The funeral took place in Old St. Pancras Church- yard, attended by all the friends, save Mr. Tuthil, who had been on terms of great intimacy with Godwin and his wife...Old St. Pancras churchyard has seen strange vicissitudes. The [Metropolitan and] Midland Rail- way broke in on its peace; and when I visited it some years ago to search for Mary Wollstonecraft’s grave, I thought I had seldom seen a place of the dead so desecrated. Once more the wilderness blossoms as the rose; it has become a public garden, well tended and fair.
But neither in its shame nor its reparation did Mary Wollstonecraft lie there. When the railway invaded the spot, and Godwin had lain some years by his wife’s side, their grandson, Sir Percy [Florence] Shelley, removed their remains to Bournemouth churchyard to the grave where he had laid his mother. [Mary Shelley died in 1851, and it was in the same year that this removal was made.] There, on a sunny bank sloping to the west, among the rose-wreathed crosses of many who have died in more orthodox beliefs, lie those who at least might each of them have said: Write me as one who loves his fellow-men.
Mary passed to her rest, not to be disturbed by the 325 SUPPLEMENT TO MEMOIRS chorus of vituperation which has assailed her memory.
Thee nor carketh care nor slander Nothing but the small cold worm Fretteth thine enshrouded form— Let them rave.
Light and shadow ever wander O’er the green that folds thy grave— Let them rave.
7;: se rig wt “ Economy and self-denial are necessary in every: station to enable us to be generous” From the original drawing by William Blake (cf. above, pp. 207-14) x PORTRAITS OF MARY.
Or Mary’s actual face but two representations remain to us. One is Opie’s lovely portrait (reproduced as frontispiece to this book), for which Mary sat in April 1797, and which is hung in the National Portrait Gallery, London; the other, a cast of her face, made after death.
A second portrait attributed to Opie, and often wrongly said to be of Mary, hangs also in the National Portrait Gallery. This picture was first engraved ‘ by Ridley after a painting by Opie,’ to precede an entirely unauthorized article (which Johnson had vainly striven to suppress), entitled Mrs. WoLLSTONEcROFT, in the second number of The Monthly Mirror, January 1796 it 131-3). *; 1 This article devotes more space to Johnson’s refusal to furnish a biographical sketch than to its subject. However, even if unauthorized, its comments on Mary are pleasant ones; this is all they said: We could compliment her...with the utmost sincerity, on the vast additions she has made to the literature of the present age in general, and to the exaltation of the female character in particular. We could compliment her on the strength and vigour of her intellect, the force of her reasoning, the variety of her arguments, and the bold delivery of her sentiments. We could compliment her on being, what she is, the CHAMPION OF THE RIGHTS OF HER Sex, and on her endeavours to expunge from the catalogue 327 Saye bit The ae y Art, re Dece 7 aan ove 82) appears an article from which the sgt may be quoted: Under the will of the late Lady Shelley at ou ir; national collection of portraits has been enriched — by four likenesses, which are of the greatest interest _ to all students of Shelley. <3 Miss Amelia Curran’s portrait of Shelley, Rome, - 1841. 4 Mary W. Shelley, by R. Rothwell, 1841. William Godwin, by Jas. Northcote, R.A. “38 Mary W. Godwin, painted by John Opie, RA, | 4 2 about the year 1797.
The other portrait [of ‘Mary W. Godwin 1 transferred from the National Gallery in 1899 to the of modern affectation such nonsensical cant as ‘ suscep- tibility of heart, delicacy of sentiment, and refinement of taste,’ and other pretty feminine phrases, which the men | condescendingly use to soften the slavish independence [Vide Introduction to The Rights of Woman, pp. 6, 7, slightly altered to fit the context] of her sex; and which, it might have been added, half the female fashionable world have adopted as the ‘substitute for real feeling and genuine benevolence.
