Scholarly article on topic 'G. Călinescu's Publishing Discourse before and after 1944. Ideological Re-configuration'

G. Călinescu's Publishing Discourse before and after 1944. Ideological Re-configuration Academic research paper on "Political Science"

Share paper
OECD Field of science
{"Critical discourse" / Publicist / "Political ideology" / "Aesthetic criterion" / "Critical meta-discourse."}

Abstract of research paper on Political Science, author of scientific article — Carmen Lili Nane

Abstract In contemporary literature, Călinescu's critical discourse has become the point of interest of many debates and opinions. The issue of Călinescu's both critical discourse and publicist activity facing the ever increasing pressure of the political factor and the Communist ideology after 1950 is under focus in contemporary critics. The present paper analyses the facets of Călinescu's publishing discourse before and after august’44 by taking into account the critical opinions of the time (V. Mândra, I. Vitner) and of the present (I. Bălu, N. Manolescu, A. Terian, E. Simion). In other words, the present study will focus on the relation established between the subjective and objective elements of discourse, the adhesion or denial as authorial attitudes, as well as on the conversion / replacement of the aesthetic by the newly-occurred political criteria.

Academic research paper on topic "G. Călinescu's Publishing Discourse before and after 1944. Ideological Re-configuration"

Available online at

SciVerse ScienceDirect PfOCSCl ¡0

Social and Behavioral Sciences

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 63 (2012) 317 - 324

The 4th Edition of the International Conference: Paradigms of the Ideological Discourse 2012

G. Calinescu's Publishing Discourse before and after 1944. Ideological Re-configuration

Carmen Lili Nanea*

_a PhD Candidate/'Dunarea de Jos" University of GalaUi, Romania_


In contemporary literature, Calinescu's critical discourse has become the point of interest of many debates and opinions. The issue of Calinescu's both critical discourse and publicist activity facing the ever increasing pressure of the political factor and the Communist ideology after 1950 is under focus in contemporary critics. The present paper analyses the facets of Calinescu's publishing discourse before and alter august '44 by taking into account the critical opinions of the time (V. Mandra, I. Vitner) and of the present (I. Balu, N. Manolescu, A. Terian, E. Simion). In other words, the present study will focus on the relation established between the subjective and objective elements of discourse, the adhesion or denial as authorial attitudes, as well as on the conversion / replacement of the aesthetic by the newly-occurred political criteria.

© 2012 TheAuthors.PublishedbyElsevier Ltd.Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of Dunarea de Jos UniversityofGalati

Keywords: Critical discourse, publicist, political ideology, aesthetic criterion, critical meta-discourse.

1. Introduction

A critic, literary historian, publicist, and writer, George Calinescu worked as a university professor in Ia§i and Bucharest, as the director of the Institute of Literary History and Folklore of the Romanian Academy (19491965), and he authored the referential work Istoria literaturii romane de la origini pana in prezent (A history of Romanian literature from its origins to the present) and numerous essays and studies on universal literature. His publicist writing is impressive both in constancy and punctuality of issuance in 45 years, and in quantity - he makes an activity of importance and responsibility towards the impact on the reading audience out of an activity that could have been provisional. The brief listing of the thirty and more publications of culture and media with resounding names the critic contributed to draws a big picture of the importance of Calinescu's publishing discourse, discourse that would face, unfortunately, the overwhelming pressure of the political factor, by the communist ideology after 1944: Roma, Dacia, Universul literar, Viata literara, Sburatorul, Gandirea, Vremea, Romania literara, Viata romaneasca, Revista Fundatiilor Regale, Jurnalul literar, Cuvantul, Ia§ul, Mi§carea, Politica, Ecoul, Vestul, Studii §i cercetari de istorie literara §ifolclor, Contemporanul, Gazeta literara, Steaua, Teatrul, Sinteza (he contributes to

* Carmen Lili Nane, Tel.: +40-746-580974 E-mail address:


1877-0428 © 2012 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of Dunarea de Jos University of Galati doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.10.044

the journal issuance), Capricornul (edited by him). He also managed publications like: Jurnalul literar, Tribuna poporului, Lumea and Natiunea [1].

