İngiliz Edebiyatı Tarihi

by Mîna Urgan

Mîna Urgan'ın İngiliz Edebiyatı Tarihi isimli beş ciltlik yapıtı Yapı Kredi Yayınları'nın Delta dizisinde tek cilt olarak yayımlandı. Bir büyük edebiyatın yüzlerce yılını bir roman lezzetiyle okutan bu beş cilt hâlâ işlevini ve amacını koruyor. Üstelik bu kez tek ciltte toplanan yapıt edebiyat meraklısı okura ulaşıyor.

Genres: Nonfiction, History, Reference, Turkish, Literary Criticism, Literature

1834 pages, Leather Bound

First published February 1, 2003

About the author

Mîna Urgan, İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi’nden emekli oldu. Thomas Malory, Henry Fielding, Balzac, Aldous Huxley, Graham Greene, William Golding, John Galsworthy ve Shakespeare’den çeviriler yaptı. Elizabeth Çağı Tiyatrosunda Soytarılar, Sir Thomas More ve Ütopya, Shakespeare üstüne iki ciltlik bir inceleme, Shakespeare ve Hamlet (1984) ile beş ciltlik İngiliz Edebiyatı Tarihi (1986-93) yanında, Virginia Woolf (YKY, 1995) ve D.H. Lawrence (YKY, 1997) incelemeleri yayımlandı. Bir Dinozorun Anıları’ndan (1998) sonra yazdığı Bir Dinozorun Gezileri de Yapı Kredi Yayınları arasından çıktı (1999). Ülkemizde “İngiliz edebiyatının duayeni” olan Prof. Dr. Mîna Urgan, 15 Haziran 2000’de 85 yaşında İstanbul’da öldü.

Reviews

[Berk · Rating 5 out of 5]

Uzun bir okuma sona erdi. Bu kitaptan İngiliz Edebiyatı tarihine geçmiş yazar/şairlerin %90'nın büyük yazar/şair olmadığını, şiirlerinin, oyunlarının pek öyle bir değeri olmadığını, ayrıca şiir yazanların bir kısmının yazdıklarını düzyazı ile, düzyazı ile yazanların da şiir olarak yazsalar daha iyi yazmış olacaklarını öğrendim. Bütün kitap boyunca tekrarlandığı için kitabın zihnime en kuvvetli işlenen vurgusu bu oldu. İlginç olan, Mina Urgan'ın beğenmediği yazar ve şairlerin Türkçe'de kitaplarının şimdiye kadar ya hiç ya da az sayıda yayınlanmış olması ya da son zamanlarda yayınlanmaya başlanmış olmaları.

Aslında 5 ayrı kitap YKY'nin delta serisinde tek ve oldukça kalın bir cilt olarak yayınlanmış. İlk iki ciltte Mina Urgan İngiliz edebiyat tarihinin ilk dönemlerini şekillendiren İngiliz tarihini de edebiyatı ile birlikte anlatıyor. Böylece bu bölümlerden İngiliz ulusunun adaya Keltlerin üstüne gelen Anglosaksonlar, Anglosaksonların üstüne gelen Normanlar şeklinde nasıl ortaya çıktığını da öğreniyoruz. İlerleyen kitaplarda giderek daha az İngiliz tarihine değiniliyor. İlk kitaplar birer edebiyat tarihi kitabının yanında İngiliz tarihinin kısa özetini anlatan kitaplar olarak da görülebilir.

Tolkien'in İş Bankası Yayınları biyografisinde Tolkien'in okuduğu Oxford'daki İngiliz Edebiyatı bölümünün, Chaucer öncesi ve sonrası modern dönem diye ikiye ayrıldığını Tolkien'in Chaucer öncesi Anglosakson edebiyatını seçtiğini, Tolkien'in Normanların İngiliz Edebiyatı'na etkisini hiç beğenmediğini okumuştum. Mina Urgan'ın kitabından Normanlar adayı istila ettikten sonra adaya getirdikleri kültürün İngiliz Edebiyatı'nın tabiatını nasıl değiştirdiğini öğrenme imkanı bulmuş oldum.

