Although there is some difference of opinion today concerning George Sand's position in French literature, it is a definite fact that she was an important literary figure during her lifetime. By important, I do not necessarily mean that she was always popular, for she received a great deal of unfavorable criticism; but her name was famous name, her works were generally the talked-of books, and her influence was feared. "George Sand" attached to a new publication brought immediate interest and heated discussion. Commercial men capitalized on this fact, for we are told that a certain in Rafin named a new perfume after the famous author, and one of two balloons let loose from Paris to establish communication with the provisory government at Bordeaux carried the appellation "George Sand".1 George Sand has, by all means, a claim to high position in the realm of French literature. The ideal, the illusion of life, which she presents, has done a great deal to assure this position, but it is not all. For the first time in the history of the literature of France, the humble peasants took their place in the novel.

The eye witnesses against MacArthur were members of the Truman Administration. Acheson and Marshall were the principal critics of MacArthur’s stand. Secretary Acheson testified that MacArthur had done a fine job in Japan and our allies agreed without policy there. Acheson replied to the alleged lack of policy by making a distinction between our policy and our war aims. Our policy in Korea looked to a unified, independent democratic government, but our war aim was to stop the attack on South Korea. Regarding the proposal that the United States take unilateral action if our allies did not support us, he said that our collective-security system could not survive if we took action other members of the system disapproved. He opposed the use of Nationalist troops on the grounds that it would weaken the defense of Formosa, and was complicated by other nations fighting in Korea that did not recognize the Nationalist Government. Finally Acheson denied that MacArthur was not allowed to issue battle communiques on the real military situation in Korea. However he felt that the General’s release of March 20 concerning truce negotiations gave the impression that the United States was speaking with two voices. Secretary of Defense George Marshall has a military point of view and at the same time a global picture of the situation. He believed that the Nationalist forces would not be effective in Korea. He testified that MacArthur’s removal was necessitated by his public disagreement with the foreign and defense policies of the United States. He made it clear that MacArthur had not violated any military policy, but he had made public his disagreement with it to such a degree that it interfered with the carrying out of that policy. All of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marshall testified, concurred in the relief of General MacArthur. General Bradley’s testimony was probably the most damaging to MacArthur. The principal point bought out by Bradley was that MacArthur’s strategy would involve us in the wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time, and with the wrong enemy. He pointed out that we also had sanctuary since the Chinese did not bomb out ports and supply bases. He felt that a blockade would involve the ports of Hong Kong and Dairen, and therefore would not be tenable. Furthermore, MacArthur was not in agreement with the decision to limit the conflict to Korea, and his actions, Bradley said, jeopardized the civilian control of the military authorities. Both Generals Breadeley and Collins agreed that they would have to resign and speak out in case they were involved in a conflict in which duty and the best interest of the country could not be reconciled.

This introductory chapter contains definitions of obsessions and delusions, and examines the validity of these ideas as tragic devices. It discusses obsessions from the point of view of Freud and Jung. The major plays of Eugene O’Neill have been divided into three psychological types: the first type we shall call the statement-of-the-problem plays; the second, the simple anima plays; the third, the complex anima plays. These terms and divisions will be explained as we proceed.

"Art," besides being art, "is also philosophy," Aldous Huxley says in Vulgarity in Literature. Throughout the years in which he has been writing, Huxley has never lost sight of this dictum. His philosophy has ever formed an integral part of all that he has produced, and especially has it been basic in his novels. Because of the importance of philosophy to Huxley, the artist, I have aimed in this study at following the course of his changing philosophy. I have tried to present Huxley in his early years advocating a philosophy of meaninglessness and then, after becoming dissatisfied with such an interpretation of life, evolving a kind of pseudo-humanistic theory which he later discarded in favor of a mystical interpretation of the universe. In addition to showing the "what" of Huxley's philosophy, I have attempted to search out its "whys" as well. I have held his theories up to the light of the sociological background of his times and to the light of his own personality. That is, I have decided that the philosophy to which he holds and has held is subject ot the dictates of social change and to the dictates of his own nature.

Seagull Beach is a creative work about a woman who moves to a seaside town. While there, she is befriended by an artist and volunteers at the aquarium. The woman, Shell, becomes involved in a mystery involving drug smuggling and murder. Shell and her friend, Linda, solve the mystery through a series of unexpected events. Chapter one establishes Shell in Seagull Beach and introduces Linda. The plot begins with a mutilated dolphin on the beach and the appearance of a bald-headed man. Chapter two takes the reader into the aquarium and expands the cast of characters. The plot is further developed during a party scene when an angry exchange is overheard by Shell. The plot thickens, in chapter three, with the meeting of three men in an all night cafe. Later on, Shell sees a picture of the mysterious bald-headed man, in the local newspaper. Chapter three ends with the discovery of Roger's body. Chapter four has Shell and Linda trying to make some sense of Roger's death. Shell receives Roger's diary on the afternoon of his funeral. Chapter five is an important chapter for this work. It is here that we get a glimpse of a drug encounter that sets up the following scene between the drug smugglers. The use of dolphins as drug runners is also established. In the final two scenes, Shell's RV is ransacked, and the man who killed the dolphin is also killed. The suspense heightens in chapter six as Shell and Linda break into Roger's office. Shell later sees the drug delivery take place and has a confrontation as she walks across a dark parking lot. The work ends with an unexpected revelation and a conversation between Shell and Linda.