In 2007, the National Foundation for Science and Art initializes an ample process of re-editing of Calinescu's articles published in periodicals (in 12 volumes), process carried out by the academician Eugen Simion and university professor Nicolae Mecu. In this respect, Nicolae Mecu says:

"G. Calinescu's publicist work is one of the vastest in Romanian literature. His publicist work is superior quantitatively to his works as an essayist, critic and literary historian. (...) the present edition will prove - a well-known fact, otherwise, yet not one to have had all the evidence presented - that this process was dramatically wrung with the establishment of the communist regime (...) In every instance, however, G. Calinescu's articles do not suggest an improvising proper to 'ephemeridae', but small finite and indecomposable oeuvres, by thought and language, everlasting creations. (...) I believe that this edition, once finished, will open a significant moment in the general interpretation of his works, the complete publishing works bringing light upon many obscure aspects, providing solid positive arguments for some critical ideas insufficiently developed or shaking prejudice. We might even face a new era in exegesis" (our translation) [2].

2. Calinescu's political adhesion

And this publishing work precisely, through its fervent articles, will constitute a starting point for the endless just and unjust disproof borne by the writer, sometimes stoically or equanimously, but most of the time with violent responses of the acknowledged polemicist - "it may seem curious that both before and after 1989, Calinescu's disproof started from his publicist work, not from his critical works proper, if one disregards the special instance of the reception of his History of literature in 1941. Prevalently disproven were the articles published after the second world war" [3].

G. Calinescu's impressive publicist activity was perceived disruptedly before and after the second world war. The approach to this aspect has always been a serious, interpretable and sometimes irresoluble issue. Ion Balu writes in Sensulangajarii lui Cálinescu (The meaning ofCálinescu's 'engagement'):

"We only keep in mind now that Calinescu's creative attitude was doubled with a slow political ambition. He was convinced he was meant to play a certain part in the country's political life. Ever since 1939, in Jurnalul literar, he had considered himself unequivocally a man of action: 'I was locked in a library and the tumult of the events took me out in the streets. The new democracy offered me its hand'" [4].

Unfortunately, this new democracy was in fact a simulacrum and G. Cálinescu, caught between the political pressure and the requirements of the aesthetic, was trying various ways of aesthetic and social survival in a totalitarianism constantly installing.

The attacks, disproof, blame, anathema, censorship appeared immediately, as an automatic dictation, and they made the writer pursue a constant polemic activity to avert the attacks, most of the time unjust. N. Manolescu notes:

G. Cálinescu was, together with Sadoveanu and Gala Galaction, one of the first major writers to embrace the communist cause after 1944. In Tribuna poporului, Natiunea and the rest, he immediately started disputes with the press of the democratic Opposition, where almost all the critics in his generation were enlisted. He did not enjoy, however, the appreciation of these momentary allies. The attacks of the latter climax in the article Critica criticii (The critique of the critique), which I. Vitner published in booklet in

1949, trying to tear his History to pieces for conception and method flaws ('subjective idealism' and 'unscientifical character') (our translation) [5].

Ion Vitner (a dentist) is appointed university professor in G. Calinescu's position, after the latter's tenure has been abusively withdrawn. Professor Calinescu has a few half-learned of the time (I. Vitner, V. MDndra, A. Toma) among his enemies, representatives 'empowered' by the new ideology that was supposed to revolutionise and change all the old and solid values at any cost. Nonchalantly, they make so bold as to criticise the professor's activity in ample articles, with initiatives that, more often than not, achieve their purpose. Under these circumstances, G. Calinescu consciously adopts a dual attitude "as a reaction against the constant tendency of the officials to censor him, to prevent him from returning to teaching, to ban the republishing of his monographies and essential studies in literary criticism and history" [6]. It was an assumed attitude and "the great critic lay consciously against the times" (our translation) [7].

His attitude was noted as histrionic, dissimulative, with extravagant conjuctural praises, nevertheless, there were as many reviews with no ideological contamination:

"Many reviews are structured so as the propaganda wastes to form a clear cut foreign body inside the demonstration. After their removal, no one can deny the presence of some generally valid, resounding phrases. Suffice it to remove the quotations from Lenin, opening the review Tot despre contradictii (Yet again on contradictions), or to drop the last paragraph of Arta viata (Art and Life) for the texts to become what they really are: literary theory articles" (our translation) [8].

