It is certain,that all the Charactersin Romeo, as I said Mercu- contemptuouslyand without the courtesy of a excepting, before, tio's,are exact of those in the Novel- name.Johnson often mentions judgments by name- Copies and since he them from the less and incorrect"commentator"s or "editor"s,and ist; copied and not the in this MauriceMorgann applies the same techniquein his Translator, Original, Instance Mr. Observationof other defenseof Falstaff.Similarly, Griffith alludes to "Edi- Pope's be to that tors"or "Commentators"only to insultand criticize: Authors,may applied Shakespear, 'His Picture,like a mock is but a "The Commentatorsare all dumbupon thisfine pas- Rainbow, Reflexionof a Reflexion.' sage-not silent in admiration,but frozen into (I: 100) scholastic One of apathy. maysay such cold criticson Significantly,as this passage indicates,Lennox whatAddison does oflukewarm Shakespeare, Chris- yokesthe critique of the critics to a critiqueof William tians" who has not (481). Anyone read the material Shakespeare.If Rymer's language skills are execrable, will know not who these unnamed criticsare, but forexample, the Bard'sare worse,and both are infe- who has will. As an anyone obscuring method, riorto hers(I: 90, I: 99). Lennoxthus demolishes her thus in texts imposed anonymity appears regardless opponents'credibility and value whileelevating her of the genderof itsemployer or object. own standards,conclusions, and acumen. Her work While these strategiesfor establishingtheir vanishedmost quickly of the three. served the male authority commentatorswell, they Griffith'scommentary balances between Mon- counter for proved productive the women, who tagu's conciliatingand Lennox's wittyand hostile achieved success the more eschewed greater they tone as she presentsnot justher own aestheticopin- such of displays authority.Montagu restricts her hos- ion about the beautiesof the plays,but also her own tilityto a targetacross the Channel. Furthermore, editorial decisions about the words of the text. Montagu'sEssay makes it clear thatshe only takes Scholarshave suggestedthat Griffith's work demon- rn strates "ambivalence" about her critical project: powerand dangerof her gesture.Although the tone uncomfortablewith her own acumen and intimidat- of her remarksis sure and sometimescombative, ed by Shakespeare'sauthority, Griffith nevertheless Griffith'snotes appear in places wherethey could be evinces a strange,almost frightenedpersistence in overlookedand onlyafter the authorhas seemingly assertingherself (Argyros 285). Based on the tone, establishedherself as a deferentialmember of the the engagementwith critical conventions, and the Shakespeare community.One wonders what the placement of those conventions,I would suggest favorablereviewer in The MonthlyReview might insteadthat Griffith's Morality demonstrates a care- have said afterencountering the editorialfootnotes ful negotiationbetween assertion and deference. thatbegin in the fourthessay. She startssmall. In the firstessay of the volume,on A more precise example of the resistanceto The Tempest,Griffith writes that The Tempestand women taking an authoritative,discursive stance MidsummerNight's Dream are "generallysupposed appears in the reactionsto two Shakespearecritics, to have been the firstand second of [Shakespeare's] ElizabethMontagu and CharlotteLennox. The suc- writing"but, "if I maybe allowed the libertyof a crit- cess ofMontagu's Essay depended on itsrelationship icismabout thismatter, I should be ratherinclined with men. The Essay firstappeared anonymously, to suppose [The Tempest] to have been one of his and itsinitial acceptance may have been made easier latterperformances" (2). This commentis her only by its namelessness.Furthermore, when it did con- editorialopinion in the firstthree essays, but in her fessits authorship in a second edition,the workwas fourthessay, on Measurefor Measure, she