Itis almost unnecessary to add, that Mrs. Wollstonecraft is the author of the celebrated Vindication of the Rights of Woman; and ofan Historical and Moral View of the Origin and Progress of the French Revolution, Another work in the press [Letters...in Sweden, which the Mirror, as agreed, reviewed in its number for March 1796—1: 285-9 —a bitter review throughout, without a kind word for this delightful book] will be reviewed, immediately on publica- tion, with the same candour which, we flatter ourselves, have hitherto distinguished the critical disquisitions of the Monthly Mirror. In the meantime we have to inform our readers that a biographical sketch of Mrs, Wollstone- croft, from the most authentic materials, will shortly be given to the world through the medium of this Miscellany. Unfortunately the promised ‘ biographical sketch ’ never made its appearance.
328 ‘ . % s Ue : POR TRATTS (OR, MARY National Portrait Gallery, was purchased by the National Gallery in 1884 at the sale of W. Russell’s pictures, and was hung January 1885. Kegan Paul wrote in The Times impugning its authenticity. Sir F. Burton replied in The Times of January 7, 1885, that the portraits were alike, that the lady was about forty years in the spurious picture and twenty-five in the one painted by Opie for Godwin.
This point of dispute is not, however, cleared up, for the picture just bequeathed by Lady Shelley is officially described as being painted ‘ about 1797’ the year of Mrs. Godwin’s death, and when she was thirty-eight years of age. The recently added portrait is undoubtedly a good example of Opie’s art and a dignified representation of the intellectual authoress of the Rights of Woman.
What has Kegan Paul to say about this dispute?
His own books are liberally illustrated. In William Godwin (1876) he gives us Northcote’s portrait of Godwin, and Opie’s true one of Mary. In Mary Wollstonecraft (1879) there are two portraits of Mary— the true and the spurious. Kegan Paul remarks: A word is necessary in reference to some of the difficulties which they present.
The portrait etched for the frontispiece is beyond all doubt that painted by Opie for Godwin during the few months of his marriage with Mary Woll- stonecraft, and very shortly before her death...The hair in this picture is a bright auburn, and corresponds in colour with that cut from Mary Wollstonecraft’s head after death. A considerable quantity of this hair is also in Sir Percy Shelley’s keeping. The features of the portrait correspond in every degree with a cast taken from the face after death, and show that the likeness must have 329 engraved, as by Opie, by Heath in 17: rs nen as s striking as the painting is exc _ published by denncer Mary’ s publisher and | friend. } —* *The-second pore is in the possession of Mr. - William Russell, and was sold to him twenty y Ss since as by Northcote, but. was immediately pro- nounced by him to be by Opie, a fact now certain, Is it Mary Wollstonecraft?
The face is older, though the likeness to the other _ picture is strong. The hair is grey or powdered, t. 16 first being impossible in Mary’s case, the second unlikely. But it was engraved, as by Opie, by Ridley, and published by Bellamy for the pro- prietors of the Monthly Mirror in 1796, with the name of ‘Mrs. Wollstonecraft,’ that is to say in Mary Wollstonecraft’s lifetime, ‘and it does not seem that any doubt was thrown upon it. It is, however, clear from an article in the Monthly Mirror that the — plate was issued without authority.
There is here a difficulty which is to me quite insoluble and I can only leave the puzzle as I find it, saying simply that the authenticity of the first portrait is obviously indisputable, while it is not easy to dispute that of the second.
Elizabeth Robins Pennell, in her Life of Mary Wollstonecraft, remarks of this portrait: It was engraved and published in the Monthly Mirror with Mary’s name attached to it, during her lifetime. When Mr. Kegan Paul published the Letters to Imlay in 1879, there seemed no doubt of its authenticity. But since then it has been proved to be the portrait of the wife of an artist who lived in the latter part of the eighteenth century.
To what extent can these opinions be controverted or supplemented? Let us consider the actual facts. 330 SS ee a a se oe ee eT - ORT RAITS (OF (MARY This painting was done in 1795. But Opie, like Holcroft, James Marshal, Mrs. Reveley, and probably Mrs. Siddons, was first an acquaintance of Godwin before ever he met Mary, and he first made Godwin’s acquaintance in 1795. Wherefore he could hardly have painted Mary before 1796, and the portrait in question is definitely of the year preceding this.
Apart from date, the hair in the picture suggests that it is spurious. As Kegan Paul says, grey hair is ‘impossible’ and powder ‘ unlikely.’ Mary’s ‘ bright auburn’ hair was one of her most attractive charms, and even Opie’s portrait, painted after ‘ all the waves and storms of her sorrows had gone over her,’ shows not one single grey hair.