3. The mechanism of reprobation for deviation from the communist ideology after 1944. Disproof and attacks

A brief list of the articles resounding upon their issuance exactly because of exaggerations, malice, ignorance and political obedience could consist in the articles written by the activists I. Vitner and V. MDndra and we selected only two for reasons of space.

In the article Cateva consideratii cu privire la studiul literaturii romane in Universitate (A few considerations upon the teaching of Romanian literature at University), V. Mandra suggests a re-configuration of university education, especially at the department of Romanian literature, with thorough changes, without the gymnastics of speculative thoughts in the lectures of prof. Calinescu, a course considered, otherwise, unscientifical.

"These lines aim at drawing a lesson in view of the transformation that needs to take place from now on in the departments of Romanian literature, in the context of the thorough changes in public education. In other words, we intend to first discover the positions of the old regime in the activity of these departments, trying to use this exploration for some conclusions with respect to what should be done immediately for the obliteration of this inheritance. (...) According to the confession of prof. G. Calinescu himself, his course and especially his seminars aim rather at training students in the gymnastics of speculative thoughts than at studying Romanian modern literature thoroughfully. This explains why during the last year the lectures have had an odd content for a Romanian literature position. (...) Intending a speculative activity meant to train students in a 'refined spirituality', the tenured of the position has kept these lectures away from any scientifical influence" (our translation) [9].

In the same tenor of ideologically obedient discourse, the article Confuzia valorilor in critica noastra literara. Opera de critica §i istorie literara a d-lui prof. G. Calinescu (The confusion of values in our literary criticism. Prof. G. Calinescu's literary criticism and history works) by Ion Vitner, begins its vilifying harangue

with exaggerate praise, in fact offensive and insidious, for to go on immediately with complaints, observations and suggestions for the literary critic activity of the aforementioned. It proves some 'contradictions', 'severe confusions', 'misunderstandings of the issues in question', 'indecisions', 'uncertainties' and, in short, 'an anti-intellectual and anti-rationalist critical doctrine'. Here is an illuminating excerpt:

"Mr. G. Calinescu is a friend of democracy, moreover, he is today an energetic and intelligent activist for democracy and, in addition, a friend of Contemporanul and one of its contributors. Lately, his literary critic activity has faced a series of complaints underlining the presence in his writings of some contradictions meant to produce - despite his good intentions - severe confusions over some important perspectives in the positive orientation of literary criticism. (...) These observations were circumscribed to the present writing of Mr. Calinescu sheding light upon an entire series of misunderstandings of the issues in question. (...) Mr. G. Calinescu (...) asserts his wish to assimilate the basic teachings ofworking class: Marxism-Leninism" (our translation) [10].

The complaints and the toilsome and absurd demonstration continue in the same way to the end of the article,

the conclusion being radical and cynical, all of Calinescu's actions are considered the result of an abstract, bourgeois thinking, with deficient, unhistorical and unscientifcal results, unable to critically grasp the literary fact:

"This is what the bourgeois thinking started to do when the bourgeois society started to be festered by its inner contradictions (...) Instead of starting from considering reality, then to raise to theory, to abstract thinking, and to return afterwards to reality, practicality, a process providing the only way to know the truth and objective reality, his Excellency starts from an abstract, subjective, anti-rationalist and unscientifical thinking (as it is in Tehnica criticii a istoriei ¡iterare - The technique of literary criticism and history), goes down to reality (in History of Romanian literature) and raises again to even more terrible abstractions (in Istoria vazuta ca sinteza épica cu legi inefabile - History as epic synthesis with ineffable laws from Jurnalul literar, 1947). Applying such a thinking process in the historical treatment of Romanian literature must necessarily lead to a deficient outcome, as Mr. G. Calinescu's premises are unhistorical, unscientifical, therefore unable to coherently comprise, to enchain with scientific firmness, and to read through the literary fact in its entire width of the historical development" (our translation) [11].

