HISTORICAL LITERATURES: HISTORICAL LITERATURES WRITING

Notes

Preface

1 See, for example, Mark Salber Phillips, Society and Sentiment: Genres ofHistorical Writing in Britain 1740–1820 (Princeton: Princeton UniversityPress, 2000); Karen O’Brien, Narratives of Enlightenment: CosmopolitanHistory from Voltaire to Gibbon (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1997); Lionel Gossman, Between History and Literature (Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press, 1990); Leo Braudy, Narrative Form in History andFiction (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1970); J. B. Black, The Art ofHistory: A Study of Four Great Historians of the Eighteenth Century (New York:Russell and Russell, 1965).

2 For literary analysis of Clarendon’s history, see Martine Watson Brownley,Clarendon and the Rhetoric of Historical Form (Philadelphia: University ofPennsylvania Press, 1985).

3 George H. Nadel, ‘The Philosophy of History before Historicism’, History andTheory, 3 (1964): 291–315.

4 Philip Hicks, Neoclassical History and English Culture from Clarendon to Hume(Houndmills: Macmillan, 1996), 6; Laird Okie, Augustan Historical Writing:Histories of England in the English Enlightenment (Lanham: University Press ofAmerica, 1991).

5 Okie’s Augustan Historical Writing offers a thorough and insightful account ofthe ways in which the formal histories of this period anticipatedEnlightenment political and philosophical goals.

6 John Oldmixon, James Ralph, and William Guthrie, for example, all workedas journalists as well as historians.

7 Many of the formal histories written during this period limit or extend theirscope to the recent past. See, for example, Gilbert Burnet, History of My OwnTime (London, 1724); Robert Ferguson, The History of the Revolution(London, 1706); A Complete History of England, 3 vols. (London, 1706); Pierred’Orleans, A History of the Revolutions in England, under the Family of theStuarts (London, 1711); John Oldmixon, The History of England, During theReigns of King William and Queen Mary, Queen Anne, King George I (London,

3814 Historical Literatures:Layout 1 23/5/12 12:47 Page 191

Noelle Gallagher - 9781526130167Downloaded from manchesterhive.com at 05/31/2022 09:38:10AM

via free access

1735); Laurence Echard, The History of England, 3 vols (London, 1707); JamesRalph, The History of England: During the Reigns of K. William, Q. Anne, andK. George I. with an Introductory Review of the Reigns of the Royal Brothers,Charles and James, 2 vols (London, 1744–1746).

8 The History of the Reign of King George . . . to the first of August, 1718 . . . To beContinued Yearly (London, 1719), A1r. See also, for example, RichardBurridge, The Gazetteer’s Select History of Europe: or, a Description of all theSeats of the Present Wars in the Netherlands, Italy, Germany, Hungary (London,1704); G.L., A Compendious History of the Monarchs of England . . . to theeleventh year of the Reign of Her Present Majesty (London, 1712); WilliamHowell, Medulla Historiæ Anglicanæ: The Ancient and Present State of England ,Being a Compendious History of All its Monarchs (London, 1712).

9 Phillips, Society and Sentiment, 10.10 See, for example, Catherine Gallagher, Nobody’s Story: The Vanishing Acts of

Women Writers in the Marketplace, 1670–1820 (Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press, 1994); Pat Rogers, Grub Street: Studies in a Subculture(London: Methuen, 1972); J. A. Downie, Robert Harley and the Press:Propaganda and Public Opinion in the Age of Swift and Defoe (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1979); Abigail Williams, Poetry and the Creationof a Whig Literary Culture, 1681–1714 (Oxford: Oxford University Press,2005). Andrew McRae, Literature, Satire and the Early Stuart State(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004).

11 See Ruth Mack, Literary Historicity: Literature and Historical Experience inEighteenth-Century Britain (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2009), 3.

12 See, for example, J. Paul Hunter, Before Novels: The Cultural Contexts ofEighteenth-Century English Fiction (New York: Norton, 1990), 303–323;Lennard J. Davis, Factual Fictions: The Origins of the English Novel (New York:Columbia University Press, 1983); Michael McKeon, Origins of the EnglishNovel 1660–1740 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1984).

13 Robert Mayer, History and the Early English Novel: Matters of Fact from Baconto Defoe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997); EverettZimmerman, The Boundaries of Fiction: History and the Eighteenth-CenturyBritish Novel (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1996); Lorna Clymer andRobert Mayer, eds, Historical Boundaries, Narrative Forms: Essays on BritishLiterature in the Long Eighteenth Century in Honor of Everett Zimmerman(Newark: University of Delaware Press, 2007), especially the essays byTreadwell Ruml, Timothy Erwin, and Frank Palmeri.

14 Michael McKeon, The Secret History of Domesticity: Public, Private, and TheDivision of Knowledge (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005);Barbara J. Shapiro, A Culture of Fact: England, 1550–1720 (Ithaca: CornellUniversity Press, 2000); Probability and Certainty in Seventeenth-CenturyEngland: A Study of the Relationships between Natural Science, Religion, History,Law, and Literature (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983); MeganMatchinske, Women Writing History in Early Modern England (Cambridge:

192 NOTES



via free access

Cambridge University Press, 2009); Devoney Looser, British Women Writersand the Writing of History, 1670–1820 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UniversityPress, 2000); Cynthia Sundberg Wall, The Prose of Things: Transformations ofDescription in the Eighteenth Century (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,2006).

15 Ian Watt, The Rise of the Novel: Studies in Defoe, Richardson, and Fielding(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1957). See also Cynthia SundbergWall, The Prose of Things.

16 John Banks, The Unhappy Favourite; Or, the Earl of Essex, A Tragedy (London,1702); Vertue Betray’d; or Anna Bullen, A Tragedy (London, 1705). I amindebted to Jonathan Lamb for drawing these works to my attention.

17 Howard Weinbrot, Britannia’s Issue: The Rise of British Literature from Drydento Ossian (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 13.

Introduction

1 Alexander Pope, The Correspondence of Alexander Pope, ed. George Sherburn, 5vols (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956), 2:220.

2 For a thorough account of the ‘crisis’ in English historiography, see PhilipHicks, Neoclassical History, 1–22, 217n1; Nicholas von Maltzahn, Milton’sHistory of Britain: Republican Historiography in the English Revolution (Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1991), 49–59.

3 Paul Rapin de Thoyras, The History of England, trans. Nicholas Tindal, 15 vols(London, 1725–1731). [First published as Paul Rapin de Thoyras, Histoired’Angleterre, 10 vols (The Hague, 1723–1727)].

4 See Phillips, Society and Sentiment, 39–40. 5 Daniel Defoe, A Journal of the Plague Year, ed. Cynthia Wall (London:

Penguin, 2003), 227.6 Abel Boyer, The History of the Life and Reign of Queen Anne (London, 1722),

ij.7 John Dryden, The Works of John Dryden, ed. Edward Niles Hooker and H. T.

Swedenberg, 20 vols (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1956–2000),17:227.

8 Dryden, Works, 17:229. See also, for example, Daniel Defoe, The History of theKentish Petition (London, 1701), 2v; Abel Boyer, The History of King WilliamIII (London, 1702), 1:A6r–v.

9 For further discussion of the influence of classical historiography on eigh-teenth-century English historical writing, see Nadel, ‘Philosophy of History’;Arnaldo Momigliano, The Classical Foundations of Modern Historiography(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990); Studies in Historiography(London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1966), 1–55; Joseph Levine, The Battle ofthe Books: History and Literature in the Augustan Age (Ithaca: Cornell UniversityPress, 1991), 267–413, Humanism and History: Origins of Modern EnglishHistoriography (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991), 155–189; Howard D.

NOTES 193



via free access

Weinbrot, ‘Politics, Taste, and National Identity: Some Uses of Tacitism inEighteenth-Century Britain’, in Tacitus and the Tacitean Tradition, ed. T. J.Luce and A. J. Woodman (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993).

10 Rene Rapin, Instructions for History (London, 1680); Pierre Le Moyne, Of theArt of Writing and Judging of History (London, 1694).

11 Le Moyne, Of the Art, 53–54. For similar definitions, see, for example, DegoryWheare, The Method and Order of Reading both Civil and Ecclesiastical Histories(London, 1698), 15; Rapin, Instructions for History, 19; Thomas Hearne,Ductor Historicus, 2nd edn (London, 1704–1705), 119. Le Moyne’s andRapin’s texts first appeared in French, and Wheare’s in Latin. Hearne’s is asubstantially modified translation of Pierre Le Lorrain, Les Elémens de l’Histoire(Paris, 1696). For information on Hearne’s borrowings, see I. G. Philip, ‘TheGenesis of Thomas Hearne’s Ductor Historicus’, Bodleian Library Record, 7(1966): 251–264.

12 Hicks, Neoclassical History and English Culture, 4. 13 See, for example, Henry Felton, A Dissertation on Reading the Classics, and

Forming a Just Style (London, 1713), 197; Rene Rapin, Instructions, 132; IsaacKimber, The History of England . . . Collected from the Most Impartial Writers,and Digested into the Most Easy and Familiar Method (London, 1746), iv.

14 William Guthrie, A General History of England from the Invasion of the Romans. . . to the Late Revolution in 1688, 4 vols (London, 1744–1751), 1:iii.

15 John Oldmixon, The History of England During the Reigns of the Royal House ofStuart (London, 1730), xi.

16 Oldmixon, History of England During the Reigns of the Royal House of Stuart, xi. 17 Oldmixon, History of England During the Reigns of the Royal House of Stuart,

729–730. 18 Ralph, History of England, 1:iii–iv. See also Guthrie, General History, 1:i. 19 Michel Le Vassor, The History of the Reign of Lewis the XIIIth, 2 vols (London,

1701), 2:A3r. 20 A Collection of State Tracts, 2 vols (London, 1705–1707), 1:1. 21 A Collection of State Tracts, 1:1. For other descriptions of satire and panegyric,

see, for example, James Knight, Considerations on Mr. Whiston’s HistoricalPreface (London, 1711), xxviii; John Oldmixon, Critical History of England, 2vols (London 1726–1730), 2:185. For descriptions of secret history and satire,see Gilbert Burnet, Memoires of the Lives and Actions of James and William,Dukes of Hamilton and Castleherald (London, 1677), a1v; Antoine Varillas,Anekdota Eterouiaka, or, The Secret History of the House of Medicis (London:1686), b4v.

22 Oldmixon, The History of England, During the Reigns of King William andQueen Mary, vj; see also, for example, Boyer, King William, 1:A5v.

23 Burnet, Memoires, a1v; The General History of the World, Being an Abridgmentof Sir Walter Raleigh, 4 vols (London, 1708), 1:xii.

24 William Nicolson, The English Historical Library, 3 vols (London, 1696), 1:A1r.25 [John Hughes], Preface to A Complete History of England, 3 vols (London,

194 NOTES



via free access

1706), 1:leaf 2r–v; see also, for example, Boyer, King William, 1:a5r. 26 Wheare, Method and Order, 298. For other articulations of this commonplace,

see also, for example, Dryden, Works, 17.274; Henry St. John, ViscountBolingbroke, Letters on the Study and Use of History (London, 1752), 15.

27 Wheare, Method and Order, 299. 28 Thomas Hearne, Ductor Historicus (London, 1698), 101. Hearne is quoting

‘the Bishop of Meaux . . . in his excellent Discourse address’d to the Dauphin’(100).

29 See Anthony Grafton and Lisa Jardine, ‘Studied for Action: How GabrielHarvey Read His Livy’, Past and Present, 129 (1990): 30–78; see also StephenB. Dobranski, Readers and Authorship in Early Modern England (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 2005).

30 Wheare, Method and Order, 21. 31 Wheare, Method and Order, 323. See also Hearne, Ductor Historicus (1698),

1:115–116; Le Moyne, Of the Art, 42. 32 See Daniel Woolf, Reading History in Early Modern England (Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 2000); Karen O’Brien, ‘The History Market inEighteenth-Century England’, in Books and Their Readers in Eighteenth-Century England: New Essays, ed. Isabel Rivers (London: Leicester UniversityPress, 2001), 105–133; Mark Towsey, Reading the Scottish Enlightenment(Leiden: Brill, 2009), esp. 38–40, 42–43, 72–73. On the expansion of thebook market and reading in general, see John Feather, The Provincial BookTrade in Eighteenth-Century England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1985); Heidi Brayman Hackel, Reading Material in Early Modern England:Print, Gender, and Literacy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005);Jennifer Andersen and Elizabeth Sauer, eds. Books and Readers in Early ModernEngland (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2002).

33 See, for example, the subscription lists to Ralph’s History of England or themulti-authored Complete History of England (London, 1706). See also PatRogers, ‘Book Subscription Among the Augustans’, in The Times LiterarySupplement (15 December 1972), 1539–1540.

