The global turn in literary studies brings the necessity of looking for new ways to analyse literature and literary history, and to reframe the categories we use to describe it. Transculturality, though in use for the past 30 years, still seems one of the freshest and most promising terms to use in a newly profiled literary study. However, recent publications have proved that the meaning of the term is at best unstable – transculturality is being used in the different, sometimes contradictory ways. This article focuses on some of the issues that one may face when dealing with the notion of transculturality.
2
Dostęp do pełnego tekstu na zewnętrznej witrynie WWW
The Romanian literary-historical reception of the literature written in the Romanian language from the Republic of Moldova is an indicator of (trans)cultural tendencies, but it also expresses the ideological and political attitudes of its authors. This is because it is the literature of a culture that historically has been part of different cultural and power spheres: the Moldavian princely (from the Middle Ages to 1812), the Russian tsarist (1812–1920), the “Greater Romanian” (1920–1940, 1941–1944), the Soviet (1944–1991), and finally the autonomous Moldovan. In the present study, using the examples of three Romanian and two foreign (Slovak and Czech) literary-historical narratives on Romanian literature, I attempt to show how their authors approached the question of the inclusion/non-inclusion of literature, written in Romanian, from Moldova (as well as Moldavia), and to describe the mechanisms behind the formulation of these attitudes and their changes.
JavaScript jest wyłączony w Twojej przeglądarce internetowej. Włącz go, a następnie odśwież stronę, aby móc w pełni z niej korzystać.