The Quasi-Real World of Fiction and the Cognitive Value Of

Home , Roman Ingarden

The Quasi-Real World of Fiction and The Cognitive Value of Literature in Roman Ingarden’s Philosophy of Literature* Murat ÇELİK** Makale Geliş / Recieved: 01.10.2018 Makale Kabul / Accepted: 01.11.2018 Abstract Literary works of art present us a fictional world in which the objects and states of affairs are purely intentional. These objects and state of affairs do not have a correlative in an ontic sphere that is independent from the work itself. However, that does not mean that the sentences in a literary artwork do not have any assertive power. The predicative sentences in a literary artwork assert something in a particular manner. Hence, literary works of art have a cognitive value. They say something to us about the world we live in, about our lives, our being on this world etc. But they do not teach us about the world in a straightforward way by referring directly to the extra-textual world. Rather they teach us by presenting us their own world; the quasi-real world of the text. In this paper I will try to reveal the particular manner by which the literary artworks help us to better understand our disposition through the world. I will achieve this aim by focusing on the structural and functional differences between the literary work of art and the factual work in Roman Ingarden’s literary theory. Keywords: Roman Ingarden, Quasi-real, Literary Work of Art, Scientific Work, Truth-value.

* This article is an extended version of the second part of the first chapter of my unpublis- hed PhD dissertation entitled “An Ethics of Reading: Ingarden, Iser and Ricoeur” written at University of Sussex in 2017. ** Dr., Ankara Üniversity, Faculty of Languages, History and Geography, Department of Philosophy. [email protected]. Künye: ÇELİK, Murat. (2018). The Quasi-Real world of Fiction and The Cognitive Value of Literature in Roman Ingarden’s Philosophy of Literature. Dört Öge, 14, 45-62. http://dergipark.gov.tr/dortoge

45 846

veRoman Madalya Ingarden’in(1319-1320), 10 Hanedân-ıEdebiyat Osmâni Felsefesinde Nişân ve İmtiyâz Kurmacanın Madalyası (1311- 1334),Quasi-Gerçek 17 Teba-yı Şâhâne Dünyası Mecîdî veEsâmî Edebiyatın (1321-1332), Kognitif 30 Altın İmtiyâz Değeri Madalyası (1309-1320), 40 Madalya Esâmî (1899-1902) Defterleri. İngiliz UlusalÖz Arşivi: FO 195/1720; FO 195/1883; FO 195/1477; FO 195/1368; FO 195/ 1932;Yazınsal FO 195/1976;sanat yapıtları FO 195/1305, bize nesnelerin FO 195/1369; ve durumların FO 195/ saf 1448; yönelimsel FO 195/1306; olduğu kurmacaFO dünyalar195/ 1545. sunar. Bu nesne ve durumların yapıtın kendisinden bağımsız bir ontik Amerikanalanda karşılıkları Misyoner yoktur. Arşivi Fakat: 640, 641,bu durum 642, 643,644, yazınsal 645, sanat 646, yapıtını 647, 648, oluşturan 651, 652, cümlelerin 653, 654, bir iddia655, 660,ortaya 661, koyma 66 2, 663. gücünden Reeller. mahrum oldukları anlamına gelmez. Yazınsal yapıtı oluşturan yüklemcil cümleler bir şey iddia ederler, fakat bunu çok özel bir şekilde Sâlnameler: Salname-i Vilâyet-i Haleb: 1320. yaparlar. Dolayısıyla yazınsal yapıtların kognitif bir değeri olduğunu söyleyebiliriz. Bu Şer’îyyeyapıtlar Sicili:bize içinde 23 Recep yaşadığımız 1293- 25 dünya,Şaban 1296bizim tarihli bu dünya Urfa Şer’îyyeüzerinde Sicili bulunmaklığımız ve Şanlıurfa,bu dünyadaki Yukarı hayatlarımız Telfidan Köyü hakkında saha araştırması. bir şey söylerler. Ne var ki yazınsal yapıtların Adıvar,bize dünya H. E.hakkında (2005). öğretmeMehmet şekilleri Kalpaklı metin G. T. dışı (Haz..), dünyaya Mor direkSalkımlı göndermede Ev. İstanbul: bulunarak, Özgür bu dünyayı doğrudan işaret ederek olmaz. Metinler bize kendi dünyalarını, metnin Yayınları. quasi-gerçek dünyasını sunarak kendi dünyamız hakkında bir şeyler söylerler. Bu yazıda Bayraktar,amacım yazınsal H. (2007). metinlerin Tanzimattan bu çok Cumhuriyet’e özel gösterme Urfa şeklini Elazığ: açmaya Fırat Üniversitesi çalışmak olacak. Ortadoğu Bu amacaAraştırmaları ulaşmak için Merkezi. Roman Ingarden’in edebiyat felsefesinde yazınsal yapıt ile olgusal Bingöl,yapıt arasındaki S. (2005). yapısal Osmanlı ve işlevsel Mahkemelerinde farklılıklara Reform odaklanacağım. ve Cerîde-yi Mehâkim’deki Üst MahkemeAnahtar Kararları. Kelimeler: Tarih IncelemeleriRoman Ingarden, Dergisi, XX Quasi-Gerçek, (19), 19-38. Yazınsal Sanat Çadırcı,Yapıtı, Olgusal M. (1997). Yapıt, Tanzimat Gerçeklik Döneminde değeri Anadolu Kentleri’nin Sosyal ve Ekonomik Yapısı. Ankara: TTK. Deringil, S. (2002). İktidarın Sembolleri ve İdeoloji II. Abdülhamit Dönemi ( 1876-1909) (Çev. I. Poetic Works and Other Kinds of Linguistic Discourse G. Ç. Güven). İstanbul: YKY. Fatma AliyeWhen Hanım. using (1995). the term Ahmed “literary Cevdet work,”Paşa ve zamanıIngarden. İstanbul: has in Bedir.mind all linguistic works, including scientific works.1 In order to distinguish works of literary art (po- Foucault, M. (2006). Deliliğin Tarihi ( Çev. M. A. Kılıçbay). Ankara: İmge. etic works) from other kinds of linguistic discourse, he uses the term “literary work Ginzburg,of art,” saying C. (2011). that Peynirthese veworks kurtlar “lay (Çev. claim, A. Gür). by virtueİstanbul: of Metis.their characteristic basic Kenanoğlu,structure and M. particularM. (2007). attainments,Nizâmiye mahkemeleri. to being ‘works Islâm Ansiklopedisi, of art’ and enabling XXXIII, 185-188.the reader Kodaman,to apprehend B. (1987). an aesthetic II. Abdülhamid object Devri of a particularDoğu Anadolu kind” Politikası (Ingarden. Ankara: 1973a Türk, 7). Kültürünü In this paper,Araştırma my aim Enstitüsü.is to lay out the quasi-real nature of various kinds of sentences in a Kürkçüoğlu,literary work C. of (2008). art. I Şanlıurfa will start 1850-1950 my investigation. Şanlıurfa: by ŞURKAV. presenting the functional and structural differences between the literary work of art and factual work. Later, with Nicault, C. (2001). Kudüs 1850-1948 (Çev. E. S. Vali). İstanbul: İletişim. the help of this distinction, we will be able to consider the structure of the literary Ortaylı,work of İ. art (1983). more Osmanlı clearly imparatorluğu’nunas a quasi-real construction. En Uzun Yüzyılı. İstanbul: Hil. Seyitdanlıoğlu, M. (1996). Tanzimat Devri’nde Meclis-i vâlâ. Ankara: TTK. For Ingarden, there are two major areas of difference between the literary Tanpınar,work of artH. (2001).and the XIX. scientific Asırda Türkwork. Edebiyatı The first Tarihi difference. İstanbul: is Çağlayan in the function Kitabevi. of the Urfa.two kinds (1984). of Yurt work. Ansiklopedisi, Scientific X, work 7367-7389. mainly aims to transmit knowledge of objects Zürcher, E. (1999). Modernleşen Türkiye’nin Tarihi (Çev. Y. S. Gönen). İstanbul: İletişim 1 JeffYayınları. Mittscherling notes that “the Polish term naukowym, which Ingarden employs here, does not bear the same connotation as the English ‘scientific.’ In Polish, any serious research is regarded as ‘scientific,’ including sorts of research that English speakers would not refer to as such – e.g., the present study of Ingarden” (Mittscherling 1996, 158).