In the volume Trádarea intelectualilor. Reeducare §i prigoaná (The betrayal of intellectuals. Reeducation and oppression), a renowned researcher of the phenomenon dedicates the writer George Calinescu an ample article from this very perspective, of his overt polemic with the two detractors, presenting Calinescu's replies which were never failing to appear: "G. Calinescu, in response in the upcoming issue of the literary page, explains thoroughfully the cultural orientation of Natiunea, on half of the newspaper page, entitled Un ráspuns / An answer. Scrupulously, he takes every complaint of Flacara, proves its caducity and annihilates it" (our translation) [12].

Another vendetta in tones of joke seriousness and insidious irony is to be found in I. Opri^an's book, G. Calinescu, spectacolulpersonalitatii/ G. Calinescu - the show of personality. Here we find a summons to Vitner to make him never return to the Academy Institute of Folklore and Literary History:

"Comrade Vitner, you have been missing for some time from your activity as deputy director without explaining the reasons of this absence and thus decreasing the work capacity of our Institute. We accounted that you had been busy with other problems. As a true communist, you have the duty to never leave the workplace in which the Party and the government have assigned you. Consequently, we kindly require for you to take over your position as deputy director effective immediately and, should it

not be possible, to send over a justified resignation so that we could appoint another deputy director. Yet I assume that reporting to your position is the only action in conformity with the Socialist ethics. G.

Calinescu" (ourtranslation) [13].

4. G. Calinescu and his writings from the perspective of the present day critical re-configurations

In the present-day criticism, Andrei Terian, in his book, A cincea esenta/ Thefifth essence [14] provides some exacting considerations, in a surprisingly harsh tone, on Calinescu's dual discourse after 1944 and his conversion to communist ideology. From the perspective of his laborious and documented interpretations, he reprobates unequivocally and with no mitigating circumstances the critic's position in that period. In the words of the young critic, "his behaviour is schizoid, deplorable; his civic discourse - disgraceful, his attitude -irresponsible, his articles - ideologically marred, and his obsequiousness - blatant" (our translation). He also mentions some rewards G. Calinescu presumably received "less than a month after the great Liberation of August 23rd" (our translation), one of them being the fact that the critic is appointed member of the Academy of Popular Republic of Romania on May, 29th, 1948, in the position vacanted by the Romanian linguist Sextil Puijcariu. Andrei Terian constructs the indictment upon Calinescu's dual discourse emphasising that the latter is still immune to ideological pressure in the first years after the war, yet he does not see any justification in Calinescu's attempts at exculpation:

"Calinescu's civic discourse is disgraceful almost in its entirety. The critic's attitude towards everything that means Romanian liberal democracy (historical parties, public figures, mentalities) is one of ferocious cynicism, his position towards the new political forces from the East is blatantly obsequious, while his response to the problems of postbellum Romania (the more and more threatening etatism, the famine of 1946, etc) can be described - best case scenario - as irresponsible. However, I will not insist upon these opinions here - not in order to decry their width (on the contrary, they represent one of the lowest level a Romanian intellectual has ever reached), but only because they have no relevance to literary criticism. (...) The dual discourse the most important Romanian critic practised during 1944-48 is not difficult to note. Otherwise, Calinescu himself tried many times to provide justification for his schizoid behaviour" (our translation) [15].

Next, it is proven that the critical independence of G. Calinescu did not last long and thus "his absolute ideological obedience and the fervour of his civic activism" (our translation) - by which he hoped to preserve his rights to critical opinion - would have manifested unavailingly [16].

The critic Eugen Simion's volume, In Ariergarda Avangardei, Convorbiri cu Andrei Grigor/In the rear guard of avantgarde. Conversations with Andrei Grigor [17], provides a dialogue regarding this thorny controversy. Eugen Simion's opinion is more indulgent and right-minded - the critic insists that we are prejudiced in inventing false problems, that G. Calinescu had the misfortune to live in communism and to write regrettable articles in order to survive and that not everything Calinescu had ever written is likable, for one reason or another. The critic also notes as similar Eugen Lovinescu's case, the one who modernised the Romanian literature with a critique based on the autonomy of aesthetic.

