A complex, intricate, and sometimes disruptive era, the first half of the 20th century was shaken by a significant number of crises, leading to fundamental transformations in the individual’s perception of the world and the self. Wars, sudden shifts of political regimes, economic decline, and existential anxiety gave shape to different “faces of modernity”, to use a syntagm borrowed from Matei Călinescu’s well-known study. Thus, modernism can be read as originating from a historical and a cultural crisis, as many scholars have noted, which are contingent on a crisis of identity and a crisis of language, reaching its highest point in modern poetry. Art and literature of the fifth decade, in general, and poetry, in particular, constituted responses and solutions to the fragmentation, gaps, and ruptures inherent to modernism, embedding them within legitimate aesthetic structures. However, countless authors of both literary and cultural studies have approached what is widely recognised as modern poetry mostly in matters of form rather than highlighting the social, economic or political implications central to its emerging context. The proliferation of this tendency led to modernism being, almost exclusively, associated in poetry with experimentalism and innovation in language. For instance, the avant-garde is considered more specific to European aesthetic modernism than other literary directions, yet equally fruitful and valuable. Nevertheless, amid the waves of crises that profoundly pervaded the social and aesthetic structures of modernity, language seemed to lose its ability to represent society and express the turmoil of that particular period, becoming fragmented in the process. Relying on the theory of an epistemological crisis set at the core of late modernism, developed by Justin Parks in his recent important study, Poetry and the Limits of Modernity in Depression America, this article advances the idea that at the basis of the identity crisis and of the language crisis, which crossed such a substantial segment of modern poetry – and the same is the case in both Romanian and American literature – stood, first of all, a social and a cultural crisis, intertwined with a spiritual one, usually not much brought into discussion. Moreover, the current article originally proposes closeness between the poets of the Great Depression, analysed by Parks in his essay, and the Romanian insurgent “war poets” (the syntagm is believed to have been used by Emil Manu in his often cited work, Eseu despre generația războiului [Essay on the War Generation]) grouped, at least initially, around the nonconformist magazine Albatros. On the one hand, Parks’ analysis of poetry in deep connection with various aspects belonging to the cultural and artistic production of the 1930s, and with society, in general, can be effectively grafted to the study of the Romanian poets who made their debut during the outbreak of the Second World War, confronting – like the American poets of the Depression – with the chaos of a society carved out by inequities and intense political upheaval. On the other hand, between the poetry written by Louis Zukofsky, Muriel Rukeyser, George Oppen or Langston Hughes and Geo Dumitrescu, Dimitrie Stelaru, Ion Caraion, and Constant Tonegaru’s texts can be traced a series of thematic, ideological and structural similarities, together with the language’s urgency of shifting from the detachment of aestheticism and from symbolism to social and political engagement on a stern, melancholic tone. In addition to these hypotheses, the concepts of crisis and authenticity can be combined to provide a broader understanding of how the poetic discourse of the second generation of modernists incorporated both individual and collective traumatic experiences, and managed to challenge not only the poetic tradition but also the political power.
The study file presents the activity of the doctoral supervisor, Prof. Constantin Cubleșan, within the Doctoral School of Philology of IOSUD-Alba Iulia. The twenty-three doctoral theses defended under his coordination during the period 17.04.2008-24.03.2017 are listed in chronological order, and the nine volumes authored by former doctoral students resulting later from the publication of some of these theses are also identified. For each doctoral student, the occupation and current place of work are indicated, as well as the email address. The twenty-four academics who have acted as referees within the thesis defense committees are also listed, with their professional affiliation and number of participations. The statistical distribution of former doctoral students by occupation and geographical location is conclusively and succinctly presented, and the number of citations in Google Academic of three of the published volumes of theses is recorded. Last but not least, three of the doctoral supervisor’s reviews are reproduced, later published as critical references or prefaces in the aforementioned volumes. In the second part, fifteen other doctoral theses are presented, with the same structural approach, for which Professor Constantin Cubleșan acted as a referent between 26.06.2009 and 24.10.2014, theses coordinated by his colleagues from the Doctoral School. One such report is also reproduced.
We live in a world where economic and social change often becomes routine, and restoring social order is increasingly difficult. It is a world that is constantly changing – and yet, as humanity, we seem to have limits about always evolving in the right and / or correct direction. Why? Such a question (only seemingly simple) requires nuanced answers: (i) As time passes (as strange as it may seem), we become more selfish, and we want much more than we need. It is not just about the relationship between resources and current consumerism, but also about the fact that we consider ourselves more entitled than others. In other words, we forget (or refuse to acknowledge) that, although a dose of selfishness is necessary for everyone, its dosage must be reasonable. (ii) We are not satisfied with that. To achieve our goal, we sometimes act for ourselves, but to the detriment of the communities we belong to. (iii) The general interest becomes secondary. (iv) In such conditions, the individual risks becoming a puppet actor, who particularises an ‘era’ of personal interest: he becomes more curious and courageous, but not necessarily wiser and assertive. The ‘door’ through which he identifies the values of others seems to be an increasingly visible sign of the individual’s adaptation not only to the schematization and simplification of everything, but also to mystification and / or isolation. Detailing the previous contents, this paper insists on positive economic and social change (we refer here to transculturalism and interculturalism), which social groups can generate in the current global context, so turbulent and harsh. The motivation behind our theme is relatively simple: if the obstruction implied by egocentrism marks the gesture of an authority to punish people for their own mistakes, the acceptance signifies the attention with which we treat the correction of errors. Our text views the world with spirit of introspection (more brutal or more subtle, as the case may be), with varying degrees of risk, depending on the selective ‘pattern’ of society and its limits. We refer here to the everyday importance of education, of community spirit, and of utilitarianism, which – in the end – can constitute multiple ‘doors’ to social acceptance (but to overcome inner fear, the three previous landmarks require a suitable key for each ‘door’). Under these circumstances, the main landmark of our work is formulated as a question: Could transculturalism and interculturalism formulate (in their combined complexity) a compass for the modern world? Hard to imagine such a commitment, though perhaps not impossible. To reach this social-economic and cultural level, individuals and communities would have to overcome human selfishness, i.e. to stop being self-centered. In essence, we are talking about the management of social-economic acceptance policies and those on diversity. From this perspective, modern societies are oscillating: they either seem to be spinning on the Ferris wheel, on the Tilt-A-Whirl or on the Roller-Coaster, or either seem to make Scrambling. But seem to do whatever it takes to win – and that doesn't mean promoting egalitarianism. No doubt their purpose is to evolve, but their dynamic architecture supports their national identity in different ways. Finally, for all social-economic entities, the most important test of sustainability is called dialog (universally valid deadline for acceptance).
