Wendy C. Nielsen Montclair State University

In the past two decades, scholarship on British Romantic drama has illustrated the centrality of theater to understanding the era’s “geo-historical and geo-political” issues, and to appreciating women writers’ previously unacknowledged roles in public debates (Purinton, 353).Regarding British Romantic drama and international politics, see monographs by Matthew S. Buckley, Julie Carlson, Jeffrey Cox, Daniel O'Quinn, Jane Moody, Gillian Russell, and George Taylor. Key among these geo-historical and geo-political issues was the French Revolution. The dramatic events of the French Revolution shaped British Romantic writers’ thinking on social justice campaigns such as democracy, women’s rights, and abolitionism. However, our critical lens for these international crises often remains rather Anglo-centric, perhaps because dramas from Continental authors do not receive enough attention, except in contemporary translations. Oft-cited examples include Elizabeth Inchbald’s (1798), adapted from August von Kotzebue’s comedy () or Richard Brinsley Sheridan’s (1799), adapted from Kotzebue’s () (Burwick, “German Romantic Drama” 157). This paper reflects on the pedagogical benefits of incorporating Europe and its drama into Romantic coursework. An eight-day teaching unit on explores the international dimensions of Romantic drama.

Recommending introductory reading about the French Revolution is a rather difficult task, and Matthew S. Buckley’s recent book, , explains why: the ostensible truth about the Revolution is as elusive as the tragic drama it evokes. As Buckley and others maintain, one can only understand the French Revolution by dissecting its theater.Paul Friedland, Marie-Hélène Huet, Mona Ozouf, and Susan Maslan all dissect theater in order to explicate the Revolution. Republicans employed the methodologies of theater in order to broadcast Revolutionary propaganda abroad. These theatrical techniques also resembled those of the aristocracy and the Church, who communicated with the masses through allegorical parades and pictorials. Fêtes publiques (or public festivals) replaced religious feasts, and actors, actresses, playwrights, and artists such as Jacques-Louis David participated in their production.On Revolutionary festivals, see Ozouf and Nielsen ("Staging Rousseau's Republic"). The first ever use of the term "theatricality" in English, as Tracy C. Davis points out, appears in Thomas Carlyle’s (1837), and his accounts of festivals demonstrate the theatrum mundi sense of the word (Davis 132). The playhouses experienced a transformation as well. Strict licensing for spoken-word dramas disappeared in January 1791, and theaters reenacted the happenings on the streets of Paris with astonishing rapidity. After Charlotte Corday assassinated Jean-Paul Marat, theaters adorned their buildings with the bust of the “Friend of the People,” and dozens of productions recreated the event for spectators.On productions of Marat's assassination onstage in France, see Marie-Hélène Huet's book. New playhouses and authors were founded to meet the demand for these spectacles, although after 1792, Jacobins began to censor dramas that questioned the new order. For example, Jean-Louis Laya’s comedy, (), faced scrutiny because it satirized Jacobins like Robespierre and Marat. premiered 2 Jan. 1793 and played through 15 January before being suspended against the will of the public. See Susan Maslan, esp. 61-64.

The British press represented the French Revolution in similarly theatrical terms. Thus when Burke calls the Revolution “this great drama” in (1790), he appears to mimic the Republicans’ rhetorical mode (74). Many critics have noted the histrionics in the following passage from :Some reflections on include those written by Steven Blakemore, Paul Hindson and Tim Gray, Jacqueline M. Labbe, Ronald Paulson, Elizabeth D. Samet, and Linda M. G. Zerilli. A band of cruel ruffians and assassins, reeking with [her sentinel’s] blood, rushed into the chamber of the queen, and pierced with a hundred strokes of bayonets and poniards the bed, from whence this persecuted woman had but just time to fly almost naked, and, through ways unknown to the murderers, had escaped to seek refuge at the feet of a king and husband, not secure of his own life for a moment (71). A Gothic cast of characters populates Burke’s melodrama: the vulnerable queen in distress, the chivalrous father/king, and the villainous masses seeking revenge. Burke evokes a domesticated ideal of the queen as wife and mother in order to lament the loss of chivalry. Other women, notably the tragic actress Sarah Siddons (1755-1831), reminded Burke about his true feelings for Marie Antoinette, whom he met in 1777. Recalling the “tears that Garrick formerly, or that Siddons not long since, have exhorted” from him, Burke admits to feeling “truly ashamed” for these “tears of hypocrisy” and “folly;” “that superficial, theatric sense of painted distress” hardly compares to exulting “over it in real life” (71).