joins the probablyhelped by its ratherglittering collection of fiercestfighting, the editorialbattles, by makingedi- male admirersand Montagu'salmost maternal image torialdecisions of her own. She frequentlyincludes as patronessof the arts.More significant,however, a suggestion from another critic:Johnson most was its dialogue with a man, its intended target, often,Warburton a close second, and much more Voltaire.Voltaire's response to Montagu's attack rarely,Theobald or Hanmer. seems to have generatedenough interestto sustain In addition, as the book progresses,Griffith furthereditions. In March1778, when theEssay was offersher own adjustmentsto Shakespeare'stexts, in itsfourth edition, Voltaire presented one lastcriti- such as "The textword is humility-I have ventured cal letterto theAcademie on the subjectof Montagu to change it to one that is more fitlyopposed to and her views (Busse 71-73), but afterthe contest tyranny"(100n). Ultimately,she makesher own sug- ended, theEssay wentto onlyone moreedition dur- gestionsand disagreeswith other authorities. "The ing her lifetime.Without the connectionto Voltaire word, in the text, is valour," she explains, "but and Britishpatriotism, critics evaluated her opinions Theobald changesit to savour, in orderto compleat and techniqueson thebasis ofher gender and found the enumerationof the senses; and I preferthe word themwanting. When MauriceMorgann alludes to it flavour, as thisrefers more to fruits,as the otherto in his 1777 defenseof Falstaff,he is "grievedto find" viands"(100n). Elsewhereshe saysof TitusAndron- that"Mrs. MONTAGUE" [sic] is "involvedin a popu- icus that Shakespeare's "stile and manner are so lar error"of thinkingFalstaff a coward.Although he stronglymarked, throughout this Play,... thatI own acknowledgesher "genius and virtues,"he concludes it surprizesme Doctor Johnsonshould say,'he did thather mistake arises from the limitations of her sex not thinkShakespeare's touches discerniblein it'" and character:"your manners and yourmind are yet (406). In choosing to edit the plays,Griffith enters more pure, more elegant than your book. Falstaff the centerof power not simplyof Shakespearecriti- was too gross,too infirm,for your inspection" (252). cism,but of the effortto deifythe playwright.The Morgannthus dismissesMontagu's text not on the placementof almostall of her editorialefforts in the basis of skillbut on the assumptionof its gendered footnotes,and theircommencement only after the viewpoint.For Morgann,that Montagu disagreed firstthree essays, suggests her awareness of the withhim could onlybe a resultof an inferiorunder-

rArticles Modern Language Studies 33.1/33.2 standingbased on her gender,rather than the dis- archivalstudy, for example, was routinelyrejected. agreementof two criticalminds. Farmermentions "the ingeniousMrs. Lenox" [sic] SamuelJohnson's response to Lennoxand Mon- onlyonce by name,and agreeswith her conclusions tagufurther elucidates Morgann's position and more twoother times without crediting her for them (163, thoroughlydemonstrates how historically,the per- 166). EdwardCapell's 1767 editionof Shakespeare's ceived genderingof criticaldiscourse caused the plays ignored her work altogether.Johnson barely exclusion of female critics. Afterhis lukewarm alluded to Shakespear Illustrated,either with or reviewsin the press,Johnson's strongest reaction to withoutits title,in his own collected Shakespeare Lennox'sShakespear Illustrated appears in the ded- (Small 186-187;Franklin, Shakespeare Domesticated icationto LordOrrery. Although the Dedicationpref- 229; Doody, "Shakespeare's Novels" 296). When aced Shakespear Illustratedunder Lennox's name, George Stevens re-issued Johnson's "Notes on it was actually composed by Johnson, who, as Shakespeare's Plays"in 1773, he removed a para- JonathanBrody Kramnick points out, used the Ded- graphin whichJohnson admits he obtainedinforma- icationto