Search

Symbol of national identity, Mihai Eminescu is, for sure, one of the most important writers and thinkers in Romanian literature. His biography has been the subject of endless fights, while his ideas have generated a large number of different opinions concerning his political, economic or cultural choices. For all these reasons it is almost impossible today to deal with his work in an objective manner. I have tried myself to construe his journalism by placing it into the very context that generated it, but, as expected, my intention was not well understood. Recently, in an article dedicated to Eminescu's contributions to the philosophy of law, Stefan Munteanu rejected the possibility of any utopia in Eminescu's thinking, denying the evidence and refusing to understand that the term can be interpreted in a double manner: as discourse and, at the same time, as political action. That is why this paper aims at (re)discussing this controversial topic, having as a starting point this distinction between discourse and political action. Such an approach turns out useful since it proves that Eminescu was aware of what utopia means. He is, in fact, an anti-modernist and not a utopian thinker. His economic or cultural ideas prove his outstanding thinking which could not be accepted as political solutions since Romania chose a different way, the French revolutionary system and not the German one. That is why, my conclusion goes like that: Eminescu's thinking is rather anti-modernist in theory, but utopian in practice. However it is extremely important because it worked as a possible option for a young state as Romania in search of discourses to legitimate its identity in Europe. In other words, we may accept that Eminescu's thinking is a necessary utopia that forged our national identity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Having as a starting point Antoine Compagnon's recent book, The Anti-Moderns. From Joseph de Maistre to Roland Barthes, the present paper aims at examining the so-called philosophy of Mihai Eminescu and I. L. Caragiale, as it is manifested in their journalistic activity, but also in their literary work, where they develop an original social and political thinking. On the other hand, the paper will question several points of view belonging to some of the most important literary critics starting from Ibrăileanu and Lovinescu and ending up with Eugen Simion or Marta Petreu. The main idea is that we can no longer accept terms such as extreme social criticism or mere irony and we need to define Eminescu's and Caragiale's thinking in terms of recent, more appropriate theories. That is why, the papers tries to prove that the above mentioned writers illustrate, to a certain point and in different manners, the concept of "anti-modernity", as it was defined by Antoine Compagnon. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present paper, Mihai Eminescu's Journalistic Work in G. Ibraileanu and E. Lovinescu's Approach, aims at tracing aspects of this intriguing process of interpreting his articles, focusing on the way in which it was viewed by two of the most important literary critics of that period: G. Ibraileanu and E. Lovinescu, both known for their activity in studying Eminescu's work. Our main objective is to identify these ideological particularities which shape different ways of interpreting his articles. The differences must be analyzed taking into account their cultural background and the ideology they believe in. That is why, sometimes, the results in interpreting Eminescu's journalistic work are influenced by the ideas they want to promote. In discussing their points of view, we must take into account both the context of the period but also their ideological background which leads them to distinct interpretations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]