The Sāmoan warriors were victorious in their independence war against Tonga. It was this Tuʻi Tonga they defeated. During his fleeing away from the final battleground at Tualatala in Sāmoa, Talakaifaiki (Talaʻifeiʻi in Sāmoan) is reported to have said from aboard his canoe:
 Brave warriors, bravely fought
 whenever I shall come back
 it shall be a friendly return
 and not a tide of war!

Talakaifaiki/en


Adam Spencer, nicknamed "Crusher" (born July 11, 1972) is a Canadian curler from Guelph, Ontario.

Career

Juniors
In 1992, Spencer skipped a team consisting of Greg Robinson, Jeff Robinson and Nolan Sims to a provincial junior title. This qualified the rink to represent Ontario at the 1992 Canadian Junior Curling Championships. There, he led his Ontario rink to a 6-5 round robin record. This put them in a three-way tie for third place. They would go on to lose their tie breaker match against Saskatchewan's Scott Bitz.

Men's
After juniors, Spencer won a provincial Colts championship in 1994. He would be a skip for much of his early men's career, including going to his first Provincial championship in 1996, where he led his team to a 5–4 record and his second in 2003, where he led his team to a 1-8 record. The next season, he joined the Greg Balsdon rink playing third for the team. They would play in two provincial championships together: 2005 (6-3; lost in 3 vs. 4 game) and 2007 (6-3; lost in 3 vs. 4 game).

Spencer left the Balsdon rink in 2009, joining up with Joe Frans as his third. The team played in the 2010 Ontario Men's Curling Championship, where they went 6-4, missing the playoffs. After the season, the team added Wayne Middaugh as skip, with Spencer becoming the alternate. Spencer played in one event with the team, playing in his first Grand Slam, the 2011 BDO Canadian Open, missing the playoffs. After the season, Spencer joined the Robert Rumfeldt rink, as his third.

In the 2012-13 season, the team would play in three Grand Slam events, missing the playoffs in each event. The team qualified for the 2013 provincial championship, finishing the round robin with a 7-3 record. However in the 3 vs. 4 game, they would lose to John Epping. The next season they played in just one Grand Slam event, the 2013 Canadian Open of Curling, where they would lose in the quarter finals. They would also play in the 2013 Olympic Curling Trials Qualifying Tournament, where they lost all three matches. The team played in the 2014 provincial championship, going 5-5. The 2014-15 season would be the last for Spencer with the Rumfeldt rink. The team played in just one Slam, missing the playoffs. Playing in the 2015 Ontario Tankard, the team missed the playoffs for the second straight year, going 4-6.

In 2015, Spencer joined the Brent Ross rink as his third, and spared for Glenn Howard at the beginning of the season. He played with the Howard rink at the 2015 GSOC Tour Challenge, where they would lose in the quarterfinals. After the Ross team failed to make the 2016 Ontario Tankard, Spencer was added as a spare to Team Howard after their third, Wayne Middaugh suffered a skiing accident prior to the event. With Spencer, the Howard rink would go on to win the Tankard, qualifying the team to represent Ontario at the 2016 Tim Hortons Brier.

Personal life
Spencer is a graduate of the Guelph Collegiate Vocational Institute and went to George Brown College. He is currently employed as a production manager with The Farley Group. He is married to Jen Spencer  and has two children.

His great uncle Adam F. Spencer was lead for the 1947 Ontario Brier team.

References

External links

Living people
Sportspeople from Guelph
1972 births
Curlers from Ontario
Canadian male curlers

Adam Spencer (curler)


Carl J. Shapiro (February 15, 1913 – March 7, 2021) was an American businessman and philanthropist. In 1939 he founded Kay Windsor, Inc. in New Bedford, Massachusetts, and built it into one of the largest women's clothing companies in the country. He was its president and chairman of the board and was director of VF Corporation, which acquired Kay Windsor in 1971; he retired five years later.

Philanthropy
In 1961 The Carl and Ruth Shapiro Family Foundation was established. It supports community-based nonprofits focused on improving the lives of the disabled, disadvantaged, and disenfranchised. Its support has bolstered the work of about 65 organizations working in areas such as youth arts, adult education, domestic violence, and assistive technology for persons with disabilities. In December 2008, the Foundation lost about $145 million in Bernard Madoff's Ponzi scheme.

Shapiro and his wife, Ruth became Brandeis University benefactors in 1950. Ruth joined the University's National Women's Committee in 1948. Carl served as a Brandeis Fellow from 1977–79, and as a Trustee from 1979 to 1988, when he became a Trustee emeritus. They gave $25 million, the largest gift in Brandeis history, to build the 2003 Carl and Ruth Shapiro Campus Center; they funded the admissions center and endowed a chair in international finance held by Peter Petri, dean of the International Business School (formerly the Graduate School of International Economics and Finance). The Shapiros also funded the Carl and Ruth Shapiro Center for Library Technology and Journals in the Farber Library on campus. In January 2003 Shapiro received Brandeis' highest honor, an honorary degree, citing  an "unshakable commitment to making the world a better place".

Shapiro founded the Carl J. Shapiro Institute for Education and Research  at Harvard Medical School, Boston Medical Center, and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. In 2005 the Shapiros donated $25 million to Brigham and Women's Hospital, for the world's most advanced cardiovascular care facility, the Carl J. and Ruth Shapiro Cardiovascular Center, designed to support one of the world's leading teams of cardiovascular experts. In 2008 they also pledged $27 million to Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center to substantially upgrade and expand its facilities for cancer care services. Other recipients of
The Shapiro's contributions include; Boston Museum of Fine Arts, Wellesley College, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston Symphony Orchestra, Kravis Center for the Performing Arts, the Norton Museum of Art, and the Palm Beach Opera, among other institutions.

Bernard Madoff
Shapiro and his foundation reportedly lost some $550 million from dealings with Bernie Madoff, who received $250 million around December 1, 2008 from Shapiro, then one of Madoff's oldest friends and one of his biggest financial backers. Shapiro's and his son-in-law Robert M. Jaffe's accounts with Madoff were managed by Paul J. Konigsberg, a senior tax partner at Konigsberg Wolf & Company in New York City. Konigsberg has been criminally indicted for working closely with Madoff to phony up investment records for Konigsberg's large clients to achieve targeted gains and tax losses.

Regulators are looking into a brokerage firm, Cohmad Securities (taken from the names "Cohn" and "Madoff"), which is largely owned by Maurice Cohn and his daughter Marcia, President and Chief Compliance Officer, with whom Madoff shared 10–20 percent ownership stakes, and Madoff's firm's address in New York City. Peter Madoff, brother of Bernard, owned less than one share. Cohmad vice president Robert Jaffe's ownership of Cohmad was less than 5 percent.

Robert Jaffe
Jaffe "worked the Palm Beach, Florida circuit, and attracted many Palm Beach Country Club members as investors". Jaffe claimed he had received a commission of 1% to 2% from an investor's first profit after he guided their money to Madoff. Jaffe paid commissions to financial advisers who steered cash to Madoff's fund.

On January 14, 2009 William Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, who is in charge of the state's securities issues, filed suit against Jaffe, who promoted Madoff's funds to wealthy investors in Massachusetts and Florida. On February 4, compelled to testify, Jaffe invoked his Fifth Amendment right. On February 11, 2009, Galvin filed a complaint seeking to revoke the Massachusetts license of Cohmad Securities Corp., an accounting of all Massachusetts investors Cohmad referred to Madoff's company, all the fees it earned doing so (more than $67 million), and a fine.