Dört Öge-YılÖge-Yıl: 4-Sayı 7 Sayı: 8-Ekim 14 Aralık 2015 2018 The Quasi-Real World of Fiction and The Cognitive Value... 47 and states of affairs that exist independently from the work or the conscious ac- tivities of the author or reader. “An essential feature of the scientific work is that it is intended to fix, contain, and transmit to others the result of the scientific investigation in some area in order to enable scientific research to be continued and developed by its readers” (Ingarden 1973a, 146). Whereas “the literary work of art does not serve to further scientific knowledge but to embody in its concretization certain values of a very specific kind, which we usually call ‘aesthetic’ values” (In- garden 1973a, 147). Hence, expressing scientific or historical truths, philosophical or psychological insights are not an essential function of literary works of art. That does not mean that such functions are prohibited in these works, rather, if they occur in a literary work of art, they can only be counted as secondary functions and do not contribute to the work as a work of art. Hence the aspects of a literary work of art that do not directly contribute to the aesthetic cognition of the work (constitution of an aesthetic object) are either irrelevant to the work as a work of art or, if they are too prominent, constitute a flaw in the work. Restricting the function of literary works of art in such a way may seem problematic, especially when we consider many works in the history of literature that are mixed in the sense that they claim to be both works of art and instructive for the reader, or works which were once treated as scientific works but later as literary works. Gregory G. Colomb defines the problem in the following words:

Thus polemic, instruction, panegyric, satire, and all information-bearing elements are in this view out of place in the work of art. Many objections to this conclusion can be raised on purely empirical grounds. There are, for example, works such as Burton’s Anatomy of Melancholy whose literary status has changed through time, from science to art. There are also the many ars poetica’s – Horace’s, Vida’s, Scaliger’s, Boileau’s, Pope’s – which are intentionally and in fact both art and science. Or there are the innumerable didactic works throughout all of literary history, whose instructional aspect, usually central to the author’s own view of his purpose, Ingarden would have to consider irrelevant to art. And what of works such as Thoreau’s Walden, Henry Adams’s Education, or Mailer’s Armies of the Night? Ingarden must have a work be one or the other, and literary history presents too many works that seem somehow mixed. (Colomb 1976, 9)

Before focusing on these problems, I believe that it is necessary to scrutini- ze the second area of difference between the literary work of art and the scientific work. These are the structural differences between the two kinds of works that appear as the correlative of the functional difference mentioned above. The first difference appears in the stratified structure of both kinds of works. Like a literary

Dört Öge-Yıl: 7 Sayı: 14 Aralık 2018 848

ve Madalya (1319-1320), 10 Hanedân-ı Osmâni Nişân ve İmtiyâz2 Madalyası (1311- work of art, a scientific work also has a stratified structure. However, there are 1334), 17 Teba-yı Şâhâne Mecîdî Esâmî (1321-1332), 30 Altın İmtiyâz Madalyası some significant differences between the stratified structures of the two. The first (1309-1320), 40 Madalya Esâmî (1899-1902) Defterleri. difference can be observed in the stratum of schematized aspects. For Ingarden, İngilizthis stratum Ulusal is Arşivi essential: FO 195/1720;for literary FO works 195/1883; of art FO in 195/1477;order for FOthe 195/1368;objects presented FO 195/ in the1932; work FOto be195/1976; apprehended FO 195/1305, by the reader FO 195/1369; intuitively. FO Whereas 195/ 1448; for FOthe 195/1306;scientific work,FO the 195/ presence 1545. of such aspects is not essential, “they need not be present in it Amerikanat all” (Ingarden Misyoner 1973a Arşivi, 151).: 640, Their 641, 642,appearance 643,644, in 645, a scientific 646, 647, 648,work 651, depends 652, 653, on 654, the object655, on which660, 661, the 66 work 2, 663. focuses. Reeller. If the work is about the objects that are percei- Sâlnameler:vable by the Salname-i senses (e.g. Vilâyet-i a scholarly Haleb: work 1320. on a specific work of art), the aspects can perform an auxiliary role by helping the reader bringing the work in question into Şer’îyye Sicili: 23 Recep 1293- 25 Şaban 1296 tarihli Urfa Şer’îyye Sicili appearance. Whereas if the object of the work is not perceivable (e.g. in some areas Şanlıurfa,of mathematical Yukarı Telfidan investigation), Köyü saha the araştırması. stratum of aspects does not usually appear in Adıvar,the work. H. EvenE. (2005). in the Mehmet former Kalpaklı case, these G. T. aspects (Haz..), are Mor dispensable Salkımlı Ev and. İstanbul: can cease Özgür to exist Yayınları.without damaging the work. In some cases, they can even disturb the reader Bayraktar,in gaining H. knowledge (2007). Tanzimattan about the Cumhuriyet’eproblem of Urfathe workElazığ: and Fırat in Üniversitesisuch a case Ortadoğu they are to beAraştırmaları removed or Merkezi.at least not actualised by the reader. As a result, scientific works Bingöl,are stratified S. (2005). structures Osmanlı that Mahkemelerinde are essentially composed Reform ve of Cerîde-yi three strata. Mehâkim’deki These are Üstthe strataMahkeme of verbal Kararları.sounds, semanticTarih Incelemeleri units, and Dergisi, portrayed XX (19), objectivities. 19-38. Çadırcı, AnotherM. (1997). important Tanzimat structuralDöneminde differenceAnadolu Kentleri’nin can be observed Sosyal ve Ekonomikin the relation Yapısı. betweenAnkara: the TTK.linguistic strata and the quasi-visual strata. In Ingarden’s theory, the Deringil,stratum ofS. (2002).portrayed İktidarın objectivities Sembolleri is veaesthetically İdeoloji II. Abdülhamit the most Dönemiimportant ( 1876-1909) of the literary (Çev. workG. of Ç.art. Güven). All other İstanbul: strata YKY. are organised around this stratum; hence the linguistic strata are only a passage for the apprehension of portrayed objectivities on the part Fatma Aliye Hanım. (1995). Ahmed Cevdet Paşa ve zamanı. İstanbul: Bedir. of the reader. However, in the scientific work the stratum of portrayed objectivities Foucault,is almost M. transparent, (2006). Deliliğin leaving Tarihi the ( centralÇev. M. role A. Kılıçbay). to the linguistic Ankara: İmge. strata, especially to Ginzburg,the stratum C. of(2011). semantic Peynir units ve kurtlar – for (Çev. the aimA. Gür). of a İstanbul:scientific Metis. work is not to direct the Kenanoğlu,attention of M. the M. reader(2007). toNizâmiye the world mahkemeleri. of portrayed Islâm objectivities, Ansiklopedisi, XXXIIIbut “directing, 185-188. the reader’s intention, realized in the understanding of the sentences (judgements), to Kodaman, B. (1987). II. Abdülhamid Devri Doğu Anadolu Politikası. Ankara: Türk Kültürünü the objects which are transcendent to the work” (Ingarden 1973a, 148). In such a Araştırma Enstitüsü. situation, the portrayed objectivities are immediately identified with the ontically Kürkçüoğlu,autonomous C. objects (2008). theyŞanlıurfa represent. 1850-1950 Hence,. Şanlıurfa: in a scientific ŞURKAV. work portrayed objects Nicault,are only C. bi-products (2001). Kudüs through 1850-1948 which (Çev. the E. sentenceS. Vali). İstanbul: intentions İletişim. only pass, as if they Ortaylı,were transparent. İ. (1983). Osmanlı imparatorluğu’nun En Uzun Yüzyılı. İstanbul: Hil. Seyitdanlıoğlu, M. (1996). Tanzimat Devri’nde Meclis-i vâlâ. Ankara: TTK. 2 Ingarden presents the literary work as a complex, stratified object. The literary work is a many layered Tanpınar,formation H. composed(2001). XIX. of four Asırda strata: Türk “(a) EdebiyatıThe stratum Tarihi of verbal. İstanbul: sounds Çağlayanand phonetic Kitabevi. formations and Urfa.phenomena (1984). Yurt of aAnsiklopedisi, higher order; X,(b) 7367-7389.the stratum of semantic units: of sentence meanings and the meanings of whole groups of sentences; (c) the stratum of schematized aspects, in which objects Zürcher,of various E. (1999).kinds portrayed Modernleşen in the workTürkiye’nin come to Tarihi appearance; (Çev. and Y. (d)S. theGönen). stratum İstanbul: of the objectivities İletişim portrayedYayınları. in the intentional states of affairs projected by the sentences” (Ingarden 1973, 12). Here, I will group the four strata of the literary work under two headings: the stratum of verbal sounds and the stratum of semantic units constitute the linguistic strata of the work, while the stratum of schematized aspects and the stratum of objectivities constitute the quasi-visual strata.

Dört Öge-YılÖge-Yıl: 4-Sayı 7 Sayı: 8-Ekim 14 Aralık 2015 2018 The Quasi-Real World of Fiction and The Cognitive Value... 49

Another difference lays in the aesthetic value of the work and aesthetically relevant qualities that may appear in the various strata of the work. It is obvious that the aim of a scientific paper is not to lead the reader to an aesthetic concretization of the work that results in the constitution of an aesthetic object. As a consequence, the aesthetically relevant qualities need not be present in the scientific work. Even if they are present, they represent a dispensable luxury and do not contribute to the main function of the work. “In a literary work of art, on the other hand, these qualities constitute not only an essential element but in fact the most important element in the work of art as brought to aesthetic concretization” (In- garden 1973a, 151). A very similar distinction holds for the metaphysical qualities.3 Although they play a significant role in the aesthetic concretization of a literary work of art, in a scientific work they are dispensable and might be distracting if they do occasionally reveal themselves.

II. Seriousness and Responsibility: Genuine Judgements, Pure Affirmative Propositions, and Quasi-Judgements All these differences are necessary consequences of the main structural difference between the literary work of art and the scientific work; the qualitative difference between judicative sentences in the work: “All assertions in a scientific work are judgements. They may not all be true, they need not all be true, but all claim to be true... By contrast, literary works of art (or at least works that claim to be works of art) contain no genuine judgements... they contain only quasi- judgements, which make no claim to being true, not even if their content out of context could be judged with regard to its truth value” (Ingarden 1973a, 147). Not only judicative sentences, but also all other types of sentences (e.g. interrogative, imperative, and exclamatory sentences) undergo a similar modification in literary

3 For Ingarden, the idea of the literary work of art can sometimes appear in a form of metaphysical quality. Metaphysical qualities such as “the sublime, the tragic, the dreadful, the shocking, the inexplicable, the demonic, the holy, the sinful, the sorrowful, the indescribable brightness of good fortune, as well as the grotesque, the charming, the light, the peaceful, etc.” are very rarely realized in actual life (Ingarden 1973b, 290–91). But, when they are realized they have a striking effect on our lives. The metaphysical qualities in a literary work, in contrast to the metaphysical qualities revealed in actual life, are heteronomous and purely intentional formations. In other words, they share the same mode of existence with represented objectivities. Hence, the metaphysical properties that are realized in real-life situations are not realized but concretized in a literary artwork. And in this way, they simulate their own realization. The distance that appears due to their ontic heteronomy enables the reader to contemplate them calmly, contrary to her contemplation of them in actual situations. The effects of the realization of metaphysical qualities in real-life situations are so powerful that they grip and overpower us. In such a situation, we do not have the power to contemplate these qualities. It is only through the distance that is provided by the literary artwork that we can calmly contemplate them. However, this distance also weakens the power and the richness they attain in actual realization; our encounter with these qualities in a literary artwork does not evoke such powerful changes in us.

