In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

75 stay rigidly ‘on message.’’’ Plunging into the murky waters of late Stuart polemic , she guides her reader through Manley’s major scandal romances. She shows that Manley’s Zarah at times represents the Whig Junto and not just Sarah Churchill (who personified its evils for many Tories), that sexual reticence as well as boldness occasionally marks the New Atalantis, and that Memoirs of Europe —with its complex, gender-reversed treatment of Anne as Constantine— astutely targets the Whig Junto’s fragmentation . ‘‘Mistress Examiner’’ might better appeal to the October Club than Swift’s ‘‘disembodied’’ authority. While illuminating, her readings sometimes take propaganda for fact: ‘‘[C]oncern for continuity and order’’ or ‘‘the right of . . . the ruling class to remain in this position ’’ were certainly not excusively Tory! Readers will find a useful corrective in Tim Harris’s Politics Under the Later Stuarts: Party Conflict in a Divided Society 1660–1715, a work surprisingly not cited. A partisan reader, Ms. Herman claims An Heroick Essay for Manley but otherwise handles attributions cautiously. Like Ros Ballaster (in her edition of New Atalantis), she doubts that the Female Tatler is Manley’s. She thinks Manley had only a hand in The Ecclesiastical and Political History of Whig-Land of Late Years (attributed to her by Calhoun Winton). On the basis of Swift’s complaints , she feels that Manley probably augmented A New Journey to Paris. Her highly conjectural argument that Manley contributed prefaces to the John Bull pamphlets, some of them associated on the title pages with the ‘‘Author of the New Atalantis,’’ is not persuasive. However , it reminds us that anonymous political writing was often, on some level, collaborative, and Manley earned a genuine place on the team of Tory propagandists . Since Manley’s animosities are as vivid as her charm, I miss a clearer reading of the interplay of partisan with personal motives in her celebrated attacks on Steele (with whom Swift had a similarly vexed relationship) and especially on women writers like Sarah Fyge Egerton and Catherine Trotter. Ms. Herman’s command of the literary context also seems uncertain. Prior was not a Scriblerian . It is problematic to call ‘‘Corinna ’’ ‘‘Swift’s satiric poem to’’ Manley, for it may also have other targets. Swift’s playful boast to Stella that the Examiner would go downhill once he stopped editing it is no sign of disdain for Manley. If Examiner No. 46 refers to Manley’s weight, as Frank Ellis suggests, the ‘‘very ungallant, even insulting, comment ’’ may reveal playful intimacy: a birthday poem to Stella does the same. There are signs of careless editing: ‘‘the fame Manley had achieved . . . were of considerable value’’; ‘‘to tempt to young lady’’; Roberts Halsband. Rather than ‘‘changing Anne from male to female,’’ Memoirs of Europe does the reverse. Notwithstanding such blemishes, Ms. Herman significantly contributes to our understanding of Manley’s participation in the strife of party. David Oakleaf University of Calgary DAVID BOYD HAYCOCK. William Stukeley : Science, Religion and Archeaology in Eighteenth Century England. Woodbridge , Suffolk, UK: Boydell, 2002. Pp. xii ⫹ 285. £55. This book is a welcome scholarly investigation of a little known eighteenth- 76 century antiquarian and natural philosopher . A dynamic Royal Society figure, William Stukeley aimed to integrate contemporary natural philosophy and orthodox theology into a common and persuasive enterprise. He ranged through anatomies of elephants, crocodile fossils , and studies of the brain—all part of the ‘‘Book of Nature.’’ But he is most admired as a ‘‘pioneer’’ of field archaeology ; the detailed and carefully illustrated studies of Stonehenge and Avebury have long been the focus of those interested in the development of antiquarian and archaeological practice. Earlier studies, as a useful Foreword by Michael Hunter explains, especially by the eminent prehistorian Stuart Piggott (William Stukeley: an EighteenthCentury Antiquary, 1985), were most concerned to plot Stukeley’s erudition and scholarship on to a history of the archaeological discipline. Mr. Haycock’s work is more ambitious and more deeply researched, contextualizing Stukeley’s erudition within the broader intellectual and religious debates and discourses of the time. Mr. Haycock provides a compelling and important window into an eighteenthcentury mind. As other studies by Brian Young (Religion and Enlightenment, 1998) and more...

pdf

Share