No description available.

Thesis (M.A.P.S.)--Catholic Theological Union at Chicago, 2005. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves [63]-64).

Thesis (M.A.P.S.)--Catholic Theological Union at Chicago, 2005. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves [63]-64).

This study compares and analyses four portraits of Émilie du Châtelet and four of Madame de Pompadour who were two of the most learned and privileged women of their time. The analysis is based on Erwin Panofsky’s iconological method of analysis of art and looks at the impact of gender related conventions that influenced portraiture in the early 18th century. The overall aim of this study is to answer these questions: What differences and/or similarities can be found among their portraits? Why do only relatively few portraits of Émilie du Châtelet exist? What emphasized these two ladies’ status and the unique position as femmes savantes and how did tradition influence their portraits? Education was a male privilege. How was the female equivalent formed? How did their portraits correspond to the male counterpart? Émilie du Châtelet’s portrait of Marianne Loir is the only one that was painted by a female artist. How did that influence the portrait and what distinguishes it from the other portraits? The study shows that the paintings’ compositions follow the convention of the early 18th century portraiture. Both Émilie du Châtelet and Madame de Pompadour are presented according to the rules that applied to their social and cultural status. A number of relevant symbols were added to their figures in order to mark their unique position as learned women.

Freie Univ., Diss.--Berlin, 2001. / Literaturverz. S. 227 - 236.

This dissertation offers a new interpretation of the metaphysics of two seventeenth-century women philosophers – Margaret Cavendish (1623–1673) and Anne Conway (1631–1679) – and brings to light an unnoticed tradition in seventeenth-century philosophy. I argue that both Cavendish and Conway can be understood as panpsychist-materialist monists: despite their other differences, they agree that there is one kind of substance in nature or creation, and that the single sort of substance always displays material features and mental capacities. Further, I propose that Cavendish and Conway are joined by the physician Francis Glisson (1597–1677) and the poet John Milton (1608–1674) as examples of a distinct panpsychist-materialist tendency in early modern England. ‘Panpsychist-materialist monism’ may at first seem too clunky to serve as the moniker of a movement, but it earns its keep by accurately capturing three elements of the figures’ systems that, when studied together as a group of related commitments, reveal the philosophical significance of each person’s views. My reading therefore bears on the project of interpreting Cavendish and Conway on their own terms and changes the way their context should be understood. Moreover, to the extent that contemporary philosophers of mind draw on philosophers from history in the formulation of their current views, the work presented in this dissertation stands to make a difference in present-day philosophy as well.