Financial losses
On May 20, 2009 the family foundation of Carl Shapiro amended its taxes to reflect more than $140 million in losses in 2005. It reflected a 74 percent drop in income, to $1.2 million. The Foundation hired Caras and Shulman, P.C. for accounting purposes. Their previous accounting firm, Konigsberg, Wolf & Co., was the firm Madoff recommended to many clients.

Sanctions
Shapiro was among a group of investors who  experienced potential losses between $100 million and $1 billion in the Bernard Madoff hedge fund scheme. It has been reported that a criminal investigation has commenced regarding his alleged complicity in the Madoff affair. In 2010, Shapiro and various related people and entities agreed to forfeit $625 million to the United States, all of which will be made available to the victims of the fraudulent investment advisory business which was owned and operated by Bernard L. Madoff. Since at least the late 1960s, Shapiro was an investor in Madoff holding an account in his own name and controlling accounts held by various related individuals and entities. Over the course of his approximately 40-year relationship with Madoff and BLMIS, Shapiro invested hundreds of millions of dollars into his BLMIS accounts, but withdrew hundreds of millions more.

To resolve any and all potential civil claims by the government against the Shapiro family, the family agreed to forfeit $625 million to the government—an amount in excess of Shapiro and his wife's net worth at the time, as well as in excess of the fictitious profits that Shapiro and his wife took out of BLMIS. The settlement contains no finding or admission of fault against Shapiro or his family; the settlement does not, however, release any party from criminal liability.

Personal life
Shapiro was married for 73 years to Ruth Gordon, who was also Jewish, until her death in 2012; they had three daughters: Rhonda Shapiro Zinner, Ellen Shapiro Jaffe, and Linda Shapiro Waintrup. Since 2009 Shapiro divided his time between Boston and Palm Beach.

Shapiro turned 100 in February 2013. His daughter Ellen is married to Robert M. Jaffe, a money manager from Boston and Palm Beach, Florida. Another daughter, Rhonda Zinner (deceased), was on the Brandeis Board of Trustees and a key organizer and planner in the family's philanthropic causes and projects, including the University's new campus center. As of June 2017, Shapiro, then 104, was noted as being the only one of Bernard Madoff's "big four" clients still alive. Shapiro died on March 7, 2021, at his home in Boston.  He was 108.

See also
List of investors in Bernard L. Madoff Securities

References

External links
The Carl and Ruth Shapiro Family Foundation
"Who are Carl and Ruth Shapiro?", October 3, 2008
"Jaffe Tarnished as Feds Investigate Madoff Connection", Palm Beach Post (December 20, 2008)
Beth Healy, "Broker Jaffe Ordered to Appear at Madoff-Related Hearing", The Boston Globe (January 15, 2009)

1913 births
2021 deaths
American centenarians
Men centenarians
American victims of crime
People associated with the Madoff investment scandal
Businesspeople from Massachusetts
Harvard Medical School people
American people of Jewish descent

Carl J. Shapiro


Dorothy Tennov (August 29, 1928 – February 3, 2007) was an American psychologist who, in her 1979 book Love and Limerence – the Experience of Being in Love introduced the term "limerence".  During her years of research into romantic love experiences, she obtained thousands of personal testimonies from questionnaires, interviews, and letters from readers of her writing, in an attempt to support her hypothesis that a distinct and involuntary psychological state occurs identically among otherwise normal persons across cultures, educational level, gender, and other traits. Tennov emphasized that her data consist entirely of verbal reports by volunteers who reported their love experiences.

About
Dorothy Tennov was born in Montgomery County, Alabama. She received her bachelor's degree from Brooklyn College and a Ph.D. from the University of Connecticut. Tennov was a professor of psychology at the University of Bridgeport for twenty years. In addition to being a professor of psychology she was also a student of the philosophy of science.

Tennov had three sons: Randall Hoffman (d. Nov. 19, 1994), Ace Hoffman and Daniel Hoffman. From 1986, she lived in Millsboro, Delaware, where she lectured at the local senior learning academy and worked as a volunteer at the nursing home. Tennov was passionate about music, especially classical. She could play the piano, which she did in a local church. Tennov volunteered at the community theatre, Possum Point Players. Tennov died in Harbeson, Delaware at the age of 78 in 2007.

Publications
Tennov was an author of three published nonfiction books, including Love and Limerence, Psychotherapy: The Hazardous Cure, and Super Self: A woman's guide to self-management.  Among her other writings were a prize-winning play about life in a nursing home, reviews of books on scientific subjects, presentations at scientific meetings, and essays. Her television credits included a PBS interview with the late French novelist and essayist, Simone de Beauvoir and appearance in a 1998 BBC documentary, The Evolution of Desire. Tennov participated in Internet discussions on scientific and political topics while conducting research for a forthcoming book in which she planned more fully to analyze the methodologies and philosophies of the human sciences.

 Tennov, Dorothy (2005). A Scientist Looks at Romantic Love and Calls It "Limerence": The Collected Works of Dorothy Tennov. Greenwich, CT: The Great American Publishing Society (GRAMPS), www.gramps.org/limerence.

References

External links
 Book review of Love and Limerence

American women psychologists
20th-century American psychologists
American psychology writers
University of Bridgeport alumni
Writers from Montgomery, Alabama
1929 births
2007 deaths
Brooklyn College alumni
20th-century American women
20th-century American people
21st-century American women

Dorothy Tennov


Well of Shiuan is a 1978 fantasy novel by American writer C. J. Cherryh. It is the second of four books composing the Morgaine Stories, chronicling the deeds of Morgaine, a woman obsessed with a mission of the utmost importance, and her warrior companion, Nhi Vanye i Chya.

Plot summary
Mija Jherun, a fey seventeen-year-old peasant woman, lives in a world inexorably being overwhelmed by the sea. One day, after looting a barrow, the tomb of a young warrior-king, she is chased by an armored man on horseback back to her village. He breaks into the poor home she shares with her family, helps himself to some food, and asks if anyone has seen a pale woman on a grey horse. After repulsing an attack by the men of the village, he departs for Shiuan, a richer land ruled by the khal, another race that is enough like humans to successfully interbreed.

Jherun, yearning for a less bleak future than marrying the thuggish Fwar, runs after him. Instead of finding him, she stumbles upon his mortal enemies: his cousin, Nhi Vanye, and Vanye's lord, Morgaine, the pale woman.

They inform her that Chya Roh's body had been taken over by an evil creature who had extended his life countless times by this means. He had betrayed Morgaine and sent ten thousand men to their doom a century before. Fleeing her, he had passed through a Gate from Vanye's world to this one, closing the passageway forever, but not quickly enough to prevent Morgaine and Vanye from following.

Jherun knows of two Gates, which she calls Wells. The newcomers had emerged from one; the other is in Shiuan. Morgaine's mission is to travel from world to world, closing their Gates permanently, as they can (and have in the past) destroyed whole civilizations when their immense power is misused. She is the last survivor of a band of one hundred sent for that purpose. Vanye is a chance-met warrior, bound to obey her initially by his stubborn sense of honor and later for other reasons.

As they travel towards Shiuan, it begins to rain heavily. They become separated when Vanye is knocked off his horse by an uprooted tree carried by the rapidly rising, onrushing water. He finds Jherun, but not Morgaine. Knowing that Morgaine will make for the Well of Shiuan, he heads there also, accompanied by Jherun.