The purpose of this thesis is to study C. S. Lewis's use of fantasy to illuminate reality by contrasting the world as he saw it with his imaginary worlds. To do this, it is necessary to describe the various types of books he wrote, to illustrate the view of reality presented in his writing, and then to examine the different types of fantasy he used in his books.

Poetry and romance in Shakespeare's non-historical plays have come into their own again with revivals of The Tempest directed by Margaret Webster and with the production of As You Like It, which features Katherine Hepburn. Unfortunately, the time limit of this paper has been set for the end of 1950, so it is only possible to mentin in passing Laurence Oliver's and Vivian Leigh's exciting and unique idea of presenting Shaw's Caesar and Cleopatra and Shakespeare's Antony and Cleopatra on alternate nights. In spite of early curtains, which make it necessary for the theatre-goer to eat his dinner in a hurry, the two Cleopatras have been playing to packed houses, first in London, then in New York in 1951 and 1952. From 1750 to 1950, I should like to consider each of the history plays separtely and in detain, to show how and why their stars rose and fell upon the American horison.

The eye witnesses against MacArthur were members of the Truman Administration. Acheson and Marshall were the principal critics of MacArthur’s stand. Secretary Acheson testified that MacArthur had done a fine job in Japan and our allies agreed without policy there. Acheson replied to the alleged lack of policy by making a distinction between our policy and our war aims. Our policy in Korea looked to a unified, independent democratic government, but our war aim was to stop the attack on South Korea. Regarding the proposal that the United States take unilateral action if our allies did not support us, he said that our collective-security system could not survive if we took action other members of the system disapproved. He opposed the use of Nationalist troops on the grounds that it would weaken the defense of Formosa, and was complicated by other nations fighting in Korea that did not recognize the Nationalist Government. Finally Acheson denied that MacArthur was not allowed to issue battle communiques on the real military situation in Korea. However he felt that the General’s release of March 20 concerning truce negotiations gave the impression that the United States was speaking with two voices. Secretary of Defense George Marshall has a military point of view and at the same time a global picture of the situation. He believed that the Nationalist forces would not be effective in Korea. He testified that MacArthur’s removal was necessitated by his public disagreement with the foreign and defense policies of the United States. He made it clear that MacArthur had not violated any military policy, but he had made public his disagreement with it to such a degree that it interfered with the carrying out of that policy. All of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marshall testified, concurred in the relief of General MacArthur. General Bradley’s testimony was probably the most damaging to MacArthur. The principal point bought out by Bradeley was that MacArthur’s strategy would involve us in the wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time, and with the wrong enemy. He pointed out that we also had sanctuary since the Chinese did not bomb out ports and supply bases. He felt that a blockade would involve the ports of Hong Kong and Dairen, and therefore would not be tenable. Furthermore, MacArthur was not in agreement with the decision to limit the conflict to Korea, and his actions, Bradeley said, jeopardized the civilian control of the military authorities. Both Generals Breadeley and Collins agreed that they would have to resign and speak out in case they were involved in a conflict in which duty and the best interest of the country could not be reconciled.

Daniel Defoe, separated from the society of the majority of English people of his time by his religion and his low social status, was concerned with isolation in the lives of the characters in his novels. The solitude of Robinson Crusoe has been frequently discussed, but the characters in other novels have not been studied in much detail nor have the characters been studied as a group of isolated with similar characteristics. The purpose of the following study is to determine what characteristics Defoe’s isolates have in common, what attitude Defoe had toward solitude and the isolates, and what effect Defoe’s personal seclusion had on his fiction as represented by the four novels Robinson Crusoe, Moll Flanders, Captain Singleton, and Roxana. The oslated selected for the study are two men: Robinson Crusoe and Captain Singleton, and two women: Moll Flanders and Roxana. All of these characters are at some time separated from the society acceptable to the majority of citizens by place of residence, by religious belief, by social status, by economic conditions, and by psychological factors. The chapter following will be devoted to the study of the causes and effects of isolation.

The stream of Christianity has never run its course through a generation of believers in which has not been found someone who urged the application of Jesus teachings to the social perplexities of the day. The persistence of this attitude has not, however, been a guarantee of consistency either in the interpretation of the gospel they sought to apply or in the method of application. The approaches to the understanding of the ethic of Jesus have been as many and varied as the problems, the thought, and the radical characteristics of the people who have quenched their thirst with the living water of the stream. And now this ethical emphasis has come to occupy the central place in the Christianity of our time. The objective is not to determine the content of the ethic except where it is necessary to the progress of the central problem. No one “system” of Christian ethics will be used. Nor is the aim to criticize the present social order on the basis of the Christian Ethic. That is another task outside the scope of this work. The objective herein accepted is to consider critically the problem of the permanent validity of the Christian Ethic.