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.

Vakıf ve vâkıf insan, bilim insanı, eğitimci, vaiz, şair, bürokrat, siyasetçi, daha sayılabilecek birçok vasfı haiz, hayatı mücadele ile geçmiş bir mümin Prof. Dr. Hikmet Özdemir. Bütün bu vasıflarının yanında bir o kadar mütevazı ve yüce gönüllü bir şahsiyet. Tercümeihâli bunu gösteriyor, hayatın her alanında var olmuş, mesleki vazifelerinin yanında vakıf işleriyle uğraşarak toplumun manevi anlamda ilerlemesine büyük katkılar sunmuştur.

Hikmet Özdemir’in siyasetçiliği, birçok vakıf ve dernekte mütevelli heyet başkanı olması ve mesleki kariyeri sebebiyle hayatına dair bilgiler yazılı ve görsel basında parça parça ve dağınık hâldeydi. Biz öğrencileri bu bilgileri toplayarak, kimilerini tashih ederek ve eksik kalan kısımları hocamızla farklı zamanlardaki görüşmelerimizde tamamlayarak bir araya getirmeye çalıştık. Ve bu örnek şahsiyeti bilenlere hissettirmek, bilmeyenlere bildirmek; bizlere, hassaten gençlere örneklik etmesi maksadıyla hocamıza Armağan kitabı çıkarmaya karar verdik. Elinizdeki kitap, bu düşüncenin ürünüdür.

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.