"A.G. I promised to return to I. Vitner. The political juncture helped him at the end of the '40s to supplant Calinescu from his teaching position and replace him there. Two questions arise: 1. Where do they want to supplant Calinescu from today? 2. Why is no one angry with I. Vitner today and the arguments others are driven into a corner with are quiet in what he is concerned? E.S. I have no satisfactory answer for the first question. What is easy to understand is that they want to ridicule him, to inoculate the idea that his judgements are false and that his critical authority is a myth to

be deconstructed. Today, it is of lesser importance that his detractors from 1940-50 supplanted him from University and that his History could not have been re-edited as long as he lived. Only after 41 years was Al. Piru able to publish a new edition...

We often waste time in history, we invent false problems, we discuss for decades whether prose fiction should be rural or urban and we have an unconsumed appetite for revile. We do not accept success, the presence of values is offensive to us, we feed on disasters and rejoice in mourning. In short, what we do is only to destroy what the previous generations have built" (our translation) [18].

Eugen Simion is unpleasantly surprised by the article signed by a contributor of a cultural publication on

Calinescu's case and tries to admonish him for the tragical existence ofa civilisation of negation in the Romanian space:

"A young contributor, at his first articles, published the other days in Cultura an article in which he calls G. Calinescu a puppet and believes that his writings after 1945 have their dumb humour and that they exceed by even greater ardour the preachments of the quasi-cultured of the time. The young publicist does not know, I suppose, that there is a civilisation of negation and that one can be averse to somebody without using trivial language. Not to mention that he does not infer the tragism of this intellectual fate. He speaks of G. Calinescu as he would be a small, irrelevant Proletkult scribbler of his times" (our translation) [19].

4. Conclusions

The present day opinions of the critics in respect to the Romanian critic's standing in with the communist power are still conflicting, oscillating between subjectivity and objectivity, nonetheless, they are in most cases rather unyielding than tolerant with the assumed position in the practice of Calinescu's criticism and publicist works after 1944. The fronde spirit or the adhesion, subservience, conversion or substitution of aesthetic to the political criterion - attitudes Calinescu had in the time frame discussed - will fade away eventually, making way for the valuable works of Calinescu - which are now ready for re-evaluation.


The present paper is included in the activities of Project SOP HRD - TOP ACADEMIC 76822


[1] xxx (2007). Dictionarul General al Literaturii Romane/ The General Dictionary of Romanian Literature, vol. II. Bucharest: Univers Enciclopedic, 132. (See also Antofi, 2009, Reevaluâri critice mutatii canonice în dictionarele de literatura românâ: Dictionarul literaturii române de la origini pânâ la 1900 vs Dictionarul General al Literaturii Române/ Critical re-evaluation and canonical reconfigurations in the dictionaries of Romanian literature: Dictionary of Romanian Literature from Origins up to 1900 vs. The General Dictionary of Romanian Literature, Annals of University "Dunârea de Jos" Galati, Fascicle XXIV, year II, 2. Galati: Europlus, 394 - 399).

[2] Cipariu, D. M. (2007). Calinescu in 710 articole/ Calinescu in 710 articles. Ziua, (original text: "Publicistica lui G. Calinescu este una dintre cele mai întinse din întreaga literatura romDnâ. Raportatâ la restul operei lui de eseist, critic si istoric literar, publicistica este superioarâ cantitativ (...) editia de fatâ va arâta - lucru de altfel cunoscut în principiu, nu însâ cu tóate probele «pe masâ» - cum acest procès a fost frânt dramatic odatâ eu instalarea regimului politic comunist, (...). In toate cazurile însâ, articolele lui G. Câlinescu nu dau impresia de improvizatie proprie «efemeridelor», ci de mici opere finite çi ireductibile, prin ideatie çi limbaj; de creatii durabile. (...) odatâ încheiatâ, actúala editie va deschide, cred, un nou moment semnificativ în interpretarea de ansamblu a operei, integrala publicisticii luminDndu-i multe aspecte obscure, procurDnd argumente «pozitive» solide unor idei critice insuficient argumentate sau demontDnd prejudecâti. S-ar putea sâ asistâm chiar la o nouâ epoeâ în exegezâ".

[3] Manolescu, N. (2006). G. Calinescu, publicist, in România Literarâ, 35, (original text: "s-ar putea sâ parâ curios câ atDt înainte, cDt çi dupâ 1989, contestarea lui Câlinescu a pornit de la publicistica lui, nu de la opera criticâ propriu-

zisä, dacä exceptäm situatia specialä a receptärii Istoriei literaturii din 1941. Contestatä îndeosebi a fost publicistica de dupa al doilea räzboi").