While Burke’s histrionic rhetoric has long puzzled and amused modern readers, we might compare it to the ambivalent theatricality of the Revolution. French theater, politics, and journalism—in some respects, one and the same entity—played with the lines between realism and abstract representation. Direct representation was a powerful tool of the Old Regime, which equated the royal body with divine right and power. So in broadsheets, Republicans advertised the death of the nation as corpus mysticum, or the mystical body.Dorinda Outram has brought this type of iconography to light. In his book , Paul Friedland insists that French theatricality is not what it seems: “Theatrical actors were prevailed upon to represent their characters abstractly, in a manner that seemed realistic to the audience, rather than a manner that the actors experienced as real” (6). Politicians, according to Friedland, practiced this methodology as well: “unlike previous political bodies that had claimed to be the French nation, the National Assembly merely claimed to speak on the nation’s behalf” (6). So in fact, Burke’s sympathetic portrait of Marie Antoinette, that “Roman matron,” resembles the representational strategies of the Old Regime and the counter-revolution, which also rely on metaphors (Burke 72). Moreover, Burke’s portrait contrasts with Marie Antoinette’s reputation in France. Revolutionaries charged the Queen with incest, pornography, and other acts of debauchery.Lynn Hunt documents the Republicans' attack on the morality of the Queen.

In the undergraduate classroom, sharing this theatrical history might help to clarify why the French Revolution remains such an opaque subject. Reading (1789) alongside the United States' (1776) further orients students to the similarities between the American and French Revolutions (see Day 2 of my online syllabus for ). A wealth of information about the Revolution exists in standard anthologies, and students can learn a lot about the early 1790s in Britain and France by reading Helen Maria Williams’s , Thomas Paine’s , Mary Wollstonecraft’s , and William Godwin’s alongside Burke’s text. However, sometimes when students attempt to decipher the complex events of the Revolution, they may become frustrated with the pointed rhetoric that writers like Burke and Wollstonecraft employ to debate the rights of man and woman. Whereas Paine writes with what my students claim is uncomplicated clarity, Wollstonecraft sometimes baffles these twenty-first century readers with her series of rhetorical questions, and Burke, likewise, carries a few of his metaphors so far that the impatient reader might mistake their meaning.An example of Burke's use of extended metaphors is the following: "When the old feudal and chivalrous spirit of fealty, which, by freeing kings from fear, freed both kings and subjects from the precautions of tyranny, shall be extinct in the minds of men, plots and assassinations will be anticipated by preventive murder and preventive confiscation, and that long roll of grim and bloody maxims, which form the political code of all power, not standing on its own honour, and the honour of those who are to obey it. Kings will be tyrants from policy, when subjects are rebels from principle" ( 74).

Pedagogy rooted in the dramatic arts could very well lead to a deeper appreciation of the Revolution and its legacy in Romantic writing. As instructors, we can paint pictures of the different scenes of the Revolution. More importantly, students benefit from applying these dramatic techniques to their own writing. One creative writing exercise that works well is the following. Students write a dramatic sketch between Burke and Wollstonecraft in pairs. The setting is a London coffeehouse, where the two meet by chance and discuss the French Revolution. In another in-class writing exercise, students write on an online discussion board (see Day 4). In this exercise, half of the class adopts the personae of either Wollstonecraft, Godwin, or Paine, and the other half writes an anti-Jacobin response to , , , or in the voices of a Church parson, Richard Polwhele, Edmund Burke, Hannah More, or another persona of their choosing. I strongly suggest using a discussion board, because students adapt easily to aliases online.