34 See, for example, Abel Boyer, The History of the Reign of Queen Anne, Digestedinto Annals (London, 1703–1710); Kimber, The History of England; JohnLindsay, A Brief History of England, both in Church and State (London, 1748).

35 See Harold Love, English Clandestine Satire 1660–1702 (Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 2004).

36 On history as pleasure-reading, see, for example, Dryden, Works, 17.270;Hearne, Ductor Historicus (1698), 114; Guthrie, General History, 1:iii;Oldmixon, History of England During the Reigns of the Royal House of Stuart,xii–xiv.

37 On the eighteenth century’s burgeoning culture of ‘novelty’ and ‘news’, seeHunter, Before Novels, 167–224; Davis, Factual Fictions, 42–70; JoadRaymond, The Invention of the Newspaper: English Newsbooks, 1641–1649(Oxford: Clarendon, 1996); Joad Raymond, ed., News Networks in

NOTES 195



via free access

Seventeenth-Century Britain and Europe (London: Routledge, 2006).38 [Hughes], Preface to A Complete History, 1:leaf1r. 39 On public political awareness in this period, see Jurgen Habermas, The

Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, trans. Thomas Burger(Cambridge: Polity Press, 1989); Steven Pincus, ‘Coffee Politicians DoesCreate’: Coffeehouses and Restoration Political Culture’, Journal of ModernHistory, 65 (1995): 807–834; Brian Cowan, The Social Life of Coffee: Curiosity,Commerce, and Civil Society in Early Modern Britain (New Haven: YaleUniversity Press, 2005).

40 Le Moyne, Of the Art, 42; see also Wheare, Method and Order, 323. 41 The same attraction to individual history is reflected in eighteenth-century

writers’ admiration of Plutarch’s Lives. 42 Hunter, Before Novels, 342. 43 Hearne, Ductor Historicus (1698), 175–176.44 Hearne, Ductor Historicus (1698), 175–176.45 Burnet, Memoires, a1v. 46 [Hughes], Preface to A Complete History, 1:3v.47 Howell, Medulla Historiæ Anglicanæ, A3v. See also Felton, Dissertation, 197;

Kimber, The History of England, iv; Boyer, Queen Anne, vij. 48 Henry Fielding, Joseph Andrews, ed. Martin C. Battestin (Middletown:

Wesleyan University Press, 1967), 186. 49 Felton, Dissertation, 197. 50 See Le Moyne, Of the Art, 127, 114; Rapin, Instructions, 9. 51 Le Moyne, Of the Art, 55; see also Pierre-Mathurin de L’Écluse des Loges,

Preface to Memoirs of Maximilian de Bethune, Duke of Sully, trans. CharlotteLennox, 5 vols (London 1757), 1:ii.

52 Rapin, Instructions, 105; see also 59–60; Le Moyne, Of the Art, 76; Wheare,Method and Order, 324. On the classical precedents for this approach, seeMomigliano, Classical Foundations, 109–131; Charles Fornara, The Nature ofHistory in Ancient Greece and Rome (Berkeley: University of California Press,1983), 76–90. For a discussion of the emphasis on character in eighteenth-century formal history, see Neil Hargraves, ‘Revelation of Character inEighteenth-Century Historiography and William Robertson’s History of theReign of Charles V ’, Eighteenth-Century Life, 27.2 (2003): 23–48.

53 Rapin, Instructions, 80; see also Hearne, Ductor Historicus (1698), 122.54 Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France (London, 1790),

12–14. On Clarendon’s use of individual figures as ‘emblems of the times’, seeBrownley, Clarendon and the Rhetoric of Historical Form, 177–185.

55 Wheare, Method and Order, 324; see also Dryden, Works, 270–271; Letters toa Young Nobleman (London, 1726), 21; David Hume, Philosophical EssaysConcerning Human Understanding (London, 1748), 134.

56 David Hume, The History of England from the Invasion of Julius Caesar to theRevolution in 1688, 6 vols (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1983).

196 NOTES



via free access

Part IMemoirs and the history of the individual

1 Burnet, Memoires, a1v. See also Pierre Le Moyne, Of the Art, 12–14; 87–88.2 Burnet, Memoires, a1v. 3 Burnet, Memoires, a1v.4 See, for example, Phillips, Society and Sentiment, esp. 295–321; April London,

Literary History Writing 1770–1820 (Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan, 2010);Karen O’Brien, ‘History and the Novel in Eighteenth-Century Britain’, in TheUses of History in Early Modern England, ed. Paulina Kewes, 389–405 (SanMarino, CA: Huntington Library, 2006).

5 On ‘selfhood’ in early modern autobiography, see, for example, RonaldBedford, Lloyd Davis and Philippa Kelly, eds, Early Modern Autobiography:Theories, Genres, Practices (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2006);Paul Delany, British Autobiography in the Seventeenth Century (London:Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1969); Jürgen Schlaeger, ‘Self-Exploration in EarlyModern English Diaries’, in Marginal Voices, Marginal Forms: Diaries inEuropean Literature and History, ed. Rachael Langford and Russell West, 22–36 (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1999); Felicity A. Nussbaum, The AutobiographicalSubject: Gender and Ideology in Eighteenth-Century England (Baltimore: JohnsHopkins University Press, 1989); Shari Benstock, ed., The Private Self: Theoryand Practice of Women’s Autobiographical Writings (Chapel Hill: University ofNorth Carolina Press, 1988); Sharon Cadman Seelig, Autobiography andGender in Early Modern Literature: Reading Women’s Lives, 1600–1800(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006); Gallagher, Nobody’s Story;Patricia Meyer Spacks, Imagining a Self: Autobiography and Novel in Eighteenth-Century England (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1976); G. A.Starr, Defoe and Spiritual Autobiography (Princeton: Princeton UniversityPress, 1965); Hunter, Before Novels, 303–337; McKeon, Origins, 95–96,241–248, 252–255, 317–319.

6 Le Moyne, Of the Art, 13.7 Rapin, Instructions, 128.8 Le Moyne, Of the Art, 14; see also Rapin, Instructions, 128.9 L’Écluse des Loges, Preface to Memoirs of Maximilian de Bethune, 1:v. L’Écluse

de Loges’ preface first appeared in 1745.10 Robert Stephens, Preface to Letters of Sir Francis Bacon (London, 1702), A3v. 11 Christian Cole, Historical and Political Memoirs, Containing Letters Written By

Sovereign Princes, State Ministers, Admirals, and General Officers. &c. (London,1735), ix. See also Stephens, Preface, A3v.

12 See Hicks, Neoclassical History, 28. 13 Le Moyne, Of the Art, 87.14 Burnet, Memoires, a1v. 15 Jean Le Clerc remarks that Clarendon, for example, gave ‘too odious a Turn to

the Conduct of the opposite Side; and . . . a too favourable one to the Actions

NOTES 197



via free access

of the King; without perceiving it, and without having any settled Design ofbetraying the Truth’. See Mr. Le Clerc’s Account of the Earl of Clarendon’s Historyof the Civil Wars, trans. J.O. (London, 1710), 3–4.

16 Le Moyne, Of the Art, 18.17 Le Clerc, Account of the Earl of Clarendon, 4. See also Claude de Forbin,

Memoirs of the Count de Forbin (London, 1731), 1–2. 18 Le Moyne, Of the Art, 55. 19 Charles Burman, Preface to Memoirs of the Life of that Learned Antiquary, Elias

Ashmore, Drawn Up by Himself by way of Diary (London, 1717), vii. See also,for example, Guy Joli, Memoirs of Guy Joli, Private Secretary to Cardinal de Retz(London, 1775), vii; L’Écluse des Loges, Memoirs of Maximilian de Bethune,a4r; Le Clerc, Account of the Earl of Clarendon, 5.

20 L’Écluse des Loges, Memoirs of Maximilian de Bethune, ii.21 See Le Moyne, Of the Art, 16–17; Burnet, Memoires, a1v.22 See Jean Bodin, Method for the Easy Comprehension of History, trans. Beatrice

Reynolds (New York: Columbia University Press, 1945), 43; Burnet,Memoires, a1r.

23 Le Moyne, Of the Art, 18.24 Boyer, Queen Anne, iii–iv. Rapin also emphasized history’s literary qualities,

praising Caesar’s unusual ‘talent of expressing himself ’ in the Commentaries(see Instructions, 128).

25 Le Moyne, Of the Art, 25. 26 Le Moyne, Of the Art, 26, 51. 27 James Touchet, Earl of Castlehaven, The Memoires of James Lord Audley Earl of

Castlehaven (London, 1680), 3v: ‘The Stile is plain and simple; otherwise itcould not be mine.’

28 Authors of fictional and semi-fictional memoirs also made use of this device:Jonathan Swift, for example, praised ‘the great Simplicity in the Stile andmanner’ of Memoirs of Capt. John Creichton, Written by Himself (1731). SeeJonathan Swift, Miscellaneous and Autobiographical Pieces, ed. Herbert Davis(Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1969), 122.

29 T. Prince, Preface to Roger Clap, Memoirs of Capt. Roger Clap (Boston, 1731), i.30 Rapin, Instructions, 94–95; see also 5.31 Le Moyne, Of the Art, 56. 32 Le Moyne Of the Art, 54; see also 188–189. 33 John Welwood, Memoirs of the Most Material Transactions in England, for the

Last Hundred Years, Preceding the Revolution in 1688 (London, 1700),A7v–A8r.

34 L’Écluse des Loges, Memoirs of Maximilian de Bethune, vi. 35 There is some crossover here with contemporary journalism, since almanacs,

journals, diaries, and other forms were – like the ‘petty Grubstreet chronicle’ –episodic rather than narrative in form. For a more detailed discussion of jour-nalism in the period, see the section ‘The old chronicle and the new’ in Chapter4. For eighteenth-century discussions of the distinctions between history and

198 NOTES



via free access

journalism, see, for example, Echard, History of England, 1:a1v; Rapin,Instructions, 58; Le Moyne, Of the Art, 76–77; Boyer, King William, 1:A5v.

36 Le Moyne, Of the Art, 194–195; see also Le Clerc, Account of the Earl ofClarendon, 6.

37 Rapin, Instructions, 58. Le Moyne similarly argues that the analysis of long-term causes is ‘the Duty but of a True History, that Commentaries, Journals,Memoirs and Registers, are dispensed with’ (Of the Art, 119–120).

38 Rapin, Instructions, 5. 39 Rapin, Instructions, 4; see also 21. 40 Le Moyne, Of the Art, 21. See also 32, 118–119; Rapin, Instructions, 106;

Roger Coke, A Detection of the Court and State of England (London, 1694),A4v–A5r.

41 For examples of letter diaries, see Harriet Blodgett, ed., ‘Capacious Hold-All’:An Anthology of Englishwomen’s Diary Writings, (Charlottesville: UniversityPress of Virginia, 1991), 259–265, 104–112.

42 See, for example, Samuel Bury’s address to his wife’s ‘Friends and Relations’ –the intended readers of An Account of the Life and Death of Mrs. Elizabeth Bury. . . Chiefly Collected out of her own Diary (London, 1721), A4r.

43 For discussions of history as providing examples of virtuous statesmanlybehaviour, see Wheare, Method and Order, 298; Dryden, Works, 17.274;Henry St. John, Viscount Bolingbroke, Letters, 15.

44 Louis de Pontis, Memoirs of the Sieur De Pontis (London, 1694), a2r.45 Jean-François de La Harpe, The Life of Mr. Cleveland, Natural Son of Oliver

Cromwell, Written by Himself, 4 vols (London, 1732), 1:iv. See also the prefaceto Edmund Trench, Some Remarkable Passages in the Holy Life and Death of theLate Reverend Mr. Edmund Trench (London, 1693). In this latter text, theeditor contrasts the idealized examples of biblical history with the more attain-able examples of ordinary men, arguing that such ‘amiable living Patterns ofReligion sensibly reproach our Defects as inexcusable, encourage and quickenour Endeavours, and inflame us with a holy Emulation, to equal or outdo ’em’(A5r–v).

46 Editors of memoir collections sometimes capitalized on the notion of memoirsas monument to posterity by addressing a posthumously published text to amemoirist’s heirs: the publisher of the Memoirs of Denzil Lord Holles (London,1699), for example, dedicated Holles’ ‘Monument . . . of Himself to Posterity’to the memoirist’s grand-nephew, the Duke of Newcastle (vii). Likewise, theMemoirs of the Sieur De Pontis were published with a dedication to thememoirist’s grandson, the Duke of Ormond, as ‘the Heir of His Honours andHis Virtues’ (2r).

47 Prince, Preface to Memoirs of Capt. Roger Clap, ii. 48 Harriot Butler, Memoirs of Lady Harriot Butler (London, 1741), 1. 49 Butler, Memoirs, 2. 50 Swift, Miscellaneous, 122.51 Swift, Miscellaneous, 122.

