ROUSSEAU’NUN ROMANTİK ETKİLERİ: MARY SHELLEY’İN MODERN PROMETHEUS’U ÜZERİNE

Year 2019, Issue: 27, 281 - 306, 23.05.2019

Fatma&koray Tütüncü

Abstract

This paper aims to trace the effects of political philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau in the novel Frankenstein or Modern Prometheus by Mary Shelley. While affirming modernity, Rousseau needs to underline the natural goodness and compassion of human beings on the ground that as civilization and human knowledge develops and human existence  progresses, human beings are indulged into pride and estranged from humanity. By analyzing Shelley’s novel which is critical towards Prometheanism of romantics, this paper discusses the destructive results of human reason, freedom and creativity when humane, domestic and intimate responsibilities are neglected. 

Keywords

Rousseau, Mary Shelley, Frankenstein

References

• KAYNAKÇA
• Aiskhylos (1967), Zincire Vurulmuş Prometheus, çev. Azra Erhat ve Sabahattin Eyüboğlu, Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, İstanbul
• Beer, John (2003), Romantic Consciousness: Blake to Mary Shelley, Palgrave Macmillan, New York
• Bloom, Harold (ed.) (2007), Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, Infobase Publishing, New York
• Carlson, Julie A. (2007), England’s First Family of Writers: Mary Wollstonecraft, William Godwin, Mary Shelley, The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore
• Claeys, Gregory (1983), “The Concept of ‘Political Justice’ in Godwin’s Political Justice: A Reconsideration”, Political Theory, 11 (4):565-584
• Dart, Gregory (2003), Rousseau, Robespierre and English Romanticism, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
• Duffy, Edward (1979), Rousseau in England: The Context for Shelley’s Critique of the Enlightenment, University of California Press, Berkeley
• Erhat, Azra (1967) “Önsöz”, Aiskhylos, Zincire Vurulmuş Prometheus, çev. Azra Erhat ve Sabahattin Eyüboğlu, Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, İstanbul
• Lee, Monika H. (1993), “Nature’s Silent Eloquence : Disembodied Organic Language in Shelley’s Queen Mab”, Nineteenth-Century Literature, 48 (2):169-193
• Mellor, Anne K (2003), “Making a ‘Monster’: An Introduction to Frankenstein”, in Esther Schor (ed) The Cambridge Companion to Mary Shelley, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge ve New York
• Nagle, Christopher C. (2007), Sexuality and the Culture of Sensibility in the British Romantic Era, Palgrave Macmillan, New York
• O’Rourke, James (1989), “ “Nothing More Unnatural”: Mary Shelley’s Revision of Rousseau”, ELH, 56 (3):543-569
• Raggio, Olga (1958), “The Myth of Prometheus: Its Survival and Metamorphoses up to the Eighteenth Century”, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 21 (1/2), 44-62
• Ray, William Ernest (1973), “The Education of Prometheus”, Interpretations, 5 (1):33-43
• Rousseau, Jean-Jacques (2007), Bilimler ve Sanatlar Üstüne Söylev, Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, İstanbul
• Rousseau, Jean-Jacques (2015), Emile ya da Eğitim Üzerine, çev. Yaşar AvunçTürkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, İstanbul
• Rousseau, J.J (1990), İnsanlar Arasındaki Eşitsizliğin Kaynağı ve Temelleri Üzerine Konuşma, çev. Rasih Nuri İleri, Say, İstanbul
• Shelley, Mary (1996), Frankenstein ya da Modern Prometheus, çev. Elif Özsayar, Arion, İstanbul
• Spatt, Hartley S (1975), “Mary Shelley’s Las Men: The Truth of Dreams”, Studies in the Novel, 7 (4):526-537
• Urgan, Mina (2004), İngiliz Edebiyatı Tarihi, Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 2. baskı, İstanbul
• Veeder, William (1988), “Frankenstein, or Rousseau’s Monster: Sympathy and Speculative Eyes”, David Marshall (ed), The Surprising Effects of Sympathy: Marivaux, Diderot, Rousseau and Mary Shelley, içinde, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago ve Londra
• David Marshall (ed), The Surprising Effects of Sympathy: Marivaux, Diderot, Rousseau and Mary Shelley, içinde, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago ve Londra
• Wollstonecraft, Mary (2012), Mary, A Fiction and The Wrongs of Woman, or Maria, Broadview Press, Peterborough