containLennox's stance in the book itself.6 tionfrom Lennox, allowing Johnson to takecredit for This attemptsuggests that Lennox did not produce the scholarship(Johnson 310). The Isaac Reed (1785 whatJohnson wanted even thoughthe scholarship [Nelsen 141]), Malone (1790), and Boswell-Malone is preciselywhat he seems to have asked for.In fact, (1821) editions followed suit. Both Malone and Johnson evidentlycredited Richard Farmer with Boswell listedLennox among Shakespearescholars, identifyingwhere Shakespearegot his source mate- but withoutfurther comment (Small 203). Ultimate- rial,although Farmer's 1767 "Essayon the Learning ly,eighteenth- and nineteenth-centuryeditors and of Shakespeare" came out fifteen years after commentatorssimply let it slip into obscurity,and Lennox's three-volumeset (Smith xxvii,xxviin). the twentiethcentury has seconded the motion. When it came to a positiveopinion of Shakespeare, Whenit is acknowledged,Shakespear Illustrated evi- however,Johnson did not like a woman's workany dentlyoffers proof only of dreadful literary judgment. better.He activelyand intenselydisliked Montagu's Furthermore,although one mightargue that Essay (Busse 42). Afterscoffing at David Garrickfor these femaleauthors' creative work was simplybet- not contributingto the glorificationof Shakespeare ter than theircritical work, "better" is preciselythe by writingcriticism, Johnson replies to Boswell's termin question.What makes it "better"to an eigh- observationthat Montagu had praisedGarrick with, teenth-centuryaudience seems less the substanceof "It is fitshe should say so much,and I should say its observationsthan the formthat those observa- nothing"(Boswell 207, 207n, 208). A woman trying tionstake. The Female Quixote,for example, attacks her hand at criticism,regardless of what she was say- romance and the improbabilitiesit teaches women ing,was evidentlytoo much forJohnson, who had to enact and expect. Susan Green,Jonathan Brody otherwise encouraged women such as Hester Kramnick,and MargaretAnne Doody see the same Thrale-whose work, a diary,was private-and agenda in Shakespear Illustrated.Both textscom- FrancesBurney-whose workwas publicbut narra- menton the use of romanceas a discoursefor con- tiveand fictional-to write,and who had throwna structingfemininity and its use as a formof female partyfor CharlotteLennox when her firstnovel, discourse,and both textsreveal the inadequacyof Harriot Stuart,came out. romance and its ultimatefutility for this project In and of itself,a negativeresponse to a scholar- (Green; Kramnick;Doody, "Shakespeare's Novels"). lywork is not beyondcomprehension, nor is a criti- There is nothingnew to the idea that some cal work's disappearance fromthe literaryscene. authors successfullyengaged withcertain subjects Certainlymale criticsmet with rejection.7None of and genres while other authors did not, and as them,however, met with the consistencythat female KathrynShevelow points out, the increasingaccess critics' work received. Lennox's groundbreaking of women to printculture as readers,writers, and

m~ the objects of representationdid not inevitably score thatthe developmentof the novelin the eigh- resultin "enfranchisementand inclusion,"but rather teenthcentury should be seen notsimply as the cre- createda moreambivalent set ofnorms and conven- ation of a public voice for authors previously tions thatworked equally as agents of "restriction silenced,but also as the creationof an alternative and containment"(1). Ifeighteenth-century women formof criticism.While this understandingof the were pushed into using unconventionaldiscourses novel as criticismmay be nothingnew to readersof fortheir criticism, then we mustlook elsewherefor eithercentury, it is timeto use thatunderstanding to it. As The Female Quixote and Ellen Gardinerboth recoverwomen's criticism, conventionally discursive suggest,one site forthat criticism