StatusThe thesis was presented on the 29 September, 2006
Approved by NCAA on the 21 December, 2006
Abstract– 0.41 Mb / in romanian
ThesisCZU CZU 821.135.1 “19” (478).09 (043.3)
0.85 Mb /
The thesis presents and interprets, for the first time, the literary critical process in the 60s – 80s in the Republic of Moldova.
In the period when the reappraisal and the integration of culture created on this territory became a priority, we believe that the condition of the literary criticism cannot be disregarded. Or, the criticism is the self-conscience of literature and represents the expression of reception, appreciation and hierarchic differentiation of the aesthetic and spiritual values of a concrete epoch.
This study, relying on the theoretical investigations of notorious literary researchers (H. Friedrich, M. Bahtin, G. Călinescu, T. Vianu, E. Lovinescu, and others) as well as on the ideas advanced by those who examined the Romanian literary critical process from the postwar period (F. Mihăilescu, E. Simion, D. Micu, R. Munteanu, I. B. Lefter, M. Cimpoi, M. Dolgan and others), provides a synthesizing image of the Republic of Moldova critical process in the 60s, emphasizing its peculiarities and methodological directions. The interpretation of the metaliterary discourse is accomplished by the analysis of concrete works and by the observation, comparison and synthesis of the components of the critical act.
The paper underlines the role played by criticism in the 60s in the establishment of a new aesthetic nexus as well as its obvious cultural-aesthetic and syncretic orientation. It also insists on the contribution of criticism to the modernization of the metaliterary discourse and to the integration of the literature from Moldova in the Romanian and European cultural context.
The dissertation aimed at laying much stress on the achievements of the investigated critics rather then on some inherent deficiencies.
Distinguishing two main directions in the evolution of the metaliterary discourse in the 60s (the scientific-aesthetic criticism and the essay-like criticism), the thesis focuses, particularly, on the critical works of M.Cimpoi, M. Dolgan, E. Botezatu, A. Gavrilov, M. Ciocanu, without neglecting the context of the previous and the subsequent periods.