These in-class writing exercises prepare students to write their final essay for this unit. One formal writing assignment, , requires students to compose a creative writing piece and a critical introduction that analyzes their own work and one to three texts from the unit on In addition to a version of the assignment described above, students are invited to convert a scene from a prose work into a dramatic sketch. Olaudah Equiano’s or Mary Prince’s work well as potential screenplays since they feature episodic styles. The success of these creative writing pieces depends on how well students are able to construct their hypothetical audiences. Instructors might also support the writing process by requiring class participants to read and perform their dialogues and scenes aloud. These composition exercises serve two purposes. They prompt students to articulate the debate about the rights of men and women, issues evoked by events in France. Secondly, class participants adopt Romantic aliases, and this technique foregrounds authors’ attempts to construct ethos, or the invention of authoritative and ostensibly good personae. Of course, in Wollstonecraft critiqued Burke on these very grounds, his apparent misuse of ethos: “My indignation was roused by the sophistical arguments, that every moment crossed me, in the questionable shape of natural feelings and common sense” (77). Rhetoricians have recently rediscovered the powerful role that persona, ethos, and creative writing can play in the English classroom.On composition and creative writing, see Starkey's collection. On ethos, see Gonçalves. As Gary Thompson suggests, incorporating ethos into the English classroom transforms the process of writing into a type of performance: “Seeing writing as performance can direct attention to the nature of literacy as dialogic. All forms of communication involve recursion, and, ultimately, the socially constructed subject in dialogue with a wider audience” (89).

These same subjects—writers and audiences—faced official scrutiny in the Romantic period. To teach Romantic drama and the Revolution means to teach about censorship. The Lord Chamberlain's Examiner of Plays, John Larpent, censored most British dramas about the French Revolution regardless of their political viewpoint.An example of this arbitrary censorship is Edmund John Eyre's (1793), which sympathizes with the royal family (see Nielsen, "Edmund Eyre's " and L. W. Conolly, esp. p. 93). George Taylor and Jane Moody also provide excellent references on censorship. This environment encouraged self-censorship even when dramas made no reference to Revolution but seemed nonetheless incendiary. The refusal of managers to produce Shelley’s (1819) exemplifies this phenomenon. Friends also convinced Elizabeth Inchbald to withhold her only tragedy, (1792), from print and the stage (see Day 5). Given current concerns about violence in entertainment, students appear ready to discuss why these tragedies could or could not be produced, and their essays might analyze the suitability of and for performance. Ostensibly set during the massacre of French Protestants in the late sixteenth century, Inchbald’s play actually refers to the slaughter of Parisians during August/September 1792. The leading man, Eusèbe, gets caught up in the violence offstage, and he fails to defend his wife and children, who are presented on biers in the final scene.

also exemplifies a critique of Burkean rhetoric about chivalry and its ostensible role in protecting women, and Daniel O’Quinn’s essay on this issue (readily available online alongside the text of Inchbald’s play on ) makes these connections explicit. I like to point out to students that in the French original of the play ( by Louis-Sébastien Mercier), the figure of the wife is invited to arm herself, but Inchbald alters this event; Eusèbe would not have his wife’s “feminine virtues” disturbed by engaging in violence (Inchbald 15).I discuss the French roots of elsewhere (Nielsen, "A Tragic Farce"). This commentary on women’s supposed defenselessness highlights Burkean rhetoric about the fragility of the female sex.

Romantic drama also augments students’ study of slavery and abolitionism in the Romantic period. My syllabus recommends reading Olympe de Gouges’s (), which advocates emancipation and argues for the rights of illegitimate children. The plot of the short three-act play, available in English, is as follows. The ex-slaves Zamor and Mirza escaped to an island because their master’s steward made sexual advances on Mirza, and Zamor killed him. They save the French couple Valère and Sophie, who shipwreck on the island, but soon troops arrive and arrest the escaped slaves. Valère and Sophie help to free Zamor and Mirza by entreating the Governor, who turns out to be Sophie’s father (from a youthful liaison). was performed in the prestigious Comédie-Française (then called Théâtre de la Nation) in December 1789, before emancipation took effect. Among the play’s several production difficulties, the actors refused to paint their faces black and instead dressed as “Indians,” and lobbyists for the colonists probably influenced poor reviews in the press.Marie-Pierre Le Hir provides strong evidence for the influence of colonists on the reception of (see esp. pp. 81-2).