is the novel. or un-conventionallynarrative, from the obscurityin Conventionscan be gendered;readers can learn whichtheir own timeand ours have cast it. to associatesets of conventionsand, ultimately,genres with certaingenders, and can resistaccepting Notes worksthat defy their expectations. Some discourses 1 James Fitzmauriceobserves that "what Cavendishhas to say about is modernand out of can serve, therefore,as alternativemethods of Shakespeare strikingly quite keeping withthe timein whichSociable Letterswas published"(xvii). expression for authors marginalizedor excluded 2 Fora moreextensive discussion of riseto star- fromother discourses.Which came the novel Shakespeare's first, dom, see Michael Dobson, The the National Poet: as or Making of criticalform the exclusionof women from con- Shakespeare, Adaptation,and Authorship,1660-1769 (Oxford: ventional criticism?As criticismand the novel Clarendon Press,1992); SimonJarvis, Scholars and Gentlemen: became increasinglyprofessionalized and therefore Shakespearian TextualCriticism and Representationsof Schol- increasingly defined, and defined differently, arly Labour, 1725-1765(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995); or Jean women's criticismeschewed discoursefor narrative I. Marsden, The Re-Imagined Text:Shakespeare, Adaptation, and Eighteenth-CenturyLiterary Theory (Lexington: U P of Ken- not because or not onlybecause women preferred tucky,1995). the novel, but also because readers preferred 3With five plays produced during her lifetime,three of themsuc- women to use it.This theorycertainly explains what cesses,there are onlyfour women after 1700 with more plays happened to Lennox,Montagu, and Griffith'swork, staged (Rizzo 120-121). which does not the content or method of defy 4 Lanser'sexplanation ofthese ideas in Fictions ofAuthority can Shakespeare criticismat the moment that these sound somewhatessentialist in theirformulation of the rhetorical women wrote, but instead strikinglyconforms to ordiscursive norm as maleand the deviance as female.Neverthe- them.When women criticsused the con- less,the idea that readers can learn to associatecertain discours- scholarly es-and theirattendant conventions-with certain ventionsof theirwork was genders and criticism, unacceptable; that thisassociation can in turnaffect composition, is what is of as women theywere not partof the group associat- interesthere and holds, regardless of whether an originatingdis- ed withthose conventions.If they abjured the schol- courseor norm is automaticallymale. arlyconventions of criticism,they also abjured the 5 Formore discussion of the kind of vitriol employed see Colin appearance of writingcriticism. As Gardinernotes, Franklin,Shakespeare Domesticated: The Eighteenth-Century "society'sperception of theirnovels as privatedis- Editions (England:Scolar Press,1991) or PeterSeary, "The Early course resultsin thiscriticism becom- Editorsof Shakespeareand theJudgments of Johnson," Johnson paradoxically TwoHundred ed. Paul Korshin U of a matter In other After Years, J. (Philadelphia: ing private altogether"(150). PennsylvaniaP 1986). women authors novels that criti- words, produced 6 Kramnick447. Both Franklin cized but not criticism. (ShakespeareDomesticated, 229) and Small (187) recognizethat Johnson used Shakespear Illus- Lennox,Montagu, and Griffith'stexts and histo- trated'sDedication to isolate the viewspropounded in the work ries revealmuch about the developmentof an eigh- thatfollows. Neither critic, however, recognizes as Kramnickdoes teenth-centurycritical canon, and enhance our thatthe oppositionof Dedication and ShakespearIllustrated rep- resentsa clash of and aesthetics. understandingof how rhetoricserved as a mecha- ideologies nism forsegregating forms of discourseduring the 7 WilliamWarburton and othersobscured many of Thomas Han- mer'sviews creditfor and Hanmer'snotes on a eighteenthcentury. In addition,these worksunder- bytaking them,