NOTES 199



via free access

Chapter 1

1 Jonathan Swift, A Tale of a Tub With Other Early Works 1696–1707, ed.Herbert Davis (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1965), 3.

2 For other attacks on preface-writing, see, for example, John Oldmixon, TheHistory of Addresses (London, 1709), A2r–A8v; Karl Ludwig, Freiherr vonPöllnitz, The Memoirs of Charles-Lewis, Baron de Pollnitz, trans. StephenWhatley (London, 1737), xi–xii; William Brownsword, Laugh and Lye Down:Or, A Pleasant, But Sure, Remedy for the Gout . . . In a Poem (London, 1739),1–8.

3 Le Moyne, Of the Art, 187.4 Le Moyne, Of the Art, 188–189.5 Le Moyne, Of the Art, 188. 6 Le Moyne, Of the Art, 189. 7 Le Moyne, Of the Art, 189–190. 8 Le Moyne, Of the Art, 190. 9 Le Moyne, Of the Art, 190. See also Rene Rapin, Instructions, 97: ‘The Prefaces

of Salust . . . seem to me to be of that kind, as being a sort of Common-placesthat have no Rapport to the History. Possibly that Author had some Pieces instore, which he made use of as occasion required; as Cicero did, according tohis own acknowledgment; I have (says he) a Volume of Prefaces always ready forthe occasions I may have of them.’

10 Le Moyne, Of the Art, 191.11 Le Moyne, Of the Art, 191.12 Le Moyne, Of the Art, 191.13 Le Moyne, Of the Art, 193.14 Le Moyne, Of the Art, 191.15 Le Moyne, Of the Art, 193.16 Le Moyne, Of the Art, 191–192. 17 Le Moyne, Of the Art, 192. 18 Le Moyne, Of the Art, 192. 19 See, for example, the prefaces to Oldmixon, History of England During the

Reigns of the Royal House of Stuart, viii–x; Ralph, History of England, 1:i–iv; AComplete History of England, 1:a2v.

20 Le Moyne, Of the Art, 9. 21 Le Moyne, Of the Art, 12.22 Colley Cibber, An Apology for the Life of Mr. Colley Cibber (London, 1740).

Subsequent references to this edition will be cited parenthetically in the text.23 Jurgen Habermas, Structural Transformation, 5–14. 24 See The Works of Alexander Pope, 6 vols (London, 1764), 3:77–275; Henry

Fielding, An Apology for the Life of Mrs. Shamela Andrews (London, 1741),v–xii. Other attacks include the anonymous The Laureat (London, 1740) andAn Apology for the Life of Mr. T . . . .C . . . ., Comedian (London, 1740). OnJoseph Andrews as a response to Cibber, see Noelle Gallagher, ‘Historiography,

200 NOTES



via free access

the Novel, and Fielding’s “Comic Epic-Poem in Prose”’, Studies in EnglishLiterature 1500–1900, 52.3 (Summer 2012).

25 See Spacks, Imagining a Self, 193–226; Kristina Straub, Sexual Suspects:Eighteenth-Century Players and Sexual Ideology (Princeton: PrincetonUniversity Press, 1992), 24–68; Brian Glover, ‘Nobility, Visibility, andPublicity in Colley Cibber’s Apology’, Studies in English Literature, 42 (2002):523–539; Lois Potter, ‘Colley Cibber: The Fop as Hero’, in Augustan Worlds,ed. J. C. Hilson, M. M. B. Jones and J. R. Watson, 153–164 (New York:Barnes & Noble Books, 1978).

26 Brian Fone, Introduction to An Apology for the Life of Colley Cibber, ed. B. R.S. Fone (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1968), xviii.

27 The transition is particularly clear in histories that incorporated lists of thegreat men of every reign, or that provided accounts of the notable figures whohad died in each year. See, for example, A Complete History of England,1:340–341, 1:428, 1:481, 1:513, 1:639–640; Echard, History of England,2:98, 2:116, 2:122, 2:149, 2:164, 2:185–186, 2:462–463, 2:827–828;3:178–179, 3:568, 3:647–648, 3:707–708, 3:788–789; The History ofEngland, from the Earliest Accounts of Time to the Death of Queen Anne, 4 vols(London, 1722), 2:57–58, 3:452, 3:456, 3:549.

28 See Phillips, Society and Sentiment, esp. 48–55. 29 See the chapter ‘The Sense of Audience: Samuel Richardson, Colley Cibber’,

in Spacks, Imagining a Self, 193–226. 30 See Pope, Works, 2:143.31 For other examples of Cibber’s addresses to the reader, see 18, 206, 315.32 While Cibber was not himself a politician, several critics have remarked on his

connections with the nobility and courtiers of his time. For further discussionof Cibber’s associations with court figures, see Charles D. Peavy, ‘Pope, Cibber,and the Crown of Dulness’, The South Central Bulletin 26.4 (1966), esp.17–21; John Maurice Evans, Introduction to A Critical Edition of An Apologyfor the Life of Mr. Colley Cibber, Comedian, ed. J. H. Evans (New York:Garland, 1987), xiv–xl; Glover, ‘Nobility’, 523–539.

33 For similar descriptions, see, for example, 238–239, 259, 344.34 On history as a school for virtue, see Nadel, ‘Philosophy of History’, 291–315.

See also the analysis of ‘progressive’ and ‘cyclical’ views of history in Chapter 6,pages 143–145.

35 Several critics have made note of Cibber’s contrasting self-portraits. BrianGlover argues that the Apology exploits the comic potential of the contrastbetween Cibber as ‘fop’ and Cibber as eighteenth-century bourgeois individual(‘Nobility’, 523–539). Lois Potter argues for a contradiction between Cibber’sself-awareness and his claims to stupidity (’Colley Cibber’, 161). Straubdiscusses Cibber’s adoption of alternative masculine roles, including the fopand the schoolboy (Sexual Suspects, 50–88).

36 See for example, Cibber’s defence of ‘his follies’ on the grounds of their being

NOTES 201



via free access

not ‘hurtful to any other Man living’, effectually ‘discharged’ by confession,and shared by ‘comfortable Numbers’ of other sinners (2).

37 ‘Of all the Assurances I was ever guilty of, this, of writing my own Life, is themost hardy’, he observes (26).

38 See also, for example, a2v, 7.39 See also, for example 307, 318.40 Straub, Sexual Suspects, 43; see also Potter, ‘Colley Cibber’, 16.

Chapter 2

1 While most editors have referred to Evelyn’s record simply as The Diary of JohnEvelyn, Evelyn titled the first complete version of his diary Kalendarium. I haveretained this original title, both for its suggestion of self-conscious artistry, andfor its connection with calendric forms like the almanac.

2 For examples of scholarly anthologies, see Arthur Ponsonby, ed., EnglishDiaries: A Review of English Diaries from the Sixteenth to the Twentieth CenturyWith an Introduction on Diary Writing (London: Methuen, 1923); RonaldBlythe, ed., The Pleasures of Diaries: Four Centuries of Private Writing (NewYork: Pantheon Books, 1989); Ralph Houlbrooke, ed., English Family Life1567–1716: An Anthology from Diaries (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1988). Forintroductory or survey scholarship outside of an anthologizing context, seeRobert Fothergill, Private Chronicles: A Study of English Diaries (London:Oxford University Press, 1974); Thomas Mallon, A Book of One’s Own: Peopleand Their Diaries (New York: Ticknor & Fields, 1984). Women’s diaries areoften discussed or anthologized separately. See, for example, Judy Simons,Diaries and Journals of Literary Women from Fanny Burney to Virginia Woolf(Iowa: University of Iowa Press, 1990); Harriet Blodgett, Centuries of FemaleDays: Englishwomen’s Private Diaries (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers UniversityPress, 1988); Blodgett, ‘Capacious Hold-All’.

3 See, for example, J. Paul Hunter, The Reluctant Pilgrim: Defoe’s EmblematicMethod and Quest for Form in Robinson Crusoe (Baltimore: Johns HopkinsUniversity Press, 1966), 82–89; Before Novels, 303–323; Starr, Defoe andSpiritual Autobiography, 3–50; McKeon, Origins, 91–96.

4 Stuart Sherman, Telling Time: Clocks, Diaries, and English Diurnal Form,1660–1785 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996); Wall, The Prose ofThings, 82–88. See also the essays in Dan Doll and Jessica Munns, eds,Recording and Reordering: Essays on the Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-CenturyDiary and Journal (Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press, 2006). Many of theother essays in Recording and Reordering also offer literary or cultural analysisof diary texts.

5 See Hunter, Before Novels, 303–323. For an opposing view, see Blodgett,‘Capacious Hold-All’, 4.

6 For more on the travel journal, see Fothergill, Private Chronicles, 14–15;

202 NOTES



via free access

Hunter, Before Novels, 353–355; McKeon, Origins, 100–117; Percy G. Adams,Travel Literature and the Evolution of the Novel (Lexington: University ofKentucky Press, 1983).

7 While Stuart Sherman has convincingly argued for the development of‘diurnal form’ – prose structured according to the unit of a single day – duringthe Restoration and eighteenth century, many early works from the period(including Evelyn’s diary, as well as some of the ‘historical’ diaries cited above)presented weekly, monthly, or yearly entries.

8 A Diary of the Siege of Athlone . . . By an Engineer of the Army, an Eye-Witness ofthe Action (London, 1691), 1.

9 An Exact Diary of the Siege of the City of Ments (London, 1689).10 A Diary of the Siege & Surrender of Lymerick (Dublin, 1692), A2r.11 Vincenzo Coronelli, The Royal Almanack; Containing a Succinct Account of the

Most Memorable Actions of K. William III with the Year and Day of the MonthWhen they Happened (London, 1696).

12 Although Pepys’ diary, for example, has often been seen as artless andimmediate, William Matthews has documented the degree to which Pepys’work was written and assembled with conscious care. The diary’s entries,though dated daily, were often written at intervals. They were composed fromprior notes or rough drafts, and then carefully entered, in final copy, into thediary volume. Although these considerations offer no proof that Pepysintended the diary to reach a posthumous audience, they do strengthen thepossibility. The same could be said of Pepys’ bequest of the diary to a relative,or his prior decision (noted in the diary) to destroy some earlier records heconsidered too ‘boyish’ for others to view. See William Matthews, ‘The Diaryas Literature’, in The Diary of Samuel Pepys, A New and Complete Transcription,ed. Robert Latham and William Matthews, 11 vols (Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press, 1970–1983), 1:xcvii–cxii.

13 See Starr, Defoe and Spiritual Autobiography, 19, 23. 14 Starr, Defoe and Spiritual Autobiography, 22. I discuss the tradition of biblical

typology in greater detail in Chapter 6.15 Starr, Defoe and Spiritual Autobiography, 23. 16 Bulstrode Whitelocke, The Diary of Bulstrode Whitelocke 1605–1675, ed. Ruth

Spalding (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990), 88. For further discussionof the rhetoric of exemplarity in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century diaries, seeDelany, British Autobiography in the Seventeenth Century, 167; Starr, Defoe andSpiritual Autobiography, 3–4.

17 This distinction between analogy (comparing specific with specific) andallegory or extended metaphor (comparing specific to general) is nicelycaptured by Erasmus Darwin, who reflects that ‘Science is best delivered inProse, as its mode of reasoning is from stricter analogies than metaphors orsimiles.’ See Darwin, The Botanic Garden, 2 vols (London, 1789), 2:43.

18 On Evelyn’s scientific interests and his conception of ‘self ’ in the diary, see

NOTES 203



via free access

Douglas Chambers, ‘John Evelyn and the Construction of the Scientific Self ’,in The Restoration Mind, ed. W. Gerald Marshall, 132–146 (Newark:University of Delaware Press, 1997).

19 Robert Hooke, another early scientist, also kept a diary – as did empiricistphilosopher John Locke.

20 For more detailed discussions of almanacs, see Eustace F. Bosanquet, EnglishPrinted Almanacks (Chiswick Press, 1917); Bernard Capp, English Almanacs1500–1800: Astrology and the Popular Press (Ithaca: Cornell University Press,1979); Timothy Feist, The Stationers’ Voice: The English Almanac Trade in theEarly Eighteenth Century (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society,2005). On almanacs in the nineteenth century, see Maureen Perkins, Visions ofthe Future: Almanacs, Time, and Cultural Change 1775–1870 (Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1996); on the mathematical and astronomical aspects ofalmanacs, see John T. Kelly, Practical Astronomy during the Seventeenth Century:Almanac-Makers in America and England (New York: Garland, 1991).

21 Feist notes that they were ‘the most widely read literature after Bibles andnewspapers’ (The Stationers’ Voice, 122).

22 Feist, The Stationers’ Voice, 15.23 Feist, The Stationers’ Voice, 16; see also Perkins, Visions of the Future, 15; Capp,

English Almanacs, 23–24. 24 See E. S. de Beer, Introduction to The Diary of John Evelyn, ed. E. S. de Beer

(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955), 1:44. 25 Dove’s almanac ran from the early seventeenth century on into the eighteenth.

