Jane Austen and the aristotelian ethic
Philosophy and Literature 23 (1):96-109 (1999)
| Abstract | This article has no associated abstract. (fix it) | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,709 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesAlice MacLachlan (2010). Mirrors to One Another: Emotions and Moral Value in Jane Austen and David Hume, E. M. Dadlez. [REVIEW] Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews 2010 (2).
Timothy M. Costelloe (2010). Mirrors to One Another: Emotion and Value in Jane Austen and David Hume by Dadlez, E. M. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 68 (2):179-181.
Catherine A. Sheehan (1951). Jane Austen. Thought 26 (2):314-316.
David McNaughton (2011). Constancy and the Ethics of Jane Austen's Mansfield Park (Review). Philosophy and Literature 35 (2):410-412.
Sandrine Berges (2010). Mirrors to One Another: Emotion and Value in Jane Austen and David Hume – E.M. Dadlez. Philosophical Quarterly 60 (241):864-865.
E. M. Dadlez (2009). Mirrors to One Another: Emotion and Value in Jane Austen and David Hume. Wiley-Blackwell.
E. M. Dadlez (2008). Form Affects Content: Reading Jane Austen. Philosophy and Literature 32 (2):pp. 315-329.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads18 ( #67,643 of 549,754 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,425 of 549,754 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