- Articles Modern Language Studies 33.1/33.2 difficultpassage createdan avalancheof criticismthat "completely Fitzmaurice,James. Introduction. Sociable Letters.Ed. James obliterated"his contribution(Dash 277-278,274, 275-276).Later, Fitzmaurice.New York:Garland, 1997. xi-xxi. LewisTheobald as "weak, mean, faithless, by depicting ignorant, Franklin,Colin. "Printand Design in Eighteenth-CenturyEdi- and ostentatious,"Samuel Johnson discredited his petulant, pred- tionsof Shakespeare."The Book Collector43.4: 517-528. ecessor and Theobald'sviews (Seary, "Lewis Theobald" 106). - . ShakespeareDomesticated: The Eighteenth-Century Edi- tions.England: Scolar, 1991. WorksCited Gardiner,Ellen. Regulating Readers: Genderand Criticismin Argyros,Ellen. "'Intruding Herself into the Chairof Criticism': the Novel. Newark:U of Delaware P, ElizabethGriffith and The Eighteenth-Century Moralityof Shakespeare's 1999. Drama Illustrated."Eighteenth-Century Women and the Arts.Ed. FrederickM. Keene and Susan E. Lorsch.Con- Green,Susan. 'A CulturalReading of CharlotteLennox's Shake- necticut:Greenwood, 1988. 283-289. spear Illustrated."Cultural Readings of Restoration and Theater Ed. J. Can- "Publishersand Writersin Eighteenth-CenturyEnglish Douglas Belanger,Terry. Eighteenth-Century fieldand Deborah C. Athens:U of 1994. Books and TheirReaders in Payne. GeorgiaP, England." Eighteenth-Century 228-257. England Ed. Isabel Rivers.New York:St. Martin's,1982. 5- 25. Griffith,Elizabeth. The Morality of Shakespeare'sDrama Illus- trated.London: T Cadell, 1775. Binns,J.W "Some Lectureson Shakespearein Eighteenth-Centu- ryOxford: The Praelectionespoeticae ofWilliam Hawkins." Haywood,Eliza. FromThe Female SpectatorBook VIII (1745), ii, Shakespeare: Text,Language, Criticism.Essays in Honour 90-93.Shakespeare: The CriticalHeritage. Vol. 3: 1733- ofMarvin Spevack. Ed. BernhardFabian and KurtTezeli 1752. Ed. BrianVickers. Boston: Routledge& Kegan Paul, von Rosador.New York:Olms-Weidmann, 1987. 19-33. 1975. 162-164. Boswell,James. Journal ofa Tourto theHebrides withSamuel Jarvis,Simon. Scholars and Gentlemen:Shakespearian Textual Johnson,LL.D., 1773. Ed. FrederickA. Pottleand CharlesH. Criticismand Representationsof Scholarly Labour 1725- Bennett.New York:McGraw-Hill, 1963. 1765. Oxford:Clarendon, 1995. Busse,John. Mrs Montagu, Queen of theBlues. Pennsylvania: Kramnick,Jonathan Brody. "Reading Shakespeare's Novels: Liter- FolcroftLibrary Editions, 1977. aryHistory and CulturalPolitics in the Lennox-Johnson Debate." Modern Language Quarterly55.4: 429-453. Cavendish,Margaret. Sociable Letters.Ed. JamesFitzmaurice. New York:Garland, 1997. Lanser,Susan Sniader.Fictions ofAuthority: Women Writers and Narrative Voice.Ithaca: Cornell U P,1992. Dash, Irene. "Whenthe CultureObtrudes: Hanmer's Winter's Tale."Reading Readings:Essays on ShakespeareEditing in Lanser,Susan Sniaderand EvelynTorton Beck. "[Why]Are There theEighteenth Century. Ed. JoannaGondris. Madison: No GreatWomen Critics? And What Difference Does It AssociatedU P,1998. 268-280. Make?"The Prismof Sex: Essaysin theSociology of Knowl- edge. Ed. JuliaA. Shermanand EvelynTorton Beck. Wiscon- Dobson, Michael.The theNational Poet: Shake- Making of sin: U ofWisconsin P 1979. 79-91. speare,Adaptation, and Authorship,1660-1769. Oxford: Clarendon,1992. Lennox,Charlotte. Shakespear Illustrated: or theNovels and Histories,On whichthe Plays ofShakespear Are founded. Doody,Margaret Anne. Introduction to TheFemale Quixote,or, Collectedand Translatedfrom the Original Authors. 3 TheAdventures ofArabella. Ed. MargaretDalziel. New vols. New York:AMS, 1973. York:Oxford U P,1989. xi-xxxii. Levin,Kate. "'The Cure ofArabella's Mind': CharlotteLennox "Shakespeare'sNovels: Charlotte Lennox Illustrated." Stud- and the of the Female Reader."Women's Writ- ies in theNovel 19.3: 296-310. Disciplining ing: TheElizabethan to VictorianPeriod 2.3: 271-290. Farmer,Richard. 