Thesis (Ph. D.)--Yale University, 1917. / Bibliography: p. [166]-170.

Oliver Goldsmith was not only a superior craftsman but also a sincere moralist, an author who created works crackling with intentional satire; the most representative of these works is The Citizen of the World, a remarkably varied collection that contains outstanding examples of the satiric essay. Goldsmith has been established as a satiric author, yet there are some questions of refinement--points involving his method and intent, his relationship to the eighteenth century, and the nature of his work--that need to be answered. The aim of this paper is to clarify these points by systematically analyzing the satiric technique and purpose in Goldsmith's The Citizen of the World, and by characterizing the satiric nature of Goldsmith's collection. The Citizen of the World was published in 1762, a time of change for eighteenth-century satire; consequently, the technique, purpose, and nature of Goldsmith's satire can be determined only by examining his work through an historical perspective, taking into account the influences in both halves of the eighteenth century.Two sections provide the background for this approach: the first defines the elements of satire, and the second traces the rise and decline of major English satire during the eighteenth century. The satiric elements--technique, purpose, and nature--are based on the following points that constitute the working definition of satire for this study: an attack on irrational, inappropriate conduct, the transformation of that attack into literature through selected techniques, and the justification of that attack based on the author's moral judgment. Satiric technique includes form, characters, and rhetorical tools; purpose involves the author's attitude, satiric objects of attack, and norms; and nature encompasses the specific kind of satire that differentiates one period from another, one author from another, making the definition a more sensitive instrument. Once established, these elements are applied to satire written during the English eighteenth century, a period that includes two kinds of satire, one created by the Augustan Age, the other by the Age of Sensibility. Examining the major changes in satire through this method not only illuminates the eighteenth-century satiric tradition but also provides essential background for analysis of Goldsmith's collection.The satire in The Citizen of the World, consequently, reflects various traits representative of each period within the eighteenth century. Those features characteristic of the Augustan Age--the pseudoletter genre, Altangi, assorted caricatures, the rhetorical tools drawn from all four comic theories, the satiric weapon of irony, the quality of critical humor, the intense emotions of moral contempt and righteous indignation, the unacceptable examples of vice and folly, the emphasis on man's responsibility for his own actions, and the normative values-generate satire that is, at least in several respects, moral, moderate, reasonable, amusing, and powerful. Similarly, those features characteristic of the Age of Sensibility--extensive variety and miscellany, the Man in Black, the developing character of Beau Tibbs, the concept of benevolent laughter, the definite tone of amusement and tolerance, the unacceptable examples of affectation, and the general objects of attack--generate satire that is, at least partially, good-natured, tolerant, moderate, amusing, and mild. Taken together, these features from both periods of the eighteenth century account for a satiric work that is Horatian, that is occasionally intense, occasionally moderate, that is, in truth, a blend of two particular kinds of satire, one created by the Augustan Age, the other by the Age of Sensibility.

No description available.

Dans la Logique, Kant expose clairement le rapport entre sa philosophie et l’anthropologie. Si les trois premières questions (à savoir « Que puis-je savoir ? », « Que dois-je faire ? » et « Que m’est-il permis d’espérer ? ») peuvent toutes être ramenées à la question « Qu’est ce que l’homme ? », alors quelle anthropologie qui donne la réponse à cette dernière question ? S’agissant du rapport entre l’anthropologie et la philosophie, il existe beaucoup de débats parmi les commentateurs kantiens. Ils tentent d’éclaircir ce rapport soit selon un point de vue de l’anthropologie philosophique, soit selon un point de vue de l’ontologie fondamentale. Mais en tant qu’oeuvre kantienne unique relative à l’anthropologie, l’Anthropologie du point de vue pragmatique est absente dans ce débat dans lequel on peut dire qu’elle a été négligée. La raison qui cause cette situation réside dans la caractéristique empirique présentée par l’Anthropologie du point de vue pragmatique. Cependant, dans la lettre du 4 mai 1793 à Karl Friedrich Stäudlin, Kant lui-même a mentionné qu’il avait fait un cours pendant plus de 20 ans sur cette question anthropologique de « Qu’est ce que l’homme ? ». D’après cela, il nous semble que l’Anthropologie du point de vue pragmatique, provenant des notes de ce cours, doit être considérée comme une oeuvre kantienne portant sur « Qu’est ce que l’homme ? ». Comment pouvons-nous résoudre cette difficulté existante dans la saisie du rapport entre la philosophie et l’anthropologie chez Kant ? Peut-on la résoudre ? Si la réponse est «oui », quel sera un tel rapport ? En effet, dans l’étude du rapport entre la philosophie et l’anthropologie chez Kant, on néglige souvent le rôle clef joué par le concept cosmopolitique. Les trois premières questions sont ramenées à l’anthropologie dans le domaine de la philosophie en son sens cosmopolitique. Que signifie alors la philosophie en son sens cosmopolitique ? Quel rapport cette philosophie a-t-elle avec la philosophie selon son concept cosmique qui a été considérée comme la recherche de la doctrine de la sagesse (à savoir le souverain bien). Si l’Anthropologie du point de vue pragmatique peut être conçue comme une oeuvre kantienne portant sur la question « Qu’est ce que l’homme ? », comment devons-nous saisir son rapport avec les trois premières questions ?Cette étude cherche à clarifier ce rapport entre la philosophie et l’anthropologie chez Kant et le rôle joué par l’Anthropologie du point de vue pragmatique dans ce rapport selon les « concept cosmique », « concept cosmopolitique » et le « souverain bien ». / Kant articulates the relationship between philosophy and anthropology in his Logic. When the three questions (i.e., What can I know? What should I do? What may I hope for?) are reduced to “ What is Man?”, what answer should anthropology give to the question? Concerning the relationship between anthropology and philosophy, therehas been much debate among Kant’s commentators. They attempt to clarify this relationship either from a point of view of philosophical anthropology or according to a perspective of fundamental ontology. Nevertheless, Kant's only work on anthropology, Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View, was absent from this debate due to its empirical characteristics. In a letter to Karl Friedrich Stäudlin dated May 4, 1793, Kant himself said that he had done a course for over 20 years on this question of anthropology, “What is man?” Therefore, it seems that the Anthropology from Pragmatic Point of View (from notes of this course) can be seen as the work of Kant on “What is man?” How can we resolve the apprehension about the relationship between philosophy and anthropology in Kant? Can it be resolved? If the answer is “yes,” then what will such a relationship be? Indeed, in the study of the relationship between philosophy and anthropology in Kant, we often overlook the key role played by the concept of cosmopolitanism. The first three questions are brought to anthropology in the field of philosophy in its cosmopolitan sense. What does the philosophy mean in its cosmopolitan sense? What relationship did this philosophy with the philosophy according to its cosmic concept that has been considered as the search of the doctrine of wisdom (namely, of the highest Good)? If the Anthropology from Pragmatic Point of View can be perceived as Kant’s work on the question of "What is man?” then how should we comprehend its relationship with the first three questions?This study aims at clarifying the relationship between philosophy and anthropology in Kant and the role played by the Anthropology from Pragmatic Point of View in this relationship according to the “cosmic concept,” “cosmopolitan concept,” and the “highest good.”