This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
After her marriage, her name was Charlotte Lennox. Source: Hugh Amory, ‘Lennox , (Barbara) Charlotte (1730/31?–1804)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, Sept 2004; online edn, May 2009 accessed 10 Jan 2010The Lawless One (talk) 18:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
"In a time when women writers were ignored, her work attracted the interest of Samuel Johnson, Henry Fielding and Samuel Richardson."
That is unadulterated nonsense. It was not a time when novels by women were ignored. It was not a time when women were ignored. It was not a time when women had to pretend to be men. It was nothing of the sort. First, female novelists outsold male novelists. Second, Frances Burney and Hannah More were both celebrated, and they were exact contemporaries. Third, Susannah Centlivre and Elizabeth Haywood were doing just fine. It's total piffle to impose such a simplification on the general "time." Indeed, female novelists and the "feminine novel" suffered a setback in popularity around the 1760's, but it's not because women weren't capable of being authors. After all, the primary readership for novels had been, was, and would continue to be female. I'm about to do a total rewrite of the article, but I had to preserve my outrage a little before I do the overhaul. Geogre 15:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Is that picture of Charlotte Lennox? It looks anachronistic. First, the hair pulled up like that is a later hairstyle. Second, the portrait in a white gown that looks like a shift is more Romantic or Regency than Georgian. It could be her. Absolutely it could be her. It just doesn't seem right at all that it would be her. Can we get some information on the provenance, please? Geogre 21:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, so we have Reynolds, in the Johnson circle, doing a sketch of Lennox, in the Johnson circle, and Bartolozzi did an engraving. The reader can see it here: http://www.britannica.com/eb/art/print?id=18717&articleTypeId=1. The question is whether this is the same person. I see them as different heads. Maybe not. The pose and expression and dress still seem quite, quite out of time to me. If we look at the confirmed Bartolozzi engraving, we see the typical curled hair worn high, the rigid neckline with strong bust support, and we see a witty/playful look. I realize that the Commons image derives from the U. Missouri page done by, I gather, George Justice, but that seems difficult. If anyone can get the National Portrait Gallery image in copyleft form, that would solve our image needs well. Geogre 21:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey, just added this after I was doing some image sorting on the Commons - as it was taken from U. Missouri website I was hoping that it was who it said it was - if you figure out its not let me know and I'll adjust the Commons image page accordingly. Madmedea 23:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, I appreciate it. I just... Well, I don't know. What I hope is that someone can get at the NPG in a free form. (The image is covered by Bridgeman, but the NPG doesn't want to admit that, so they control their scans.) Geogre 01:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)