In this dissertation, I examine antagonistic relationships between women writers in the first half of the eighteenth century, focusing on the works of Delarivier Manley, Martha Fowke Sansom, Eliza Haywood, and Laetitia Pilkington. Professional rivalry among women writers represents an under-studied but vital element of the history of print culture in the early eighteenth century. I argue that the shared burden of negotiating the complicated literary marketplace did not, as critics have at times suggested, inspire women who wrote for print publication to feel for one another a sisterly benevolence. Rather, fine gradations in social class, questions of genre status and individual talent, and -- perhaps most importantly -- clashing literary ambitions spurred early eighteenth-century women writers into vicious rivalries recorded in print and driven by print culture. Women documented their literary battles in poems, in prefaces, and in autobiographical texts replete with self-justification and with attacks on former friends or disappointing patronesses. This dissertation recognizes rivalry as a crucial mode of interaction between eighteenth-century literary women and analyzes the ways in which these professional women writers labored to defend themselves not just against patriarchal pressures but against one another. In doing so, it contributes to the construction of a more complete literary history of the first half of the eighteenth century by exploring how early eighteenth-century women writers imagined their own professional lives, how they imagined the professional lives of other women, and how they therefore believed themselves influenced (or claimed themselves influenced) by the support or detraction of other women. The first two chapters of this dissertation focus on Delarivier Manley's career and writings, while the second two address the entangled writing lives of Eliza Haywood and Martha Fowke Sansom. The concluding chapter briefly examines Laetitia Pilkington's Memoirs. I investigate the way these women employed the practice of life-writing as a means of self-construction, self-promotion, and public appeal. / text

L'objet de cette thèse doctorale est la réponse poïétique et institutionnaliste offerte par Castoriadis au problème de la constitution d'une universalité pratique dans un contexte post-métaphysique. La thèse s'ouvre sur une définition de la philosophie politique comme projet d'objectivation institutionnelle de la raison et sur l'exposition du problème, pour cette discipline, engendré par la critique de la métaphysique et l'émergence d'une conception procédurale de la raison lors de la modernité. La thèse est ensuite divisée en deux parties. La première porte sur la philosophie de Castoriadis, c'est-à-dire sur sa critique de la pensée métaphysique, son ontologie et sa théorie de la connaissance. Nous y défendons la thèse interprétative que sa philosophie est un « pluralisme ontopoïétique constructiviste ». La seconde porte sur sa conception de la raison pratique, que nous interprétons comme « institutionnalisme post-métaphysique ». Nous concluons en explicitant les nouvelles médiations établies par Castoriadis entre philosophie et politique, sa conception de l'universalité pratique, et, par conséquent, la place qu'il occupe dans le temps long de l'histoire de la philosophie politique. Une perspective comparative a été privilégiée tout au long de notre argumentaire. Nous apprécions la singularité castoriadienne en la comparant avec des philosophies ayant partagé des problèmes communs et certains horizons thétiques, notamment l'héritage hégéliano-marxien et les philosophies de la différence. / The purpose of this doctoral thesis is to expose Castoriadis’ poïetical and institutional answer to the following question: how can we constitute a practical universality in a postmetaphysical context. Starting with a definition of political philosophy as the progressive and institutional objectification of reason, I first show how the modern radical critic of metaphysical thoughts and the modern emergence of a procedural conception of reason were both problematic for political philosophy. The thesis is then divided into two parts. The first part is devoted to Castoriadis’ philosophy and presents his own critics of metaphysical thinking, his ontology and his theory of knowledge. I then follow the interpretative thesis according to which Castoriadis’ philosophy can be characterized as an ''ontopoïetical pluralistic constructivism'' The second part is about his conception of practical reason, which I interpret as a “postmetaphysical institutionalism”. I conclude by showing that Castoriadis offers not only new mediations between politics and philosophy but also an original conception of practical universality in the history of political philosophy. Using a comparative method, I put forward Castoriadis’ thoughts through a comparison with other philosophies that share common problems and thesis, e.g. the Hegelian-Marxian tradition and the philosophies of difference.

No description available.

Progression d'un concept, le mal radical, dans trois textes :La Religion dans les limites de la simple raison (Kant), Le système de l'Ethique (Fichte), et Le Traité de 1809 (Schelling). Origine ultime du mal :libre arbitre ou détermination ?Responsabilité et liberté du mal. Mal moral et métaphysique du mal/ Advance of a concept: radical evil, in three readings: Religion within the Limits of Mere Reason (Kant), System of Ethics (Fichte), and Treatise of 1809 (Schelling).Ultimate origin of evil: free will or determination? Responsibility and freedom to evil. Moral evil and metaphysics of evil. / Doctorat en Philosophie / info:eu-repo/semantics/nonPublished