Reviews a Congenial Figure
unconventional deist Mary Wollstonecraft, Reviews a congenial figure. A woman writer who did so little to forward the agenda of contemporary feminism was, apparently, best consigned to silence. But by ignoring Anne Stott, Hannah More: The First More, the scholars of this period Victorian. Oxford University Press, postponed the discovery that her 2003. Pp. 384. £25.00. reputation as a sanctimonious conservative ISBN 0199245320. is not fully deserved. More’s first biographer, William Though an important figure in her own Roberts, whose Memoirs of the Life and time, Hannah More (1745-1833) was Correspondence of Mrs. Hannah More ignored by the generation of feminist appeared in the year after her death, bears scholars who began, during the 1970s, to much responsibility for the distorted rediscover forgotten or depreciated picture of More, which, as Stott notes, was women writers. The degree to which these until very recently ‘firmly embedded in scholars overlooked More is revealed by the historiography’ concerning her (p. ix). the fact that no full-length biography Roberts felt free to alter More’s appeared between 1952, when M. G. correspondence to fit his view of the way Jones’s sensible but rather perfunctory that the founding mother of the Hannah More was published, and the Evangelical movement ought to have appearance of Anne Stott’s Hannah More: written. Since few of More’s letters were The First Victorian in 2003. Yet More in print in any other form, Roberts’s was not only the most widely-read British portrait of More became the standard woman writer of her era, the author of picture, but in the early twentieth century plays, conduct books, tracts for the poor, a that picture, which corresponded to its best-selling novel and a variety of creator’s ideal of pious femininity, devotional works, but also a historical appeared less flattering.
[Show full text]