An Analysis of Lord Byron in the Context of Plato’s Hostility to Poet

Öz

It is an established view that there is considerable interaction between literature/poetry and society/politics but there has been a remarkable dearth of academic study on the subject in Turkey albeit it being an attractive area of research in the field of political science across the world. Indeed, as long ago as in ancient Greece the great philosopher Plato thought it an important matter for societies and he produced books in which he certainly looked into the subject quite closely. A cursory look at his writings seems to suggest that Plato does acknowledge the influence that poet and poetry would have over the society and politics. However, it is hardly possible to maintain that he ever condoned this interaction and the influence it produces. Simply put, according to him, a poet would impact people’s characters as well as their emotions in uncontrollable ways and manners, and he would even keep people from facing up to the reality. Plato’s criticism of poets and poetry was such that he thought that the emotions would become laws in certain circumstances. In an ideal state of his own there would be no room for a poet. The point here to be borne in mind is that Plato forms his opinion of a poet from those he had known all along in his lifetime, therefore his hostility is directed at his contemporaries. Taking into account the fact that Plato’s animosity to those poets of his time did not stem from anything personal but revolved around the influence they had on the society, we could infer from what he extensively wrote about that interaction and supposed influence that we could come across the kind of poet and poetry at any time. And could we apply this method to Lord Byron who lived in the nineteenth century? This article will make a case of Lord Byron within that framework and try to come up with an explanation and answer to the question: had they been contemporaries, could Plato have criticized Lord Byron? And if so, how?

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Plato
• Lord Byron
• poem
• poet
• literature
• politics

Platon’un Şair ile Husumeti Bağlamında Lord Byron Analizi

Öz

Edebiyat/şiir ile toplum/siyaset arasında etkileşim olduğu yerleşik bir görüştür, ancak dünya genelinde siyaset bilimi alanında ilgi çekici bir araştırma alanı olmasına rağmen, Türkiye'de bu konuda akademik çalışma eksikliği dikkat çekicidir. Nitekim, edebiyat/şiir ile toplum/siyaset arasındaki etkileşim üzerindeki tartışmaların Antik Yunan’a kadar geri gittiği Platon’un şairin toplum/siyaset üzerine etkisine dair düşünmüş ve yazmış olmasından anlaşılmaktadır. Yazılarına genel bir bakış, Platon'un şairin ve şiirin toplum ile politika üzerinde sahip olabileceği etkiyi kabul ettiğini göstermektedir. Ancak Platon şairin toplum ve siyaset üzerine etkisinden hiç hoşlanmamaktadır. Platon’a göre şair, insanların karakterlerini ve duygularını etkilemekte, insanları gerçeklikten uzaklaştırmakta, duyguların kanunların yerini almasına sebep olmaktadır. Bu nedenle şairin Platon’un ideal devletinde yeri yoktur. Burada dikkat edilmesi gereken nokta, Platon'un şair hakkındaki kanaatini yaşamı boyunca tanıdığı, bildiği şairler üzerinden oluşturduğu, dolayısıyla düşmanlığının çağdaşlarına yönelik olduğudur. Ancak Platon’un şair ile husumetinin kaynağı şairin kişiliği değil, toplum/siyaset üzerine etkisi olunca, Platon’un eleştirdiği şair her dönem karşımıza çıkabilir. Bu makale Platon’un perspektifinden Lord Byron'ı analiz edecek ve şu soruya bir açıklama ve cevap getirmeye çalışacaktır: Onlar çağdaş olsalardı, Platon Lord Byron'ı eleştirebilir miydi? Eğer öyleyse, nasıl?

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Platon
• Lord Byron
• şiir
• şair
• edebiyat
• siyaset

Kaynakça

1. Alber, J. (2013). “The Specific Orientalism of Lord Byron’s Poetry”, Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 38(2), s.107-127.
2. Arbiter, P.(1918). “What Is Poetry”, The Art World, 3(6), s.506-511.
3. Bartky, E. (1992). “Plato and the Politics of Aristotle’s Poetics”, The Review of Politics, 54(4), s.589-619.
4. Bloom, H. (ed.) (2009). George Gordon, Lord Byron, New York: Bloom’s Classic Critical Views.
5. Bölükmeşe, E.; Özdemir, H. (2021). “Lord Byron’ın Türk Hikayesinden Bir Kesit-Gavur Adlı Eserinde Türk İmgesi”, Uluslararası Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 6(11), s.78-93.
6. Brownson, C. L. (1897). “Reasons for Plato’s Hostility to the Poets”, Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, 28, s. 5-41.
7. Can, H. (2006). “Aristotoles’de Katharsis Kavramı”, FLSF Felsefe ve Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 2, s. 63-70.
8. Cantor, P. A. (1995). “Literature and Politics: Understanding the Regime”, Political Science and Politics, 28(2), s. 192-195.