What is the explanation of the painting’s rumoured connection with Mary? Surely this simple one: Under no circumstances would the portrait ever have been assigned to Mary, had it not appeared in the Monthly Mirror with her name to it. Here is a magazine beginning its career, printing its first number in December 1795, and very much on the look-out for something attractive to build up its circulation. Perhaps a‘ write-up’ of Mrs. Wollstone- craft seemed likely copy. Johnson is applied to for a portrait and biographical particulars. He refuses, saying: ‘The highest compliment you can pay Mrs. Wollstonecraft would be that of saying nothing about her.’ Now picture the paper’s emissary, having failed in his mission and not wanting to return empty-handed. Would he not likely stop at some painter’s studio, or art-dealer’s shop, and select the picture of the ‘ wife of an artist’ as having perhaps a 331 from James Marshal ie of the two vines a0 th _ marriage of Mary and Godwin), to William Hazlitt, showing that these two friends still retained their interest in our heroine nearly a quarter of a century _ after her death. Be oy 21 July, 1821.
= eu oe ok ye »~ a an yi Ss Dear Sir, e I went up to your country retreat last evening — but had not the good fortune to find you there. — It was simply to communicate a short conversation, k which passed between Mr. Godwin and me over our tea an hour or so before. y Over the mantelpiece of his study is a portrait of his first wife, and, pointing to it, I said, ‘I was told a few days ago, that Stodart formerly wrote a sonnet on that lady.’.—‘ Who is Stodart? ’—‘ Dr. Slop: is it true?’ ‘ Not that I know of, I never read or heard of such a thing: but a sonnet by Stodart, had I read it, would have been forgotten © by me as soon as read.’—‘ I was told also, that he eagerly sought her society.’ ‘ That I do not believe either. There were only two persons besides myself, who were desirous of paying her particular attention, and Stodart was not one of them.’ ‘ His acquaintance with you was prior, I think, to his acquaintance with her? ’—‘ Certainly; and at the period when he introduced himself to me, he was wild in the defence of principles, the very reverse of what he now upholds. It was when I lived in Charlton Street, Somers Town. The history of our 332 HAGLITT AND OLLIER HAGLITT AND OLLIER acquaintance is this. He was in the habit of calling upon me in a morning, and as I was then making court to the lady in question, who was frequently with me, his visits became annoying, and I treated him so unceremoniously, that he at length ceased to call, and I have scarcely seen him a dozen times since. —* He never used, I think, to be among either your or her visitors, after your marriage, when you lived in the Polygon? ’—‘ No, never.’
This is all that passed, and all, probably that belongs to Dr. Slop’s intimacy with Mary Woll- stonecraft. If a sonnet were ever written by him, the best course of enquiry respecting it, I am persuaded, would be that which I pointed out to you on Thursday, of Mary Hayes (sic). I need not say, I am sure, that the whole of this communication is strictly entre nous.
Yours, Dear sir, truly, Jas: MARSHAL.?
The second letter is one that Godwin wrote to his daughter’s publisher—Charles Ollier—and owes its interest not only to its references to both his daughter and to her mother; but also because it seems to indicate that Mary was a poet as well as a writer of prose. The only other reference to this practice is her juvenile memory of ‘ making little songs addressed to angels.’ Palace Yard. April 3, 1835. My DEAR SIR, I was favoured with a note from you more than a week ago, in which you say that you will send me in a day or two a copy of Mrs. Shelley’s Lodore.
2 The original of this letter is a recent acquisition by the Department of Manuscripts, British Museum (Add. MS. 40856).
333 letter in its final arrival at the Ford Collection in the New ~ York Public Library.
aa & Son Shoe suited: y my pr 0 a4 sescrayt of my wife’s first writing. | Will you all inclosed as an acquittal of my promise? } forty years have elapsed since her death. A I have changed my place of abode five times in interval, I had some difficulty in laying my hai “on any thing to acquit my promise. It has not, you seemed to wish, her signature, and I kno nothing of the history of the stanzas.2 May I entreat you to be contented, with the assurance © that they are certainly in her own handwriting? Begging you to excuse this imperfect performance, — I beg to subscribe myself, Yours very faithfully and sincerely, WILLIAM GopwIN.