The author of , Olympe de Gouges (1745-93), is a significant figure in women’s history as well. She wrote a year before Mary Wollstonecraft composed . is available in English online as well. See Day 4 of my syllabus. Gouges was guillotined not long afterwards, and her brief trial focused on the plot of an unfinished play, (), because it featured the Queen as a character. Although Gouges’s politics upset her contemporaries (she advocated constitutional monarchy alongside her fight for human rights), she mirrored ideas prevalent in Romantic-era Britain. Like Mary Prince’s and Equiano’s , addresses the painful but important topic of sexual violence against women of color. For an analytical essay topic, students can compare Prince’s , Gouges’s , and Equiano’s and argue which text would make Romantic audiences most sympathetic to the cause of abolitionism. Student papers on this subject might examine the role of violence in these three texts and address the effect of reading in the closet versus seeing a play in performance (see Revolutionary Violence and Romantic Drama).

While several English dramas document the history of slavery and abolitionism,See Jeffrey Cox and volume five of . the case of slavery in France exhibits the far-reaching consequences of the Revolution. The provoked rebellions in the Caribbean (such as the rebellion in Saint Domingue) when colonists refused to extend human rights to slaves. The French abolished slavery in its colonies in 1794, but Napoleon revoked the ordinance in 1802. The inclusion of this French drama opens up discussion about slavery in the Americas. For example, in 1804, Toussaint l'Ouverture helped to found Haiti, the first free Black nation in the Western hemisphere. There is material online, a nineteenth-century biography of Toussaint l'Ouverture, for further research (see Day 7 of my syllabus).

In Continental literary traditions, the term Romantic extends further into the nineteenth century than is the case within English Romanticism.It is also worth considering Romantic drama as a genre after 1830. After all, the Danish Romantic writer Adam Oehlenschläger (1779-1850) influenced Henrik Ibsen's early historical plays. (prem. Sept. 1850 in Christiania, now called Oslo) resembles Romantic drama more than Ibsen's later Naturalist plays. French Studies reserves the label Romantic for writers like Alfred de Musset (1810-57) and Victor Hugo (1805-85), whose “Preface to Cromwell” (“Préface à Cromwell” 1827) announces the arrival of the movement. For Hugo and Stendhal, in (1823), “the proving ground of romantic doctrine” is not lyrical poetry, but rather historical tragedy, the genre that Shakespeare introduces to French audiences (Roussetzki 493). Thus Hugo’s accessible text demonstrates the impact of Shakespeare on literature beyond Britain’s borders, while acquainting students with key terms such as the Gothic, melancholy, and the sublime. Musset’s greatest drama, (1834) pairs well thematically with Shelley’s . Hugo’s (1829, prem. Paris Feb. 1830) echoes Schiller’s ( 1781, prem. Mannheim Jan. 1782) in its raucous reception. However, ’ theme of the outlaw hero ties it to Wordsworth’s tragedy, (1795-96/1842), as well. At least two translations and performances of appeared in London in the 1790s, and Matthew Lewis translated Schiller’s politically-charged comedy, ( 1783/84), as (Covent Garden, May 1803).G. G. and J. Robinson Keppel published a translation of in 1795. Keppel Craven's translation of (, 1781) was performed at Brandenburgh House Theatre in 1798 and published in 1799. Perhaps that is the same translation that appeared at the Haymarket on 21 August 1799. For Schiller's connections to Coleridge, see Carlson. Other German dramas—notably Lessing’s (1772), Goethe’s (1787), and Kleist’s (1808)—resemble English she-tragedies because they feature female protagonists who sacrifice themselves for love and patriotism.

