The Critical Review evaluated this novel respectfully, calling it pleasing and interesting, but John Noorthouck
, writing in the Monthly, dismissed it impatiently as one of the regrettably numerous progeny of Samuel Richardson
.
qtd. in
Garside, Peter et al., editors. The English Novel 1770-1829. Oxford University Press, 2000, 2 vols.
1: 544
Literary responses
Sarah Green
The Critical thought this novel would please readers, but only for a time, as a novelty.
Critical Review. W. Simpkin and R. Marshall, 5 series.
(1790) 70: 219
John Noorthouck
in the Monthly, who assumed the author to be a man, sounded jaundiced...
Literary responses
Elizabeth Griffith
The Critical Review argued that EG
had already earned a kind of prescriptive right to the favour of criticism, and that she lived up to her reputation here with elegance of style, chasteness of sentiment...
Literary responses
Laetitia-Matilda Hawkins
The Critical Review praised some specific scenes (such as Amabel's desperate illness at an inn), the exotic adventures (frequently interesting, and sometimes highly pathetic),
Critical Review. W. Simpkin and R. Marshall, 5 series.