8 Unfortunately the ‘stanzas’ did not accompany this _ END OF THE SUPPLEMENT.
334 f A il more interesting Saran: editions of — es Godwin’ s ‘Memoirs of Mary Wollstonecraft,’ together a with a selection from contemporary reviews.
meee vINDICATION OF THE RIGHTS OF | _ WOMAN. | (printer’s line* ) /By William aes - Collation. Pp. iv plus 204: (i) (ii) half-title, : Memoirs. verso blank; (ili) (iv) title-page, verso blank; (1)-199 text (B to O, in sixteens); (200) blank; (201) (202) Errata, and Directions to the Binder. verso blank; (203) (204) Johnson’s Cata- logue: Written by Mrs. Wollstonecraft Godwin. Nine titles; Necker and Letters...in Sweden not included.
Illustration. Frontispiece, facing title-page, en- graved portrait: Opie pinxt Heath sculpt / Mary Wollstonecraft Godwin. / London. Published Jan. 1% 1798, by J. Johnson, S* Pauls Church Yard.
Original price and binding. 3s. 6d. in boards.
330 Saat 2 Hos for a oreo Paul’s / Church- Yard. ie 1798. 206 Pa SuBsEQUENT EDITIONS (1799-1912): Schnepfenthal. DENKSCHRIFT AUF — WOLLSTONECRAFT GODWIN, die Verth gerin der Rechte des Weibes, von William God in.
Meta Aus dem Englischen iibersetzt und mit eir Boe Sak Anmerkungen begleitet. Nebst dem Bildr Se der Verstorbenen. Schnepfenthal, im Verlage = der Buchhandlung der Erziehungsanstalt. 1799. This was translated and published by C. G. Sa z= mann, who also wrote the preface.
Philadelphia. MEMOIRS / OF / MARY WOLIL Vindication of the Rights of Woman.” / Philadelphia: / Printed by James Carey, / No. 16, re eens street. / 1799.
Paris. VIE / ET MEMOIRES / DE MARIE WOLLSTONECRAFT GODWIN, / Auteur de la Défense des droits /de la Femme, d’une Réponse /& Edmond Burck, des Pensées / sur Education ses Filles. | Traduit de l'Anglais, / Par le Citoyen D*****n. / (printer’s line) / A Paris, / Chez / Testu, Imprimeur-Libraire, rue — Hautefeuille, n°. 14; / Fuchs, Libraire, rue des — Mathurins, hotel de Cluny; / Desenne, Libraire, palais du Tribunat;/ Le Prieur, Libraire, rue | Saint Jacques; / Petit, Libraire, palais du Tri- bunat, galere vitée, n°, 229, prés de Théatre. / — (printer’ s line) / AN X. 1802, ‘ The British Museum copy of this book is — bound in paper and contains no portrait. 336 rt et: anslator, discussing ts in the Memories, and justifying peck § ir slation for the French public by Pim reference to. Mary’ s wonderful personality and the interest the Memories should command in Beary cs _ consequence. | Philadelphia. MEMOIRS / OF / M. WOLLSTONE- CRAFT GODWIN, / Author / of / A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. / (double printer’s line) / Philadelphia: / Printed by Samuel Akerman, No. 159, / Race-street. / 1804.
Halle a. G. WILLIAM GODWIN. / Erinnerungen an Mary Wollstonecraft / Ubersetzt von / Therese es Schlesinger-Eckstein / Verlag von Edgar Thamm, GODWIN’S MEMOIRS; CONTEMPORARY REVIEWS The Analytical Review, March 1798 (27: 235-40)...The narrative is easy, and we believe very faithful and true, so far it is entitled to praise. But it is obvious, that Mrs. G. entertained singular opinions, and reduced them into practice. This circumstance will invite many severely to criticise, and some to censure her character. As this is the case, we think it was due to Mrs. G. to have stated how those opinions were formed and the reasons by which she supported them.