[4] Bälu, I. (2001). Opera lui G.Cälinescu/G. Calinescu's Works. Bucharest: Libra, 582 (original text: „Retinem acum numai cä atitudinea creatoare a lui G.Cälinescu era dublatä de o ambitie politicä lenta. El avea convingerea cä este destinât säjoace un rol anume în viata politicä a tärii. Incä din 1939, în Jurnalul literar, se considera färä echivoc, un om al actiunii: «Am stat ínchis íntr-o biblioteca çi zgomotul evenimentelor m-a seos în plinä stradä. Noua démocratie mi-a întins mâna»").

[5] Manolescu, N. (2006). G. Calinescu, publicist, in România Literarä, 35, http://www.r0mlit.r0/g._calinescu_publicist (original text: "G. Calinescu s-a numärat, aläturi de Sadoveanu çi Gala Galaction, printre cei dintâi scriitori importanti, care s-au aliniat dupä 1944 ideologiei comuniste. La Tribuna Poporului, Natiunea çi celelalte a intrat numaidecât în disputa cu presa de opozitie democrática, unde erau ínregimentati aproape toti criticii din generatia lui. Nu s-a bucurat însâ nici de pretuirea aliatilor de moment. Atacurile acestora din urmä culmineazä cu articolul Critica criticii publicat în broçurâ de I. Vitner în 1949 care încearcâ sä îi «desfiinteze» Istoria pentru vicii de conceptie («idealism subiectiv») çi de metodä («caracter neçtiintific»)").

[6] Bälu, I. (2001). Opera lui G.Cälinescu/G. Calinescu's Works. Bucharest: Libra, 587 (original text: "ca o reactie împotriva tendintei permanente a oficialitätii de a-l cenzura continuu, de a-1 opri sä revinä la catedrä, de a-i interzice republicarea monografiilor çi studiilor esentiale de criticä çi istorie literarä (...)").

[7] Ibidem, 586 (original text: "marele critic s-a açezat sub vremuri cu bunä çtiintâ!").

[8] Ibidem, 588 (original text: Multe cronici sunt astfei strueturate încât în interiorul demonstratiei, rezidurile propagandistice aleätuiese un corp sträin precis conturat. Dupä înlâturarea lor, nimeni nu poate nega prezenta unor fraze eu rezonantä, cu valabilitate generalä. Este de ajuns sä läsäm la o parte citatele din Lenin, cu care începe crónica Tot despre contradictii, sau sä renuntäm la ultimul paragraf din Arta çi viata, pentru ca textele sä rämänä ceea ce sunt: articole de teorie literarä").

[9] Mândra,V. (1948). Câteva consideratii cu privire la studiul literaturii române în Universitate/ A few considerations upon the teaching of Romanian literature at University. Flacära, I, nr.39, 3-6 (original text: (...) Rândurile acestea îçi propun sä tragä únele învâtâminte pentru transformarea care trebue sä se produeä de aici înainte la catedrele universitäre de literatura românâ, în cadrul prefacerilor adânci prin care trece astäzi întregul învâtâmânt public. Este vorba, cu alte cuvinte, sä deosebim întâi pozitiile vechii orânduiri în activitatea acestor catedre, încercând sä folosim aceastä recunoaçtere a terenului, pentru unele concluzii eu privire la ceeace ar trebui fäcut imediat în vederea lichidärii acestei moçteniri. (...) Dupä märturisirea d-lui prof.G.Cälinescu însuçi, cursul d-sale, ca çi seminariile în deosebi, ar avea ca scop mai curând sä deprindä pe studenti cu gimnástica speculatiei de idei decât sä se opreascä asupra studiului atent al literaturii române moderne. Astfei se explicä dece în ultimul an cursurile tinute au avut un continut în general ciudat pentru o catedrä de literatura romäneaseä. (..) Intentionând o activitate speculativä menitä sä antreneze studentii pe linia unei «spiritualitäti rafinate», titularul catedrei a ferit aceste cursuri de orice influentä çtiintificâ").