Its author – sometimes listed as ‘Jonathan Dove’ – is tentatively identified asJohn Swan in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. As both Feist andCapp have documented, however, most almanacs were written by a largercollective rather than an individual author, and one powerful corporation, theStationers’ Company, exercised a monopoly over the genre’s publication untilthe 1770s. See Capp, English Almanacs, 33–42; Feist, The Stationers’ Voice,42–71.

26 [Dove], Speculum Anni à Partu Virginis MDCXLIII; Or, An Almanack for theYeare of Our Lord God 1643 (London, 1643).

27 [Dove], Speculum Anni; Or, An Almanack for the Year of our Lord God 1691(Cambridge, 1691), A2r.

28 [Dove], Speculum Anni: Or, An Almanack for the Year of Our Lord God(London, 1709), A5r.

29 It may also be worth noting that these brief biographies occupied theformatted spaces that had previously been left blank for the purchaser’s ownentries; the substitution perhaps suggests a similarity between the two kinds oftemplate biographical record.

30 Daniel Woolf has noted that ‘Minor details of local life such as the weather,and periodic crises such as floods’ were often recorded in early modern diaries.See Woolf, The Social Circulation of the Past: English Historical Culture1500–1730 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 175.

204 NOTES



via free access

31 John Evelyn, The Diary of John Evelyn, ed. E. S. de Beer, 6 vols (Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1955), 2:21, 3:485. Subsequent references to this edition ofthe diary appear parenthetically in the text. References to volume 1 refer toEvelyn’s revised later version of the diary, De Vita Propria. I have retained DeBeer’s system of brackets, used to indicate revised passages of the manuscript,throughout.

32 Guy de la Bédoyère, Introduction to The Diary of John Evelyn, ed. Guy de laBédoyère (Woodbridge: Boydell, 1995), 8.

33 For a discussion of Evelyn’s sources, see de Beer’s Introduction to Evelyn,1:85–105.

34 See de Beer, Introduction, 1:44–47. 35 See de Beer, Introduction, 1:70.36 De Beer, Introduction, 1:46; for the rationale behind de Beer’s assignment of

these dates, see 1:69–74.37 De Beer, Introduction, 1:46.38 It is perhaps also significant that Evelyn’s later marginalia often supply addi-

tional documentary detail rather than analytical commentary, suggesting thatEvelyn’s revisions were motivated by a desire to make the diary a moreaccurate record rather than a more coherent narrative.

39 Evelyn’s entry for the year 1631 notes the commencement of the diary bysituating it in a family tradition of record-keeping: ‘in imitation of what I hadseene my Father do, I began to observe matters more punctualy, which I diduse to set downe in a blanke Almanac’ (1:23).

40 Evelyn’s portraits in the Kalendarium depict ‘real’ individuals rather thanidealized types, but the portrait of Margaret in Evelyn’s later biography of her(eventually published in 1847 as the Life of Mrs. Godolphin) has beencompared to a medieval saint’s life. See Bruce Redford, ‘Evelyn’s Life of Mrs.Godolphin and the Hagiographical Tradition’, Biography, 8 (1985): 119–129. Iwould suggest that the Life operates, as does much of the Kalendarium, on thebasis of analogy: it presents Margaret in relation to idealized examples, but alsodistinguishes her as a unique individual. Evelyn compares Margaret toCornelius, Dorcas, and Priscilla, but he also insists that Mrs. Godolphin canhave no equal.

41 See, for example, the account of Margaret (4:150–151).42 For a discussion of the spatial dynamics of Evelyn’s description of the fire, see

Cynthia S. Wall, The Literary and Cultural Spaces of Restoration London(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 26–28.

43 For examples of Evelyn’s commentary on unusual or ‘unparalleled’ publicevents, see 4:600, 4:622, 5:204. It is perhaps interesting to note that theseremarks are more frequent in the latter pages of the diary, perhaps suggestingthat they were inspired by Evelyn’s tendency to compare more recent eventswith those from a more distant past.

44 Wall, The Prose of Things, 82.45 See also 4:546–547, 5:491–492.

NOTES 205



via free access

46 On the contrast between providential and science-based explanations in earlyEnglish and American diaries, see Glynis Ridley, ‘Sacred and Secular Places:An Atlantic Divide’, in Recording and Reordering, ed. Doll and Munns, 22–42.

47 See also, for example, Evelyn’s analogical descriptions of a beached whale(3:215), a pelican (3:398–399), and a crocodile (4:390–391).

48 See also 3:132, 4:145–146. Remarkable-looking foreigners or freakishlytalented prodigies are often described in similarly comparative language. See,for example, 4:48, 4:284–285, 4:354.

49 As with his observations on cosmetics, coffee, or changes to public life, Evelyngoes on to contrast his recent and remembered pasts, distinguishing this newexperience by means of its own particular characteristics: ‘Many Phosphoroushad I seene, as that famous Lapis illuminabilis of Bologna, which I went thereto see being in Italy many yeares since; but never did I see any comparable tothis’ (4:251).

50 See also, for example, his comparison of a magnet with a human body (4:315). 51 See 4:1–4, 4:11, 4:15, 4:23.52 See, for example, the illustrations reproduced in de Beer’s edition, on pages

3:215 and 3:255. Other illustrations are reproduced on 3:557, 4:177, 4:521,4:594. The ‘altar of friendship’ (Figure 1) appears at 3:628.

53 Ever the careful scientist, Evelyn consulted secondary sources to obtain precisecounts and measurements for the arsenal. See 2:456, n.8.

54 See also, for example, Evelyn’s account of the Bodleian Library (3:106–107).55 Evelyn uses the same model to document peaceful events as well, providing a

lengthy and detailed inventory of Charles II’s retinue, for example, during thecoronation (3:278–281).

56 Maureen Perkins notes that the astrological predictions and prophecies of theearly diary were gradually replaced, over the course of the nineteenth century,with listings of statistics. See Perkins, Visions of the Future, 76, 55–57, 237.

Part IISecret histories as histories

1 On the greater historiographical flexibility of ‘lesser’ genres, see Mark SalberPhillips, ‘Literary History and Literary Historicism’, in A Concise Companionto the Restoration and Eighteenth Century, ed. Cynthia Wall (Oxford: Blackwell,2005), 247–264.

2 On secret histories in relation to women’s literature, see John J. Richetti,Popular Fiction Before Richardson: Narrative Patterns 1700–1739 (Oxford:Clarendon, 1969), esp. 119–167; Gallagher, Nobody’s Story, 88–144; RosBallaster, Seductive Forms: Women’s Amatory Fiction from 1684 to 1740 (Oxford:Clarendon, 1992), esp. 114–195; Janet Todd, The Sign of Angellica: Women,Writing and Fiction, 1660–1800 (New York: Columbia, 1989), 84–98; JaneSpencer, The Rise of the Woman Novelist From Aphra Behn to Jane Austen

206 NOTES



via free access

(Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986), 53–62. On secret histories as politicaldiscourse, see Annabel Patterson, ‘Marvell and Secret History’, in Marvell andLiberty, ed. Warren Chernaik and Martin Dzelzeinis (Houndmills: MacmillanPress, 1999), 27–29; Eve Tavor Bannet, ‘Secret History: Or, Talebearing Insideand Outside the Secretorie’, in The Uses of History in Early Modern England, ed.Paulina Kewes, 367–388 (San Marino: Huntington Library, 2006). On secrethistories in relation to fiction-reading practices, see Robert Mayer, History andthe Early English Novel: Matters of Fact from Bacon to Defoe (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1997), 94–112. On the domestic novel, seeMichael McKeon, The Secret History of Domesticity: Public, Private, and theDivision of Knowledge (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005).

3 Mayer argues that some secret histories belonged ‘to historical discourse’, butfocuses on how these texts influenced early readers of fiction (Mayer, Historyand the Early English Novel, 94).

4 For discussions of secret histories as ‘anecdotes’, see Lionel Gossman,‘Anecdote and History’, History and Theory, 42 (2003): 143–168; AnnabelPatterson, ‘Foul, His Wife, the Mayor and Foul’s Mare’: The Power ofAnecdote in Tudor Historiography’, in The Historical Imagination in EarlyModern Britain: History, Rhetoric, and Fiction 1500–1800, ed. Donald R.Kelley and David Harris Sacks, 159–178 (Cambridge: Cambridge UnversityPress, 1997).

5 See Delarivier Manley, Secret Memoirs and Manners of Several Persons ofQuality, of both Sexes, From the New Atalantis, an Island in the Mediterranean,ed. Ros Ballaster (London: Pickering and Chatto, 1991), 132; Gilbert Burnet,Memoires, a1r.

6 The former was reprinted in Armand Jean du Plessis, ed., A Collection of Novels(London, 1699); the latter in the 1692 edition of Bentley’s Modern Novels(London, 1692).

7 Nicolas Amhurst, Terrae-Filius; Or the Secret History of Oxford, in Several Essays(London, 1726), xxii; Ferrand Spence, Dedication to Varillas, AnekdotaEterouiaka, b4v.

8 For discussions of the Anekdota as the archetypal secret history, see, forexample, Gossman, ‘Anecdote and History’, 151; Mayer, History and the EarlyEnglish Novel, 95–101; McKeon, Secret History of Domesticity, 470–473.

9 William King, Posthumous Works of the Late Learned William King (London,1739), 104.

10 Louis Moréri, ‘Procopius’, in The Great Historical, Geographical, Genealogicaland Poetical Dictionary (London, 1701), n.p.

11 Le Moyne, Of the Art, 55. 12 Rapin, Instructions, 54–55.13 Varillas, Anekdota Eterouiaka, b4v. On the use of these idealized portraits in

sixteenth- and seventeenth-century histories, see Herschel Baker, The Race ofTime: Three Lectures on Renaissance Historiography (University of TorontoPress, 1967), 31–34.

NOTES 207



via free access

14 Le Moyne, Of the Art, 126–127. 15 Hearne, Ductor Historicus (1698), 175–176.16 Le Moyne, Of the Art, 124. See also 71–72, and 114–115: ‘he must expose

nothing to the publick View that has not regard to it, must therefore abstainfrom all sorts of Scandalous Relations, as are those that serve but to makePeople lose the Respect they owe their Prelates and Princes, the Hierarchy,Church, and publick Government; and gives way to Heresies, Revolts andSchisms, both in Church and State’.

17 Varillas, Anekdota Eterouiaka, a4v–a5r.18 Varillas, Anekdota Eterouiaka, a5r.19 Varillas, Anekdota Eterouiaka, a2v–a3r.20 John Wilson Croker, Prefatory and biographical notice to John, Lord Hervey,

Memoirs of the Reign of George II from his Accession to the Death of QueenCaroline, 3 vols (London, 1848), 1:lx; Hervey, Memoirs, 1:3.

21 John Phillips, The Secret History of the Reigns of K. Charles II and K. James II(London, 1690), A2r–v.

22 Daniel Defoe, The Secret History of the White-Staff, 3 vols (London,1714–1715), 2.29; see also, for example, The Royal Mistresses of France, Or TheSecret History of the Amours of all the French Kings. Made English from the FrenchOriginal (London, 1695), A2r; Françoise d’Aubigné, The Cabinet Open’d, Orthe Secret History of the Amours of Madam de Maintenon, with the French King(London, 1690), A3r–v.

23 Le Moyne, Of the Art, 87.24 Le Moyne, Of the Art, 87; see also Rapin, Instructions, 21.25 Le Moyne, Of the Art, 27; see also Rapin, Instructions, 94.26 Rapin, Instructions, 31.27 On the idea of ‘perfect’ history in the early modern period, see George

Huppert, The Idea of Perfect History: Historical Erudition and HistoricalPhilosophy in Renaissance France (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1970);Barbara J. Shapiro, Probability and Certainty in Seventeenth-Century England:A Study of the Relationships Between Natural Science, Religion, History, Law, andLiterature (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983), 130–139.

28 Le Moyne, Of the Art, 54. See also Rapin, Instructions, 28. 29 Rapin, Instructions, 116, see also 4; Le Moyne, Of the Art, 21; Roger Coke, A

Detection of the Court and State of England (London, 1694), A4v–A5r. 30 Gilbert Burnet, History of the Reformation of the Church of England, Part One

(London, 1679), 41. 31 Louis Maimbourg, The History of the League, trans. John Dryden (London,

1684), b3r.32 Rapin, Instructions, 84; see also Hearne, Ductor Historicus (1698), 111;

Spence, Dedication to Varillas, A6r. 33 Daniel Defoe, The Secret History of One Year (London, 1714), 4. 34 François Paulin Dalérac, Polish Manuscripts: Or, the Secret History of the Reign

of John Sobieski (London, 1700), A2r–v.