It is indeed a bold narrative of the life of a woman, very eventful and touching. We think it entitled to very limited praise. In another respect it is deficient. It gives no correct history of the formation of Mrs. G.’s mind. We are neither informed of her favourite books, her hours of study, nor her attain- ments in languages and philosophy. She contem- plated nature with rapture we are told, and enjoyed much of its inspiration. Of this there can be no MW, 337 Y BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE doubt; but as the chief use of biography is to teach us to attain to eminence in virtue and knowledge, we think too little is told us concerning the subjects of Mrs. G.’s study, and her manner of studying: but, perhaps, instead of censuring, we ought to lament the paucity of the means of information.
We conceive exceptions will be taken to her conduct in three respects; and we think too little attention is given to such probable exceptions in the narrative.
Ist, Mrs. G.’s notions and practice respecting marriage will meet violent objections...The next charge we expect to hear advanced against the character of Mrs. G. is the versatility of her attachments. It will be said, to-day she loves Mr. Fuseli, to-morrow attaches herself to Mr. Imlay, and, the moment Imlay finally abandons her, we find her in the arms of Mr. Godwin.
But what is there in all this? those, who feel powerfully one impression, are, no doubt, the most easily susceptible of another.
Rouchefoucauld, in his maxims...asserts that the heart, which is torn by a disappointed affection, is the best prepared to form anewone. But did Mrs. G. ever renounce an attachment? He who reads her letters will declare, that the possibility’ of such a conduct did not exist in her nature. Her love was more lasting than its object.
Her attachment to Mr. Fuseli was conceived against her wishes and efforts. It grew into no connection. She travelled to banish his image, and no better expedient remains to her who would discard one recollection, than the assiduous cultivation of another. The only question in the case is, whether she abandoned Imlay too soon, who had abandoned her for many months...He who reads her letters will stand astonished at the fervour,.strength and duration of her affection for Imlay. At the bar of reason, in this respect, Mrs. G. is more than exculpated...338 CONTEMPORARY REVIEWS A head of Mrs. G. is prefixed to these memoirs, which exhibits at once a striking likeness and a very interesting figure. We think every one who reads these memoirs ought, in justice to Mrs. G. to read her letters; and we wish, indeed, that they had not been separately printed.
Imperfect as these memoirs are, we have no fellow- ship with him, who can read them without a tear.
Nevo: The Monthly Mirror, March 1798 (5: 153, 4).
The first of these productions [Memoirs and Posthumous Works| begins with the life of the cele- brated author, written by her husband, Mr. Godwin, who, venerating no doubt, the amiable virtues and eminent talents of Mrs. G. has thought fit to give this volume to the world, compiled principally from written memorandums and careful inquiries, respecting the remarkable incidents of her life. It must be confessed, that this morsel of biography does not teem with much variety of anecdote or dignity of sentiment. It we take out the account of her intimacy with Mr. Imlay, there is little to interest the feelings: her labour and the circumstances attending her death, are too minutely described: not to say, that, in many places, there is a frequent repetition of the same occurrences: this gives that sort of ennui, which, to the generality of readers, must render its perusal very desultory and insipid...
Upon the whole, the life of Mrs. Godwin leaves no very considerable impression upon our feelings: had it pleased heaven to prolong her days, and extend her labours, the world, by and by, might probably have been in possession of facts which would have re- dounded more to the celebrity of her name: we should not then have merely read an account of moving from this place to that, which at present occu- pies nearly one half of the volume: but should have 339 Brees ees E ieee ibe arden nd vigoro day i in fresh. pursuits for the ameliorati The European M agazine; ea 1798 (33: ~The Lady whose memoirs are now before us appee to have possessed good abilities and originally a go: disposition; but, with an overweening conceit — herself, much obstinacy and self will, and a disposition — to run counter to established practices and opinions. _ Her conduct in the early part of her life was blameless, _ if not exemplary; but the latter part of it blemished a. with actions which must consign her name to posterity — s (in spite of all palliatives) as one whose example, if XN followed, would be attended by the most pernicious _ consequences to society; a philosophical wanton, breaking down the bars intended to restrain