9. Clair, W. St. (2008). That Greece Might Still Be Free, UK: Open Book Publishers.
10. Cunningham, A. (1978). “The Philhellenes, Canning and Greek Independence”, Middle Eastern Studies, 14(2), s. 151-181.
11. Dannhauser, W. J. (1995). “Poetry vs. Philosophy”, Political Science and Politics, 28(2), s. 190-192.
12. Doğan, B. (2022). “İngiliz Şairlerinden Lord Byron’un Yunan İsyanına Etkisi”. KSÜSBD, 19(1), s. 417-427.
13. Felluga, D. (2000). “‘With a Most Voiceless Thought’:Byron and the Radicalism of Textual Culture”, European Romantic Review, 11(2), s. 150-167.
14. Ghazoul, F. J. (1986). “The Poetics of the Political Poem”, Arab Studies Quartely, 8(2), s.104-119.
15. Gilbert, A. H. (1939). “Did Plato Banish the Poets or the Critics?”, Studies in Philology, 36(1), s. 1-19.
16. Gould, T. (1964). “Plato’s Hostility to Art”, Arion Journal of Humanities and the Classics, 3(1), s. 70-91.
17. Hall, R. A. Jr. (1979). “Once More-What Is Literature”, The Modern Language Journal, 63(3), s. 91-98.
18. Haskins, E. V. (2000). “Mimesis between Poetics and Rhetoric: Performance Culture and Civic Education in Plato, Isocrates, and Aristotle” Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 30(3), s 7-33.
19. Heraclides, A.; Dialla, A. (2015). Intervention in the Greek War of Independence, 1821-32. UK: Manchester University Press.
20. Hight, G. A. (1922). “Plato and Poets”, Mind, 31(122), s.195-199.
21. Joannides, P. (1983). “Colin, Delacroix, Byron and the Greek War of Independence”, The Burlington Magazine, 125(965), s. 495-500.
22. Jones, H. M. (1924). “The Influence of Byron”, Texas Review, 9(3), s. 170-196.
23. Kara, Ö. T. (2010). “Toplumsal Olayların Etkisiyle Gelişen Üç Büyük Akımın Türk ve Dünya Edebiyatındaki İzleri”, The Black Sea Journal of Social Sciences, 2(2), s. 73-97.
24. Karam, S. (2014). “The Political Dimension of Byron’s ‘An Ode to the Framers of the Frame Bill”, International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences, 41, s. 157-164.
25. Karlsson, I. (2006). “The Turk as a Threat and Europe’s ‘Other’”, International Issues & Slovak Foreign Policy Affairs, 15(1), s. 62-72.
26. Kızıltoprak, A. A. T. (2019). “Türk Karşıtı Siyasal Bir Kanaat Önderi Olarak Lord Byron” https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349867683_TURK_KARSITI_SIYASAL_BIR_KANAAT_ONDERI_OLARAK_LORD_BYRON. Erişim tarihi 10.04.2023
27. Lindberg, J. D. (1968). “Literature and Politics”, The Bulletin of the Rocky Mountain Modern Language, 22(4), s. 163-167.
28. Marks, P. (2012). “Introduction: Pushing the World in Certain Directions”, Literature and Politics: Pushing the World in Certain Directions içinde, Marks, P., ss 1-11, UK: Cambridge Scholar Publishing.
29. Masters, E. L. (1915). “What Is Poetry” Poetry, 6(6), s. 306-308.
30. McCarthy, Jr. W. M. H. (1934). “Byron and the Cause of Greek Independence: reflections upon an unpublished letter of Byron, recently acquired through the Library Associates”, The Yale University Library Gazette, 8(3), s. 100-104.
31. McGann, J. J. (1982). “Romanticism and Its Ideologies”, Studies in Romanticism, 21(4), s. 573-599.
32. Minta, S. (2003). “Review: Changing Faces: Byron’s Life and Work”, The Cambridge Quarterly, 32(4), s. 389-395.
33. Murphy, W. P. (1978). “Oral Literature”, Annual Review of Anthropology, 7, s. 113-136.
34. Mutlu, B. (2017a). “Aristoteles’te ‘Poetik Sanat’ın Doğası ve Rasyonel Sınırları”, Dört Öğe, 5(11), s.131-152.
35. Mutlu, B. (2017b). “Platon’da ve Platon Öncesi Metinlerde Mimesis”, Art-Sanat Dergisi, 8, s. 9-34.
36. Nehamas, A. (1986). “What an Author Is”, The Journal of Philosophy, 83(11), s. 685-691.
37. Nietzsche, F. (2018). Neden Bu Kadar Akıllıyım?, çev. Selin Cam Cemgil, İstanbul: Zeplin.
38. O’Donnell, C. (2010). “Literature and Politics in the Early Republic: Views from the Bridge”, Journal of the Early Republic, 30(2), s. 279-292.
39. Ozansoy, E. (2003). Lord Byron Yunanistan’da: Byron’un 19. Yüzyıl Çağdaş Yunan Kültürü Etkisi”, Litera:Dil Edebiyat Kültür Araştırmaları Dergisi, 15, s. 21-38.
40. Partee, M. H. (1970). “Plato’s Banishment of Poetry”, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 29(2), s. 209-222.
41. Penn, V. (1936). “Philhellenism in England II”, The Slavonic and East European Review, 14(42), s. 647-660.
42. Penn, V. (1938). “Philhellenism in Europe, 1821-1828”, The Slavonic and East European Review, 16(48), s. 638-653.
43. Pierce, R. (2003). “Defining Poetry” Philosophy and Literature, 27, s. 151-163.
44. Poetry Foundation (ty). “Lord Byron (George Gordon)” https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poets/lord-byron. Erişim tarihi 24.01.2022.
45. Ribeiro, A. C. (2007). “Intending to Repeat: A Definition of Poetry”, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 65(2), s. 189-201.
46. Rucker, D. (1966). “Plato and Poets”, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 25(2), s. 167-170.
47. Stecker, R. (1996). “What Is Literature”, Revue Internationale de Philosophie, 50(198), s. 681-694.
48. Thomas, R. (2003). “Performance and Written Literature in Classical Greece: Envisaging Performance from Written Literature and Comparative Contexts”, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 66(3), s. 348-357.
49. Todorov, T.;Lyons, J. (2007). “What Is Literature For?”, New Literary History, 38(1), s. 13-32.
50. Wallenstein, B. (1975). “Review: Poetry and Politics”, Contemporary Literature, 16(3), s. 397-402.
51. Wellek, R. (1949). “The Concept of ‘Romanticism’ in Literary History. I. The Term ‘Romantic’ and Its Derivatives”, Comparative Literature, 1(1), s. 1-23.