[10] Vitner, I. (1948). Opera de critica istorie literarä a d-lui profesor G. Calinescu/ Prof. G. Calinescu's literary criticism and history works. Contemporanul III. nr.81 (original text: „D. G. Cälinescu este un prieten al democratiei, mai mult decât atât, este astäzi un combatant energic çi inteligent pentru démocratie çi în plus un prieten al «Contemporanului» çi unul din colaboratorii säi. (...) In ultima vreme activitatea de critic literar a d-lui G.cälinescu a întâmpinat o serie de obiectii care subliniau prezenta, în scrisul dumisale de astäzi, a unor contraziceri menite sä produeä - în dauna bunelor sale intentii - conluzii serioase asupra unor puñete de vedere însemnate pentru o bunä orientare a criticii literare. (...) Aceste observatii erau circumscrise la scrisul de astäzi al d-lui Cälinescu çi ele puneau în luminä o serie întreagâ de greçite întelegeri a problemelor în discutie. (...) D. G.Cälinescu (...) afirmä dorinta de a-çi însuçi învâtâtura de bazä a clasei muncitoare: marxism leninismul").

[11] Ibidem (original text: „Acest lucru a început sä-1 faeä gândirea burghezä din momentul în care societatea burghezä a început sä fie mäcinatä de contrazicerile sale interioare (...) In loc sä se piece de la considerarea realitätii, sä se ridice la teorie, la gândirea abstractä, pentru a se reîntoarce apoi la realîtate, la practicä, procès care oferä singura modalitate de a cunoaçte adevärul çi realitatea obiectivä, d-sa pleacä delà o gândire abstractä, subiectivä, antirationalä çi neçtiintificâ (aça cum e cuprinsä în «Tehnica criticii çi a istoriei literare»), coboarä la realitate (în «Istoria literaturii române») çi se ridicä apoi din nou la abstractiuni çi mai teribile (în «Istoria väzutä ca sintezä epicä cu legi inefabile» din «Jurnalul literar» 1947). Aplicarea unui asemenea procès de gândire la tratarea istoricä a literaturii româneçti trebuie sä dueä, în mod necesar, la un rezultat deficient, aça cum çi premisele delà care d. G.Cälinescu a pornit sunt neistorice, neçtiintifice, incapabile deci de a cuprinde coherent, de a înlântui eu fermitate çtiintificâ çi de a pätrunde critic faptul literar în toatä amploarea desfaçurârii lui istorice").

[12] Selejan, A. (2005). Trâdarea intelectualilor. Reeducare prigoanâ/ The betrayal of intellectuals. Re-education and oppression. Bucharest: Cartea Romäneaseä, 408. (See also Crihanä, 2007, Trâdarea intelectualilor în discursul (asupra) Istoriei: cazarma scriitorilor/ The betrayal of intellectuals in the discourse on history: the writers barrack, in the International Colloquim Proceedings Discursul intelectual la râspântiile istoriei/ Intellectual Discourse at the Crossroads of History, Galati: Europlus, 152 - 160) (original text: "G.Cälinescu, în replicä în urmätorul numär al paginii literare, dä o amplä explicatie a orientärilor culturale a Natiunii, pejumätate de paginä de ziar, întitulatâ Un räspuns. Meticulos, acesta ia fiecare obiectie criticä avansatä de Flacära, demonstrîndu-i caducitatea çi spulberând-o").

[13] Opriçan, I. (1999). G. Cälinescu. Spectacolul personalitàtii/ G. Cälinescu. The show of personality. Bucharest: Vestala, 396 (original text: „Tovarâçe Vitner, Lipsiti de multä vreme din calitatea de director adjunct, farä a ne explica motívele acestei absente çi împutinând astfel capacitatea de muncä a Institutului nostru. Noi ne-am explicat acest lucru prin faptul cä ati fost ocupat cu alte probleme. Ca un adevärat comunist, aveti datoria sä nu päräsiti locul de muncä în care partidul çi guvernul v-au dat o însârcinare.Prin urmare, vä rog a relua îndatâ

postul de director adjunct, iar în cazul când acest lucru nu vä este cu putintä, a ne trimite o demisie motivatä, ca sä putem numi un alt director adjunct. Insä socotesc cä a vä prezenta la postul dumneavoasträ e singura actiune conformä cu morala socialistä. G.Cälinescu").

