University of Virginia Library

1. APPENDIX 1: The American Edition (1800)

The Unsex'd Females was "re-published" in an American edition by the firm of Wm. Cobbett, in New York, in 1800. How closely Polwhele was involved with the printing of the American edition is uncertain. On the one hand, the publishing house has taken pains to present an accurate biographical sketch in the preface, and add another piece by Polwhele, A Sketch of Peter Pindar. Most of the Sketch is taken directly from an article by Polwhele which appeared in The Anti-Jacobin, but it also contains some original prefatory remarks; it is at least possible that Polwhele prepared the text specifically for the American edition. On the other hand, one would think that had Polwhele worked closely with the Cobbett publishing house, he would have made sure that they spelled his name correctly; it is given as "Polewhele" throughout.

A Sketch of Peter Pindar could not be presented in this edition, unfortunately; but it is of some interest and deserves a brief discussion. It is ostensibly a review of/attack on Pindar's Nil Admirari: Or a Smile at a Bishop (1799), which was itself an attack on Hannah More's Structures on the Modern System of Female Education (2 vols., 1799). Pindar, in addition to attacking More for lack of talent, a tin ear, and suchlike, also suggests repeatedly that More's treatise on education is nothing more than a borrowing of the ideas of Dr. Beilby Porteus, Bishop of London at that time (hence the title). In the battle between these two important figures of his youth, Polwhele comes down unequivocally on the side of More; his "sketch" would be better termed a "rendering" — he metaphorically tears Pindar limb from limb. Polwhele speaks of the "prostituted muse of Peter Pindar, whose language and whose sentiments are those of the lowest street-walker in the purlieus of Pamassus" (57). His attack, however, is not confined to literary realms in the slightest; it is highly personal. Polwhele admits as much:

"If in these remarks, our readers should descry something more than critical severity, let them be assured that we speak not without book, we know the man, we know him intus et in cute; we have long marked the malignant effects of his mind, have traced him through all his character, and have, in all alike, found him a fit subject of public execration (55-56)."

In addition to his other sins, both major and minor (abandoning clerical orders, not paying for a portrait), Polwhele takes Pindar to task for libelling his neighbors in the country. One cannot help but wonder if Polwhele considered himself to be one of those so libelled.

Polwhele's Sketch is also of interest for its discussion of The Pursuits of Literature. In Nil Admirari, Pindar had also attacked Mathias, by name, as author of The Pursuits; Polwhele's response is to profess confusion over this, since the name of the author is (officially) unknown. He therefore removes Mathias's name from the discussion, and adds this:

"Of the Pursuits of Literature we have had occasion to speak, incidentally, more than once; we have declared our objections to particular parts of it, with freedom; and have censured a propensity to illiberal sarcasm, and indiscriminate abuse, which the author appeared to us to indulge in too frequently (61)."

This is a stronger condemnation of the work than is in The Unsex'd Females, but the reasons behind this are made apparent immediately thereafter:

"...we shall boldly declare that we consider the author, whoever he may be, as an able advocate for religion, morality and social order; and viewing him in this light, we are decidedly of opinion, that those writers who have had even just ground of complaint against him...would act more nobly, and we will add, more consistently with the principles which they support, if they were to overlook his defects, and sacrifice their private resentment to their zeal for promoting the public good...."

"The writer of this article contributed materially to bring the Pursuits of Literature into notice, at a time when it was very little known; and from the period to which we allude, the author must be sensible of a most material alteration in the sale of the work. Yet was he spoken of, in a subsequent part, in a contemptuous manner, that might possibly have justified a display of resentment; but he was incapable of suffering any personal motives to bias his sense of public duty, or to make him attempt to check the circulation of a work, the general tendency of which appeared to him to be highly beneficial (61-62)."

Polwhele's admiration of Mathias was evidently not reciprocated.

The preface to the American edition is given here, its humorous misspelling intact; it serves as a reminder that Anti-Jacobinism was to be found on both sides of the Atlantic. In addition, a collation of the British and American editions is given; mostly consisting of punctuation and spelling errors, it nonetheless yields a few priceless gems, the most notable being the substitution of "political" for "poetical" in the footnote on Ann Yearsley.