İlk ve ikinci ciltler diğer yazarların yanı sıra Elizabeth Çağı oyun yazarları ve Shakespeare, John Milton, Jonathan Swift, William Blake ve romantikler Wordsworth, Coleridge, Shelley, Keats, Byron gibi yazar/şairleri içeriyor.

Üçüncü cilt İngiliz Edebiyatında romanın başlangıcı konusu ile açıldı. Dönemin yazarlarını ele aldı. Bu bölümün ikinci yarısından itibaren kısaca Gotik edebiyat ve yazarlarına değindikten sonra Viktorya Çağına giriş yaptı.

Tam beklediğim gibi Viktorya Çağı bölümünde okuma hızım dibe vurdu. Bu bölümden sağ çıkabilmek için kitabın yanına eşzamanlı okuduğum iki tane Warcraft kitabı dahil ettim.

Son cillte Viktorya Çağına tepki duyan yazarlara geçtiğimde, kitapta Swinburne ile ilgili yazıldığı gibi: "İngiltere'nin yağmurlu ve sisli havasında rengarenk kanatlarını bir süre sergilemiş tropikal bir kuşa benzetilen Charles Algernon Swinburne...", yeniden ışığa çıkmış gibi oldum. Kitabın son bölümü Oscar Wilde ve estetikçilerde zaten artık başka bir dünyaya geçmiştik

Son not olarak, dikkatimi çeken bir nokta, Mina Urgan'ın bir edebiyat tarihi kitabından bekleneceği gibi kitapta sıklıkla geçen ahlaki meseleleri ele alırken kullandığı değerler. Bu değerlerin bir kısmının günümüzde bir miktar outdated kaldığını hissettim. Ahlaki meseleleri değerlendirirken kitabın yazarını her zaman takip edemedim.

Bunca yıldır baskısı bulunmasına, çok sayıda yeni baskı yapmış olmasına rağmen kitaptaki imla hatalarının sayısı şaşırtıcı. Neredeyse iki üç sayfada bir imla hatası ile karşılaştım. Kitabın kalınlığına bölündüğünde bütün kitapta yaklaşık 500-600 imla hatası var demek. Bu imla hatalarından bazıları cümlenin anlamını zıttına çevirecek türden hatalar. Bununla birlikte kitaptaki yazıların ve cilt baskısının kalitesinden, okurken aldığım zevkin yüksekliğinden olsa gerek bu imla hataları okurken bu sayıda imla hatası bulunduran diğer kitaplardaki gibi rahatsız etmedi.

[Eseula · Rating 4 out of 5]

Azimle ama araya boşluklar bırakarak, başka kitaplar katarak sonunda bitirdim. Okuduğum pek çok kitap hakkında detaylı incelemeleri okumak şahane bir şeymiş, kitapları okurken dikkat etmediğim, düşünmediğim detaylara dönüp bakmamı sağladı, çok farklı açılardan görmemi sağladı. Ama en güzeli sadece yazdıklarını okuduğum insanların hayat hikayelerini okuyarak ete kemiğe büründüklerini gördüm gözlerimin önünde. Bence şahane bir kitap bu. Ama birazcık zorlayabiliyor.

[Selena · Rating 5 out of 5]

Bible.

[mrv · Rating 4 out of 5]

1 yıldızı alıntılarda kaynak verilmemesinden kırdım.

[Sefa YILMAZ · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have never believed that studying literature should mean simply memorizing authors, historical dates, literary periods, and the characteristics of particular movements. If literature were nothing more than a chronological collection of texts, literary history would hardly be distinguishable from an extensive catalogue. What interests me is how literature develops through its relationship with language, politics, religion, class, gender, and the changing conditions of human experience. Mîna Urgan's İngiliz Edebiyatı Tarihi is particularly valuable because it approaches English literature as a historical and cultural tradition that demands interpretation rather than passive admiration. Nevertheless, its achievements should not prevent us from questioning the assumptions upon which any literary history is constructed.