Another commonality between the study of British and European Romantic drama is the recovery of women writers.The work of Catherine Burroughs, Thomas C. Crochunis, Ellen Donkin, Michael Eberle-Sinatra, Judith Pascoe, and Marjean Purinton reminds us of some of the important scholarship on female dramatists. The canon of eighteenth- and nineteenth-century German literature does not include many women writers, with the exception of Annette von Droste-Hülshoff (1797-1848, once a face on German money), Sophie von La Roche (1731-1807, author of one of the first female Bildungsromane), and more recently, her granddaughter, Bettina Brentano von Arnim (1785-1859). In fact, women played integral roles in eighteenth-century German theater. The actress Caroline Neuber (1697-1760) founded one of the first national, non-court-based theaters in Leipzig (where she produced Lessing’s first play), and Luise Adelgunde Gottsched (1713-62) translated several dramas for the stage. Gottsched—also commonly called by the feminine form of her name, “die Gottschedin,” in order not to confuse her with her playwright husband—struggled with a problem that plagued other female dramatists in Germany: anonymity.Susanna Kord wrote a compendium that traces the multiple pseudonyms of over 200 eighteenth- and nineteenth-century female dramatists. On censorship of women dramatists in Germany, see Becker-Cantarino and Kaiser. Gottsched’s most famous comedy, (, 1736), was attributed to her only after her death because it was published anonymously. The field is rich with under-researched female dramatists. Christine von Westphalen (1758-1840), Schiller’s sister-in-law Caroline von Wolzogen (1763-1847), and even Catherine the Great (1729-96) wrote tragedies in German. Writing under the pseudonym of Tian, Karoline von Günderrode (1780-1806) composed dramas that typify some of the Gothic and poetic tendencies of Romantic drama. Only a few of these dramas are available in English such as Gottsched’s (1745) or Charlotte von Stein’s dramatic sketch, (1776).English translations of German women writers are available, although these feature more prose and fiction than drama. See Blackwell's and Zantop's collection and the online database, . However, French theater appears to be more widely available for English readers. Elizabeth Inchbald even adapted Stéphanie Félicité de Genlis’s (1746-1830) (1781, ) for the stage in 1788, and Thomas Holcroft translated some of her other dramatic works.

At the graduate level, students can explore these connections further. I have taught a graduate seminar on the European inspirations for Mary Shelley’s . We read one of the books the monster found, Goethe’s (1774). In addition to this text and Frederick Reynolds’s play, (1796), seminar participants read Charlotte von Stein’s response to her young friend Goethe, . Stein wrote this satirical piece for a matinee at the court in Weimar.Charlotte von Stein (1742-1827) knew Goethe because she grew up in the court of Weimar. Stein also wrote a tragedy, (1794), translated partially by Goodman, p. 86-88. The Faustian motifs of merit the inclusion of Goethe’s (Part 1 prem. 1829 in Weimar) in such a seminar. Although is written in verse (see Walter Kaufmann’s translation for an excellent rendition of Goethe’s style), theaters have recently attempted productions of both parts.See Cyrus Hamlin's review of Peter Stein's three-day-long production of , Parts 1 and 2, in Berlin in 2001. In New York City, the Classic Stage Company produced a six-hour-long version of both parts (May 2006, trans. Douglas Langworthy and dir. David Herskovits). Rousseau also influenced the writing of Mary Shelley’s famous novel. Seminar participants read portions of (1762) and (1758). Rousseau’s outlines theories on the theater and is useful for understanding some of the issues involving sympathy in .See David Marshall for a comparison of Shelley and Rousseau. I also suggest reading Hugo’s previously mentioned “Preface to Cromwell,” since this text details Romantic theories of the grotesque. A graduate seminar with a unit on the French Revolution might also include Pierre Augustin Caron de Beaumarchais’s (1732-99) The Follies of the Day or the Marriage of Figaro (public premier Apr. 1784 in Paris), another translation by Holcroft. The Old Regime suppressed this sequel to (1775) for five years and sent its author to prison for mocking the corrupt behavior of aristocrats. The bilingual César database makes researching the performance history of plays like Figaro a rewarding experience; it includes a searchable catalog of performance dates, authors, titles, reviews and texts of eighteenth-century French plays.Géraud de Lavedan, Martin Nadeau, Anastassia Sakhnovskaia, and Jean-Philippe van Aelbrouck edit (), a collaborative research project begun in 2001.

