Search

In most of his books (Timpul trăirii, timpul mărturisirii. Jurnal parizian, Sfidarea retoricii. Jurnal german, Fragmente cririce, Ficțiunea jurnalului intim, Genurile biograficului), Eugen Simion focused on the essential theme of the ideal critic and that of the aesthetic criticism. How did he managed to get closer, as time passed, to what he understood of these notions, to what he wished, first from himself, as an author, we find, as well as from his books, also from few interviews and also from his volumes of Dialogues with Petru Dumitriu and Dialogues with Andrei Grigor. This way, we find out from the confessions of his journals, but also from the dialogues with other writers, how the critic Eugen Simion sees/analyses himself, how he looks at himself in relation to the others and, especially, what he understands by the critic’s mission/the destiny of the literary critic, into an outline of self-portrait that mirrors the profound self versus the biographical self.

This article is mainly about “Anul 1961” and “Anul 1971” from CVLR – the Communist Era, putting in scene a series of lists about these years, by famous authors of that time (being quoted frequently in that moment), in the newspapers that appeared in 1961 and 1971, about events – themes – subjects of two periods, that represents the beginning of a relative opening of the destalinization in the Gheorghiu-Dej age (1961) and the beginning of the (re)frost of the Ceaușescu epoch, after the China and Korea visits and the launching of July thesis (1971), equal to a coming back to a dogmatic Socialist Realism. Therefore, the society of the 1961 vs 1971, the Romanian literary life in Communism, the well known cases of ‘60’s vs ‘70’s, as for punishing and forbidding the intellectuals, but also about their returning in the ordinary life, after the 1964 amnesty (that meant the letting out of jail of all the political prisoners). In 1961, but also in 1971, a lot of writers have had a coming back to Romanian official literary life, including the authors from outside the country (Eliade, Ionescu) and the critical capitalization of the cultural/ literary heritage becomes the main subject. Based on the articles published in the newspapers of those years and on the lists of the writers that were mentioned at the time, we can understand clearly about the absences and the presences of some writers from the above-mentioned decades. We also follow the fluctuant status of the Romanian writer in Dej regime, in the Ceaușescu ‘Golden Age’, the resistance/ adjustment of the interior exile of Constantin Noica type, but also the getting out of the Socialist Camp – the real exile involving of an external disclaimer, by Herta Muller, Paul Goma or Norman Manea type. CVLR can underline all these directions, for general subjects about that time and future individual or group articles, being reflected all the gestures – collaborations or denials – from the Communist Era of the most important authors in some sort of unique history in images/ discussed quotes of the 1944-1989, from the step by step instauration of Dej’s dictatorship and to the collapse of the Ceaușescu’s power.

This article is mainly about “Anul 1961” and “Anul 1971” from CVLR – the Communist Era, putting in scene a series of lists about these years, by famous authors of that time (being quoted frequently in that moment), in the newspapers that appeared in 1961 and 1971, about events – themes – subjects of two periods, that represents the beginning of a relative opening of the destalinization in the Gheorghiu-Dej age (1961) and the beginning of the (re)frost of the Ceaușescu epoch, after the China and Korea visits and the launching of July thesis (1971), equal to a coming back to a dogmatic Socialist Realism. Therefore, the society of the 1961 vs 1971, the Romanian literary life in Communism, the well known cases of ‘60’s vs ‘70’s, as for punishing and forbidding the intellectuals, but also about their returning in the ordinary life, after the 1964 amnesty (that meant the letting out of the jail of all the political prisoners). In 1961, but also in 1971, a lot of writers have had a coming back to Romanian official literary life, including the authors from outside the country (Eliade, Ionescu) and the critical capitalization of the cultural/ literary heritage becomes the main subject. Based on the articles published in the newspapers of that years and on the lists of the writers that were mentioned at the time, we can understand clearly about the absences and the presences of some writers from the above mentioned decades. We also follow the fluctuant status of the Romanian writer in Dej regime, in the Ceaușescu ‘Golden Age’, the resistance/ adjustment of the interior exile of Constantin Noica type, but also the getting out of the Socialist Camp – the real exile involving of an external disclaimer, by Herta Muller, Paul Goma or Norman Manea type. CVLR can underline all these directions, for general subjects about that time and future individual or group articles, being reflected all the gestures – collaborations or denials – from the Communist Era of the most important authors in some sort of unique history in images/ discussed quotes of the 1944-1989, from the step by step instauration of Dej’s dictatorship and to the collapse of the Ceaușescu’s power.