Dört Öge-Yıl: 7 Sayı: 14 Aralık 2018 850 worksve of Madalya art (quasi-interrogative, (1319-1320), 10 Hanedân-ı quasi-imperative, Osmâni Nişân quasi-exclamatory). ve İmtiyâz Madalyası4 Moreover, (1311- the intentional1334), 17 Teba-yı objects Şâhâne projected Mecîdî in literary Esâmî artworks(1321-1332), are 30quasi-objects Altın İmtiyâz too. Madalyası (1309-1320), 40 Madalya Esâmî (1899-1902) Defterleri. Now, we can focus on this quasi-nature of the sentences in literary artworks. İngilizIn so doing, Ulusal I Arşivi will follow: FO 195/1720; Ingarden FO and 195/1883; mainly FOfocus 195/1477; on predicative FO 195/1368; sentences FO 195/as a paradigm1932; of FO the 195/1976; quasi-nature FO 195/1305, of the literary FO 195/1369; work of FOart. 195/According 1448; FO to Ingarden,195/1306; declarativeFO 195/ sentences 1545. (especially predicative sentences) in a literary work of art are Amerikanneither pure Misyoner assumptions Arşivi: nor 640, genuine 641, 642, judgements 643,644, 645, (serious 646, 647, judgements). 648, 651, 652,5 In653, order 654, to understand655, 660, 661,the 66nature 2, 663. of Reeller. quasi-judgements, I will first focus on the nature of Sâlnameler:genuine judgements Salname-i and Vilâyet-i pure Haleb:assumptions. 1320. Şer’îyyeIngarden Sicili: 23 Recepdefines 1293- genuine 25 Şaban judgements 1296 tarihli as judgementsUrfa Şer’îyye “inSicili which something Şanlıurfa,is seriously Yukarı asserted Telfidan and Köyü which saha not araştırması. only lay claim to truth but are true or false” Adıvar,(Ingarden H. 1973bE. (2005)., 160). Mehmet Hence, Kalpaklı the “directional G. T. (Haz..), factor” Mor of Salkımlı these judgements,Ev. İstanbul: whichÖzgür are directedYayınları. at first to the corresponding purely intentional object, refers beyond this object to a real or ideal object (or one intended as real or ideal). Through this Bayraktar, H. (2007). Tanzimattan Cumhuriyet’e Urfa Elazığ: Fırat Üniversitesi Ortadoğu reference, the purely intentional state of affairs, in which the given object is port- Araştırmaları Merkezi. rayed, is applied to that real or ideal object: “it is intentionally transposed into the Bingöl,real ontic S. sphere (2005). in Osmanlı which [the Mahkemelerinde given object] Reformfinds itself ve and Cerîde-yi in which ... it Mehâkim’deki is rooted” Üst (IngardenMahkeme 1973b Kararları., 161). Moreover,Tarih Incelemeleri the state Dergisi, of affairsXX (19), developed 19-38. by the meaning- Çadırcı,content M.of the(1997). sentence Tanzimat is set Döneminde in the given Anadolu ontic Kentleri’nin sphere (real Sosyal or ideal) ve Ekonomik as truly Yapısı exis-. ting. Ankara:“In both TTK. these functions – in the transposition into the given (real, ideal, etc.) Deringil,ontic sphere S. (2002). and İktidarınin the existential Sembolleri vesetting İdeoloji – II.there Abdülhamit is based Dönemi what (one 1876-1909) usually (Çev.calls the ‘claimG. Ç. toGüven). truth’ İstanbul:of the judgement” YKY. (Ingarden 1973b, 161–62). That is to say, the judgement makes the claim that the state of affairs developed by the meaning units Fatma Aliye Hanım. (1995). Ahmed Cevdet Paşa ve zamanı. İstanbul: Bedir. and the object referred does in fact exist, not as a purely intentional state of affairs Foucault,or purely M. intentional (2006). Deliliğin object, Tarihi but as ( anÇev. object M. A. portrayed Kılıçbay). byAnkara: the state İmge. of affairs that is, Ginzburg,in turn, rooted C. (2011). in an Peynir ontic ve sphere, kurtlar which (Çev. A. is Gür).independent İstanbul: fromMetis. the judgement itself. Kenanoğlu,This transposing M. M. (2007).is bound Nizâmiye to the mahkemeleri.“identification” Islâm function Ansiklopedisi, in the XXXIII judgement:, 185-188. “the Kodaman,intention B.that (1987). the content II. Abdülhamid of the purelyDevri Doğu intentional Anadolu sentencePolitikası. Ankara:correlate Türk should Kültürünü be so preciselyAraştırma adjusted Enstitüsü.... to the state of affairs existing in the ontic sphere that is ontically independent of the judgement, that, in this respect, the two can be identified” Kürkçüoğlu, C. (2008). Şanlıurfa 1850-1950. Şanlıurfa: ŞURKAV. Nicault, C. (2001). Kudüs 1850-1948 (Çev. E. S. Vali). İstanbul: İletişim. 4 Ingarden writes: “Thus when we are dealing, for example with an interrogatory sentence, it is no Ortaylı,longer İ. a(1983). genuine Osmanlı question, imparatorluğu’nun but only a quasi-question; En Uzun sentences Yüzyılı which. İstanbul: express Hil.a wish or a command Seyitdanlıoğlu,are not genuine M. wishing(1996). orTanzimat commanding Devri’nde sentences Meclis-i but are vâlâ only. Ankara: quasi-commands, TTK. etc. Likewise, the value judgements appearing in the representing text, regardless of whether they pronounce Tanpınar,an ethical, H. (2001).or a social XIX. or, forAsırda that Türkmatter, Edebiyatı an aesthetic Tarihi valuation. İstanbul: are not Çağlayan genuine Kitabevi.value judgements but are only quasi-evaluations even though, in their purely external form, they do not differ from Urfa. (1984). Yurt Ansiklopedisi, X, 7367-7389. genuine valuations. Their function consists solely in the intentional projection of certain ontically Zürcher,heteronomous E. (1999). objectivities, Modernleşen which Türkiye’nin can at most Tarihi give themselves (Çev. Y. S.an Gönen).appearance İstanbul: of reality İletişim but can neverYayınları. attain it” (Ingarden 1973b, 181). 5 Ingarden’s concept of pure assumption is equivalent to Alexius Meinong’s Annahmen, in which belief in the reality of the sentence is deprived of all force. See: Weinberger, Christiane, 1976. Zur Logik der Annahmen, Wien: VWGÖ.

Dört Öge-YılÖge-Yıl: 4-Sayı 7 Sayı: 8-Ekim 14 Aralık 2015 2018 The Quasi-Real World of Fiction and The Cognitive Value... 51

(Ingarden 1973b, 162). Due to this identification function – which arises from the “matching intention” of genuine judgements – the purely intentional states of affairs are passed over and the intentions of the judicative proposition points directly to the ontically independent states of affairs; thus, “the purely intentional states of affairs, as a purely intentional one, disappears from our field of vision” (Ingarden 1973b, 163). Pure affirmative propositions, on the other hand, lack the aforementioned functions characteristic of genuine judgements: transposition, existential setting, matching intention, and identification. The intentional directional factor in these propositions refers directly to the purely intentional objects or purely intentional states of affairs, not to objects or states of affairs that are independent of the sentence correlate: “the intentional directional factor of the subject of the sentence does not point, by way of appertaining intentional object, at an ontically independently existing object but precisely at the purely intentional object itself ” (Ingarden 1973b, 166). In this sense, we can talk neither about an ontic sphere that is independent from the judgement, nor about a transposition into that ontic sphere. Under these circumstances, an intention of identification with an autonomous object is beside the point. As a result, pure affirmative propositions do not hold any claim to truth. The sentences that appear in the literary work of art are conceptualized by Ingarden as “Quasi-Judgements.” These lay between the two extreme types explained above: genuine judgements and pure affirmative propositions. It is un- derstandable that Ingarden tries to stress the difference between literary sentences and genuine judgements, but why does he take the trouble to distinguish these sentences from pure affirmative sentences? The answer lies in the special relation between the literary work and its claim to truth. Although literary sentences “have the external habitus of judicative propositions... they neither are nor are meant to be genuine judicative propositions” (Ingarden 1973b, 167). Hence, they don’t have a claim to truth in the sense that genuine judgements have. However, they are not completely deprived of truth, like pure affirmative sentences: “Yet something is undoubtedly asserted in a particular manner [in literary sentences]; we are therefore not dealing with pure affirmative propositions” (Ingarden 1973b, 167). Now my aim is to show the specific manner in which literary sentences as quasi-judgements assert something. I first want to lay out an important point of difference between the genuine judgements and quasi-judgements: the state of “seriousness.” Genuine judgements (which Ingarden sometimes also calls “serious judgements”) carry a character of seriousness. Ingarden defines this serious character by looking at the position of a subject who judges seriously:

Dört Öge-Yıl: 7 Sayı: 14 Aralık 2018 852

ve WhenMadalya I judge (1319-1320), seriously 10 I doHanedân-ı so in good Osmâni faith and Nişân take ve fullİmtiyâz responsibility. Madalyası I (1311- 1334),am prepared 17 Teba-yı to defend Şâhâne the Mecîdî rightness Esâmî of the (1321-1332), assertion either 30 Altınby producing İmtiyâz suMadalyası- (1309-1320),itable argument 40 Madalya or by actions Esâmî conforming (1899-1902) to the Defterleri. content of the judgement, and I am also prepared to abandon such an assertion if either I myself or İngiliz Ulusal Arşivi: FO 195/1720; FO 195/1883; FO 195/1477; FO 195/1368; FO 195/ someone else with the help of suitable and seriously proposed arguments 1932; FO 195/1976; FO 195/1305, FO 195/1369; FO 195/ 1448; FO 195/1306; to convince me that this assertion is false. When I judge I engage myself FOpersonally: 195/ 1545. that act of judgement issuing from the center of my conscio- Amerikanusness Misyoner constrains Arşivi me: 640, to accept 641, 642, responsibility 643,644, 645, for 646, the 647,given 648, assertion, 651, 652, for 653, 654, 655,contending 660, 661, that 66 2, things 663. Reeller. are as the assertion proclaims. This is not a game Sâlnameler:from Salname-iwhich I can Vilâyet-i always Haleb: withdraw 1320. simply declaring that the assertion in question was expressed as a joke without an act of judgement entering into Şer’îyyeit Sicili: and without23 Recep that 1293- specific 25 Şaban solidarity 1296 with tarihli one’s Urfa own Şer’îyye judging Sicili which is so Şanlıurfa,characteristics Yukarı Telfidan of judgements. Köyü saha araştırması.(Ingarden 1985, 135) Adıvar, H. E. (2005). Mehmet Kalpaklı G. T. (Haz..), Mor Salkımlı Ev. İstanbul: Özgür As seen from the above quotation, the serious character of genuine judge- Yayınları. ments imposes a responsibility on the utterer. She has the obligation to stand behind Bayraktar,her judgement. H. (2007). Such Tanzimattan a serious character Cumhuriyet’e and responsibilityUrfa Elazığ: Fırat cannot Üniversitesi be seen Ortadoğuin a literary workAraştırmaları of art. Neither Merkezi. the author nor the reader feels such a responsibility and a Bingöl,need to S.take (2005). the judgements Osmanlı Mahkemelerinde in a literary work Reform of art veseriously Cerîde-yi in this Mehâkim’deki sense. The be Üst- low quotation,Mahkeme whichKararları. defines Tarih theIncelemeleri position Dergisi, of the XXreader (19), in 19-38. front of a literary work of Çadırcı,art, demonstrate M. (1997). the Tanzimat difference Döneminde – when readAnadolu with Kentleri’nin the above Sosyalquotation ve Ekonomik – very clearly: Yapısı. Ankara: TTK. By coming to understand [literary sentences] I perform the sentence-for- Deringil,ming S. (2002). act, but İktidarın at the same Sembolleri time Ive behave İdeoloji as II. though Abdülhamit I were Dönemi judging ( that1876-1909) I was (Çev. G.not Ç. Güven).doing this İstanbul: seriously. YKY. As a result, I do not engage myself openly, I take no Fatma Aliyeresponsibility, Hanım. (1995). I do not Ahmed intend Cevdet to submit Paşa vewhat zamanı I am . readingİstanbul: to Bedir. an examina - tion, I do not look for arguments for and against the assumption that what Foucault,the M. sentences (2006). Deliliğin say is or Tarihi was true. ( Çev. I doM. notA. Kılıçbay).for a moment Ankara: assume İmge. that they Ginzburg,claim C. (2011).a right Peynirto truth ve or kurtlar even (Çev.that theyA. Gür). designate İstanbul: a certain Metis. state of affairs Kenanoğlu,in the M. real M. world. . . . On(2007). Nizâmiye the mahkemeleri.contrary, I know Islâm that Ansiklopedisi, these sentences, XXXIII because, 185-188. of their assertive apparel, designate and set up an object in some quasi-real Kodaman, B. (1987). II. Abdülhamid Devri Doğu Anadolu Politikası. Ankara: Türk Kültürünü world. (Ingarden 1985, 136) Araştırma Enstitüsü. Kürkçüoğlu,Hence, C. (2008).the quasi-real Şanlıurfa world1850-1950 of the. Şanlıurfa: literary ŞURKAV. work of art has a very special relation to the extra-textual world. The quasi-real world is undoubtedly an inten- Nicault, C. (2001). Kudüs 1850-1948 (Çev. E. S. Vali). İstanbul: İletişim. tional world. The objects designating this world are not merely picked up from the Ortaylı,real world İ. (1983). but are Osmanlı the result imparatorluğu’nun of the artistic En creationalUzun Yüzyılı acts. İstanbul: of the Hil.author. In other Seyitdanlıoğlu,words, they are M. the (1996). products Tanzimat of “poetic Devri’nde fantasy.” Meclis-i In vâlâ this. Ankara: sense, TTK.they do not merely Tanpınar,represent H. objects (2001). in XIX. the givenAsırda world, Türk Edebiyatı but aim Tarihi to “progress. İstanbul: beyond Çağlayan the Kitabevi. world already Urfa.given, (1984). and sometimes Yurt Ansiklopedisi, even liberation X, 7367-7389. from it and the creation of an apparently new world” (Ingarden 1985, 137).6 Hence, what is at stake here is not a naïve mimetic Zürcher, E. (1999). Modernleşen Türkiye’nin Tarihi (Çev. Y. S. Gönen). İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları. 6 The relation of the literary work with the extra-textual world and the ways in which the elements of the extra-textual world are comprehended by literary artworks are discussed by Wolfgang Iser under the title “Repertoire.”

Dört Öge-YılÖge-Yıl: 4-Sayı 7 Sayı: 8-Ekim 14 Aralık 2015 2018 The Quasi-Real World of Fiction and The Cognitive Value... 53 attempt to represent the world as it is, but a creative act that tries to go beyond this world. However, going beyond the given world does not mean that the work does not have a sense of reality. It does. As we saw in the quote above, the judgemental sentences of this new product in the end “assert something in a particular manner.” This refers to the sense of reality that the literary work of art tries to establish, the reality of “as-if ” which is skilfully created by poetic fantasy according to the following formula: “be such and such, have those particular properties, exist as though you were real” (Ingarden 1985, 137). If a novel contains objects whose type of existence is real existence, they appear in the work with the character of reality. However, this character of reality should not be confused with the ontic character of truly existing objects. What is at stake here is only an “external habitus” of reality. In consequence, the reader of such a work experiences the work as if it were real, although she knows, in the back of her mind, that she is experiencing a fictive world.7 This is what Ingarden means by “the assertive power” of quasi-judgements that are lacking in pure assumptions. And it is for this reason that Ingarden defines the judgement in the literary work of art as a quasi-judgement rather than a pure assumption. “For, if they were ‘assumptions,’ objects presented in literature would have been deprived of all character of real existence ... and would not have imposed themselves as real. All artistic illusion would be impossible” (Ingarden 1985, 161). Thus, the lack of serious attitude in quasi-judgements does not lead to a frivolous attitude, but to an attitude that simulates the seriousness of genuine judgements.

III. Degrees of Matching Intention: Three Types of Literary Artworks We can, then, claim, with Ingarden, that the judicative sentences in a literary work of art are modified assertive sentences. They are modified in such a way that they apparently keep their assertive nature while they don’t have any claim to truth. Ingarden is undoubtedly aware of the fact that not all kinds of literary works undergo this modification to the same degree; it diverges in various types of literary works. For his purposes Ingarden distinguishes three types of work according to the criterion of being faithful to historical facts. The first type of works is those that do not have any intention of being faithful to historical facts. The second type is that which Ingarden calls “contemporary or period novels,” which are not “historical” in the proper sense, but in which “the represented objectivities refer in a totally different and, at the same time, if one may put it so, narrower manner to the real world” (Ingarden 1973b, 169). The third type contains works that claim to be historical and as faithful as possible to the facts and objectivities known from

7 Ingarden writes: “when the work is read, it can often happen that the reader takes quasi judgemental propositions for genuine judgements and thus considers to be real intentional objects which only simulate reality. But the transformation connected with this does not belong to the work itself but rather to one of its possible concretizations” (Ingarden 1973b, 221).