Scholars of British Romanticism have long recognized the central role that European letters played in the intellectual and cultural lives of contemporary authors.For comparative studies of Romanticism, see Frederick Burwick, Angela Esterhammer, Michael Ferber, Lillian Furst, Gerald Gillespie, Gregory Maertz, Martin Meisel, and Virgil Nemoianu. European Romantic drama offers many ways to make the past come alive in the classroom and to augment the study of late eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century literature and history. Moreover, when instructors internationalize the Romantic curriculum, they recreate the cosmopolitan flavor of London in the years around 1800. Romantic drama can play a powerful role in shaping students’ understanding of personae, and through creative writing and dialogue, class participants have the opportunity to achieve a new sense of their own writing voices and those of the Romantics.

Works Cited and Referenced Beaumarchais, Pierre Augustin Caron de Holcroft, Thomas London G. G. and J. Robinson 1785 Becker-Cantarino, Barbara 11 1995 81-97 Blackwell, Jeannine Zantop, Susanne Lincoln U of Nebraska P 1990 Blakemore, Steven Hanover UP of New England 1988 Blakemore, Steven Athens U of Georgia P 1992 Buckley, Matthew S Baltimore Johns Hopkins UP 2006 Burke, Edmund Wolfson, Susan Manning, Peter Vol. 2A New York Longman 2003 67-75 Burroughs, Catherine B Philadelphia U of Pennsylvania P 1997 Burroughs, Catherine B Cambridge Cambridge UP 2000 Burwick, Frederick Ferber, Michael Malden Blackwell 2005 157-71 Burwick, Frederick University Park Pennsylvania State UP 1991 Burwick, Frederick Cambridge Cambridge UP 2008 Carlson, Julie Cambridge Cambridge UP 1994 Conolly, L. W. San Marino Huntington Library 1976 Cox, Jeffrey N. 5th ed Cox, Jeffrey N. London and Brookfield Pickering and Chatto 1999 Cox, Jeffrey N. Athens Ohio UP 1987 Crochunis, Thomas C. Eberle-Sinatra, Michael Apr. 2008 2008-5 Crochunis, Thomas C New York and London Routledge 2004 Davis, Tracy C Davis, Tracy C. Postlewait, Thomas Cambridge Cambridge UP 2003 127-55 Donkin, Ellen London Routledge 1995 Esterhammer, Angela Stanford Stanford UP 2000 Eyre, Edmund John London T. N. Longman 1794 Ferber, Michael Malden Blackwell 2005 Friedland, Paul Ithaca and London Cornell UP 2002 Furst, Lillian New York Humanities Press 1970 Genlis, Stéphanie Félicité Backscheider, Paula R. 1st ed New York and London Garland 1980 1-53 Genlis, Stéphanie Félicité Holcroft, Thomas Fredericksburg L.A. Mullin 1797 Gillespie, Gerald Amsterdam and Philadelphia J. Benjamins 1994 Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von Kaufmann, Walter New York Doubleday 1961 Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von Taylor, William London J. Johnson 1793 Gonçalves, Zan Meyer Carbondale Southern Illinois UP 2005 Goodman, Katherine Goodman, Katherine R. Waldstein, Edith Albany SUNY P 1992 71-94 Gottsched, Luise Adelgunde Blackwell, Jeannine Zantop, Susanne Lincoln U of Nebraska P 1990 85-117 Gouges, Olympe de Dejulio, Maryann Kadish, Doris Massardier-Kenney, Françoise Kent, Ohio and