Starting from a comparison between the Romanian version of Vasile Alecsandri’s short story 24 de ceasuri la Balta-Albă [24 Hours in Balta-Albă] and its French version, entitled Le lac Blanc (Balta alba). Traduit du moldave [The White Lake (Balta Alba). Translated from Moldavian], published in the pages of the prestigious journal L’Illustration, this article aims to highlight several aspects. On the one hand, that through the structural modifications he introduced to the original, the Romanian writer was preparing his text for an encounter with a different cultural space—a metropolitan one—and with an audience little or not at all familiar with the political situation of one of the emerging civilizations that, around the revolutionary year 1848, was knocking at the door of the modern nations. He did so in an original manner: first, by entering into dialogue with some of the texts that had opened the way for communication between the two cultural spaces; then, by correcting — through a skilful staging that targets colonial discourse — some of the perspectives exercised upon the Romanian Principalities, to which, by repositioning them on the map of the world, he attributed the status of an internal Other. On the other hand, that the modifications under discussion reflect an evident process of Orientalizing, which fits the logic of Alexander Kiossev’s (cultural) metaphor of self-colonization — an Orientalizing that is both sought after and performed, since only in this way could that „Hegelian expectation of recognition” (Gandhi, 1996, p. 16) be fulfilled. This reveals an Alecsandri aware of the fact that, within the self–other dichotomy, the role of one is to recognize, while that of the other is to be recognized.
My paper proposes an exploration of the relationship between text and metatext, between memory and fiction, as well as a reflection on how the author constructs a poetics of confession. Starting from the premise that Ion Vianu’s writing represents a constant negotiation between autobiography and imagination, the article examines the way in which the act of remembrance transforms into an aesthetic and moral form of knowledge. The first part of the analysis focuses on the correspondence between Ion Vianu and Matei Călinescu, which reveals the author’s dissatisfaction with scientific discourse and his growing need to express what he calls the most precious content of his life. These letters, written over several decades, document the genesis of his literary vocation and express a double tension: on the one hand, between the analytical rigor of the psychiatrist and the freedom of the imagination, and on the other hand, between the intellectual discipline of reason and the ethical imperative of confession. The dialogue with Matei Călinescu thus becomes a privileged space for the — often intuitive — formulation of the principles of a personal poetics grounded in sincerity, introspection, and the transformative potential of memory. The paper also argues that Ion Vianu conceives literature as both an ethical and an aesthetic endeavor. His vision is based on a humanistic understanding of writing as an act of moral responsibility and communication with future generations. In the volume Apropieri [Approaches], Ion Vianu explicitly states that memoir writing is the genre in which the Platonic unity of Truth, Goodness, and Beauty is most clearly manifested. The aesthetic problem of the memoirist is, in his view, simultaneously a moral one; therefore, memoir literature is not a mere recording of the past, but a process of spiritual knowledge and even redemption—for both author and reader. For the author, the reinterpretation of life through language becomes a form of salvation, while for the reader it represents the reception of an ethical legacy. The text thus functions as an act of communication between author and reader — a dialogue that transcends mere confession and becomes testimony. In the second part, the analysis moves toward the fictional dimension of Ion Vianu’s work, where metatextual structures explicitly reveal his conception of the creative act. The novels Vasiliu, foi volante [Vasiliu, unbound sheets] and Caietele lui Ozias [The Notebooks of Ozias] are constructed as fictional memoirs, containing postludes, genealogies, and commentaries intended to guide the reader. The Postlude of Caietele lui Ozias [The Notebooks of Ozias] functions as an explicit poetics, expressing the idea that every creative act entails a destructive gesture, the writer’s first act being that of breaking reality into fragments. “Outside this initial act of destruction, there is no creation,” says Ion Vianu. These ideas synthesize Ion Vianu’s modern vision of literature as a deliberate reconstruction of reality through memory and imagination. The analysis then focuses on two characters who become fictional alter egos of the author: Dan Naidin and Ozias. Naidin embodies the creative instinct, asserting that his inventions will be truer than the rags of reality, while Ozias represents the reflective consciousness of the narrative, maintaining that only imagination and philosophy can reanimate scattered facts. Both characters function as doubles of the author, through whom he explores the tension between fact and fiction, authenticity and verisimilitude. Their narratives illustrate the dialectic that defines Ion Vianu’s entire oeuvre: memory as creative reconstruction, fiction as moral mediation, and truth as aesthetic synthesis rather than documentary fact. Writing thus becomes a form of aesthetic and moral resistance against oblivion and falsification. By transforming memory into narrative and narrative into ethical reflection, Ion Vianu redefines both the function of literature and the role of the writer in a post-totalitarian culture. The poetics of confession he proposes is, in this sense, not merely a literary mode of expression but a philosophical attitude — an effort to restore meaning, coherence, and human dignity through the act of writing.
