Introduction
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Notes Introduction 1. See, for example, C. Gallagher, Nobody’s Story: the Vanishing Acts of Women Writers in the Marketplace, 1670–1820 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994) and C. Ingrassia, Authorship, Commerce, and Gender in Early Eighteenth-Century England: a Culture of Paper Credit (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998). Until recently, most general studies of eighteenth-century women writers concentrated on fiction. See, for example, R. Ballaster, Seductive Forms: Women’s Amatory Fiction from 1684 to 1740 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992); J. Spencer, The Rise of the Woman Novelist: From Aphra Behn to Jane Austen (Oxford: Blackwell, 1986); J. Todd, The Sign of Angellica: Women, Writing and Fiction, 1660–1800 (London: Virago, 1989). 2. A. Kernan, Samuel Johnson and the Impact of Print (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987) and M. Rose, Authors and Owners: the Invention of Copyright (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1993). 3. Kernan, Samuel Johnson and the Impact of Print, p. 5. 4. D. Griffin, Literary Patronage in England, 1650–1800 (Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press, 1996) and M. J. M. Ezell, Social Authorship and the Advent of Print (Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999). 5. B. Hammond, Professional Imaginative Writing in England, 1670–1740: ‘Hackney for Bread’ (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997), p. 5. 6. See, for example, M. Duffy, The Passionate Shepherdess: Aphra Behn 1640–1689 (London: Jonathan Cape, 1977) and A. Goreau, Reconstructing Aphra: a Social Biography of Aphra Behn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980). 7. Gallagher, Nobody’s Story, p. 4. 8. V. Woolf, A Room of One’s Own (London: Penguin Books, 1945), p. 64. 9. Woolf, A Room of One’s Own, p. 65. 10. See especially, Goreau, Reconstructing Aphra. 11. K. R. King, ‘Elizabeth Singer Rowe’s Tactical Use of Print and Manuscript’, in Women’s Writing and the Circulation of Ideas: Manuscript Publication in England, 1550–1800, edited by G. L. Justice and N. Tinker (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), pp. 158–81, p. 175. 12. N. Cotton, Women Playwrights in England c. 1363–1750 (London and Toronto: Bucknell University Press, 1980), pp. 200–1. 13. Todd, The Sign of Angellica, p. 41. 14. Todd, The Sign of Angellica, p. 41. 15. M. L. Williamson, Raising Their Voices: British Women Writers, 1650–1750 (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1990). Williamson’s approach is heavily indebted to Nancy Cotton’s earlier characterization of eighteenth- 187 188 Women, Authorship and Literary Culture, 1690–1740 century women writers as ‘Astreas’ or ‘Orindas’. See Nancy Cotton, Women Playwrights in England. 16. J. Medoff, ‘The Daughters of Behn and the Problem of Reputation’, in Women, Writing, History 1640–1740, edited by I. Grundy and S. Wiseman (London: Batsford, 1992), pp. 33–54. 17. J. J. Richetti, Popular Fiction Before Richardson: Narrative Patterns 1700–1739 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969). 18. P. R. Backscheider, Spectacular Politics: Theatrical Power and Mass Culture in Early Modern England (Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993), p. 81. 19. M. J. M. Ezell, Writing Women’s Literary History (Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993), p. 11. 20. See E. Hobby, Virtue of Necessity: English Women’s Writing 1649–88 (London: Virago, 1988) and ‘“Discourse So Unsavoury”: Women’s Published Writings of the 1650s’, in Women, Writing, History 1640–1740, pp. 16–32. See also Ezell’s chapter on Quaker women’s writing in Writing Women’s Literary History. 21. J. Spencer, Aphra Behn’s Afterlife (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000). 22. K. R. King, Jane Barker, Exile. A Literary Career 1675–1725 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000). 23. C. Barash, English Women’s Poetry, 1649–1714: Politics, Community, and Linguistic Authority (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996). 24. P. McDowell, The Women of Grub Street: Press, Politics, and Gender in the London Literary Marketplace (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988). 25. Ezell, Social Authorship and the Advent of Print. 26. J. Phillips Stanton, ‘Statistical Profile of Women Writing in English from 1660 to 1800’, in Eighteenth-Century Women and the Arts, edited by F. M. Keener and S. E. Lorsch (New York: Greenwood Press, 1988), pp. 247–61, p. 248. 27. Hobby, ‘“Discourse So Unsavoury”’, p. 16. 28. Hobby, Virtue of Necessity, p. 1. 29. Hobby, Virtue of Necessity, p. 26. 30. Stanton, ‘Statistical Profile of Women Writing in English from 1660 to 1800’, p. 248. 31. Stanton, ‘Statistical Profile of Women Writing in English from 1660 to 1800’, Table 24.2, p. 251. 32. For an analysis of Haywood’s significance in statistical terms, see C. Turner, Living by the Pen: Women Writers in the Eighteenth Century (London: Rout- ledge, 1992), p. 38. 