licentious- _ ness; and a mother, deserting her helpless offspring, _ disgracefully brought into the world by herself, by an intended act of suicide. [This strikes the key- -note of the whole review; the reviewer proceeds to quote Godwin’s account of her meeting Dr. Price, and that in 1787 she became an infrequent church atten- dant.] At the time above ascertained commenced those eccentricities in Mrs. Godwin’s conduct which stained the latter part of her life with ignominy. A female unrestrained by the obligations of religion, is soon ripe for licentious indecorums...She then . accepted the office of Governess to the daughters of Lord Viscount Kingsborough...and wonders are told of the salutary effects of her'system of education; but when we reflect on what Mr. Godwin is silent about, the misconduct of one of her pupils, who has lately brought disgrace on herself, death on her para- mour, risk to the lives of her brother and father, and misery to all her relatives; when we consider also Mrs. Godwin’s own subsequent conduct; we hesitate in giving implicit credit to the eulogium...She died the 10th of September, and her husband 340 CONTEMPORARY REVIEWS boasts that during her whole illness not one word of a religious cast fell from her lips. Rare philosophy! Such was the catastrophe of a female philosopher of the new order; such the events of her life; and such the apology for her conduct. It will be read with disgust by every female who has any pretensions to delicacy; with detestation by every one attached to the interests of religion and morality; and with indignation by any one who might feel any regard for the unhappy woman, whose frailties should have been buried in oblivion. Licentious as the times are, we trust it will obtain no imitators of the heroine in this country. It may act, however, as a warning to those who fancy themselves at liberty to dispense with the laws of propriety and decency, and who suppose the possession of perverted talents will atone for deviations from rules long established for the well government of society, and the happiness of man- kind.
The Critical Review, April 1798 (22: 414-10).
It will be readily conceded by every person who has perused Mrs. Godwin’s writings with attention and candour, that she was not only possessed of great genius, which directed her to original habits of thinking, but had also an undaunted and masculine spirit, which encouraged her to declare her thoughts without reserve. Her sentiments, however, in some respects, are too much at variance with those which have been generally adopted; and, although we may probably be ranked with the votaries of the old system, whose dark minds the rays of the new philo- sophy have never been able to penetrate, we are not afraid to express our opinion that the doctrines upon which she has principally insisted are unfriendly to human happiness, and, if practically followed, would injure the sex they were intended to vindicate and protect. It is not therefore without disgust that we 341 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE have read these ‘Memoirs,’ and some of the posthumous. Pieces, because we are convinced that they are not cal- culated to do honour to her memory although this may have been the sincere intention of the writer “and editor...We shall probably...differ very much from the writer of these ‘Memoirs,’ in mentioning the conduct and principles of Mrs. Godwin, as far as the sexual intercourse is concerned, rather as a warning than a pattern. .An account of her last illness closes these ; Memoirs,’ which are written with neatness and some- times with elegance of style, and with an affectionate regard for the lost object...The Monthly Magazine, July 1798 (5: 493, 4).
The death of a woman, renowned for talent and eccentricity, has been succeeded by an interesting narrative of her life. In the vigour of age, and in the bloom of beauty, Providence has summoned away Mary Wollstonecraft Godwin. Her widower has published the Memoirs and Posthumous Works of this contested character; the former are somewhat meagre, perhaps, but they are written with much simplicity, and, we have no doubt, with truth; every objectionable circumstance of her life is narrated in the same ungarnished language which is employed in the enumeration of her many meritorious actions. It is not for us to vindicate Mary Godwin from the charge of multiplied immorality, which is brought against her by the candid as well as the censorious; by the sagacious as well as the superficial observer: her character, in our estimation, is far from being entitled to unqualified praise; she had many tran- scendent virtues. But she is now dead, and we shall No farther seek her merits to disclose, Or draw her frailties from the dread abode; There they alike in trembling hope repose, The bosom of her Father and her God! 342 CONTEMPORARY REVIEWS The Anti-Facobin Review and Magazine, July 1798 (I: 94-102).