Along the way, Jherun persuades him to seek food and shelter at the fortress of Ohtij-in, held by half-breed khal. This proves to be a grave mistake, as Roh had preceded him there. He treats Vanye well, claiming that the Roh Vanye knew still coexists with his "murderer"; Vanye is uncertain and does not kill him when Roh deliberately gives him the opportunity.

Roh has promised the khal a way out of their dying world. The old lord, Bydarra, is skeptical, but his ruthless son Hetharu murders his father and puts the blame on Vanye. He assembles his forces and heads off to the Gate with Roh. Vanye is left behind, a prisoner of Hetharu's brother Kithan, but is rescued by Morgaine and an army she has recruited from Jherun's people and their neighbors, the marshlanders.

However, when they learn what Morgaine intends, they turn on her, forcing her to kill many with her advanced weapons. Morgaine, Vanye, Jherun and Kithan flee on horseback, followed by the mob on foot.

They reach the control room for the Gate of Shiuan, only to find that Roh has opened the Gate and locked the controls. He has also left a message: he will allow Vanye safe passage through, but not Morgaine. She orders Vanye to go to Roh, wait his chance to kill him, and continue on with her mission. Knowing that the two of them stand no chance against Roh's army, he reluctantly obeys, taking the other two with him. Roh sees through the ruse immediately, but still accepts his cousin.

As they prepare to pass through the Gate, Morgaine attacks with the human rabble, with which she has forged an uneasy alliance. In the confusion, Vanye fights his way to her, and together they force their way through, to continue their quest on yet another world. The rest, khal and human alike, follow, save Jherun and Kithan. Then the Gate closes.

Characters
Morgaine
Nhi Vanye
Chya Roh, an ancient being who lives by taking others' bodies
Mija Jherun, a seventeen-year-old peasant woman
Bydarra, lord of Ohtij-in, father of Hetharu and Kithan
Hetharu, ambitious new leader of the khal of Ohtij-in by virtue of his patricide
Kithan, Hetharu's brother
Fwar, leader of the human barrowlanders

References
C. J. Cherryh. Well of Shiuan. DAW Books 1978. .

Further reading

1978 American novels
1978 fantasy novels
American fantasy novels
Fantasy novels by C. J. Cherryh
Novels set in the future
Sequel novels
DAW Books books
Books with cover art by Michael Whelan

Well of Shiuan


Pinsoro is a village situated to the northwest of the city of Zaragoza in northeastern Spain.
The population is approximately 800. This village is located within the Ejea de los Caballeros municipal term.

History

Pinsoro was founded by colonist families in 1962, subsidized by the Instituto Nacional de Colonización of the Spanish government. Since the moment of its foundation till nowadays, the village hasn't stopped growing economically. Today, Pinsoro has a lot of shops and supermarkets, a medical centre, two theaters, an agriculture factory and more facilities.

In May 2012, this village celebrated its 50th anniversary.

Tourism

The places to visit at this village are directly connected with nature:
El Lagunazo de Moncayuelo: a lake in the outskirts of Pinsoro. A lot of bird species live here, and camping and eating is allowed.
"El Cierzo" Hotel: in the centre of the village. This hotel has some rooms for a rest.
Pinsoro Church: the oldest building in the town.
Pinsoro Arch: in the past this was the entrance to the village.
Village Bullring
Sport facilities: there is a swimming pool, a frontenis coach and a sports hall.

Astronomy

Pinsoro's observatory is a useful place to see astronomical phenomena.

Festivals

 San Isidro Festivals: in spring, the week of 15 May.
 San Mateo Festivals: the most important ones in Pinsoro. These festivals take place in summer, the week of 21 September.

External links

Pinsoro, Aragon

Populated places in the Province of Zaragoza
Populated places established in 1962

Pinsoro


A lava field, sometimes called a lava bed, is a large, mostly flat area of lava flows. Such features are generally composed of highly fluid basalt lava, and can extend for tens or hundreds of kilometers across the underlying terrain.

Morphology and structure
The final morphology of a lava field can reveal properties such as internal structure, composition, and mechanics of the lava flow when it was fluid. The ridges and patterns on top of the lava field show the direction of the lava channels and the often active lava tubes that may be underneath the solidified "crust." It can also reveal whether the lava flow can be classified as pāhoehoe or 'a'ā. The two main types of lava field structures are defined as sheet flow lava and pillow lava. Sheet flow lava appears like a wrinkled or folded sheet, while pillow lava is bulbous, and often looks like a pile of pillows atop one another.

An important aspect of lava flow morphology is a phenomenon known as lava flow inflation. This occurs in pāhoehoe flows that have a high effusion rate, and initially forms a thin crust atop the lava flow. The fluid lava underneath the crust continues to increase due to the sustained high effusion rate, and thus the entire "structure" increases in size, up to four meters in height. This anomaly can expose important physics and mechanisms behind lava flow that was not previously known.

The structure of lava fields also vary based on geographic location. For example, in subaqueous lava fields, sheet flow lava is found near volcanoes characterized by fast-flowing centers, like the Galapagos Rift, while on the other hand pillow lava fields are found near more slow-flowing centers, like the Mid-Atlantic Ridge.

Mapping and prediction
The extent of large lava fields is most readily studied from the air or in satellite photos, where their commonly dark, near black color contrasts sharply with the rest of the landscape. Current computer models are mostly unable to predict the placement of lava fields due to the inability to anticipate random environmental influences. Computer modelling is consistently increasing in quality, but the many micro factors directing lava flow and shape, such as source geometry and lava extrusion rate, limit the accuracy that is currently available.

Notable examples
Boring Lava Field (United States)
Harrat Rahat, which threatened the city of Medina in the 13th century (Saudi Arabia)
Hell's Half Acre Lava Field (Idaho, United States)
Reykjanes, Iceland (peninsula is mainly a barren waste of lava fields)
St. George, Utah, United States (city built around fields and bluffs covered in lava rocks)
Mackenzie Large Igneous Province, Canada

See also
Volcanic field
Volcanic plateau
Volcanism of Hawaii
Volcanism of Iceland
Volcano

References

Volcanic landforms
Volcanic rocks
Effusive eruptions
Volcanic degassing

Lava field


Andreas Kofler (born 17 May 1984) is an Austrian former ski jumper.

Career

Andreas Kofler grew up in Tyrol, in the Austrian Alps. He is a member of the ski jumping club SV Innsbruck-Bergisel, together with Gregor Schlierenzauer.

Kofler won his first individual competition in the World Cup on 4 February 2006. Two days later, he came in second place in the team competition. At the 2006 Winter Olympics in Turin, Italy, Kofler won the silver medal in the individual competition, finishing only 0.1 points behind Thomas Morgenstern, his teammate on the squad with whom he would later win the Olympic gold medal in the team competition. At the Nordic Ski World Championships 2007 in Sapporo, Japan, Kofler won the gold medal in the team competition and finished in sixth place in the individual competition. At the end of the season, he arrived in second place at the Nordic Tournament, beaten only by Adam Małysz.

After starting well into the 2007/08 season, finishing in second place behind Morgenstern twice, Kofler crashed twice during competitions, in Engelberg and in Oberstdorf. Despite not being seriously injured, Kofler struggled to shake off his poor form for this and the next season.

