Critics of Jane Austen can be divided into three groups. The first group, which includes W. H. Helm, Sheila Kaye-Smith and G. B. Stern regards Marianne Dashwood as Jane Austen's only passionate heroine. Her other heroines are condemned for their common sense by these critics, who contend that love is an irrational phenomenon. Love and reason, they believe, are mutually exclusive. Jane Austen saw love as a marriage of these two facets of man's being. Aware of its duality, at once both emotional and rational, she saw the inadequacies (and dangers) of "love" which based itself solely on passion. Mr. Bennet is one of Austen's examples of a man who has failed to assess his chosen mate intelligently, and his subsequent life with her demonstrates the deficiency of a concept of love which does not involve use of the mind as well as of the heart. For Jane Austen, "to feel" was not enough. Marianne Dashwood, her so-called "passionate" heroine, is not meant to be admired, but is a satiric target, for Marianne despises any use of reason in the process of falling in love. For Jane Austen, she represents the antithesis of genuine love. The second group, among them Charlotte Brontë, Virginia Woolf, and Marjory Bald, sees no passion at all in Jane Austen's novels. They are considered to be "dry", "dusty", and superficial, and are said to ignore "[v]ice, adventure, passion." It is undoubtedly the subtlety of their presentation which has misled the critics. Jane Austen's sensitive artistry precluded a lengthy exposition of feeling. She provides us with the material necessary to complete the picture by suggesting and leading up to the direct expression of emotion, rather than expressing the emotion itself. The presentation is in fact an extension of her concept, for the truly passionate have not the capacity for facile articulation. Intense emotions cannot be easily expressed. The interplay of surface tensions conveys the strong undercurrents of emotion. Jane Austen's evocative technique reveals their existence, but neither she nor her best characters will wallow in the sensational slough which is thought by many to be the proper resting place for the passionate. The third group, whose first spokesman was Sir Walter Scott, and whose current advocate is Marvin Mudrick, views the marriages of Jane Austen's heroes and heroines as financial mergers, and not as unions of love. Her recognition of the economic pressures operating on her characters is misinterpreted, and seen as endorsement. Jane Austen was, in fact, extremely concerned with the fate of women in her society. Her concern involved a reconsideration of that society's basic values. Jane Fairfax, Miss Bates, and the Watson sisters are some of her sympathetically-treated symbols of the economic and social vulnerability of women in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century. Jane Austen does not believe that personal happiness should be subjected to financial considerations. She does show some of her characters succumbing to economic pressures. But they are censured within the novels, and her most admirable people never capitulate. Common to all of these groups is a misinterpretation of, or failure to understand, Jane Austen's concept and presentation of love. Using Jane Austen's novels and letters, this paper will attempt to correct the misinterpretations. / Arts, Faculty of / English, Department of / Graduate

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Chicago, Dept. of Classical Languages and Literatures, June 2000. / Includes bibliographical references. Also available on the Internet.

Inaug.-Diss.--Munich. / Vita. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Bibliography: p. i-x.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1982. / Typescript. Vita. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 540-564).

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

Issued also as thesis, Tübingen. / Bibliography: p. 241-265.

This thesis explores the subject of love and self-love in the Misanthrope of Moliere. The central issue is whether or not the main character, Alceste, is blinded by his own self-love. If so, does this blindness lead him to madness? My analysis shows that true love is not present in this play - and the reason for that is l'amour de I'autre. That is, both Alceste and Celimene are much too self-absorbed and preoccupied with self-love to be able to honour and cherish each other. In Alceste's case, the issue of blindness and illusion are also crucial elements that influence his ability to love. In the first chapter, I shall introduce these two elements and show how I'amour-propre causes Alceste to lose sight of reality. Then, in the second chapter, different aspects of love shall be examined, allowing me to illustrate how I'amour de I'autre is not achieved. Finally, the third chapter introduces the idea of self-love and l'amour-propre, distinguishes the two and shows how they lead the two characters of the Misanthrope to reject love. The theme of Amour-propre, as well as love mistreated or misunderstood, as subjects of literary works, are widespread during the seventeenth century. The play on illusion and reality, reason and madness, as well as the element of change and instability, as they appear in the Misanthrope, are familiar ground in Baroque theatre. Indeed, as Jean-Marie Apostolides notes in an article, the theatre is a space where new thoughts and ideologies are presented, where people, places and time are transformed and tested. This is undeniably what Moliere proposes to do in the Misanthrope and this project illustrates how this great playwright achieves that goal. In this thesis, I demonstrate how he brilliantly illustrates the social and philosophical influence of his time on individuals and its consequences. How does one react to such external forces? In Alceste's and Celimene's case, they each move in completely opposite directions in reaction to these external powers. The result of this, as well as of their forced union is what gives this play its strengths. For Moliere is able to show us the humour in such a marriage between a misanthrope and a coquette.

No description available.