208 NOTES



via free access

35 The Secret History of the Royal Mistresses of France (London, 1690), 2. 36 For a discussion of first-person point of view in secret histories, see Noelle

Gallagher, ‘Point of View and Narrative Form in Moll Flanders and theEighteenth-Century Secret History’, Lumen, 25 (2006): 146–161.

37 See, for example, John Oldmixon, The Secret History of Europe, 2 vols (London1712), 1:2r; David Jones, The Secret History of White-Hall, From the Restorationof Charles II, Down to the Abdication of the late K. James. (London, 1697), titlepage; see also D’Aubigné, The Cabinet Open’d, A5r–A5v.

38 See, for example, Amhurst, Terrae-Filius, iii–iv; Phillips, Secret History of theReigns of King Charles II and King James II, A2v.

39 Defoe, White-Staff. See also, for example, Amhurt’s claim that ‘a few designingKnaves’ had obtained power over public opinion ‘at the expence of a vastnumber of honest, undesigning zealots’ (Terrae-Filius, xiv).

Chapter 3

1 I am referencing Mikhail Bakhtin’s concept of the ‘dialogic’ on the simplestlevel here, as referring to texts that engage in dialogue with other works; seeBakhtin, The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays, trans. Caryl Emerson andMichael Holquist (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1981).

2 See Mayer, History and the Early English Novel, 97.3 Examples of eighteenth-century secret histories written as dialogues include

Henry Brooke, Secret History and Memoirs of the Barracks of Ireland (London,1747); A Political Conversation . . . In which not a little secret history [is] reveal’d.(London, 1733); A Satyr Upon King William; Being the Secret History of his Lifeand Reign (London. 1703); Camille Desmoulins, The History of the Brissotins;Or, Part of the Secret History of the Revolution (London, 1794). One might alsocompare multi-vocal epistolary works like Aphra Behn’s Love Letters Between aNobleman and His Sister (London, 1684).

4 Rapin, Instructions, 66.5 Wheare, Method and Order, 322. 6 Adam Smith, Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres, ed. J. C. Bryce

(Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1985), 103. 7 Rapin, Instructions, 59; see also 57, 58, 60, 105; Le Moyne, Of the Art, 76.8 Rapin, Instructions, 85, 87.9 Le Moyne, Of the Art, 172.

10 On the decline of invented speeches, see Fritz Levy, ‘The Background ofHobbes’s Behemoth’, in The Historical Imagination in Early Modern Britain:History, Rhetoric, and Fiction, 1500–1800, ed. Donald R. Kelley and DavidHarris Sacks, 243–266 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997); FritzLevy, Tudor Historical Thought (San Marino: Huntington Library, 1967), esp.284–285, 291; Hicks, Neoclassical History, 25–27, 58–59.

11 Bodin, Method for the Easy Comprehension of History, 35; see also ‘Raymond

NOTES 209



via free access

Lully’ (Ramón Llull) as cited in Le Moyne, Of the Art, 166. 12 John Milton, The Complete Prose Works of John Milton, ed. Don M. Wolfe, 8

vols (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1953–1982), 5:80.13 Ferrand Spence, Dedication to Varillas, A4r. 14 Rapin, Instructions, 75.15 Myron P. Gilmore, Humanists and Jurists: Six Studies in the Renaissance

(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963), 96.16 Le Moyne, Of the Art, 176. Hicks notes that ‘it could be construed as

presumptuous for historians to be speaking in the name of an English king’(Neoclassical History, 58).

17 Le Moyne Of the Art, 181; see also Rapin, Instructions, 75. 18 Le Moyne, Of the Art, 178; see also 179.19 Wheare, Method and Order, 269; see also Rapin, Instructions, 86–87. 20 For criticism of particular historians turned ‘declamators,’ see Rapin,

Instructions, 86–87. 21 On the development of scholarly methodology in early modern historical

writing, see F. Smith Fussner, The Historical Revolution: English HistoricalWriting and Thought 1580–1640 (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1962);Baker, The Race of Time; Woolf, Social Circulation; Joseph M. Levine,Humanism and History: Origins of Modern Human Historiography (Ithaca,Cornell University Press, 1991). There is also a substantial body of literaturelinking the changes in historical methodology to the rise of antiquarianresearch. See, for example, Arnaldo Momigliano, ‘Ancient History and theAntiquarian’, The Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 13 (1950),285–315; Levi Fox, ed., English Historical Scholarship in the Sixteenth andSeventeenth Centuries (Oxford: Dugdale Society, 1956); D. R. Woolf, The Ideaof History in Early Stuart England: Erudition, Ideology, and ‘The Light of Truth’from the Accession of James I to the Civil War (Toronto: University of TorontoPress, 1990); Graham Parry, The Trophies of Time: English Antiquaries of theSeventeenth Century (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1995); RosemarySweet, Antiquaries: The Discovery of the Past in Eighteenth-Century Britain(London: Hambledon and London, 2004).

On the conflict between the neoclassical view of history as a branch ofrhetoric and the developing view of history as a scholarly discipline, see espe-cially Shapiro, Probability and Certainty, 119–162; Levine, Battle of the Books,267.

22 Rapin, Instructions, 76.23 Burnet, Memoires, a1v. 24 For complaints over historians’ excessive use of citations, see, for example,

Rapin, Instructions, 132; Henry Felton, A Dissertation on Reading the Classics,and Forming a Just Style (London, 1713), 197; Kimber, The History of England,iv.

25 Oldmixon, History of England, During the Reigns of the Royal House of Stuart,xv.

210 NOTES



via free access

26 See, for example, Thomas Salmon’s History of England (London, 1732), whichwas written to refute the Whiggish history published by Rapin; or JohnOldmixon’s History of England, During the Reigns of King William and QueenMary, Queen Anne, King George I, written to refute the Royalist histories ofClarendon and Laurence Echard. Daniel Neal’s The History of the Puritans , orProtestant Non-Conformists, 4 vols (London, 1732–1738) sought to build onthe work of pre-existing writers: it was a continuation of the history begun byEdmund Calamy and John Evans.

27 John Oldmixon, The Critical History of England, 2 vols (London, 1726–1730),1:vij. See also Myles Davies, Icon Libellorum, Or, a Critical History of Pamphlets(London, 1715); Aubry de La Mottraye, Historical and Critical Remarks on theHistory of Charles XII, King of Sweden, by Mr. de Voltaire . . . In a Letter to theAuthor (London, 1732).

28 For a good example of the historical dialogue, see Tom Brown’s envisionedconversation between David Jones and the ghost of William Prynne, NovusReformator Vapulans; or, the Welch Levite Tossed in a Blanket (London 1691).

29 As Myron Gilmore has observed of early Renaissance philosophical dialogues,these works could serve a protective function for the writer: ‘if the author werecharged with unpopular or even impermissible opinions which had beenexpressed by one of the characters, he could always reply that these were nothis opinions at all but that they had been introduced and put into the mouthof the character in the dialogue in order to be refuted’ (Humanists and Jurists,136).

30 See Burnet, Memoires, a1v.31 Mayer, History and the Early English Novel, 172–180. 32 Geoffrey Sill, Defoe and the Idea of Fiction 1713–1719 (Newark: University of

Delaware Press, 1983), 93; Maximillian E. Novak, Daniel Defoe: Master ofFictions (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 462–463; see also E.Anthony James, Daniel Defoe’s Many Voices: A Rhetorical Study of Prose Style andLiterary Method (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1972), 1–3; Noelle Gallagher, ‘Point ofView and Narrative Form’, 146–161.

33 Defoe, The Secret History of the White-Staff, 1:46–47. Hereafter cited paren-thetically in the text by volume and page number and abbreviated WS.

34 Le Moyne, Of the Art, 172.35 The White-Staff has been categorized as ‘third person’ narrative by several

literary critics, including both Sill (Defoe and the Idea of Fiction, 88) andNovak (Daniel Defoe, 462). However, Defoe’s text makes extensive use of firstperson. See for example, 1:35, 36, 37, 41, 43, 44, 48, 49, 50, 54, 57, 61; 2:4,7, 8, 9, 17, 24, 28, 35, 43, 45, 50, 56, 61, 62. On the White-Staff as firstperson narrative, see Noelle Gallagher, ‘Point of View and Narrative Form’.

36 For examples, see WS 1:41, 43, 44, 48; 2:17, 32, 36, 42, 66, 67. 37 Maimbourg, The History of the League, b3r; see also Rapin, Instructions, 84;

Burnet, History of the Reformation of the Church of England, 41.38 Defoe’s work sometimes uses the first-person plural to foster solidarity with the

NOTES 211



via free access

reader, either in making references to public or well-known views (see, forexample, 1.4–5, 1.62; 2.22, 2.65–66), or in referring to the work as ‘our’ secrethistory, thus inviting the reader to participate in the shared conspiracy of thetext’s narration (see 1:13, 1.32; 1.68; 2.26).

39 Rapin, Instructions, 76.40 Defoe published a third part to the White-Staff later in 1715, but because the

paper war surrounding the text was fairly extensive, I have focused here on theinitial two volumes and some of their immediate respondents.

41 Considerations Upon the Secret History of the White Staff, Humbly Address’d to theE – - of O – - (London, 1714). For a discussion of contemporary attributionsof Defoe’s work, see Paul Furbank and W. R. Owens, eds, A CriticalBibliography of Daniel Defoe (London: Pickering and Chatto, 1998), 148.

42 A Supplement to the Secret History of the White Staff, &c. (London, 1715).43 John Dunton, Neck or Nothing: Or, the History of Queen Robin, Detecting the

Secret Reign of the Four last Years (London, 1714). 44 The History of the Mitre and Purse, in which the First and Second Parts of the

secret History of the White Staff are fully considered (London, 1714). Hereaftercited parenthetically in the text by page number and abbreviated MP.

45 Rapin, Instructions, 76. 46 See John Oldmixon, A Secret History of the White-Staff . . . With a Detection of

the Sophistry and Falsities of the said Pamphlet (London, 1714). Hereafter citedparenthetically in the text and abbreviated SHD.

Chapter 4

1 See, for example, Elisha Coles, An English Dictionary (London, 1677).2 Wheare, Method and Order, 17. See also Le Moyne, Of the Art, 194–95.3 Echard, History of England, 1:a1r.4 Milton, Complete Prose Works, 4:306.5 Edward Stillingfleet, Origines Brittanicae (London, 1685), lxxii, 29.6 Stillingfleet, Origines Brittanicae, 278.7 Stillingfleet, Origines Brittanicae, 278–279. 8 Milton, Complete Prose Works, 4:230.9 Hume, The History of England, 1:25.

10 Francis Atterbury, for example, echoed Milton’s phrasing and his sentimentswhen he attacked a rival scholar for treating chronicles as ‘Exact and Full, as ifthe Authors had written Just Histories of Ecclesiastical Affairs, and not LeanJournals only’. See Atterbury, The Rights, Powers, and Priviledges of an EnglishConvocation (London, 1700), 212.

11 See also, for example, Sir Thomas Craig’s complaint that chroniclers ‘were alto-gether uncertain as to the Conditions of Peace, Circumstances and Causes ofThings, Agreements betwixt Princes, and what was done in Publick andPrivate amongst Foreign Nations’. Craig, Scotland’s Soveraignty Asserted

212 NOTES



via free access

(London, 1695), 46–47. 12 Le Moyne, Of the Art, 54. 13 Rapin, Instructions, 132. See also Boyer, Queen Anne, iv.; Felton, Dissertation,

197. 14 See also St. John, Letters on the Study and Use of History, 1:149–150, 1:166.15 Gilbert Burnet, ‘A Short Scheme of the Usurpations of the Crown of England’,

in A Collection of Papers Relating to the Present Juncture of Affairs in Britain(London, 1688), 8. On the close relationship between the new journalisticforms of ‘chronicle’ and the medieval chronicle, see Woolf, Reading History,26–27; Baker, The Race of Time, 73–79, 90–94.

16 Rapin, Instructions, 58. See also, for example, Le Moyne, Of the Art, 76–77;Boyer, King William, 1:A5v.

17 Eliza Haywood, Memoirs of a Certain Island Adjacent to Utopia (London,1725); Manley, Secret Memoirs and Manners; subsequent references to thisedition will appear parenthetically in the text.

18 See Roger de Rabutin, Comte de Bussy, The Amorous History of the Gauls(London, 1725); Marie-Catherine d’Aulnoy, Memoirs of the Court of France(London, 1702).

19 Ballaster, Seductive Forms, 42–60, 123–131; see also Richetti, Popular FictionBefore Richardson, 120.

20 See, for example, Ballaster, Seductive Forms; Richetti, Popular Fiction BeforeRichardson; McKeon, Origins of the English Novel; Todd, The Sign of Angellica.In order to emphasize the scandal chronicle’s role as historical writing, I referto Manley’s text throughout as Secret Memoirs and Manners, rather than usingthe more conventional (and more novelistic) abbreviated title of The NewAtalantis.