In the 2009-2010, Kofler came in third place in Engelberg, ending his bad streak. During the same season, Kofler managed to win the prestigious Four Hills Tournament, ahead of Janne Ahonen and Wolfgang Loitzl, after winning the first event of the tournament in Oberstdorf. Kofler could not meet expectations in the first event (on the normal hill) of the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver, coming in 19th place. Nonetheless, he finished in fourth place on the large hill, only one point from the podium, and won the team competition with his teammates Wolfgang Loitzl, Thomas Morgenstern and Gregor Schlierenzauer—his second Olympic gold medal after 2006.

During the 2010/11 season, Kofler recorded three individual wins, including the first event of the season in Kuusamo, Finland.

Despite a training deficit due to back problems related to his spinal discs, Kofler started the 2011/12 season by winning the first two events, which took place in Lillehammer, Norway.

World Cup

Standings

Wins

Personal life

In 2007, Andreas Kofler started a four-year formation to become a member of the Austrian police force, as part of a program for competitive athletes. In May 2011, Kofler passed his final examinations and hence concluded his formation.
His hobbies include telemark skiing, football, surfing and climbing.
Andreas Kofler currently resides in Thaur, Tyrol.

References

External links

1984 births
Austrian male ski jumpers
Living people
Olympic gold medalists for Austria
Olympic silver medalists for Austria
Olympic ski jumpers for Austria
Ski jumpers at the 2006 Winter Olympics
Ski jumpers at the 2010 Winter Olympics
Skiers from Innsbruck
Olympic medalists in ski jumping
FIS Nordic World Ski Championships medalists in ski jumping
Medalists at the 2010 Winter Olympics
Medalists at the 2006 Winter Olympics
21st-century Austrian people

Andreas Kofler


The reception history of Jane Austen shows how Austen's works, at first having modest fame, became wildly popular. Her books are both the subject of great study and the center of various fan culture. Jane Austen, the writer of such works as Pride and Prejudice (1813) and Emma (1815), has become one of the most famous novelists in the English language.

During her lifetime, Austen's books did not make her very famous. Like a great number of women writers at that time, she chose to publish her books secretly. Only among people in the aristocracy, her writing was an open secret. At the time they were published, Austen's works were thought fashionable by members of high society. However, they received only a few good reviews. By the mid-nineteenth century, her works were respected by people who were learned in literature. They thought that liking her works was a sign that they were clever. In 1870, her nephew published Memoir of Jane Austen. This showed her to a wider public as "dear, quiet aunt Jane". After this, her works were published again in popular editions. By the twentieth century, lots of groups had formed. Some praised her and some defended her from the "teeming masses". However, they all claimed to be true Janeites, or people who really appreciated Austen.

Early in the twentieth century, scholars made a collection of her works (the first for any British novelist). But it was not until the 1940s that Austen was widely accepted as a "great English novelist". In the second half of the twentieth century, people began studying Austen more and more, and in different ways. For example, they studied her works artistically, ideologically, and historically. The university English departments began developing in the first half of the twentieth century. As they grew, criticism of Austen split into remarkable high culture and popular culture trends. In the late twentieth century, fans made Jane Austen societies and clubs. They praised Austen, her time, and her works. In the early twenty-first century, Austen fans support an industry of printed sequels and prequels. They also support Austen's work in television and film.

Background

Jane Austen lived her entire life as part of a large and close family. Her family was in the lower part of the English gentry. Her family's steady support was very important to Austen's development as a writer. For example, Austen read her first drafts of all of her books to her family. In this way, she received encouragement and help. In fact, it was her father who first tried to put her book in print. Austen's training as a writer lasted from when she was a teenager until she was about 35. During this time, she experimented with different literary forms. This included the epistolary novel (novel in letters), which she tried and did not like. She wrote and revised three important novels and began a fourth. When Sense and Sensibility (1811), Pride and Prejudice (1813), Mansfield Park (1814) and Emma (1815) came out in print, she became a successful writer.

However, novel-writing was not easy for women in the early nineteenth century. This was because it made them famous. It also made people think them unfeminine. So like a great number of other female writers, Austen published her books secretly. In time, though, her writing became an open secret among the aristocracy. In one of her visits to London, the Prince Regent invited her to his home. His librarian showed her around and said that the Regent liked her books very much. The librarian added that "if Miss Austen had any other Novel forthcoming, she was quite at liberty to dedicate it to the Prince". Austen did not like the prince, who spent a lot of money. She did not want to follow this suggestion. However, her friends persuaded her to follow it. Therefore, Emma was dedicated to him. Austen refused the librarian's suggestion after that to write a historical romance for the prince's daughter's marriage.

In the last year of her life, Austen revised Northanger Abbey (1817) and wrote Persuasion (1817). She also began another novel, which was later titled Sanditon. She could not finish it before her death. Austen did not have time to see Northanger Abbey or Persuasion through the press. However, her family published them as one book after she died. Her brother Henry included a "Biographical Notice of the Author". This short biography made people think of Austen as a quiet aunt who wrote in her free time. "Neither the hope of fame nor profit mixed with her early motives (purposes) ... [S]o much did she shrink from notoriety, that no accumulation of fame would have induced (made) her, had she lived, to affix (put) her name to any productions of her  public she turned away from any allusion to the character of an authoress." However, Austen shows excitement in her letters about getting her books in print. She was also interested in how much money the books would make. Austen was a professional writer.

Austen's works are noted for their realism, biting social commentary, and clever use of free indirect speech. They are also remarkable for their burlesque and irony. They criticize the novels of sensibility of the second half of the eighteenth century. They are part of the change to nineteenth-century realism. As Susan Gubar and Sandra Gilbert explain, Austen laughed at "love at first sight, the primacy (first importance) of passion over all other emotions and/or duties, the  exploits of the hero, the vulnerable sensitivity of the heroine, the lovers' proclaimed (declared) indifference to financial considerations, and the cruel  of parents". Austen's stories, though comic, focus on the way women depend on marriage to secure social standing and economic security. She was also concerned with moral problems, like Samuel Johnson, who strongly influenced her.

1812–1821: Individual reactions and contemporary reviews
[[Image:New-Monthly-Magazine-1816-25-p66-novels-inc-Austen-Emma-detail.jpg|right|thumb|300px|In 1816, the editors of The New Monthly Magazine noted Emma'''s publication. However, it did not see it as important enough to review.|alt=A part of a magazine which reads "Emma. By the author of 'Pride of Prejudice'. 3 vols. 12 mo. 1l. 1s."]]

Austen's books quickly became fashionable. Aristocrats who liked to set the fashion and taste of the day especially liked them. Henrietta Ponsonby, Countess of Bessborough wrote about Sense and Sensibility in a letter to a friend. She said: "it is a clever novel.  ... tho' it ends stupidly, I was much amused by it." The 15-year-old daughter of the Prince Regent, Princess Charlotte Augusta, compared herself to Marianne Dashwood. She remarked, "I think Marianne & me are very like in disposition, that certainly I am not so good, the same , &tc". Pride and Prejudice was enjoyed by Richard Sheridan, a person who wrote plays. He told a friend to "[b]uy it immediately" for it "was one of the cleverest things" he had ever read. Anne Milbanke, future wife of Lord Byron, wrote that "I have finished the Novel called Pride and Prejudice, which I think a very superior (good) work." She added that "is the most probable fiction I have ever read" and had become "at present the fashionable novel". The Dowager Lady Vernon told a friend that Mansfield Park was "[n]ot much of a novel, more the history of a family party in the country, very natural". Lady Anne Romilly told her friend, the writer Maria Edgeworth, that "[Mansfield Park] has been pretty generally admired here". Edgeworth later said that "we have been much entertained with Mansfield Park".

