This book analyzes Peter Barnes’ plays, The Ruling Class (1968), Leonardo’s Last Supper (1969), Noonday Demons (1969), and Dreaming (1969), as examples of modern Menippean satire. In contrast to formal verse satire, that is defined as a rhetorical attack upon a particular vice and includes praise for its opposite virtue in the midst of an argument, Menippean satire is difficult to define because of its protean structure. Therefore, whilst defining Menippean satire it is helpful to ask what Menippean satire ‘does’ instead of what Menippean satire ‘is’. Menippean satire is a mingling of prose and poetry in its simplest sense. In addition, it always desires to reject any sort of absolutes regarding norms, cultural, religious or philosophical dogmas by creating a carnivalesque atmosphere. Because Barnes has written about similar themes in Menippean satire form throughout his career his plays may be considered as examples of modern Menippean satire.

Bolu’da Halvetîlik denildiği zamân ilk akla gelen meşhûr mutasavvıflar Mudurnulu Dâvûd El-Halvetî, Kemâl Ümmî, Mustafâ Konrapavî, Göynüklü Akşemseddîn ve Ömer Sikkîn Dede gibi bazı âbide şahsiyetlerdir. Bolu merkezden Mustafâ Safî Efendi, Nasrullâh Sırrı Efendi, Muhammed Reşid Efendi, Gerede’den Aziz Halîl Efendi, Geredeli Abdullâh Efendi ve Mudurnu’dan Halîl Rahmi Efendi ise yine son dönemin önemli Halvetî şeyhleridirler. Mustafâ Safî-i Âmedî Efendi, tarîkat-i Halvetiyyenin dört ana kolundan Cemâliyye koluna bağlıdır. Bu kolun aşağıya doğru şubelenişine bakılacak olursa Halvetiyye-i Şa’bâniyyenin Nasûhiyye şubesinden ayrılan Çerkeşiyye şubesi Mustafa Safî Efendinin de yetiştiği şubedir ancak halîfeliğini aldığı şube ise Halîliyye şubesi olmuştur. Bolu’ya Çerkeşîlik, Şeyh Mustafâ Safî Efendi tarafından Aktaş Dergâhı vâsıtasıyla getirilmiş ve 1813-1846 yılları arası 33 sene boyunca şehir hayatına hâkim kılınmıştır. Safî Efendi, Halvetiyye içerisinde ayrı bir kol kurmamıştır. Tarîkat adabında her dâim Çerkeşî usûlü ile Şeyh Şa’bân-ı Velî’ye bağlı kalınmıştır.

The literary history, as I conceive it, is an account of one strand, so to speak, in a very complex tissue: it is connected with the intellectual and social development; it represents movements of thought which may sometimes check and be sometimes propitious to the existing forms of art; it is the utterance of a class which may represent, or fail to represent, the main national movement; it is affected more or less directly by all manner of religious, political, social, and economical changes; and it is dependent upon the occurrence of individual genius for which we cannot even profess to account. I propose to take the history of English literature in the eighteenth century. I do not aim at originality: I take for granted the ordinary critical judgments upon the great writers of whom so much has been said by judges certainly more competent than myself, and shall recall the same facts both of ordinary history and of the history of thought. What I hope is, that by bringing familiar facts together I may be able to bring out the nature of the connection between them; and, little as I can say that will be at all new, to illustrate one point of view, which, as I believe, it is desirable that literary histories should take into account more distinctly than they have generally done.