As someone with an academic background in English Language and Literature, I find Urgan's work especially significant because it demonstrates the difference between possessing literary knowledge and developing a critical relationship with that knowledge. A textbook can provide information about Shakespeare, Chaucer, Milton, or the Victorian novelists without necessarily explaining why their works matter beyond their established reputations. Literary criticism requires something more demanding. It asks us to consider how a work produces meaning, how its historical circumstances shape its possibilities, and how its formal and ideological contradictions complicate the interpretations we impose upon it.

One of the qualities I appreciate most about Urgan is her willingness to make critical judgments. Literary histories sometimes create the impression that inclusion within an established tradition automatically guarantees artistic excellence. I disagree with that assumption. Historical importance and literary achievement are related, but they are not identical. A writer may influence generations without producing works of exceptional artistic depth, just as a neglected author may possess qualities that established criticism has failed to recognize. Urgan does not always pretend otherwise. Her evaluations give the book an intellectual personality that many supposedly objective surveys lack.

However, this raises a question that follows me throughout the work: who possesses the authority to determine literary value? The canon is not an innocent collection of texts whose greatness has been established beyond disagreement. It emerges through educational institutions, publishing practices, cultural hierarchies, translation, preservation, and successive generations of criticism. Writers become central partly because of their achievements, but also because their works continue to be taught and interpreted. The distinction between a canonical author and an overlooked one cannot always be explained through artistic quality alone. Literary history is therefore also a history of the mechanisms through which certain works acquire authority.

This becomes particularly important when examining the earliest periods of English literature. The relationship between Old English writing, the Norman Conquest, and the development of Middle English demonstrates that literary traditions do not evolve independently of political power. Language itself becomes a historical battleground. Changes in patronage, education, social organization, and cultural prestige influence not only what people write but also whose forms of expression are considered legitimate. I appreciate Urgan's attention to historical context because literary works cannot be separated entirely from the institutions and circumstances that make their production possible.

Yet historical contextualization should never become a substitute for close reading. Knowing the political circumstances surrounding a writer does not automatically explain how a literary work achieves its effects. Form matters. Narrative perspective matters. Imagery, rhythm, irony, ambiguity, and the relationship between what a text says and how it says it deserve sustained attention. This is one of my principal reservations about comprehensive literary histories, including Urgan's. Their ambition to cover centuries of writing inevitably creates tension between historical explanation and detailed textual analysis. A work can be described extensively without its distinctively literary qualities receiving adequate attention.

I find this particularly relevant to Shakespeare. His significance cannot be established simply by describing his plots or locating him within Elizabethan drama. What makes Hamlet, King Lear, or Othello intellectually compelling is the relationship between language, psychological contradiction, political authority, and the instability of moral judgment. Their characters frequently resist the conclusions readers wish to impose upon them. A literary history must summarize such works, but the summary should remain an invitation to interpretation rather than a replacement for it.

I have also always been suspicious of literary periodization when it begins to resemble an unquestionable law. The Renaissance does not simply disappear so that another intellectual movement can begin. Romanticism, the Enlightenment, and Victorian literature cannot be understood as completely separate systems of thought. Historical categories are retrospective constructions that allow us to recognize patterns within developments that were rarely experienced as coherent transitions by the people living through them. They are indispensable tools, but they should not become substitutes for the complexities of historical experience.

The same concern applies to the development of the English novel. Writers such as Defoe, Richardson, and Fielding can be placed within a recognizable history of emerging prose fiction, but their differences are as important as their similarities. The relationship between individual identity, economic circumstances, social mobility, and moral responsibility develops differently across their works. I find it intellectually unproductive to describe literary history as though every generation simply improved upon the artistic limitations of its predecessors. Literature changes, but change does not automatically constitute progress.

Urgan's treatment of literary movements provides a substantial foundation for understanding these developments. However, I think the most rewarding approach is to use her historical categories as starting points rather than final explanations. A Romantic poet should not be reduced to imagination and nature, just as a Victorian novelist should not be understood exclusively through industrialization and social reform. Individual works frequently challenge the assumptions associated with their own periods. Their artistic significance often emerges precisely from those contradictions.