High society liked and approved of Austen's novels. However, they received few reviews while she was alive. There were two for Sense and Sensibility. Pride and Prejudice received three. Mansfield Park received none. There were seven for Emma. Most of the reviews were short, careful, and approving. They mostly focused on the moral lessons of her books. Brian Southam writes about these reviewers: "their job was merely to provide brief (short) notices, extended with quotations, for the benefit (good) of women readers compiling their library lists and interested only in knowing whether they would like a book for its story, its characters and moral".

Famous writer Walter Scott wrote the longest and deepest of these reviews. He was asked by publisher John Murray to review Emma. Emma had come out in print (without saying who the writer was) in the March 1816 issue of the Quarterly Review. Using the review as a way to praise the novel, Scott praised Austen's works. He praised her ability to copy "from nature as she really exists in the common walks of life, and presenting to the  correct and striking representation of that which is daily (every day) taking place around him". Modern Austen scholar William Galperin has noted that "unlike some of Austen's lay readers, who recognized her divergence (difference) from realistic practice as it had been prescribed and defined at the time, Walter Scott may well have been the first to install Austen as the realist par excellence". Scott wrote in his private journal in 1826 about Austen. This later became a widely quoted comparison:
Also read again and for the third time at least Miss Austen's very finely written novel of Pride and Prejudice. That young lady had a talent for describing the  and feelings and characters of ordinary life which is to me the most wonderful I ever met with. The Big Bow-wow strain I can do myself like any now going, but the exquisite touch which renders (makes) ordinary commonplace things and characters interesting from the truth of the description and the sentiment is denied to me. What a pity such a gifted creature died so early!Northanger Abbey and Persuasion were published together in December 1817. They were reviewed in the British Critic in March 1818 and in the Edinburgh Review and Literary Miscellany in May 1818. The reviewer for the British Critic felt that Austen's great use of realism was proof of a limited imagination. The reviewer for the Edinburgh Review thought differently. He praised Austen for her " invention". He was also pleased with Austen's stories because they mixed familiar scenes with surprising twists. Austen scholars have pointed out that these early reviewers did not know what to make of her works. For example, they wrongly understood her use of irony. Reviewers thought Sense and Sensibility and Pride and Prejudice were stories of virtue overcoming vice.

In the Quarterly Review in 1821 another review came out. Richard Whately was an English writer and theologican. He published the most serious early review of Austen's work. Whately compared Austen and great writers such as Homer and Shakespeare with favor. He praised the dramatic quality of her stories. He also said that the novel was a real, respectable genre of literature. He argued that imaginative literature, especially narrative, was very valuable. He even said they were more important than history or biography. When it was well done, as Austen's works were, Whately said that novels wrote about human experience that the reader could learn from. In other words, he believed that it was moral. Whately also addressed Austen's position as a female writer. He wrote: "we suspect one of Miss Austin's [sic] great merits in our eyes to be, the insight she gives us into the peculiarities of female  heroines are what one knows women must be, though one never can get them to acknowledge (admit) it." No better criticism of Austen was put in print until the late nineteenth century. Whately and Scott had begun the Victorian era's view of Austen.

1821–1870: Cultured few

Austen had a great number of readers who liked and respected her in the nineteenth century. According to critic Ian Watt, they liked her " to ordinary (usual) social experience". However, Austen's works were not exactly what her Romantic and Victorian British audience liked. They wished for "powerful emotion [be] authenticated by an egregious display of sound and color in the writing". Victorian critics and audiences liked the work of writers like Charles Dickens and George Eliot. Compared to them, Austen's works seemed narrow and quiet. Austen's works were put in print again beginning in late 1832 or early 1833. Richard Bentley printed them in the Standard Novels series, and remained in print for a long time after that. However, they were not bestsellers. Southam describes her "reading public between 1821 and 1870" as "minute beside the known audience for Dickens and his contemporaries".

The people who read Austen saw themselves as clever readers. They were the cultured few. This became a well-known theme of Austen criticism in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. George Henry Lewes was a philosopher and literary critic. He spoke about this theme in a series of articles in the 1840s and 1850s. "The Novels of Jane Austen" was put in print in Blackwood's Magazine in 1859. In there, Lewes praised Austen's books for "the economy of  easy adaptation of means to ends, with no aid (help) from superfluous elements". He also compared her to Shakespeare. He argued that Austen was not good at making up plots. However, he still enjoyed the dramatic quality of her works. He said: "The reader's pulse never throbs, his curiosity is never intense (very strong); but his interest never wanes (stops) for a moment. The action begins; the people speak, feel, and act; everything that is said, felt, or done tends towards the entanglement or disentanglement of the plot; and we are almost made actors as well as spectators (viewers) of the little drama."

Writer Charlotte Brontë liked Austen's writing because they were truthful about everyday life. However, Brontë called her "only shrewd (clever) and observant". She said there was not enough passion in her work. To Brontë, Austen's work seemed formal and narrow. In a letter written to G.H. Lewes in 1848, Brontë said that she did not like Pride and Prejudice. She said:

 Nineteenth-century European translations

Soon after Austen's works were printed in Britain, they appeared in some European countries. They began appearing in 1813 with a French translation of Pride and Prejudice. It was quickly followed by German, Dutch, and Swedish editions. They were not always easy to get in Europe. Austen was not well known in Russia. The first Russian translation of an Austen novel did not appear until 1967. Austen's works were translated into various European languages. However, Europeans did not see her works as part of the English novel tradition. This was partly because of the changes made by translators. They put in sentimentalism into Austen's works. They also failed to put in her humor and irony. Therefore, European readers more often thought of Walter Scott's style as the English novel.

The great changes made by her translators made the Continent receive Austen differently than in Britain. For example, the French writer Isabelle de Montolieu translated several of Austen's novels into the French sentimental novel. In Montolieu's Pride and Prejudice, lively conversations (talks) between Elizabeth and Darcy were replaced by calm, proper ones. In Jane Austen's work, Elizabeth said that she has "always seen a great similarity in the turn of [their] minds" (her and Darcy's). She says this is because they are "unwilling to speak, unless [they] expect to say something that will amaze (surprise) the whole room". However, this becomes "Moi, je garde le silence, parce que je ne sais que dire, et vous, parce que vous aiguisez vos traits pour parler avec effet." ("Me, I keep silent, because I don't know what to say, and you, because you excite your features for effect when speaking.") Cossy and Saglia explained, "the equality of mind which Elizabeth takes for granted is denied (not given) and gender distinction introduced". Austen's works were seen in France as part of a sentimental tradition. Because of this, people were more interested in the works of French realists like Stendhal, Balzac, and Flaubert. Austen was also treated as a romantic writer in Germany.

1870–1930: Explosion in popularity
Family biographies

For years, people thought the same of Austen as Scott and Whately. Only a few people actually read her novels. In 1870 the first important Austen biography, A Memoir of Jane Austen, was written by Jane Austen's nephew, James Edward Austen-Leigh and printed. This changed the way people thought of Austen. When it came out in print, Austen's popularity and critical standing increased greatly. The Memoir made people think of an untrained writer who wrote masterpieces. People thought Austen was a quiet, middle-aged unmarried aunt. This made them feel that her works were safe for respectable Victorian families to read. The Memoir made Austen's books be printed again in great numbers. The first popular editions came out in 1883. They were a cheap series printed by Routledge. This was followed by editions with pictures, collectors' sets, and scholarly editions. However, critics still said that only people who could really understand the deep meaning of Austen's books should read them. However, after the Memoir was printed, much more criticism about Austen was printed. More came out in two years than had come out in the last 50 years.

