No description available.

This dissertation examines Byron's Don Juan and his attitude towards profits from the copyright money for publishing his poems. Recent studies on Don Juan and Byron have paid great attention to the poem especially in terms of the author's status as an unprecedented noble literary celebrity. Thus the hermeneutics of the poem has very often had a tendency to bind itself within the biographical understanding of the poet's socio-political practices. It is true that these studies are meaningful in that they highlighted and reconsidered the significance of the author's unique life so as to illustrate biographical and historical contexts of this Romantic text. Admitting the significance of the biographical approach, however, the current dissertation also argues that an interpretation of a literary work should consider a number of outside influences that affect the meaning of a text, which is in and of itself a creation of historical, political, economic, and material aspects of a specific time and place, not merely of an individual author. After the theoretical background suggested in Chapter I, Chapter II emphasizes the history of the publication of the first two cantos and investigates John Murray's publishing practices. Chapter III addresses some of the external influences on the reading of Don Juan to show that non-political content of the early five cantos came to be treated as politically radical by the voluntary and involuntary association of Byron and his work with radical publishers such as Leigh Hunt and William Hone. Chapter IV is a study of the new cantos of Don Juan (from the sixth canto). Focusing on Byron's political stance which gradually developed from his early liberalism into a more radical activism, this chapter explores Percy Shelley's influence on Byron's political ideas, the new cantos of Don Juan, and Byron's use of radical satire to instigate the fight against tyranny. Chapter V investigates Byron's attitude towards the profits he earned from the copyright of his poems to argue that Byron?s attitude towards his brain-money gradually changed from an ambiguous position to a strong insistence on obtaining what he perceived to be fair payments for his poems.

The Sentimental/Gothic myth, which dominates much of English and American literature during the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, represents a cultural attempt to achieve unity, but the attempt is foredoomed because the essence of the myth is division. The myth's metaphor is sexual. The division that forms the acknowledged basis of the myth is that between two modes of being, seen as sexual modes: masculinity (power, aggression, violence, energy, dominance, etc.) and femininity (attraction, passivity, submissiveness, etc.). The unity sought by the myth on its acknowledged level is domestic harmony, the infusion of masculine strength into feminine passivity, the taming of masculine power by feminine submissiveness. Thus the myth regardsmarriage as the perfect state and the family as the perfect model of cultural unity. But the myth itself is flawed by a further division, of which the masculine/feminine division is actually a reflection: this is a division of the conscious, Sentimental myth from the largely unconscious Gothic myth. The Gothic, reversing the acknowledged direction of the myth (or carrying it full-circle to its inevitable conclusion), seeks the destruction of femininity by masculinity, the throwing off of feminine submissiveness by masculine violence. Thus it regards death(the "marriage" of murderer and victim) as the perfect state, and sterility, the blasted family, as the perfect model of unity.Mary Shelley's Frankenstein reflects both mythic divisions and their close interrelationship. Its hero seeks to establish his Sentimental masculinity and to achieve domestic unity, but in doing so creates the Gothic Monster who destroys the creator's beloved, his family, and finally drains life from the hero himself. Frankenstein, in form, themes, and characterization, reflects the ironies by which the Sentimental/Gothic myth is divided against itself, and shows the tragic consequences of its divisions.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Washington, 1999. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 212-223).

Thesis (M.A.) -- Memorial University of Newfoundland. / Typescript. Bibliography : leaves 137-142. Also available online.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Duquesne University, 2009. / Title from document title page. Abstract included in electronic submission form. Includes bibliographical references (p. 158-171) and index.

Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein has frequently been interpreted as a cautionary tale of the dangers of medical science and its ambitions. However, by comparing the different narratives in the novel the essay will show that the intention of the novel is quite different. The essay will show that while Frankenstein himself comes to believe that science is the culprit, the narratives by Walton and the creature qualify that view, showing rather that the problem is not science as such but Frankenstein’s abandonment of his creation. The essay begins with a brief introduction to the historical background of the novel, followed by an analysis of the three distinct narratives given by Walton, Frankenstein and the creature, and conclude with a discussion of the findings when comparing their narratives. / Mary Shelleys Frankenstein har ofta tolkats som en varnande berättelse om farorna av medicinsk vetenskap och dess ambitioner. Men genom att jämföra de olika berättelserna i boken så kommer uppsatsen att visa att syftet med boken är ganska annorlunda. Uppsatsen kommer att visa att medan Frankenstein själv tror att vetenskapen är den skyldige, Waltons och varelsens berättelser berättigar denna uppfattning, så är problemet inte vetenskap som sådan utan det faktum att Frankenstein övergav sin skapelse. Uppsatsen börjar med en kort introduktion till den historiska bakgrunden av boken, följt av en analys av de tre distinkta berättelserna från Walton, Frankenstein och varelsen och uppsatsen avslutas med en diskussion av resultaten när man jämför deras berättelser.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.