Dört Öge-Yıl: 7 Sayı: 14 Aralık 2018 854 history.ve MadalyaI will now (1319-1320), briefly focus 10 Hanedân-ı on these three Osmâni types Nişân of works.ve İmtiyâz This Madalyası will help (1311- us to better1334), understand 17 Teba-yı the Şâhânerelation Mecîdî between Esâmî the (1321-1332), quasi-real world30 Altın of İmtiyâzthe text Madalyası and the extra-textual(1309-1320), world 40 in Madalya different Esâmî types (1899-1902) of literary artworks. Defterleri. İngiliz UlusalThe first Arşivi type: FO includes 195/1720; works FO that 195/1883; in no FOsense 195/1477; claim to FO be 195/1368;historical FO (Ingar 195/- den mentions1932; FO symbolist 195/1976; drama FO 195/1305, as representative FO 195/1369; of this FO type). 195/ In 1448; these FO works, 195/1306; “there is aFO total 195/ absence 1545. of the intention of an exact matching ... of the projected states Amerikanof affairs to Misyoner corresponding Arşivi: 640,states 641, of 642,affairs 643,644, that is 645, objectively 646, 647, existing648, 651, and 652, that 653, is654, to be found655, in660, an 661, ontically 66 2, 663. autonomous Reeller. sphere” (Ingarden 1973b, 168). The sentence Sâlnameler:correlates are Salname-i transposed Vilâyet-i and existentiallyHaleb: 1320. set in the real world, but with neither a Şer’îyyematching Sicili: intention 23 Recep nor 1293- an intention 25 Şaban of1296 identification. tarihli Urfa Şer’îyye The intentional Sicili directional factor does not point to objects existing in an objective sphere. The transposition Şanlıurfa, Yukarı Telfidan Köyü saha araştırması. of the sentence correlates into reality in these works is never to be taken as “fully Adıvar,serious,” H. but E. (2005).“simulatedly Mehmet serious,” Kalpaklı which G. T. means(Haz..), they Mor areSalkımlı only Evregarded. İstanbul: as Özgürreally existing:Yayınları. “the sentence correlates are transposed, in accordance with their content, Bayraktar,into the real H. world.(2007). ButTanzimattan here this Cumhuriyet’egoes hand in Urfa hand Elazığ: only withFırat theÜniversitesi ontic setting Ortadoğu and not –Araştırmaları as is the case Merkezi. with genuine judicative propositions – simultaneously with the Bingöl,matching S. intention (2005). Osmanlı and with Mahkemelerinde identification” Reform (Ingarden ve Cerîde-yi1973b, 168). Mehâkim’deki Thus, in rea Üst- ding Mahkemethese kinds Kararları. of works, Tarih the Incelemeleri reader does Dergisi, not XXapprehend (19), 19-38. the sentence correlates without noticing their intentional character. The correlates themselves are trans- Çadırcı, M. (1997). Tanzimat Döneminde Anadolu Kentleri’nin Sosyal ve Ekonomik Yapısı. posed into reality “without any diminution of our awareness that they have their Ankara: TTK. origin in the intentionality of the meaning of the sentence” (Ingarden 1973b, 168). Deringil,Consequently, S. (2002). they İktidarın are not Sembolleri transposed ve İdeoloji into an II. independent Abdülhamit Dönemi sphere ( 1876-1909)of existence, (Çev. but into theG. Ç. world Güven). of the İstanbul: text, theYKY. world of “as-if ” – an illusory reality into which they Fatmaare set Aliye as purely Hanım. intentional. (1995). Ahmed Cevdet Paşa ve zamanı. İstanbul: Bedir. Foucault,In M. works (2006). that Deliliğin are categorized Tarihi ( Çev. under M. A. the Kılıçbay). second Ankara:degree ofİmge. quasi-modificati - Ginzburg,on, namely C. what (2011). Ingarden Peynir ve calls kurtlar “contemporary (Çev. A. Gür). or İstanbul: period Metis.novels,” the transposition Kenanoğlu,and setting M. functions M. (2007). are Nizâmiye also only mahkemeleri. “simulatedly Islâm serious,” Ansiklopedisi, but at this XXXIII stage, 185-188. there is a Kodaman,matching B.intention. (1987). II. “The Abdülhamid individual Devri assertive Doğu Anadolu propositions Politikası are. Ankara: given Türk in such Kültürünü a way that theAraştırma states ofEnstitüsü. affairs projected by them are to be matched, not with any entirely determinate individual state of affairs truly existing in a given epoch, but only with Kürkçüoğlu, C. (2008). Şanlıurfa 1850-1950. Şanlıurfa: ŞURKAV. a general type of states of affairs and objects that would be ‘possible’ in a given time Nicault,and milieu” C. (2001). (Ingarden Kudüs 1973b 1850-1948, 169). (Çev. What E. S.is Vali).at stake İstanbul: in this İletişim. kind of novel is a kind Ortaylı,of adaptation İ. (1983). to Osmanlı typical imparatorluğu’nun features of a specific En Uzun period. Yüzyılı Individual. İstanbul: Hil. details, such as Seyitdanlıoğlu,names of places, M. persons,(1996). Tanzimat etc. can Devri’nde be seen Meclis-iin these vâlâ works.. Ankara: However, TTK. the intention here is not to match these intentionally projected objects with what is real, nor Tanpınar, H. (2001). XIX. Asırda Türk Edebiyatı Tarihi. İstanbul: Çağlayan Kitabevi. are characters projected in this way to be “literary representations” of determinate Urfa.persons (1984). existing Yurt Ansiklopedisi,in the real world. X, 7367-7389. Instead, the matching intention proper to these Zürcher,sentences E. refers (1999). to Modernleşenthe “type” thatTürkiye’nin is manifested Tarihi (Çev. in this Y. S.represented Gönen). İstanbul: character. İletişim The aim inYayınları. using these individual details in the work is to lend verisimilitude to this transposition into illusory reality.

Dört Öge-YılÖge-Yıl: 4-Sayı 7 Sayı: 8-Ekim 14 Aralık 2015 2018 The Quasi-Real World of Fiction and The Cognitive Value... 55

The third degree of quasi-modification is found in works that purport to be historical and claim to be as faithful as possible to objectivities and facts known from the history. In this kind of work, the transposition and setting functions are serious, and the matching intention is extended from the general types to the individual objects and states of affairs. But there is still no intention of identification between the intentional objects or states of affairs and the extra-textual ones; the intention of identification is replaced by an intention of substitution. What the intentional states of affairs or objects tries to achieve in these works is to substitute for the states of affairs or objects existing independently of the judgement itself, instead of identifying with them:

On the strength of the far reaching similarity between them, they should only duplicate the objects which at one time have really existed; they should indeed attempt to substitute for them, as if they themselves were these objects... By dint of their far reaching similarity – in accordance with the intention- and their matching with objectively existing states of affairs, they make the latter quasi-incarnate, quasi-present. Thus, the past, long gone and turned into nothingness again arises before our eyes in the merely intentional states of affairs incorporating it. (Ingarden 1973b, 171)

But the past itself is not ascertained here. Although the intentional states of affairs and objects very much converge with states of affairs and objects of the past, although the matching intention is intended for determinate individuals, the last point that divides quasi-judgements and genuine judgements, the identification function is still missing in these works. Although we are one step closer to them, the sentence correlates of a historical literary work of art are still not literal representations of independent objects or states of affairs. Hence the semantic units composing these works should be apprehended in their quasi-character. The reader can neither take them seriously nor attribute them responsibility with regard to the objects and states of affairs they claim to depict. The analysis laid out above shows us the comprehensiveness of Ingarden’s theory of quasi-reality. A similar analysis can be carried out for different genres in literary history according to their claim to correspondence with extra-textual reality. In that sense an analysis of realist novel and fantastic novels will reveal the differences between these two genres with regard to the basic points indi- cating the quasi-character of the work (intentional factor, matching intention, identification, existential setting). Despite these differences and by extension despite differences in their degree of their faithfulness to extra-textual reality, all literary artworks share this quasi-character. In this regard, all affirmative sentences constituting a literary artwork should be apprehended by the reader in their quasi-character. That means that they cannot be held responsible for what they utter in the way that scientific works can. The intentional directional factor of li-