21 See also Varillas, Anekdota Eterouiaka, c5v. For recent criticism that treatsManley’s text as a satire, see Frank Palmeri, Satire, History, Novel: NarrativeForms, 1665–1815 (Newark: University of Delaware Press, 2003), 222–224;Aaron Santesso, ‘The New Atalantis and Varronian Satire’, PhilologicalQuarterly, 79 (2000): 177–204.

22 Richetti, Popular Fiction Before Richardson, 123–125. For discussions of theinfluence of romance on the ‘fictional’ scandal chronicle, see, for example,Ballaster, Seductive Forms, 30–66; George Frisbie Whicher, The Life andRomances of Mrs. Eliza Haywood (New York: Columbia University Press,1915), 111; B. G. MacCarthy, The Female Pen: Women Writers and Novelists1621–1818 (New York: New York University Press, 1994), 195–196; MelindaAlliker Rabb, ‘The Manl(e)y Style: Delariviere Manley and Jonathan Swift’, inPope, Swift, and Women Writers, ed. Donald C. Mell (Newark: University ofDelaware Press, 1996), 135–141; Edith Snook, Women, Reading, and theCultural Politics of Early Modern England (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005), 12–16.For arguments that the scandal chronicle is an ‘anti-romance’, see, for example,Richetti, Popular Fiction Before Richardson, 127; Ronald Paulson, Satire and theNovel in Eighteenth-Century England (New Haven: Yale University Press,

NOTES 213



via free access

1967), 221–226; Davis, Factual Fictions, 110–122. While Manley’s preface toQueen Zarah has often been cited as proof of her work’s opposition to romanceconventions, research by John L. Sutton Jr. has subsequently demonstratedthat this preface was a translation of an earlier French text. See John L. SuttonJr., ‘The Source of Mrs. Manley’s Preface to Queen Zarah’, Modern Philology,82 (1984): 167–172.

23 On the scandal chronicle’s connection with the sentimental, see Paulson, Satireand the Novel, 219–226. On the sentimental in later eighteenth-centuryhistorical writing (particularly Hume), see J. C. Hilson, ‘Hume: The Historianas Man of Feeling’, in Augustan Worlds, ed. J. C. Hilson, M. M. B. Jones andJ. R. Watson (New York: Barnes & Noble Books, 1978), 205–222; Phillips,Society and Sentiment, 103–128; O’Brien, Narratives of Enlightenment, 60–66.

24 For feminist analyses of Manley’s text in this regard, see, for example, Todd,The Sign of Angellica; Ballaster, Seductive Forms, esp. 132–142.

25 Whicher, Life and Romances, 96.26 For public attacks on the text, see, for example, Joseph Addison, The Spectator,

3 January 1715 and 24 January 1715; The Guardian, 14 July 1713; ManSuperior to Woman (London, 1739), 54; Thomas Gordon, The Humorist(London, 1724), 96–105.

27 For imitations of Manley’s text, see, for example, The German Atalantis(London, 1715); Court Tales: Or, a History of the Amours of the Present Nobility(London, 1717); The Genuine History of Mrs. Sarah Prydden, usually calledSally Salisbury, and Her Gallants (London, 1723).

28 See Richetti, Popular Fiction Before Richardson, 153n.1.29 G. M. Trevelyan, England under Queen Anne, III: The Peace and the Protestant

Succession (London, 1934), 38; quoted in Ballaster, Seductive Forms, 128. Forother discussions of the political significance of the work, see Gwendolyn B.Needham, ‘Mary de la Rivière Manley, Tory Defender’, Huntington LibraryQuarterly, 12 (1948–1949): 260–266; Jerry Beasley, ‘Politics and MoralIdealism: The Achivement of Some Early Women Novelists’, in Fetter’d or Free?British Women Novelists, 1670–1815 ed. Mary Ann Schofield and CeciliaMacheski (Athens: Ohio University Press, 1986), 222–225; Carole Fabricant,‘The Shared Worlds of Manley and Swift’, in Pope, Swift, and Women Writers ed.Donald C. Mell (Newark: University of Delaware Press, 1996), especially 161.

30 In her introduction, Ballaster notes that Manley’s frame narrative implicitlyrefers to Juvenal’s misogynistic sixth satire, ‘in which Justice (Astrea) andChastity withdraw from the earth’ (v).

31 On some occasions Manley’s text uses pseudonyms that are closely associatedwith, or similar in pronunciation to, the names of the persons they represent(as with the substitution of ‘Beaumond’ for ‘Beaufort’, for example). Thesesemi-transparent pseudonyms would obviously have further assisted readers indecoding the text, but they are by no means the norm.

32 Gallagher, Nobody’s Story, 124. 33 Gallagher, Nobody’s Story, 88. For a more general discussion of eighteenth-

214 NOTES



via free access

century writers’ legally shrewd use of convoluted forms, see C. R. Kropf, ‘Libeland Satire in the Eighteenth Century’, Eighteenth Century Studies, 8(1974–1975), 153–168.

34 See Haywood, Memoirs of a Certain Island, 47, 184. Jonathan Swift employeda similar technique in Gulliver’s Travels, using Gulliver and then Munodi torepresent Henry St. John, Viscount Bolingbroke. See Jonathan Swift, Gulliver’sTravels, ed. Paul Turner (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), 89, 104ff,114, 219.

35 For other examples, see Manley’s portraits of: John Manley, who is mentionedas the scoundrel and then later appears as Don Marcus (223); Charles Talbot,Duke of Shrewsbury, who appears as ‘The Prince of Sira’ (75), the Dukede ––- (152), and the Duke of Candia (192); Lucy Wharton, who appears as‘the fair Marchioness du Coeur’ (85) and as the Viceroy of Peru’s lady (157);Anne, Lady Popham, who appears as the fat lady at the Prado (94) and as theMarchioness of Sandomire (157); James, 3rd Earl of Berkeley, who appears asthe handsome commander (11) and as the husband of the ‘gay lady’ at thePrado (94); Lady Henrietta Long, who is presented as the ‘declining coquette’(100) and also as ‘Harriat’ (136–137); James Butler, 2nd Duke Ormonde, whoappears as Prince Adario (90) and as the Prince de Majorca (136); AnneGerard, Countess Macclesfield, who appears as Ianthe (157, 235), and as thepregnant Duchess who refuses to remove her mask (139); Lady Howard andCharles Talbot, Duke of Shrewsbury, who appear as the Baroness of Somes(74) and Prince of Sira (75) and then as ‘the young widow Lady –-’ and ‘Dukede –-’ (152); Sir John Thompson, 1st Baron Haversham, who is depicted asthe father of Polydore and Urania (142) and then as the ‘old out-of-fashionLord’ whose mistress is stolen by Richard Savage (240). While I have restrictedmy analysis to the first two volumes of the work, Manley continued to use thistechnique in its sequel, Memoirs of Europe (London, 1710). Where attributionsare in dispute, I am following those of Ballaster in her notes to the Pickeringedition.

36 See 296 n.406.37 Ballaster, Seductive Forms, 135; see also Richetti, Popular Fiction Before

Richardson, 124. 38 Todd, The Sign of Angellica, 92. 39 The emphasis on female agency is as strong, if not stronger, in other scandal

chronicles of the period. Roger de Rabutin’s Histoire Amoureuse des Gaulesfollows the rise to power of two scheming, manipulative women, Madamed’Olonne and Madame de Châtillon; and Haywood’s Memoirs of a CertainIsland depicts female characters plotting seductions, masterminding secretpolitical and financial dealings, and even (in the case of one character,Clarismonda) paying for sex. See Haywood, Memoirs of a Certain Island,49–52.

NOTES 215



via free access

Part IIISatire and panegyric as forms of historical writing

1 John Dryden, Works, 1:50. 2 The only study of satire and panegyric in a historiographical context is Frank

Palmeri’s Satire, History, Novel: Narrative Forms, 1665–1815, which does nottreat satire as historical writing, but rather, ties the disappearance of prosesatire to the development of mid- and late-eighteenth-century conjectural andphilosophical history.

3 George deF. Lord, Introduction to Poems on Affairs of State, ed. George deF.Lord, 7 vols (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1963–1975), 1:xvi.

4 Welwood, Memoirs of the Most Material Transactions in England, A7r–v.5 Neal, The History of the Puritans, 1:viii–ix.6 Burnet, Memoires, a1v. 7 McKeon, Origins of the English Novel, 20.8 John Milton, An Apology Against a Pamphlet call’d A modest Confutation of the

Animadversions upon the Remonstrant against Smectymnuus (London, 1642), 33. 9 Dryden, Works, 4:34, 1:56.

10 Richard Blackmore, Prince Arthur, An Heroic Poem in 10 Books (London,1695), 2v.

11 Wheare, Method and Order, 298. 12 Dryden, Works, 4.55; Nahum Tate, Characters of Vertue and Vice (London,

1691), A2r. 13 Charles Gildon, ‘Epistle Dedicatory’, in Miscellany Poems upon Several

Occasions (London, 1692), A4v. 14 For a discussion of the readership for such works, see deF. Lord, Introduction

to Poems on Affairs of State, 1:xxxii–xlii. 15 On the circulation of eighteenth-century satires in manuscript, see Love,

English Clandestine Satire. Where I argue that manuscript circulation mighthave exposed satires to a larger audience than that of formal histories, Loveargues for a comparatively small audience for satire.

16 Dryden, Works, 4:77; Gildon, Miscellany, A5r. 17 Rapin, Instructions, 110. 18 Gilbert Burnet, Reflections on Mr. Varillas’ History of the Revolutions (London,

1688), 18–19. 19 Satire and panegyric were both originally branches of oratorical or epideictic

rhetoric. See Jon Thomas Rowland, Faint Praise and Civil Leer: The ‘Decline’ ofEighteenth-Century Panegyric (Newark: University of Delaware Press, 1994),11–21.

20 Rapin, Instructions, 118. For further examples of this argument, see Burnet,Memoires, a1v; Welwood, Memoirs, 55; Thomas Lediard, The Life of John,Duke of Marlborough (London, 1736), 1:xiii–xiv; The History of the Reign ofKing George, 1–4; Michel Le Vassor, The History of the Reign of Lewis XIIIth, 2vols (London. 1701), 2:4.

216 NOTES



via free access

21 See, for example, Dryden, Works, 2:59; Milton, Apology, 32–33; Maimbourg,The History of the League, 436–37; ‘The Life of George Buchanan, Written ByHimself ’, in George Buchanan, The History of Scotland (London, 1690), 3.

22 N. N. The Blatant Beast Muzzl’d, or, Reflexions on a Late Libel Entituled, TheSecret History of the Reigns of K. Charles II and K. James II (London, 1691),A4v.

23 ‘An Introduction to the English Translation’, in Louis Le Comte, Memoirs andObservations . . . Made in a Late Journey Through the Empire of China (London,1697), A2v. See also, for example, A Collection of State Tracts, 1:1; ScriniaReclusa: Or, Brief Remarks upon the Reigns of Several of our English Princes(London, 1709), A2r.

24 Swift, A Tale of a Tub, 29; Lediard, Life of John, 1:xiii; see also Gildon,Miscellany, A5r.

25 Gildon, Miscellany, A5r.26 Dryden, Works, 2:3; Biographia Classica: The Lives and Characters of all the

Classic Authors, 2 vols (London, 1740), 1:230. 27 Welwood, Memoirs, A7v. 28 Rapin, Instructions, 57; see also 58–60, 105; Le Moyne, Of the Art, 76.29 Le Moyne, Of the Art, 90–91. 30 Wheare, Method and Order, 323; see also Le Moyne, Of the Art, 42.31 Rapin, Instructions, 57. 32 Daniel Defoe, The History of the Union of Great Britain (Edinburgh, 1709),

11.33 An Impartial History of King George (London, 1719), 3. See also, for example,

Scrinia Reclusa: ‘the Author has confin’d his Pen to the strict Rules of Veracityand Decency, without expatiating into Fondness, Panegyric, or Satyr; and hasonly made Observations on Men’s publick Capacities, without intermedlingwith the Minute Passages of their private Lives’ (A2r).

34 Dryden, Works, 4:79–80. 35 Roger L’Estrange, A Brief History of the Times (London, 1687), 3. 36 Joseph Addison, The Free-Holder, 24 February 1716, 107; see also, for

example, Gerard Langbaine, An Account of the English Dramatick Poets(London, 1691), 171, 350; Dryden, Works, 4:70, 7:35–36; A True Briton,Remarks on Bishop Burnet’s History of his Own Time (London, 1723), 44;Nicolson, English Historical Library, 1:200; Boyer, Queen Anne, ij.

37 See, for example, Edmund Bohun, The Character of Queen Elizabeth (London,1693), A5v–A6r; Hearne, Ductor Historicus (1698), 176; Miscellany Poems byMr. Dennis, With select translations of Horace, Juvenal, Mons. Boileau’s Epistles,Satyrs, &c. (London, 1697), 54–55; Nicolson, English Historical Library, 1:7,1:200.