Another question that interests me is the relationship between literary history and national identity. The expression "English literature" may appear straightforward, but the tradition it describes is culturally heterogeneous. Its development involves different languages, political formations, religious conflicts, and geographical identities. The distinction between English and British literature becomes especially important when considering Scottish, Welsh, and Irish contributions, as well as the expanding influence of colonial encounters. A national literary history provides a useful organizational framework, but it can also create an artificial impression of cultural continuity.

From a postcolonial perspective, literary history must also examine the relationship between cultural achievement and imperial power. British literature developed alongside systems of trade, colonial expansion, and economic inequality that influenced both literary production and the circulation of texts. I do not believe that the artistic significance of a literary work disappears because its historical environment was shaped by exploitation. However, neither should aesthetic admiration require us to overlook those conditions. A serious literary history should be capable of examining formal achievement while questioning the structures of power that helped make particular forms of cultural authority possible.

The representation of women within literary history raises similar questions. The issue is not merely whether important female authors have been included within the canon. Inclusion alone does not resolve the problem of how literary value has historically been defined. Women's experiences, educational opportunities, access to publication, and participation in intellectual life have never been independent of social expectations concerning gender. Consequently, a history that recognizes only the achievements of women who successfully entered established institutions risks overlooking the structural conditions that prevented others from doing so.

I would not criticize Urgan for failing to anticipate every development in contemporary feminist, postcolonial, or cultural criticism. Such criticism would ignore the historical circumstances of her own scholarship. Nevertheless, respecting an academic contribution does not mean treating its methodology as permanently sufficient. Scholarly traditions develop because established interpretations can be reconsidered through new questions. I admire Urgan's achievement without believing that her understanding of the literary canon should determine the final boundaries of English literary studies.

What makes this particularly interesting is that Urgan herself does not write as though criticism requires the complete disappearance of the critic. Her preferences, judgments, and distinctive prose create a recognizable intellectual presence. I appreciate this because I have never considered absolute impersonality a necessary condition of academic credibility. Every critic approaches literature through particular experiences, assumptions, and intellectual commitments. The important question is not whether those commitments exist, but whether they can be examined and defended through meaningful argument.

Nevertheless, the confidence of an experienced scholar can sometimes become restrictive. There are moments when I would prefer greater distance between Urgan's interpretation and the possibilities offered by the literary work itself. A text that appears unsuccessful according to one critical tradition may become significant when examined through another. An apparently minor character may reveal contradictions overlooked by a more conventional interpretation. I therefore regard Urgan's judgments as arguments worth engaging with rather than conclusions that should be accepted because of her authority.

One of her greatest achievements, however, is her ability to communicate extensive scholarly knowledge without making accessibility appear incompatible with intellectual seriousness. Academic writing sometimes confuses unnecessary complexity with sophistication. Difficult subjects may require specialized terminology, but difficulty should emerge from the problem being examined rather than from an artificial desire to appear impressive. Urgan demonstrates that literary scholarship can remain readable, engaging, and intellectually substantial. Her prose creates the impression of encountering someone who genuinely wants readers to understand literature rather than merely admire established authorities.

This accessibility is particularly significant within Turkish intellectual life. Producing such a comprehensive history of English literature in Turkish is itself an important scholarly contribution. It allows readers to encounter a foreign literary tradition through their own language while developing the historical knowledge necessary for further study. I do not believe that reading literary works in translation can always replace engagement with their original language, especially when form and linguistic ambiguity are central to interpretation. Nevertheless, access to scholarship should not depend exclusively upon linguistic privilege. Urgan's work helps make a substantial body of literary knowledge available to a wider readership.

I also think it is important to recognize the limits of the book's chronological scope. Despite its extraordinary length, Urgan's five-volume history reaches the end of the nineteenth century rather than providing a comprehensive account of twentieth-century English literature. This matters because modernism, the world wars, changing conceptions of subjectivity, and the development of postcolonial writing fundamentally transformed literary production and criticism. Her separate studies of Virginia Woolf and D. H. Lawrence offer valuable contributions, but they do not make this particular history a complete account of modern and contemporary English literature.