[14] Terian, A. (2009). A cincea esentä/ The fifth essence. Bucharest: Cartea Româneascâ, 369 ((original text: „comportamentul säu este schizoid, deplorabil, discursul civic dezonorant, atitudinea iresponsabilä, articolele viciate ideologic, servilitatea strigätoare la cer")

[15] Ibidem, 370 (original text: „Discursul civic al lui Calinescu rämäne aproape farä exceptie dezonorant. Atitudinea criticului fatä de tot ce însemna démocratie libérala româneascâ («partide istorice», personalitäti publice, mentalitäti) este de un cinism feroce, pozitia sa fatä de noile forte politice venite dinspre Räsärit e de o servilitate strigätoare la cer, iar reactia sa la problemele României postbelice (etatismul tot mai amenintätor, foametea din 1946 etc.) poate fi calificatä, în eel mai fericit caz, drept iresponsabilä. Totuçi, nu voi insista aici asupra acestor opinii - nu pentru a le minimaliza amploarea ( dimpotrivä, ele reprezintä una din treptele cele mai joase pe care s-a coborât vreodatä un intelectual román), ci doar pentru cä ele nu au nici o legäturä cu critica literarä. (...) Nu e greu de sesizat discursul dublu pe care eel mai important critic román din epoeä 1-a practicat în perioada 44-48. Dealtfel, Cälinescu însuçi a încercat în mai multe rânduri sä oferejustificäri pentru comportamentul säu schizoid").

[16] Ibidem, 371.

[17] Simion, E. (2012). În ariergarda avangardei. Convorbiri cu Andrei Grigor/ In the rear guard of avantgarde. Conversations with Andrei Grigor. Bucharest: Curtea Veche, 348. (See also Milea, 2009, The Political Commandments and the Intellectuals in the Mirrors of the Text. Communication interculturelle et littérature, nr. 2, 83-88.)

[18] Idem, 349 (original text: „A.G. : Promiteam sä revin la I. Vitner . Conjuncture politicä îl ajuta pe la sfârçitul anilor 40, sä-1 scoatä pe Cälinescu de la catedrä çi sä se instaleze el acolo. De aici douä întrebâri: l.De unde vor „sä-1 mai scoatä" pe Cälinescu, astäzi? 2. De ce pe I. Vitner nu e mai nimeni supärat astäzi, iar arguméntele cu care altii sunt puçi la zid tac în eel priveçte?

E.S.: Pentru întrebarea dintâi n-am un räspuns satisfaeätor. Ce-i uçor de înteles este cä vor sä-1 ridiculizeze, sä inculce ideea cäjudecätile lui sunt false çi cä autoritatea lui criticä este un mit ce trebuie doborât. Nu mai conteazä, azi, cä detractorii lui din anii 1940-1950 l-au scos de la Universitate çi cä Istoria n-a putut fi reeditatä cât timp a träit. De-abia dupä 41 de ani, Al.Piru a reuçit sä tipäreascä o editie nouä (...). Pierdem deseori timpul în istorie, inventäm false probleme, discutäm decenii de-a rândul daeä proza trebuie sä fie urbanä sau ruralä çi mai ales avem un neostoit apetit pentru a cârti. Nu aeeeptäm succesul, prezenta valorilor nejigneçte, ne hränim cu dezastre çi ne simtim bine cândjelim. Nu facem, pe scurt, decât sä därmäm ceea ce au construit generatiile anterioare").

[19] Ibidem (original text: "Un tänär colaborator, aflat la primele lui articole, a publicat mai zilele trecute în Cultura un articol în care îl face pe G.Cälinescu «marionetä» çi crede cä scrierile lui de dupä 1945 au «hazul lor tâmp» çi ele întrec, «prin mai mare înfocare», predicile culturnicilor din epoeä. Tânârul publicist nu çtie, probabil, cä existä o civilizatie a negatiei çi cä poti sä nu fii de acord cu cineva färä sä foloseçti un limbajtrivial. Nu mai spun cä el nu intuieçte tragicul acestui destin intelectual. Vorbeçte de G. Cälinescu ca çi când ar fi vorba de un märunt scrib proletcultist din epoeä").