..We coincide with him [Godwin] in his opinion of the utility of a life of Mrs. Wollstonecroft (sic); though for a very different reason. Intended by him for a beacon, it serves for a buoy; if it does not shew what it is wise to pursue, it manifests what it is wise to avoid...Finding herself superior to many of those ladies with whom she was acquainted, she fancied that she who was merely a woman of lively, but neither strong nor profound genius, was a phcenomenon of nature, born to give a new direction to human opinion and conduct...Her literary career was begun in the Analytical Review; a performance in which, it seems, learning and sound reasoning were not then esteemed indis- pensibly necessary any more than they are at the present time...Mary’s Reply (to Burke), as might be expected from a writer handling a subject and a work so much beyond her ability, was superficial and extravagant...trite...visionary...Next succeeded her Rights of Woman, which the superficial imagined to be profound and the profound knew to be superficial: it indeed had little title to the character of ingenuity. Her doctrines are almost all corollaries from the theorems of Paine.
...Though kind to her relations, and indeed, disposed to benevolence to the utmost of her power, hurried on by her feelings, she was much less beneficent than if these had been under the control of reason and sound principles. Her constituton, as the philosopher, her husband, bears testimony, was very amorous. Her passions were further inflamed ‘ by the state of celibacy and restraint in which she had hitherto lived, and to which the rules of society condemn an unmarried woman.’ The amorous lady 343 343 ~ fell in love li, ai : long to have a violent affection for "him 0 — length it was indulged in has. not appeared. / close of the year 1792 she went over to France, on the eve of war with her country...a still strong motive than admiration of the political justice whic France exhibited, prolonged her stay in that fre and happy land. ‘She entered’ (says Godwin ‘into that species of connection for which her heart _ _ secretly panted...’ The state to which he attri- butes such beneficial consequences to the mind of | her whom he afterwards made his wife, was con-. cubinage. She became the concubine of Mr. Imlay, — 2 an American.. “ The biographer does not mention many of her Ss amours. Indeed it was unnecessary.. “a Among other advantages which this just woman — planned for her amour, was a trip to America, where she might have eluded her creditors. As the gallants of kept mistresses cannot have that confidence, which is one of the strongest motives to constancy, Mary was forsaken by her paramour...[The reviewer proceeds to pollute by suggestion Mary’s attachment to Godwin,: and even attacks the reviewers who furnished the reviews of Memoirs and Posthumous Works to the March Analytical. As an instance of the length to which hatred of Mary Wollstonecraft could go, it may be mentioned that in the Index to this volume, under the name ‘Wollstonecraft,’ is to be found this reference: ‘see Helen Maria Williams, Godwin, Prostitution.’
Looking up the last word, one actually reads:: ‘ Prostitution, see Mary Wollstonecraft.’] 3 The British Critic, September 1798 (12: 228-33).
To such persons as are capable of unbiased reflection this performance, extraordinary as it is, may prove 344 CONTEMPORARY “REVIEWS instructive. Of the authorship of the tale no doubt can be entertained, for, as the author was the husband of the heroine, he had access to the best information, of which he appears to have assiduously availed himself...Both Mrs. Wollstonecraft and her biographer spent much of their time in labouring to eradicate from the minds of their readers all respect for esta- blishments deemed venerable for their antiquity, and to inspire them with enthusiastic admiration of daring and untried theories in morals, in politics, and in religion...We have an opportunity of contemplating the effects of such theories on their own practice...Her biographer is vehement in his praise of her qualifications for the training of youth, and mentions, with exultation, ‘ the salutary effects of a new system of education’ which she introduced into this noble family. One at least of these effects, we will venture to say, is fresh in the memory of our readers...
The reader of the Vindication of the Rights of Woman, will perhaps be surprised when he is informed, that, during her last illness, no religious expressions escaped the author’s lips. In that work, the grand principle is, that woman is not the inferior of man, walking along with him in the road of duty, in which ‘ they both trained for a state of endless improvement.’ The biographer of Mary affirms, that she had made greater progress than her neighbours. Her hopes therefore should have been better founded. Prospect of success in a great and favourite pursuit, usually animates the heart, and shows itself; but alas! if this narrative be correct, she, whom the author calls the greatest ornament to her sex, gave no signal of that hope; ‘she died and made no sign.’ She had long discontinued her attendance on public worship; she preferred the faint glimmerings of a false philosophy to the glorious light of the gospel; and she could not be animated with those hopes, which the gospel alone can excite.
345 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTZ The Monthly Review, November 1798 (27: 321-4). Vulgar tears fall and evaporate without leaving any trace behind them: but the tear of affection is” often chrystallised by the power of genius, and con-