Dört Öge-Yıl: 7 Sayı: 14 Aralık 2018 856 teraryve artworks Madalya (1319-1320),does not transpose 10 Hanedân-ı from the Osmâni intentional Nişân ve objectivities İmtiyâz Madalyası appearing (1311- as the correlatives1334), 17 Teba-yı of semantic Şâhâne meanings Mecîdî Esâmî to the (1321-1332), extra-textual 30 objectivities.Altın İmtiyâz Thus,Madalyası as a reader(1309-1320), I do not attribute 40 Madalya to these Esâmî works (1899-1902) the seriousness Defterleri. that I expect to find in a İngilizfactual Ulusal text. When Arşivi : I FO read 195/1720; a sentence FO like195/1883; “Last FOnight, 195/1477; a man FOfound 195/1368; stabled FO to 195/ de- ath close1932; to FO Goldhawk 195/1976; Road FO 195/1305, Station, in FO the 195/1369; city of London” FO 195/ in1448; a novel, FO 195/1306; I do not checkFO the 195/ news 1545. agencies to see if there really was such a murder or refer to a city Amerikanmap to see Misyoner if there isArşivi really: 640, a Goldhawk 641, 642, 643,644, Road Station 645, 646, in 647, the 648,city 651,of London. 652, 653, I 654, am aware655, of the 660, fact 661, that 66 2, the 663. state Reeller. of affairs depicted here refers to the quasi-world of the novel and does not have the intention of identifying with an extra-textual Sâlnameler: Salname-i Vilâyet-i Haleb: 1320. incident. Even if I know that there is a Goldhawk Road Station in London and Şer’îyyethere has Sicili: been 23 a Recep murder 1293- close 25 Şabanto that 1296 station tarihli in Urfa recent Şer’îyye years, Sicili this does not lead Şanlıurfa,me to take Yukarı the Telfidansentence Köyü as a sahagenuine araştırması. judgement. What is at stake here is that, Adıvar,to use Ingarden’sH. E. (2005). terminology, Mehmet Kalpaklı the existential G. T. (Haz..), setting Mor ofSalkımlı the story Ev. İstanbul:is constructed Özgür such Yayınları.that it has a matching intention with the extra-textual world, but not an identification. The aim of laying out the existential setting in this way is, we Bayraktar, H. (2007). Tanzimattan Cumhuriyet’e Urfa Elazığ: Fırat Üniversitesi Ortadoğu might think, to strengthen the visual aspects of the sentence, or its “suggestive Araştırmaları Merkezi. power.” The literary judgement, with its “suggestive power,” absorbs me into the Bingöl,simulated S. (2005).world. OsmanlıIt is this Mahkemelerinde suggestive power Reform that vedifferentiates Cerîde-yi Mehâkim’deki quasi-modified Üst sentencesMahkeme from Kararları. pure affirmations. Tarih Incelemeleri “By Dergisi,virtue ofXX their (19), described19-38. properties, they Çadırcı,are capable M. (1997). of evoking, Tanzimat to aDöneminde greater or Anadolu lesser degree,Kentleri’nin the Sosyalillusion ve Ekonomikof reality; Yapısı this. pure Ankara:affirmative TTK. sentences cannot do. They carry with them, in other words, a Deringil,suggestive S. (2002).power İktidarınwhich, as Sembolleri we read, ve allows İdeoloji us II. toAbdülhamit plunge into Dönemi the ( simulated 1876-1909) world (Çev. and liveG. Ç. in Güven). it as in İstanbul:a world YKY.peculiarly unreal and yet having the appearance of re- Fatmaality” (AliyeIngarden Hanım. 1973b (1995)., 172). Ahmed Hence, Cevdet considering Paşa ve zamanı the. quasi-natureİstanbul: Bedir. of the literary work of art, the existential setting of this sentence can be interpreted as a textual Foucault, M. (2006). Deliliğin Tarihi ( Çev. M. A. Kılıçbay). Ankara: İmge. tool used to strengthen the “as-if ” function of the work, but not as an indicative Ginzburg,of an intention C. (2011). of identification. Peynir ve kurtlar (Çev. A. Gür). İstanbul: Metis. Kenanoğlu, M. M. (2007). Nizâmiye mahkemeleri. Islâm Ansiklopedisi, XXXIII, 185-188. Kodaman,IV. B. (1987).Pure LiteraryII. Abdülhamid Works Devri of Doğu Art Anadolu and Literary Politikası .Works Ankara: ofTürk Art Kültürünü on Araştırmathe Enstitüsü. Periphery Kürkçüoğlu, Hitherto C. (2008). I have Şanlıurfa laid out1850-1950 the quasi-nature. Şanlıurfa: ŞURKAV. of the world portrayed by the Nicault,literary C.work (2001). of art, Kudüs and 1850-1948 the nature (Çev. of E.judicative S. Vali). İstanbul:sentences İletişim. in the work as quasi- Ortaylı,judgements. İ. (1983). We Osmanlı can now imparatorluğu’nun come back to EnColomb’s Uzun Yüzyılı question,. İstanbul: which Hil. we quoted in the beginning of this section. Does Ingarden’s theory prohibit the existence of Seyitdanlıoğlu, M. (1996). Tanzimat Devri’nde Meclis-i vâlâ. Ankara: TTK. genuine judgements in the literary artwork in the strictest sense? And does he Tanpınar,thus over-restrict H. (2001). the XIX. function Asırda Türk of literature Edebiyatı and Tarihi disregard. İstanbul: the Çağlayan works Kitabevi.in literary his- Urfa.tory that(1984). are Yurt somehow Ansiklopedisi, mixed X, in 7367-7389. the sense that they both claim to be works of art Zürcher,and identify E. (1999). with extra-textualModernleşen Türkiye’nin reality? First Tarihi of (Çev.all, as Y. we S. willGönen). see inİstanbul: the following İletişim passages,Yayınları. Ingarden is aware of the fact that not all works that are classified under the category “literary work of art” belong to that category to the same degree. In some works, we can observe genuine judgements coming directly from the author.

Dört Öge-YılÖge-Yıl: 4-Sayı 7 Sayı: 8-Ekim 14 Aralık 2015 2018 The Quasi-Real World of Fiction and The Cognitive Value... 57

But these works cannot be categorized as “pure literature”; rather they should be placed on the periphery of the genre. Second, Ingarden does not disregard other functions that can be attributed to literary artworks (instructive, documentative etc.). However, attributing such functions to the work and interpreting the work in accordance with these functions does not say anything about the work’s being a work of art. They can only be regarded as secondary functions. Let’s start with the first point. I stated that Ingarden is aware of the fact that some works that claim to be literary artworks do contain genuine judgements. He differentiates these works from pure literary artworks by placing them on the periphery:

There are some that are par excellence pure works of art and others that have a dual, mixed character and form borderline cases... Some are on the borderline between literature and sculpture, others on the borderline between literature and music, while others stand on the borderline between literary art proper and writings whose purpose is science, popularization, politics, propaganda, factual reporting and so on. (Ingarden 1985, 139)

It is natural to observe genuine judgements in these kinds of borderline works. In propaganda and various types of persuasive literature, we come across many genuine judgements that obviously come directly from the author. In some examples this phenomenon goes so far that the artistic elements of the work are used only as a pretext for introducing these opinions. These genuine judgements, however, do not help the work to achieve its essential function; rather they tend to distract from the experience, and hence from the aesthetic value of the work and its character as a work of art. Ingarden does not totally exclude these works from the premises of literary art; he places them on the periphery of literature, but only on condition that the genuine judgements that appear in these works contribute to, or at least do not destroy the aesthetic character of the work: “Only an instance where the appearance of a judgement in a literary work does not constitute a blemish and is not a clear deviation from the character of the work as a work of art would be evidence forcing us to accept the thesis about the existence and artistic role of judgements in this type of work” (Ingarden 1985, 139). Ingarden identifies two types of borderline works that “despite their mar- ginality, are excellent examples of artistic excellence and power” (Ingarden 1985, 157). The first type are works that can be treated either as a literary work of art or as a factual text. The second type are works that contain both poetic and factual parts. Ingarden offers Plato’s Symposium as a representative example of the first type of work. The Symposium can be read either as a literary work of art or as a learned treatise. Hence, two possible concretizations can be derived from the same work:

Dört Öge-Yıl: 7 Sayı: 14 Aralık 2018 858

ve WhenMadalya we (1319-1320), read the “Symposium” 10 Hanedân-ı as a workOsmâni of literaryNişân ve art, İmtiyâz the singular Madalyası and (1311- 1334),general 17 statementsTeba-yı Şâhâne become Mecîdî quoted Esâmî statements (1321-1332), uttered by30 charactersAltın İmtiyâz presen Madalyası- (1309-1320),ted in the work 40 Madalyaand are expressions Esâmî (1899-1902) of these character’s Defterleri. views. They are then quasi-judgements ... When, however, we read the “Symposium” as a special İngiliz Ulusal Arşivi: FO 195/1720; FO 195/1883; FO 195/1477; FO 195/1368; FO 195/ type of learned treatise, then the various views become contributions to the 1932; FO 195/1976; FO 195/1305, FO 195/1369; FO 195/ 1448; FO 195/1306; problem under discussion. (Ingarden 1985, 157) FO 195/ 1545. AmerikanIn Misyonerthis case, Arşivithe quality: 640, 641,of the 642, judgements 643,644, 645, is determined646, 647, 648, by 651, the 652, attribution 653, 654, of the655, reader. 660, They 661, 66 can 2, be663. read Reeller. as quasi-judgements the aim of which is to contri- Sâlnameler:bute to the aestheticSalname-i quality Vilâyet-i of Haleb: the work 1320. and to perform the functions they have in the wholeness of the literary work of art. And as judgements uttered by the charac- Şer’îyye Sicili: 23 Recep 1293- 25 Şaban 1296 tarihli Urfa Şer’îyye Sicili ters in the work, they refer to the world of the work, not to the extra-textual world. Şanlıurfa,When they Yukarı are readTelfidan as genuine Köyü saha judgements, araştırması. on the other hand, they refer directly Adıvar,to the extra-textualH. E. (2005). workMehmet and Kalpaklı should beG. supportedT. (Haz..), Morby appropriate Salkımlı Ev .arguments. İstanbul: Özgür The artisticYayınları. and aesthetic qualities do not help the work as a philosophical treatise, Bayraktar,although theyH. (2007). can attract Tanzimattan the reader Cumhuriyet’e to a beautifully Urfa Elazığ: constructed Fırat Üniversitesi text. Ortadoğu AraştırmalarıThe second Merkezi. type of marginal works are those which, unlike the Symposium, Bingöl,do not allow S. (2005). diverse Osmanlı interpretations. Mahkemelerinde These Reformworks contain ve Cerîde-yi both poetic Mehâkim’deki and factual Üst parts Mahkeme(composed Kararları. of genuine Tarih judgements)Incelemeleri Dergisi, and force XX (19), the 19-38. reader to switch her atti- Çadırcı,tude while M. (1997).reading Tanzimat specific Dönemindephases of theAnadolu work. Kentleri’nin The reason Sosyal why ve theseEkonomik works Yapısı are. regardedAnkara: as works TTK. of art is because the factual parts in the work are also presented in a strictly artistic form, and they do not destroy the wholeness of the work; rather Deringil, S. (2002). İktidarın Sembolleri ve İdeoloji II. Abdülhamit Dönemi ( 1876-1909) (Çev. they contribute to it. Still, in these works it is the presence of quasi-judgments that G. Ç. Güven). İstanbul: YKY. makes them work a work of art. If these works were composed of only genuine Fatmajudgements Aliye Hanım.constructed (1995). in Ahmed a strictly Cevdet artistic Paşa form,ve zamanı the .work İstanbul: would Bedir. not be a work of Foucault,art but a M.factual (2006). work Deliliğin that would Tarihi (shock Çev. M. us A.for Kılıçbay). being peculiar Ankara: in İmge. style. Hence, what Ginzburg,makes these C. (2011).works aPeynir work ve of kurtlar literary (Çev. art isA. not Gür). the İstanbul: existence Metis. of genuine judgements Kenanoğlu,but the arrangement M. M. (2007). of theseNizâmiye judgements mahkemeleri. in the Islâm work Ansiklopedisi, in such a XXXIII way that, 185-188. they do not detract from the aesthetic wholeness of the work, but contribute to it. In other Kodaman, B. (1987). II. Abdülhamid Devri Doğu Anadolu Politikası. Ankara: Türk Kültürünü words, not because it contains genuine judgements, but despite the occurrence of Araştırma Enstitüsü. these genuine judgements, the work can be categorized as a poetical work. Kürkçüoğlu, C. (2008). Şanlıurfa 1850-1950. Şanlıurfa: ŞURKAV. As a result, for Ingarden pure literary works of art do not contain any ge- Nicault, C. (2001). Kudüs 1850-1948 (Çev. E. S. Vali). İstanbul: İletişim. nuine judgements: “if such judgements occur, such works ought to be placed on Ortaylı,the periphery İ. (1983). of Osmanlı the area, imparatorluğu’nun with various other En Uzun considerations Yüzyılı. İstanbul: playing Hil. a part in the Seyitdanlıoğlu,decision as to M.which (1996). borderline Tanzimat type Devri’nde the given Meclis-i work vâlâ is. Ankara: allocated” TTK. (Ingarden 1985, Tanpınar,160). Under H. (2001). these circumstances,XIX. Asırda Türk we Edebiyatı can say Tarihi that. Ingarden’sİstanbul: Çağlayan attempts Kitabevi. are directed towards establishing the essential properties of a literary work, and genuine jud- Urfa. (1984). Yurt Ansiklopedisi, X, 7367-7389. gements do not belong to this essential structure. Although in some borderline Zürcher,cases they E. may(1999). appear Modernleşen in some Türkiye’nin literary Tarihiworks (Çev. of art, Y. S.they Gönen). do not İstanbul: play any İletişim role in determiningYayınları. the artistic character of the work in question. Hence, in reply to Colomb’s objection, we can say that, yes, literary history contains “many works that