In 1913, William Austen-Leigh and Richard Arthur Austen-Leigh printed a family biography. It was titled: Jane Austen: Her Life and Letters—A Family Record. William and Arthur were both part of the Austen family. It was based mostly on family papers and letters. It is described by Austen biographer Park Honan as "accurate, staid (steady), reliable, and at times vivid and suggestive". The authors moved away from the sentimental tone of the Memoir. However, they did not go much beyond the family records and traditions they always had. Therefore, their book offers only facts. It does not offer much interpretation.

 Criticism

In the last part of the nineteenth century, the first critical books about Austen's works were printed. In 1890 Godwin Smith printed the Life of Jane Austen. This began a "fresh phase in the critical heritage". This began "formal (official) criticism". People began focusing on Austen as a writer and analyzing the ways that made her writing special. Southam said that there was much more Austen criticism around 1780. He also said that the reviews became better. However, he was troubled at the "certain uniformity" in them:
We see the novels praised for their elegance of form and their surface 'finish'; for the realism of their fictional world, the variety and vitality (strength) of their characters; for their pervasive humour; and for their gentle and undogmatic morality and its unsermonising delivery. The novels are prized for their 'perfection'. Yet it is seen to be a narrow perfection, achieved within the bounds of domestic comedy.
Richard Simpson, Margaret Oliphant, and Leslie Stephen were some of the best reviewers. In a review of the Memoir, Simpson said Austen was a serious but ironic critic of English society. He began two interpretative themes: using humor to criticize society and irony as a means of moral study. He continued Lewes's comparison to Shakespeare, and wrote that Austen:
began by being an ironical critic; she manifested her  by direct censure, but by the indirect method of imitating and exaggerating the faults of her , humour, irony, the judgment not of one that gives sentence but of the mimic who quizzes while he mocks, are her characteristics.

Simpson's essay was not well-known. It did not a lot of influence until Lionel Trilling quoted it in 1957. Margaret Oliphant was another important writer whose criticism of Austen did not have much influence. She described Austen as "armed with a 'fine vein of feminine cynicism,' 'full of subtle power, keenness, finesse, and self-restraint (control),' with an 'exquisite sense' of the 'ridiculous,' 'a fine stinging yet soft-voiced contempt,' whose works are very 'calm and cold and keen'". This kind of criticism was not fully developed until the 1970s. This was when feminist literary criticism began.

Austen's works had been in print in the United States from 1832. However, it was only after 1870 that Americans began seriously considering Austen's works. As Southam says, "for American literary nationalists Jane Austen's cultivated scene was too pallid, too constrained, too refined, too downright unheroic". Austen was not democratic enough for Americans. Also, her books did not have the frontier themes that often came out in American literature. The way Americans thought about Austen was represented in an argument between William Dean Howells and Mark Twain. Through his essays, Howells helped make Austen much more popular. Twain, however, used Austen to argue against the Anglophile tradition in America. In his book Following the Equator, Twain described the library on his ship: "Jane Austen's  absent from this library. Just that one omission alone would make a fairly good library out of a library that hadn't a book in it."

Janeites

The Encyclopædia Britannica's changed the way they described Austen as she became more and more popular. The eighth edition (1854) called her "an elegant novelist". The ninth edition (1875) praised her as "one of the most distinguished (remarkable) modern British novelists". Austen novels began to be studied at universities. Her works also began to come out in histories of the English novel. Most people still thought of her as "dear aunt Jane", the way she was first presented in the Memoir. Howells had made this picture of Austen famous by his essays in the Harper's Magazine. Writer and critic Leslie Stephen described a mania for Austen that grew in the 1880s as "Austenolatry". It was only after the Memoir was printed that readers grew to like Austen as a person. Until then, literary elites had said their enjoyment of Austen showed how clever they were. However, around the 1990s, they grew troubled at how popular Austen's works became. They began calling themselves Janeites. They wanted to show that they were different from the people who they thought did not understand Austen properly.

American novelist Henry James liked Austen. Once he said she was as great as Shakespeare, Cervantes, and Henry Fielding - "the fine painters of life". But James thought Austen was an "unconscious" artist who was "instinctive and charming". In 1905, James said he did not like the public interest in Austen. He said it was more than Austen's "intrinsic merit (worth) and interest" deserved. James said that this was mostly because of the "stiff breeze of the  special bookselling  body of publishers, editors, illustrators, producers of the pleasant twaddle of magazines; who have found their 'dear,' our dear, everybody's dear,  their material  pretty reproduction in every variety of what is called tasteful, and in what seemingly proves to be salable, form."

Reginald Farrer, a British travel writer, did not like the sentimental image of "Aunt Jane". Instead, he wanted to study Austen's fiction in a new way. In 1917, he published a long essay in the Quarterly Review. Jane Austen scholar A. Walton Litz called it the best single introduction to her works. Southam calls it as a "Janeite" piece without the worship. Farrer claimed that Jane Austen was not unconscious (disagreeing with James). He said that she was a writer of great concentration and a sharp critic of her society. He called her "radiant and remorseless", "dispassionate yet pitiless", with "the steely quality, the incurable rigor of her judgment". Farrer was one of the first critics who saw Austen as a  writer.

1930–2000: Modern scholarship

The light of Austen scholarship was beginning to shine through several important early works. These works helped Austen become well accepted in the academy. The first was Oxford Shakespearean scholar Andrew Cecil Bradley's 1911 essay. This essay was "generally (largely) regarded (seen) as the starting-point for the serious academic approach to Jane Austen". Bradley pointed out Austen's ties to eighteenth-century critic and writer Samuel Johnson. He argued that she was a moralist as well as a humorist. According to Southam, this argument was "totally (completely) original". Bradley separated Austen's works into "early" and "late" novels. Scholars still separate Austen's works as Bradley did today. The second original early-twentieth-century critic of Austen was R. W. Chapman. His edition of Austen's works was the first scholarly edition of the works of any English novelist. The Chapman edition has been the basis for all editions of Austen's works after that.

After Bradley and Chapman, Austen scholarship grew very quickly in the 1920s. British writer E. M. Forster pointed out Austen's works for his idea of the "round" character. It was with the 1939 publication of Mary Lascelles' Jane Austen and Her Art—"the first full-scale historical and scholarly study" of Austen—that the academic study of her works matured. Lascelles included a short essay about her, a study of the books Austen read and their influence on her writing, and a study of Austen's style and "narrative art". Lascelles felt that critics before her had all worked in a way "so small that the reader does not see how they have reached their conclusions until he has patiently found his own way to them". She wished to study all of Austen's works, style, and techniques together. Critics after Lascelles agreed that she studied them well. Lascelles was interested in Austen's connection to Samuel Johnson and her desire to discuss morality through fiction. In this she was much like Bradley before her. But around this time, some fans of Austen began to worry that her works were being enjoyed by only a few people. They were fearful that Austen was being criticized only by academics. This was an argument that continued to the beginning of the twenty-first century.

