'Initiators of Discursive Practices': Authorship, attribution, and intent in the debates between philosophes and anti-philosophes

This article focuses on the “social side” of pseudonymity—on how writers and readers compete to influence the critical destiny of a pseudonymous work. By analyzing pseudonymity and attribution in both the specific context of Voltaire’s 1760 staging of the play, Le café ou l’écossaise, and in larger debates in the emerging fields of anonymity, pseudonymity, and attribution studies, I hope to show how literary scholars at present can address the individuality of each pseudonymous case while not letting go of trans-historical, general problems of anonymous strategies. Voltaire’s use of multiple pseudonyms before and after releasing L’Ecossaise, a comédie sérieuse in which Voltaire attacks his enemy Elie-Cathérine Fréron, supports his philosophe friends at a crucial moment in history, and exemplifies his emerging taste for serious comedy and British drama calls into question traditional takes on pseudonymity, anonymity, and attribution by refusing to fit into the binary arguments of anonymous vs. attributed and authorial intent vs. the reader’s control.

The Big-5 and the perceived effectiveness of love acts

The present research was implemented in order to determine whether or not the Big-5 personality dimensions relate to the perceived effectiveness of love acts discovered in prior research. An internet based questionnaire was utilized and college undergraduates and as well as non-college students were included in the sample. The Big-5 dimensions of Agreeableness, Openness to Experience, and Emotional Stability were expected to be related to the perceived effectiveness of the Love acts. Additionally, men and women were expected to rate Love acts signaling commitment and exclusivity as most effective. The results obtained were consistent with the hypotheses and are discussed in terms of prior research.

Montaigne, Lying and Early Modern Self-Fashioning: A Discursive Dialogue with Lope's El perro del hortelano on the Page and on Stage

A shared code of connection arguably exists between two plays by Lope de VegaEl mayordomo de la duquesa de Amalfi and El perro del hortelanoand the work of Michel de Montaigne. Nevertheless, one cannot but ask: how it can be that in two works produced so close in time, the same situation is resolved so differently? Montaigne can be said to provide an answer in his Essays, explaining that a similar situation can produce wholly different results: how in the first, one is saved', and in the second, one is destroyed. One might imagine, too, that Belflor's countess and her ennobled secretary, who together sustain a lie in a society that lived by the lie, would have been likewise consoled' by a set of interlocking tropes and similitudes' in the words of Stephen Greenblatt, which linked two contemporary and complementary fashioners of human nature, Lope and Montaigne, in a discursive dialogue on how otherwise honest women and men were subject to the vice of lying in their process of self-fashioning, as well as potentially enslaved' by it.