Dört Öge-YılÖge-Yıl: 4-Sayı 7 Sayı: 8-Ekim 14 Aralık 2015 2018 The Quasi-Real World of Fiction and The Cognitive Value... 59 seem somehow mixed,” and some of these works can be placed on the periphery of literature, but what makes them a literary work of art is the existence of literary judgements at the core of the work – while the genuine judgements may only be supplementary elements as long as they do not destruct the main function of literary work, namely to lead the reader to concretize the work as an aesthetic object through an aesthetic experience. The second point about Colomb’s objection to the restrictedness of the function of literary artworks is not unrelated to the first point we analysed above. Colomb says that “there are innumerable didactic works throughout all literary history, whose instructional aspect, usually central to the author’s own view of his purpose, Ingarden would have to consider irrelevant to art” (Colomb 1976, 9). The above analysis has shown us that Ingarden does not totally exclude these works from the realm of literature as long as they can be cognized in an aesthetic manner despite their inclusion of didactic parts. However, he is also on guard against the reduction of literature to such a function. In such a situation, the artistic properties in a literary artwork becomes a mere pretext for instruction in certain ideas. It seems to me that Ingarden troubles himself with clarifying the limits and boundaries of genuine judgements allowed in the work precisely to prevent such an instrumentalisation and to preserve the autonomy of the literary artwork as a work of art. In this sense, Ingarden does not totally disregard these secondary functions in literary artworks as long as they do not destroy the aesthetic wholeness of the work. But, again, they can exist in the work only as secondary functions and their functional (instructional, ethical etc.) value does not say anything to us about the work as a work of art. In this sense, the didactic or instructive parts, as Colomb claims, would be considered irrelevant to art by Ingarden. But that does not necessarily mean that works containing such genuine judgements are regarded as non-literary works. As I have already stated, they are positioned by Ingarden on the periphery of literature.

V. The Approach of the Reader In this regard, there is another problem that requires clarification. This problem is not about the intentions of the author but about the approach of the interpreter. A literary work of art can be cognized in various ways. One of the sour- ces of these differences is “the reader’s adopting very different attitudes with regard to one and the same work and consequently conducting himself in different ways with respect to it” (Ingarden 1973a, 169).8 In the history of reading there exists

8 On the problems related to the role of the attitude of the reader in deciding about the nature of the judgement in the work (if they are quasi-judgements or genuine-judgements), see (Hamburger 1993). In this work, Hamburger claims that the concept of quasi-judgement “describes nothing other than a vague psychological attitude of the author and likewise of the reader” (22). In the extended edition of his Literary Work of Art, Ingarden replies to Hamburger’s criticism, stating that

Dört Öge-Yıl: 7 Sayı: 14 Aralık 2018 860 a not-uncommonve Madalya (1319-1320), practice of 10 extracting Hanedân-ı someOsmâni sentences Nişân ve fromİmtiyâz the Madalyası work, treating (1311- them1334), as if they17 Teba-yı were genuine Şâhâne Mecîdîjudgements, Esâmî and(1321-1332), drawing interpretative30 Altın İmtiyâz conclusions Madalyası from (1309-1320),the extracted 40 sentence Madalya or Esâmî sentences. (1899-1902) At first Defterleri. sight, such a practice may seem İngilizapplicable Ulusal here, Arşivi since: FO these 195/1720; extracted FO 195/1883; sentences FO have 195/1477; the external FO 195/1368; appearance FO 195/ of genuine1932; judgements. FO 195/1976; Hence, FO 195/1305,when they FO are 195/1369; extracted FO from 195/ the 1448; wholeness FO 195/1306; of the work,FO and 195/ consequently 1545. from the quasi-real world in which they function, they may easily be stripped of their quasi-character. A very popular example of this Amerikan Misyoner Arşivi: 640, 641, 642, 643,644, 645, 646, 647, 648, 651, 652, 653, 654, practice655, can 660, be 661, observed 66 2, 663. in Reeller. Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs and The Steel. In the ninth chapter of this book, entitled “Zebras, Unhappy Marriages, And the Anna Sâlnameler: Salname-i Vilâyet-i Haleb: 1320. Karenina Principle,” Diamond refers to the well-known gnomic first sentence of Şer’îyyeTolstoy’s Sicili: Anna 23 Karenina:Recep 1293- “All 25 Şabanhappy 1296 families tarihli are Urfa alike; Şer’îyye each Sicili unhappy family is Şanlıurfa,unhappy inYukarı its own Telfidan way.” Köyü In this saha work, araştırması. Diamond interprets the sentence as follows: Adıvar,“By that H. sentence, E. (2005). Tolstoy Mehmet meant Kalpaklı that, G. in T. order (Haz..), to beMor happy, Salkımlı a marriage Ev. İstanbul: must Özgür suc- ceed Yayınları.in many different respects: sexual attraction, agreement about money, child discipline, religion, in-laws, and other vital issues. Failure in any one of those es- Bayraktar, H. (2007). Tanzimattan Cumhuriyet’e Urfa Elazığ: Fırat Üniversitesi Ortadoğu sential respects can doom a marriage even if it has all the other ingredients nee- Araştırmaları Merkezi. ded for happiness” (Diamond 1998, 157). He then extracts the sentence from its Bingöl,context, S. conceptualizes (2005). Osmanlı it as Mahkemelerinde the “Anna Karenina Reform Principle,” ve Cerîde-yi and Mehâkim’dekiclaims that “this Üst principleMahkeme can be Kararları. extended Tarih to understandingIncelemeleri Dergisi, much XX else (19), about 19-38. life besides marriage” Çadırcı,(Diamond M. 1998,(1997). 157). Tanzimat And inDöneminde the aforementioned Anadolu Kentleri’nin chapter Sosyalhe applies ve Ekonomik this principle Yapısı. to theAnkara: problem TTK. of the domestication of wild animals (Diamond 1998, 158f.). Later Deringil,this principle S. (2002). becomes İktidarın popular Sembolleri and ve is İdeolojiused by II. many Abdülhamit scholars Dönemi to illustrate ( 1876-1909) different (Çev. problemsG. Ç. in Güven). various İstanbul: areas. YKY. Fatma AliyeIt is obviousHanım. (1995). that such Ahmed an extractionCevdet Paşa isve inappropriate zamanı. İstanbul: to the Bedir. essential functi- Foucault,on of the M. literary (2006). work Deliliğin of art. Tarihi A literary ( Çev. M.work A. Kılıçbay).may contain Ankara: many İmge. gnomic sentences Ginzburg,like the one C. (2011).above. Peynir It may ve kurtlareven contain (Çev. A. largerGür). İstanbul:semantic Metis. units of this kind (e.g. paragraphs, chapters etc.). A reader may extract different ideas or philosophical Kenanoğlu, M. M. (2007). Nizâmiye mahkemeleri. Islâm Ansiklopedisi, XXXIII, 185-188. or historical results by interpreting these sentences or parts of the work. But these Kodaman,practices sayB. (1987). nothing II. Abdülhamid about the Devriwork Doğu as a Anadolu work of Politikası art. We. Ankara: cannot Türk aesthetically Kültürünü evaluateAraştırma this kind Enstitüsü. of sentences or parts in order to clarify problems external to the Kürkçüoğlu,world of the C. work (2008). nor Şanlıurfa the work 1850-1950 itself for. Şanlıurfa: containing ŞURKAV. such peculiar sentences. In Nicault,Diamond’s C. (2001). example, Kudüs the 1850-1948 Anna Karenina (Çev. E. S.principle Vali). İstanbul: helps İletişim.us to better understand some issues about the world we live in; hence it enhances our understanding of Ortaylı, İ. (1983). Osmanlı imparatorluğu’nun En Uzun Yüzyılı. İstanbul: Hil. Seyitdanlıoğlu, M. (1996). Tanzimat Devri’nde Meclis-i vâlâ. Ankara: TTK. the nature of the judgements in a text are not determined solely by the attitude of the reader. There Tanpınar,are some H. stylistic (2001). elements XIX. Asırda in the workTürk (styleEdebiyatı of language, Tarihi composition,. İstanbul: Çağlayan the presence Kitabevi. of aesthetically Urfa.valent (1984). qualities, Yurt Ansiklopedisi,appearance of metaphysicalX, 7367-7389. qualities, etc.) that will inform the reader that she is dealing with a literary artwork. Moreover, most works include external elements that will clue the Zürcher,reader E. that (1999). she is face Modernleşen to face with Türkiye’nin an artwork – Tarihilike a subtitle (Çev. (aY. novel) S. Gönen). and a blurb. İstanbul: When Ingardenİletişim talksYayınları. about attitude of the reader he does not refer to an attitude that determines the nature of judgements, but an attitude that is determined by the type of work that is being dealt with. As soon as the reader realizes that she is dealing with a literary work of art, she should take the right attitude and read the judgements in the work in their quasi-nature.