However, I would not confuse incompleteness with failure. No literary history can include every writer, text, genre, and intellectual movement. Writing literary history necessarily involves selection. What matters is whether those selections create a meaningful framework for further inquiry. Urgan's achievement lies not in offering the final interpretation of English literature, but in constructing a substantial foundation from which readers can begin developing their own questions.

For me, this is the most important reason to read İngiliz Edebiyatı Tarihi critically rather than reverentially. Urgan's knowledge deserves respect, but respect should never require agreement. When she praises a writer, I want to understand the standards behind that praise. When she criticizes another, I want to return to the text and consider whether an alternative interpretation might be justified. The value of literary criticism does not depend upon eliminating disagreement. It depends upon making disagreement more informed, precise, and intellectually responsible.

I would give this work five stars, not because I regard it as an exhaustive or methodologically unquestionable history, but because its intellectual ambition, accessibility, distinctive critical voice, and contribution to literary education are extraordinary. Its limitations are real: the unavoidable selectivity of its canon, the tension between historical explanation and formal analysis, and its restricted chronological scope. Yet these limitations do not erase the significance of what Urgan accomplished.

What remains with me is the recognition that literary history should never be considered a completed account of the past. Every generation returns to earlier works with different questions, methods, and assumptions about what deserves attention. Some interpretations become less convincing, overlooked writers acquire new significance, and familiar texts reveal contradictions that previous critical traditions did not consider important.

What I value most about Mîna Urgan is not that she provides unquestionable answers about English literature, but that she demonstrates how much knowledge, historical awareness, and critical attention are necessary before our own judgments can become meaningful. A literary tradition should be understood before it is challenged, but understanding it should never prevent us from challenging it.

Ultimately, İngiliz Edebiyatı Tarihi is valuable not because it tells readers what they must think, but because it provides the intellectual foundation from which independent thinking can begin. For someone interested in literature as an academic discipline rather than simply a collection of celebrated books, I consider that an achievement worthy of five stars.

[moi, k.y.a.]

@436, şu ara vaktim olmuyor. devam edeceğim

[Yeliz Ö.]

Beş kitabın bir arada sunulduğu bir baskı. Kalınlığı göz korkutsa da her gün bir miktar okuyarak tahmin edilenden daha kısa sürede bitebilecek bir kitap. (Ben ara verdim.) Okunanlar arasındaki bağlantıları, devamlılığı daha iyi görmek için de seri bir şekilde okumak daha faydalı olacaktır. Türkçe’de böyle bir kaynak olması güzel.

Urgan incelediği metinlerin olay örgüsünü, içeriğini gayet detaylı anlatıyor. Okuduğunuz ve okumadığınız kitaplar ve yazarlar hakkında hem genel hem detaylı bilgi sahibi oluyorsunuz. Bu bizi şoke eder, bunu anlamayız, bunu kabul ederiz, bunu etmeyiz, gibi cümleleriyle Urgan’ın kişisel kesin yargıları göze çarpıyor. Giriş’te Güven Turan’ın belirttiği gibi “Bugünün edebiyat tarihçilerini de eleştirmenlerini de hop oturtup hop kaldıracak bir yaklaşım sergiliyor kısacası.”. (9) Urgan’ın kendi bakış açısı da aldığı eğitimle, hayat tarzıyla, bulunduğu çevreyle şekillenmiştir tabii.

Kitabın baskısı kaliteli. 2003 yılında Delta serisinin ikinci kitabı olarak basılmış. Kalın bir kitap olmasına rağmen çok ağır değil. Kitap bu şekilde toparlanırken bir son okuma yapılmadı mı acaba? Yazım ve imla hataları göz ardı edilebilecek gibi değil. Alıntılar için kaynak da eklenmemiş.

picaro - picara

[Murat Can · Rating 5 out of 5]

aşırı eğiticidir, mümkün olsa cebimde taşıyıp her yere götürmek isteyeceğim cinstendir. the good book.

[Elif Kutukcuoglu · Rating 5 out of 5]

Review soon.

[Arda · Rating 5 out of 5]

AKADEMİSYEN OLACAĞIM

[Tuba Toraman · Rating 5 out of 5]

Başucu kitaplarımdan ❤️