38 James D. Garrison, Dryden and the Tradition of Panegyric (Berkeley: Universityof California Press, 1975), 5. For a discussion of satire and panegyric asbranches of epideictic rhetoric, see Rowland, Faint Praise, 11–21.

39 See Thomas Blount, Glossographia: Or, A Dictionary (London, 1656): ‘Satyre:

NOTES 217



via free access

a kinde of Poetry, whereof there seems to have been two kindes; the one moreancient, which consisted onely in variety of Verses; the other more modern,containing an open reprehension of mens vices, without respect of persons’;Edward Phillips, The New World of English Words; Or, A General Dictionary(London, 1658): ‘Satyre: a kind of sharp and invective Poem full of tauntingexpressions against any person or thing’; Elisha Coles, An English Dictionary(London, 1677): ‘Satyre: an invective poem’; Henry Cockeram, The EnglishDictionary (London, 1670): ‘Satyre: a taunting Poem’. Adam Smith’s Lectureson Rhetoric – delivered almost a century later – confirm the shift in meaning,as Smith includes panegyric, but not satire, in his discussion of demonstrativeoratory. See Smith, Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres, 128–141.

40 Gildon, Miscellany, A4v. 41 Gildon, Miscellany, A5r.42 Gildon, Miscellany, A5r.43 Swift, A Tale of a Tub, 30. See also Le Vassor, History of the Reign of Lewis

XIIIth, 2:4. 44 Le Vassor, History of the Reign of Lewis the XIIIth, 2:4. 45 Le Vassor, History of the Reign of Lewis the XIIIth, 2:4.

Chapter 5

1 Le Moyne, Of the Art, 155.2 Rapin, Instructions, 72.3 Rapin, Instructions, 71.4 Le Moyne, Of the Art, 131. 5 Rapin, Instructions, 78; see also 82. 6 Rapin, Instructions, 78; see also, for example, Howell, Medulla Historiæ

Anglicanæ: ‘it is enough for Posterity to know the memorable Actions of a greatKing, or the Atchievements in a Famous Battel . . . though they be not told whatkind of beard the King wore on his Wedding-Day, or to whom the Groundbelonged where the Battel was fought’ (A3v).

7 Rapin, Instructions, 71; Le Moyne, Of the Art, 154. 8 Le Moyne, Of the Art, 158.9 Le Moyne, Of the Art, 158–159.

10 See Wall, The Prose of Things, esp. 221–230.11 Charles de Saint-Evremond, Miscellany Essays upon Philosophy, History, Poetry,

Morality, Humanity, Gallantry, trans. Thomas Brown (London, 1694): 2–108. 12 Dryden, Works, 1:53.13 The most thorough account of the genre to date is Mary Tom Osborne,

Advice-to-a-Painter Poems 1633–1856: An Annotated Finding List (Austin:University of Texas Press, 1949), 9–22.

14 Osborne, Advice-to-a-Painter, 17–18.15 For a discussion of the audience for advice-to-a-painter poems, see Osborne,

218 NOTES



via free access

Advice-to-a-Painter, 12–13; on Marvell’s readership specifically, see AndrewMarvell, The Poems of Andrew Marvell, ed. Nigel Smith (London: Longman,2003), 322–326.

16 For discussions of the ut pictura poesis tradition, see Jean H. Hagstrum, TheSister Arts: The Tradition of Literary Pictorialism and English Poetry from Drydento Gray (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958), 93–128; AnnabelPatterson, Marvell: The Writer in Public Life (Harlow: Pearson, 2000), 79–83.

17 See Edward Copeland, ‘Absalom and Achitophel and The Banqueting HouseCeiling: “The Great Relation”’, Eighteenth-Century Life, 11.2 (1987): 25–26.

18 Edmund Waller, Instructions to a Painter, in George deF. Lord, ed., Poems onAffairs of State (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1963–75), 1:21–33.Hereafter cited parenthetically in the text by line number.

19 For a list of these responses, see Osborne, Advice-to-a-Painter, 28–40.20 There is relatively little critical commentary on Marvell’s advice-to-a-painter

poems, with most of the criticism focusing on the Last Instructions, generallyconsidered the ‘best’ of a bad lot. The episodic structure, uneven tone, andburdensome number of ‘facts’ in Marvell’s painter poems have made themproblematic for many critics. See George deF. Lord, ‘From Contemplation toAction: Marvell’s Poetical Career’, Philological Quarterly, 46 (1967): 207–224.Counter-arguments insisting on the internal coherence and ‘literary’ value ofthe Last Instructions can be found in Earl Miner, ‘The “Poetic Picture, PaintedPoetry” of The Last Instructions to a Painter’, Modern Philology, 63 (1966):288–294; Alan S. Fisher, ‘The Augustan Marvell: The Last Instructions to aPainter’, ELH, 2 (1971): 223–238; Michael Gearin-Tosh, ‘The Structure ofMarvell’s Last Instructions to a Painter’, Essays in Criticism, 22 (1972): 48–57;David Farley-Hills, The Benevolence of Laughter: Comic Poetry of theCommonwealth and Restoration (London: Macmillan, 1974): 72–98; Denise E.Lynch, ‘Politics, Nature, and Structure in Marvell’s The Last Instructions to aPainter’, Restoration, 16 (1992): 82–92. There is also a body of historicistcriticism that reads the painter poems for their insight into contemporarypolitics. See, for example, Patterson, Marvell, 72–106; Warren L. Chernaik,The Poet’s Time: Politics and Religion in the Work of Andrew Marvell(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 73–82; Love, EnglishClandestine Satire, 107–115; John M. Wallace, Destiny His Choice: TheLoyalism of Andrew Marvell (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968),163–183.

21 DeF. Lord, Introduction to Poems on Affairs of State, 1:97. 22 Andrew Marvell, The Last Instructions to a Painter, in deF. Lord, Poems on

Affairs of State, 1:99–139, lines 1–2. Hereafter cited parenthetically in the textby line number and abbreviated LI.

23 Andrew Marvell, The Second Advice to a Painter, in deF. Lord, Poems on Affairsof State, 1:36–53, lines 1–2. Hereafter cited parenthetically in the text by linenumber and abbreviated SA.

24 On Marvell as ‘a political journalist in verse’, see Pierre Legouis, Andrew

NOTES 219



via free access

Marvell: Poet, Puritan, Patriot (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965), 168; see alsoLove, English Clandestine Satire, 111.

25 The comparison with Waller’s poem is particularly evocative here, as theInstructions depict Falmouth’s death as a deliberate act of sacrifice: see lines132–133.

26 Andrew Marvell, The Third Advice to a Painter, in deF. Lord, Poems on Affairsof State, 1:68–87, lines 12, 59–60. Hereafter cited parenthetically in the textby line number and abbreviated TA.

27 The discussion of the Dutch ships’ progress up the Thames and the ensuingbattle is likewise organized around portraits of key figures: De Ruyter, SirEdward Spragge, William Legge, Sir Thomas Daniel, Archibald Douglas. Eachparagraph begins with a gesture advising the reader to ‘see’ the man andidentify him by a physical feature: Daniel by his impressive stature and ‘Largelimbs’ (634), Douglas by the ‘yellow locks’ that become ‘burning locks’, and soforth (653, 684).

28 Steven N. Zwicker, ‘Virgins and Whores: The Politics of Sexual Misconduct inthe 1660s’, in The Political Identity of Andrew Marvell, ed. Conal Condren andA. D. Cousins (Aldershot: Scolar Press, 1990), 103–104.

Chapter 6

1 For discussions of the form of Dryden’s poem in relation to the ut pictura poesistradition, see Hagstrum, The Sister Arts, 180–182; Copeland, ‘Absalom andAchitophel and The Banqueting House Ceiling: “The Great Relation”’, 22–40.Harold Love sees a direct connection between Dryden’s poem and Marvell’sLast Instructions, arguing that ‘Marvell had perfected a technique by which themajor victims are so fully presented to the readership that prior knowledge isnot necessary. Dryden clearly had this achievement in mind in Absalom andAchitophel, one of whose lasting achievements was that the representationcompletely obliterated the reality’ (English Clandestine Satire, 115).

2 François Gandouet, The French Politick Detected . . . By Way of Allegory (Bristol,1709), a2r.

3 On the coexistence of cyclical and linear views of history in the early modernperiod, see Baker, The Race of Time, 59–65. For an alternative argument, seeChristopher Hill, The Intellectual Origins of the English Revolution (Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1965), 180–192.

4 See Nadel, ‘Philosophy of History’, 291–315. 5 Le Moyne, Of the Art, 45. See also, for example, Letters to a Young Nobleman,

21; Hearne, Ductor Historicus (1704–1705), 113.6 Wheare, Method and Order, 323–324. 7 Dryden, Works, 17:270–271. James Winn argues that Dryden increasingly

subscribed to a cyclical view of history. See ‘Past and Present in Dryden’sFables’, Huntington Library Quarterly, 63 (2000): 157.

220 NOTES



via free access

8 See John M. Wallace, ‘Dryden and History: A Problem in AllegoricalReading’, ELH, 36 (1969): 265–290; John M. Wallace, ‘Examples are BestPrecepts: Readers and Meanings in Seventeenth-Century Poetry’, CriticalInquiry, 1 (1974): 273–290; Alan Roper, ‘Drawing Parallels and MakingApplications in Restoration Literature’, in Alan Roper and Richard Ashcraft,Politics as Reflected in Literature (Los Angeles: William Andrews ClarkMemorial Library, 1989), 29–65.

9 Roper, ‘Drawing Parallels’, 40.10 See Philip Harth, Pen for a Party: Dryden’s Tory Propaganda and Its Contexts

(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), 3–17.11 Simon Ford, Parallela, or, The Loyall Subjects Exultation for the Royall Exiles

Restauration, in the Parallel of K. David and Mephibosheth on the one side, andour Gracious Sovereign, K. Charles and his Loving Subjects on the other(London, 1660); Henry Glover, Cain and Abel Parallel’d with King Charles andHis Murderers (London, 1664); Henry Newcome, Usurpation Defeated, andDavid Restored, being an exact parallel between David and our most GraciousSoveraign King Charls II (London, 1660).

12 Harth, Pen for a Party, 17.13 John Cleveland, The Rebellion of the Rude Multitude Under Wat Tyler . . .

Parallel’d with the Late Rebellion in 1640, Against King Charles I of ever BlessedMemory (London, 1660); A Parallel between O.P. and P.O. (London, 1694).See also, for example, A Faithful Account of the Renewed Persecution of theChurches of Lower Aquitaine . . . to Which is Prefixed a Parallel between theAncient and New Persecutors (London, 1692); Roger L’Estrange, An Account ofthe Growth of Knavery . . . with a Parallel Betwixt the Reformers of 1677 andThose of 1641 in their Methods and Designs (London, 1678).

14 The Bible was often considered a record of ancient history in early modernEngland; both Pierre Le Moyne and Thomas Hearne, for example, includedbiblical narrative as a species of history in their historiographical treatises.Many early modern scholars also argued that there was ‘history couch’d underthe ancient fictions’ of classical myths and fables (Antoine Banier, TheMythology and Fables of the Ancients, Explain’d from History. 4 vols (London,1739), 1:8). In addition to Bauier’s text see also, for example, James Geddes,An Essay on the Composition and Manner of Writing of the Antients (Glasgow1748), 140; Joseph Spence, Polymetis (London, 1747), 292–308; John Dennis,Remarks upon a Book Entitled, Prince Arthur (London, 1696), 6.

15 Thomas Maresca, ‘Personification vs. Allegory’, in Enlightening Allegory:Theory, Practice, and Contexts of Allegory in the Late Seventeenth and EighteenthCenturies, ed. Kevin L. Cope (New York: AMS Press, 1993), 25.

16 Hunter, Before Novels, 339. See also Daniel Woolf, ‘From Hystories to theHistorical’, in The Uses of History in Early Modern England, ed. Paulina Kewes(San Marino: Huntington Library, 2006), esp. 41–52. Woolf ’s essay argues fora simpler, more straightforward ‘movement away from metaphor-intensivethought (defined by analogy/similitude/typology) and toward metonymy-

NOTES 221



via free access

intensive (defined by contiguity/causation) thought’ in early modern historicalwriting (42).

17 Bulstrode Whitelock[e], Preface to Memorials of The English Affairs (London,1732), A1v.

18 The Poysoner Self-poysoned, or, A Most True and Lamentable Relation . . . soProdigiously Wicked, that ’tis Believ’d no Age can Produce its Parallel (London,1679); The Bloody Bed-Roll: Or, Treason Display’d in its Scarlet Colours, Being aDiscovery of the most notorious Plotter . . . Not to be Parallel’d in all Ages(London, 1660).

