Eugen Lovinescu used the autonomy of literature in order to discriminate against both rural literature and the avant-gardes, failing to accept the autonomy of the literary per se. Romania’s most preeminent literary critic of the 19th century, Titu Maiorescu, although trying to create a theoretical framework against which poetry could be analyzed, to put it in Tihanov’s words “for some presumed discursive uniqueness,” also saw the relevance of Romanian poetry abroad as a byproduct of its national character – so within a socio-political role.

This article discusses Galin Tihanov’s understanding of regimes of relevance and their connection to the birth of modern literary theory and argues that Romanian pre-communist literary theory has failed to work with literature as an autonomous domain. Lastly, the article pursues the manner in which German authors have been instrumentalized by Western anticommunist discourse following communism’s fall and made part of World Literature through this process. Ultimately, the study invokes the literary and political activity of Aktionsgruppe Banat, whose critical reassessment of German literature from Romania forced it to renounce ethnocentric positions and openly criticize their inadequacy to convey contemporary social issues. The study makes use of Benedict Anderson’s concept of “diaspora nationalism” in analyzing the different facets of the rural Heimat which has historically been the predilection of German ethnic literature, departing from its medieval roots and arriving at the paternalistic taxonomy of “rumaniendeutsche Literatur,” coined by the Party-affiliated literary critic Heinz Stănescu. In the present study, Ovio Olaru presents the history of the Romanian- German/German-Romanian ethnic group and its literature, while also taking into account the various formulas, ideologies, influences and constraints that have helped shape its identity.

Solenoid cartarescu recenzie