This thesis explores prescriptive literature and conduct books, specifically The Book of Homilies, and how these prescriptions manifest in Shakespeare’s work. This text examines the depictions of marital relationships and argues that the actions of husbands in two of Shakespeare’s comedies, The Taming of the Shrew and The Merchant of Venice, deviate from prescriptive ideals that homilies deem proper for the husband-and-wife relationship. Through the combination of new historicism and gender criticism, this thesis suggests that Katherine and Portia use submission to gain agency in moments when they seem to have none while showing that the men do not fulfill their husbandly duties. This dynamic demonstrates that submission did not mean subordination, and men in these plays do not totally recognize the agency women have despite the larger scheme of patriarchal power still existing.

In this thesis, I explore the issue of epistemic responsibility. I start by examining an argument against the use of critical thinking made by Michael Huemer. Huemer argues that critical thinking is not epistemically responsible, because it is not as truth conducive as credulity. Huemer instead argues that credulity should be the default approach taken by non-experts. After dissecting this argument, I go on to examine one of the critics to Huemer’s argument: David Kary. Kary argues that critical thinking and credulity are not mutually exclusive and can therefore be combined in an epistemically responsible way. Kary further argues that one must consider the social components of epistemic responsibility, and that when one does so, it is evident that truth conduciveness is not the only component of epistemic responsibility. I extend Huemer and Kary’s discussion by arguing that epistemic responsibility is even more complex. Epistemic superiority, equality and inferiority are fluid positions that change depending on context, and this must be considered when evaluating epistemic responsibility. The consequence of this approach is that a combination of critical thinking and credulity is the most responsible alternative. I end by arguing for the intellectual virtues and benefits of embracing this argument.

Mme de Murat témoigne incontestablement d’un intérêt pour la défense des femmes : n’en annonce-t-elle pas clairement le projet dans l’« Avertissement » de ses Mémoires, projet auquel semble faire écho son Épître « aux fées modernes » ? Cette préoccupation parcourt l’ensemble d’une œuvre qui se place résolument dans une tradition littéraire féminine et qui entend réagir à la domination patriarcale de la société d’Ancien Régime. Cependant l’ambition de l’auteur se situe bien au-delà du projet initial : il s’agit moins de défendre les femmes que de conquérir, par cette défense, une place, indépendamment de toute caractérisation sexuée. La définition de cette place se fait par une écriture qui permet à l’auteur de se distinguer, de se montrer et de consacrer ce qu’elle veut être sa propre supériorité.La quête de soi passe donc essentiellement par autrui, par ses regards et ses discours sur un je qui ne cesse de se mettre en scène. Les discours deviennent ainsi le lieu d’affrontement des pouvoirs, et notamment ceux que la société impose au je. La comtesse de Murat l’a bien compris, et s’attache à dévoiler les mécanismes de la crédulité qui entretiennent la doxa sur les femmes et sur lesquels reposerait plus généralement l’autorité sociale. L’auteur forme alors le projet à son tour de parvenir à la maîtrise des discours qui lui permettrait de détruire les discours oppressifs et de parvenir par la parole à l’affirmation libératoire du je. / Madame de Murat is clearly interested in the defence of women: doesn’t she make her intent clear in the “Foreword” to her Mémoires, as echoed in her Epistle “to modern fairies”? This preoccupation runs throughout a body of work that resolutely belongs to the female literary tradition and that seeks to challenge patriarchal domination in Ancien Régime society. However, the writer’s ambition reaches far beyond her initial intent: it is not so much to defend women as to conquer a place in society through defending them, irrelevant of gender categories. The definition of this place is achieved through a writing that enables her to stand out, show herself to the world and promote what she sees as her own superiority. The quest for self is mediated essentially through the other and his or her looks and discourses as they impact the “I” being displayed. Discourses become the battlefields where the powers clash, especially those that society imposes on the “I”. The Comtesse de Murat is perfectly aware of this and endeavours to unveil the mechanisms of credulity that foster the doxa on women and which social authority supposedly rests on. Her goal is from then on to master the discourses that will help her destroy the oppressive discourses and achieve the liberating affirmation of the “I” through words.