33. For a discussion of early eighteenth-century women’s fiction which makes this point, see J. C. Beasley, ‘Politics and Moral Idealism: the Achievement of Some Early Women Novelists’, in Fetter’d or Free? British Women Novelists, 1670–1815, edited by M. A. Schofield and C. Macheski (Ohio: Ohio Uni- versity Press, 1986), pp. 216–36. 34. For a study of the intermixture of old and new forms of publishing methods in the seventeenth century, see H. Love, Scribal Publication in Seventeenth- Century England (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993). 35. Ezell, Social Authorship and the Advent of Print, p. 7. Notes 189 1. Authorship for women 1. P. Rogers, Hacks and Dunces: Pope, Swift and Grub Street (London and New York: Methuen, 1980), p. 3. 2. Turner, Living by the Pen, p. 60. 3. F. Donoghue, The Fame Machine: Book Reviewing and Eighteenth-Century Lit- erary Careers (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1996), p. 160. 4. Backscheider, Spectacular Politics, p. 71. 5. Backscheider, Spectacular Politics, p. 72. See also, D. Roberts, The Ladies: Female Patronage of Restoration Drama, 1660–1700 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989). 6. S. Fyge Egerton, The Female Advocate; or, An Answer to a Late Satyr Against the Pride, Lust, and Inconstancy of Women (1686); M. Astell, A Serious Proposal to the Ladies (1694); J. Drake, An Essay in Defense of the Female Sex (1696). 7. R. D. Hume, Henry Fielding and the London Theatre 1727–1737 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988), p. 27. As Hume notes, the dominance of the patent monopoly of Drury Lane and Lincoln’s Inn Fields resulted in few opportu- nities for new playwrights. Previously unperformed plays involved an unwelcome expenditure of time and money. Hume calculates that in the repertory for Drury Lane in 1726–7, only ‘8 per cent of the plays staged had been written within the previous twenty years, and thirty-seven of them (57 per cent) were more than thirty years old’, p. 15. 8. For the growth of women’s fiction in the 1720s, see Turner, Living by the Pen, pp. 34–9. 9. For a recent treatment of Haywood’s professional career, see Ingrassia, Authorship, Commerce, and Gender. 10. For discussion of Haywood’s career in the theatre, see W. S. Clark, The Early Irish Stage: the Beginnings to 1720 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1920), J. R. Elwood, ‘The Stage Career of Eliza Haywood’, Theatre Survey, 5.2 (1964), 107–16 and ‘Henry Fielding and Eliza Haywood: a Twenty Year War’, Albion, 5 (1973), 184–92, and M. Heinemann, ‘Eliza Haywood’s Career in the Theatre’, Notes and Queries, 20.1 (1973), 9–13. 11. State Papers Hanoverian: SP35 22/54. 12. For Haywood’s connections with the theatre in the 1730s, see Ingrassia, Authorship, Commerce, and Gender, pp. 105–7. For her connections with Henry Fielding’s company in this period, see Elwood, ‘Henry Fielding and Eliza Haywood: a Twenty Year War’ and Hume, Henry Fielding and the London Theatre. 13. Birch Add MS 4293 ff. 81–82, c.1730, f. 81. Christine Blouch dates this letter as nearer to 1728 by its similarity to another letter written to the Countess of Oxford. I discuss this letter in Chapter 4. See C. Blouch, ‘Eliza Haywood and the Romance of Obscurity’, Studies in English Literature, 31 (1991), 535–51, p. 548, note 26. 14. Birch Add MS 4293 f.82 c.1730. 15. P. Aubin, A Collection of Entertaining Histories and Novels, 3 vols (London, 1739). 16. W. H. McBurney ‘Mrs Penelope Aubin and the Early Eighteenth-Century English Novel’, Huntington Library Quarterly, 20 (1956–7), 245–67. Joel H. 190 Women, Authorship and Literary Culture, 1690–1740 Baer, ‘Penelope Aubin and the Pirates of Madagascar: Biographical Notes and Documents’, in Eighteenth-Century Women. Studies in Their Lives, Work, and Culture, Vol. 1., edited by L. V. Troost (New York: AMS Press, Inc., 2001), pp. 49–62. 17. Baer, ‘Penelope Aubin and the Pirates of Madagascar’, p. 55. 18. For information on Henley, see G. Midgley, The Life of Orator Henley (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973). 19. McBurney, ‘Mrs Penelope Aubin’, p. 245, note 3. The original issue of the Universal Spectator is in the Burney Collection of Newspapers (British Library, 270b). Aubin is recorded as having participated in similar events on two earlier occasions: 19 April 1729 and 22 April 1729. See The London Stage 1660–1800: a Calender of Plays, Entertainments and Afterpieces Together with Casts, Box-Receipts and Contemporary Comment, Part 2, 1700–29, edited by E. L. Avery (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1960). For further details, see volume one of A Biographical Dictionary of Actors, Actresses, Musicians, Dancers, Managers and Other Stage Personnel in London, 1660–1800, edited by P. H. Highfill, Jnr., K. A. Burnim and E. A. Langhans (Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois Press, 1973). The editors note that Aubin ‘was apparently the first woman to take advantage of the vogue for public oratory’, p. 175. 20. See, for example, Spencer, The Rise of the Woman Novelist, p. 86. For a pre- vious discussion of Aubin and the oratory which argues against this view, see S.