As I edited “The twentieth epistle of Horace to his book, modernized by the author of Female conduct, and applied to his own book” by Thomas Marriott, I enjoyed seeing the rhetoric and arguments in a writing piece much more obscure than the popular eighteenth century texts I have been reading. There were several errors or difficult to read sections, which made me pause and think about the writing and context often to figure out what word fit. Also, several sections of the document were in Latin, but they seemed to be interludes or comments, because the story continued in English normally even with these sections in the middle. These Latin sections likely appeal to or reference the classical tradition that older models or writing and criticism were ingrained in. The work as a whole however, actually challenges this tradition by combining it with more modern epistolary conduct literature.

The author’s incorporation of conduct writing is apparent through the narrative focus and epistolary style that we have seen in other literary works that act as conduct books such as Pamela, Evelina, and Roxana. When these conduct books discussed how men should act, they focused on men’s actions in social situations and how they treated women. Marriott also discusses how men should act, but explores men’s actions in an academic setting. He exposes how literary critics of the time cared more about finding flaws in a work than appreciating any of its merits. Marriott’s modernized, hybrid writing style suggests that the classicism of his critics is outdated and restricts their appreciation of newer works. It is also important to note that conduct books were intended to set standards about gender roles, essentially telling the reader what it meant to be a real man/woman; by disparaging literary critics in the context of a conduct book, Marriott does not just denounce the actions of the critics, but also questions their masculinity.

The story describes the lifespan of a book that an author has written and published as it is discovered by the public, panned by critics, and then left to rot on a shelf. Marriott says that the book was “bred in private, like a rural maid” (23) when it was first written. By feminizing the book, Marriott indirectly likens the critic’s attacks to villains taking advantage of a defenseless woman. This shows the power of gender identity in the time period. Marriott is not actually trying to debunk any of the claims the critics have made against his works, he is saying that the claims should not be taken seriously because the critics are not acting gentlemanly. Marriott defends his writing by mentioning that “Ovid says the same Thing to his Book“ (23). This either leads to the conclusion that respected author Ovid would be criticized just as harshly if he was writing today, or that Ovid was criticized as harshly in his own time period; hence, the modern critics emulate the style of those who could not even recognize the genius of someone as famous as Ovid.

It can also be assumed that the book in the story is also a conduct book or at least a book with a moral message. The book has “hurt Vice alone”(25) and asks “Whom have I injur’d with my moral Muse?”(25). This associates the book with God because it is morally just. The book almost seems to be a Christ figure being destroyed by hatred while only trying to deliver its moral teachings. By associating the book with God and morality it also implies that the critics are immoral or agents of the devil. The critics are “fraught” with “Envy” (24), “prejudic’d” (24),”vulgar” (25), and “impotent of Wit”(26). All of these qualities suggest that they go against god and also that they are not respectable as men (notice the use of the word impotent here). Not only are the critics dissociated with masculinity, they are also associated with femininity. Marriott describes the critic’s mercurial writing as one who “Prostitutes his venal Quill”(26). Prostitution was always associated with women, specifically women that were considered immoral and vile. Furthermore, the book “strove hard to merit female Praise” (27) but the critics still do not appreciate it and deliver “The fate of Orpheus underserv’d” (27). In the story of Orpheus he dies by being ripped apart by crazed women, similar to the book being ripped apart by the critics. Marriott is not only saying that the critics are women, but also that they are enraged women who have resorted to violent rage. Marriott even goes as far as to dehumanize the critics as they destroy the book. He describes “This Critic Monster, like a Beast of Prey” (26) that “On you, his Froth envenom’d, he will spit”(26).

Marriott’s main argument centers on attacking the character of those that have disparaged his writing. It seems somewhat hypocritical to argue that these critics are anti-intellectual in their orientation when his entire argument only insults them personally instead of addressing the complaints they have made about his works. The only reason Marriott’s argument works is because of the powerful association between gender and one’s intellectual capacity. Marriott describes how the critics’ immorality and other negative traits reflect on their lack of masculinity, which in turn makes them incapable of intelligent literary reviews. It is unclear if Marriott is actually sexist in his comparisons to women; he may be saying it is bad to be like the women he mentions because they are crazy and immoral or he may be saying it is bad to be like those women because they are crazy, immoral, and women. However, I would say his overall point implies sexism, since if not being male results in anti-intellectualism, and women are not male, then that would make women anti-intellectual. Overall Marriott’s argument becomes superficial as he moves too far away from exposing the critics’ anti-intellectual practices into petty insults. If he had included even one or two examples of unfair criticism towards his work (which he obviously thinks are prevalent), then his argument would be much more valid. This does speak to the power of gender in the time period though, since this argument most likely held up very strongly, and accusations of lacking masculinity were considered real evidence against someone.

Marriott, Thomas (1759) “The Twentieth Epistle of Horace to His Book, Modernized by the Author of Female Conduct, and Applied to His Own Book. And Intended as an Answer to the Remarks on His Book, Made by the Writer of the Critical Review, and by the Writer of the Monthly Review.” Eighteenth Century Collections Online. Gale, 06 Jan. 2004. Web.