19 David Jones, The Life of James II, Late King of England (London, 1703), 69; forother formal histories employing this vocabulary see, for example, AlessandroGiraffi, An Exact History of the Late Revolutions in Naples . . . not to be Parallel’dby any Antient or Modern History (London, 1664); John Holmes, Preface toThe History of England, Being a Compendium Adapted to the Capacities andMemories of Youth at School (London, 1737), B4r.

20 Richard Bulstrode, Memoirs and Reflections Upon the Reign and Government ofKing Charles I and King Charles II (London, 1721), 3.

21 Jones, Life of James II, 69. Later in the century, Horace Walpole’s Memoirs ofthe Reign of King George the Third offered an outright refutation of ‘the sillypresages drawn from parallels’, insisting: ‘few persons, I believe, profit muchfrom history. Times seldom resemble one another enough to be very applica-ble; and if they do, the characters of the actors are very different.’ See Walpole,Memoirs, 4 vols, ed. G. F. Russell Barker (London: Lawrence and Bullen,1894), 1:3,2.

22 Alan Roper credits Dryden’s poem with inspiring a wide range of responsesand imitations, including Mainwaring’s Tarquin and Tullia (1689) andD’Urfey’s The Weesils (1691). See Alan Roper, ‘Absalom’s Issue: Parallel Poemsin the Restoration’, Studies in Philology, 99 (2002): 268–294.

23 R. F. Jones, ‘The Originality of Absalom and Achitophel,’ Modern LanguageNotes, 46 (1931): 211–218. See also, for example, the commentary in Dryden,Works, 2: 230–233. This edition of Absalom and Achitophel is hereafter cited inthe text by line number.

24 In making this claim, I am arguing against a substantial body of criticism inwhich the biblical narrative and the contemporary narrative are presented ashaving equal historical and aesthetic significance. See, for example, Earl Miner,Dryden’s Poetry (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1967): 106–143; AlanRoper, Dryden’s Poetic Kingdoms (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1965):185–198; Steven N. Zwicker, Dryden’s Political Poetry: The Typology of Kingand Nation (Providence: Brown University Press, 1972). Zwicker connectsAbsalom and Achitophel with a theological tradition of exegesis in which ‘bothterms in the figural or typological relationship are literal and are historicallytrue’, and therefore unusually concludes that the poem is not an allegory(24–25).

25 That Dryden did understand the Popish Plot and Exclusion Crisis as past

222 NOTES



via free access

events is perhaps suggested by the poem’s publication date. As Philip Harthobserves, ‘if Dryden was responding in Absalom and Achitophel to the popularpassions of 1678, he waited three years to do so’. See Harth, ‘Dryden in 1678–1681: The Literary and Historical Perspectives’, in The Golden and The BrazenWorld: Papers in Literature and History, 1650–1800, ed. John M. Wallace(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985), 58.

26 Holmes, Preface to History of England, B4r. 27 Miner, Dryden’s Poetry, 116; see also Roper, Dryden’s Poetic Kingdoms, 13. 28 For a more detailed account of the poem’s anachronisms, see Roper, Dryden’s

Poetic Kingdoms, 190–191.29 Samuel Johnson, Lives of the English Poets, 3 vols (Dublin, 1779–1781), 1:348. 30 Charles Rollin, The Method of Teaching and Studying the Belles Lettres, 4 vols

(London, 1734), 2:166. Like Dominique Bouhours (n.32, below), Rollindefined allegory as a ‘continued’ or extended metaphor (165).

31 John Hughes, ‘An Essay of Allegorical Poetry’, Preface to Edmund Spenser,The Works of Edmund Spenser in Six Volumes, 6 vols (London, 1750): 1:xxxv–xxxvi.

32 Dominique Bouhours, The Arts of Logic and Rhetoric (London, 1768), 286. 33 See Roper, ‘Absalom’s Issue’, 268–94. 34 Christopher Nesse, A Key (With the Whip) to Open the Mystery and Iniquity of

the Poem call’d Absalom and Achitophel (London, 1982), lines 7–8, 268–269;hereafter cited parenthetically in the text by line number. Leon M. Guilhametalso reads the poem’s distortion of the Bible as a theological statement in‘Dryden’s Debasement of Scripture in Absalom and Achitophel’, Studies inEnglish Literature, 9 (1969): 405.

35 The question of whether supernatural events in the Bible ought to be inter-preted allegorically or historically was a subject of keen contemporary debate.For allegorical readings of the scriptures, see, for example, Conyers Middleton,An Examination of the Lord Bishop of London’s Discourses Concerning the Useand Intent of Prophecy (London, 1750); Thomas Woolston, A Discourse on theMiracles of Our Saviour (London, 1727), 58; Anthony Collins, A Discourse ofthe Grounds and Reasons of the Christian Religion (London, 1738), 35. Forhistorical readings, see, for example, An Answer to that Part of Dr. Middleton’sLate Treatise . . . Concerning the Use and Intent of Prophesy (London, 1750);Lancelot Addison, A Modest Plea for the Clergy (London, 1709), 54; APreservative Against a Late Discourse of the Ground and Reasons of the ChristianReligion (London, 1725); A. B., A Letter to Mr.Woolston (London, 1729), 11–13; Thomas Stackhouse, A Defence of the Christian Religion (London, 1730).

36 For an account of the controversy over identifying Dryden’s contemporaryreferents, see Alan Roper, ‘Who’s Who in Absalom and Achitophel?’,Huntington Library Quarterly, 63 (2000): 98–138.

37 Elkannah Settle, Absalom Senior: Or, Achitophel Transpros’d (London, 1682);Samuel Pordage, Azaria and Hushai (London, 1682). For commentary, seeRoper, ‘Absalom’s Issue’, 292–293.

NOTES 223



via free access

38 Roper, ‘Absalom’s Issue’, 287. 39 Jonathan Swift, The Fable of Midas, in deF. Lord, Poems on Affairs of State,

7:554–557, lines 41–44. 40 Arthur Mainwaring, Tarquin and Tullia, in Lord, Poems on Affairs of State,

5:47–54, lines 1–4.

Part IVRethinking history at its ‘lowest ebb’

1 Roger North, Examen; Or, an Enquiry into the Credit and Veracity of aPretended Complete History (London, 1740). Subsequent references to thisedition will appear parenthetically in the text.

2 See Hayden White, Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-Century Europe (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975), 7–11, 66.

Chapter 7

1 Roger Schmidt, ‘Roger North’s Examen: A Crisis in Historiography’,Eighteenth-Century Studies, 26 (1992), 59. Mark Knights also cites North’sExamen as an example of Tory partisan history, noting that these histories ‘weredesigned to be read as responses to rival interpretations’ (363). See Knights,‘The Tory Interpretation of History in the Rage of Parties’, in The Uses ofHistory in Early Modern England, ed. Paulina Kewes (San Marino: HuntingtonLibrary, 2006), 347–366.

2 Arthur Ferguson, Clio Unbound: Perception of the Social and Cultural Past inRenaissance England (Durham: Duke University Press, 1979), 12. See also,more generally, 129–134; Fussner, The Historical Revolution, 303; Gilmore,Humanists and Jurists, 135–45; Felicity Heal, ‘Appropriating History: Catholicand Protestant Polemics and the National Past’, in The Uses of History in EarlyModern England, ed. Paulina Kewes (San Marino: Huntington Library, 2006),105–128.

3 Heylyn’s text sought to refute Thomas Fuller’s The Church History of Britain(London, 1656) and William Sanderson’s The Complete History of Mary Queenof Scotland and King James VI (London, 1656). Fuller and Sanderson bothpenned dialogic responses in return: Sanderson published a controversy-formpamphlet, Peter Pursued; or, Dr. Heylin Overtaken, Arrested, and Arraigned uponHis Three Appendixes (London, 1658?); Fuller responded in a dramaticdialogue, The Appeal of Injured Innocence . . . In a Controversie Betwixt theAnimadvertor, Dr. Peter Heylyn, and the Author, Thomas Fuller (London, 1659).

4 For a discussion of the work’s composition and reception, as well as theidentity of its editors and preface-writer, see Levine, Battle of the Books,309–319.

5 Levine, Battle of the Books, 311.

224 NOTES



via free access

6 [Hughes], Preface to A Complete History, 1:3v. Le Moyne, by contrast, arguedthat the ideals of ‘a True History and a Perfect Historian’ were possible, but rare:see Of the Art, 16.

7 [Hughes], Preface to A Complete History, 1:3v; the italicized passage is aquotation from Nicolson, English Historical Library, 1:A3v. Nicolson’s prefaceis very similar to Hughes’.

8 [Hughes], Preface to A Complete History, 1:a1r.9 [Hughes], Preface to A Complete History, 1:a2v.

10 White Kennett, ‘To the Reader’, in A Complete History, 1:a2v.11 Kennett, ‘To the Reader’, 1:a2v.12 Kennett not only participated in theological disputes, but also penned

controversy- and dialogue-form political pamphlets. See Levine, Battle of theBooks, 317.

13 Kennett, ‘To the Reader’, 1:b1r.14 Kennett’s text made extensive use of quotation, some of it credited and some

of it uncredited. 15 Varillas, Anekdota Eterouiaka, b4v.

Chapter 8

1 Oldmixon, The Critical History of England, 1:vij; A Review of Dr. Zachary Grey’sDefense of our Ancient and Modern Historians (London, 1725); Clarendon andWhitlock Compar’d (London, 1727). Oldmixon wrote three volumes ofnational history: A History of England During the Reigns of the Royal House ofStuart (1730); A History of England During the Reigns of King William andQueen Mary, Queen Anne, and King George I (London, 1735); and A History ofEngland, During the Reigns of Henry VIII, Edward VI, Queen Mary, and QueenElizabeth (London, 1739).

2 Rogers, Grub Street, 187. For a discussion of Oldmixon’s fortunes amongcontemporary critics (and particularly Pope), see Rogers, Grub Street,185–195. While the Stuart history didn’t sell as well as Oldmixon had hoped,‘It did elicit 658 subscribers, a respectable enough number’, according to LairdOkie (Augustan Historical Writing, 92n.8).

3 See Okie, Augustan Historical Writing, 75; Hicks, Neoclassical History andEnglish Culture, 8, 150.

4 Hicks, Neoclassical History and English Culture, 154–155.5 Even if all three volumes are regarded as one unit, the time frame of the History

is limited to a discrete period between the sixteenth and mid-eighteenthcenturies.

6 Rogers notes that many of the subscribers to the Stuart history weremerchants, rather than peers or gentry (’Book Subscriptions Among theAugustans’, 1539–1540).

7 Oldmixon often refers to Echard’s and Clarendon’s texts – or, more specifically,

NOTES 225



via free access

their portraits of monarchs – as panegyrics. See, for example, 10, 31, 48, 146,273, 319, 345, 551.

8 Dryden, Works, 4:79–80. 9 Rapin, Instructions, 57.

10 See Fielding, Joseph Andrews, 7–8.11 Dryden, Works, 4:77. For a discussion of satire’s relationship to the dramatic

genres, see pages 114–115 above. 12 Blackmore, Prince Arthur, 2v. 13 Swift, A Tale of a Tub, 29.14 Maimbourg, The History of the League, b3r.15 He goes on: ‘Ought not an Historian to examine into the Waste of the

immense Treasures squander’d by King Charles II for fear of discovering theywere consum’d by the Ladies? Does Decency command us to throw hisDouble-dealing with God and Man, in pretending Zeal for the ProtestantReligion, when he was a Papist, into Shades? Should we not search into theRecesses of his Negociations with France for a Pension, to enable him to livewithout Parliaments, lest we be guilty of Presumption?’ (xii).

16 See Hicks, Neoclassical History and English Culture, 170–209.17 Readers will find in Okie’s Augustan Historical Writing a far more extensive

argument for understanding early-eighteenth-century formal histories asEnlightenment or pre-Enlightenment works, particularly with respect to theirphilosophical and political concerns.

18 On Hume’s use of irony, see, for example, Gossman, Between History andLiterature, 243; White, Metahistory, 54–55.

19 Oldmixon’s emphasis on the power transfer from Stuarts to Hanovers was notunusual in this regard: not only did many of his contemporaries similarlyorganize their narratives around the significance of the Glorious Revolution,but several of the best-known histories of the later eighteenth and nineteenthcenturies – most notably those by Edmund Burke and Thomas Macaulay – didthe same. See Steve Pincus, 1688: The First Modern Revolution (New Haven:Yale University Press, 2009), 12, 14; O’Brien, Narratives of Enlightenment, 16.

20 On Hume’s use of the sentimental, see Hilson, ‘The Historian as Man ofFeeling’, 205–222; Phillips, Society and Sentiment, 60–73; O’Brien, Narrativesof Enlightenment, 60–66.

226 NOTES



via free access

Documents

HISTORICAL LITERATURES: HISTORICAL LITERATURES WRITING