Mid-century revisionist views started to become popular, and scholars began studying Austen more sceptically. D. W. Harding, adding to Farrer, wrote an essay called "Regulated Hatred: An Aspect of the Work of Jane Austen". He argued that Austen did not support society's customs, and that her irony was not funny but bitter. He also claimed that Austen wanted to show the faults of the society she wrote about. Through her use of irony, Austen tried to protect herself as an artist and a person from the behavior and practices she disliked. Almost at the same time, British critic Q. D. Leavis printed "Critical Theory of Jane Austen's Writing" in Scrutiny in the early 1940s. In there, Leavis argued that Austen was a professional, not an amateur (untrained), writer. Harding's and Leavis's articles were followed by Jane Austen: Irony as Defense and Discovery (1952). This was written by Martin Mudrick, who saw Austen as lonely, defensive, and critical of her society. He carefully described the connection between Austen's attitude towards the literature of her time and how she used irony to show the difference of how society was, and how she thought it could be. An important British critic, F. R. Leavis, said in The Great Tradition (1948) that Austen was one of the great writers of English fiction. Ian Watt agreed, and helped shape the arguments about the genre of the novel. The revisionist views and Leavis's words helped Austen to have a great reputation among academics. They agreed that she "combined (put together) [Henry Fielding's and Samuel Richardson's] qualities of interiority and irony, realism and satire to form an author superior to (better than) both".

After the Second World War, people began studying Austen more deeply, and in different ways. A great number of people have studied Austen as a political writer. Critic Gary Kelly explains, "Some see her as a political 'conservative' because she seems to defend the established social order. Others see her as sympathetic to 'radical' politics that challenged the established order, especially in the form of  critics see Austen's novels , criticizing aspects of the social order but supporting stability and an open class hierarchy." In Jane Austen and the War of Ideas (1975), perhaps the most important of these works, Marilyn Butler argues that Austen was greatly influenced by the principal moral and political arguments of her time, and that she had a partisan, firmly conservative and Christian position in these arguments. Alistair M. Duckworth in The Improvement of the Estate: A Study of Jane Austen's Novels (1971) argues that Austen used the concept of the "estate" to symbolise all that was important  society, which should be conserved (kept), improved, and passed down to future generations. As Rajeswari Rajan notes, "the idea of a political Austen is no longer seriously challenged". The questions scholars now study include: "the Revolution, war, nationalism, empire, class, 'improvement' [of the estate], the clergy, town versus (against) country, abolition, the professions, female emancipation; whether her politics were Tory, Whig, or radical; whether she was a conservative or a revolutionary, or occupied (kept) a reformist position between these extremes".

In the 1970s and 1980s, Austen studies was influenced by Sandra Gilbert and Susan Gubar's The Madwoman in the Attic (1979). The Madwoman in the Attic explores the "explosive anger" of nineteenth-century female English writers under their "decorous (proper) surfaces". This work, together with other feminist criticism of Austen, has made people see her as a woman writer. The interest these critics showed in Austen made people discover and study other women writers in Austen's time. Also, when Julia Prewitt Brown's Jane Austen's Novels: Social Change and Literary Form (1979), Margaret Kirkham's Jane Austen: Feminism and Fiction (1983), and Claudia L. Johnson's Jane Austen: Women, Politics and the Novel (1988) were printed, scholars were no longer able to argue that Austen was firmly "apolitical, or '". Kirkham, for example, said that Austen's thought and that of Mary Wollstonecraft were quite similar. She called them both "Enlightenment feminists". Johnson also places Austen in an eighteenth-century political tradition. However, she notes the influence Austen received from the political novels of the 1790s written by women.

In the late-1980s, 1990s, and 2000s ideological, postcolonial, and Marxist criticism dominated Austen studies. Generating heated debate, Edward Said devoted a chapter of his book Culture and Imperialism (1993) to Mansfield Park, arguing that the peripheral position of "Antigua" and the issue of slavery demonstrated that colonial oppression was an unspoken assumption of English society during the early nineteenth century. In Jane Austen and the Body: 'The Picture of Health', (1992) John Wiltshire explored the preoccupation with illness and health of Austen's characters. Wiltshire addressed current theories of "the body as sexuality", and more broadly how culture is "inscribed" on the representation of the body. There has also been a return to considerations of aesthetics with D. A. Miller's Jane Austen, or The Secret of Style (2003) which connects artistic concerns with queer theory.

Notes

Bibliography

Brontë, Charlotte. "Charlotte Brontë on Jane Austen". Jane Austen: The Critical Heritage, 1812–1870. Ed. B. C. Southam. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1968. . 126–28.
Brownstein, Rachel M. "Out of the Drawing Room, Onto the Lawn". Jane Austen in Hollywood. Eds. Linda Troost and Sayre Greenfield. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2001. . 13–21.
Cossy, Valérie and Diego Saglia. "Translations". Jane Austen in Context. Ed. Janet Todd. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. . 169–81.
Duffy, Joseph. "Criticism, 1814–1870". The Jane Austen Companion. Ed. J. David Grey. New York: Macmillan, 1986. . 93–101.
Fergus, Jan. "The Professional Woman Writer". The Cambridge Companion to Jane Austen. Eds. Edward Copeland and Juliet McMaster. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. . 12–31.
Galperin, William. "Austen's Earliest Readers and the Rise of the Janeites". Janeites: Austen's Disciples and Devotees. Ed. Deidre Lynch. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000. . 87–114.
Gilbert, Sandra and Susan Gubar. The Madwoman in the Attic: The Woman Writer and the Nineteenth-Century Literature Imagination. 1979. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984. .
Gilson, David. "Later Publishing History, with Illustrations". Jane Austen in Context. Ed. Janet Todd. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. . 121–59.
Grundy, Isobel. "Jane Austen and Literary Traditions". The Cambridge Companion to Jane Austen. Eds. Edward Copeland and Juliet McMaster. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. . 189–210.
Honan, Park. Jane Austen: A Life. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1987. .
Honan, Park. "Biographies". The Jane Austen Companion. Ed. J. David Grey. New York: Macmillan, 1986. . 18–23.
Johnson, Claudia L. "Austen cults and cultures". The Cambridge Companion to Jane Austen. Eds. Edward Copeland and Juliet McMaster. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. . 211–26.
Kelly, Gary. "Religion and politics". The Cambridge Companion to Jane Austen. Eds. Edward Copeland and Juliet McMaster. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. . 149–69.
Kirkham, Margaret. "Portraits". Jane Austen in Context. Ed. Janet Todd. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. . 68–79.
Lascelles, Mary. Jane Austen and Her Art. 1939. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1966.
Le Faye, Deirdre. Jane Austen: A Family Record. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. .
Le Faye, Deirdre. "Memoirs and Biographies". Jane Austen in Context. Ed. Janet Todd. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. . 51–58.
Lewes, George Henry. "Lewes: The great appraisal". Jane Austen: The Critical Heritage, 1812–1870. Ed. B. C. Southam. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1968. . 148–66.
Litz, A. Walton. "Criticism, 1939–1983". The Jane Austen Companion. Ed. J. David Grey. New York: Macmillan, 1986. . 110–17.
Litz, A. Walton. Jane Austen: A Study of Her Development. New York: Oxford University Press, 1965.
Lynch, Deidre. "Cult of Jane Austen". Jane Austen in Context. Ed. Janet Todd. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. . 111–20.
Lynch, Deidre. "Sequels". Jane Austen in Context. Ed. Janet Todd. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. . 160–68.
MacDonagh, Oliver. Jane Austen: Real and Imagined Worlds. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1991. .
Macdonald, Gina and Andrew Macdonald, eds. Jane Austen on Screen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. .
Pucci, Suzanne and James Thompson. "Introduction: The Jane Austen Phenomenon: Remaking the Past at the Millennium". Jane Austen and Co. Albany: Stage University of New York Press, 2003. . 1–12.
Rajan, Rajeswari. "Critical Responses, Recent". Jane Austen in Context. Ed. Janet Todd. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. . 101–10.
Scott, Walter. "Walter Scott, an unsigned review of Emma, Quarterly Review". Jane Austen: The Critical Heritage, 1812–1870. Ed. B. C. Southam. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1968. . 58–69.
Simpson, Richard. "Richard Simpson on Jane Austen". Jane Austen: The Critical Heritage, 1812–1870. Ed. B. C. Southam. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1968. . 241–65.
Southam, B. C., ed. Jane Austen: The Critical Heritage, 1812–1870. Vol. 1. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1968. .
Southam, B. C., ed. Jane Austen: The Critical Heritage, 1870–1940. Vol. 2. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1987. .
Southam, B. C. "Janeites and Anti-Janeites". The Jane Austen Companion. Ed. J. David Grey. New York: Macmillan, 1986. . 237–43.
Southam, B. C. "Criticism, 1870–1940". The Jane Austen Companion. Ed. J. David Grey. New York: Macmillan, 1986. . 102–09.
Stovel, Bruce. "Further Reading". The Cambridge Companion to Jane Austen. Eds. Edward Copeland and Juliet McMaster. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. . 227–43.
Todd, Janet. The Cambridge Introduction to Jane Austen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. .
Tomalin, Claire. Jane Austen: A Life. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1997. .
Troost, Linda. "The Nineteenth-Century Novel on Film: Jane Austen". The Cambridge Companion to Literature on Screen. Eds. Deborah Cartmell and Imelda Whelehan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. . 75–89.
Troost, Linda and Sayre Greenfield. "Introduction". Jane Austen in Hollywood. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2001. . 1–12.
Trott, Nicola. "Critical Responses, 1830–1970". Jane Austen in Context. Ed. Janet Todd. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. . 92–100.
Twain, Mark. "Mark Twain on Jane Austen". Jane Austen: The Critical Heritage, 1870–1940. Ed. B. C. Southam. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1987. . 232–33.
Waldron, Mary. "Critical Responses, early". Jane Austen in Context. Ed. Janet Todd. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. . 83–91.
Watt, Ian. "Introduction". Jane Austen: A Collection of Critical Essays''. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1963. .