In her book A pamphlet’s Anthology (from the Wallachian chroniclers to Pamfil Şeicaru), Magda Răduţă realizes a history of the representative articles of the most important romanian polemists writers and journalists – from the Enlightenment and Romanticism to the 20th Century – which used satire in their works. I analized the next period of time, the destiny of the pamphlet in the Romanian Communist Era (with a strong example: the nr. 1 polemist of the 1947–1989, Eugen Barbu) but also the proliferation of the Barbu’s „school”/tradition in the publishing of the 1990–2000 years, when the satire becomes, for many times, an attack to the person. In the inter-war years, we have redoubtable polemists, like Tudor Arghezi or N. D. Cocea; during the Communist Era: Eugen Barbu, Adrian Păunescu, Fănuş Neagu; after 1989 – Mircea Dinescu, Corneliu Vadim Tudor. The magazines where they published show the literary adversities/sides in the ’60–’70–’80 („Luceafărul”, „Săptămâna” vs „România literară”, Radio Free Europe) and in the 1990–2000 („România Mare”, „Totuşi iubirea” vs „Academia Caţavencu/Caţavencii”).

We hereby present comments referring to Marin Preda and his work, mainly regarding his novel The Moromete Family, as sixty years are celebrated from its publishing, using excerpts of the four volumes of the Romanian Literary Chronology – the Post-Communist Period, coordinator Eugen Simion, the Publishing House of the National Museum of Romanian Literature, 2015 (under printing). A group of researchers up of Bianca Burța-Cernat (publishing coordinator), Lucian Chișu, Oana Soare, Paul Cernat, Andrei Milca and Ion Oprișan participated in the preparation and elaboration of the documentary material.

This large stuff represent a cronology of what happen in the writing Romanian publications during the 1950 year, a black period where the litterature was under totalitarian commands and fear. That cronology was elaborated and composed by a groupe of researchers as Andrei Grigor, Lucian Chişu, Andrei Milca.

L’étude qui s’ensuit fait partie d’une thèse de doctorat sur Eugen Barbu, un écrivain du régime totalitaire, fortement contesté. Le but de l’auteur est de jeter un regard clair et juste sur les documents de l’époque et les relations extrinsèques de l’oeuvre avec la réalité génératrice dans le procès créateur de l’un plus grands romans d’après guerre. Le roman de la périphérie bucarestoise, Le trou, est analysé des perpectives variées et avec un sens équilibré du jugement critique.

The brilliant scholar and the most important encyclopedic Romanian spirit of 20-th century, Mircea Eliade is disputed, even in 2007, the year of his centenary. The controversies are the same in the present with those of the past, which stopped Eliade for obtaining the Nobel Prize: for ,,sympathy“ of the young writer, in ’30’s years, for „the Devil“ — the Iron Guard of Corneliu Zelea Codreanu and Nae Ionescu, the teacher and the mentor of Eliade. A prey of a tumultuous period from the Romanian history Mircea Eliade was unjustly accused for 50 years by Nazism and Fascism, although his „contribution“ in promoting Iron Guard’s ideas was never proved and the arguments of his enemies weren’t so reasonable, in fact. The mystery of this ,,collaborationism* can be explained nowadays — and we’ll understand that the scientist and the pioneer of Myths and Religious Ideas History is one of the most ,,collateral victim of his age. Eliade is out of time with the madness of politics and war, is a man without a fate, a mystical-person of „amplitude“ and full of faith, escaped from his Past and earlier life’s violence by the Exile. He was saved and purified in his mission of a Work and Art under the Sacred signs. An Universal Romanian, the writer realized so well the unhappy context and the way of the Romanian Culture under the tyranny of King Carol the 2-nd, or Gheorghiu Dej and Ceausescu, in communism. He was reborn in the whole world from the Act of Creation: his life out of his birth-country is a ,,trial“, a test of labyrinth and, finally, the teacher was reconsidered like a great intellect, a spiritual historian of the Religions. In the year of his celebration we must approach by Eliade’s creation, without looking back in anger, because, now, he’s worth judged only by his books, not by the youth mistakes, which appear so petty comparative with his international career.