London The Kent State UP 1994 87-132 Gouges, Olympe de Levy, Darline Gay Applewhite, Harriet B. Johnson, Mary D. Urbana U of Illinois P 1979 87-96 Gouges, Olympe de Blanc, Olivier Vol. 1 Paris Côtes-femmes 1993 204-15 Gouges, Olympe de Castan, Félix-Marcel Montauban Cocagne 1993 23-42 Hamlin, Cyrus 32 1 2002 117-36 Hindson, Paul Tim Gray Brookfield Avebury 1988 Huet, Marie-Hélène Hurley, Robert Berkeley, Los Angeles & London U of California P 1982 Hugo, Victor Crosland, Camilla New York Howard Fertig 1995 1-120 Hugo, Victor New York P. F. Collier and Son 1960 337-87 Hunt, Lynn Kates, Gary London Routledge 1998 279-301 Inchbald, Elizabeth Backscheider, Paula R. Vol. 2 New York and London Garland 1980 1-33 James, Michelle Stott 2006 2008-5-16 Kaiser, Nancy Cocalis, Susan L. Rose, Ferrel Tübingen and Basel Francke 1996 5-15 Kleist, Heinrich von Agee, Joel New York Harper Collins 1998 Kord, Susanna Stuttgart J.B. Metzler 1992 Labbe, Jacqueline M London St. Macmillan 2000 Lavedan, Géraud de Nadeau, Martin Sakhnovskaia, Anastassia van Aelbrouck, Jean-Philippe 2001 <http://www.cesar.org.uk> 2009-9-8 Laya, Jean-Louis Paris Maradan 1793 Le Hir, Marie-Pierre Kadish, Doris Y. Massardier-Kenney, Françoise Kent and London Kent State UP 65-83 Lessing, Gotthold Ephraim Thompson, Benjamin London J. Wright 1801 See also the translation by Fanny Holcroft (d. 1844) London H. D. Symonds 1805 Maertz, Gregory Albany SUNY P 1998 Marshall, David Chicago U of Chicago P 1988 Maslan, Susan Baltimore Johns Hopkins UP 2005 Meisel, Martin Princeton Princeton UP 1983 Moody, Jane Cambridge Cambridge UP 2000 Musset, Alfred de Schumacher, Claude Watson, Donald London Methuen Drama 1995 Nemoianu, Virgil Cambridge Harvard UP 1984 Nielsen, Wendy C 40 3 Fall 2006 169-90 Nielsen, Wendy C 43 3 Fall 2002 268-85 Vol. 127 New York Thomson Gale 2006 79-89 Nielsen, Wendy C 17 3 July 2006 275-88 O'Quinn, Daniel J 1 June 1999 2006-10-4 O'Quinn, Daniel J Baltimore Johns Hopkins UP 2005 Outram, Dorinda New Haven Yale UP 1989 Ozouf, Mona Sheridan, Alan Cambridge and London Harvard UP 1988 Pascoe, Judith Ithaca Cornell UP 1997 Paulson, Ronald New Haven and London Yale UP 1983 Purinton, Marjean 17 3 July 2006 351-60 Purinton, Marjean Newark U of Delaware P London and Toronto Associated UP 1994 Reynolds, Frederick London T. N. Longman 1796 Rousseau, Jean-Jacques Bloom, Allan Glencoe Illinois Free Press 1960 Roussetzki, Rémy 15 4 Dec. 2004 493-510 Russell, Gillian Oxford Clarendon 1995 Samet, Elizabeth D 118 5 Oct. 2003 1305-19 Schiller, Friedrich Lewis, Matthew Philadelphia M. Carey 1813 Schiller, Friedrich Richard Craven, Keppel London W. Wigstead and M. Hooper 1799 London G. G. and J. J. Robinson 1795 Shelley, Percy Bysshe Vol. II Boston and New York 1892 195-318 Starkey, David Portsmouth, NH Boynton/Cook 1998 Stein, Charlotte von Cocalis, Susan L. Rose, Ferrel Kord, Susanne Tübingen and Basel Francke 1996 308-310 Taylor, George Cambridge Cambridge UP 2000 Thompson, Gary 34 1 Spring 2002 89 Wollstonecraft, Mary Wolfson, Susan Manning, Peter Vol. 2A New York Longman 2003 77-84 Zerilli, Linda M.G 33 1 Spring 1992 47-72