Dört Öge-YılÖge-Yıl: 4-Sayı 7 Sayı: 8-Ekim 14 Aralık 2015 2018 The Quasi-Real World of Fiction and The Cognitive Value... 61 life. In this sense, we can attribute a cognitive or a moral value to Tolstoy’s sentence for inspiring such a principle. But that has nothing to do with the literariness of Tolstoy’s work. The sentence could have been used by Tolstoy in a philosophical treatise, and in that case, nothing would have changed. It would be valuable for the above reasons to the same degree. A similar practice can also be observed in literary studies. Some interpreters extract some semantic units from the text in the same fashion, and consider it as a judgement, the truth value of which can be determined in relation to the real world; they debate whether this judgement would be acceptable to the author of the work, and construct a new system of assertions upon the judgement that would be philosophically acceptable to the author. Such an investigation may also be supported by external documents like the letters or the diaries of the author. Ingarden’s theory does not reject such practices completely. He only emphasizes that these interpretations are inappropriate to the aesthetic character of the work: “such reflection may be quite interesting and even quite significant for the study of history of ideas. But we must remember that doing this we cease to study the [work] as a work of art and move beyond it. Doing this we use the work as a spring board for reflections that have little to do with the interpretation of a literary work” (Ingarden 1985, 147). Moreover, such an extraction also diminishes the effect of the sentence. As mentioned, the literary work of art is composed of four strata and all of these strata have some specific factors that contribute the overall value of the work. We have also seen that these factors sometimes enrich the meaning intended by the sentences of the work. Hence, when we separate the sentence from the wholeness of the work, we also cause its poetic effectiveness to vanish:

If we uproot the sentence from the totality of the work, if we remove it from the presented web of facts, if we deprive it of melody, rhythm, tone, and other contextual factors, if we deprive it of what this sentence expresses in the psyche of the lyrical subject, we shall be left with a sentence that, naturally enough, we would be able to regard as a judgement in the strict sense of the word, but then the whole dynamism of poetic charm would be vanished, leaving only, as Charles Lalo remarks: “…la valeur prosaïque de vérité, et non lyrique de beauté.” (Ingarden 1985, 153)

VI. Conclusion As a result, both the instructive parts of a literary artwork and the parts extracted from the wholeness of the work and treated as genuine judgements are irrelevant to the work as a work of literary art. The literary artwork should be cognized in an aesthetic manner if it is to be treated as a work of art. Does Ingarden’s theory suggest an idea-free aestheticism, in this sense? We have seen above that one of the peculiar properties of quasi-judgements, which differentiates them from pure

Dört Öge-Yıl: 7 Sayı: 14 Aralık 2018 862 assumptions,ve Madalya is the(1319-1320), fact that 10they Hanedân-ı have an Osmâni“assertive Nişân power,” ve İmtiyâz that is, Madalyası they “assert (1311- so- mething1334), in 17a particular Teba-yı Şâhâne manner.” Mecîdî The Esâmî discussions (1321-1332), so far have30 Altın tried İmtiyâz to unpick Madalyası what Ingarden(1309-1320), means by40 aMadalya “particular Esâmî manner.” (1899-1902) If the Defterleri. work assets something, what it İngilizasserts Ulusalcannot Arşivi be revealed: FO 195/1720; by extracting FO 195/1883; peculiar FO semantic 195/1477; units FO and 195/1368; treating FO them 195/ as genuine1932; judgements.FO 195/1976; It FO should 195/1305, be revealed FO 195/1369; through FOan appropriate195/ 1448; FO cognition 195/1306; of the work:FO 195/ cognizing 1545. it in an aesthetic manner. Through an appropriate cogniti- Amerikanon, which Misyoner can be carried Arşivi : on 640, through 641, 642, an 643,644, aesthetic 645, experience, 646, 647, 648, the 651, work 652, reveals 653, 654, its “idea.”655, Ingarden 660, 661, does 66 2,not 663. deny Reeller. that we learn from literary artworks. He only emphasizes that literature does not teach us about the world in a straightforward way Sâlnameler: Salname-i Vilâyet-i Haleb: 1320. by referring directly to the extra-textual world. The sentences and other higher Şer’îyyesemantic Sicili: units 23 in Recep the work 1293- refer 25 Şaban never 1296 beyond tarihli the Urfa world Şer’îyye of the Sicili text. It is through Şanlıurfa,the quasi-real Yukarı world Telfidan of the Köyü text saha that araştırması. we learn something about the world and our Adıvar,disposition H. E. towards (2005). it.Mehmet In that Kalpaklı sense, what G. T. Ingarden’s (Haz..), Mor theory Salkımlı implies Ev. İstanbul:is not an Özgür idea- free aestheticism.Yayınları. Rather, it states that the idea of the work is revealed through an aesthetic experience in an unstraightforward way. Bayraktar, H. (2007). Tanzimattan Cumhuriyet’e Urfa Elazığ: Fırat Üniversitesi Ortadoğu Araştırmaları Merkezi. Bibliography Bingöl,Colomb, S.Gregory (2005). G. Osmanlı (1976). “Roman Mahkemelerinde Ingarden and Reform the Language ve Cerîde-yi of Art Mehâkim’deki and Science”. The Üst MahkemeJournal of Kararları. Aesthetics Tarih and Art Incelemeleri Criticism Dergisi,, 35(1), 7-13.XX (19), doi: 19-38. 10.2307/430840 Çadırcı,Diamond, M. Jared (1997). M. (1998).Tanzimat Guns, Döneminde Germs and Anadolu Steel: A Kentleri’nin Short History Sosyal of Everybody ve Ekonomik for the Yapısı Last. Ankara:13000 TTK. years. London: W. W. Norton. Deringil,Hamburger, S. (2002). Kate (1993). İktidarın The Sembolleri Logic of veLiterature İdeoloji II.. Marilyn Abdülhamit J. Rose Dönemi (Trans.). ( 1876-1909) Bloomington: (Çev. Indiana University Press. G. Ç. Güven). İstanbul: YKY. Ingarden, Roman (1973a). The Cognition of the Literary Work of Art. Ruth Ann Crowley, Fatma AliyeKenneth Hanım. R. Olson (1995). (Trans.). Ahmed Evanston:Cevdet Paşa Northwestern ve zamanı. İstanbul: University Bedir. Press. Foucault,Ingarden, M.Roman (2006). (1973b). Deliliğin The Tarihi Literary ( Çev. Work M. A.of Art:Kılıçbay). An Investigation Ankara: İmge. of the Borderlines of Ginzburg,Ontology, C. (2011). Logic, Peynir and Theoryve kurtlar of Literature (Çev. A. Gür).. George İstanbul: G. Grabowicz Metis. (Trans.). Evanston: Northwestern University Press. Kenanoğlu, M. M. (2007). Nizâmiye mahkemeleri. Islâm Ansiklopedisi, XXXIII, 185-188. Ingarden, Roman (1985). “On So-Called Truth in Literature”. In Peter J McCormick (Ed.), Kodaman,Selected B. (1987). Papers II. in Abdülhamid Aesthetics (pp. Devri 137-62) Doğu. AnadoluWashington, Politikası DC:. TheAnkara: Catholic Türk KültürünüUniversity Araştırmaof American Enstitüsü. Press. Kürkçüoğlu,Mitscherling, C. Jeff (2008). (1996). Şanlıurfa Roman 1850-1950 Ingarden’s .Ontology Şanlıurfa: and ŞURKAV. Aesthetics . Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press. Nicault, C. (2001). Kudüs 1850-1948 (Çev. E. S. Vali). İstanbul: İletişim. Ortaylı, İ. (1983). Osmanlı imparatorluğu’nun En Uzun Yüzyılı. İstanbul: Hil. Seyitdanlıoğlu, M. (1996). Tanzimat Devri’nde Meclis-i vâlâ. Ankara: TTK. Tanpınar, H. (2001). XIX. Asırda Türk Edebiyatı Tarihi. İstanbul: Çağlayan Kitabevi. Urfa. (1984). Yurt Ansiklopedisi, X, 7367-7389. Zürcher, E. (1999). Modernleşen Türkiye’nin Tarihi (Çev. Y. S. Gönen). İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.

Dört Öge-YılÖge-Yıl: 4-Sayı 7 Sayı: 8-Ekim 14 Aralık 2015 2018