'An Essayon the Learningof Shakespeare: Marsden,Jean I. TheRe-Imagined Text: Shakespeare, Adapta- Addressedto JosephCraddock, Esq." Eighteenth-Century tion,and Eighteenth-CenturyLiterary Theory. Lexington: Essayson Shakespeare.Ed. D. NicholSmith. Oxford: U P of Kentucky,1995. Clarendon,1963. 151-202. Montagu,Elizabeth. 'An Essayon the Writingsand Genius of Fielding,Henry. The Covent-GardenJournal. Number24 (March Shakespeare,Compared with the Greekand FrenchDra- 24, 1752). The Covent-GardenJournal and a Plan of the maticPoets. With Some Remarksupon the Misrepresenta- UniversalRegister-Office by HenryFielding. Ed. BertrandA. tionsof Mons. de Voltaire."6th edition. An Essay on the Goldgar.Connecticut: Wesleyan U 1988. 154-161. P, Writingsand Genius of Shakespeare,Compared withthe Greekand FrenchDramatic Poets.With Some Remarks

m upon theMisrepresentations of Mons. de Voltaire.To -.Essay #97 in TheAdventurer. Tuesday, October 9, 1753. whichare added, ThreeDialogues of theDead. London: Volumethe Second. London:J. Payne,1754. Hardingand Wright,1810. New York:AMS, 1966. v-264. -.Essay #113 in TheAdventurer. Tuesday, December 4, Rev.of TheMorality of Shakespeare'sDrama Illustratedby Eliz- 1753.Volume the Second. London:J. Payne, 1754. abeth Griffith.The CriticalReview Vol. XXXIX (March -.Essay #116 in TheAdventurer. Saturday, December 15, 1775): 203-209. 1753.Volume the Second. London:J. Payne,1754. Rev.of TheMorality of Shakespeare'sDrama Illustratedby Eliz- -.Essay # 122 in TheAdventurer. Saturday, January 5, 1754. abeth Griffith.The Monthly Review Vol. LII (June 1775): Volumethe Second. London:J. Payne, 1754. 465-468. Whalley,Peter. An Enquiryinto theLearning of Shakespeare, Morgann,Maurice. 'An Essayon the DramaticCharacter of Sir WithRemarks on Several Passages ofhis Plays.In a Con- JohnFalstaff." Eighteenth-Century Essays on Shakespeare. versationbetween Eugenius and Neander London:T Ed. D. NicholSmith. Oxford: 1963. 203-283. Clarendon, Waller,1748. Rizzo,Betty. "'Depressa Resurgam':Elizabeth Griffith's Playwrit- Woolf,Virginia. A Room of One's Own. New York:Harcourt, Career."Curtain Calls: Britishand American Women ing Brace, 1929. and the 1660-1820.Ed. Anne Schofieldand Theater, Mary CeciliaMacheski. Athens: Ohio U P,1991. 120-142. Rowe,Nicholas. "Some Accountof the Life,etc., of Mr.William Shakespeare."Eighteenth-Century Essays on Shakespeare. Ed. D. NicholSmith. Oxford: Clarendon, 1963. 1-22. Runge,Laura L. Genderand Language in BritishLiterary Criti- cism,1660-1790. Cambridge: Cambridge U 1997. P, Seary.Peter. "The EarlyEditors of Shakespeareand theJudg- mentsof Johnson." Johnson After Two Hundred Years.Ed. PaulJ. Korshin. Philadelphia: U of PennsylvaniaP, 1986. 175- 186. -."Lewis Theobald, Edmund Malone, and Others."Reading Readings:Essays on ShakespeareEditing in theEighteenth Century.Ed. JoannaGondris. Madison: Associated U Ps, 1998. 105-122. Shevelow,Kathryn. Women and PrintCulture: The Construc- tion ofFemininity in theEarly Periodical. New York:Rout- ledge, 1989. Small,Miriam Rossiter. Charlotte Ramsay Lennox: An Eighteenth CenturyLady ofLetters. New Haven: Yale U P71935. Smith.D. Nichol.Introduction. Eighteenth-Century Essays on Shakespeare.Ed. D. NicholSmith. Oxford: Clarendon, 1963.xi-lxii.

Theobald,Lewis. Mr. Shakespeare restored: or, a Specimenof theMany Errors,as well Committed,or Unamended,by Mr Pope in his Late Edition of thisPoet. Designed Not only to correctthe said Edition,but to restorethe TrueReading of Shakespearein all theEditions ever yet publish'd Lon- don: R. Franklin,J. Woodman and D. Lyon,and C. Davis, 1726. Walsh,Marcus. Shakespeare, Milton, and Eighteenth-Century LiteraryEditing: The Beginnings of Interpretative Scholar- ship. Cambridge:Cambridge U P71997. Warton,Joseph. Essay #93 in TheAdventurer. Tuesday, Septem- ber 25, 1753.Volume the Second. London:J. Payne, 1754.

ar Articles