- Fuad Koprulu's article, which seeks to propose a method for studying Turkish Literature, mentions a variety of disciplinary methods ranging from history and sociology to the positive sciences. In relation to these disciplines, how does Koprulu formulate his own method for the study of the Turkish literary history.
-What are the four challenging aspects that a scholar can face while studying literary history?
- How would you describe Koprulu's proposed methodology for the literary studies? What are the seven basic steps of his method? How do the terms 'text', 'context', 'author' and 'reader' fit into his proposed method? Among these, which one is more emphasized in his methodology?
- Koprulu emphasizes the significance of studying a literary history in relation to the history of politics and civilization (Koprulu, 22). Is it possible to consider his attempt at suggesting a 'method' for literary studies as part of the Turkish nationalist project?
- How does this proposed methodology relate to the Turkish Republican view of the Ottoman cultural heritage ?
- What is Koprulu's approach to classical Turkish literature? Is it possible to trace his approach back to the 'Tanzimat' period (Namik Kemal, Ziya Pasha) (Altug's article)?
- In terms of foreign influence on literature(European or Persian & Arabic) how does Namik Kemal, Koprulu, and Tanpinar criticize the classical and Tanzimat periods, and according to them what are the essential features of the 'new' literature?
- How does Koprulu's search for an authentic Turkish literature end up? (Kuru, 34) According to Koprulu what is the 'new' literature?
- How would you compare Tanpinar's methodology which is apparent in his introduction to The 19th Century Literary History with Koprulu's proposed 'methodology'?
-Sevim
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment