Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Raymond Stephanson University of Saskatchewan Almost no one studies Popeâs correspondence as it was intended to be read in the 1730s when it was ï¬ rst published. Howard Erskine-Hill is one of the few specialists to comment on this odd state of aï¬airs, remarking that âattention has been diverted from the collections of Popeâs correspondence printed in his lifetime. . . . It is clear that Popeâs correspondence as reconstituted, selected and arranged by the poet himself . . . is Popeâs only major work not to have been edited in the twentieth century.â1 Popeâs poetry and life have received enormous attention. Why, then, has one of the great self-promotional texts of the eighteenth century all but vanished from our scholarly horizon?2 In examining this deï¬ciency, my essay will explore three things: 1. the complex history of responses to Popeâs letters from Charles Wentworth Dilke and the Victorians to the present; 2. the unintentional limitations of George Sherburnâs magniï¬cent 1956 standard edition of the correspondence; and 3. the precious little critical work that has been done on the 1730s editions. This essay does not engage in close analysis of speciï¬c letters, although the lack of scholarship certainly invites
Eighteenth-Century Life – Duke University Press
Published: Jan 1, 2007
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.