Özet:

In this study, we aim to draw attention to the hierarchical (pyramidal) space issue, which is formed through the methods followed or thought to be followed in literary historiography, and to focus on the effect of this issue on the construction and perception of literary history. In general, in the evaluations of literary histories, it draws our attention that the names corresponding to the author’s (historian’s) ideology are evaluated at the top, and those whose texts and thoughts are different from the author’s ideology are considered as unimportant. When we look at this array based on gender, it can be observed that male writers are mostly positioned in the central space, at the top of the pyramid, and female writers are mostly positioned in the marginal space, that is, at the bottom. The biggest characteristic of this pyramidal space is the use of concepts, terms and similes from the field of art and literature when evaluating male writers and their texts, and the use of concepts and expressions borrowed from different fields, especially psychiatry, for female writers and their texts. In the histories of literature, there is an emphasis on the genders of women writers and it is claimed that they mostly talk about women in their works. This sensitivity to gender, which is not needed for male writers, seems to be the result of focusing on the gender of the writer rather than her literary productions. In this pyramidal arrangement, the mind at the top is identified with the man, and the base of the pyramid, namely sexuality, with the woman. In this study, we claim that the concepts, similes, adjectives, norms, judgments, words that are used while constructing the history of literature itself form a hierarchy within themselves. We will try to show examples that all these uses establish and operate the hierarchical (pyramidal) space, starting from the evaluations of women writers and their texts in different literary histories.