Search

My study aims to address the phenomenon of literary multilingualism in the nineteenth-century Romanian novel. Based on Johan Heilbron’s approach on “translations as a cultural world-system” and his classification into hyper-central, central, semi-peripheral and peripheral languages, my analysis discusses the nineteenth-century Romanian language at an early stage of its consolidation and thus in self-colonial and anti-colonial relations to the “hegemony” of the French language. Taking advantage of this framework, I consider that the majority of literary code-switching examples faithfully render these linguistic relations, so my study proposes a classification of literary multilingualism into the following possible categories: a livresque multilingualism, which satisfies the self-colonial tendencies of the nineteenth-century language, a latent multilingualism, which can also be associated with an attempt at linguistic bovarisation, but also with the search for authenticity in novels through suggestion and “explicit attribution” (Meir Sternberg), a thesistic multilingualism, in such cases where the novel didactically presents foreign language insertions, and a functional multilingualism. Finally, my paper also launches a discussion of another type of multilingualism, that as a source for “defamiliarization”, which I expect to find in the Romanian novel of the twentieth century, when the Romanian language is no longer in danger of self-colonization and passes by the incipient stage, the phenomenon of code-switching serving Viktor Shklovsky’s technique of “defamiliarization”. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper offers an interpretation of Mircea Cărtărescu's short story REM through the perspective of the post-modern palimpsest derived from Julio Cortázar's End of the Game. The dialogue to which Cărtărescu co-opts Cortázar is read not as an inter-textual post-modern quotation, but as a self-legitimating attempt of Cărtărescu to build an intrinsic, self-sufficient textual coherence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Paul Zarifopol (1874-1934) could be described as a notable case of misreading in the field of Romanian literary history. Although allotted generous space in most histories of Romanian literature (from E. Lovinescu to G. Călinescu and Nicolae Manolescu), Zarifopol is often presented as an „anticlassical“ literary critic, with no particular method and no systemic thinking, an impetuous and subjective writer of feuilletons. Collating critical opinions of his contemporaries, as well as fragments from private letters, this paper analyses the way in which Zarifopol deals with his own work and aims to prove that he deliberately chose to be an essayist, and not a literary critic. Zarifopol's criticism stems from a generalized skepticism, as the only expression of intellectual freedom which is possible in a postwar world. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

My study is a plea for what might be called "export criticism", i.e. that critical discourse which retains some relevance beyond the strictly local, regional or national context where it has arisen. In this respect, I carry out an inventory of both external and internal obstacles impeding the promotion of Romanian literary criticism abroad. As regards external obstacles, the most important are the few translations of Romanian literary works into languages of international circulation (especially English and French), the absence of a recent history of Romanian literature written in a foreign language, the difficulties of assigning Romanian literature in a disciplinary niche (as an object of analysis, it seems to be at the periphery of both Romance and East-European studies), and the poor communication between Romanian and foreign researchers. Regarding internal obstacles, mention should be made of the methodological belatedness of Romanian literary criticism, its essayistic tradition and a certain dogmatism which renders it incompatible with the dominant pluralism on the international market. However, the thesis I attempt to underscore in the present paper is that Romanian literature and criticism not only can be, but they already are areas of international relevance and academic interest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]