Other websites
Chapman's Collected Works of Austen - Volume 1 at the Internet Archive
Chapman's Collected Works of Austen - Volume 2 at the Internet Archive
Chapman's Collected Works of Austen - Volume 4 at the Internet Archive
Chapman's Collected Works of Austen - Volume 5 at the Internet Archive

Jane Austen

Reception history of Jane Austen


Leptoquarks are hypothetical particles that would interact with quarks and leptons. Leptoquarks are color-triplet bosons that carry both lepton and baryon numbers. Their other quantum numbers, like spin, (fractional) electric charge and weak isospin vary among theories. Leptoquarks are encountered in various extensions of the Standard Model, such as technicolor theories, theories of quark–lepton unification (e.g., Pati–Salam model), or GUTs based on SU(5), SO(10), E6, etc. Leptoquarks are currently searched for in experiments ATLAS and CMS at the Large Hadron Collider in CERN.

In March 2021, there were some reports to hint at the possible existence of leptoquarks as an unexpected difference in how bottom quarks decay to create electrons or muons. The measurement has been made at a statistical significance of 3.1σ, which is well below the 5σ level that is usually considered a discovery.

Overview
Leptoquarks, if they exist, must be heavier than any of the currently known elementary particles, otherwise they would have already been discovered. Current experimental lower limits on leptoquark mass (depending on their type) are around  (i.e., about 1000 times the proton mass).
By definition, leptoquarks decay directly into a quark and a lepton or an antilepton. Like most of other elementary particles, they live for a very short time and are not present in ordinary matter.
However, they might be produced in high energy particle collisions such as in particle colliders or from cosmic rays hitting the Earth's atmosphere.

Like quarks, leptoquarks must carry color and therefore must also interact with gluons. This strong interaction of theirs is important for their production in hadron colliders (such as the Tevatron or LHC).

Simplified typology (according to electric charge)
Several kinds of leptoquarks, depending on their electric charge, can be considered:
 Q = :  Such a leptoquark decays into up-type quarks (up, charm, top) and charged antileptons (e+, μ+, τ+).
 Q = :  Such a leptoquark decays into up-type quarks and neutrinos (or antineutrinos), and/or to down-type quarks (down, strange, bottom) and charged antileptons.
 Q = −: Such a leptoquark decays into down-type quarks and (anti)neutrinos, and/or to up-type quark and a charged lepton.
 Q = −: Such a leptoquark decays into down-type quarks and charged leptons.

If a leptoquark with a given charge exists, its antiparticle with an opposite charge and which would decay into conjugated states to those listed above, must exist as well.

A leptoquark with given electric charge may, in general, interact with any combination of a lepton and quark with given electric charges (this yields up to  distinct interactions of a single type of a leptoquark). However, experimental searches usually assume that only one of those "channels" is possible. Especially, a Q =  charged leptoquark that decays into a positron and a down quark is called a "first generation leptoquark", a leptoquark that decays into strange quark and antimuon is a "second-generation leptoquark" etc. Nevertheless, most theories do not bring much of a theoretical motivation to believe that leptoquarks have only a single interaction and that the generation of the quark and lepton involved is the same.

Leptoquarks and proton decay
Existence of pure leptoquarks would not spoil the baryon number conservation. However, some theories allow (or require) the leptoquark to also have a diquark interaction vertex. For example, a Q =  charged leptoquark might also decay into two down-type antiquarks. Existence of such a leptoquark-diquark would cause protons to decay. The current limits on proton lifetime are strong probes of existence of these leptoquark-diquarks. These fields emerge in grand unification theories; for example, in the Georgi–Glashow SU(5) model, they are called X and Y bosons.

Experimental searches
In 1997, an excess of events at the HERA accelerator created a stir in the particle physics community, because one possible explanation of the excess was the involvement of leptoquarks. However, later studies performed both at HERA and at the Tevatron with larger samples of data ruled out this possibility for masses of the leptoquark up to around . Second generation leptoquarks were also looked for and not found.

Current best limits on leptoquarks are set by LHC, which has been searching for the first, second, and third generation of leptoquarks and some mixed-generation leptoquarks
and have raised the lower mass limit to about . For leptoquarks coupling to a neutrino and a quark to be proven to exist, the missing energy in particle collisions attributed to neutrinos would have to be excessively energetic. It is likely that the creation of leptoquarks would mimic the creation of massive quarks.

For leptoquarks coupling to electrons and up or down quarks, experiments of atomic parity violation and parity-violating electron scattering set the best limits.

The LHeC project to add an electron ring to collide bunches with the existing LHC proton ring is proposed as a project to look for higher-generation leptoquarks.

See also
 X and Y bosons
 Quark–lepton complementarity

References

Hypothetical elementary particles
Grand Unified Theory
Gauge bosons

Leptoquark