Eighteenth-Century Women Writers and the Gendering of Critical Discourse Karen Gevirtz, Seton Hall University
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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