Attestation committee
Accreditation committee
Expert committee
Dispositions, instructions
Normative acts
Scientific councils
Scientific advisers
Doctoral students
Postdoctoral students
CNAA logo

 română | русский | english

Conceptul de roman la G. Ibrăileanu şi structura stratiformă a operei literare

Author: Anatol Gavrilov
Degree:doctor habilitat of philology
Speciality: 10.01.08 - Literature Theory
Scientific consultant: Haralambie Corbu
doctor habilitat, professor
Institution: Institute of Literature and Folklore of the ASM


The thesis was presented on the 24 November, 2006
Approved by NCAA on the 18 January, 2007


Adobe PDF document0.36 Mb / in romanian


CZU 821.135.1.0 „19” (092) (043.3)

Adobe PDF document 2.07 Mb / in romanian
343 pages


psychological analysis, (character’s) self-expression, internal author, literary work’s bidimensionality, double voice, dialectic and authentic literary character, reader, receiver, addressed, narratar, receptor, confession (character logical way), literary communication, contents-form, chronotop, complete critics, word (proper, foreign, bivoc), the dialectics of soul, dialogue, dialogism, dialogistic, speech, literary aesthetics, stream of consciousness, character logical function, novel genre, artistic image, image science, entropy, empathy, sympathy, introspection, character logical language (reflexive, self-referential), involuntary memory (artistic method), (artistic) message, interior monologue, narration, narration science, narrator, complete man, horizon (of expectancy and understanding), aesthetical perception, novel character, plurilinguisticity, plurivoicing, pluriphonism, aesthetical reception, scene, viewing, showing, aesthetical feeling, complete life, artistic system (open, dynamic), structure (macro-, micro) layered, semantic zone (of the author’s word or of the character’s word)


In the dissertation there are generalized the main results of the author’s researches in the field of theory and history of the European and Romanian novel.

In Chapter I there are critically analyzed theoretical patterns of the multilayered structure of the artistic work worked out by R. Ingarden, R. Wellek, A. Warren, N. Hartmann, V. Kojinov etc. Defining the contribution of each theoretician the author emphasizes the insufficiency of each pattern and gives arguments to the necessity to take the novel as a macrostructure consisting of multilayered microstructures, the main place is occupied by the structure of the image of the human being.

In Chapter II the author makes a systematization of G. Ibrăileanu’s ideas about the novel, scattered in his numerous articles and it is demonstrated that our critic had given indeed the first full structural definition of the “composite genre”. The main structural components of the novel (plot, structure, character, narration, language and style, reception), defined in their novelistic particularity, can be assembled in a multilayered structure characteristic of this genre.

In Chapter III the literary character – the nuclear of the Romanian system of image – is defined for the first time as a multilayered “contents form” (Hegel, Bahtin). Using a comparative analysis of the structure of the character in Tolstoi and Dostoievski’s novels the author proves that the images of the interior universe of characters, their environment and their appearance (portrait), their characteristic language forms an organic imagistic texture, a living material of multilayered microstructure of the character in the macrostructure of the novel. The comparative analysis of Tolstoi and Dostoievski’s structure of characters that have the same dialectic artistic view of the human being and at the same time are two different individual styles, comes to show the author’s thesis that all the means of describing the characters turn into individual, become components of individual structure of each character.

The notion of multilayered structure applied to the character in the novel as well as to the novel as a whole, gives a more concrete theoretical representation about the dialectic unity of the contents and form in a literary work namely as a process of continuous transition from one layer to another, from form to contents and vice versa, from contents to form, each structural component has a bifunctional regime being at the same time form and contents. The author concludes that this fact creates a theoretical premise to overpass the reductionistic consequences of dichotomy: on one hand, ideas become abstract, artistic contents turns into a poor one, on the other hand, the form is taken out to a sum of literary procedures and narrative techniques.