The Grub-Street Journal, 1730–33 ed. by Bertrand A. Goldgar (review)

76 conspicuous in her text. (Then again, the absence of someone like Richard Bevis is also felt in the discussion of stage comedy .) Although she explains why she omits Shakespeare, her discussion about tragedy, for example, must remain suspended or qualified without him. Larger conclusions about the drama, in addition, are determined primarily from selected texts—for me, another reason the study must be qualified. Notwithstanding her flowing and lucid prose, structural ‘‘idiosyncrasies ’’ are bruising, such as her fondness for transitional introductions (beginning sentenceswith‘‘Indeed’’)and her overused anticipatory declarations (‘‘I will demonstrate’’or ‘‘I argue that’’). For all its sophistication, this book often gears its wording toward the uninitiated rather than the specialist, that is, in the ‘‘I will’s,’’ in unnecessary plot synopses of major plays, and in critical observations old to the specialist. The book could have and should have been shorter. A good ‘‘reminder’’ study and a fresh contribution, Ms. Freeman’s study may not carry the day in being the best way to view the period’s drama (‘‘I have highlighted the ways in which the representation of character and of categories of identity such as class, gender, and nation followed the social and cultural interests of genre’’), but it often breaks through long-established and rigid lines and reconfigures at least part of the map. Despite my complaints, I am happy to have this book. John A. Vance University of Georgia The Grub-Street Journal, 1730–33, ed. Bertrand A. Goldgar, 4 vols. London: Pickering & Chatto, 2002. Pp. xv ⫹ 238, 240, 246, 240. $475. In his brief but informative Introduction , Mr. Goldgar makes a strong case for the value of the Grub-Street Journal, though its connection with Pope is no longer considered tenable. Rather, its primary editor was the relatively unknown Richard Russel (1685–1756), a nonjuring cleric with decidedly Tory leanings. The instinct behind the weekly four-page journal, which ran from 1730–1737, was decidedly Scriblerian: ‘‘to attack ‘lewd and vicious Nonsense’ or ‘wicked stupidity ’ in order to ‘reform the taste of the generality of Readers, which is very much depraved.’’’ Mr. Goldgar ably explains how Fielding somehow got categorized as one of the Journal’s targets. The four large quarto volumes are printed on high quality paper and handsomely bound. The facsimile-reproduced essays are followed by a set of concise, highly useful explanatory notes, translating Latin phrases, identifying figures, tracing quotations to their sources, and providing helpful if minimal context for the satiric thrusts of the essays. The Journal declined after 1733, and for that reason Mr.Goldgar decided to reprint only up to that point; a judicious selection of essays from the remaining four years might have been of use. An apologetic ‘‘Note on Copy Texts’’ warns the reader that ‘‘ease of reading’’ was a goal to be strived for, given thestate of the originals. Unfortunately, he is all too correct in warning us; surely a larger magnification might have helped, but generally speaking, onewillfindthisvery difficult reading indeed. Some of the facsimiles are very faint, all are reproduced onatype-pagemeasuring140⫻190mm., significantly reduced from the original and a strain on (elderly) eyes. Put together with a price of $475, one begins to wonder, as they say in the business world, about cost-effectiveness.And then, caveat emptor, the first gathering of 77 the first volume of the review copy was misbound, so that pp. xiii–xiv came after pp. xv–xvi, and the ‘‘Acknowledgments’’ ended up in the middle of the first issue of the Journal. We can only hope that years from now the misbinding willmake this copy worth even more than the exorbitant purchase price. Melvyn New University of Florida WILLIAM J. CHRISTMAS. The Lab’ring Muses: Work, Writing, and the Social Order in English Plebeian Poetry, 1730– 1830. Newark and London: Delaware and Associated University Presses, 2001. Pp. 364. $55. Although their works are largely neglected , the English laboring-class poets themselves have received intense scrutiny . Over-read as much as under-read, their stories have always been freighted with ideological baggage of one sort or another. In the eighteenth century, they were mocked by satirists from the Scriblerians onwards, fetishizedbyadvocates of ‘‘natural genius,’’ and...